Re: Net piracy?

[dkl@crl.com (David K. Leikam)]

In article <304q7p$rir@news.iastate.edu>,
Ian Schmidt <irsman@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
>It's offending me quite a bit.  A is A.  Calling something by a pretty
>18-letter name doesn't change the fact that it's theft, and it's
>illegal, and a lot of other things.  
>

   Good. Being offended is an excellent start.  Your problem's not just 
ignorance, it's your pride in being ignorant, and your determination to 
avoid any sort of enlightenment.

  So, try to sorta pay attention, this time. I'll go over it again.

  It's not theft. Theft has a definition, believe it or not. You can find 
it in your local criminal code and decisions following.  To take 
obviously abandoned property is not theft. To take a thing of no value is 
not theft. To take a thing the owner has clearly stated he doesn't want 
anymore is not theft.

  Was that simple enough for you, or shall we try to explain it again?

  Howsomever, what we're talking about, believe it or not, isn't theft 
period. It's a violation of a copyright.  For this, you can put that ol' 
criminal code aside and check out a text on remidies. There are several 
good ones, and they all tend to be titled, "Remedies".

	You can bone up on all this good stuff and try to get a serious 
handle on the subject. Or you can just blow it up and proceed in 
invincible ignorance.

   However, in the latter case, to your 'Theft is theft, plain an 
simple', the only remaining answer I have is, "You don't know what you're 
talking about, plain and simple".

	Ever think about why all software is sold under a license 
agreement? There's at least one decision (out of Massachusetts, I seem to 
recall) holding that computer code in ROM can NOT be copyrighted. And 
that was over 10 years ago. The field's been developing furiously since. 
Platitudes need not apply.