Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

Chris Sonnack wrote: 
Joe Wright writes:


This all has nothing to do with freedom of information patterns.
It has to do with stealing an author's work.

Think of it Bill Gates' way. He makes Beer ans sells it for $100. He declares the evils of Piracy, 


You say that as if you don't think stealing is morally wrong.


...promises retribution but provides Beer on a CD which anyone can
copy,...



What has that to do with anything?  If I leave my car unlocked with
the keys in it, is it morally okay to steal it?


...protected by 'Key ID' that anyone can know. 


I went shopping the other day and was disgusted by how much effort
and resource goes into anti-theft prevention.  Electonic gates in
every store, complicated packaging, cameras.....

All because people in this society have so lost their moral compass
they actually have come to believe that, "If I *CAN* steal it, why
that's practically a license to do so."


He sells 1000 copies of Beer and gets $100,000. 500 people obtain copies of Beer through whatever means. Are they stealing from Bill? 


Absolutely.  No question about it.  It's theft, pure and simple.


I think not. 


You're wrong.


Bill has simply gained another 500 users of Beer. It's all about market share. Taking business away from the competition. 


The fact that being stolen from turns out to have a small silver lining
does NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THOSE 500 assholes are thieves.

If you take what is not yours, you are a thief.  Period.  You can apply
all the wishy washy bull*** rationalization you want, and it won't
change the simple fact that You Are A Thief.


These 500 users are not going to buy Ale from IBM or Malt from Sun. 


And this justifies theft?  If I'm never going to by a CD by Blur, it's
therefore okay to steal one?

Nonsense.  Non-Sense.


Chris

It seems you've missed my point. Perhaps I stated the case badly. For the record, if I obtain a copy of Bill's Beer from my buddy Sam and then use the Beer for my own purposes, I am indeed a thief. No argument.

I was postulating that Bill knows most people will buy Beer but some will steal Beer if they can. Truth.

Bill could try to protect himself by making the Beer CD more difficult to copy. Not a good plan because it infuriates the Owner who expects to make a backup of the CD. It's only a minimal challenge to the Thief however. Piracy wins.

I was pointing out the upside of Bill's weak protection. The Owner is happy and so is the Thief. Does the Thief cost Bill money? Maybe not. Using my original case, if 500 people 'steal' Beer, did Bill lose $50,000? No. How many of the 500 would buy Beer if they couldn't steal it? Not many. But Bill now has 1,500 users instead of 1,000 and he has market share advantage.

I am not defending the right of Thief to steal Beer.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                    --- Albert Einstein ---
.

Loading