[Gllug] Uh oh, ministers consider "anti file-sharing laws"

[Matthew King]

"Martin A. Brooks" <martin at hinterlands.org> writes:

> I see no difference between downloading commercial software and using it 
> and stealing software from PC World and using it.  You seem hung on the 

Quite obvious really.

1) Downloading is much easier and has a greater chance of working in
edge cases (eg. your CD drive is broken, in olden days you have no
(free) parallel port for the dongle, you wish to run it under wine).

2) Stealing from PC World deprives PC World of income. A box with which
they could previously have made money is no longer in their possession
and cannot be replaced by adjusting a few electrons.

3) Stealing from PC World leaves you with an untidy collection of waste
cardboard, plastic and manual which nobody wants or needs.

4) Depending on exactly what contract PC World have, the original
supplier may or may not have already profited from the purchase of said
box, thus the theft may not deprive them of anything. In fact chances
are the only people who suffer are the insurers, who probably deserve it
anyway.

I'm sure I can think of more but I haven't had breakfast yet.

And needless though it may seem, I feel I must fend off potential
criticism thus:

Copyright infringement *is not the same as* theft but obviously has a
similar effect on the producer of copyright goods. You shouldn't do it
because it is (rightly or wrongly) illegal, although there are, of
course, cases where it is better for all involved to turn a blind eye to
the practice (actually I would suggest that the same goes for physical
theft too).

Matthew

-- 
I must take issue with the term "a mere child", for it has been my
invariable experience that the company of a mere child is infinitely
preferable to that of a mere adult.
                                           --  Fran Lebowitz
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug