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

[Philip Hands]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Jason Clifford wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 19:44 +0000, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>>   
>>> That's literally the most stupid argument I've ever seen you put 
>>> forward. Well done.
>>>
>>> "Not buying product A is morally equivalent to stealing product A".
>>>     
>> But it is analogous to your suggestion that those who never intended to
>> buy product x and download it instead are committing theft. In both
>> cases the net difference to the copyright holder is nil.
> 
> Err no.  The net effect is irrelavent, it's the intention.  Hence we 
> don't have people getting off for attempted murder with the argument 
> "Well I didn't actually kill her, so it's just like I never tried, right?"
> 
> My moral compass is very clear on this point.

I should perhaps first point out that I don't have any warez in my house, I
don't indulge in file-sharing, and I'm very much in favour of people
complying with copyright, but I do find it particularly annoying when
people insist on trying to draw analogies between serious crimes  (murder,
piracy etc) and civil infringements of copyright.

Perhaps I can cite an example where copyright infringement might be
something that would make your moral compass wobble a bit.

AutoCAD used to cost rather a lot (10K+ IIRC) and would need a dongle to
work.  I knew someone that was being employed to do some CAD work by a
company that had the relevant licenses and dongles.  He grabbed a cracked
copy so that he could also run it at home, and get a spot of practice in in
the evenings.

Now, there was absolutely no chance that he would have paid the license fee
(he was an engineering student on a summer job) and there seems very little
chance that the company would have coughed up for another license for him
to have a bit of a play in the evenings, so no sales were lost.

Also, because he had a chance to experiment, he did a better job with
AutoCAD, which probably made sure that the company were slightly more loyal
AutoCAD clients than they would otherwise have been, and he went on to do
CAD work elsewhere, and presumably too his knowledge of AutoCAD with him,
and recommended it to his subsequent employers, so if anything that act of
copyright infringement would have increased the resulting sales of AutoCAD.

Now, if you think that's still wrong, because it's against the rules, then
I take it that you also wouldn't dream of crossing the road when the little
red bloke is lit -- even if it's 3am, and there's not a car in sight.

Cheers, Phil.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHKP6bYgOKS92bmRARAgerAKClvMuMstvtp8ZKC1bZnudi8f88+gCgobYl
wo/f5bgJZWRw3+v+uk6eJKs=
=TLET
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug