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

[Richard Turner]

On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:55 p.m., 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.

Well that's fair enough. If you'd said that, in your opinion copyright  
infringement and theft are morally equivalent many people here would  
have agreed with you - copyright is a key part of the GPL after all.  
However, you know that your emailing a lot of pernickety people on  
this list - saying that they're the same thing is bound to raise  
arguments.

If you're arguing to try to convince people here that copyright  
infringement is bad and we shouldn't do it you're probably preaching  
to the converted.

R.

-- 
"Racing turtles, the grapefruit is winning..."



-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug