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

[David Damerell]

On Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Really? Then why did you produce "Downloading a cracked game from the
>>Internet deprives the software house of income" to justify the
>>assertion that it was morally equivalent to stealing? Was it merely a
>>random irrelevancy?
>If you then use the software, or play the game, then you certainly do 
>deprive the software house of income if your intention is to not 
>reimburse the software house at the value they have set for the software.

Relative to buying it, certainly; that is not in dispute. But then,
not playing or buying it _also_ deprives them of income relative to
buying it.

Which brings us to the point you are dodging away from. You produced
the observation that downloading a cracked game deprives the software
house of income as justification for the point of view that doing so
was morally equivalent to stealing; that still leads naturally to the
absurd conclusion that simply never having anything to do with the
game is morally equivalent to stealing as well.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Sunday, October - a weekend.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug