🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5sm0da$f...@ecuador.earthlink.net>, Kieron Dodds
<kdo...@msn.com> writes

I'm sure I killed this thread ages ago, and it keeps coming back.  It's
funny that the articles are still identical though.
Why can't you people figure it out?  Some of you are arguing the
legalities and some of you are arguing the moralities.  They aren't the
same thing!  Figure it out.  If you want to have a meaningful discussion
you should at least try and talk about the same thing.
> This argument is illogical and invalid.  Just because the person would not
>have purchased it otherwise does not make it any less of a theft.  Just
>because the product is an intangible intellectual work does not make it any
>less protected under the law.  If you steal a pair of orange, purple dotted
>sneakers, whether you would have purchased them or not, it's still theft.
>Ditto for other, more readily apparent intangible goods such as cable
>service, phone service, etc.
>
>
>--
>Kieron Dodds
>kdo...@msn.com
>shad...@earthlink.net
>
>Clas...@skuz.net wrote in article <33ef55b5...@207.14.113.2>...
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 97 16:17:17 GMT, nospam....@infoserve.net (Wingman)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <33ccbb52...@news.mc.net>, zzd...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, it is not.  A pirated copy of software does not deprive anyone
>>>>else of the usage of that software.  On the other hand, a missing
>>>>armored car full of cash deprives many people of their cash.
>>>
>>>Pirating software deprives many people of their cash.
>>
>>Only if the person using the unauthorized copy would have otherwise
>>purchased it.
>>--
>>ClassAct
>
>

-- 
Steve Johnson
Sjoh...@inorgsub.demon.co.uk
john...@uvic.ca