Hello Mark, Sunday, December 1, 2002, you wrote:
2. Copying a CD cannot be qualified as theft. Whatever you call it - it is still not a theft.
m> Ok - I'm afraid I'm going to delurk here. This statement is WRONG. Well, I like your boldness. It is wrong because it is wrong. There is no way to argue that way. m> Although you are not physically stealing something you are still m> stealing "something" - someones work. No, I'm not. I'm copying it. I never talked about physical/virtual aspect of the thing. I was talking only about the fact that copying someone's work no matter if it's good or not is not the same as stealing. m> I make software for a living What a coincidence, I do too. m> - the direct consequence of your stance is that every piece of m> software I write becomes public domain as soon as a make it m> available in a copiable form. I didn't say such thing even once. And I don't think it is right. m> How would I earn a living doing it - and why should I do it if I m> can't earn a living from it These are two very different questions. The answer to the first one you can find if you look at the people behind GPL. How do you think Linux developers are living when all the software they are writing is free? And if you look at them, then you will probably figure out how to earn enough to live from it. m> We need some version of this law otherwise musicians,writers,film m> makers and software developers are all wasting their time and will m> have to get other jobs. I don't think that Bill Gates or Steven Spielberg are suffering and looking for jobs because customers are ripping them off. In fact, it seems the other way around. We need new copyright laws for sure but this law should protect both authors and customers otherwise the community will be soon in a big trouble. NP: Chicago Underground Duo "Synesthesia" (CD) -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin@shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/