Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] Re: CAD electronic software'
|[first, re the OT discussion: how about "[OT]", to avoid confusing with
some 'real' subject with OT in it?]
At 10:52 PM 28-08-97 +0000, Mike Smith wrote:
>> I didn't think copying software was criminally illegal. ie: You can
>> be sued for copying it, but not charged with a criminal offense such
>> as theft. If I'm right (which is open to debate) then comparing it
>> to the theft of a car isn't appropriate.
>Morally equivalent. Whether its a criminal or legal case would
>depend on the jurisdiction.
where do you take your 'moral equivalence' from? do you want to say that
the law is imoral (making a difference where 'morally' there is none)? is
it then 'moral' to obey to an 'imoral' law? one has to be careful on these
slippery slopes of 'moral'... (BTW, 'morals' has been one of the most
(ab)used excuses for almost _any_thing.)
are you _sure_ that nobody at home is listening to your CD while you're
listening to your copied tape? (you've got no 'network' license for your
>> Or went to the library and photocopied a specs sheet, or had one
>> faxed, when it should have been purchased.
>Crazy example. Most manufacturers are *happy* for you to have their
>data, and will give you the books, CD's etc. Do you feel guilty
>downloading pdf files?
I just had a look at a Motorola databook, and the only thing I saw was a
copyright notice "All rights reserved". Which, according to my
understanding of copyright, means that it is illegal to copy it unless you
have the permission of the copyright owner. Am I wrong here?
A different issue is that you assume they allow you to do so, and that they
are even happy that you do so, because it spreads the knowledge about their
products. Similarily someone could argue that one of the reasons for the
rise of Microsoft was that their software was probably among the most
copied ever, and so it's reasonable to ssume that every software
manufacturer wants to have the same success, and so all are happy to having
their software copied...
>For some purposes, photocopying copyrighted material is allowed.
yes, but probably not for business use.
>Most libraries have a sign describing 'Fair Dealing'
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> [first, re the OT discussion: how about "[OT]", to avoid confusing with
> some 'real' subject with OT in it?]
I was thinking the same. I will experiment tonight with the OT filter
using Eudora 3.0. If it has a problem with embedded letters we can use
Right now i am thinking we can have the choice of using Off Topic or [OT]
I am glad to see the cooperation :)
|In message <pop5.ibm.net> 126.96.36.19970829112836.00697eecMITVMA.MIT.EDUPICLIST
> At 12:05 PM 29-08-97 +0000, Mike Smith wrote:
> >No, I wasn't making a case for the morality or otherwise of the law,
> >although a case could be made that the law as it is today is immoral,
> >with the side with the most expensive legal team having a better
> >chance of winning, rather than the case being determined purely on
> >judicial terms.
> again the (unanswered) question: if 'moral' and 'legal' by your definition
> are obviously not the same, where do you take your definition for 'moral'
> from? ('legal' is more or less defined -- at least that's what the courts
> try to do :-)
'Moral' and 'legal' are different. There are things that it is legal
to do which are immoral (in my opinion).
For example, adultery, legal, but in my opinion immoral.
There are many sources of what is considered to be moral - peer groups
define a group morality, tv and radio affect the perceived morality
of a society, books, newspapers, all have an influence on this.
Parental input helps to define a childs moral outlook as do their
teachers - which is why I am careful to choose a school for my
children which has the same (or at least similar) philosophy of
life to my own.
As for a complete definition of morality - The Bible has to be up there
near the top of the list - the only problem is it sets high standards which
are often at variance with modern society, so what is required seems so
un-attainable, which is why mercy and grace were put in there.
Preach mode off.
Sean Breheny wrote:
> I think that you are right that most HTML code on the Internet is
> copyrighted. However, this copyright is intended to prevent re-
> publishing the HTML code, not saving it for your own use.
Is it even intended, or *realistically* expected to do that? Are Web
publishers likely to object to the generation of a (de-facto) mirror
site? Other, that is, than the possibility that such a mirror site will
not represent the latest version? Most publishers on the Web, because
access is free, would expect the prime function of copyright to be to
ensure that what is purported to be their work is indeed so, and that
others' purported work does not contain theirs without due agreement.
They are not (necessarily) demanding payment, but their good name.
Certainly, links if not file copies are universally acceptable. It is
*expected* that browsers (people) are sufficiently competent to "strip
back" link addresses to locate the owner even if "home" vectors are not
contained in every page.
> It probably even would allow you to transfer your saved copy to a
> friend because that action would be the same as that friend just going
> to the URL and getting his own copy.
Perfectly reasonable, albeit impossible to police anyway. It
certainly is a funny beastie, this Internet.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997
, 1998 only
- New search...