[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 06:42:51PM +0100, Julian Hall wrote: > trewornan wrote: > > I'm sure they would but that doesn't make them right. > > > It makes it legally questionable at best. No, it doesn't. The law might make it legally questionable, but the Federation Against Software Theft, Microsoft, SCO, et al. do not make the laws. They also are entitled to their opinions and to shove them wherever they like. > > Copyright infringement is not theft as far as UK law is concerned, it's not > > (necessarily) even a crime > > > If it's not a crime then why are there laws preventing it? You don't > need laws to tell people not to do something if it is legal to do so. > The answer would seem self evident. "Necessarily" being the operative word. Corporations generally take a rather conservatative view of copyright law (for "conservative" read "draconian") which does not necessarily line up with legal rights in a given territory (for example, parts of Europe - Scandinavia, I think - give anybody the right to reverse-engineer any software for limited purposes, and no matter how much Microsoft want to whinge about it they can't take away that right with their EULAs). > >> While logically accurate it is legally untenable. > >> > > > > I don't understand what you're saying here, but then I don't think you do either. > > > There's no need for that tone. Actually I know exactly what I am > saying, *and* it was plain English. The comment was 'the fact that you > have it doesn't prevent anyone else from having it.' That is a > logically correct statement. However, it is not legally tenable for the > reasons stated in the rest of my email. > > IP is a nonsense term invented by powerful business interests > > who think they have a right to "own" ideas - there is no such thing > > as IP and nobody can (or should be able to) "own" an idea. The whole > > concept of property has no relevance (or even meaning) when talking > > about copyright. > > > Again another point on which your personal opinion, which you are > perfectly entitled to of course, is at variance with the law. The law > recognises the concept of IP. Your decision not to is up to you. The law recognises the concepts of copyright, trademarks, patents, etc., but does not (or did not until recently, depending where you are in the world) recognise them as a single entity called Intellectual Property. Copyright and patents, at least, were invented to ensure that authors/artists and inventors, respectively, could earn enough from their creation/invention to make it worthwhile to create/invent it. They're misused by software companies to shaft customers for as much cash as they can cram into Bill Gates' gold-plated sock drawer; it's quite clear to anybody who's used Vista that they'd only need to sell three copies to make back their investment on it. > > It's copyright infringement. > > > Also depriving them of income (as I have already stated) as they have > not been paid for the license to use the software. Income they so desperately need to send the board of directors on holiday to the Caribbean for six months of the year? -- Benjamin A'Lee :: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ "There never has been, there never will be, and there is not now any man exclusively criticised or exclusively praised." - from the Dhammapada
Attachment:
pgpbPbTW8cCjU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html