quote:
copying is not theft.
That was just an example. I meant to say that whether theft helps the company or not, it remains theft. And while I agree that 'theft' is not the correct term for copying, I still contend that it is morally wrong. By the way, I recall as well having demonstrated that copying cannot be called 'sharing', either.
quote:
b) you actually independently believe of your own free will that anyone has a right to dictate to others whom they may not help and share with.
This is a false dilemna. I have certainly not been won over by any propaganda. You, on the other hand, seem to have been won over by FSF propaganda. I do not believe that anyone is dictating anything here. It remains the consumer's choice to buy the software or not, but they should not be allowed to use it if they don't pay for it. Once the person bought the licence, he is free to do whatever he wishes with it, even making copies of it and giving them to his friends, as long as they bought the software (the holder of the licence has the right to give his copy, but a person without a licence does not have the right to receive it, because he does not have the rights to the software).
Owners are certainly allowed to help a friend by showing him the software and teaching him how it works, and even allow him to use it (on the owners' computer, for example). This is sharing, and this is perfectly right. But what you don't understand about copying is that you are helping someone else commit a crime if you give him software he didn't pay for.
