barzam | # 251 | 2010-10-23, 14:19 | Report

I believe it's morally acceptable to infringe copyright on a non-profit scale, yes.

That means I'm opposed to commercial infringement such as unauthorized sale of copyrighted material, or commercial use of GPL'd works without obeying the terms of the license.

ysss | # 252 | 2010-10-23, 16:34 | Report

Really?
That's the only one solution out of his problem?

This sort of narrowminded approach, justifying all kinds of immoral shortcuts is an ongoing theme that I notice.

ericsson | # 253 | 2010-10-23, 19:43 | Report

Alignment: pragmatist That is the ONLY pragmatic solution to the problem. Every other solution is directly or indirectly based on some kind of moral code (as well as information not given in the question). Just thought I should mention it

ysss | # 254 | 2010-10-23, 20:04 | Report

I think this 'problem' is also tied to the 'performance' of said person.

A 'lazy guy' (as in, lazy to think) is more likely to take the shortcut and 'steal'.

There are unlimited ways to be creative and improve one's life, including enabling them to acquire said software license for less/free (lots of ways already discussed in this thread) or to accomplish the same via other methods (foss software for one).

Justification comes after the intention. It's an excuse really.

---

Last edited by ysss; 2010-10-23 at 20:11.

ericsson | # 255 | 2010-10-23, 21:23 | Report

You are simply spinning up a story that is not included in the question, and then you are only justifying your own prejudicial assumptions of what makes people steal. That's how I see it.

CodeNote | # 256 | 2010-10-23, 23:09 | Report

alot of people do things that they should not do. from those sitting at the top of the pyramid to those down on the bottom.
yesterday wiki leaks website released documents about about wrong doers that swore blind to the masses that they were doing right. i guess alot of those people will have to face what will become of them.

my answer to all this is quit simple. do what needs to be done to acheive the required goal. however should you be caught because of greed or wanting of more then too be prepared for what will become of you.

CN

Texrat | # 257 | 2010-10-23, 23:34 | Report

Anyone changed their mind on this yet?

fatalsaint | # 258 | 2010-10-24, 01:30 | Report

Oh definitely!! I totally changed my opinion about half-way through.. but then like 4 pages later I got convinced the other way again.

This is all just.. so confusing

Benson | # 259 | 2010-10-24, 02:00 | Report

Yeah. I came in thinking there were enough intellectually honest folk here, on both sides, to have an interesting discussion, in spite of the polarizing topic and the assumptions built into the phrasing of the question.

Definitely changed my mind...

ndi | # 260 | 2010-10-24, 16:50 | Report

Here, we get "free" health, but it's not really free. What we have is mandatory health insurance, meaning, as long as you pay up a part of your salary (they keep it without asking), you're entitled to help - a system based on the redistribution of resources.

However, stop working, and you get welfare, health help, all kinds of nice stuff for a while. Once the grace period is up, you're on your own (minus emergencies).

This is different from "free".

Others may do things differently, such as not require its citizens to pay directly, still, infrastructures cost effort and materials, and that is money. Someone pays for it, one way or another.

This isn't the case with software and music. It really is free in a lot of cases.

Bad wording. Bad, bad wording. Idea got through, though, I hope.