extreme newbie

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:43:24 -0400, Chinook wrote:

> Steven,
> 
> Your weigh-in on semantics is misleading, 

How is it misleading? 

> but your elaboration of the aspect is very well put.
> 
> As to semantics, piracy is to the originator what freedom fighter is to those 
> that perceive themselves as oppressed.  

Very little modern piracy is politically motivated, unlike the glory days
when terrorist nations like Great Britain and Spain supported "privateers"
to attach each other's ships and raid other nations. These days modern
pirates are generally petty criminals in small boats with crews of less
than a dozen people.

http://www.oceannavigator.com/article.php?a=5418
http://www.noonsite.com/Members/webmaster/R2002-06-10-2
http://www.icc-ccs.org/prc/piracyreport.php

> On the other hand, your elaboration is a very good example of the altered 
> consciousness of human nature.  That is, the acceptance of shades of 
> complicity divorced from shades of guilt.  Of course, one can see (if they so 
> chose) many more obvious examples in business, let alone government and 
> religion :~)  

I don't understand your point.

But for the record, I never excused copyright infringement. I simply
pointed out that for organisations who are not monopolies in their
business niche, they gain more benefit from turning a blind eye to most
copyright infringement than they lose.

Or, to put it another way, those developers who face competition in their
market niche and put up barriers to casual copying (eg anti-copying
technology, dongles, serial numbers, licence enforcement, etc) almost
always lose out against competitors who turn a blind eye to that copying.

Copyright infringement may be illegal. It may even be immoral. But for
developers who face competition, ignoring it may be the best strategy.

That's not an issue of human consciousness, altered or not. It is an
economic issue.



-- 
Steven.