Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • How about we rephrase it as "If you avoid paying for it, you've stolen it?" Maybe "If you don't pay for it, and you use it, and the author wants you to pay for it, you've stolen it?"
    --

    --
    xoa

    • I think "If you don't pay for it and you use it and it's not covered by fair use and the author wants you to pay for it, then you've deprived them of a possible royalty" is catchier.
      • Why make it so complicated? It's really pretty simple.

        The author/artist put out some material. The publishing company published it for them. Both of those entities want you to pay for it. Now, assuming it's not fair use, why should you, as a third party, be able to decide "I choose not to pay for this? I choose not to respect the wishes of the artist & publisher?"

        If someone violates the GPL, we're up in arms about it. Why? It violates what the author of the GPL-covered item wanted. Why is this

        --

        --
        xoa

        • Why make it so complicated? It's really pretty simple.

          I was objecting to your use of stole. I think it's wrong to deprive people of money they deserve. I also think it's wrong to call it stealing. If you choose to download an artist's work you haven't stolen from them, you've deprived them of potential income.