You, Bill Bartlett, wrote:

>I only meant to say (and I guess my argument which you showed to
>be flawed was a justification) that I personally don't feel obligated to
>obey the laws relating to Intellectual Property. That is I ignore
>copyright, especially in relation to software. But don't feel bad, needless
>to say I will find some other self-serving justification for this behaviour
>now that you have undermined that one.
Just between you and me and the rest of cyberspace, I have copied
software illegally with some frequency. It has always been for my own
use, however, never for re-distribution. My own self-serving
justification was that it allowed me to determine in advance whether the
program was worth the money (sort of like checking a book out of a
library--permanently), and if it was, I acted as word of mouth for the
meritorious products. Interestingly over time things have pretty much
worked out as I pretended they would: all my good software is now legit,
and the bogus software gone. So I think bending the rules worked to
everyone's favor in this case!

To your larger point, I think we agree that if we live in a society
governed by one set of (capitalist) rules, it's not unreasonable to
expect those rules to be, shall we say, symbiotic, and within that
framework, defensible. (There's no such thing as a "little bit
pregnant.") Perhaps under another entire system, IP laws would not be
necessary, but we don't live under another system, and thus, perhaps
lamentably, creative endeavor gets commodified.

_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"Did you know there are more LESBIANS in the MEDIA--than there are on the
pro tennis circuit???" -- Televangelist W.V. Grant