Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
>
> 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!

i don't think it worked in your favor.  unless somehow you got a better
version of the software by buying.  why give your money, which you work
for, to a corporation, when you already have the software?  seems pretty
dumb.
sorry
ben