jack said:
I think the U.S. Supreme Court already had an opinion issued in
regards to the First Amendment. For example, you [cannot] yell
"FIRE!" inside a crowded theater.
They were wrong. ;-)
But I'm not yelling, "Fire," am I? I'm stating my opinions, and as far
as I know, Congress has yet to pass a law that prohibits my "free
exercise thereof."
On the other hand, "Piracy" of a license should be taken into context
of "Profits". For example, if Joe Doe would make 100 illegal copies
of a software, and he turns around and sells them at $10 each, that's
piracy.
I agree, and should be punished as a criminal.
Second example, if Kathy Jones installs the software at home into
three PC's for her family (purely for educational purposes for her
children) she's clearly not making a profit. In further analysis,
society benefits when her children get educational training and
enhance their skills when they grow up, become smarter and more
productive for society. They may even turn around and work for
Microsoft in the future to produce a better product because they were
well trained and have had exposure and experience with such products.
This example is in the spirit of what Supreme Court Justice Potter
Stewart wrote about the purpose of copyright:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
Just a thought, seems there are so many in-fighting in the forum in
regards to "usage" of a product.
As long as those that sell those "products" want to try to control the
use of those products in the privacy of our homes, the "in-fighting"
over it will only get more vehement.
By the way, if there's "no"
monopoloy of an OS, any company would be please to give free samples
to the public to try their products. After all, the internet
user-interface web-browser, was developed by innovation (but was
"pirated" by Microsoft).
Yeah, MS has been found guilty of anti-trust violations in regards to
the browser, and patent infringement of their browser plug-in
technology, but not one US consumer has ever been found guilty of
anything for using software on more than one computer. Who is the real
"pirate" with $49 billion in liquid assets?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
.