Waging War on Business

> I don't feel that it is "that" important what name you apply to the
> action of copying a program, book, picture, (or whatever else someone
> produces for the purpose of bringing in an income.)

I am not sure how you can 'definitions' are not important. I know I would
be pretty offended if someone called me a 'rapist' when I had not
committed rape and called me a 'murderer' when I had not committed murder.

By calling copyright infringement, 'theft' and 'piracy', you are
unrightfully labeling people things which they are not (theives and
pirates). The point is organizations like the RIAA, MPAA and BSA _want_
you to do so. As it only helps them to further propogate their motives.

> important is that the author or creator of that item has determined that
> he/she doesn't want anyone to make a copy to share with others or
> doesn't want the program installed on more than one computer at the same
> time. THAT is a choice the author has the right to make.

I agree 100% as have all the other posts on the subject I have seen. I am
not saying 'Infringe Copyright' because it is not theft. It is still a
crime. I am just stating it is not theft.

> without the restrictions. If I choose not to use a EULA than that is my
> choice but I don't see any way that I will be as profitable.

We are discussing copyright law not economic prinicples so the above
statement is out of place. If you wish to discuss economic principles of
free software, that is cool. I think its something fun to debate. I
suggest you look at game theory economics and do some deep thinking. :)

> I guess what I am trying to say is that if we purchase software that
> includes a EULA that restricts copying or multiple installations than we
> are bound by our personal honor not to violate those restrictions. If we

We are not bound by our honor, we are bound by the law. Now true, it is
hard to enforce beyone ones honor, but then again this is why the BSA
exists to keep people 'honest'.

> do violate them we are not very honorable. If we cannot live with them
> then we need to either find software that does not have a EULA or we
> need to write the program for ourselves.

Yes. This is why as Michelle states, this discussion is happening here.
:) Because if people can not live with those EULA's they need to know
that there are options that exist. If we dont understand copyright law
and how it can be twisted to a tool of enslavement, then we can not help
others understand why free software is important.

> One last thing, please don't think I am a high and mighty do-gooder. I
> admit that I have used software on multiple computers because I couldn't
> afford multiple copies. If I had my way software could be installed on
> any and all machines owned by or used in the home of a person who buys
> it. This would have to have some restrictions on home business users or
> friends who bring laptops over to a user's home and the like.

Nor am I. I can say I regularly infringed copyright before using Free
Software. I can now say that I do not. In fact, it brought up good
debate at work yesterday. If I have hundreds of unauthorized copies of
software CD's laying around my house (which I do somewhere), but I do not
have any of them installed on any of my machines, am I violating the law.
I wont go into that debate, but plan on cleaning out the garage and
dumping all those copies this weekend.

-Derek