🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <39F6E5CE.3179C81F@my-deja.com>,
  Angus McBastard <angusmcb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Mike Read wrote:
> >
> > <seajays@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8t6805
$sbv$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <CbpJ5.3584$MK5.360545@news1.cableinet.net>,
> > >   "Mike Read" <mread@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <seajays@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8t4alc$98a$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > In article <8t3qti$bp$1@wallace.stir.ac.uk>,
> > > >
> > > > > A similar argument is often put forward to defend against
software
> > > > > theft.  i.e.: I resent paying that amount of money, therefore
I'll
> > > use
> > > > > an illegal copy - as if somehow you have a right to use
someone
> > > else's
> > > > > property.  You don't.
> > > >
> > > > You might find this an interesting read...
> > > >
> > > > http://members.cotse.com/nix/os/linux/Anarchism_Triumphant.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > Interesting in that its amazing what people can come up with to
justify
> > > stealing other people's work.  Reducing the argument to numbers is
> > > simply misleading and entirely incorrect.  Numbers are not the
issue,
> > > software is - software only truly exists when it is operated
within the
> > > computer.
> >
> > I wonder if you really read it (as opposed to glancing over it with
a
> > disdainful eye), because your reply appears to miss every important
> > point the article makes.  If you did read it, you clearly didn't or
chose
> > not to understand it.
> >
>
> Well said. Typical "econodwarf" material, perhaps? :-)
>
> Angus
>

Actually I would suggest that the article is attempting to subvert the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that it is OK to
breach article 27 part 2, which states:

"Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author."

(Reference: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html )


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.