Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!rpi.edu!kudla
From: kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Software theives
Message-ID: <6865@rpi.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 89 18:22:39 GMT
References: <30706@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <6846@rpi.edu>
<2361@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com>
Sender: usenet@rpi.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 29
In-reply-to: bga@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com's message of 19 Aug 89 15:18:26 GMT
In article <2361@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com> bga@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com (Bruce Albrecht) writes:
>> (Some people might think this to be a shift in attitudes coming
>> from me. Most people probably don't care one way or the other. But,
>> I consider actually lifting product from the shelves to be a crime.
>> I don't consider, say, an employee taking a piece of software home,
>> copying it, bringing it back and re-shelving it with new labels and
>> all to be a crime in the slightest.)
>Oh really? How is it different for the store employee to copy
>something, than it is for a prospective customer to copy it? I could
>understand the store employee taking it home and playing with it to
>gain familiarity and then returning it, but copying is stealing.
>Period.
Didn't I already respond to you in E-mail? Look. I said *nothing*
about customers copying anything. I said *lifting* product is a crime.
I don't care who copies what; as far as I'm concerned, unless
something physical is stolen there is no problem- no one loses
anything except the publisher, and that only theoretically. And don't
even bother to tell me that the employee who takes home a software
package every night to dupe would have bought 180-odd software
packages in a year. They don't get paid that well.
--
Robert Jude Kudla
Pi-Rho America \\ /// Blah
2346 15th St. \\ ///
Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order
(518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rush