Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

> Message-ID: <E1Kvzh5-0005LC-Nq@stasis.kostecke.net>

Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:[color=blue]
> and office software. And copying something virtual is IMHO something
> different than taking something physical away from someone.[/color]

Before digit content, theft involved the removal of somebody's
ability to use something. Stealing a book meant the previous owner
could no longer use it. Stealing a car meant the previous owner
could no longer use it. It's a large and difficult conceptual leap
for an action that does not deprive an owner of the use of their
possesion to be seen as theft. It's not like Star Trek where
somebody "downloading the computer core" causes the original
content to be erased. ("They've stolen the Doctor's program!!!")

Additionally, Bill was entering into an already 30-odd year old
environment of sharing around. "Here's some neat code, see if you
find it useful", very much like "I've got an article in this
month's journal, go one, read it".

However, that "theft without loss" is still of an item that has
required duration and effort to produce in the first place. While
stealing a $1000 car requires $1000 to reproduce it, stealing a
disk of software requires fractions of pennies to reproduce it, but
the person who created the content in the first place still needs
to pay for food.

One thing I do stand firm on is misappropriation - replacing an
author's name with your own. That to me /is/ theft, it is denying
the original owner's authorship and denying their use of it. The
equivalent of publishing somebody else's work under your own name
or quoting work without referencing it.

--
J.G.Harston - [email]jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk[/email] - mdfs.net/User/JGH
05:10:36, 18-Nov-2008 - RISC OS time rolls over to &5000000000

Jonathan Graham Harston wrote:
(snip)
[color=blue]
> Before digit content, theft involved the removal of somebody's
> ability to use something. Stealing a book meant the previous owner
> could no longer use it. Stealing a car meant the previous owner
> could no longer use it. It's a large and difficult conceptual leap
> for an action that does not deprive an owner of the use of their
> possesion to be seen as theft. It's not like Star Trek where
> somebody "downloading the computer core" causes the original
> content to be erased. ("They've stolen the Doctor's program!!!")[/color]

That, and also that until about that time hardware was expensive
enough and (relatively limited) software was not so expensive that
it made sense to include the software free with the hardware.

At about the same time, mainframe prices were decreasing and
software costs increasing such that the copyright of mainframe
software became important. Note that there is no copyright
on OS/360 and the early versions of OS/VS. It might be that
there wasn't even legal support for it yet.

Also, it seems that about the same time prices on audio
recording equipment were coming down such that illegal
copying of audio software became more significant.

(As I understand it, illegal copying wasn't new but was
relatively limited.)

-- glen