Elliot Temple wrote:
> On May 15, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Jeremy Tregunna wrote:

> The harm there is that he would die sooner than he would if he were
> left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing is,
> who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?
> 
> -- Elliot Temple
> http://www.curi.us/blog/

I cannot afford a Mercedes. I therefore have no plans to buy one. Should 
I steal one? After all, nobody really gets hurt, do they?

We are not talking about a starving person who has no choice but to 
steal food, and therefore might be considered to have some moral 
foundation for their actions. We are talking about people who actually 
in most cases do have money, but no sense of ethics. They would never 
steal from a Walmart, but only because they might get caught. The 
ultimate harm may not be to them, but to those of us who DO have a sense 
of ethics. I appreciate the fact that publishers are making their 
products available in a variety of formats. Taking advantage of this 
situation by copying and distributing their work without paying for it 
can only have one long-term consequence: they will either discontinue 
the practice or be forced to implement copy protection that makes it 
inconvenient for all.

Keith


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.