[LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?

[drew Roberts]

On Saturday 09 February 2013 00:01:23 david wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 05:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Friday 08 February 2013 02:38:45 david wrote:
> >> Using something without agreeing to the terms (licence) under which the
> >> provider of that something offers it is theft.
> >
> > Of course it is not theft. It may or may not be illegal, but it is not
> > theft. If a group of kids sneak onto a field and play a ball game without
> > the owner's permission, even when the terms of use of the field are
> > posted, they do not get charged with theft.
>
> Not good examples to choose. If they sneak onto the field and play ball
> and while doing so break the water fountain, it's called vandalism but
> is really (underneath it) stealing the use of the water fountain from
> both the owner of the field AND anyone else who wants to use it afterward.

No, it is not stealing the use of the fountain. It is preventing the use until 
it is fixed. And where is anything broken to the point where the copyright 
holder (AND anyone else) when a file is copied without permission?
>
> But software and hard things like baseball diamonds are too different to
> be good analogies.

***Exactly!*** Which is why you should not use a term like stealing which 
refers to hard things when speaking of violating copyright. We have perfectly 
good and accurate terms to describe such things. Other terms tend to get used 
because they are more emotive.
>
> > Why must everything be theft, piracy, rape, treason, etc. Loaded words.
> > Call things what they are.
>
> You're the one who added "piracy, rape, treason". Why? None of them are
> synonymous with copyright.

I am certainly not the person who started using the terms piracy and pirates 
to describe unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. Do you mean to say you 
have never heard such a term used before in this context?

I have heard rape misused in similar fashions. I threw in treason for good 
measure. Someone will find a way to throw that into the discourse soon 
enough. Terrorism too soone enough probably.
>
> I consider it theft because it's stealing from the licenser/creator the
> ability to control the use and distribution of their creation.

You are not stealing anything from the creator. They had that control before 
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm, 
they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that they have such 
control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way out of proportion 
penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be free to do in the 
natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in this situation. Unless 
perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?

> If you 
> don't like the terms that the creator makes their creation available to
> people, *go use a creation whose terms you agree with*.

Just imagine that your water heater manufacturer told you you could only take 
showers at 83 degrees F for no longer than 4 minutes. Your steak vendor told 
you you had to eat it rare. Your musical instrument maker demanded 5% of any 
money you earned while playing the instrument you bought from them. Etc.

all the best,

drew