Wow, you don't pull any punches do you DJ? We either take your position that rests firmly on the proposition that file sharing is theft and if we don't, then we are simply labelled a bunch of thieves making excuses and 'specious arguments' to justify our inappropriate behaviour. That's a pretty sweeping statement DJ and since I don't agree with your position it follows that you have labelled me a thief. Now I know you didn't really mean to accuse in such a way, but there are many people on this thread who have a contrary view to you and who have never downloaded illegal software or music, myself included. Therein lies the reason I don't agree with sweeping law changes that allow ISP businesses to decide whether 'serial downloaders' will be removed from access to the worldwide web, especially if you or those who think like you, happen to be running one of those ISP's. Dj, please understand, I am not having any personal go at you, only the argument you present. That argument is a 'default' one that doesn't require you to come up with any solutions to piracy other than to say it is someone else's problem. For those of us contributing to this thread or viewing this thread who have a contrary position I humbly offer this quote from Martin Luther King Jr.... "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Gosh, everytime I respond I have to come up with another solution. How about increasing copyright protection, even perhaps requiring a hardware dongle that is periodically checked on-line for authenticity. That's extra cost to everyone but no one said piracy could be fought for nothing. My earlier suggestion that we all pay a little extra on our internet to cover the cost of piracy was rejected very quickly but someone has to pay and it is always going to be the the end user, doesn't matter which way you cut it. Terry

If you have never downloaded or shared commercial software illegally then I fail to see how you have been termed a thief. The sharing of free software is not theft. The sharing of commercial software without a license to do so is theft. I say so, and the courts say so - common sense says so as well. I can't think of a way to sugarcoat that.I have a solution to piracy - teach your children and your friends that it is morally and ethically wrong. You do injury to yourself and to others with every act of piracy or theft. There is no excuse for it and every reason not to do it. No technical solution is effective or, probably, possible. I have even had to put copy protection on software intended for police departments. In some countries the act of theft is punished by the loss of a hand - yet thieves still ply their trade. I can't imagine any more draconian punishment or measures that would be more effective.DJ

If you have never downloaded or shared commercial software illegally then I fail to see how you have been termed a thief. The sharing of free software is not theft. The sharing of commercial software without a license to do so is theft. I say so, and the courts say so - common sense says so as well. I can't think of a way to sugarcoat that.

One must be careful when talking about ethics and the concepts of right and wrong.For example, a lot of people think that death penalty is ethically wrong, others think that it is ethically acceptable.Now, is it more "un-ethical" a person voting for the swedish party supporting unrestricted file sharing, or is more "un-ethical" a person voting for a candidate supporting death penalty? The answer is "none of the two", since each of them consider his point of view ethically right.Marco

...the proposition that file sharing is theft...

Terry, Is that just a slip?File sharing isn't theft...it's not illegal...it's good :(The "crack" is theft...doesn

Ok... file sharing....What files are you sharing? Readme.txt files?

What files are you sharing? Readme.txt files?

Even txt files can be wrong to share without consent. :( But peer2peer can be used for good. For instance, with consent, the AVSIM library could be managed peer2peer. That would take some load off these servers.Or, more abstractly your FS/scenery folder could directly reference a peer2peer network.It could be a private peer2peer network...like certified VATSIM scenery and documents.Sort of a hybrid peer2peer revision controller. ( a million dollar idea :( right there...no Subversion serve req'd)Just saying the tech itself isn't evil...and maybe it's uses have not been fully realized.

We all know that 99.99% of the shared files should not be... in fact, I dare say that if there were no pirated copies of anything on the P2P networks... the networks would be completely dead.

I hear you...99.99% of current use is illicit.Still it

Bob- it has been professionally estimated that 1% of the general population would fit the medical definition of Psychopath. That is, they have no concern for others. Not necessarily criminals, it might simply be your boss firing you because he doesn't like you - and having no concern for having done so.Right or wrong isn't a consideration for these people.(I lock my doors when I go out.)Alex Reid

The point keeps being made that we need to teach people about right and wrong. I submit that even a thief knows the difference. That's why when he steals from a store, he puts the item under his coat when he walks out. I tend to think people download files they shouldn't, not because they don't know it's wrong, but because they have no reason to think they will get caught.Bob

Hello,

One must be careful when talking about ethics and the concepts of right and wrong.For example, a lot of people think that death penalty is ethically wrong, others think that it is ethically acceptable.Now, is it more "un-ethical" a person voting for the swedish party supporting unrestricted file sharing, or is more "un-ethical" a person voting for a candidate supporting death penalty? The answer is "none of the two", since each of them consider his point of view ethically right.Marco

I agree Many countries have different ethics about anythings .. and those ethics can also varies among the countries depending of maybe the political views or religion of the inhabitantsEthic is just a part of the piracy problem.Regards. Gus.

Hello,I agree Many countries have different ethics about anythings .. and those ethics can also varies among the countries depending of maybe the political views or religion of the inhabitantsEthic is just a part of the piracy problem.Regards. Gus

Many countries have different ethics about things. However, since the beginning of time, and in all countries, it is pretty universal that taking something from someone else without their permission is bad.How what is pretty universally called stealing is dealt with and punished, is the difference in ethics-not the concept of stealing.

Hello,

How what is pretty universally called stealing is dealt with and punished, is the difference in ethics-not the concept of stealing.

Dunno mate ... Robin Hood is just one come to mind and it's some othershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

In moral theology, Robin Hood is a character often used in the debate of whether or not the ends justify the means, since his good intentions (giving to the poor) may or may not justify his bad means (stealing).

Regards.Gus.

Hello,Dunno mate ... Robin Hood is just one come to mind and it's some othershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_HoodRegards.Gus.

Yes -you are right-some others come to mind right now..

One must be careful when talking about ethics and the concepts of right and wrong.For example, a lot of people think that death penalty is ethically wrong, others think that it is ethically acceptable.Now, is it more "un-ethical" a person voting for the swedish party supporting unrestricted file sharing, or is more "un-ethical" a person voting for a candidate supporting death penalty? The answer is "none of the two", since each of them consider his point of view ethically right.Marco

Theft of livelyhood is clearly not a correct action in any functioning capitalist society in that it harms the foundations of that society - note that I'm not a big fan of existential philosophy, but am rather more in accord with a utilitarian view. That viewpoint neatly solves the problem of both 'file sharing' of commercial software and the death penalty for certain crimes.Existentialism allows so much ethical latitude that it can hardly be called a useful philosopy in any even slightly structured societal context as exemplified by most human cultures. 'Do as thou wilt' has been examined and discredited in so many times and places that it is hardly worth considering as a functional ethos and is certainly not the foundation of any society that I am aware of.DJ

Hello,

Theft of livelyhood is clearly not a correct action in any functioning capitalist society in that it harms the foundations of that society

Well ,.. if you take this way ..During colonialism era theft and stealing of nations worked very well and permitted the enrichissement of the "develloped" countries and this continue today under different forms...Ethics ?Ehtic in the old societies and in the moderns is always at the bottom rank of valors and you know wish one is one the top.Regards.Gus.

Hello,Well ,.. if you take this way ..During colonialism era theft and stealing of nations worked very well and permitted the enrichissement of the "develloped" countries and this continue today under different forms...Ethics ?Regards.Gus.

Actually, I stand by my comments... today's 'developed' countries are hardly paragons of virtue and their functionality is in question (IMHO of course) - I suggest a fast read of the news if you have doubts. Take particular note of the utter lack of good sense and behavior on the part of the major financial institutions. They seem to have developed a deeply foolish method of doing business.DJ