I don't agree, Bob. For the UgLugs to be honest by our definition would still be acceptable behaviour in their culture, would it not?

Gavin, I got your email, but please forgive ...Ya nye poneemayu which vopross you are govoryatting about. :)

Perhaps we'll remain of different mind here. I don't believe that our expectations will matter to them. Did you read a post at the bottom of this thread from MGH? I suspect he's a lawyer, perhaps British from his writing. He makes an interesting point on law in general, and that local laws are the laws of concern for a local population.Cheers,Bob

Bob,mgh wrote

MikePazmatret up a bit to your previous post to me. Vot on!Szkoda ze nie mowisz po polsku :-)

Spacebo, Gavin. Tyepyer ...Folks,The title of this thread asks what the effect of piracy is on our hobby. Well, folks, now hear this ...I am giving serious consideration to not bringing my product to market. Having

Bob, it is interesting that you argue for the minority rule with no regard for the larger question of what the objective definition of honesty or dishonesty is. Do you really mean to say that a minority local culture and its norms should define those questions for the citizens of a neighboring local or even for all other societies?One can, and many do, argue the finer points of local law and its relative importance but lose sight of the larger question.My argument does not rely on obscure local culture to define objective truth with regard to theft. If one or more were to drop by your locality and begin to cart off your property without either payment or permission would you define that act as theft? If so, would you then call the local legal enforcement authorities and ask that they apprehend, arrest, charge, and prosecute the thieves to the fullest extent of law?If you were to not regard those acts as theft and would not follow up with enforcement authorities and legal recourse then the following questions become relevent. How would you prevent the next act of theft on your property or even the members of your family? Taking this line to the obvious conclusion then you would subject yourself and your family members to repeated acts of theft or even worse.Intellectual arguements often gravitate towards the relativeist view while ignoring the pragmatic and practical arguements altogether. In so doing, they loosen the foundations for those who actually need and desire a strong sure foundation of objective truth on which to build a society which relys on the individuals choice to be honest rather than dishonest.Since the time of the Ten Commandments, and specifically the pronouncement that "thou shalt not steal" was made, the concept of theft has been known to all societies. The question of whether or not some societies agree or endorse that commandment is not relevant to the concept as presented in objective truth.:-)

<>How do you figure? Piracy has been around digital content since the days of the apple 2. Haven't you ever read about the tolerance toward piracy expressed by Gates during the very early days of microsoft. It was advertising... it was eating away at the big guys hold on the market.

Ron, your writing is hard to respond to because it's not even handed. You use words like "minority" and "obscure" when referring to other cultures. Don't you see how slanted that word choice is? You're coming from your own context and projecting your context on others.If you live in a country that legislates ownership of ip differently than the US, you would likely NOT view yourself as obscure. In fact your views, laws, and culture is the most significant factor for you.

Bob,I feel that you are evading the issue. The issue is only partly the state of the law. The real issue is the extent to which citizens are/aren

Bob, my use of minority or obscure is in reference to your assertion that the concept of theft in some societies differs from that of the majority of cultures and societies. The terms were used to contrast your assertians and those of the author you cited earlier.I've asked you a number of questions about what you personally see as an act of theft and what your response would be if it were to show its ugly face at your doorstep. So far you've danced around those questions so I'm asking you to directly answer the questions I posed in the earlier post.Included here for easy reference:If one or more were to drop by your locality and begin to cart off your property without either payment or permission would you define that act as theft? If so, would you then call the local legal enforcement authorities and ask that they apprehend, arrest, charge, and prosecute the thieves to the fullest extent of law?If you were to not regard those acts as theft and would not follow up with enforcement authorities and legal recourse then the following questions become relevent. How would you prevent the next act of theft on your property or even the members of your family? Taking this line to the obvious conclusion then you would subject yourself and your family members to repeated acts of theft or even worse.

Ron, I've not danced around at all. I've just resisted allowing you to hijack the discussion. Never once did I attempt to assert that theft would be acceptable in a given locality in violation of the local laws govening the action. Yet you continue to set up such a hypothetical and insist I respond to it. Now, lets get back to the interesting discussion I AM talking about.

Mike, you've now brought me full circle...this is where I started in the discussion. After reading the paper I referenced in my first contribution to the thread, I realized with some surprise that this notion that the world shares a common definition of "by virtue of morality and ethics" is wrong. The treatment of rights to IP and technologic invention does not include (everywhere) a shared morality and ethics with those of the US. These are people that view themselves as moral and ethical and STILL differ from you on the notion of what's right and wrong.So, the discussion gets more interesting.Bob

Bob,I didn

Hmm, seems we've finally touched a nerve. It is now much clearer that your argument goes no further than academic discussion and is of little practical value to victims of theft the world over.In nations which do accept the "rule of law" and the concept that acts of theft are deemed illegal and therefore subject to enforcement and penalty, it expected that law breakers should not only be imprisoned so they cannot contine to practice theft on innocents, but also that they should be subject to payment for their crimes in the form of fines or reimbursement to the victims.Contrary to your assertion, this is not a USA concept, it is a valid world view which is practiced daily in all nations included Korea.I've sited the history of this concept as far back as the following example:Since the time of the Ten Commandments, and specifically the pronouncement that "thou shalt not steal" was made, the concept of theft has been known to all societies. The extent that nations, societies, or individuals elect to obey such an edict determines whether or not they became a nation of law and order or lawless and chaotic.My post expresses the notion that laws, and enforcemnt of laws, are only part of a solution when the lawless outnumber those who enforce the law. My post appeals to those who have made choices contrary to honesty and integrity with the hope that they may actually consider what they are doing to themselves and others. If those who now practice theft were to make a choice to stop the practice by and of their own volition we are certain that acts of theft would decline as a result.Finally, the thread is titled "how damaging is piracy", not "how relative is the concept of theft". It would seem that you are the person responsible for hijacking the thread.:-)