Is talking about piracy different from advocating piracy?

[saulgoode]

I would propose that the wording of Section I Paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct be amended to

Adult Content/Violence/Criminal Activity: Messages containing sexually oriented/violent/criminal dialogue, images, content, or links to these things will be deleted. Messages with links to or suggesting criminal activity will also be deleted. Posting or linking to any of these could result in a ban.

This substitution of the word "criminal" for "illegal" would provide a proper distinction between breaches of civil law (disagreements between citizens where no crime has been committed) and violations of criminal law.

The presumption that someone violating the terms of a contract or licensing agreement should be considered a "criminal" is misguided. Personally, I doubt that such a disagreement between the contracting parties would be considered "illegal" but, even if it were, the nature of such disputes would dictate that the legality of the activities would only be decided after a civil trial has been held.

Violation of a EULA is not criminal, it might be considered illegal but only in the sense that remedies are sought through application of contract law (does this even imply illegality?). It would be more logical if the CoC only addressed the issue of criminality and not the disagreements between private parties.

[sajro]

This substitution of the word "criminal" for "illegal" would provide a proper distinction between breaches of civil law (disagreements between citizens were no crime has been committed) and violations of criminal law. .

The amendment would need to mention the definition of criminal/illegal. Meaning, what country's definition of it?

Even if the servers are not in the US it doesn't matter much.

The US is still in control over .com/.net/.org domains and hence they also control ubuntuforums.org.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the domain name system is controlled (from what I remember) by ICANN, which is an international organization. The US, I believe, only controls .us, .gov (but not .gov.uk, .gov.ie, etc.), an .edu (but not .edu.*).

[OrangeCrate]

Stealing proprietary software where you live may not be technically illegal, but it sure in the hell is unethical, and if you do it, in my book, you're just another form of low-life.

As it relates to following the rules set up by whoever runs this forums, it's their ballyard, and if you don't want to abide by their rules, go find some place else to play. In fact, if a poster threatens to leave, in support of something he posted, IMO, he ought to be banned on the spot.

<snip>

[k2t0f12d]

There's a view I think people forget here, it's that piracy (when it comes to software and games is pretty harmful to the Open Source movement. Especially when it comes to Linux Game industry (loki games anyone). So it's also in our own interest to remove such elements if we want Linux to be supported.

There already is operating system software that provides vastly superior support for software distributed by those who find the idea of user's having rights unappealing. The Open Source movement is flawed in its predication that proprietary and free software can or should coexist socially. They cannot, and so long as both exist, the cultural dynamic of having both in the same social space will cause them to strive to destroy one another regardless of the intentions of those that have created and licensed the software. The entire shift in the discussion from rights and freedom to technical superiority, and other less meaningful terms such as "openness", has been an unnecessary and unfortunate impediment to the spread, support, and acceptance of software freedom. The question in whether or not business can or should support free software operating systems such as GNU/Linux is not something that hinges on whether or not some kids are trading copies of software in violation of that software's licensing on the web. Ultimately, it is we, the users of free software, and the forward-thinking businesses that already support free software, who are going to decide the social mandate demonstrating that the most advantageous and ethical way to handle computing is in freedom, and those who would not have otherwise supported free software will either have to change the way they do business, or leave the market.

[hyper_ch]

Stealing proprietary software where you live may not be technically illegal, but it sure in the hell is unethical, and if you do it, in my book, you're just another form of low-life.

There aren't global ethics and also ethics do change over time. So you might consider it unethical but that's just because of the milieu you have been in your whole life

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the domain name system is controlled (from what I remember) by ICANN, which is an international organization. The US, I believe, only controls .us, .gov (but not .gov.uk, .gov.ie, etc.), an .edu (but not .edu.*).

Pro forma it is... but actually the US is still in charge of it...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/24/1241232
http://www.domainnamenews.com/icann-...overnment/1397
http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,...331761b,00.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7205609.stm

[OrangeCrate]

There aren't global ethics and also ethics do change over time. So you might consider it unethical but that's just because of the milieu you have been in your whole life
]

If you steal a new car (a proprietary product) off of a lot in Switzerland, or any other country in the world, what will happen to you? Why should proprietary software be any different?

[LaRoza]

A rule should not also be followed simply because it is a rule. Obedience should be given when the rule is good and helpful, and denied when the rule is harmful and unjust, regardless of the possibility of retribution. So while your stated point isn't bad, it is really terribly overshadowed by the attempt to tie the egregious moral connotations of murder to the act of unauthorized usage and copying which do not share this moral question in any way, shape, or form. What the other side was saying is that the ludicrous instantiations of copyright law in the U.S. does not automatically imply that the behavior those laws are meant to restrict are also morally questionable, because in other, more sensible countries it is both accepted legally and unquestioned morally.

I understand, you are right. It was a hastely written statement and not thought out.

There is another side as well, the GPL. Why should we expect others to respect it if we don't respect their licenses?

[hyper_ch]

If you steal a new car (a proprietary product) off of a lot in Switzerland, or any other country in the world, what will happen to you? Why should proprietary software be any different?

For the simple fact that material products can't be multiplied indefinitively... immaterial products can...

If I steal your car then I have the car and you don't have it anymore...

When I copy a piece of software then it's like a creatio ex nihil... you still have your software and I also have it

But as said before, ethic is not a universal standard and ethics do vary...

[rune0077]

On topic;
There's a view I think people forget here, it's that piracy (when it comes to software and games is pretty harmful to the Open Source movement. Especially when it comes to Linux Game industry (loki games anyone). So it's also in our own interest to remove such elements if we want Linux to be supported.

That really depends on what "our own interests are". Personally, I would love to see Linux prosper, but I would love much more to see a change in law that means we wouldn't have to throw roughly 90% of every teenager in the world in jail - hence, I would rather support piracy than I would Linux, if it came to a choice (luckily, it don't). Yeah yeah, I know, we don't actually throw them in jail but you get my point.

Also let me just say, before everyone starts to think that I'm blatantly attacking the staff here, that I was merely trying to point out the issue that mips mentioned. Of course staff does not, and should not be required to, keep track of every single post on this forum. They're not machines after all, and making mistakes is perfectly legit. It's just to say, than when looking in from the outside, without having much understanding of the inner workings of things, it does seem that some things are being punished rather severely, while many other, arguably more severe, things goes completely unnoticed. And whether it's because these other posts where never reported or not, it still creates a feeling of "unfairness" that I think the staff would do well to try and understand (and probably already understands).

[OrangeCrate]

When I copy a piece of software then it's like a creatio ex nihil... you still have your software and I also have it
.

And, you took away the profit on a finished product, wherein a company invested considerable resources in R&D, manufacturing, and marketing and sales costs. They also paid employees, accrued benefits, and incurred other costs associated with operating the company.

The software product was designed, manufactured, distributed, and clearly marketed with a disclosure that it was a copyrighted, and protected product. All of this was done with the intent of making an operating profit, and enhancing stockholder equity in the company.

No matter how you justify copying the software based on your perceived ethical values, IMO, it's still theft - just like stealing the car off of the lot. There is no difference.