"True enough, but you also now have a software package worth roughly $580 on the retail market."
Except that a pirated copy is not worth $580 on the retail market, only the original product could would be worth that -- but then, I'm not sure how this idea matches up with licenses that forbid resale.
"They have roughly $580 less than what they would have had, had you obtained the software legally. Affordability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant"
The user has $580 less than he would have had if you had bought a copy... $1160 less than if you had bought two copies... and so on.
It may be splitting hairs, but after theft you have a product worth a certain amount, after illegal copying, you have a copy, which can be copied repeatedly... thus it's value is harder to estimate.
I understand an argument that says copyright violation is morally equivalent to theft, but I can not agree to a statement that it is either legally equivalent or that the social repercussions are the same.
Ok, I'm not sure what pocket.txt is, but they first four letter word I came up with is "keys". (Keys... pocket.txt, I would think they should go together somehow)
Since the individual responsible for verifying the answers is a machine, there appears to be a problem. We end up with a situation where you want to perform a simple Turing test, and then have a machine verify the results. In this case a simple dictionary missed what would seem to be an obvious word, demonstrating these test can easily fail since a machine cannot easily verify the results of a Turing(-like) test.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, according to the Canadian Federal Court system, a good reason that nobody should be sued is because the actions are not illegal.
"True enough, but you also now have a software package worth roughly $580 on the retail market."
... $1160 less than if you had bought two copies ... and so on.
... thus it's value is harder to estimate.
Except that a pirated copy is not worth $580 on the retail market, only the original product could would be worth that -- but then, I'm not sure how this idea matches up with licenses that forbid resale.
"They have roughly $580 less than what they would have had, had you obtained the software legally. Affordability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant"
The user has $580 less than he would have had if you had bought a copy
It may be splitting hairs, but after theft you have a product worth a certain amount, after illegal copying, you have a copy, which can be copied repeatedly
I understand an argument that says copyright violation is morally equivalent to theft, but I can not agree to a statement that it is either legally equivalent or that the social repercussions are the same.
Ok, I'm not sure what pocket.txt is, but they first four letter word I came up with is "keys". (Keys ... pocket.txt, I would think they should go together somehow)
Since the individual responsible for verifying the answers is a machine, there appears to be a problem. We end up with a situation where you want to perform a simple Turing test, and then have a machine verify the results. In this case a simple dictionary missed what would seem to be an obvious word, demonstrating these test can easily fail since a machine cannot easily verify the results of a Turing(-like) test.