Yes, there's a difference in some cases between 'right' and 'legal'. Negligence to hinder a federal offense when possible, however, is a crime so you might wish to use another example next time.
According to whom is it wrong to use software you had no way of buying (due to a small budget perhaps) free of charge? In the end someone benefits, and no one loses anything (once again; because it doesn't deprive/cost the software company [in this example] of any material or otherwise (rare) resource and since the 'free loader' wasn't going to buy the product anyway).
Now, why would it be wrong for someone to gain at no one's expense?
"Pirate"? It's wrong to "pirate" songs you had no intention of paying for anyway at no loss (not even potential, since I.. err.. this friend of mine... had no intention of buying the entire album) to the music industry?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there's a difference in some cases between 'right' and 'legal'. Negligence to hinder a federal offense when possible, however, is a crime so you might wish to use another example next time.
According to whom is it wrong to use software you had no way of buying (due to a small budget perhaps) free of charge? In the end someone benefits, and no one loses anything (once again; because it doesn't deprive/cost the software company [in this example] of any material or otherwise (rare) resource and since the 'free loader' wasn't going to buy the product anyway).
Now, why would it be wrong for someone to gain at no one's expense?
"Pirate"? It's wrong to "pirate" songs you had no intention of paying for anyway at no loss (not even potential, since I.. err.. this friend of mine... had no intention of buying the entire album) to the music industry?
Freetantrum is said to read OGG files, so it's safe to assume that whatever napster'll be using will as well.