Very few things are truly free. Someone (doubtless many people in fact) invested their time and ability to make those courses. Obviously, those writers should be free to give away the fruits of their labor for no money if they choose. But I'd say "volunteering them" to do so without their consent is pretty much the definition of theft. No matter what the motives.
So I for one, see no difference. Theft is theft, no matter how wealthy the victim.
People opting to subsidize courses so they have no immediate cost to the students is a different matter. I'd support copying the educational material from any "free" source (like the MIT link). Ripping them from commerial products is theft. Everyone has their own line for whether that's okay for them. I wouldn't choose to.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few things are truly free. Someone (doubtless many people in fact) invested their time and ability to make those courses. Obviously, those writers should be free to give away the fruits of their labor for no money if they choose. But I'd say "volunteering them" to do so without their consent is pretty much the definition of theft. No matter what the motives.
So I for one, see no difference. Theft is theft, no matter how wealthy the victim.
People opting to subsidize courses so they have no immediate cost to the students is a different matter. I'd support copying the educational material from any "free" source (like the MIT link). Ripping them from commerial products is theft. Everyone has their own line for whether that's okay for them. I wouldn't choose to.