When, where, and why did McBride say this? The next sentence could easily go on to express his jubilation at the current state of affairs, and given the SCO exec's historically problematic interpretation of reality, would anyone be surprised?
One ambiguous sentence, lifted from context and tacked on to a grammatically poor summary of SCO's recent troubles, may make me happy but it doesn't make good journalism.
Theft, as someone pointed out earlier, requires that the thief take something, thereby depriving the rightful owner of that thing.
You seem to think the recording industry has only music. In fact, what it is most important to them is that they own the right to be compensated for the distribution of music. You can think of it as owning a function that links music and money (song x=$y). Illegally obtaining music deprives the recording industry of the cash value of that music. Therfore it is theft, even according to your stringent definition.
That being said, does it really matter? Would you stop if I could convince you I was right? (I can't). Theft and copyright infringement are just words and don't change the fact that the RIAA are a bunch of pricks and that copying CDs is a cheap and convenient way to get music.
Slashdot Mirror
When, where, and why did McBride say this? The next sentence could easily go on to express his jubilation at the current state of affairs, and given the SCO exec's historically problematic interpretation of reality, would anyone be surprised? One ambiguous sentence, lifted from context and tacked on to a grammatically poor summary of SCO's recent troubles, may make me happy but it doesn't make good journalism.
Theft, as someone pointed out earlier, requires that the thief take something, thereby depriving the rightful owner of that thing.
You seem to think the recording industry has only music. In fact, what it is most important to them is that they own the right to be compensated for the distribution of music. You can think of it as owning a function that links music and money (song x=$y). Illegally obtaining music deprives the recording industry of the cash value of that music. Therfore it is theft, even according to your stringent definition.
That being said, does it really matter? Would you stop if I could convince you I was right? (I can't). Theft and copyright infringement are just words and don't change the fact that the RIAA are a bunch of pricks and that copying CDs is a cheap and convenient way to get music.