Re: A89: Me distributing roms.
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Me distributing roms.
See the problem here is that programs are not physical property. If you goto
adobe's site your not tresspassing and to download it is not theft.. this is
like apples and ... watermellons
----- Original Message -----
From: Cassady Roop <croop@oregontrail.net>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: A89: Me distributing roms.
>
> So, by similar logic, if someone leaves their door unlocked, you would
> feel justified in walking into their house even if you don'e even know
> them?
>
> Or if I had a truck (the computer) and I wanted your lawnmower, and it
> was just sitting there on your lawn without any gate (passwords) or
> for-sale sign on it (no payment), it would be legal for me to put the
> lawnmower in my truck (download) and drive away with it?
>
> Cassady Roop
>
> Serial wrote:
> >
> > Simple. There is no payment to download it and it is not protected by
any
> > passwords or compression. It'd be like if adobe put a full download of
> > photoshop in their site for free and said we're breaking the law if we
> > download it.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
> > [mailto:owner-assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org]On Behalf Of Cassady Roop
> > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 6:22 PM
> > To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: Re: A89: Me distributing roms.
> >
> > > hold no rights over public property and if they have a problem with
that
> > I'd
> > > like to hear about it in person. If you work for Ti mail me and I'll
call
> > > you personally and you can explain why you think you have a right to
stop
> > > the distrobution of public software through the use of threats and
> > reporting
> >
> > How exactly does a ROM TI wrote fall under the term 'public property'
> > unless they say it does? (which they don't)
> >
> > Cassady Roop
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: