On Wednesday 25 December 2002 06:24 pm, Nikhil Joshi wrote:
All my H/W is legal.
2. Do you have Mp3z on your Hard-Disk? Linux or
Windows , they are
Making mp3s is not legal, per se. You can make million copies of any song
and keep in on your hdd. As long as you dont distribute them to others free
of cost. This technology is very useful to people who have old cds which
are being worn out due to repeated use. The act of making mp3s becomes
illegal when one makes mp3s out of copyrighted music files and then
distributes them free of cost, or at a cost, but without explicit
permission of the copyright owner.
3. Do you have DivX/MPEG files of latest movies ? It
The above reasoning applies just as well to DivX encoded movies. Lets say
that I have bought a DVD of Kaante. Now imagine that I have a lot of small
children playing around my house. I am scared that they might cause some
physical damage to the DVD. Hence I use encoding software to store the
movie as a 3 cd .avi file on my computer so that I have a backup. This act
is completely legal.
Now imagine that I get greedy and decide to sell a set of 3cd avi's of
Kaante to some people I know, for a paltry Rs 100. THAT, is illegal.
Read more here.
4. Does your homepage/HDD have gif's. Arguably
they are illegal too.
(Some compression patent problems I believe)
GIF's have the same boolean status when it comes to legality. Nothing else
Matters (not even the OS).
Windows user is on equal moral grounds (regarding
legality of his/her PC)
if a Linux user satisfies any of the criteria.
When we are comparing the owner (type A) of a PC system using a pirated
compy of the latest Microsoft OS (purchased for free - just for the sake of
argument) to a person (type B) who has the same hardware as A but is using
a copy of Redhat 8.0 (or any other OS that is free as in beer), we have to
keep in mind that there are far more people of type A than type B. The
issues you talked about above apply to both, types A and B. In addition,
there are many more grounds on which a type A person can be legally wrong,
eg OS itself, Application software like MS office, photoshop etc. Sure
windows users could use OpenOffice and gimp. But very few actually do.
If you dont understand the above, read on for an analysis of the current
Lets consider that applications A_w, B_w .... Z_w are the 26 most popular
windows applications with a_w, b_w,...z_w users respectivey. Also let A_l,
B_l .... Z_l be the 26 most popular linux applications with a_l, b_l,...z_l
users respectively. Lets further assume, grossly incorrectly, a_w=a_l =a,
b_w=b_l=b,.... z_w=z_l=z. Call this assumption D.
Now put a realistic estimate on the percentage of users who use illegally
procured versions of A_w,B_w...Z_w. Call this percentage m. Do the same for
A_l, B_l...Z_l. Call this percetage n. Now, I am sure that most people will
agree that "m>n". Hence
m * (a_w + b_w + ... + z_w) *100 > n ( a_l + b_l + ... z_l) *100. --->
Thus the number of users using illegal copies of Windows' based programs
exceeds those using illegal copies of linux based programs. Now factor is
assumtion D. If this assumption were not to hold then most people would
agree that a_w>a_l .... z_w>z_l. Hence the Left Hand Side of Equation 1 is
likely to increase in magnitude. Equation 1 is more likely to be
m * (a_w + b_w + ... + z_w) *100 > > > n ( a_l + b_l + ... z_l) *100
Thus the number of legal windows users diminishes even further.
The point of this analysis is that, when we talk about a "typical" windows'
user, we cannot ignore the program "dependencies" that Windows brings
alongwith it. Hence, a majority of Windows users are legal offenders( or
criminals) guilty of more crimes than their linux/(whatever) counterparts.
There cannot be something less illegal. Either it is
legal or it is not.
Yes, there cannot be some"thing" less/more legal. But there can a person who
has broken more/less laws than another, which is what we are talking about