<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Drink or Die&#8221; Software Cracking Gang - Professional Pirates or Stupid Software Swappers?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/drink-or-die-software-cracking-gang-professional-pirates-or-stupid-software-swappers/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/drink-or-die-software-cracking-gang-professional-pirates-or-stupid-software-swappers</link>
	<description>Internet Safety, Windows Updates, Internet News, and More</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/drink-or-die-software-cracking-gang-professional-pirates-or-stupid-software-swappers#comment-1429</link>
		<dc:creator>John Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=450#comment-1429</guid>
		<description>IF they did not make it available for distribution outside their group, then this is a bad decision of the "cripple progress" sort. 
 
BUT if they did make (some) of the "cracked" code widely available, then even if they did not sell it they did wrong - although I do not think a heavy sentence is necessarily in order. Not "software pirates", not exactly, and perhaps no expectation/intention of harm, but as long as the un-cracked version was being sold under copyright it was illegal. 
 
Note that last caveat. I freely admit to downloading some music and other stuff that is technically under copyright but is not [easily available] for sale - largely 1890-1955 rags and jazz. EG, an MP3 someone made of a piano roll cut by Scott Joplin of the Maple Leaf Rag. Joplin playing Joplin! Yes, it is still under copyright (as performed by others), but try to but this version folks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IF they did not make it available for distribution outside their group, then this is a bad decision of the &#8220;cripple progress&#8221; sort. </p>
<p>BUT if they did make (some) of the &#8220;cracked&#8221; code widely available, then even if they did not sell it they did wrong - although I do not think a heavy sentence is necessarily in order. Not &#8220;software pirates&#8221;, not exactly, and perhaps no expectation/intention of harm, but as long as the un-cracked version was being sold under copyright it was illegal. </p>
<p>Note that last caveat. I freely admit to downloading some music and other stuff that is technically under copyright but is not [easily available] for sale - largely 1890-1955 rags and jazz. EG, an MP3 someone made of a piano roll cut by Scott Joplin of the Maple Leaf Rag. Joplin playing Joplin! Yes, it is still under copyright (as performed by others), but try to but this version folks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
