> I don't see how this would be quite the same thing. If the program were
> available
> to be bought but rather than buying it a person gets a copy frome someone
> then I could see
> how that would be stealing from the programmer. But when the program is
> no
> longer available to be bought and a person then gets a copy he is not
> taking
> anything from the programmer because he didn't have the option to buy.
> How
> can you lose money on a sale when there is no sale to be made?
You make a valid argument. (And a similar argument to the one made by
the Free Software Foundation.) I admit I have some tendencies to agree
with both of them for some cases. http://www.fsf.org/fsf/fsf.html
The simple legal fact of the matter is that intellectual property rights
include the right to exclude others from using a piece of property (for
example, the IMS track pack). The mere fact that their use of the IMS
track wouldn't cause you any concrete damage is irrelevant as far as the
law is concerned.
The above is fact. The reality of the situation is probably that if you
keep reasonably quiet and don't make a big public stink about copying
IMS, you'll probably be OK, because it's just not worth trying to defend
property that has no value. But, if you go out and make a big public
show of copying IMS illegally, you can bet that you'll hear about it.
From that and from using your own brain, decide what you want to do. I'm
not your net-nanny after all... :)
---Jim
