No it doesn't - developer took the time to make a game and no matter what people will do this time was spent ("destroyed").
We could argue that copying games destroys industry, but that's just word play (likewise computers destroyed the industry of abacus makers and it was not theft).
Anyway - pirating is wrong, because you do sth with other peoples work, that they don't want you to, why should we make it more evil by comparing it to thef I can't understand.
ajuc's argument isn't that theft is more evil than piracy, it's that it is dishonest to call piracy theft.
I would say that piracy is, in general, less evil than theft. Imagine that you are a master forger, and can make a perfect copy of a work of art. Clearly it is both a worse, and a different sort of harm for you to steal a painting than it would be to make a copy of that painting.
This is why the law distinguishes infringement from stealing, and I would argue that conflating the two is poisoning the well. Just because it is impractical in most cases to steal digital works doesn't mean that infringement upon them is stealing.
I agree that it's dishonest to call piracy theft in the truest sense of the word, but I feel like the primary reason that most people rail against the terms being conflated is because theft is a more familiar criminal concept to most people and thus has a stronger connotation, and pirates would prefer it if piracy wasn't actually a crime.
I strongly disagree that it is worse to steal something than it is to make a copy of it (EDIT: when doing so is a violation of someone else's right to sell it), especially when the "something" in question is digital data. Unlike a painting, a copy of digital data is functionally equivalent to the master - neither of them can be called a forgery, nor does one have more or less value than the other. Additionally, the ability to produce copies of data is not a talent or a skill. It is available to everyone.
This brings us to the center of the "information is free" argument: digital data is essentially worthless, because it can be copied infinitely for essentially no cost. The only way to associate value with it is to make it artifically scarce, i.e. control copying.
Information may want to be free, but the people who produce it want to be paid. The people who take the time and expend the effort to arrange or gather data often do so with the intention of selling copies for money, or with the intention of keeping one or a very limited number of copies for themselves (such as the source code for your new startup. If piracy's OK, I hope you don't mind me grabbing a copy and starting my own business.)
TL;DR: Piracy is theft of the author's ability to sell and protect their work. Some may argue that works that can be replicated for free should not be able to be sold, but I disagree. I like commercial software in addition to free software, and I like being paid to be a software developer.
Accessing a user's page from the regular directory will also allow you to click through to friends' profiles. This is nothing that wasn't already available.
"Then nobody would ever be able to buy a house with anything less than cash."
I've heard worse advice. That would have avoided the mortgage crisis anyway. The fact that the default in so many markets is to 'buy' things with borrowed money is probably for the worse.
I'm not saying one should never go into debt, but, plan ahead. Your job is not a given so make sure you have a buffer.
To a lot of people this is like finding out that someone has spidered and indexed their conversations at the pub.
Their fault? Sure. But a lot of people react worse to bad events when a mistake they made caused it, especially if they were warned before hand. Anticipating hearing 'we told you so' is not going to make the general public feel calm and relaxed.
Indeed. Most ordinary Facebook users who are not avid followers of tech news probably have very little idea about these things, and just assume that "it's me and my friends". The appearance of Facebook does little or nothing to give the impression that the information being entered is being publicly broadcast.
If Facebook wants to continue to have an overly complicated privacy policy perhaps a solution is to colour code sections of facebook, where teh colour of the text or background indicates the level of privacy.
I just feel like after the recent legitimate privacy concerns Facebook has had, people are now trying to break the next big Facebook scandal and in doing so are bringing up pretty ridiculous points like your public information being public. I don't feel that this is a failure on Facebook's part, it is a failure on the users part for not understanding what public means or just not paying attention.
I had a similar thought progression, but then I went from "What did we do?" to "Oh crap is Jupiter going to blow up or something" and finally "Wait, that is stupid"
I was worried about the same thing before I got my iPhone... sure I used it more when I first got it because of the novelty, but since it is actually incredibly useful I still use it all the time.
A bread-maker isn't the same because it only does one thing. It makes bread. An iPad/iPhone does a million things and I am still discovering new ways to use my iPhone.
Now whether the same kind of usability translates from the iPhone to the iPad is yet to be seen, and I'm a little skeptical if only because of the reduced portability, but it is hardly on the same level as your bread-maker.
The same bread-maker argument could be made for a laptop, or a PC, or any number of things
I think the real problem is that Mark Zuckerberg has the opposite belief, and thinks everything should be shared with everybody.
What I don't get is, why doesn't somebody just build an alternative to facebook which treats your data as private and not public. Then you could have the people still on facebook install an app to allow the secure-book people (or whatever) interact with their data so everybody can be friends across platforms. And maybe another app for vice-versa usage. bada bing bada boom.
That's a great idea, but the Facebook app will always be the weak point, because everything you share (to specific users) through it will still be open for Facebook to use however it sees fit.
I like the non-flat approach to social networking. Most of my facebook friends are there because we went to high school together. It would be nice to be able to group them apart from my 10 or so current friends, so I could not snub my acquaintances but keep in touch with those who sould be kept in touch with.
