In article <bs5ke1l0smna0lc9v34bt8j1dpvecj5j14@4ax.com>, Cynic wrote:
> >Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the
> >wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and
> >nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to
> >take them.
>
> Do you also believe that it is morally wrong to offer complete
> strangers something for free? Is it then wrong for such strangers to
> take advantage of your offer? Especially when doing so is costing the
> offerer nothing at all (above what they are paying anyway)?

Of course not. If a thing is yours, it's yours to give, lend or sell as you
please, and presumably you'd make the situation clear to all concerned. I thought
we were talking about the *taking* of something belonging to somebody else. I
simply offered the thought that we should not automatically assume that somebody
else's property is on free offer unless otherwise indicated. In fact, it has been
customary in the past to assume the reverse, i.e. leave alone unless otherwise
indicated, so why should it be any different just because it's an electronic
service and not a physical object?

Rod.