Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 11:52:31 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Moritz: I agree with many of the points you make. That's the reason I am not advocating for a generalized copying of programs. My point has been that in anycase an ocassional act of copying, that ocassionally could produce a damage as those you described, cannot, anyway, to be called so bluntly as burglary, larceny, etc. All this discussion begun precisely from that. I think this is a debatable issue, as you have made here, and what I rejects the more is the attitude to see all this from the beginning as a settled issue, then going to insults. Your sister was in my home and surely she realized that I don't need precisely to steal nothing I want, because I am rich enough, in fact, I am a rich man. Then, why I discuss this issue? Because this site is to discuss these issues. I would like to see a more open glance to this, not just to stuck at a piece of cardboard and its legend and then say "your are a thief". I still maintain the idea that as an owner of a software you have some right to copy once and then. And I don't believe so much damage is produced. Each time you get a program for free from a friend you get more stuck with all this and the next time you are going to purchase. In all my life I have received less than three programs and given less that two, but at the same time I have bought unnumerable programs and the same the friends that gave me one or received one from me. So all this, the economy of chess software at least, is something to be examined. Maybe gifts of copies are not a damage but part of the business, a wheel of it in an indirect way. Fernando
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.