Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:33:11 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1998 at 14:38:30, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On July 22, 1998 at 13:38:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 22, 1998 at 12:14:21, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>I said i was not going to write about this anymore, but temptation to get an >>>understanding in trhis issue is too high. So let me say that the core of Hyatt >>>and Moreland -an other people- is a fallacy called petitio principi. They insist >>>once and again with the example of stealing 1 dollar against stealing 1000 and >>>they say it is the same thing. Of course it is so because from the beginning >>>they are defined both acts as stealing and they are, of course. No reasonning is >>>neccesary to recognize that. What they does not understand is that what I am >>>saying is that we cannot so simply qualify as steal a simple copy for a friend, >>>to put it...simple. >> >> >>Fernando, the above line is wrong. *WRONG*. Again, pick any commercial piece >>of software you want and look at the license agreement, which you *must agree >>to* before using the product. Now if you can produce one piece of software that >>says "you may make copies for your friends at no cost" then I'll apologize. If >>you can't, then you should simply say "I am a software pirate" and be done with >>the discussion. >> >>There is *no* middle ground here. If the license says you are buying *one* >>right-to-use of this software, then you can't make copies. If you do, as I do >>in our lab here, buy a single package but with say 10 right-to-use licenses in >>it, I can give 10 copies to any 10 people I choose (9 if I keep a copy for >>myself.) But *note* that I *paid* for those 10 licenses, which cost me more >>than if I had bought a single license. >> >>your argument is flawed, your position is attrocious, and your actions are >>illegal. >> >> >>> At least this is something that must be discussed BEFORE >>>saying it is stealing. You say it is because "the box says you cannot". Yes, but >>>I am not so readily prepared to recognize as fair, just and moral anything >>>putted in a box, even if behind it there is a corpus of law to support it. >>>Obviously every people in this world look for protect his interest in the >>>strongest way they can, using law if possible, but that does not means is moral. >> >> >>If you believe that, don't buy the product in the first place. Because when >>you do, you enter into a contractural agreement with the supplier (see the >>license agreement for an example) where you agree to the agreement, or else >>are instructed to return it still sealed for a full refund. Breaking the seal >>is the same as signing your name on a contract, in that you accept the terms of >>the agreement in doing so. And the terms are quite specific about not making >>copies for others, friends or not... >> >> >> >> >>>I have live many years in a country where a dictatorship imposed many laws and I >>>can ensure you they were not very moral. All the history of economy in every >>>country is full of examples of monopolies that has got a law to support his >>>claims to exclusive trade of a comodity. Were fair claims? If I don't remember >>>wrongly, part of the history of US independence grew from the resistence to a >>>commercial monopoly fully supported by law. So, the pretension of a software >>>producer not to allow even a copy of his product, not even for your second >>>computer or so, is just a pretension than can have the support of law, but not >>>neccesarily of moral. Maybe to give a program or receive one is not a moral >>>action in itself, something to sheer, but neither is neccesary the contrary. >>>Finally, I don't remember I had said I am beginning a campaing to support >>>stealing or so, as Bruce and Bob insist to say. They are stuck with the conect >>>and word stealing and they just refuses to see beyond the cardboard bo >>>Fernando. >> >>I don't care if you lived through the Holocaust, thru Hitler, through Stalin, >>or whatever. Those have *nothing* to do with stealing from someone that is >>selling computer software. Do you go to the grocery market and walk around >>eating this and that, then leave without paying? > > >As you love so much this exmaple of the grocery, I will use it. Let us say you >are a clinet in a grocery. You pruchase all there. Hunbdredsd of dollar each >year. Now, one day you go there and you pick a grape and savour it wiotuput >specific uintentions to steal or nothing, just aszx a man is comfortable there >and feel sure to be a custmer. Do you think that the owner of the grocery will >say you are stealing? Even more, do you think he will think you are stealing? >Will you think you are stealing? What I want to say is that beyond the writen >letters, in any commercial transaction there is room for certain flexibility and >interpretation. Sincerely, Bob, afetr expending hundreds of dsollar with any of >the guys here wit a program, I cannot conceive of myself of a thief if >eventually I give a copy to someone. Yes, it is stealing on paper, but in real >world you should recognize that is done and not because we are, then, ALL >thieves, but because in the setting of a culture or commercial system there is >always rooms for this kind of things. Yes, there is a grey are ain real world, >althought not in codes. Besides, Bob, you must consider that all this is mainly >thoeretical as much not me not anybody is all the tme giving copies or something >of the soert. Is a very eventual, casual, sporadic event truliy incorporated in >the cost of software. I would like to know if Ed, having read all this, consider >that I am or I will be a thief if I give one copy.I would ike to know if Ed >really expect that I buy one Rebel 9 or q > Let me make a couple of things perfectly clear: 1. I have no problem with you as a person, and am not "out to get you." That is *not* what this is about. 2. If you admit that you copied a piece of software without paying for it, I'd hope that you figured out that that was an illegal. However, you've gone further. You have not only said that you'd give copies of commercial software to your friends, but you then try to justify this as "OK" and there I have a *big* problem with your position. Eating a single grape doesn't seem to be a huge problem. But Rebel doesn't sell for the same price as a grape, either. How many versions of Rebel have you bought? all 9? At maybe 100 bucks a copy? oh.. you took advantage of the cheaper upgrade price rather than buying a brand new one? And you don't think Ed's already given you a break by letting you upgrade cheaper than what a new customer pays? That it's ok for you to further deepen such a discount by giving *his* software away to others in violation of the agreement between the two of you (AKA the software license agreement)? That's what I have a problem with... copying/stealing software is bad enough. But to try and justify it as "ok" because (a) you've bought other software and so this won't really be missed income or (b) the company is so big that they won't miss an extra copy made here rather than a sale; (c) fill in any excuse or justification you like here; However, why don't you directly frame a question to Ed here, asking him whether it is ok for you to give away copies of his program to your friends. Simply ask him. If he says "sure" then I'll be quiet. If he says "Fernando, you know there is a license agreement with Rebel that prevents this" then you should apologize for your larcenous suggestion... the idea of "it's only one copy so he only loses 100 dollars" doesn't cut it, because if *you* do it, then *everyone* can do it. And suddenly it isn't 100 dollars any longer, it is a big chunk of his annual income. > > Do you go to a restaurant, >>order a meal, eat, and slip out when no one is looking? Do you go to a >>bookstore, find something you like, xerox the whole thing and then leave without >>paying? Do you copy software that you didn't pay for? Do you buy software >>products and then make copies for your friends? >> >>If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then you are a thief, plain and >>simple. Stealing is stealing. you need to raise some children. The ones that >>steal a dime today, steal a dollar tomorrow, and a hundred dollars next year, >>and a thousand after that. And they end up in jail where they belong. There >>is no "grey area" here. If you take something that doesn't belong to you, it >>is wrong and illegal, regardless of (a) how valueable the item was and (b) how >>wealthy/big the entity you stole it from is. >> >>Pop out your dictionary and look up "steal". That will illuminate things quite >>clearly. verb, "to take something that belongs to someone else, without paying >>for it."
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.