Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 06:41:23 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 1998 at 20:04:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 25, 1998 at 16:38:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Bob: >>Just one thing more to add to this already too long but neccesary discussion. >>You have proved beyond doubt -nobody had the doubt anyway-that to share even >>ocassionally a software is illegal. OK, I accept that. Nevertheless, not always >>illegal is equal to larceny ofr stealing. Even happens that sometimes you can >>steal legally. American native indians were deprived of his land with one legal >>act after another and then, when eventually they tried to recover some, they >>were described as thieves, murderers, etc, and crushed like rats. Many times >>legality covers the most unfamous stealing, murder and unmorality. That's the >>reason why in some cases we consider an act legally described as larceny as the >>contrary of it. Robin Hood -if you forgive me this example- is a case. >>I am not Robin Hood nor I pretend to be one, but When I had very occasionally >>shared a program with somebody of my very near environment, although >>knowing that is illegal, I have not felt to be stealing as much, in my humble >>opinion, the price that software producers charge for his products is 9 times of >>ten a clear abuse. Even so I buy all -just take a look at my Visa card or ask >>steve Schwartz or Bert seifritz, etc- but then at leats I give my self certain >>limite right to put things in more fair terms when they are not fair. Let us say >>all this in other way: You steal when you get something from other guy against >>his will, but is not so clear that you are stealing if you get once in 100 times >>something for free from a guy that is 99 in 100 times getting something a lot >>bigger from you, making use of your neccesity and his position as supplier of >>it. You can say "then don't use it", but you know very well not always are you >>in position to do that. Clearly, this is the kind of situations where you try to >>balance up the things. Economic damage? Yes, but not neccesarily against the >>producers. Have you thought the damage customers take all the time from too high >>priced software? When you see so many excellent programs priced at 10 or 15 >>dollars, many times equally good or better than other priced ten times more >>expensively, you slowly gets a feeling that no matter what the print legend say >>in the box, the common customer,not the one protected by the funds of an >>organizacion, is all the time abused under the pretense of "search and >>development investment". You, as a software developer, know very well that >>fairness is not the motto in the mouth of great software producers and even many >>times neither in little ones. Then, again, in the context of this global setup >>of things, to share once or twice in your life an old program is so an slight >>balacing of things that it cannot and it should not to be considered so lightly >>and harsly as sheer larceny like going to the grocery and take the money with a >>pistol. . >>Fernando > >I understand your point. But as I said, I was simply brought up "differently". >I have watched young kids that "only" stole a dime here and there grow up into >teen-agers that only stole a few dollars (or some beer or snuck into a movie >theatre) grow up into young adults that only stole a car... > >I understand the frustration of the cost of software. And that some consider >making a copy for a friend to be ok in some cases, not in others. IE you give >away a copy of Rebel and (a) Ed loses nothing because the friend couldn't afford >to buy it; or (b) Ed loses a sale but it is only one and really doesn't hurt >since you've bought many versions. Or, in another case, like Microsoft, giving >a copy of their stuff doesn't hurt because they are one of the wealthiest comp- >anies in the world and won't miss it or don't deserve that much money anyway. > >My main point is that it is bad enough to copy software in violation of the >license agreement, but to try to justify it as ok, is *not* ok. BOB: I never tried to do of copying a gospel, nor I said it was good. What i said that this an issue that deserves some pondered qualification and not an inmediate one as larceny. Suppose some >young kids visit here and read such comments? One of the requirements in the >ACM Computer Science Curriculum is a unit on "computer ethics" which covers just >this topic. TO say "it's ok" invites a world of young kids to do this, which >means that when *they* grow up, license agreements will be totally useless as >they have been "conditioned" to ignore them, because it is "ok"... > >I've made this an absolute in my house, as did my parents when they raised me. >I believe I turned out ok in this regard. And that my kids will to. I'm not >sure how it would be if they had seen me constantly copying/stealing computer >software and games. They tend to "generalize" and that leads to bigger >troubles. > >Hopefully you understand my perspective. It is not a personal problem with >you. It is a definite moral issue with the "concept"... I fully understand you and I fully forgive you if in a moment -as it seemed to me- you went beyond the limits. Maybe you thinks there is nothing to be forgiven for, but just in case :-). I only wante to be understood and not to be considered a simple thief preaching larceny as a kind of new evangelic truth. You must realize I consider people here in CCC as friends and a friend does not like to be treated as thief by the rest of the crew. Sureley some substantial differences about this will remain between you and me, but I hope that wull be not enough reason to lose you apreciation, nor your words will be a cause for that with me. 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.