Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:01:18 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 1998 at 09:41:23, Fernando Villegas wrote: >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 As I said, this is not a personal issue. If I can try to forgive Rolf on several occasions, I can get over most *anything*. :) But my point still stands... giving even the "impression" that copying among friends is ok is a first step down a "slippery slope"...
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.