Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:48:07 12/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2005 at 23:16:50, Uri Blass wrote:
>On December 09, 2005 at 22:50:28, Antonio Dieguez wrote:
>
>>On December 09, 2005 at 21:41:18, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On December 09, 2005 at 21:25:35, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 09, 2005 at 21:18:49, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 09, 2005 at 21:03:59, Ed Murak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 09, 2005 at 20:59:11, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On December 09, 2005 at 20:49:26, Ed Murak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To divorce author rights from other property rights is infeasible for legal and
>>>>>>>>also other logical reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is clearly logical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The difference is the following difference:
>>>>>>>one car more for one person is one car less for another person.
>>>>>>>one program more for one person is not one program less for another person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, yes it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is _more than one_ future program less for a _lot_ of people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For certain.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I understand correctly you mean that there is going to be less future
>>>>>programs.
>>>>>You may be correct and may be not correct but it is a speculation and not
>>>>>something certain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also:
>>>>>>one car more for one person is one dollar more for some person.
>>>>>>one unpaid-for program more for one person may well be one dollar less for its
>>>>>>deserving author.
>>>>>
>>>>>And it also may be more dollars for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>The one who did not pay for it may tell other people about the program and part
>>>>>of them may pay for it and if he does not get it he may not tell about it to
>>>>>nobody and nobody is going to know about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is better for the author?
>>>>>
>>>>>1)selling 100 copies when nobody got illegal copy and only 1000 know about it?
>>>>>2)selling 1000 copies when 999000 got it illegally?
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>Do you honestly believe that more people decided to go out and pay for Hiarcs
>>>>and co. because they downloaded it illegally on the Internet and decided they
>>>>wanted to thank the author? Are you serious?
>>>>
>>>> Albert
>>>
>>>I do not claim that the same people who download illegally a program are going
>>>to pay it and it may be friends of friends of them that otherwise would not know
>>>about it.
>>>
>>>I have no opinion about it so I claim nothing but only that it is possible that
>>>people sell more thanks to illegal copies.
>>
>>so you are the one supporting taking away programs anyhow because speculations,
>>I see..
>
>No
>I did not say that I support doing something against the law.
>
>Uri
True, but there is a suggested inferrence merely by the nature of the
possibilities you mention. For example, you don't list the more ethical
possibilities. Instead, you write along the lines of:
- It's possible that he could sell a hundred programs,
- It's possible 1 million copies will be stolen,
- It's possible he will complain about his author rights
- It's possible that the world would be better without author rights
- Obviously leading to it's possible the world would be better if he had no
rights over his program
The fact that you add "it's possible" in front of the dozen statements doesn't
change anything. This is actually covered in basic courses on logic BTW.
Imagine instead if I were to write a post saying:
- It's possible Uri is a dishonest person
- It's possible he wants to sabotage Rybka and the author
- It's possible he is redistributing Rybka via other channels (website, P2P,
etc.)
- It's possible he is also trying to decompile it to understand the code to
steal Vasik's ideas
- It's possible he would add these ideas to his program and then take credit for
them.
- It's possible ... etc.
Note that I do not believe any of the above 'possibilities', but adding 'it's
possible" all the time wouldn't change the fact that I was effectively
mudslinging (deliberately trying to dirty your name).
Albert
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.