Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 21:12:20 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 23:54:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 07, 2001 at 22:56:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On August 07, 2001 at 19:01:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>>What bothers me when people say, "I saw these terms, but I choose to break them, >>>and this is alright because <fill in the blank>." That's a transparent attempt >>>to *avoid* responsibility. >> >> >>I'm uncomfortable with your way of looking at things. For instance, suppose >>there is law that requires exposing Jews for extermination. As you can see, >>there are good reasons that can "<fill in the blank>" quite well. > >This is an abhorent example. You compare not stealing software with gassing >people. > >Of course I wouldn't argue that anyone should follow such a law. This can be >flipped around to make equally abhorent examples the other way, but I won't do >that. > >My point is that the terms are broken for personal gain, but there is some >excuse so that the person doesn't have to consider themselves a thief. People >steal the software not as social protest against Microsoft, but to save money. > >These people who are arguing this would happily buy multiple copies of this >stuff if by some economic quirk there was a 200% rebate. > >>In the case of Microsoft, if one believes they are a monopoly, I can see how >>someone might believe they are justified in not following Microsofts dictates if >>they feel Microsoft does the public (and them) harm as a monopoly. Whether they >>are really justified (or whether it is "wise" to to defy Microsoft) is a >>different story, but I would not say they are way off base. > >I think that it's too convenient to say that if a company does this or that >objectionable thing, that it's okay to steal from them. > >"This company desecrates the rain forest, therefore I am morally justified in >stealing money from them." You seem to be pushing me into defending a position I don't really subscribe to, but so be it. I think the individual that views Microsoft as a monoploy, view it as stealing from *them*. Your 2 paragraphs immediately above step neatly around this. > >Come on. The company's behavior is just a lame excuse to benefit personally. You view peoples actions a bit more cynically than I do. While I think that your interpretation is *part* of why most do steal, I am not willing to neither universalize this explanation to all such individuals, nor accord it the status of being the only reason for their theft. I disagree with their behavior, but I am not strongly critical of their actions, since the one they steal from has their "hands dirty" too. Personally, I prefer to keep my "hands clean". > >bruce
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.