Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:54:08 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2001 at 00:48:09, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. > >Terrible example, but I got Ricardo's point. Let's get a better example: >In many (most?) places in US it is illegal for mothers to breastfeed their >babies in public (and there are many other idiotic laws but this one will >suffice). Even in a parking lot, inside your car. We've gone far from the minor example that started this, but I'm willing to travel this road for a while. A better example is that you find out someone is in trouble for evading taxes, so you steal their car, sell it, and and use the money to take a vacation. Or perhaps you read that the local corner grocery is over-charging for baby food, so you go in and steal a six pack of beer and have a party. This is robbing from the imperfect and giving the proceeds to yourself. Robin Hood for the modern age. >Some people breastfeed anyway just because they do not know the law or >because they *believe* that the law is outrageous and even anti-constitutional >or because righteously believe that their children are first. > >Would i judge them as doing something wrong? of course not, in fact I admired >them to follow what they think is correct in their conscience. This is clearly not the same thing as rationalizing what the law considers stealing, in order to get a non-necessity for free. >You present a very linear picture of what is right or wrong, based upon the >written law. It is not that linear. If it were, we would have burocratic >employees doing the justice rather than judges and jurors. There is always >interpretation and there are always laws that contradict each other and many >that contradict the Constitution. It is not an exact science, because the >concept of "right" and "wrong" it is not black and white. There is a lot of >greys. There is no way any court is going to say that you have the right to pirate software because the company is not nice. >Particularly in US, there are lots of people that were willing to disobey the >written law just to have the chance to go to court and show that the law is.. >illegal... (anti-constitutional for instance). Right or wrong Larry Flint comes >to mind. Disobedience is not always a bad thing, and besides, US was built on >disobedience (the second amendment is still there as a living proof). >Chaos is not good, but a perfect order (monopoly) is also bad. When you have >sumise people willing to accept everything you are in real trouble as a country. I don't buy this. Sure, if you think the law is wrong, break the law and face the consequences. That's social protest. But there's no consequence here, it's just a naked attempt to avoid paying. If someone stole Windows or whatever and then contributed the purchase price to a charity, maybe I'd buy that. But I have a feeling that's a rare case. These people just don't want to pay. Software is expensive and they'd rather steal it than pay for it. bruce > >Regards, >Miguel > > > > >> >>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." >> >>Come on. The company's behavior is just a lame excuse to benefit personally. >> >>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.