Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 05:37:37 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2001 at 02:54:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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. We were talking about the case where I buy software and install it in my computer at home and in my office at work paying only once, to be used clearly only once at a time by the same user. I do not believe this is "piracy", I would not label this as stealing. Regards, Miguel > >>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.