Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:25:43 07/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 1998 at 14:47:11, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 19, 1998 at 13:43:20, Joe McCarron wrote: > >>On July 18, 1998 at 23:33:16, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On July 18, 1998 at 20:01:36, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>No, I don't believe they are asking us if we steal or not; they asked how much >>>>stolen programs are, independently of our behaviour. Besides, this is a far more >>>>complex issue than hust to be an honest guy or to be a thief. It is not the case >>>>you purchase it or you get it wit a gun. There is a middle, intermediate area >>>>where you are not a thief neither a customer. Many times happens that you get a >>>>pirated progrtam that was copied by the first time a lot time ago and it is not >>>>even a competitor in the market and I think in that case to qualify as a thief >>>>the guy that accept it would too much. If somebody send me a pirated copy of, >>>>let us say, sargon V, I will take it gladly I and will not feel I am a thief. >>>>And then there is the case of a friend that purchase a current program and then >>>>decides to give you one copy of it. Are you a thief if you accept the gift? >>> >>>This is a slippery slope. >>> >>>Software piracy is different from normal theft for several reasons. A few big >>>ones are that there is almost no chance of getting caught, and you don't have to >>>take a real object away from someone. You can take a full disk that is yours >>>and a blank disk that is yours, and from this create something that is not >>>legally yours, and then you distribute it. There are also lots of convenient >>>ways of rationalizing this kind of thing. >>> >>>But it is theft, of course. Someone out there has specified terms by which you >>>can use their property, and you circumvented these terms and did something that >>>is prohibited by the license and by law, as well as by any conventional code of >>>ethics. >>> >>>I am not a lawyer, but I expect that out of print software is also protected by >>>copyright, and I expect that you've it is also against the law in most places to >>>receive stolen software. >>> >>>The argument, "I didn't actually do the copying, so I'm not liable", is an >>>argument that can only be made by someone who doesn't expect to get caught, and >>>therefore needs only to convince themselves. You know very well that this would >>>not fly if you were actually busted for having this stuff. >>> >>>Don't expect everyone to reinforce your fallacies if you post them publicly. >>> >>>bruce >>On a related note: Here in the states most states except louisiana have adopted >>the Uniform commercial code. The committee that writes it is considering how to >>handle licencing of software. The problem is you usually don't find out about >>all the restrictions on the use of the software until after you already bought >>it and opened the box and in some cases you get this big long list of >>restrictions when your installing it. I don't think I've ever seen software >>that lists all of the restrictions it has on the outside of the box. So the >>question is: should those restrictions be enforcable? The committee is >>considering what basic assumptions people should have regarding what they can >>and can't do with software that they purchase. I have no insight as to what >>they will ultimately decide but it should be interesting. >>-Joe > >I believe there should be no restrictions on making copies of anything >that is copyable including music, software books and yes, even IDEAS. > >In this society however it may not be feasable since we live in a >pretty materialistic one. I honor the rules myself, I have signed >nondisclosure agreements and marketed programs myself. But if I >wrote the rules I would relax or do away with these restrictions, >perhaps slowly so as to not disrupt things too much. > >Something doesn't seem quite right about considering an idea as >something you can legally OWN. I understand the reasoning behind >this and have heard all the arguments. But an idea is something >that is discovered, not created. And in my opinion ANY idea >should be in the public domain. > >I have no problem with selling anything people will buy. But I >don't like the artificial restriction of limiting what they can >do with this product once they have it. I know this is extreme >but I basically feel this way about patents and copyrights. >They are all based on the concept of "ownership" of something >that should be free in my opinion. > Wow. You are very generous. So if you come up with an idea or product, you would not mind if I take your discovery, that you might of spent many years developing, and many dollars developing, and I just start selling your product and not give you a dime for it. I wish you had discovered Teflon or something good like that. I would be sitting on a beach in Hawaii right now. >I know these ideas would not work very well in todays society >and like I say, we have to live by the rules. I oppose software >piracy for this very reason, but not in principle. > >- Don
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.