Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:08:48 07/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 1998 at 11:43:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On July 21, 1998 at 00:00:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 20, 1998 at 20:23:39, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>On July 20, 1998 at 14:31:54, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On July 20, 1998 at 11:54:38, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>There was a lot to comment on here, but I will comment on only a little. >>>> >>>>>¿Shouldn't be so? Maybe, but is is so. Like in everything else, sin and santity >>>>>mixs a lot. I don't feel any pride because I have received programs, I don't >>>>>feel priode either because I have given programs, but surely I don't feel to be >>>>>a thief because I have done both things. >>>> >>>>This is what I can't understand. It is not so much that you pirate the >>>>software, but rather that you claim that doing so is value neutral. >>>> >>>>I am sure that some other readers agree with you. I don't. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>Hi Bruce: >>>Maybe the problem arises for the sheer use of so a charged expresion as >>>"piracy". I agree with you that a russian zar copying a program thousand of >>>times to do business is a pirat, but just to do ocassionally a copy for a friend >>>or receive one in the same terms seems to me to be no more than the usual way >>>this kind of merchandise is used all around the world with full knowledege of >>>all parts. In any case, it does not means a damage for nobody, on the contrary. >>>When I purchase a program X and a friend purchase program Y and then we both >>>share the programs, the total sum of programs sold is two, but if any of us, >>>friends, were to assume the almost inhumane behaviour not to share nothing with >>>the other, the total sum would be not 4 programs, but maybe just one or none; >>>because part of the passion of this hobby and so the will to purchase take his >>>strenght from being a shared hobby; much of my interest would vanishes if i >>>could not share not only ideas but ocassionally something more with my relatives >>>in this issue. You see, Bruce, this is more a questions of human relations and >>>the way a certain behaviour is kept running than a legal issue that divides >>>people in good and bad guys. >>>Fernando >> >>But none of this gets past the basic point: when something is sold, and you >>obtain a copy without paying the purchase price, this is stealing (larceny) >>plain and simple. There is no defense, no justification, and no nice way of >>putting this. >> >>To imply that it is "o.k." to do this is not only a grossly wrong opinion, it >>is both criminally and morally wrong, and ought not be suggested nor tolerated. >> >>I can't believe the discussion is even going on. It's just like stealing from >>a bank, or from a department store. No difference at all. And it is also >>*wrong*. > >No, Bruce, it's you that is missing the basic point: software is not the same >thing as a heap of money in the bank vault. It is intrinsic in its nature thee >likelihood to be copied, be for back-up or anything else. Anything else means an >ocassional copy to a friend, not of course thousands of copies for doing >business. As much as you can lend your car without automobile officers saying >you tou are stealing them a fraction of business, equally you can give an >ocassional copy witouth comitting your "larceny". I hate to make this type of statement, but the above is complete, utter, total bullshit. For the following reasons: (1) I can "loan" my car. I can't go to a dealer, steal an exact duplicate and give that to my friend. There is *one* copy of my car. Not two or more. So that analagy is stupid. (2) copying software is stealing. A company pays people to write the code. When you *steal* a copy, the company is deprived of that revenue, yet they certainly paid out the labor costs to develop the software. So they lose money just as if you walked into their office, opened a drawer, and took a wad of money out and left with it. There is *no* difference at all. You are saying that "a little stealing is ok, but a lot is not." That is wrong, and you'd get buried alive in any court of law you'd care to try to justify such behavior in. Stealing is Stealing, whether it is $1.00 or $1,000.00. Both are wrong. That's the reason You cannot >analyze things just on the ground of the type letter printed in a box. What is >honest, tolerated, etc is a matter of costumes, uses, mores, etc. It seems you >live inside the world of a legal TV sopa opera, with Perry Mason as the maind >character. The reason you have juries and we have judges is precisely to examine >the specific things asociated with an eventual act. If not was so, it would be >enough just to consult the books. I am sure that Ed does not expect that when I >purchase his products I am, later, to refuse a copy to a friend if he ask one to >me. Not only is the above wrong, it is completely rediculous. Check your copy of Rebel, and look at the license agreement. And please quote the exact text here that leads you believe that "Ed doesn't mind if I give a copy to a friend." That is a rediculous statement. I sell you ten dollars worth of gasoline, and I don't mind if you take another ten dollar's worth for your friend? Hogwash. >Would you do such a thing? He, Ed, knows that this kind of limited sharing >is part of the business and probably it is included in the price of each Rebel >he sell. Maybe in a pure theoretical world any of us should not share nothing >not even with your mother in order to respect the printed letters in the box, >but this is the real world and I am happy it is so and not one under the >surveillance of so an unflexible glance as yours. >fernando Bruce is not inflexible. You are a thief. There's no middle ground here. Just check the license agreement that comes with your copy of Rebel and then explain how you justify your rediculous stance here.
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.