Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 03:23:48 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 1998 at 14:08:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 21, 1998 at 11:43:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>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. In context, and much as I hate saying it, this is a most unintelligent statement. Fernando is considered as an excellent customer by software dealers. He buys every single piece of chess software that comes to the market. He admits having an illegal copy of Sargon V. Calling him a thief (connotations of morally degraded, personally disqualified) because of this is as valid as calling idiot someone that makes an idiotic remark. > 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 ridiculous stance here. Again, legal = moral (always). This is ridiculous. Get a book of History, read the papers and you’ll find out how often this rigid equation has been laughable when not directly criminal. What’s Fernando’s crime? Worse than having a free copy of a program, the fact that he dared to say it here, in public. In my book this is a sign of honesty that I personally value. As a rule, piracy should not happen for the simple reason that it hurts (my morals). For the rest, I find much more immoral calling Fernando a thief than having an unpaid copy of Sargon. It is a pity that an issue that started as a debate about the general issue of software piracy ends up in insults. This, which I also consider immoral, should never happen. Enrique >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 0.21 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.