Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:22:20 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1998 at 05:39:01, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On July 21, 1998 at 22:48:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 1998 at 15:45:55, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>All my software is legal. All my chess software is so legal that was sent to me >>>by the manufacturers themselves. No theft involved of any kind, thank you very >>>much. >>> >>>The example I gave had to do with using the same copy of an operating system on >>>several computers I have (also legal=bought). >>> >>>Enrique >> >>maybe I'm the exception then. Because I have a copy of *everything* I use. I >>have win95 on this notebook dual-booted with linux. I have win95 on my wife's >>machine here at the house. And I have win95 on another notebook she uses (it >>is ours personally as well) and I can produce 3 copies of win95 CD's with the >>original Microsoft Hologram logo on the cases. Ditto for *every* piece of >>software I use. From microsoft office on two machines, with two CD's here, >>to a host of crap sent to me with my P6/200 gateway. > >It makes me feel so awful... I have 3 copies of Windows 95 and 4 computers >running it. One of Windows 98 installed in one computer. How sinful can I be by >not following the rules! > >My consolation: from 1920 to 1933, the Ulysses of Joyce was prohibited in the US >because of its obscene contents. Anyone buying it was breaking the law and >some were prosecuted for selling illegal stuff. Now the Ulysses is considered by >most as the greatest novel written in English in the last 100 years and it is >taught in all Universities, where they laugh at the stupidity of those times. >Laws, morals, personal decisions. To a great extent we are not talking laws and >going by the book, but about how to behave when something is perceived as >absurd. > >>At UAB, we are *required* to maintain careful software inventories and be >>*certain* that if we have 10 copies of a piece of software on 10 computers, >>that we have *10* licenses for that software on file in my office (I am our >>lab director here). It's a pain to keep up with, but we do so. And we do >>*not* copy without paying the license fees (we have hundreds of "site-licenses" >>where we can copy a CD ourselves, and forward a small license fee to the vendor >>due to the large volume we do here. But it is 100% backed up by paperwork. >> >>I find the cavalier attitude about software piracy to be quite surprising here. > >You make it sound as if I were in favor of piracy. I said the opposite many >times. As a rule with, as usual, a gateway. For instance: I have a copy of Rebel >8 installed in all my computers. I also installed it on the Toshiba of my 11 >years old son, machine that I never use. Is that a reason for buying a new copy? >It would feel ridiculous to me, probably also to Ed, so I didn't. > >>As though it's the same as taking a book of matches from a hotel bar. Even >>though the matchbook is worth $.02 and was given away by the hotel, while the >>software was worth much more and was restricted to one user. Another sign of >>gross moral decay in the world I suppose... > >Nothing new under the sun. People not going necessarily by the book have always >been around, often as a breath of fresh air. Inquisitors too, passing moral >judgements on others while in favor of tearing people apart... > >Enrique You err, and badly too. I am *not* "passing moral judgement" at all. This is *not* a "moral issue." It is about what is legal and what is illegal, or about what is in agreement with international law and what is not in agreement with international law. You have a written contract (license agreement) that came with the software you bought. The "I don't believe Ed really meant.." is baloney. If he didn't "mean it" he would not have had it put into the license agreement in the first place. When you drive, and you see a "speed limit 100kph" sign, do you drive 120 or 100? And if you get caught at 120, do you defend yourself by telling the police officer "no way they really meant 100 was the limit, that's just a suggestion, but I'm a much better than average driver and I have a car that is much better than the average car, so obviously they didn't mean to apply that law to *me*" again, baloney... You don't get to "interpret" the law. Your responsibility is to "obey" the law. It seems that perhaps you don't in all cases. That's ok. You are in a lot of company. Of course, *should* you get caught, you will end up in *different* company... because I don't think a judge would buy the "it's ok if friends share this, it's just not ok if I try to sell it to someone else." Because he will read the license agreement, and come to the same conclusion that I do (and many others do). And it will have *nothing* to do with "morals" or "right and wrong". It will be a pure question of "legality".
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.