Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:40:43 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1998 at 01:05:17, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 21, 1998 at 22:42:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 1998 at 18:40:20, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>>>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*. >>>> >>>>It should be the same like stealing from a bank, or from a department store >>>> >>>>It is not the same because most of the humans do not see it like that >>>>If I see someone is stealing from a bank I will call the police but if I know >>>>someone is stealing programs I will not do it because I do not want everybody to >>>>hate me >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>The difference is in the amount stolen and the use of violence. >>>If you steal 10 dollars from a bank by finding a clever non-violoent >>>way to do this which is virutally guaranteed not to get you caught, >>>then it might not seem so bad (although it is in my opinion) If you >>>bend over and pick up a lost dollar you think nothing of it, but if >>>you find $100 then you debate your conscience about whether to make >>>an attempt to locate the owner. Is there a difference? I'm not sure >>>about the missing money and I think it is an example of something that >>>might not be so clear cut. I disagree with Bob and Bruce that >>>everything is black and white, but I agree with them both that >>>software piracy is stealing and cannot be justified. With software >>>piracy, the chances of getting caught are astronomically low and >>>I think that can affect our judgements. Also, it's a case of group >>>reinforcement or mob mentality. We are conditioned by life to >>>compare, and if everyone is doing something, it's really hard to >>>see it as wrong. It almost seems to become right by consent. >>> >> >> >>I don't view the amount stolen, or the lack/presence of violence when >>stealing it as having anything to do with whether it is right or wrong. >>It is stealing. Stealing is against the law. Hence, by definition, it >>is wrong. > >Bob, this is so typical of the way you think. To you it's right and >wrong, black and white. You seem to think only in extremes. I >actually agreed with you in the last paragraph about it being wrong >and you keep restating the same old worn out point post after post. > >The point I am making is not whether it is wrong or not, but whether >it makes sense to view stealing a penny the same as stealing an old >ladies life savings. I have no doubt whatsover that you will view >these two things as equal in severity. > >I also am convinced, if we follow your reasoning, that you must be an >incredibly immoral person too like Fernando obviously is. Somewhere >down the road you've surely slipped up and took a pencil home from >work or some other such deed that put's you in the same category as >the criminal Ferando and the guy that takes old ladies life savings. > > That's beside the point totally. This is not a discussion about what is "moral" or about what is "right and wrong" in a moral sense. We are talking about what is *legal* in a contractural sense. If you sign a contract, and then refuse to live up to the agreement you signed, you can be tried and found guilty in a court of law. When you open a piece of software, and read the license agreement, and break the seal, you just agreed to the terms of the license. If you don't abide by that license, you are performing an illegal act. If I steal a pencil from work, that is wrong. Is it less wrong than stealing a computer? Probably. At least our legal system recognizes petty larceny and grand larceny as two separate crimes with two different sentencing guidelines. But clearly both are illegal unless my employer says "I know you work at home as well as at the office, so if you need supplies, feel free to take them with you." But he can't say "you need a copy of MS Word 7? I have a copy on my computer in my office, you can have the CD and install it at home to help you out." Because he would be participating in an illegal action by breaking the license agreement *he* had accepted. My employer can give me permission to take any material object home that he thinks I need, but he can't give me permission to illegally copy a piece of software that is protected by a license agreement with another company. So I don't get your point at all... >>We are not talking about finding a piece of software laying on the street. > >You're the one that doesn't differentiate. I thought you said stealing >is stealing? I believe that the definition of stealing is "to take someone else's property without paying for it." Most legal systems don't recognize "finders keepers, losers weepers". So it would still be stealing. However, the "victim" would be different. If you copy the software illegally, the victim is the software company that holds the rights to the program and which issues the license agreements with its customers. If you drop an unopened copy of MS word on the street, and I find it and take it home, I'm stealing to be sure, but from *you* and not from Microsoft. Because they got their money for that one copy. But it is still stealing... > >>We are talking about someone buying a copy, then giving away copies for >>nothing. And, according to the license agreement included with all commercial >>computer software, that is forbidden, is against the law, and, again, hence >>is wrong. > > >I think I've heard this point before Bob, and I even aknowledged it. >It is the only point you have made but it's taken you thousands of >words to drive it home. > Then why are we continually arguing about the topic? My first post was simple and to the point. If you copy, you are stealing. First Fernando, then Enrique, and now you seem to want to waffle a little and say "maybe it is ok here, but not there, and so forth." When the hiway sign says Speed Limit 70mph, I assume that is what it means, and if I choose to exceed that I realize I am breaking the law, and when I get caught I have to pay for my crime. I don't rationalize it away saying "come on, officer, 75 was barely over 70, surely they meant "about 70" and not "exactly 70"?? > >>>The question you must ask is how do you define right and wrong? >>>Is it defined by the mean behavior of the population or is it >>>an independent standard? Most people, myself included, are >>>extremely influenced by the behaviors and values of others but >>>I believe personally this is wrong. That's why I also believe how >>>you choose your closest friends is pretty important. >>>I noticed as a child my behavior conformed to the type of friends >>>I had. I don't think we ever outgrow this completely but must >>>always take care to watch ourselves. > >>It's not about "right and wrong". It is about honoring a license agreement >>that you agree to honor when you buy and open a piece of software. You agree >>to the terms, then decide that you aren't going to abide by them. That is >>not "right or wrong".. it is *illegal*. > >I know, you've already make this point many times. > > >>>This is a matter where we much choose our own actions and make >>>our own judgments. I defend Fernando for getting a copy of a >>>program that is not attainable from anywhere else and don't see >>>anyone getting hurt over this. Perhaps my judgement is wrong >>>on this point and I admit it could be. From what I've heard >>>from him he does not seek out free software but does feel a >>>sense of obligation as far as purchase is concerned. And maybe >>>it's even true that he has rationalized things in his mind. >>>Should we all rush to be the first to throw the stones at him? >>> >>>- Don > > >>your judgement is wrong. It is illegal anywhere in the USA to obtain a >>copy of a piece of software that you did not purchase, because wherever you >>obtain such a copy, *they* were bound by a license agreement between them >>and the software producer. And they are stealing from the producer. And you >>are knowingly receiving stolen goods and can be sentenced to the exact same >>prison or hit with the same fine as they can, because you are engaged in a >>conspiricy to defraud the original producer of profit. > >Are you saying it is wrong? I think I've heard this point. > but read back what you wrote above. "I defend Fernando for getting a copy ..." So perhaps you heard my point, but you didn't accept the legality issue as valid. otherwise... > >>He also stated that "if a friend asks me for a copy, should I tell the friend >>'no'? or should I treat him as a friend and give him a free copy?" He then >>went on to say that he does the latter. Do you not agree that is *illegal* >>both with US and international copyright / patent laws? > >I thought I agreed with this long ago? > > >>I see no way to justify his statement, and find such a topic totally offensive >>for those that choose to sell software of any kind for a living. If Ed didn't >>care about copies, he'd be doing as I do with Crafty, and giving the thing away >>for nothing. >> >>He sells it. I assume he wants to eat. And he has the right to expect that >>each copy of Rebel used around the world contributed to his income. I agree >>with him 100%... > >Don't you think enough is enough? You have persued Fernando like a >bloodthirsty pack of dogs. I really believe you are getting carried >away with your righteous indignation. > I'm not a "bloodthirsty pack of dogs". His position is totally offensive to me and many others. Sorry if it sounds like I'm hounding him for other reasons. I simply don't like software piracy, because it ends up affecting *ME*. I have to pay higher prices for the products I buy because software companies have to raise the price to cover their losses by packs of thieves. I have to tolerate software copy protection because manufacturers have to resort this in an effort to stifle the software thieves. So it *does* impact me personally. And that I strongly object to. If I were a software producer, I'd have an objection about the lost revenue. But that doesn't affect me other than for the inflated prices necessary to cover the copies that are stolen, because R&D costs *must* be covered, or a company goes out of business. Fernando is the one that keeps trying to justify his position based on financial or whatever reasons. But the last time I looked, just because you are starving you don't have the right to a free shopping trip in the local supermarket. You *still* have to pay. Or use some state-supported food program. But you won't find computer chess programs on that "rack"... those you have to buy no matter what.. > >- Don
This page took 0.01 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.