Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:04:54 07/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 1998 at 16:38:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Bob: >Just one thing more to add to this already too long but neccesary discussion. >You have proved beyond doubt -nobody had the doubt anyway-that to share even >ocassionally a software is illegal. OK, I accept that. Nevertheless, not always >illegal is equal to larceny ofr stealing. Even happens that sometimes you can >steal legally. American native indians were deprived of his land with one legal >act after another and then, when eventually they tried to recover some, they >were described as thieves, murderers, etc, and crushed like rats. Many times >legality covers the most unfamous stealing, murder and unmorality. That's the >reason why in some cases we consider an act legally described as larceny as the >contrary of it. Robin Hood -if you forgive me this example- is a case. >I am not Robin Hood nor I pretend to be one, but When I had very occasionally >shared a program with somebody of my very near environment, although >knowing that is illegal, I have not felt to be stealing as much, in my humble >opinion, the price that software producers charge for his products is 9 times of >ten a clear abuse. Even so I buy all -just take a look at my Visa card or ask >steve Schwartz or Bert seifritz, etc- but then at leats I give my self certain >limite right to put things in more fair terms when they are not fair. Let us say >all this in other way: You steal when you get something from other guy against >his will, but is not so clear that you are stealing if you get once in 100 times >something for free from a guy that is 99 in 100 times getting something a lot >bigger from you, making use of your neccesity and his position as supplier of >it. You can say "then don't use it", but you know very well not always are you >in position to do that. Clearly, this is the kind of situations where you try to >balance up the things. Economic damage? Yes, but not neccesarily against the >producers. Have you thought the damage customers take all the time from too high >priced software? When you see so many excellent programs priced at 10 or 15 >dollars, many times equally good or better than other priced ten times more >expensively, you slowly gets a feeling that no matter what the print legend say >in the box, the common customer,not the one protected by the funds of an >organizacion, is all the time abused under the pretense of "search and >development investment". You, as a software developer, know very well that >fairness is not the motto in the mouth of great software producers and even many >times neither in little ones. Then, again, in the context of this global setup >of things, to share once or twice in your life an old program is so an slight >balacing of things that it cannot and it should not to be considered so lightly >and harsly as sheer larceny like going to the grocery and take the money with a >pistol. . >Fernando I understand your point. But as I said, I was simply brought up "differently". I have watched young kids that "only" stole a dime here and there grow up into teen-agers that only stole a few dollars (or some beer or snuck into a movie theatre) grow up into young adults that only stole a car... I understand the frustration of the cost of software. And that some consider making a copy for a friend to be ok in some cases, not in others. IE you give away a copy of Rebel and (a) Ed loses nothing because the friend couldn't afford to buy it; or (b) Ed loses a sale but it is only one and really doesn't hurt since you've bought many versions. Or, in another case, like Microsoft, giving a copy of their stuff doesn't hurt because they are one of the wealthiest comp- anies in the world and won't miss it or don't deserve that much money anyway. My main point is that it is bad enough to copy software in violation of the license agreement, but to try to justify it as ok, is *not* ok. Suppose some young kids visit here and read such comments? One of the requirements in the ACM Computer Science Curriculum is a unit on "computer ethics" which covers just this topic. TO say "it's ok" invites a world of young kids to do this, which means that when *they* grow up, license agreements will be totally useless as they have been "conditioned" to ignore them, because it is "ok"... I've made this an absolute in my house, as did my parents when they raised me. I believe I turned out ok in this regard. And that my kids will to. I'm not sure how it would be if they had seen me constantly copying/stealing computer software and games. They tend to "generalize" and that leads to bigger troubles. Hopefully you understand my perspective. It is not a personal problem with you. It is a definite moral issue with the "concept"...
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.