Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 21:24:52 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 23:41:41, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >Uri Blass wrote (two separate postings, snipped): > >>>>It is illegal but the difference between it and stealing is >>>>that in stealing there is always a victim and in this case >>>>if the user does not want to buy the software in case >>>>that he cannot get it then there is no victim. >>>> >> >>I understand the point but there is still difference between it and what is >>considered to be stealing by all people. >> >>In stealing someone is losing from it relative to the case that it is impossible >>to steal. >>In software piracy it is the case only in part of the cases. >> >>Uri > >Uri, you are struggling very hard to justify something that is morally & legally >wrong. > >Me thinks he doth protest too much--for _some_ reason. I don't know why. > >By your analogy (reductio ad absurdum), if a person doesn't want to pay for >something that belongs to another person/company but instead simply takes it, it >is morally & legally not stealing because there would not have been a 'sale' >anyway. This amounts to: my intentions were never to pay for it, so if I take >it for nothing, no sale was lost, no victim exists, and I am _right_ that it is >morally justifiable! > >I think taking a copy of movei program (first commercial version) would be >great. I can use Uri's own argument to justify it! > >It is a bootstrap argument (hoisting oneself by one's boots is considered an >impossibility--to claim, as well as to do) to say: > >Since I am unwilling to pay for the right to something, then no one is losing a >sale, therefore if I take it without paying for it there is no victim, since >there is no loss. > >Hmm, there is something depraved about this position. > >You said "there is still difference between it and what is considered to be >stealing by all people." Do you think what is right and wrong is _dependent_ on >what people think of it? Or on having a vote that agrees 100% (no dissenters)? > >Hmm. > >Some others here have argued that 'everyone does it, so it is not wrong to do >it'. I was raised to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. We cannot >point to the wrongs of others to _justify_ why we did wrong ourselves. This >would be an attempt to draw attention away from our own wrong, by pointing at >the wrong of others. Children do this all the time--and some adults. Most >adults can see through this attempt at a 'slight of hand.' > >Hmm, but some adults still try the trick of misdirection. > >People who steal have all sorts of sordid, twisted reasons (purported logic) for >doing what they did. They stretch the truth, if they even purport to rely on >it, until it is not recognizable as truth. The denial stage never ends. > >It is said that if you tell a single lie, you have to lie many more times to >cover it up. > >Hmm, maybe this explains unending, tortured attempts to justify a wrong by >twisting facts and notions of morality until it (morality) is no longer >recognizable. > >The law gives rights to authors of software. The rights themselves are >intangible. Yet they are recognizable & enforceable/actionable in a court of >law. Even intangible rights may be stolen or wrongly interfered with by a >thief. > >No reply is necessary. > >--Steve That's a "Convoluted Diatribe" if I ever heard one! Do you think your moralizing serves a purpose? I clarified, I didn't technically pirate software, and that is the crux of the matter. But if you must cast stones be certain you're not living in a glass house. Terry
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.