martens@calorie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (08/20/89)
In article <6865@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >>> I consider actually lifting product from the shelves to be a crime. >>> I don't consider, say, an employee taking a piece of software home, >>> copying it, bringing it back and re-shelving it with new labels and >>> all to be a crime in the slightest.) >I don't care who copies what; as far as I'm concerned, unless >something physical is stolen there is no problem- no one loses >anything except the publisher, and that only theoretically. And don't >even bother to tell me that the employee who takes home a software >package every night to dupe would have bought 180-odd software >packages in a year. They don't get paid that well. So I guess you'd say that if I were to photocopy a copyrighted book and sell photocopies for less than the publishers price, I haven't committed a crime. So what if I broke the law? Nothing physical was stolen, so no crime was committed. I guess I don't see how you can justify stealing software, especially if you've worked professionally as a developer. The salaries of the designers, programmers, marketers, etc. have to be paid somehow. If a large segment of the potential market is getting the product for free, then the business becomes less profitable. What does this mean to Joe User? Well, the developer's resources are cut back, so expect fewer new products, fewer upgrades, less customer support, etc., simply because immoral dweebs feel justified in stealing copyrighted software (or books, or films, or recordings, whatever) and justify their theft by saying, "Duh, uh, but nothing physical was stolen." Maybe the cretin who regularly walks off with free software wouldn't buy 180-odd software packages per year. But, maybe he should have to pay for the ones he actually uses, just to keep the companies producing useful software afloat and active. I have no real problem with someone borrowing software for a test drive -- I've been burned by bad software purchases myself -- but I feel that someone who does this has a moral responsibility to buy the package if he's gonna keep it. Otherwise, he's just a parasite. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Jim & Tammy: living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
bob@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) (08/20/89)
I used to feel the same way Robert does. But a few years ago when I started selling my own program for the C64 (Sequel BBS, which I wanted to sell for $29 and the publisher wanted to sell for $59) got heavily pirated. I was pissed. Then I realized what I hipocrite I was. Over the past couple years I have purchased everything I use regularly, bought some used games, and covered up the remaining disks with useful PD stuff. And I feel great. I also erased all my videos and am now searching for used copies at video stores. So, now you have a confession of a reformed pirate. I hope other folks follow my example. By the way, does anybody have a used Marble Madness they'd like to sell? I do miss that game. (And a used VHS BladeRunner, Aliens, Brazil, or Ferris Bueller would be welcome as well.) Enough preaching, thanks for listening, | Bob Richardson (or, for you UNIX buffs: bob@jacobs.cs.orst.edu) | | 218 NW 21st #2 Corvallis, OR 97330 503-758-5018 | | "They can't afford to pay their taxes... There must be too | | many economists in the government." -- The Doctor |
cfchiesa@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Christopher Chiesa) (08/21/89)
In article <58013@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, martens@calorie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes: > In article <6865@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: > > >>> I consider actually lifting product from the shelves to be a crime. > >>> I don't consider, say, an employee taking a piece of software home, > >>> copying it, bringing it back and re-shelving it with new labels and > >>> all to be a crime in the slightest.) > > >I don't care who copies what; as far as I'm concerned, unless > >something physical is stolen there is no problem- no one loses > >anything except the publisher, and that only theoretically. > > So I guess you'd say that if I were to photocopy a copyrighted book > and sell photocopies for less than the publishers price, I haven't > committed a crime. If you had the resources to do this, and put out a readable (e.g. legible) copy of whatever-it-was, I personally would buy from YOU rather than the PUBLISHER, because your price was better for an essentially equivalent product! I don't need to pay through the nose for fancy binding, cover art, etc. etc. etc. as long as the INFORMATION contained is complete. Now if you started taking liberties and editing stuff out, I'd get angry... To me, anyway, this sounds like Free Enterprise. If the laws against this sort of thing didn't exist, competition in the marketplace would lead to QUALITY products at LOW prices, since those that couldn't compete would just go out of business, period. That's the way basic economics were originally said to work... Supply and Demand, Survival of the Fittest, etc. >So what if I broke the law? Nothing physical was > stolen, so no crime was committed. This is an irrelevant point: the Law (capital letter intentional) is largely arbitrary, based on tradition and precedent. This can be taken far too much to an extreme: surely you've heard anguished "war stories" about people who can't get some organization to adopt a new, improved policy because "we've ALWAYS done it this way"? The Law works the same way, by and large -- hence the upheaval when new social issues arise to be "dealt with" -- "Oh my God, we have NO PRECEDENT to fall back on, we actually have to THINK about what we're doing...!" Phooey. > > I guess I don't see how you can justify stealing software, especially > if you've worked professionally as a developer. The salaries of the > designers, programmers, marketers, etc. have to be paid somehow. If a > large segment of the potential market is getting the product for free, > then the business becomes less profitable. Yes, but SO WHAT? So many arguments "against piracy" make a big point of the fact that "piracy cuts into profits," potential or otherwise. I say, SO WHAT? The purpose of the Law is NOT supposed to be "protect corporate profits," it is no more and no less than to allow people to live their individual and col- lective lives as best they can, with a "fair chance" for everyone: developers and pirates alike! If the developers can produce software (or books or films or videos or records or CDs or...) more cheaply than the pirates can pirate them, the developers gain ground; likewise, if the reverse, the pirates gain ground. All in all, a hundred years from now who'll care? (Okay, okay, a hundred years from now, today's legal decisions will be hidebound tradition themselves, but I've already taken as a "given" that today's laws are ridicu- lous, else I wouldn't be writing this.) >What does this mean to Joe > User? Well, the developer's resources are cut back, so expect fewer > new products, fewer upgrades, less customer support, etc., FROM *THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPER*. Too bad, that one "lost the round" as described under "fair chance for everybody" and "Free Market," above! So the game (that's what it all is, anyway) goes on; that developer goes out of business, his employees disperse and work for someone else... In the long run, development will continue (although NOT forever on ANY particular machine), and so will piracy, and that's that. I'd like the police to step in when the stakes get high enough that pirates and developers start SHOOTING at each other, but until then I feel they ought to leave things alone and let the whole issue sort ITSELF out. (That's what it'll eventually do ANYWAY, in the long run.) (This reminds me of someone's suggestion recently to "put all the drug pushers and users in one place, give 'em all the guns they want, and let 'em kill each other off." Makes sense to me!) > because immoral dweebs feel justified in stealing copyrighted software "Immoral" is relative. If something is against YOUR morals, DON'T DO IT. But don't impose YOUR morals on someone else whose morals are DIFFERENT. (And yes, if someone's morals allow him to break into my house, that's covered too -- because MY morals allow me to fight him off with whatever means are available, including killing him in cold blood.) > (or books, or films, or recordings, whatever) and justify their theft > by saying, "Duh, uh, but nothing physical was stolen." You'll note that not once have I said "nothing physical was stolen." That doesn't enter the picture at all, either way. > Maybe the cretin who regularly walks off with free software wouldn't > buy 180-odd software packages per year. But, maybe he should have to > pay for the ones he actually uses, just to keep the companies > producing useful software afloat and active. Heh. Read Steven Levy's HACKERS. I think the world would have been better off if the Hacker Ethic had become the standard: everything done by every programmer enters the (now-called) public domain, and everyone who wants to use it has the right to do so. They used to keep their executables (on paper tape) in an UNLOCKED drawer where anyone could share them. Nice eh! > I have no real problem with someone borrowing software for a test > drive -- I've been burned by bad software purchases myself -- but I > feel that someone who does this has a moral responsibility to buy the > package if he's gonna keep it. Otherwise, he's just a parasite. Agreed, in the sense that if this user claims to participate in the same civilization and society as the "general public," our society's current stand- ards (well, the ones we'll spout if asked directly; not necessarily the way we actually ACT) of ethics say that the user SHOULD recompense the creator of the work. But, again, this is all relative, and it is NOT the Law's responsi- bility to enforce it in cases where the user and creator have not agreed beforehand that X amount of money will be exchanged for product P (as in over-the-counter sales: obtaining a product in ANY fashion (including break- ing into Computer Shed at midnight and TAKING it) from a registered/designated Place Of Business would thus constitute an implicit agreement that money is to be traded for goods, making the breaking-and-entering type of obtainment a "breach of contract." I'm sure some of this makes sense to SOME people, and NOT to others, and that the same parts don't make sense to the same people. But, like I said, in a hundred years who'll care? :-) > -=- > -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) > > Jim & Tammy: living proof that you can fool some of the people all of > the time. ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Speaking of "ethics..." :-) -- UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (08/21/89)
In article <58013@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> martens@calorie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes:
So I guess you'd say that if I were to photocopy a copyrighted book
and sell photocopies for less than the publishers price, I haven't
committed a crime. So what if I broke the law? Nothing physical was
stolen, so no crime was committed.
Ahh, but our survey says "EHHHHHHH". You would be making a profit off
of someone else's work. Piracy makes no one a profit; on the contrary,
the point is *not* to pay. Then again, anyone who pays for pirate
anything (unless the original is unavailable) gets what they deserve.
I guess I don't see how you can justify stealing software, especially
if you've worked professionally as a developer. The salaries of the
designers, programmers, marketers, etc. have to be paid somehow. If a
large segment of the potential market is getting the product for free,
then the business becomes less profitable. What does this mean to Joe
User? Well, the developer's resources are cut back, so expect fewer
new products, fewer upgrades, less customer support, etc., simply
because immoral dweebs feel justified in stealing copyrighted software
(or books, or films, or recordings, whatever) and justify their theft
by saying, "Duh, uh, but nothing physical was stolen."
Yeah, this kills me, because I'm a comp sci major and I like to
program a lot. I don't know what I'm ever going to do to make money,
because most people knowing my attitudes on piracy ("Shh! Here's a
beta-test copy of my latest work. Don't spread it around.... too
far!") wouldn't touch me with a ten foot pole. However, I honestly
don't believe piracy makes much of a measurable dent at all, since as
I've said a billion times, 90% of piracy is done by people who would
never have bought it in the first place. (Retort: "Well, what if
someone couldn't afford a car? Would that give him the right to steal
one?" Counter-retort: "No, because then someone else would have to go
without that car. Such is not the case with Arkanoid IV.") So, given a
reasonable price, good documentation and solid programming (not to
mention effective marketing) piracy will only have an effect on
bozotic companies/developers. Certainly not me. (ego, ego)
Maybe the cretin who regularly walks off with free software wouldn't
buy 180-odd software packages per year. But, maybe he should have to
pay for the ones he actually uses, just to keep the companies
producing useful software afloat and active.
Life ain't fair, is it. Bummer. When you start spouting "should"s you
get into very dangerous waters, because I can just as easily say "no
one SHOULD have to pay for anything".
I have no real problem with someone borrowing software for a test
drive -- I've been burned by bad software purchases myself -- but I
feel that someone who does this has a moral responsibility to buy the
package if he's gonna keep it. Otherwise, he's just a parasite.
That actually makes a bit of sense. I've only once or twice (and that
was in my Commodore 64 days) pirated something I've used every day.
Usually I pirate some game to divert me for a day or two since there's
no such thing as software rentals. (Hell, we've got 2 vcr's here most
of the year and I've still never copied a tape I've rented....) The
other option is that yes, I take a piece of productivity software
(MicroFiche comes to mind) for a test drive. When I can afford it, if
I've decided it's not a piece of crap, I buy it.
However, as I said before, if he can't afford it and it makes his life
more convenient to have it, what does the author lose? And don't say
"if he gives it to one he must give it to everyone" because the choice
is not his- it's people like you and me, and people who run the pirate
boards, and people who have gotten SneakerNet down to a science, who
make that decision.
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS>
Pi-Rho America \\ /// Blah
2346 15th St. \\ ///
Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order
(518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rushkudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (08/21/89)
In article <12133@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> bob@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) writes:
I used to feel the same way Robert does. But a few years ago when I
started selling my own program for the C64 (Sequel BBS, which I wanted
to sell for $29 and the publisher wanted to sell for $59) got heavily
pirated. I was pissed. Then I realized what I hipocrite I was.
Ah, but that's why I question my choice of careers. Just recently,
I've seen a friend of mine who started me off on Amiga stuff (are you
listening, Mr. S.U.?) become a developer and as such, an instant
hypocrite. "I don't like piracy anymore. I'm a developer now." Hell,
I've written stuff myself! Trading Post BBS on the C64 was really a
piece of shit, but it was better than some of the commercial efforts
and I made a little money off of it in shareware. My Mac to 64
converter was slow, but it was the first one, and I made money off of
it, too. (Note that by "make money" I don't mean "profit". When I'm
programming for recreation, which is the only way I program, I
consider my time to be free.)
Over the past couple years I have purchased everything I use regularly,
bought some used games, and covered up the remaining disks with useful
PD stuff. And I feel great. I also erased all my videos and am now
searching for used copies at video stores.
Have you come into money recently? That's the other thing that usually
brings about such a change, I find. But what on earth will you do with
hundreds of blanks?
(Video piracy is something else altogether. At least you can rent
movies; the only real reason to pirate them is to have them on hand at
all times. Good enough reason to me.)
So, now you have a confession of a reformed pirate. I hope other
folks follow my example.
And right alongside, someone who decided to follow the straight and
narrow for over a year before realizing I wasn't having any more fun
computing. There are just no good games in the public domain, and I'm
too damned broke to lay out hundreds of bucks for games I'll play a
dozen times or so. Software rentals, at least, would help that out a
bit. But I'm not about to become a hypocrite, either. (At least not in
that regard.) Born-again Christians preach reform, too, you know.
Oh yeah, and not having two hundred bucks to blow on a compiler kind
of puts a cramp on my development work to begin with. Developing on a
one meg one drive system is a bitch, but at least with a pirated copy
of Lattice in hand, it's possible..... not that I do any right now.
By the way, does anybody have a used Marble Madness they'd like to sell?
I do miss that game. (And a used VHS BladeRunner, Aliens, Brazil, or
Ferris Bueller would be welcome as well.)
OK OK, I have to admit there are movies I would only settle for the
original of: Torch Song Trilogy, Ferris Bueller (but I don't have to
because everyone else has pirated it, la la la! :) ), that Bob and oug
Mackensie movie, Rocky Horror (but it's not available legally, so la
la la), etc. But have you honestly played Marble Madness enough for it
to be worth the fifty bucks or whatever they wanted for it originally?
I doubt it; no one has an attention span that long for a game that
simple......
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS>
Pi-Rho America \\ /// Blah
2346 15th St. \\ ///
Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order
(518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rushbob@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) (08/21/89)
In article <6876@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >Usually I pirate some game to divert me for a day or two since there's >no such thing as software rentals. (Hell, we've got 2 vcr's here most >of the year and I've still never copied a tape I've rented....) The No such thing as software rentals? I know of several places in Oregon that rent software. Games go for like $5 for 2 days and productivity goes for $30 or something. Its all a function of list price. Of course nearly everything is infected with a virus, so renter beware. And all the manuals for productivity software invariable have pages missing and coffee stains. But rentals do exist. | Bob Richardson (or, for you UNIX buffs: bob@jacobs.cs.orst.edu) | | 218 NW 21st #2 Corvallis, OR 97330 503-758-5018 | | "They can't afford to pay their taxes... There must be too | | many economists in the government." -- The Doctor |
bob@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) (08/21/89)
In article <6877@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >it, too. (Note that by "make money" I don't mean "profit". When I'm >programming for recreation, which is the only way I program, I >consider my time to be free.) I feel the same way. If I wanted to make money in software I wouldn't have bought an Amiga. (And come to think of it, if I hadn't have bought an Amiga I would probably have enough cash to buy gas for my car right now.) > > Over the past couple years I have purchased everything I use regularly, > bought some used games, and covered up the remaining disks with useful > PD stuff. And I feel great. I also erased all my videos and am now > searching for used copies at video stores. > >Have you come into money recently? That's the other thing that usually >brings about such a change, I find. But what on earth will you do with >hundreds of blanks? Actually, no, I have not come into money recently. I took awhile to save up for the productivity packages. As far as games are concerned, they can be obtained quite cheaply. Just watch for messages in this very newsgroup. >(Video piracy is something else altogether. At least you can rent >movies; the only real reason to pirate them is to have them on hand at >all times. Good enough reason to me.) You can rent software, too. See my other posting. (Maybe you can't in your state, I don't know.) > > So, now you have a confession of a reformed pirate. I hope other > folks follow my example. > >And right alongside, someone who decided to follow the straight and >narrow for over a year before realizing I wasn't having any more fun >computing. There are just no good games in the public domain, and I'm >too damned broke to lay out hundreds of bucks for games I'll play a >dozen times or so. Software rentals, at least, would help that out a >bit. But I'm not about to become a hypocrite, either. (At least not in >that regard.) Born-again Christians preach reform, too, you know. So don't lay out hundreds of bucks for games NEW, buy them used from some other poor soul who was dumb enough to pay retail in the first place. You say you are a programmer, so if there are no good games in the public domain, write one. It seems you think there are no good games to buy either. Born-again Christinas also think people are inherently worthless without divine intervention. I think just the opposite.. >Oh yeah, and not having two hundred bucks to blow on a compiler kind >of puts a cramp on my development work to begin with. Developing on a >one meg one drive system is a bitch, but at least with a pirated copy >of Lattice in hand, it's possible..... not that I do any right now. Perhaps what we need is a software welfare system. You submit a financial aid form to Lattice, and they give you a Student Loan Compiler that you pay for after you graduate, but that would be really complicated. If you DID have an extra $200, would you spend it on the compiler or do you have other priorities? > By the way, does anybody have a used Marble Madness they'd like to sell? > I do miss that game. (And a used VHS BladeRunner, Aliens, Brazil, or > Ferris Bueller would be welcome as well.) > >la la), etc. But have you honestly played Marble Madness enough for it >to be worth the fifty bucks or whatever they wanted for it originally? >I doubt it; no one has an attention span that long for a game that >simple...... Perhaps I find the artwork quite appealing. Its very Escher-like. Some of the best games are simple. Who would have an attention span long enough for a game like checkers? I can already win Marble Madness every time I play it, but I still like it. Perhaps it has to do with a child- hood fascination with marbles, gravity, and kinetic sculpture. And no, I wouldn't spend $50 for it. I said I was looking for a USED copy. But perhaps your attention span isn't long enough for you to fully read my original posting. At least, Robert, even though I disagree with your attitudes toward piracy, you have given thought to your position. Perhaps with more thinking and more time one of us will change our minds (again). | Bob Richardson (or, for you UNIX buffs: bob@jacobs.cs.orst.edu) | | 218 NW 21st #2 Corvallis, OR 97330 503-758-5018 | | "They can't afford to pay their taxes... There must be too | | many economists in the government." -- The Doctor |
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (08/21/89)
I really, really, *really* should have put this thread in my kill file... In article <10043@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Christopher Chiesa) writes: >In article <58013@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, martens@calorie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes: >> So I guess you'd say that if I were to photocopy a copyrighted book >> and sell photocopies for less than the publishers price, I haven't >> committed a crime. >If you had the resources to do this, and put out a readable (e.g. legible) >copy of whatever-it-was, I personally would buy from YOU rather than >the PUBLISHER, because your price was better for an essentially equivalent >product! I don't need to pay through the nose for fancy binding, cover art, >etc. etc. etc. as long as the INFORMATION contained is complete. Now if you >started taking liberties and editing stuff out, I'd get angry... >To me, anyway, this sounds like Free Enterprise. If the laws against this >sort of thing didn't exist, competition in the marketplace would lead to >QUALITY products at LOW prices, since those that couldn't compete would just >go out of business, period. That's the way basic economics were originally >said to work... Supply and Demand, Survival of the Fittest, etc. No. Wrong. Consider: I write a book, program, whatever, and publish it. Some other company copies it, and sells it for less. They don't have to pay the cost of writing/developing the whatever-it-is in the first place, so they can sell it for less. Nobody buys it from my publisher, I don't get paid, so where's my incentive? Free Enterprise only works if there is an incentive to produce, and there's no incentive to produce if there are no intellectual property rights. With computer software and hardware, you can argue that after-sales support and such can entice people into buying from me even at the higher price, but that argument certainly will not work for books. Go read the Constitution. It clearly states that copyrights and patents were created to encourage the dissemination of information. Not to protect the rights of the creator or publisher or to restrict the promulgation of inventions, works and ideas--just the opposite. This is still as valid a concept as it was then. It is certainly true that copyright and patent law have not adapted to the particular problems of computer software and hardware protection, but you shouldn't be so hasty to discard the underlying principles without understanding the issues involved. -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab, Cornell U.
langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) (08/21/89)
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >>There are just no good games in the public domain, and I'm >>too damned broke to lay out hundreds of bucks for games I'll play a >>dozen times or so. bob@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (robert s. richardson) responds: >So don't lay out hundreds of bucks for games NEW, buy them used from >some other poor soul who was dumb enough to pay retail in the first >place. The Copyright Code recognizes that copyrights infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights; it is intended to benefit the people by encouraging creative work. N.B. that assuring recompense for creative work is a *secondary* objective, allowed in order to support the primary objective of encouraging creative works for the enjoyment of the people. I agree with the philosophy behind the Code and thus I am against copyright infringement by the illegal copying of software. However, Mr. Richardson's suggestion that Mr. Kudla buy a software package from its original purchaser rather than copying it illegaly has little to do with even the secondary objective of the Code -- the software author does not benefit in either case. Why, then, go to the trouble of finding an original purchaser willing to sell rather than just copying it? I myself would go to the trouble, since my personal ethic proscribes illegal copying. Nevertheless, Mr. Richardson's counter, while a partial solution to Mr. Kudla's capital problem, doesn't have much to do with the issue of copyrights and the infringement thereof. -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) (08/21/89)
I can't believe we're having this discussion AGAIN. Nobody ever convinces these assholes that they are stealing, guys, so don't bother trying. It's not even worth discussing. Please, let's raise the signal-to-noise ratio and drop the whole thing. --Doug
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/22/89)
In article <1160@sas.UUCP>, walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) writes: > I can't believe we're having this discussion AGAIN. Nobody ever convinces these > assholes that they are stealing, guys, so don't bother trying. It's not even > worth discussing. Please, let's raise the signal-to-noise ratio and drop the > whole thing. Incredibly, you've managed to be hypocrytical in four sentences. If you're trying to get people to drop the discussion, I would suggest saying so rather than using an ad hominem argument to support your point of view (and of course perpetuating the argument). -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET
scheer@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Wonko the Sane) (08/22/89)
In article <1160@sas.UUCP> walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) writes: >I can't believe we're having this discussion AGAIN. Nobody ever convinces >these assholes that they are stealing, guys, so don't bother trying. It's not >even worth discussing. Please, let's raise the signal-to-noise ratio and drop >the whole thing. > >--Doug Of COURSE you can't convince anyone of the correctness of the respective viewpoints. This is essentially a religious discussion. On the one hand, the pirates are arguing that information should be inexpensive if not free, whereas the non-pirates believe in following the laws that society has set down for them. The pirates are not breaking their own moral codes because they believe that they have a right to information, and shouldn't be kept from it because they are poor, or to extract it a step further, some will continue to pirate and distribute software even if they can afford it because they are a node in a loose international network of people who also believe information should be free, and they want to help their cause. The non-pirate side, exemplified by those who make a living by producing products, is also correct by the non-pirates moral codes. These people claim that their source of income is being taken away by pirates. On this side of the argument lies rightness in the respect of laws, so they feel justified because "society is on their side". I put that phrase in quotes because I don't believe that just because there is a law, it is right. There are a number of laws I do NOT agree with, and will willingly break. For instance, a law against oral sex is just plain stupid. To conclude, pirates will by their moral code NEVER pay for a program, and non-pirates will always do so. These are the black and whites. There are a number or grey people inbetween. These a generally people who can be swayed one way or another, because their moral code may not be completely decided upon. I personally believe in freeware. Perhaps this is because I do not make a living by programming (I am still a student). Freeware allows full distribution of the information, and those that believe they should pay for the effort I have put into a program WILL pay for it (it is against their moral codes not to). Those that are pirates WILL NOT pay for it, but at least my program wouldn't be covered with pirate messages (nothing needs to be cracked, that that is the spot where the messages are most likely.) The only people who may or may not send me money are the grey people, and they most likely wouldn't pay because of apathy (a non-mover of moutains). So yes, this discussion will get us absolutely nowhere, because the two sides of the argument have different beliefs. This is why it is a religious argument. Oh well, enough said. -- Wonko the Sane Disclaimer: I am totally irresponsible. So shoot me then!
dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (08/23/89)
> > >I don't care who copies what; as far as I'm concerned, unless > > >something physical is stolen there is no problem- no one loses > > >anything except the publisher, and that only theoretically. > > > > So I guess you'd say that if I were to photocopy a copyrighted book > > and sell photocopies for less than the publishers price, I haven't > > committed a crime. > > If you had the resources to do this, and put out a readable (e.g. legible) > copy of whatever-it-was, I personally would buy from YOU rather than > the PUBLISHER, because your price was better for an essentially equivalent > product! I don't need to pay through the nose for fancy binding, cover art, > etc. etc. etc. as long as the INFORMATION contained is complete. Now if you > started taking liberties and editing stuff out, I'd get angry... > > To me, anyway, this sounds like Free Enterprise. If the laws against this > sort of thing didn't exist, competition in the marketplace would lead to > QUALITY products at LOW prices, since those that couldn't compete would just > go out of business, period. That's the way basic economics were originally > said to work... Supply and Demand, Survival of the Fittest, etc. > To those who feel tempted to engage in this argument I would say, don't bother. You can correct misconceptions, you can't change basic personality flaws. These people are obviously perfectly comfortable being thieves and any attempt to chastise them will simply hit a wall of rationalization. Only getting the short end of the stick from people with the same attitudes that they purport or the onset of wisdom with experience can correct these kinds of attitudes. ----------- Having said that :-) I'm still going to give my reasoning why I feel pirating is wrong. I don't bother with arguments based on tangible vs. intangible losses, whether theives would buy if they didn't steal, comparison to other marketplaces, etc.. It just opens the door on the rationalization factory. My philosophy is simple. Take a whole world with attitudes equivalent to my own (whatever they may be). Vary the underlying beliefs but not the fundamental ethics responsibility, right to privacy, etc.. What kind of world would you imagine it to be? I don't throw trash out the window of my car because a world full of those types would render the planet one big garbage dump. I'm tolerant about religious beliefs because I want the same freedom of belief (or lack thereof) for myself. I don't steal software because a world of those types would result in no software and no new computers (new incompatible computers need new software). Most people have to eat. The fact is that software thieves, like people who steal items from their hotel rooms are riding on the back of productive and honest members of society. A society which was composed of nothing but riders would be pretty unpleasant. Myself, I want to be on the positive side of the societal equation rather than the negative side. Maybe it is unfashionable, but I'd still rather be on the contributory side than riding with the (you fill in the blank) who think they are cool because they are abusing the productive masses and getting away with it. I'm no saint and have my ethical lapses too. That doesn't mean I'm proud of them and try to preach them as right and proper. David Albrecht
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (08/23/89)
DISCLAIMER: This posting is aimed at individuals on this net who have openly advocated piracy. If you do not advocate piracy then this posting is not flaming at you. The discussion has devolved into politics, so if the whole thing disgusts you just hit "n" now. In article <11682@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> scheer@cit-vax.UUCP (Wonko the Sane) writes: >Of COURSE you can't convince anyone of the correctness of the respective >viewpoints. This is essentially a religious discussion. On the one hand, >the pirates are arguing that information should be inexpensive if not free, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >whereas the non-pirates believe in following the laws that society has set [...] This is a rather convenient opinion to hold, don't you think? Many "consumers" would prefer that "producers" would become their chattel and endlessly entertain and otherwise cater to them at no expense to themselves. This is the category that pirates fall into. Cut through all the baloney and the pathetic rationalizations. What is the essence of a pirate? He loots. Looters are "users" in the perjerative sense. Without the "producers" in society "pirates" are lost. What does a looter do when there is no one left to loot? He simply lives without. Why? Because he is incapable of producing these items himself, and unwilling to pay someone else to produce it for him. There _is_ an ultimate right or wrong on this question, because we know what the result would be if all consumers were pirates. Nothing would ever be produced. Why should I produce something if I know it will be instantly stolen from me? Don't rationalize that _someone_ would pay for it; I am taking pirating to its logical conclusion, at which point everyone in the society realises that they don't need to buy software because they can get it free and no one will harm them for it. You may naively presume that the majority of producers will bravely continue production in the face of a society that steals their labor, but reality is not so forgiving. For examples of societies where this presumption reigns you need only look to Soviet Russia and Red China. The halting reforms being attempted even now in these countries attest to the lack of insight into human nature their systems have exhibited. The refusal to repay a laborer for his efforts is immoral, and the result of this refusal in the long run is a loss for the society of the ability to produce. Just say NO to piracy. It is fundamentally immoral, and arguments to the contrary are the self-serving rationalizations of looters. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
pswanson@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Paul Swanson) (08/23/89)
In article <11682@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> scheer@cit-vax.UUCP (Wonko the Sane) writes: > >Of COURSE you can't convince anyone of the correctness of the respective >viewpoints. This is essentially a religious discussion. On the one hand, >the pirates are arguing that information should be inexpensive if not free, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here is the fundamental falicy of the pirates' argument. Information is never, repeat NEVER 'free'. It cannot be free. It must be 'created' (for lack of a better word) by someone who must spend at least time and effort if not money to create it. If you think you have an inherent right to my, or someone elses time, effort, or money you are morally bankrupt. What you are arguing for is slavery of a sort. If I write a program of some sort it is my right to distribute it as I see fit. If I wanted to make a program freely distributable to everybody but Robert J. Kudla I have a right to do this (I wouldn't expect that this would be too effective, however, given the statements made by Kudla). Moral people respect these rights; pirates do not. In reality if I made a program public in some way, either commercial or PD, I would expect that my requests as to it distribution would be violated to some degree. However, there is something seriously wrong with someone who believes that violating my rights as an author is moral. People with an ability for self delusion as great as this are dangerous. This is the same ability for self delusion that brought us such atrocities as the concentration camps of Nazi germany or slavery in the USA. I'll get of my soap box now. Paul > >Disclaimer: I am totally irresponsible. So shoot me then! Not you but perhaps Kudla or those of his ilk.
mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Mitchell - QA) (08/24/89)
In article <11682@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> scheer@cit-vax.UUCP (Wonko the Sane) writes: > >To conclude, pirates will by their moral code NEVER pay for a program, and >non-pirates will always do so. These are the black and whites. There are >a number or grey people inbetween. These a generally people who can be >swayed one way or another, because their moral code may not be completely >decided upon. I personally believe in freeware. Perhaps this is because >I do not make a living by programming (I am still a student). Freeware allows >full distribution of the information, and those that believe they should pay >for the effort I have put into a program WILL pay for it (it is against their >moral codes not to). Those that are pirates WILL NOT pay for it, but at >least my program wouldn't be covered with pirate messages (nothing needs to >be cracked, that that is the spot where the messages are most likely.) The >only people who may or may not send me money are the grey people, and they >most likely wouldn't pay because of apathy (a non-mover of moutains). So >yes, this discussion will get us absolutely nowhere, because the two sides >of the argument have different beliefs. This is why it is a religious >argument. The morals of a person is determined, to a large extent, by how much MONEY a person has at his disposal. I can afford some of the 'high' prices that these pirate claim are out of range. So I don't mind paying AS LONG AS the software lives up to its advertized promises. Others who may not be as 'fortunate', of course, will say otherwise to his own advantage. So, its more a matter of the pocketbook, rather than morals! Murphy's Law: Where you STAND on an issue depends on where you SIT. Later... -- |*******************************************| -Compliments of /// |* All thoughts and comments are soley *| Fred Mitchell \\\/// |* thoses of The Author and has nothing to *| \XX/ |* do with Commodore-Amiga. *| Software QA - Commodore-Amiga |*******************************************|
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (08/24/89)
In article <387@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu> pswanson@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Paul Swanson) writes: [confused rambling about morality and time and effort and blah blah blah] Moral people respect these rights; pirates do not. What makes your morality, which says that you can be happy by preventing your work from being had by certain people (a very large number) better than my morality, which says that you can be happy by taking whatever you want as long as no one else goes without it? I'm really curious. Where have you gotten this divine information from that says you're allowed to consider your own morality absolute? I certainly don't consider mine as such, and resent that you seem to consider yours as such. In reality if I made a program public in some way, either commercial or PD, I would expect that my requests as to it distribution would be violated to some degree. However, there is something seriously wrong with someone who believes that violating my rights as an author is moral. People with an ability for self delusion as great as this are dangerous. This is the same ability for self delusion that brought us such atrocities as the concentration camps of Nazi germany or slavery in the USA. I'll get of my soap box now. Huh? They pirated software in Nazi Germany? I don't understand how taking something and duplicating it exactly is akin to murder. Quite the opposite, in fact. >Disclaimer: I am totally irresponsible. So shoot me then! Not you but perhaps Kudla or those of his ilk. A ha, so now we're advocating murder, are we? Now who's the cretinous misfit? Further, once again I remind you that these are my *opinions*, not my *actions*, that we are discussing. good day. -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS> Pi-Rho America \\ /// Boy, am I glad I don't have a phone 2346 15th St. \\ /// with a working bell. Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order (518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rush
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/24/89)
In article <1783@ucqais.uc.edu>, pmartin@ucqais.uc.edu (Paul Martin) writes: >> Thanks, I will keep your name and address on file so I can circulate it with >> the lists of known and/or admitted SOFTWARE THIEVES which several developers I >> know maintain! Stealing is stealing! If you take the original from the store >> and do not return it, that is stealing. (I assume this is why you return the >> original to the store.) By copying the original, you are ILLEGALY DUPLICATING >> COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL! YOU ARE STEALING! YOU ARE A SLIMY, LUMP OF BILE-RIDDEN >> EXCREMENT WHO SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY WITH THE WORST REFUSE OF HUMANITY! I HOPE >> YOUR BOSS FINDS OUT ABOUT YOUR LITTLE PILFERING PROJECT AND HAS YOU LOCKED UP. >> I AM TEMPTED TO REPORT YOU TO THE NY STATE POLICE AND THE FBI AND ASK THEM TO >> INVESTIGATE YOU BASED UPON YOUR PUBLIC ADMISSION (reprinted above). >> > > Ok, ok you can call people names. But do you really believe that the > FBI is going to waste alot of taxpayers money to hust down someone who > copies a few games? I think not. Software piracy (not for money) is > tha same thing as copying an article from a magazine from a friend or > recording a movie off of cable for you brother-in-law and I would be > willing to bet that 99.9% of the people reading this article would be > guilty of some sort of piracy. So lets cut this nonsense of "I think > software pirates should be shot!" because almost all of us would be > facing a firing squad if this were the way things were done. I, as one having had pirated software pass through my disk drives, am entirely of this opinion. But I've said this before, so I'm not going to reopen this can of worms. >> >> I urge everyone who reads this to mail a request to the postmaster at >> pawl.rpi.edu (whose address is: usenet@rpi.edu) to have your login >> canceled or, at least, your USENET privaleges revoked. You are a >> stinking theif! You are publicly advocating theft! You break the >> law and urge others to break the law; you should be locked up! >> > > I urge you to read the rules for this group about flaming! > Instead of calling people names, why not try some constructive > critisism. > Agreed. And I think that it is completely reprehenshible to send mail to someone's system manager because you disagree with their point of view. This is supposed to be a public forum. Some conservative system manager might actually take action. Maybe I should send mail (lies) to your system manager and see if I can get your privileges revoked. If you are really concerned about illegal activity, there are newsgroups such as alt.drugs where people people post their opinions about more serious crimes (such as growing marijuana). Why don't you send mail to all their system managers? I bet then you could REALLY cause some damage. -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/24/89)
In article <1575@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes: > In article <11682@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> scheer@cit-vax.UUCP (Wonko the Sane) writes: >>Of COURSE you can't convince anyone of the correctness of the respective >>viewpoints. This is essentially a religious discussion. On the one hand, >>the pirates are arguing that information should be inexpensive if not free, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>whereas the non-pirates believe in following the laws that society has set > [...] > This is a rather convenient opinion to hold, don't you think? Many > "consumers" would prefer that "producers" would become their chattel > and endlessly entertain and otherwise cater to them at no expense to > themselves. This is the category that pirates fall into. Cut through > all the baloney and the pathetic rationalizations. > > What is the essence of a pirate? He loots. Looters are "users" in the > perjerative sense. Without the "producers" in society "pirates" are lost. > What does a looter do when there is no one left to loot? He simply lives > without. Why? Because he is incapable of producing these items himself, > and unwilling to pay someone else to produce it for him. > > There _is_ an ultimate right or wrong on this question, because we know > what the result would be if all consumers were pirates. Nothing would > ever be produced. Why should I produce something if I know it will be > instantly stolen from me? Don't rationalize that _someone_ would pay for > it; I am taking pirating to its logical conclusion, at which point everyone > in the society realises that they don't need to buy software because they > can get it free and no one will harm them for it. First, if all consumers were pirates, the producer would not sell nothing... he would sell ONE copy. How is anyone going to get a copy without someone buying it in the first place? Economics would also dictate that based on supply and demand, the price of this one copy would be very high. What you are arguing is really foolish. You can't argue that piracy is completely wrong based on what would happen if everyone were a pirate. Everyone is NOT a pirate. This is a real world. I'm not arguing that piracy is right. It is definitely immoral and illegal activity. What I am arguing is that the software industry is not harmed to a great degree by piracy, and the consumers are HELPED by piracy. OK, you can give me all these statistics of some game "Groks in Space" that there were 5000 copies sold and an estimated 10000 more out there held by pirates. It is lunacy to think that if it were impossible to copy the game, 15000 copies would have been sold. Most people pirate games because they can't afford them. I would guess that about 75% or more of all pirates are people who do NOT have an income (i.e. high-school and college students). Don't say "well they could afford the computer, so they can afford the software"... they were probably given the computer as a gift from their parents. If they couldn't copy it, they wouldn't have it. And piracy benefits the legitimate consumer because he can see the program before he buys it, and he can have an un copy-protected copy so he's not up the creek when the disk fails. And then there's this whining about Dragon's Lair... they sold some huge # of copies, and then three months later, when the copy protection was cracked, sales dropped off. Did it ever occur to them that the potential market for Amiga games is quite small. There are only 1 million machines out there. The Amiga is expensive. People who spend a lot of money on a computer generally have interests other than games. So maybe at the most there are 500,000 (very liberal estimate!) people who buy games more than once every six months. Dragon's Lair is a VERY expensive game. Knock off another chunk of those people. Does anybody agree that after three months it seems likely that anyone who really wanted Dragon's Lair, and could actually afford it, would have bought it??? > > Just say NO to piracy. It is fundamentally immoral, and arguments to the > contrary are the self-serving rationalizations of looters. > Oh, please! Why is it immoral to posess information without paying when the other option is to not posess it? > --Steve > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM Afternote: I think that, based on the amount of discussion here, maybe we should make a call for comp.piracy (or maybe comp.piracy.flame)! Anyone agree? -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET
scheer@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Wonko the Sane) (08/24/89)
In article <387@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu> pswanson@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Paul Swanson) writes: >Here is the fundamental falicy of the pirates' argument. Information is >never, repeat NEVER 'free'. It cannot be free. It must be 'created' >(for lack of a better word) by someone who must spend at least time and >effort if not money to create it. If you think you have an inherent >right to my, or someone elses time, effort, or money you are morally >bankrupt. What you are arguing for is slavery of a sort. Free information is slavery? I beg to differ. If information were free, nobody would make a living from creating it, and nobody would be enslaved. In countries like China and the Soviet Union, information is strictly controlled by the government, and the people will suffer from misconceptions due to the lack of information or too much information generated by their government to keep them in control. Bring this analogy to software. Companies that charge high prices for their software are depriving said software from certain people, those too poor to afford it. These people see other similar packages at more affordable prices, so they know inherently that this high price is just increasing the profits of the author. Pirates exist because they do not approve of the way the current system is being abused, and pirate because they refuse to follow a system of which they do not approve. I do not think that people pirate because they don't like all authors and want them to starve. They just disapprove of a system that makes authors rich and buyers poor in level far above what it should be. Personally, a system I would like to see would be this: A programmer is hired by a company to produce a specific piece of software for an application desired by that company. The programmer is being employed by the company, and gets paid for his work. This work is then distributed freely, and those that can find a use for this program pay the programmer what they think it is worth to them. If the source is distributed at the same time, every single user can become a programmer of improvements or a debugger. This would be a much more efficient way to both improve the program and get the program to those who need it. Essentially, a freeware system. But I am an idealist, and the world is not ideal. I also think that communism as a concept would be a fine thing if it were not completely unworkable in a non-ideal system. Oh well, I've started to ramble. Better end the post. -- Wonko the Sane Disclaimer: I am totally irresponsible. So shoot me then!
scheer@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Wonko the Sane) (08/24/89)
In article <1575@convex.UUCP> swarren@eugene.UUCP (Steve Warren) writes: >What is the essence of a pirate? He loots. Looters are "users" in the >perjerative sense. Without the "producers" in society "pirates" are lost. >What does a looter do when there is no one left to loot? He simply lives >without. Why? Because he is incapable of producing these items himself, >and unwilling to pay someone else to produce it for him. > My first disagreement, you say a pirate is incapable of producing such items themselves. I completely disagree. There are many very good hackers that are pirates. I have respect for the abilities of those that dive into a disks raw information to find out how it is encoded so it cannot be copied, and alter it to it can. Pirates are NOT incapable of producing software. >There _is_ an ultimate right or wrong on this question, because we know >what the result would be if all consumers were pirates. Nothing would >ever be produced. Why should I produce something if I know it will be >instantly stolen from me? Don't rationalize that _someone_ would pay for >it; I am taking pirating to its logical conclusion, at which point everyone >in the society realises that they don't need to buy software because they >can get it free and no one will harm them for it. Again, I disagree. You are being silly. If nobody is producing software, and there is a desire for a new application, it WILL be written. If there is a demand, there WILL be a supply. Also, if there is a demand, then those that supply can make a profit from it. If a pirate wants a piece of software that does not exist, the pirate can either write it, or pay someone to write it. If a pirate pays someone for a program, then they are not a pirate. There will ALWAYS be software production because computers are so incredibly useful, and new applications are always being invented. You CANNOT take this argument to that logical conclusion. > >You may naively presume that the majority of producers will bravely continue >production in the face of a society that steals their labor, but reality is >not so forgiving. For examples of societies where this presumption reigns >you need only look to Soviet Russia and Red China. The halting reforms >being attempted even now in these countries attest to the lack of insight >into human nature their systems have exhibited. The refusal to repay a >laborer for his efforts is immoral, and the result of this refusal in the >long run is a loss for the society of the ability to produce. These societies were not created to steal labor. They were made to eliminate a major flaw that capitalism has. This flaw is inertia. Although every attempt is made to allow the poor the ability to improve themselves, it is still easier for someone coming from a rich background to be rich. Money does work as an incentive to production, but it causes a society with classes, which is not so good. Communism theoretically is everyone working for the benefit of everyone. If people weren't so f*cking selfish, this would be ideal. The fact of the matter is that people care more for themselves than the people or environment around them. People are also greedy. If they see someone better off than they, they become jelous. But this is a digression again. > >Just say NO to piracy. It is fundamentally immoral, and arguments to the >contrary are the self-serving rationalizations of looters. > Yes, piracy is immoral if our system worked the way it was intended to, but pirates see a greater evil in the abuses some people make to the system, and subvert it only to disrupt it. As long as THIS system exists, there will be pirates. We need change. We need a better system. -- Wonko the Sane Disclaimer: I am totally irresponsible. So shoot me then!
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (08/25/89)
In article <1575@convex.UUCP> swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes:
This is a rather convenient opinion to hold, don't you think? Many
"consumers" would prefer that "producers" would become their chattel
and endlessly entertain and otherwise cater to them at no expense to
themselves. This is the category that pirates fall into. Cut through
all the baloney and the pathetic rationalizations.
All right, I will. Have you ever watched television? Well, guess what?
A majority of people in America pay zip, zilcho, absolutely nothing,
for this form of entertainment. But let's not forget libraries. You
can take out any book ever written if you're willing to walk the
half-mile and get a card- absolutely free. I don't hear you bitching
about all those poor authors whose works were utterly raped by people
*gasp* reading them for FREE. To say nothing of all the poor
millionaire rock stars whose material was mercilessly put up for loan
at the public libraries that stock music. And what about radio? Public
parks? Networks such as this one? (Honestly, I've gotten more
entertainment out of this flamefest than I possibly could have out of
any pirated game or whatever.)
Have all the rules suddenly changed because transistors'n'stuff are
involved? In a hundred years, will people be getting sued because they
covered the tune of someone whose estate hasn't died out yet?
If this is the world you desire, be my guest to go and live in it. But
please don't put me on the list of invitees. I wouldn't want to have
to pay for good conversation or a walk in the park.
Followups, for the fourth time, directed to alt.flame.
--
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS>
Pi-Rho America \\ /// Constitution: A piece of paper designed to
2346 15th St. \\ /// fool people into thinking they are not owned.
Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order
(518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rushkudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (08/25/89)
In article <289@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: >I don't steal software because a world of those types would result in >no software and no new computers (new incompatible computers need new >software). Most people have to eat. That's assuming that people would *want* to pirate the programs that had to be written. It's a bit tough to pirate an operating system (though if someone manages to do it, hey....) and would you really want your own personal copy of, say, TECO? Sorry, but other than entertainment software, 95% of the good software I've used has been freely redistributable to begin with. People who have motive other than profit are just naturally better-motivated. Let's get real here- anyone trying to develop for the Amiga and live off of it, unless they've got a *damn* good product, is going to go broke. There are too many games for mediocrity to survive, and too many F.R. programs that will do a better job than WordMasherIII. >contributory side than riding with the (you fill in the blank) who >think they are cool because they are abusing the productive masses and >getting away with it. Who ever said anything about being cool? It sounds like the same old "if you act against the norm, you must think you're cool but you're really a weenie" mentality I've been getting for years. I'm no saint and have my ethical lapses too. That doesn't mean I'm proud of them and try to preach them as right and proper. One man's ethical lapse is another man's sainthood. Remember that. Maybe your ideal world would be made up of five billion other people like you, but mine sure wouldn't. -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS> Pi-Rho America \\ /// Constitution: A piece of paper designed to 2346 15th St. \\ /// fool people into thinking they are not owned. Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order (518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rush
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (08/25/89)
If you don't want to read an article about piracy, hit "n" now. Here's what I said: >> Just say NO to piracy. It is fundamentally immoral, and arguments to the >> contrary are the self-serving rationalizations of looters. In article <620@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: [...] >I'm not arguing that piracy is right. It is definitely immoral and illegal >activity. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sounds like he agrees with me, doesn't it? Here he admits that piracy is "definitely immoral". But wait, do I hear a self-serving rationalization coming on?...yes I do! > ...What I am arguing is that the software industry is not harmed to a >great degree by piracy, and the consumers are HELPED by piracy. [...] And finally, like all good rationalizers, he contradicts himself: > >Oh, please! Why is it immoral to posess information without paying when the >other option is to not posess it? This is great, because not only does he contradict himself (didn't he just finish saying that piracy is definitely immoral?), he also recaps his "self-serving rationalization" in the same sentence. I couldn't ask for a better illustration of my original point. What is sad is that his ethics are so twisted that he doesn't appear to recognise the nonsensical nature of the statement he just made, ie "It's immoral, but refusing to do it would be costly, (he would not be able to possess the information) therefore it is not immoral." I think piracy is pretty low. But trying to justify it as moral behavior is downright slimy. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
warlock@pnet02.gryphon.com (J Richardson) (08/26/89)
Only one point..you can't "deprive" people of software they can't afford, they
are not "owed" that software by the MAnufacturer or anyone else. If they
choose to steal rather than buy so be it, let them take whatever consequences
occur, but nobody "owes" the package to them.
Your analogy to the system of information control in Communist countries (
and others) is wrong..the software is available to anyone with the money,
openly with no risks of arrest, there, the info is hidden, available on the
Black Market with a risk of imprisonment or worse, I cannot buy that argument
as justification for theft..
thats it for now..
my beliefs are mine, if I can convince anybody to give me money for them,
great..
\/\/arlock
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <backbone>}!gryphon!pnet02!warlock
INET: warlock@pnet02.gryphon.comwarlock@pnet02.gryphon.com (J Richardson) (08/26/89)
Pirates se a greater Evil? thats a new one, the only pirates I have talked
withsay they steal because they don't want to buy, and then try to justify
it..
\/\/arlock
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <backbone>}!gryphon!pnet02!warlock
INET: warlock@pnet02.gryphon.comjtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/26/89)
In article <11706@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, scheer@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Wonko the Sane) writes: > Personally, a system I would like to see would be this: > A programmer is hired by a company to produce a specific piece of > software for an application desired by that company. The programmer is being > employed by the company, and gets paid for his work. This work is then > distributed freely, and those that can find a use for this program pay the > programmer what they think it is worth to them. If the source is distributed > at the same time, every single user can become a programmer of improvements or > a debugger. This would be a much more efficient way to both improve the > program and get the program to those who need it. Essentially, a freeware > system. But I am an idealist, and the world is not ideal. I also think that > communism as a concept would be a fine thing if it were not completely > unworkable in a non-ideal system. > > Wonko the Sane This happens now and then, like in the case of SZ and RZ (the ZMODEM programs). The C source is completely freely distributable. It was paid for by Telenet, I think. The problem with this is 1) there would be no games. 2) in general this only happens when a company needs a unique application, which isn't of much use to most people. I.E., when someone writes a database application for a business. Costs the business a bundle, but it's only of use to them. For programs which are of general interest, why should one business pay a fortune for it and everyone else get it free? They shouldn't. So all the people who need it share the cost. -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET
dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (08/27/89)
In article <6927@rpi.edu>, kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: > In article <289@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: > > >I don't steal software because a world of those types would result in > >no software and no new computers (new incompatible computers need new > >software). Most people have to eat. > That's assuming that people would *want* to pirate the programs that > had to be written. It's a bit tough to pirate an operating system > (though if someone manages to do it, hey....) and would you really > want your own personal copy of, say, TECO? Facetious argument. It's pretty easy to thieve OS's OS/9, Xenix/Unix, MSDOS, are all just like any other software package. No, I wouldn't want a personal copy of TECO but at the time it was produced it was probably no better or worse than most of the competition and I'm sure plenty of people would have liked a personal copy (had they a personal computer that could of run it). > > Sorry, but other than entertainment software, 95% of the good software > I've used has been freely redistributable to begin with. People who > have motive other than profit are just naturally better-motivated. > Let's get real here- anyone trying to develop for the Amiga and live > off of it, unless they've got a *damn* good product, is going to go > broke. There are too many games for mediocrity to survive, and too > many F.R. programs that will do a better job than WordMasherIII. > Uh huh. Maybe true in your case but I doubt it's the norm. In the freely redistributable market place I've seen little or no: DTP (not wordprocessing). Paint Programs Music Generation programs (using internal voices) Music Generation programs (using MIDI) Sound Manipulation programs Animation workbenches Draw programs Entertainment software (as you mentioned) Software Development Tools The best 3d tools By my lights, you don't do very much with the Amiga. I could probably come up with some more but it seems pointless. Obviously it's your opinion that people who have motives other than profit are better motivated personally I think it's a patently ridiculous statement. I think it's pretty easy from observation of marketplaces and choices of occupations of highly motivated people that profit is a POWERFUL motivater arguably only contending with fame as THE most powerful. It could be possible to make a case that love of programming is a necessary ingredient for the best motivation but that and the desire for profit are hardly exclusive. I dare say that ANY person who is trying to sell programs into the Amiga marketplace is trying to live off it. It may not be their only program, it may not be their only job, but certainly it is part of their income and thus they are trying to live off it. You are missing the salient point anyway. If we assumed everyone was software thieves from the infancy of the industry rather than picking an arbitrary point in time as you are wont to do I would wager that the industry would be an extremely pale shadow of its current self software, hardware, all of it. Freeware tends to develop in a very sporadic fashion, it's typically slower to come out than for profit software. It only gets developed in those areas where someone who has the spare time, the altruistic inclination, and possesses enough income from other sources to purchase the machine to develop on. It's my gut feeling that freeware really only exists when there is a foundation of purchasable software to build upon. Software sales are a significant part of the sales of most computer dealers. Without software sales (of significant price) there would be far fewer dealers. Fewer dealers causes fewer machine sales, fewer machine sales means smaller market penetration, smaller market penetration reduces the audience from which to draw your altruistic software developers. Very few people since the infancy of the industry have been enchanted enough with a bare piece of metal to procure one, without large amounts of software machines don't sell. Even in the very early days, the best known OSes, compilers, debuggers assemblers etc. all cost money. If everyone had been stealing instead of buying products back then I expect it would have set back the development of new software immeasurably because authors couldn't have been able to afford to spend the time assuming (and it's a mighty big assumption) that they had the inclination to work for free. It all adds up to fewer machine sales and far less software. Less money going into the industry would have meant less spent on R&D. Under such circumstances it's my belief we would be looking today at a top of the market machine as an 8086 if we were lucky. I contend the software situation would probably be pitiful. > >contributory side than riding with the (you fill in the blank) who > >think they are cool because they are abusing the productive masses and > >getting away with it. > > Who ever said anything about being cool? It sounds like the same old > "if you act against the norm, you must think you're cool but you're > really a weenie" mentality I've been getting for years. > I have nothing against acting against the norm, it's abusing the norm that I abhor. Yeah, and your probably right I'm right in there with all those people calling you a weenie, though truth to tell off the net I'd use much less acceptable words. > I'm no saint and have my ethical lapses too. That doesn't mean I'm > proud of them and try to preach them as right and proper. > > One man's ethical lapse is another man's sainthood. Remember that. > Maybe your ideal world would be made up of five billion other people > like you, but mine sure wouldn't. Uh huh. I think that one man's ethical lapse is only another man's sainthood among the mentally deranged or serverely deluded. My ideal world certainly wouldn't be five billion clones of me though I do think that a world of five billion of at least my level of ethical integrity probably would be an improvement. It's hard to say, one so rarely hears about those with good ethics where we hear about those on the dark side all the time. Given the limited knowledge of you from the ethics you profess in your postings I tend to believe that a world of five billion people with your ethics would be unbearable. All these arguments about software thievery always revolve around the communist manifesto. Everyone should be treated the same, the workers love of work and responsibility to the community will insure his best performance, comrade. All you have to do is look around the world today to see how good a motivater getting the same rewards for your herculean efforts as the guy next to you who isn't doing dick works. Communistic countries are scrambling to extract themselves from the mistaken branch they took. Of course the software thieves try to hide this under the bushel basket of: Yeah, well, capitalism is fine for most stuff, but I want software so it should be free. I contend that it doesn't work for a significant size industry any better than it does for an entire country. Software writers are artists just like song writers or book writers that they deserve compensation for their work is obvious to any but the most degraded. No one is stopping anyone from distributing their software free or only using free software. But stealing from those who don't agree with your code of the way it should be I find repugnant. David Albrecht
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/28/89)
In article <1588@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes: > If you don't want to read an article about piracy, hit "n" now. > If they didn't want to read an article about piracy, they would have seen the title of the article, which was, "Software Thieves (Piracy Discussion)" and not have even gotten this far. > Here's what I said: >>> Just say NO to piracy. It is fundamentally immoral, and arguments to the >>> contrary are the self-serving rationalizations of looters. > > In article <620@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: > [...] >>I'm not arguing that piracy is right. It is definitely immoral and illegal >>activity. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Sounds like he agrees with me, doesn't it? Here he admits that piracy is > "definitely immoral". > > But wait, do I hear a self-serving rationalization coming on?...yes I do! > >> ...What I am arguing is that the software industry is not harmed to a >>great degree by piracy, and the consumers are HELPED by piracy. [...] > > And finally, like all good rationalizers, he contradicts himself: >> >>Oh, please! Why is it immoral to posess information without paying when the >>other option is to not posess it? > I think what we have here is an article on my part which was not carefully composed. Since you didn't get my drift, I will make sure I proofread this time. (And please leave the quote I was responding to in, next time). I have indeed contradicted myself, and I agree completely that my argument was badly worded. Piracy (the general term: copying other people's software and using it for your own benefit and consciously depriving them of money that you have) is immoral. People do this. I should not have used the term "piracy" in my "self-serving rationalization" because I was in fact referring to a different act. There I was referring to the act of copying programs, and using them for a while to determine if they are any good. In my "good rationalizer contradiction" I was referring to the actual act of piracy, as described above, but in this case, it is not immoral because the person in question DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY. Piracy as described above is made immoral by greed; it is immoral because the person can in fact afford the program. You are probably pretty well off. I am too. Don't you think it would be immoral for one of us to go to a community soup kitchen and eat for free? But it's just fine for the bums to eat there, because if they didn't, they would eat nothing. And in the case of software, no one even has to pay for what gets eaten! Personally, I DON'T use software on a regular basis which I haven't paid for. I can afford it. However, I rarely buy anything without playing with a bootleg copy for a couple days. Most games I find lose whatever appeal they might have had in about 20 minutes. I buy any game which holds my attention for that long. This amounts to about one game every six months. I also occasionally buy a game based on a magazine review, but even this has not proved very effective in weeding out the junk. As for productivity software, I would NEVER buy a package without playing with it for at least an hour. Not only is a lot of it garbage, but I really dislike some packages which others love (i.e. Wordperfect. I borrowed a copy from a friend, with documentation and everything. I hated it. I gave it three whole hours and still hated it to the core.) What is wrong with letting people find out if they like something before they pay out? [...] > I think piracy is pretty low. But trying to justify it as moral behavior > is downright slimy. As I have said, it all depends on the situation. I just want you to tell me one thing (since you did not respond to ANY of my propositions last time except to point out that I did not compose the article carefully): How does ANYONE lose money that should rightfully have been theirs if I get a bootleg copy of a game, play it for 20 minutes, and throw it out. > --Steve > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET
chad@cup.portal.com (Chad The-Walrus Netzer) (08/28/89)
You know, It's discussions like these that explain the Internet Virus... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ chad `The_Walrus' netzer "...sick and tired of it ALL!"
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/29/89)
In article <11708@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> (Wonko the Sane) writes: > Pirates are NOT incapable of producing software. Please show one (1) pirate who has ever produced anything nearly as good as the equivalent pirated copy. > If there is a demand, there WILL be a supply. Also, if there is a demand, > then those that supply can make a profit from it. You CANNOT take this > argument to that logical conclusion. Wrong. If only *one* person will ever make a profit on a program, (ie the *first* person who writes it) Who will ever take the chance that maybe they won't be first? Second place doesn't get squat. Take a survey, set up a simulation. Get 5, 10, 100, or a thousand people in the room. These are the rules : 1) To win, one person has to eat more than 100 hot dogs. 2) The winner will get to have his/her stomached pumped. 3) If anyone finishes, everyone gets dessert. 4) If no one finishes, no one gets dessert. 5) Only the "winner" gets their stomach pumped. Wanna guess what the outcome will be? Everyone will sit around waiting for someone else to get them dessert. Try it, it would make a fun class project and the psych majors could probably get credit for it. For extra credit, charge $1.00 a hot dog and rerun the experiment. > We need a better system. True, all suggestions that take into account reality will be carefully scrutinized for feasibility. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If I were driving a Macintosh, I'd have to stop before I could turn the wheel."
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (08/29/89)
This is in response to the article posted by: >James A. Treworgy >jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu >jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET rn kept bombing with a buffer overflow error, so I had to save his article and bring it back in, instead of using "F". >Piracy (the general term:copying other people's software and using it for your >own benefit and consciously depriving them of money that you have) is immoral. This is a falacious definition. Piracy is not about depriving. Piracy is about distributing unpaid-for copies of software without the explicite permission of the author. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how much money you have or don't have. Where in the world did you get these ideas? >...There I >was referring to the act of copying programs, and using them for a while to >determine if they are any good... OK, so here we have thousands, maybe millions (who really knows?) of "pirates" all "test-driving" their pirated software, trying to find out if it is any good. Much of it is no good, so they can it. But here is this piece of software, say, Autocad, that they decide is really good. Now that this is determined, they dutifully erase it from their harddrive and begin saving their money for the one application that they are certain is worth the money, right? Baloney. >referring to the actual act of piracy,as described above, but in this case, it >is not immoral because the person in question DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY. Piracy >as described above is made immoral by greed; it is immoral because the person >can in fact afford the program. You are probably pretty well off. I am too. Why should they pay $900 or more for Autocad, when it is already in their hands? Who is going to watch them and make sure they are honest about this? It is impossible. Now, what is the incentive for _any_ private citizen to pay for this expensive software? Don't whine about the price, the author is under no obligation to provide his software to you under _any_ circumstances. Realistically the _only_ thing standing between any of us and a pirated copy of most any software is our consciences. The fact is that if you refuse to pirate, you will apportion your income so that you can finally get together enough to buy the packages you _really_ want. That's what I did. I've been an engineer for 7 mos, before that I was a starving college student. I lived in a roach-infested apartment, I ate macaroni and cheese for dinner (when I ate), and I bought very few applications. I still only have one drive. But it kept me honest. I know that if I had said, "I can pirate some stuff and it won't make any difference, because I don't have the money to buy it anyway," then I would have taken whatever free money I had and I would have spent it on hardware. The point is not that I had some disposable income. The point is that I revised my standard of living downward in order to _make_ disposable income. If I were pirating I would have no incentive to do this. If I had pirated I probably wouldn't have thought I was doing anything dishonest (since I had already justified it ahead of time). I would have used "self-serving rationalization." The price for software is what decides how much you need it. If you really need it you will pay the price. If you can't or won't pay the price then you _need_ to do without. There is no moral imperative to provide you access to the software, and every imperative to deny you that access, ie, if you have not contributed to the production and distribution of the product, you have no right to share in the benefits of it. The producer and distributor define the terms of the required contribution, and your right is to negotiate, but ultimately you may only (morally) either accept or refuse their terms. Refusing their terms means you may not enjoy the benefits of their product. What right have they to refuse you these benefits? Simple - they _created_ the benefits. >Don't you think it would be immoral for one of us to go to a community soup >kitchen and eat for free? But it's just fine for the bums to eat there,because >if they didn't, they would eat nothing. And in the case of software, no one >even has to pay for what gets eaten! Wrong. It's OK for bums to eat in a soup kitchen for free because the proprietors (the "creators" of the benefit) define the terms for enjoying their product. And in _this_ case those terms are free. The analogy may be made with public domain software, but not with commercial software. If one of those bums eats at a nice restaurant and refuses to pay he will go to jail. They will ask him, "if you didn't have the money why didn't you eat at the soup kitchen?" He didn't have any business eating where he couldn't pay the bill. >Personally,I DON'T use software on a regular basis which I haven't paid for. I >can afford it. That's nothing to be proud of, that's the law. [...discussion of piracy as a "try before you buy" technique...] >core.)What is wrong with letting people find out if they like something before >they pay out? As I said before there is simply no incentive for people to buy something they already have. People talk about support, but I've never used a customer support line (I know some of you do; good for you!). Popular packages like Autocad have aftermarket manuals available for a fraction of the cost of the package. This is part of the terms that must be negotiated with the seller. If you refuse to buy it without trying it first, maybe he will agree to those terms. But you have to be accountable to him. If he says "no try before you buy", then tough. And if you say, "oh yeah, well I'll get it from a pirate," then you have just taken the moral low ground. >[...] >> I think piracy is pretty low. But trying to justify it as moral behavior >> is downright slimy. > >As I have said,it all depends on the situation. I just want you to tell me one >thing (since you did not respond to ANY of my propositions last time except to >point out that I did not compose the article carefully): How does ANYONE lose >money that should rightfully have been theirs if I get a bootleg copy of a >game, play it for 20 minutes, and throw it out. Obviously no one looses money in this situation. That does not make the action moral. As I mentioned, this scenario places you under no accountability whatsoever for paying for any of the products you are illegally "reviewing". You appear to feel that this is good. You may even behave admirably in the complete absence of any accountability whatsoever. If so, however, you are in a clear minority in the human race. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
slc@hoptoad.uucp (Steve Costa) (08/29/89)
In article <6932@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >[stuff deleted] >Two, did you do well despite the pirates? If so, what you felt was not >hurt but greed. Who are you to decide what is a fair compensation? As for software theft in general: In my opinion an ethical person is one who deals honestly with other people. If I sell you a piece of software on the condition that you will not make copies of it to give to other people, but you do so anyway, you have lied to me. How can you deny that you have behaved unethically?
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/31/89)
Before I begin here I have since been convinced that using (long term) pirated programs without paying for them is not a good thing, even if you can afford them. In article <1616@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes: [this was removed because I basically agree with most of it now] > [...discussion of piracy as a "try before you buy" technique...] >>core.)What is wrong with letting people find out if they like something before >>they pay out? > > As I said before there is simply no incentive for people to buy something they > already have. People talk about support, but I've never used a customer > support line (I know some of you do; good for you!). Popular packages like > Autocad have aftermarket manuals available for a fraction of the cost of > the package. Most software packages do not have aftermarket manuals. > This is part of the terms that must be negotiated with the > seller. If you refuse to buy it without trying it first, maybe he will > agree to those terms. But you have to be accountable to him. If he says > "no try before you buy", then tough. And if you say, "oh yeah, well I'll > get it from a pirate," then you have just taken the moral low ground. > Any lower than his moral ground of NOT letting you try it first? Many software manufacturers are, either consciously or because of cutting corners, trying to screw you over with a buggy or poorly designed product. Here is the situation. Decide for yourself who is on lower moral ground. 1. A lot of software is copy protected. This is very inconvenient for a lot of reasons: a) No hard disk b) No backup (except for a tidy $15 or whatever, if at all) c) For games, if you have a lot of RAM it's nice to put the whole thing there to save disk access time. This can't be done either. 2. A lot of software really sucks. You are at the mercy of butt-licking magazines giving the software good reviews, and slick ads promising a great product from the company. Software, unlike other consumer products, is not subject to the "not performing as advertised" rule (or at least perfomance in software is subjective enough that it can't really be victim of a lawsuit). You can return most things you buy to stores if you don't like them. Rarely so with software. So basically the consumer is at a high risk when buying software. I think it's interesting that some copy-protected software I have purchased comes with a license agreement which includes something to effect of "backups may only be made for archival purposes", yet you most likely have no way to make such a backup. I applaud those software companies who have limited demo-versions of their software available. Like Dungeon Master, and a number of productivity packages which have "save" disabled. This is a very good thing. But in the absence of this, I do not think there is anything wrong with using a copy of something before you buy it. You said that maybe nobody loses in this case, but it's still immoral. IMHO, it is only immoral if you do NOT dispose of the copy after having used it a while. You said, there is nothing stopping you from using it for free. So? I am talking about previewing. Not using it on the long term for free. It's only immoral if you use it on a long term basis without paying. Morality is not the law. It is illegal to posess a copy of a program, even if only for two hours. But it's not immoral because you tried it, made an assessment, did not benefit in any productive way except to judge whether or not you liked it, and destroyed it. This is not immoral. -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET