davidli@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dave Meile) (06/28/89)
In article <89178.154603SML108@PSUVM> SML108@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > There is no rationlization for piracy, it is theft, and that is >all it is. Anyone that is making a livelihood off that theft is >a thief. I prescribe the Islamic punishment for thieves. > > Flame away, these are just my views....... > >Scott Le Grand Be wary of what you desire, for you may attain it. When you get down to it, many people are "thieves" who do consider themselves to be law-abiding citizens. For example, just to note a few general areas: 1) If you have a music playing program and _any_ translation of a popular piece of music, you are a thief. The copyright owners of the music did not grant a license for transcription, sale, or dispersal outside of their own venues. 2) If you have a graphics display program and _any_ graphics which were scanned from a magazine or television, you are a thief. The creators of those graphics have a copyright on them, and I hightly doubt that you've obtained a license to translate those graphics into computer-readable format. The task now is to explain why these cases are any different from unauthorized copies of software programs. The practical outlook is that there is _no_ difference ... does that mean you are going to throw away every questionable graphic, every piece of computer music? This becomes still _more_ of a problem when you get into the area of Desktop Publishing, with easy access to computer-accessible graphics and text. As an aside, your automobile analogy is fairly worthless. I cannot go down to the neighborhood garage and make a _copy_ of your Porsche to drive around town. If I _could_, you might never realize that your Porsche was missing (you know -- in by 9, out by 1)? In any case, material objects do not behave in the same manner as ideas. David Meile
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/13/89)
YAPFF (Yet Another Piracy Flame Fest)
Something to consider...
The only reason anything has value in this world is because you can't
duplicate it on your own. So you are willing to pay money to acquire
that which you cannot create yourself. If you are not willing to pay
the price that the creator asks, that is your right. But by the same
token, YOU DONT GET A COPY. Too many computer users these days seem
to be "children of the '70s" which has been noted as one of the most
selfish decades in our country's history. As kids these people would
cry and pout until their parents gave in and bought them a lollipop
or what ever else it was that struck their fancy. No one in a position
to do so said, "No, you can't have it." This leads to the unusual
mental state that these people have which is one of "I have a right
to get everything I want." This is a massive corruption of the traditional
"right" which is that "nothing should artifically limit your achievements."
(which applies mostly to the U.S. but other countries feel the same way
as well.) And the corollary is that the creator of something has the
right to try to sell something for as much or as little as _they_ choose
not what _you_ choose. This being the fundamental principle of the
market economy. If I make a CAD package and choose to sell it for $10,000
then I will probably go broke fairly fast. But that is my choice. You
can either pay the price I ask, find someone who will sell a CAD package
they created for less, or make one on your own. At a more basic level,
a bunch of dead leaves has little "value" because you or I can walk
down just about any sidewalk and scoop some up*. So we wouldn't pay
anything for some dead leaves, however a diamond has quite a bit of
value because for most of us, we could not prospect for and retrieve
a diamond and cut it for less than someone who already has one will
sell it to us.
So how does this apply to the software business? Well, basically
not everyone can create computer programs. And of those that can
only a small percentage can create quality computer programs.
If you want a program they create, then it has value to you. You
are willing to exchange some money, proportional to the products
percieved value, to acquire it. If the desired price is greater
than your percieved value, then you won't buy it. However, it is
in the sellers interest to increase the percieved value so that
you will buy it, they do this by offering support, free upgrades,
more options, whatever. Now when your neighbor steals a copy of
the program, you, the honest buyer, will be affected. Why? Because,
the neighbor won't have the benefit of the manufacturers support,
or even documentation on how to use the program, or the latest
version. This will lead to much bitching and complaining, which
the honest buyer has no choice be to believe that maybe this is
an inferior product and not as valuable as they had originally
considered. This really happens, all the time. Further, you, as
an honest buyer will undoubtedly find it harder to justify the
purchase of something after trying to justify to your spouse
why your scumbag neighbor got it for "free" and no one is breaking
down his door.
What it boils down to is that you have exactly as much right to
copy software without paying for it, as I have in shooting you.
The argument "I wouldn't have bought it anyway." is as valid as
the "You were going to die eventually anyway." argument. It is
stealing, and the crime is in the act, not whether or not you get
caught.
--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.
"A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"SML108@PSUVM.BITNET (07/13/89)
In response to Chuck Mc Manis software piracy post.... It's good to hear someone else out there realizes what exactly a software pirate REALLY is. Of course, I expect a bunch a bozoes to flame you for that post, but I'm with you 100%.