erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (05/11/88)
In article <807@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: [Some prelude to a summary of the basic arguments about software copying.] > Copying Software is Wrong Because: > 1. The people who wrote it have to make a living, and if you copy their > software without paying for it, you are effectively stealing their income. > (Kind of like cuting off a peice of their paycheck before it gets to them.) There's another reason, one that most people tend to forget. It's the reason that art and descriptions of events/ideas/occurances are *copyrighted*: A person created [noun], from their own mind. No one else created it first, or told them how to create it. This person should be able to control what happens to it and copies of it. If I write a song, lyrics and music, and copyright it, you cannot record it or perform it, *especially* for profit. This *includes* performances of the original recording. If a business wants to play Michael Jackson's "Bad" all day long (what a horrid thought) then they have to pay royalties to the performer (through ASCAP and BMI). Business that play music -- recorded or live -- for the enjoyment of their patrons have to pay for it. *Especially* when they're doing it for profit, which is virtually always true. Let's compare this to software. J. Random Luser feels that $49.95 is far too much to pay for Ultima XIX, especially when a friend has a piratable copy. J. Random hasn't *paid* for this, hasn't put any work into it, hasn't put any work energy back into the system, hasn't reembursed the owner of the copyright to Ultima XIX. Whether or not $49.95 is too much or too little, whether the owners of the copyright are rich or poor, whether or not they make a profit, and whether or not it's copy-protected are irrelevant. Copyright laws apply to a lot of things: books, music, sculpture, paintings, video, nearly any work of art that exists as either writing, or as 2 or 3 dimensional art. Software falls into this, since somebody created an existing expression from raw materials and some original thought. Think of it this way: If you had a machine that would create a physical object out of raw materials, given only a template, would it be right for you to find a Porche owner, and "clone" their car? Of course not. You have in no way repayed the *designers* and engineers that thought up the Porche. Ideas are *not* free, unless the owner wants them to be. I also want to reply to some of the standard arguments that ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) summarized in his post. These opinions are to my knowledge, *not* his. > Copying Software is Right Because: > 1. The people who wrote it are charging so much for it that I can't afford > it, yet I really need it. (A rather lame argument.) Well, first of all, do you really need it? If you really do, then you need to find a way to pay for it. Charge more for your final product, or write it yourself. Also, 5-10 years ago you probably didn't need it. This argument should never apply to any non-application software. People who "have to have" the latest copy of some game are basically being childish and stingy. If you really wanted it, you could afford it. > 2. The people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's who charge 200% more than > the product is actually worth, so I'm reducing that profit margin to something > more reasonable. (Not much better.) The definition of "worth" is rather vague. Obviously, there are enough people that are willing to pay $500-1000 for a copy of Unix on a PC. (What does it cost these days.) So, obviously it's worth that much to others. I know folks that paid a couple of hundred for OS9 and all the related goodies. I also know people who didn't think it was worth anything. Just because it's worth nothing to you, doesn't mean it's free. It means that you think it is worth less than the copyright holder thinks it's worth. I doubt that any of the Beatles would have ever thought "Revolution" was worth what Nike thought it was worth. Michael Jackson, the current owner of the copyrights, thinks it's worth what Nike does. > 3. Software is not tangible property, so when I copy it (like taking a > picture of a waterfall) I do not 'take' anything; therefore I am not > stealing. (Has possibilities, but would also apply to things like sci. > theories. Not a good defense.) Software *is* a tangible property: The inherent value of a storage medium goes up when that storage is changed in a way that gives the holder profit, enjoyment, entertainment or is more usefull to the holder than it was without being changed. A book with blank pages is worth very little. Fill it with instructions on how to repair your car, and it is worth a lot more, as it is now usefull to you. Similarily, a blank floppy isn't worth that much. Changing the bits into an order -- created by someone else -- and making that floppy usefull to you just increased that floppy's worth, and stole potential profits from the creator of that bit pattern. Imagine if I invented a waterfall that many people wanted to look at (by sculpting rocks and re-routing a stream). You have no right to take a picture of it and enjoy the picture unless I allow you to, since I created the waterfall in the first place. If the waterfall was naturally occuring, that would be different. (I guess that if you had a machine that randomly put bit patterns upon a floppy, and you just happened to hit upon a sequence of bits that created a usefull piece of software, then you could use it without paying somebody else. Maybe the person that invented the machine. :-) Compare this to appropriation of an individuals appearance for promotion and/or profit. If I photograph a famous person, and sell pictures of that photo (outside of news photography of a newsworthy event) for a profit, I can be sued and possibly sent to jail. (I know, this is invasion of privacy, not copyright, but the principle is similar.) Famous Person X made their appearance famous, not me, so I have no right to reap a profit from their appearance. > ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles -- Know Future Another journalist with too many spare MIPS. J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007