dmimi@ecsvax.UUCP (04/06/84)
<>
While few sue for $1.50, there are those that are arrested for shop-
lifting small items. A software copyright holder is damaged when
his work is 'pirated', that is stolen. If he choses, and has
evidence, he can probably prove damage. After all, software does
not cost $1.50--if it did there would be no argument for stealing
it.
It is evident that pirating software IS stealing--the discussion is
really about whether or not people can justify, to themselves,
stealing. Is there a limit to how valuable an item it is ok to steal?
What is the line between 'ok to steal' and 'not ok to steal'? That
is the only basis for argument--the law clearly holds copyright
violation (including photocopying material) to be stealing.
{decvax,ihnp4,akau}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmimi
Mimi Clifford
2535 Sevier St
Durham, NC 27705
919-489-4821 919-684-2854 (Wed)covert@ihuxq.UUCP (covert) (04/07/84)
Move the discussion of software piracy to someothere net. Net.micro is turning into another net.flame. Move it or BURN !!!!!!!!!!!!!! <FLAME OFF > From a casual observer, -- Richard Covert AT&T Bell Laboratories ...ihnp4!ihuxq!covert (312) 979-7488
GZ@Mit-Mc.ARPA (04/11/84)
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ@Mit-Mc.ARPA>
Date: 6 Apr 84 10:49:36-PST (Fri)
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dmimi at Ucb-Vax.ARPA
...
It is evident that pirating software IS stealing ...
People keep saying this. It is not at all evident to me. It is clear that
it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material beyond the fair use
provisions, but the law is not the final authority on morality. In this
case, the author does not lose anything he had, he only loses POTENTIAL
profit. That potential exists *only* because the copyright laws grant it,
so if you are discussing the morality of copyright laws, that particular
argument is circular. The main argument for copyright protection seems to
be that if it wasn't there, nobody would bother writing anything, since
they couldn't make enough off of it beyond the one initial sale. That may
be true, but I don't see any significant moral force behind that sort of
reasoning. It doesn't hold for almost any other profession you can think
of, e.g. construction workers don't make any money for the use of
buildings they build, they only get paid for the initial labor. Scientific
(as opposed to engineering) discoveries get no legal protection at all.
This is considered highly beneficial to the progress of science (i.e.
"standing on the shoulders of giants"). It is entirely feasible that if
copyright protection for software didn't exists, some other kind of
economic scheme would develop, most likely around maintenance and
distribution of software, handholding and other consulting services and so
on. In the mean time, society would benefit since instead of writing still
another Pascal compiler from scratch, you could take an existing one and
make it better instead, causing real progress instead of the constant
re-inventing of the wheel so prevalent in the software industry today.mwm@ea.UUCP (05/16/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1220000:ea:7100011:000:962
ea!mwm May 16 09:28:00 1984
/***** ea:net.micro / sri-arpa!ARPA / 1:15 pm May 9, 1984 */
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ@Mit-Mc.ARPA>
Date: 6 Apr 84 10:49:36-PST (Fri)
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dmimi at Ucb-Vax.ARPA
...
It is evident that pirating software IS stealing ...
People keep saying this. It is not at all evident to me. It is clear that
it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material beyond the fair use
provisions, but the law is not the final authority on morality.
/* ---------- */
The law may not be the final authority on morality, but theft isn't a
violation of someones moral rights, it's a violation of their property
rights. The law IS the final authority on property rights. Hence pirating
software is stealing.
Other than that, I agree with what Gail has to say: free software leads to
people improving the software, as opposed to rewriting it. Witness what
happened to Small C. However, that isn't sufficient grounds for breaking
the law.
<mike