dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (04/26/84)
I am particularly interested in the argument that runs this-a-way: If you copy a package you otherwise would have bought, you have deprived the author of potential income. If, on the other hand, you would NOT have bought a given package, copying and using that package is OK, because there is no potential income for the author to lose. This justification has shown up in numerous guises in almost every discussion of piracy I have seen. It's interesting to see how far people will go to justify their actions. I'm far more impressed by people who do things that are NOT to their immediate advantage because of ethical considerations than I am by people who do whatever the hell they want and then come up with arguments to justify doing it. (Folks I know in the criminal justice system assure me that almost all criminals claim to be either innocent or justified, and a good many of them probably believe it.) But getting back to the if-I-wouldn't-buy-it-it's-OK-to-steal-it business... Does this mean that if I decide that I don't want to pay for software at all because "information is free" that I am perfectly justified in swiping every program ever written, but if Dr. T in the next office would consider scrimping and saving to buy something, he's morally wrong in stealing some word processor?? Somebody (Lauren, I think) noted that for a scheme of morality to be justified it must meet the test of "what if everybody acted that way". It seems clear that ANY argument for piracy falls flat on by that criterion. And one more thought: I'm surprised that a lot of people who probably consider themselves "liberal" worship the notion of physical as opposed to intellectual property. When you pay me for something you are really paying me for my labors (i.e., my time, the fragment of my life that I am devoting to make something of use to you). If you steal my work, then, whether physical or mental, you are stealing a part of my life.