brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/05/84)
Many people on this net advocating piracy say things like "It can be copied for $2, so it is worth $2" or "If they broadcast HBO through my land then I can take it if I want!" These are statements of what you CAN do, not what you should do. We should all be aware that the value of software is not in the media, it's in the message. The same with all forms of valuable information. You have to reward the people who spend the time in R&D. Since their information is their property (if you don't think so I would like to see you in the not-to-distant future when a large portion of the population spends its time producing nothing but information) and in a free market they can charge what they like to recoop losses and make a profit. And you can't just sell for a little bit more. A programmer costs about $100,000 a year when you include the office you had to build for him/her, the computers you had to buy, the support staff you had to pay, the phone bill and the salary. Same with people in marketing, sales and support, although their cost is not quite as high as a programmer's If you only make a few bucks per program, a typical system would have a lot of broke software companies, unless everybody wrote something with mass market appeal. About the only programs that can make a profit at low prices through volume are games, and many game companies are using red pens anyway. Just because you CAN take something doesn't mean you should. If you leave your door unlocked, I CAN come in and lift your TV set. Nothing physical stops me if I am not seen. If we want a free market system for information (and I do although you may not) you have got to let people make money of it. Only this will encourage people to make the best. Otherwise you get nothing but mass market pap. Consider network TV - it appeals to the lowest common denominator and mostly sucks. Newer technology allows pay-as-you-play TV where quality is judged not on market surveys but on how much the individual subscribers want to pay. This results in superior TV. But if people aren't willing to set up some rules and obey them, we will get pure pap. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (04/06/84)
Hold it. If HBO came in on a cable because I asked for the cable company to put it in, I would use their descrambler and pay the monthly rates rather than using my own converter (yes I do pay). However, someone telling me that I can't sit in my home and listen to what ever radio waves happen to be arround (HBO, Russian propaganda, what ever) seems to be abridging my rights. I don't own a computer, but probably would tend against making unauthorized copies of software. -Ron
phil@unisoft.UUCP (04/10/84)
>> From: ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) >> Hold it. If HBO came in on a cable because I asked for the cable company >> to put it in, I would use their descrambler and pay the monthly rates rather >> than using my own converter (yes I do pay). However, someone telling me >> that I can't sit in my home and listen to what ever radio waves happen to >> be arround (HBO, Russian propaganda, what ever) seems to be abridging my >> rights. >> >> I don't own a computer, but probably would tend against making unauthorized >> copies of software. >> >> -Ron If you receive an unsolicited package in the mail (you didn't order it), you can keep it. If you get sent a bill, you don't have to pay it. Why not the same thing for transmissions flooding my house?
norskog@fortune.UUCP (Lance Norskog) (04/10/84)
What good is the right to speak without the right to listen?
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (04/11/84)
Read my lips. I said I pay for CABLE. That's this wire that they put into my house, like the electricity and the telephone. You don't really think it's legal to go out and bypass your electric meter do you? The last line of my letter said..."However, someone telling me that I can't sit in my home and listen to what ever radio waves may be around (HBO, Russian propaganda, whatever) seems to be abridging my basic rights. I am in favor of the freedom of radio listening principle. -Ron
mat@hou5d.UUCP (04/11/84)
> If you receive an unsolicited package in the mail (you didn't order > it), you can keep it. If you get sent a bill, you don't have to pay it. You're right most of the time. There is ONE unsolicited package you get with a bill that you HAVE to pay, and pay by April 15. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape..dig) hou5d!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
wildman@Brl-Tgr.ARPA (04/11/84)
From: Sam Chamberlain (ARTY) <wildman@Brl-Tgr.ARPA> The folks in Britain MUST pay for the right to install an antenna or receive BBC broadcasts. They would likely think that paying to listen to "free" radio waves is quite reasonable. In this case, their view of what constitutes "logistics" is quite different. Sam
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/12/84)
I think everybody is missing the point of my statement. Of course they are pumping things into your house, by cable or from satellites. That is not the point. If two people are having a conversation in the next room, and the sound reaches you, you CAN hear it. But is it right to listen in? Sure you can pick up mobile phone calls or party line calls, but SHOULD you? Sure you can make a copy of your friend's disk for $3 instead of $100, but SHOULD you. If you had made a movie, and wanted to sell it to people, but you were forced to use millions of dollars worth of scrambling equipment that degrades picture quality just because people can't be trusted not to watch it, how would you feel about it. Can anybody seriously argue that it is right to take something just because you CAN? Nothing physical stops you from stealing my assembler - it isn't copy protected. Nothing stops you from walking in my house and lifting my TV if I forget to lock the door. Now of course, no law should forbid you from building any kind of electronic equipment you like, and you shouldn't be stopped from receiving non-private and non-copyright transmissions. No law stops you from making a baseball bat either, but another law says you can't club me over the head with it. No laws stops you from buying a Xerox machine, but another law says you can't copy a book with it. It boils down to this. People can spend fortunes protecting their information with security, increasing the cost to all their legitimate customers and thus reducing the available choice to the consumer, or we can all agree that if a person produces some information, it is theirs and you shouldn't try to take it without permission. Sure, if they mail you an unsolicited book, that's one thing, but if you have to go out of your way, buying a descrambler or erecting a dish, that's surely another... -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
phipps@fortune.UUCP (Clay Phipps) (04/16/84)
There has been a long-standing custom in the USA
(and other countries) that whatever is *broadcast*,
e.g., radio, TV, and to some degree, net newsgroups, may be listened to;
this custom predated electronic computers and HBO.
International agreements consider the airwaves to be a public resource,
which is the basis for the FCC's control of TV and radio programming.
If I were to post software to this net, I would be broadcasting it.
I would have to accept the notion that people would be free to receive it
and use it (reuse for profit is a separate issue).
On the other hand, that which is transmitted to specific people or entities
without broadcasting, delivered by hand, e.g., US Mail,
or by wire, e.g., telephone or telegraph or cable,
is considered private, and must not be divulged without the permission
of the originator. The basis of this custom is centuries old.
Some thought should be given to the similarities between
distributing software on an unprotected floppy
and mailing an ordinary letter. Neither is a broadcast of information.
Just because obtaining the information inside a personal letter envelope
is relatively simple does not mean that it is ethical to read or copy it.
Now that fascism has been mentioned, how would those people who pirate software
feel about the FBI (non-USA residents substitute indigenous national police),
or some personal nemesis reading their mail just because it was easy to do ?
-- Clay Phipps
--
{cbosgd decvax!decwrl!amd70 harpo hplabs!hpda ihnp4 sri-unix ucbvax!amd70}
!fortune!phipps782cur@osu-dbs.UUCP (Alan Paul Curtis) (04/16/84)
<>
again i have seen the reference (lost) to "stealing" HBO by recieving
their distribution brodcasts directly, and feel I must stick my
thoughts on the matter into this mess. It is NOT illegal to receive
any brodcast that happens to be recievable on your property, the only
thing the FCC has said is that in general you can not disclose any
information to a third party that you gained by listening to other
"private" conversations, and that you can't make personal monitary
gain from the information (i.e. Osborne is going banco - sell now!).
If one thinks that by not paying the subscription fee you are making
a gain then I can't argue.
can't resist:
letter recieved (maybe) by ___ (insert your favrite channel here):
dear sirs:
This is a claim for $2765.56. After hearing a rumor that
you were constantly bombarding the houses in my area with stray
electro-magnetic radiation, I was forced to purchase an expensive
earth station reciever and video tape equipment in order to prove
my case. As I have now recorded over 300 hours of your bombardment
I feel that my proof is quite absolute, but since I am aware of the
technical problems you would experience trying to eliminate these
stray signals I will settle for reimbursement of my investment into
the hardware required to document my case, and a written apology.
Well back on track. So another analogy goes out the window.. . .
Alan "Soon to lose access so flame away" Curtis