kmagel@plains.UUCP (ken magel) (06/14/90)
The best explanation I've seen for why many people so easily and guiltlessly steal software is that the person from whom they copy the software is not hurt at all - the victim is some faceless, probably large, company. When you steal a car radio or a car, you hurt the person who had the radio or car. When you steal software, the other person still has all the use of that software that they had before your theft. Just think of the cases you read about in the newspaper or see on TV of people sueing for ridiculous reasons because after all the faceless insurance company will be the only one that pays anyway.
kassover@minerva.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) (06/15/90)
In article <5023@plains.UUCP> kmagel@plains.UUCP (ken magel) writes: | | The best explanation I've seen for why many people so easily and guiltlessly steal software is that the person from whom they copy the software is not hurt |at all - the victim is some faceless, probably large, company. When you steal |a car radio or a car, you hurt the person who had the radio or car. When you |steal software, the other person still has all the use of that software that |they had before your theft. Just think of the cases you read about in the |newspaper or see on TV of people sueing for ridiculous reasons because after |all the faceless insurance company will be the only one that pays anyway. And just where do they think the "faceless, probably large" company gets it's money from, anyway? Or is it that they simply do not think? -- David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against kassover@ra.crd.ge.com sharp weapons and dull judges." kassover@crd.ge.com F. Collins
tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) (06/15/90)
These are all open to further discussion and clarification, of course.
Don't get me wrong: I am definitely NOT promoting piracy here! I'm just
summarizing the arguments I've noted so far: both FOR, AGAINST, and
OTHER. Add/delete/change as you see fit.
Arguments put forth as possible justifications of piracy:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Piracy is OK if the software is overpriced (in particular,
high overseas pricing was noted).
2. Piracy is OK if the price is OK but you still can't afford the product,
if you want or need it badly. (This is like #1, but overpriced relative
to one's PERSONAL budget, not necessarily overpriced in the marketplace).
3. Piracy is OK if the software producer is a large and faceless company.
3a: Piracy is OK if it only affects strangers or people one doesn't like
or people who seem less moral than oneself.
3b: Piracy is OK if the financial loss due to a single act of piracy
is small relative to a large company's income.
4. Piracy is OK if the probability of being punished for it is low.
5. Piracy is OK because the original is not removed, just copied.
6. Piracy is OK if it is fast and easy to do. It's not OK if it's slow
and cumbersome, like copying a book on a copy machine.
Arguments put forth as possible condemnations of piracy:
--------------------------------------------------------
1. Piracy is not OK because it is theft. It is economic theft (loss of
sales), not physical theft (loss of a diskette, say), but it's still theft.
2. Piracy is not OK because it increases software costs. (Although if
all piracy stopped, prices might not decrease; developers might use the
additional profits for other purposes).
Arguments for legalizing piracy:
--------------------------------
1. Software should be free.
Pro: Software is access to information, and there are precedents
for the concept of free information availability (public
libraries, directory assistance).
Con: Developers should be compensated directly for their efforts.
Con: People should pay for products they need and use. Software
is no different in that respect.
2. Copying should be free; instead, people should compensate developers
for documentation and technical support.
Pro: Moves software cost away from acquisition and toward effective
use.
Con: Financially motivates the design of difficult-to-use software.
Con: Motivates the piracy of documentation and technical support.
3. Copying should be free; instead, people should pay considerably more
for copying media.
Pro: Moves the cost away from initial acquisition and penalizes
copying.
Con: Too indirect; doesn't compensate developers directly or in
proportion to the product.
Con: Penalizes non-piracy copying (of private data, for example).
--
-----------------------------------------
| EMAIL: tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu |
| Disclaimer: I speak only for myself. |
-----------------------------------------fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/15/90)
In article <10592@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) writes: > Don't get me wrong: I am definitely NOT promoting piracy here! I'm just > summarizing the arguments I've noted so far: both FOR, AGAINST, and > OTHER. Add/delete/change as you see fit. > [...] > Arguments for legalizing piracy: > -------------------------------- > > 1. Software should be free. > > Pro: Software is access to information, and there are precedents > for the concept of free information availability (public > libraries, directory assistance). Bad analogy: neither public libraries nor directory assistance are free. While you may not pay up front for each use of either of them, there was some cost for setting up and maintaining them. In the case of libraries, the cost is usually covered by local taxes... you might not pay to get in, but it's because they already got your money. Even if you're not talking benefit of what you paid for. (The fines are a side benefit, of sorts. :} ) Starting up a new public library is pretty expensive, btw. Once the initial building and book acquisition costs are covered, running the operation isn't so bad. Imagine if librarians were paid well. (In the case of private libraries, the cost is coughed up by some individual or corporation, etc. Wonder where *they* got the money for it?) In the case of directory assistance, the cost is covered by other phone company income. (Although some phone systems do charge directly these days.) You're still paying for it, you just don't see the charge on your monthly bill. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (06/16/90)
Asbestos suit on.
99% of the piracy I know of isn't harming the companies producing
the programs. Why ? Because he who copies, either takes a copy,
or doesn't use the program AT ALL. (Financial reasons, if you say
so)
Rather, I know of a company (I haven't worked there) that uses
pirated software to try it out, and if they decide they want it,
they buy it. Also, someone using a neat, pirated program might
inspire someone else to actually buy it. And, lastly, people with
poor finances (mostly kids) tend to group together and buy one
copy to share - if they couldn't, they wouldn't buy a single copy
Jon W{tte, Stockholm, Sweden, h+@nada.kth.serussotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (07/03/90)
In article <8879@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes: > >Easy question. Since the pattern of bits is what you have purchased >and the creation of that particular pattern is a process which is >patented by Microsoft (for example) you cannot "make a copy" without >infringing on *their* property. Property in music and software is >different from tangible property like hammers and nails. There is no patent on software. The Copyright Act permits a user to make copies both as necessary to run (i.e. the copying of the software from disk to memory) and for archival purposes. The 'shrink wrap' licenses which attempt to restrict both are what is being complained about. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? Hey! Bush has NO LIPS!
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jul2.175034.29488@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > There is no patent on software. Not true. There are patents on software. Apple, AT&T, amoung others hold patents on particular bits of software. I don't know what if any patents are held by MicroSoft, but it is possible to patent software under certain circumstances. Perhaps a legal type would like to clarify? --
gerhard@cs.arizona.edu (Gerhard Mehldau) (07/03/90)
In article <268FB564.638E@intercon.com>, kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) writes: > Not true. There are patents on software. Apple, AT&T, amoung others hold > patents on particular bits of software. > > I don't know what if any patents are held by MicroSoft, but it is possible > to patent software under certain circumstances. Perhaps a legal type would > like to clarify? I'm not a legal type, but I do recall an article by Paul Goodman (?) in the most recent APDAlog (Summer 90), which covers this subject, and it states that software *is* patentable under certain circumstances. For more details, see the article itself. - Gerhard -- -> Gerhard Mehldau Dept. of Computer Science internet: gerhard@cs.arizona.edu University of Arizona uucp: {cmcl2,noao,uunet}!arizona!gerhard Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A. at&t: +1 (602) 621-4632
briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) (07/03/90)
>In article <8879@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes: > >There is no patent on software. Wrong. -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)