Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!yale!eagle!jtreworgy From: jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Software thieves (Piracy discussion) Message-ID: <702@eagle.wesleyan.edu> Date: 27 Aug 89 19:03:07 GMT References: <30706@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <6846@rpi.edu> <2361@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com> <6865@rpi.edu> <58013@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <6876@rpi.edu> <1160@sas.UUCP> <11682@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <1575@convex.UUCP> <620@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1588@convex.UUCP> Distribution: usa Lines: 82 In article <1588@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes: > If you don't want to read an article about piracy, hit "n" now. > If they didn't want to read an article about piracy, they would have seen the title of the article, which was, "Software Thieves (Piracy Discussion)" and not have even gotten this far. > Here's what I said: >>> Just say NO to piracy. It is fundamentally immoral, and arguments to the >>> contrary are the self-serving rationalizations of looters. > > In article <620@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: > [...] >>I'm not arguing that piracy is right. It is definitely immoral and illegal >>activity. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Sounds like he agrees with me, doesn't it? Here he admits that piracy is > "definitely immoral". > > But wait, do I hear a self-serving rationalization coming on?...yes I do! > >> ...What I am arguing is that the software industry is not harmed to a >>great degree by piracy, and the consumers are HELPED by piracy. [...] > > And finally, like all good rationalizers, he contradicts himself: >> >>Oh, please! Why is it immoral to posess information without paying when the >>other option is to not posess it? > I think what we have here is an article on my part which was not carefully composed. Since you didn't get my drift, I will make sure I proofread this time. (And please leave the quote I was responding to in, next time). I have indeed contradicted myself, and I agree completely that my argument was badly worded. Piracy (the general term: copying other people's software and using it for your own benefit and consciously depriving them of money that you have) is immoral. People do this. I should not have used the term "piracy" in my "self-serving rationalization" because I was in fact referring to a different act. There I was referring to the act of copying programs, and using them for a while to determine if they are any good. In my "good rationalizer contradiction" I was referring to the actual act of piracy, as described above, but in this case, it is not immoral because the person in question DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY. Piracy as described above is made immoral by greed; it is immoral because the person can in fact afford the program. You are probably pretty well off. I am too. Don't you think it would be immoral for one of us to go to a community soup kitchen and eat for free? But it's just fine for the bums to eat there, because if they didn't, they would eat nothing. And in the case of software, no one even has to pay for what gets eaten! Personally, I DON'T use software on a regular basis which I haven't paid for. I can afford it. However, I rarely buy anything without playing with a bootleg copy for a couple days. Most games I find lose whatever appeal they might have had in about 20 minutes. I buy any game which holds my attention for that long. This amounts to about one game every six months. I also occasionally buy a game based on a magazine review, but even this has not proved very effective in weeding out the junk. As for productivity software, I would NEVER buy a package without playing with it for at least an hour. Not only is a lot of it garbage, but I really dislike some packages which others love (i.e. Wordperfect. I borrowed a copy from a friend, with documentation and everything. I hated it. I gave it three whole hours and still hated it to the core.) What is wrong with letting people find out if they like something before they pay out? [...] > I think piracy is pretty low. But trying to justify it as moral behavior > is downright slimy. As I have said, it all depends on the situation. I just want you to tell me one thing (since you did not respond to ANY of my propositions last time except to point out that I did not compose the article carefully): How does ANYONE lose money that should rightfully have been theirs if I get a bootleg copy of a game, play it for 20 minutes, and throw it out. > --Steve > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM -- James A. Treworgy jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET