Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!eugene!swarren From: swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Software thieves (Piracy discussion, LONG) Message-ID: <1616@convex.UUCP> Date: 28 Aug 89 21:06:04 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> Sender: news@convex.UUCP Reply-To: swarren@eugene.UUCP (Steve Warren) Distribution: usa Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 124 This is in response to the article posted by: >James A. Treworgy >jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu >jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET rn kept bombing with a buffer overflow error, so I had to save his article and bring it back in, instead of using "F". >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. This is a falacious definition. Piracy is not about depriving. Piracy is about distributing unpaid-for copies of software without the explicite permission of the author. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how much money you have or don't have. Where in the world did you get these ideas? >...There I >was referring to the act of copying programs, and using them for a while to >determine if they are any good... OK, so here we have thousands, maybe millions (who really knows?) of "pirates" all "test-driving" their pirated software, trying to find out if it is any good. Much of it is no good, so they can it. But here is this piece of software, say, Autocad, that they decide is really good. Now that this is determined, they dutifully erase it from their harddrive and begin saving their money for the one application that they are certain is worth the money, right? Baloney. >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. Why should they pay $900 or more for Autocad, when it is already in their hands? Who is going to watch them and make sure they are honest about this? It is impossible. Now, what is the incentive for _any_ private citizen to pay for this expensive software? Don't whine about the price, the author is under no obligation to provide his software to you under _any_ circumstances. Realistically the _only_ thing standing between any of us and a pirated copy of most any software is our consciences. The fact is that if you refuse to pirate, you will apportion your income so that you can finally get together enough to buy the packages you _really_ want. That's what I did. I've been an engineer for 7 mos, before that I was a starving college student. I lived in a roach-infested apartment, I ate macaroni and cheese for dinner (when I ate), and I bought very few applications. I still only have one drive. But it kept me honest. I know that if I had said, "I can pirate some stuff and it won't make any difference, because I don't have the money to buy it anyway," then I would have taken whatever free money I had and I would have spent it on hardware. The point is not that I had some disposable income. The point is that I revised my standard of living downward in order to _make_ disposable income. If I were pirating I would have no incentive to do this. If I had pirated I probably wouldn't have thought I was doing anything dishonest (since I had already justified it ahead of time). I would have used "self-serving rationalization." The price for software is what decides how much you need it. If you really need it you will pay the price. If you can't or won't pay the price then you _need_ to do without. There is no moral imperative to provide you access to the software, and every imperative to deny you that access, ie, if you have not contributed to the production and distribution of the product, you have no right to share in the benefits of it. The producer and distributor define the terms of the required contribution, and your right is to negotiate, but ultimately you may only (morally) either accept or refuse their terms. Refusing their terms means you may not enjoy the benefits of their product. What right have they to refuse you these benefits? Simple - they _created_ the benefits. >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! Wrong. It's OK for bums to eat in a soup kitchen for free because the proprietors (the "creators" of the benefit) define the terms for enjoying their product. And in _this_ case those terms are free. The analogy may be made with public domain software, but not with commercial software. If one of those bums eats at a nice restaurant and refuses to pay he will go to jail. They will ask him, "if you didn't have the money why didn't you eat at the soup kitchen?" He didn't have any business eating where he couldn't pay the bill. >Personally,I DON'T use software on a regular basis which I haven't paid for. I >can afford it. That's nothing to be proud of, that's the law. [...discussion of piracy as a "try before you buy" technique...] >core.)What is wrong with letting people find out if they like something before >they pay out? As I said before there is simply no incentive for people to buy something they already have. People talk about support, but I've never used a customer support line (I know some of you do; good for you!). Popular packages like Autocad have aftermarket manuals available for a fraction of the cost of the package. This is part of the terms that must be negotiated with the seller. If you refuse to buy it without trying it first, maybe he will agree to those terms. But you have to be accountable to him. If he says "no try before you buy", then tough. And if you say, "oh yeah, well I'll get it from a pirate," then you have just taken the moral low ground. >[...] >> 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. Obviously no one looses money in this situation. That does not make the action moral. As I mentioned, this scenario places you under no accountability whatsoever for paying for any of the products you are illegally "reviewing". You appear to feel that this is good. You may even behave admirably in the complete absence of any accountability whatsoever. If so, however, you are in a clear minority in the human race. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM