Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!bunyip!brolga!uqcspe!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!brendan
From: brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Why do people pirate software?
Keywords: None
Message-ID: <4609@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 23 Aug 90 05:46:04 GMT
References: <1304@engadm2.csd.mot.com>
Sender: news@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: comp
Lines: 52

seye@motcsd.csd.mot.com (seye.ewedemi) writes:

>brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>>This brings into question the good sense of those who write these laws.
>>Unenforcable laws are bad laws.

>The previous passage indirectly portrays a mentality that is very scary.
>It also shows the frame of mind of a large percentage of American people
>in recent years that has lead to the unlimitless drug problem that we now
>face.  I can see little children in New York thinking such thoughts as above
>before bashing the head of a classmate for his Air Jordans.  This is not a
>flame directed at the writer of the passage because I'm not altogether sure
>he knew exactly what he was implying; this is more of a reaction to a 
>deadly thought I had from reading his passage.

>The problem is this:	To say that something that is not enforcable should
>not be a law, or is a bad law, is to limit a crime to our human ability to
>catch the criminal.

Thanks for letting me off so easily. It is comforting to know my
inability to understand my own words makes me innocent of their
meaning.

I think you are taking a slightly liberal view of what I meant by
unenforcable, especially if you think murder and property theft are
unenforcable. The sort of law of was thinking of is the law (here in
Queensland) that prohibits certain acts between consenting adult males.
There is no way (consistant with reasonable levels of privacy) to fairly
enforce such laws. Generally (as with piracy) knowledge of the act is
entirely restricted to the participants. People are only charged with this
offence if they have upset people in high places, or as an "example" to scare
and humilate people of similar preferences. The law is unenforcable because
any application of it will be selective and therefore unjust. 

Now as to the morality of such practices between consenting adult males?
Well there seems to be some disagreement on that matter. We'll never
finish arguing that out, and meanwhile there remains the potential for
selective and unjust application of the law. The law should go because
it is unenforcable, hence unjust and therefore stupid, unless of course
you like to have a few laws around that can be used to get rid of
nuisances.

Perhaps there are things so morally repugnant to society that we should
legislate against them even if there is no reasonable way to find out
about their occurance. Can't think of any off hand though.


--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.