Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site felix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!felix!zemon
From: zemon@felix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Software "Piracy" & a note on Brian Keves
Message-ID: <228@felix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 12:36:13 EST
Article-I.D.: felix.228
Posted: Mon Apr  9 12:36:13 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 07:23:27 EST
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, Ca.
Lines: 28

A couple people jumped on me for accusing Brian Keves of
theft without proof.  I did not publically mention his name
until this time.  I have exchanged letters with him and in
the first one he said, "I prefer the word 'acquired' to
'stealing'.  I acquired my copy from a friend."
(Appologies, Brian, for any slight miswording.  I don't
have your original letter any more.)  I think this is
sufficient proof that I did not jump to false conclusions.

Hopefully, this will end further flames about the history
of this discussion.  I have a question for any of you out
there who think software "piracy" is OK:

    Given that a program was originally sold with a
    copyright notice and that the original purchaser was
    aware of the copyright notice, how can you justify
    breaking the copyright laws?

Note when answering that no part of the copyright laws
provides for protection only of products with a reasonable
price to value ratio.  Therefore, arguments based on the
high price of software are completely irrelevent.

Fed up with people who claim that breaking the law is OK,

	Art Zemon
	...!{ucbvax, decvax}!trwrb!felix!zemon