Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!necis!smv From: smv@necis.UUCP (Steve Valentine) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: v11INF3: Poll on copyrights Message-ID: <519@necis.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 12:35:01 EST Article-I.D.: necis.519 Posted: Fri Oct 23 12:35:01 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 16:43:20 EST References: <4899@ncoast.UUCP> <31209@sun.uucp> <31218@sun.uucp> <31219@sun.uucp> Reply-To: smv@necis.UUCP (Steve Valentine) Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA Lines: 65 In article <31219@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>>>[Root Boy wrote:] >>>>Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it >>>>has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well >>>>please with any piece of software I get my hands on. ... >First, there is a law against stealing cars. There is also a law against >stealing copyrighted software. If you feel that you are above one, there is >no way you can claim that we aren't just as far above the other. Both are >theft. Plain and simple. Theft. >Second, are you claiming that if I steal your car and return it before you >need it I have committed no crime? That's your implication. >>As has been pointed out by others, software is >>unlike physical objects in that it can be copied indefinitely with no >>degradation, and at no cost. If I post software to the net, nothing >>Root Boy does to it will affect my subsequent enjoyment of it. >What about things like intrinsic value? If you steal my software and ignore >its legal and binding restrictions, what does that do to the worth of >software? I may still have my copy, but it isn't worth anything anymore. >Theft is theft. If you break the law, you break the law. You can rationalize >all you want, but the bottom line is that you are a thief. >chuq chuq, My understanding of Root Boy's message was that he was refering to software that was placed into his hands by the author (with or without those silly copywrong notices). If you post software to a public forum such as Usenet it's not fair to expect people not to do with it as they choose (short of selling it as their own). It's like dangling candy in front of your kid sister and snaching it away when she grabs for it. Also, you seem to be forgetting that there have been laws against all sorts of things, like blacks wanting to sit in the front of a bus, or against people who wish to consume alcohol. These two examples are, fortunately, no longer on the books. Unfortunately, others that retard technical progress to benefit the capitalists are. "Theft of service" and "Violation of copyright" are two prime examples of things that are considered "wrong" because someone, somewhere thinks they would have made a buck if it didn't happen. More often than not, it isn't the creator of the service or work, but rather some middleman, that holds this opinion. The copyright and patent laws were put on the books to serve the general good, not to put people on the gravy train for life. The general good was best served by protecting the authors and inventors creations so that the creaters could afford to continue to create. Books were published at affordable prices that reflected the cost of printing and binding, with a moderate profit. Authors made lots of money by selling many copies. Inventions were licensed with royalties to be paid. In general the protections served to improve the availability of the creation, and make public the knowledge that went into it. Today, copyright and patent laws are used to limit or prevent the distribution of these creations. In my view, this is no longer serving the public good. -- Steve Valentine, NEC Information Systems 289 Great Rd., Acton, MA 01720 smv@necis.nec.com Life is like a movie, but you have to be Shirley Maclaine to see the sequel.