Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13374 comp.sys.misc:1004 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10824 comp.sys.mac:11267 comp.sys.atari.st:7047
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!aurora!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Software (and other kinds of) copying
Message-ID: <1879@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jan 88 16:40:23 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> <174@piring.cwi.nl> <1861@optilink.UUCP> <6657@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1874@optilink.UUCP> <6693@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 58

> In article <1874@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> <"Uneforceable" without a police state, yes.  How enforceable a law is,
> <is a function of what abuses people are willing to tolerate.  No one would
> <accept no-knock warrants and warrantless searches to stop software piracy.
> <(Though most people would tolerate it stop drug dealers or terrorists.)
> 
> I'm not willing to grant that a police state can enforce a law against
> software piracy - except by going to the extreme of making it illegal
> to own a computer. You should check out how the Polish resistance
> movement is making use of computers.

Come now, you are either short on imagination, or don't know much about
police states.  The Software Piracy Police go door to door, entering without
warning, turning on your PC, and searching the disk for software.  When
they find copyrighted programs, they look for a manual with a valid license
agreement for that software.  If you don't have it, and the manufacturer
can't find evidence of being a registered owner, they format your disk,
and, depending how fiercely this police state chooses to enforce the law,
executes you on the Chief Ed Davis portable gallows.

I think this would strongly discourage software piracy, don't you?  I
think it might well end it, even.

> <The enforceability of a law says nothing about the morality of the action
> <that law prohibits.  (Of course, talking about right and wrong with the
> <well educated crowd on USENET is a complete waste of time).
> 
> Likewise, the existence of a law says nothing about the morality of the
> action that law prohibits, either.

My argument is not with the morality of the law -- my argument is concerning
the morality of software piracy.

> <Nothing is wrong with [copy protection] -- there's just too many people
> <out there who believe that stealing intellectual property is a right.
> <Consequently, you can expect these sort of damn nuisances.
> 
> No, there is something wrong with it. The law is set up to try and
> turn an oxymoron (intellectual property) into a reality. As usual,
> when a law tries to change reality, it gets ignored. Expecting
> anything else is silly.

Aha!  We finally get down to the crux of the difference of opinion.  I
view "intellectual property" as a valid position; you view it as an
oxymoron.  Here we must argue the nature of rights -- and doubtless
the divergence will become more extreme.

> BTW - I *don't* condone stealing software. While it's not immoral, it
> *is* unfair and dishonest. You should play by the rules until you
> manage to get them changed.
> 
> 	<mike

Does this mean if the law is changed, and we no longer recognize intellectual
property (which would include copyrights of all sorts), that you will then
feel it is OK?

Clayton E. Cramer