Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13772 comp.sys.misc:1070 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11183 comp.sys.mac:11774 comp.sys.atari.st:7193 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!octopus!pete From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) 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: <160@octopus.UUCP> Date: 28 Jan 88 17:15:24 GMT References: <21754@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <229@wright.EDU> <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA Lines: 88 Summary: It *is* theft! In article <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) writes: >In article <229@wright.EDU> jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) writes: >> I am amazed at how much discussion the topic of copying >>still generates though... It still comes down to theft... > >Unauthorized copying is not theft: it is infringement of a statutory >monopoly. You may think that unauthorized copying is a bad as theft, >but you confuse yourself when you say it _is_ theft. The two crimes >are quite distinct; this is why people treat them differently. > >If I copy a program which I would never pay for, the copyright holder >loses nothing, since he wouldn't get any money from me anyway. In such >a situation, the copying is illegal, but I would not consider it immoral. I rather strongly disagree with your point of view. You are assuming that the only 'value' involved here is the cost of physical items. If I extend your reason to the general case, you are saying: If I obtain a copy of something that is owned by somebody else, I have done nothing wrong. It may be illegal, but it is not wrong, since what I have done has no affect on the owner of the thing. I have not stolen any*thing*. This assertion is false. Making a copy of something *can* affect the owner! And you are stealing some*thing*, even though the thing being stolen is not physical. To make it obvious, consider the case where there is a small class of people that can and will pay for X, and a much larger class of people who cannot affort to pay for X or are unwilling to pay for it. If everyone in the larger class of people makes a copy of X (where X is 'intangible property'), what might the results be? - The value of a copy of X may decrease as far as willing purchasers is concerned. Copies of X are rarely of identical quality to the original. (Examples: For software, the documentation is rarely copied at the same quality. Art: a photograph of a painting just isn't the same!) - The more copies of X that exist, the less a single copy of X is valued. Simple supply and demand economics, if nothing else. - The rightful owner of X may have to deal with endless inquiries about X from people who have never paid for it. Even simply saying "no, I won't explain" costs something, especially if it must be said a million times! - The owner of X has the moral right to say 'you may not have X if you will not pay for it, because sales of X are my livelihood'. If you are unwilling to pay for X, you should be able to live without it. If you can't live without X, it is worth more than $0.00 to you, and you should be willing to pay for it! Just because you would like X's owner to be altruistic and give you a copy does not place any moral compunction (sp?) on X's owner to do so, nor does it give you the right to *take* a copy. When you make a copy of something that the owner does not want copied, you are stealing: - The owner's right to control the distribution and use of X - The owner's right to make a living from the distribution and use of X There are many positions that can be held wherein such property rights are given over to some other party (the State, the People). But in all cases, the original creator must be *paid* in some way for the transfer of these rights. If this is not done, society is left without all forms of professional intellectual creation vocation. This would be rather serious! Here's a short list of people who earn their keep by investing time and/or $$$ in the creation of intellectual property. To the extent they lose control over that property, they will find it hard to make enough profit to stay in business. *MORALLY*, they have the right to their wages, just like you do for the time *you* put in at work! - The obvious: songwriters, authors, artists, programmers, etc. - Money market-watchers (contents of newsletters) - Market research firms (contents of research reports) - Product testing companies (test reports) - Architects (blueprints, building designs, etc) - Professional cooks (recipes in cookbooks, etc) - etc. That's enough from this guy's keyboard for now. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746