Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!pitt!cisunx!mike
From: mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike  Elliot)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: lotus chairman makes 26 million
Message-ID: <9360@cisunx.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 88 21:55:43 GMT
References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP>
Reply-To: mike@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Mike  Elliot)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys
Lines: 102

In article <807@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
>In article <1801@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes:
>>From article <9160@cisunx.UUCP>, by mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike  Elliot):
>>" ...			 I on the other hand see this and any other
>>" stealing as being not only illegal but also immoral.  One can't justify
>>" stealing on the grounds that the person one steals from has more than he
>>" deserves.  Stealing is stealing, no matter from whom it was appropriated.
>>
>>Sure one can.  And one can't show that stealing is never justified
>>by stating a tautology.
>
>
>I would be interested in knowing what Mike Elliot thinks of the "Robin Hood"
>figure, who stole from the rich and gave to the poor.  Would he be in favor
>of the Sherrif?  Or does he, as most people I know, support the theives.
>
>I doubt that Mike has really thought this through.  But, I'm willing to ask!
>
	Since you asked...Robin hood is stealing from the Sheriff who stole from
	the people, albeit through legal (and unethical) means. Since the Sheriff,
	or his boss King (Prince? I don't rightly recall) John is the ultimate
	authority, there were no legal means for him to right this wrong. There-
	fore he fought fire with fire and stole the gold back. It was still
	stealing, but it was (in my opinion) justified.

	Now when it comes to stealing software, I haven't found any rational that
	would allow me to do it. I'll state my reasons later on.

>As I see it, the cases are parallel, though different in that the Lotus
>Chairman could not be described as classically 'bad', as the Sherrif could.
>(Greedy maybe, but not inherently 'bad'.)

	How do you classify the chairman as bad in any way? He performs his
	job in such an exemplary fashion, that the company rewards him for
	it with a large salary. An enviable postion no doubt, but that doesn't
	make him bad.

>
>And in case you think I'm being frivolous, I'm not.  I would like to see
>more discussion on exactly WHY copying software is 'wrong/right'.  Here are 
>some ideas on it:
>
>Copying Software is Wrong Because:
>
>1. The people who wrote it have to make a living, and if you copy their
>software without paying for it, you are effectively stealing their income.
>(Kind of like cuting off a peice of their paycheck before it gets to them.)

That's right. I know alot of people who feel its wrong when someone steals
a product from a store, but see nothing wrong with stealing software. I
don't understand how people who would say that shop lifting is wrong, can
steal someone else's work without paying for it.

>
>Copying Software is Right Because:
>
>1. The people who wrote it are charging so much for it that I can't afford
>it, yet I really need it.  (A rather lame argument.)

	I really need a car right now, but can't afford it. That doesn't give
	me the right to steal one.

>
>2. The people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's who charge 200% more than
>the product is actually worth, so I'm reducing that profit margin to something
>more reasonable.  (Not much better.)

	If the product is so outlandishly priced, dont' buy it. Call your
	friends and co-workers and tell them not to buy. If vendors can't
	sell their products at such prices, they'll have to bring the price
	down or go out of business. That's what supply and demand is all
	about.
>
>3. Software is not tangible property, so when I copy it (like taking a
>picture of a waterfall) I do not 'take' anything; therefore I am not
>stealing.  (Has possibilities, but would also apply to things like sci.
>theories.  Not a good defense.)

	Like taking a picture of a waterfall huh? Well maybe true, but if
	I were to take a picture of a waterfall, my thumb would probably
	be in the corner; the focus wouldn't be just right; nor would the
	lighting. That's why when someone else takes a picture of the
	waterfall at just the right time of day, with the right exposure,
	and filters and such, he has copies made and sells them. If people
	like them, they pay him for it, and take it home with them. They
	don't (at least not those with whom I'm acquainted) say, "Hey,
	that's Niagara falls, you don't own the waterfall, so you don't
	own the picture, so I don't have to pay you for it."

	After all, lotus isn't the only spreadsheet around, just one of the
	better one's.

			Mike Elliot
			{allegra|bellcore|cadre|psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!mike
			mike@pittvms.bitnet

It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a
new system.  For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by
the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in
those who would gain by the new ones.
			-Machiavelli