Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: lotus chairman makes 26 million Summary: too bad, but I must agree Keywords: copy protection piracy Message-ID: <203@proxftl.UUCP> Date: 21 May 88 20:34:04 GMT References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP> <160@execu.EXECU> Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale Lines: 34 In article <160@execu.EXECU>, dewey@execu.EXECU (dewey henize) writes: > > Do you really think you are going to convince each other on this? > > There are those that are going to steal every piece of software they think > they might want. It's their 'right', can't you see that? Just because someone > else made it and debugged it and packaged it doesn't matter. > > So save yourself some problems. You CAN NOT convince someone who steals > copyrighted programs that they shouldn't - the only thing you can occasionally > convince him/her of is that they might get caught. And you know how likely > that will be.... Agreed. A software pirate is a thief, no matter what justifications he may give, and in spite of our calling him a `software pirate'. Arguing with him will not change his feelings. Unfortunately, today, received morality has degenerated to a kind of subjectivism (for the uninitiated, this means approximately that "if I feel it is good then it is") that makes the arguments that "software pirates" use seem plausible. Arguments like this let others know that there ARE people out there who reject (at least some) of today's junk morality and that there are alternates to "doing it because I feel like it". On the other hand, the arguments against "software pirates" are also tainted by this same subjectivism so maybe these discussions do not help. Sigh! At this point, anything further I might say would be an actual discussion of morality (or a flame against subjectivism); that does not belong in this newsgroup.