Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:26748 comp.misc:4431
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software Development And Piracy (Spurred By FTL replies)
Message-ID: <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 88 20:19:14 GMT
References: <2515@looking.UUCP>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 39

From article <2515@looking.UUCP>, by brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton):
" ...
" Q) I'm not actually taking anything.  Nobody's property is removed.
" 
" A) Wrong.

Answer makes no sense.  It's obvious that nobody's property is
removed.  (It may be that somebody's property is diminished in
value.)

" The only thing you *can* do with intellectual property
" is control it and say how it is to be used.

So since it's the only thing you can do with it, therefore you
should be able to do this with it?  What kind of reasoning is that?

" By copying, you are
" appropriating the owner's only true right.

You say it's a true right -- others disagree.  If this is intended to
support your case, you should be reminded that calling it a true right
doesn't make it one.  Because there's no other right doesn't mean this
right exists.

" It's theft, plain and
" simple, equal to (or worse than) any other theft.

Silliness.  There are obviously thefts that do much greater injury to
people.  The law makes distinctions among different kinds of theft and
exacts penalties of differing severities.  Are your eyes so firmly fixed
on your wallet that you really can't see any differences?


I understand that it may be to the mutual benefit of producers and
consumers of software to outlaw and to prevent piracy.  It's arguable.
What I don't have any sympathy with is self-serving moralizing from
people who make their living selling software.

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu