Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!w-colinp From: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Software Development And Piracy (Spurred By FTL replies) Message-ID: <105@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 19 Dec 88 10:18:00 GMT References: <555@icus.islp.ny.us> <2363@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1334@leah.Albany.Edu> <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> <39@microsoft.UUCP> <400@eda.com> Reply-To: w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 171 Confusion: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA In article <400@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <39@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >| Hardly. Copyright law says that copying that is insignificant in quantity > ^^^^^^^^ >I believe this refers to quantity of the total percentage of one copyrighted >work, (i.e. 1% of a book) not quantity of total production run. So this is >going to excuse you having one copy out of 300,000 copies. No, actually, this says that, even if you only copy a small quote (a few paragraphs), but you put it in a widely published book, you need permission. This is almost universally given, but the copyright holder has the right to refuse. >| and does not impact the fortunes of the copyright holder (this is not the >| exact wording, which also mentions not copying the entire work) is perfectly > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^note this^ >Don't you think this makes your one complete copy of word perfect illegal? Yes. But it is not in violation of coyright law to circulate, say, a disassembly of some neat code (line-break algorithm, QuickDraw kernel, or whatever) among a few friends. The point I was trying to make is that there is a current compromise in the printed-material business short of paying the publisher every time you look at something. The law basically says I can do what I want as long as I don't deprive the copyright holder of revenue, and then defines some things considered to deprive copyright holders of revenue. I can make as many complete copies of a book I own as I like, as long as I don't distribute them, and then there is a very rough inverse relationship between how much I copy and how far I distribute it. This relation is *not* copies*distance = 0. >| legal. While most software licences are more restrictive, this rule seems >| to keep book publishers reasonably happy. > >It's hard for me to picture book publishers worrying about people having >guests over to sit around a coffee table with an artistically >arranged group of stapled photocopies of some of the upper class books >and magazines 8^) No, but you probably do have experience with people's libraries of photocopies of interesting journal articles. I do routinely copy entire magazine articles. >| Stealing a car is *very* different, because it deprives the (former) owner >| of the use of the car. Copying (whether of a car or a program) doesn't. > >Stealing is stealing. The law generally uses the quantity of theft only >to determine the quantity of punishment, not to determine the boolean >value of "theft/not theft". So the only difference between stealing a car >and stealing a program is that the value of the car is substantially >greater than the value of the lost revenue/profit. Well, I maintain that copying software is *not* stealing. There may not be a good word for it in the English language (or the American one), but while we use the term, we should be careful not to over-generalise. You're saying the amount stolen only has to be non-zero. Okay. And I mainmtain that the amount stolen is exactly zero. If I steal your car, you want it back. If I copy your copy of program X, you still have it. Yes, copyright law and licencing come into the real world, but this definitely isn't reducing your ability to use the program. Software copyright holders are of a similar view, usually stating that a person's obligations under a licence agreement end when all copies of the software have been destroyed. This strikes me as different from what a car rental agency accepts. Following your logic that lost potential revenue=stealing, you'd say I was stealing if you had the only car in the world and I gave everyone else one. Violation of patent law, if you've patented the automobile, but *not* stealing. >| It only deprives the copyright holder of revenue. > >I think the copyright holder probably considers this important 8^) Yes, he probably does, but if I write a clone, I've also probably deprived him of revenue, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it legally. (In the U.S., he can bombard me with nuisance "look & feel" lawsuits, but I won't talk about my contempt for that nonsense.) >| If you could tell that >| a person was not going to purchase something, there is no harm in them having >| a copy. Of course, in this world, it's hard to tell. > >Most copyright holders consider the possession of a copy of their property >as proving they have been deprived. Most courts consider it not relevant >that the thief wouldn't have purchased. Of course, because it can't be proved. I said "if you could prove", both to yourself and the copyright holder, that it doesn't cost them money, I really doubt they would mind. In the real world, such proof is basically impossible to provide. >| Still, I think I >| can safely say that the copy of WordPerfect I have for the Amiga (used once, >| hated it, now collecting dust until I need another floppy for Fish Disks) >| isn't depriving WP corp. of any revenue. > >I hope you have $25,000 handy. Since you have just admitted willful >copyright violation. *Isn't* doesn't count. You already deprived them of the >purchase price of Word Perfect. No I don't have $25,000 handy. This one reason why WP Corp. is unlikely to sue me. Another is that, as I just pointed out, I have *not* deprived them, to 99.99% certainty, of any revenue. >One thing I have observed is that employees of software companies don't seem >to understand the value of other peoples software. Maybe they think theirs >is the only important software? Huh? I think *Microsoft* is founded on a misguided principle. I am not, however, so dim as to miss the carrot (we'll give you money) and stick (we'll sic coproprate legal on you) with which they encourage me not to distribute their products myself. I am further aware that this all depends on them catching me should I go against their wishes, which has a very, very low probability indeed. (I also think Microsoft products, to a first approximation, are crap, but that's another story, and partially because I'm working on some particularly crappy crap at the moment. They pay me to do certain things, and my desire to do those things is for me to weigh against my desire to eat. I'll be moral when I'm rich.) >Let us forget about all these attempt to set value comparisons, and >get back down to the simple facts: > >1) Intellectual property *is* property. I disagree. Legally, maybe (I don't understand the details), but I don't think it should be so. >2) The *owner* of a property generally gets to determine what >value that property has. The owner gets to decide what he wants to sell it for. "Value" is a term usually used to describe the compromise reached by seller & buyer. This can often be estimated without a sale, by comparison with other, similar things' values. But things like bank loans are often calculated on the value of the collateral, and there value is usually computed a bit more objectively. >3) There are laws that force certain values upon owners of property, >but they are individual special cases (selling software to the federal >gov't is one that relates to software pricing), but they are special >cases, the general case remains that the owner sets the value. See above. Value is a relative term, but it can be objectively determined with some accuracy. >It is his property. If you possess it without permission, all >the words you use to defend this do not count. A person who possesses >the property of another without permission is historically known >by a simple, short word, "thief". No, that's reserved for someone who *takes* the property of another. As in takes away. We do not generally call an unknowing buyer of "hot" property a thief. An d I don't consider copying taking. >I will repeat: "It is his property". Right. He had it before, he still has it. What did I do wrong? Current law and its interpretation says that making a literal copy of something is a crime, while making a functional one is not. Now for the hard part: where's the boundary? -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)