Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:26775 comp.misc:4442
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software Development And Piracy (Spurred By FTL replies)
Message-ID: <3121@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 19 Dec 88 13:15:19 GMT
References: <2515@looking.UUCP> <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 41

In article <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
writes another pseudo-libertarian defence of piracy.

Let me put this into libertarian terms.

Look, Lee, when you "buy" software you are entering into a contract with the
seller. The terms of this contract are more or less: you get the right to use
the software on your computer. You may make backup copies or otherwise modify
the software to enable you to use it. In exchange for this you pay the author
a fixed sum of money and agree not to distribute the software.

There's nothing coercive about this. It doesn't take laws or a distortion of
the market to allow this sort of transaction to take place or this market to
exist. It's just a contract, no stranger than the one you sign when you rent
a car or get married. The terms are different, but the principle is the same.

And breaking a contract is morally and ethically wrong, whether you're
copying someone else's software, cheating on your spouse, or letting a third
party drive a rental car. Just because you are less likely to get caught
doing these things doesn't make them any less wrong.

> " 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 is the authors right to put any terms he wants to on a contract. It is your
right to accept or reject the contract as a whole. It is not your right to
turn around and force a third party, who has agreed to that contract, to
break it.

> What I don't have any sympathy with is self-serving moralizing from
> people who make their living selling software.

How about good sound ethical reasoning from a guy who makes his living writing
software under a work-for-hire contract?
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net