Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!s1!jrk
From: jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software Development And Piracy (Spurred By FTL replies)
Message-ID: <299@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Dec 88 13:16:58 GMT
References: <555@icus.islp.ny.us> <2363@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1334@leah.Albany.Edu> <6390@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <287@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> <403@eda.com>
Reply-To: jrk@uea-sys.UUCP (Richard Kennaway)
Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich
Lines: 60


This is two replies on the same subject, packed in one message so you only
have to hit 'n' once.

Summary:  I and everyone quoted here agree that illegal copying of software
is wrong.  We disagree over whether to call it "theft".  It's a futile
argument over the meanings of words.  Hit 'n' now.


CW = chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley)
RK = me

In various articles, drastically edited (parentheses in [], the rest is quotation):

CW: [Illegal] copying seriously devalues the software product.
RK: [Copying reduces the price, not the value.]
CW: [That's what I meant.] I cartainly don't think that the software will
CW: wear out or become soiled in any way!

Nor do I.  Fine.

RK: Ever heard of the FSF?
CW: [Yes.] What do they have to do with this discussion?
CW: (Disclaimer: I have no beef with the FSF. In fact, I hardly know anything
CW: about them except for the fact that they make my favorite editor.)

I've never even used emacs, but in the documentation that goes with GNU
emacs, I remember reading a manifesto setting out the policies of the FSF.
It is there argued that ownership of software is *wrong*.  (Such is my
memory; I couldnt track it down to verify it.)  This seems to have a great
deal to do with the discussion (the one about piracy, not this one about
the proper definition of "theft").


JB = jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)

RK: [Copying harms the producer. Copying is wrong. Copying is not theft.]
JB: Copying deprives the manufacturer of the profit he
JB: would have earned on the sale. THIS IS THEFT.
[and later]
JB: Copying reduces the value to the intellectual owner. Therefore it is theft.

Doesnt follow.  There are many activities, legal and illegal, that can reduce
the value of people's property.  Only a few of them are called "theft".

JB: This bozo [referring to me] describes
    how it hurts the creator of the software, and how it may cause them
    to stop supporting the software, but cant expand his intellectual horizon
    far enough to understand how this hurts the software and why it is theft. He
    actually *sees* the damage it does, but since he can still use the software
    he doesn't consider it's value reduced.

"Hurts the software"?  And you were doing so well up to then.  I just went
through this with Chris Whatley above.  No doubt it will turn out that by
"hurts the software" you meant "hurts the producer of the software" and that
you "certainly don't think that the software will wear out or become soiled
in any way!".  But this strand of the thread is too long already.
-- 
Richard Kennaway                SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
uucp:	...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk	Janet:	kennaway@uk.ac.uea.sys