Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsc!dalenber
From: dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <13518@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Feb 90 00:10:06 GMT
References: <1233@utoday.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 65

In article <1233@utoday.UUCP>, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
>  richard@pegasus.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes:
>>Therefore I would use your software (if it was any good) and never
>>ever pay you a penny -- in protest of your unethical, and probably
>>illegal approach to marketing.
> ...
>>
>>I urge others to do the same.
>>
> 
> That's a pity, for you would have others act in an unethical manner and against
> the wishes of the intellectual property owner.  An attitude such as yours in
> one to be ashamed of, not one to be proud of; it's an attitude we try to teach
> out children to avoid:  "No, Sammy, just ignore that rude man and walk around
> him..."

Gee, this sounds a lot like the arguments raised when someone raises a valid,
but "unpopular" political argument; like "flag burning should be protected
under the Constitution" or "the War On Drugs causes more problems than it
cures".  You reply that they are *obviously* unethical (or immoral, or
un-patriotic, or a brain-dead druggie), dismiss them, and climb right back
onto your high horse.

This argument seems no more convincing in this case than in the flag-burning
case.

Look at it this way, civil disobedience is one way to change bad laws
(and informal rules of society). That's what seems Richard seems to be
advocating to me.

> I am entitled to restrict the usage license on my software contingent upon
> anything I like.  That's the law.

You sure are. But if you give me a copy of your work without an explicit
contract, I have the right to do whatever I want with *my* *copy*.

You still hold the copyright, so I can't redistribute it, but the copy you
gave me is mine.

> I've never stood on the legal ground, Richard.  I've always felt that the
> proper usage of software was ethical usage of it.  Improper usage of it,
> such as using against the permissions of the owner of the right to use that
> software, well that *is* unethical.

Everyone who has a copy of the program, obtained in a legal manner, is
the "owner of the right to use" that copy of the software.

>                                                  As for reprehensible, well,
> inviting others to act in an unethical manner (visions of a crack dealer,
> standing outside a schoolyard, saying "Hey, just try it once...") might
> be considered a bit worse than simply trying to get others to respect the
> rights of intellectual property owners.

More good solid arguments here (heavy scarcasm).  I'm sure that if I felt
it was wrong for the government to outlaw flag burning (and I do), the
arguments above could easily be applied to me were I to encourage people to
burn flags to protest this law.


Russel Dalenberg

att!ihlpb!dalenber
dalenber@ihlpb.att.com

Disclaimer: These are my views, not AT&T's.