Hey buddy, pass the warez... [Archive]

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 12:07 AM

http://www.pdaavenue.com/forum/index.php?board=36;action=display;threadid=691

Where do you stand on the issue of warez? Do you loathe it? Love it? Indifferent towards it? Marcus Bankuti has an editorial on the subject worth a quick read - I'm interested in your comments on how this related to Pocket PC software as well.

"Pirating music and software is reported in the media all the time it seems. There have been countless debates on the subject, and several different points of views have been expressed by several different groups of people of all genders, ages, and classes. In this editorial I will be focusing on PDA Warez. Incase you don’t know, Warez are basically illegal pirated copies of software illegally distributed for free.

There are basically three major groups of people in this debate. First, there are the people who believe that downloading Warez is an immoral, unethical [sic] thing to do. I would be classified under that group. Second, there are those who feel that if a developer is over charging for their software, and they can’t afford the price and therefore won’t buy it anyway, downloading an illegal copy is Ok and not hurting anyone. Third, there are people who don’t have any problem with downloading software, as they don’t believe they are doing anything wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of people belong to group number three.

Throughout this editorial I will explain my thoughts on the issue, compare situations, explain why so many belong to group number two or three, and sum up why I belong to group number one. Maybe I will even convince some to change their minds on the way they look at Warez."

crispeto

08-06-2002, 12:18 AM

I'm in group #1. If you're in group #2, your trying to justify stealing and your integrity is suffering. Spoken from a true Promise Keeper!

Toshi

08-06-2002, 12:34 AM

I am in group 1 1/2. The only time I ever download warez are when the company does not provide a trial version. I set a time limit of 15 days and then delete. REALLY!

Tom Eichers

08-06-2002, 12:55 AM

Put me in the 1 1/2 group also. The only times I have downloaded warez is to try a program if no trial is available. If its bad its gone quick, if I like it I then buy it. Its only right, although some developers have a very high requard for thier software (usualy its junk)

DrtyBlvd

08-06-2002, 01:05 AM

JonnoB

08-06-2002, 01:13 AM

marcusbankuti

08-06-2002, 01:14 AM

"Third, there are people who don’t have any problem with downloading software, as they don’t believe they are doing anything wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of people belong to group number three. "

Forgot the 4th group - I do know, and have no problems doing it either.

A little naive, that opinion. Err...MP3's anyone?

My perspective? Pay for those things worthwhile. I have lost count of the things I have downloaded and used 'past' their sell-by date, that never make it past the next FDisk...

On the other hand, I can list the things I have bought and cannot do without using two hands and a foot; and I have NEVER paid for an operating system. Any of them. And until they make it impossible to utilise any of them without buying them, I never will. (Don't get me started on prices)

The moral perspective? I sleep fine. But I do appreciate those who sleep 'lightly'

(Actually, having thought about it, scratch the foot and a thumb) Well, as for your 4th group, it is the third reworded. "No problems doing it" "Don't think they are doing anything wrong". Sounds pretty close to me.

Anyway, I guess you would belong to group number two, right?

If you think that an OS costs too much, why not re-evaluate how much you want/need it? Windows XP Home costs less than 30% what a new computer would cost you. I'm sure that if you can afford a computer, you can afford an OS for it. If you don't like it, next time you buy a computer, get one preloaded. Well actually, I guess if you don't like it, you will keep stealing it (out of my power)...

A lot of the cost on operating system's goes toward covering for Piracy loss, as even MS needs to return a profit, especially with the current saturation of the computer market.

DrtyBlvd

08-06-2002, 01:27 AM

Perhaps you're correct Marcus - perception is reality after all; but I certainly belong to the 4th group - I DO know and, more importantly, I don't care - without wishing to be inflamatory.

And yes, if the hotdogs were unguarded and there was no fear of reprisal, they'd be leaving with me...

TheScream

08-06-2002, 01:49 AM

Someone on the linked editorial made an analogy that made total sense to me. If I go to a ball-game, the cost of hot dogs and soda is way too high. Do they provide samples to see if I would like a whole hot-dog? No... does the no sample and high price give me the right to steal a hot dog? Stealing is stealing period.
Stealing is stealing but it is depriving the legal owner of anything? In the baseball analogy it certainly is. The vendor has spend time cooking the hotdog, spent money aquiring all the ingredients and if a hotdog was stolen then it would have an actual cost and impact.

In the case of stealing software, the only time it is wrong in my opinion is if you would have purchased it had you not been able to steal a copy. Following this rule (ie: category number 2) nobody suffers actual damage but only if you are honest with yourself.

Thoughts?

JonnoB

08-06-2002, 02:10 AM

Stealing is stealing but it is depriving the legal owner of anything? In the baseball analogy it certainly is. The vendor has spend time cooking the hotdog, spent money aquiring all the ingredients and if a hotdog was stolen then it would have an actual cost and impact.

In the case of stealing software, the only time it is wrong in my opinion is if you would have purchased it had you not been able to steal a copy. Following this rule (ie: category number 2) nobody suffers actual damage but only if you are honest with yourself.

Thoughts?

You don't think that coders spend time and money developing software? Pirating can dilute the market of a software's value as well. Sometimes high-volume distribution is desired, but it is the right of the creator to decide that. A creator may want to create a high-demand with short supply situation... why deprive them of that? There is real loss whenever anything is stolen. At the minimum, piracy aids the demand side of the more illicit piracy trade industry.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 02:11 AM

On the other hand, I can list the things I have bought and cannot do without using two hands and a foot; and I have NEVER paid for an operating system. Any of them. And until they make it impossible to utilise any of them without buying them, I never will. (Don't get me started on prices)

Unbelievable - you've NEVER bought a legitimate operating system?? If you own a Pocket PC, you have, but I suppose that's because you couldn't steal one. :? The upgrade for XP Home is $99 US I think - what's so outrageous about that? It's the entire core of your computer, and it's not worth $99?

I will now read your posts in a very different light, knowing that you leech off the efforts of the computer industry instead of supporting future development. Very, very disappointing. 8O

klinux

08-06-2002, 02:17 AM

DrtyBlvd wrote:
And yes, if the hotdogs were unguarded and there was no fear of reprisal, they'd be leaving with me...

Pathetic.

JonnoB

08-06-2002, 02:17 AM

And yes, if the hotdogs were unguarded and there was no fear of reprisal, they'd be leaving with me...

Serious? You care that little about your fellow human being that you would steal from them this way? Even if it meant you took the last of the owners profit in the form of the hot dog that would allow him to support his hungry family?

08-06-2002, 02:21 AM

And yes, if the hotdogs were unguarded and there was no fear of reprisal, they'd be leaving with me...

this was written by someone who identifies themselves publicly as "drtyblvd". online rule-of-thumb: if someone won't claim ownership of their words, this is often an indication of those words' value.

drtyblvd, it's really easy to post comments like this here to get flamed responses. but they're not very valuable or worth even considering since you're certainly not going to take a real stand and put "skin in the game".

cheers,
pt

TheScream

08-06-2002, 02:33 AM

You don't think that coders spend time and money developing software?

Don't you go putting words in my mouth. My point was that the hot dog vendor put time and money into producing his products, if someone steals from them, they have to spend more time and money to replace the lost stock and may loose business if they run out of stock because of the theft.

In the case of the programmer that is not the case because in situation 2 the only time that someone would steal the software is when they would not have bought it in the first place, the programmer would not have actually been deprived of anything. I am not saying that being in category 2 is right or moral, I am simply debunking a flawed analogy.

I am not arguing that it isn't theft, it is by definintion, but does it cause harm? If you are honest to the concept of category 2 it will cause no harm.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 02:34 AM

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 02:35 AM

And yes, if the hotdogs were unguarded and there was no fear of reprisal, they'd be leaving with me...

You are truly at the lowest rung on the moral ladder - motivated only by fear of punishment. We all start out like that, yet most of us move beyond that stage of morality by age 12 or so. :?

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 02:38 AM

I am not arguing that it isn't theft, it is by definintion, but does it cause harm? If you are honest to the concept of category 2 it will cause no harm.

Your view of "harm" is simplistic in the extreme. If someone took one of my books, scraped off my name and put their own on it, then walked around bragging about the book they wrote, would I be financially harmed? No. But I would feel morally violated that someone who brazenly pretend to be the author of something I created.

If someone breaks into your house, goes through all your things and leaves a mess, yet takes nothing, wouldn't you be upset? "Harm" comes in many forms.

TheScream

08-06-2002, 03:07 AM

3) Therefore, whether it's simply one person not buying the software, or everyone, it's hurting the software industry. In point of fact, your stealing is hurting ME because instead of supporting the company that makes the product you're using, you're stealing it. And because of people like you, that company has less capital to work with, and therefor has limited resources with which to make the software better for ME, the PAYING customer.

I can't believe you'd openly admit this. I admire your courage, but pity your short-sightedness.
I can see where you're coming from, if I am correct your opinion is you can only:
1. Buy the software and use it
2. Don't buy the software and not use it

For the record, I have no stolen software on my Pocket PC. None at all. The only time that I did use stolen software was when I had my H3650 and the PocketPC 2002 upgrade was not available in Australia.

It is a difficult situation for many, having bought my PocketPC when I had a higher paying job and still living at home 2 months ago. (I'm married now) Now I am very tempted to obtain my PocketPC software illigally. But I probably wont. I will just have to cut back on my food bills. Maybe have canned soup for dinner a couple of nights a week for a few months so I can afford something. Not being able to afford something is not justification for stealing... but it sure makes it tempting.

JonnoB

08-06-2002, 03:12 AM

Don't you go putting words in my mouth.

I wouldn't dream of such a thing! :)

My point was that the hot dog vendor put time and money into producing his products, if someone steals from them, they have to spend more time and money to replace the lost stock and may loose business if they run out of stock because of the theft.

Sure, the hot dog vendor has some more visible losses, but I believe the virtual losses of a programmer are just as real and potentially just as painful in terms of potential revenue lost.

In the case of the programmer that is not the case because in situation 2 the only time that someone would steal the software is when they would not have bought it in the first place, the programmer would not have actually been deprived of anything. I am not saying that being in category 2 is right or moral, I am simply debunking a flawed analogy.

Guilt by association means that although someone's lack of potential purchase would not have a direct impact, the support of the piracy underground further makes potential customers into pirates that much easier.

I am not arguing that it isn't theft, it is by definintion, but does it cause harm? If you are honest to the concept of category 2 it will cause no harm.
I guess the discussion is moot if we had consensus that all forms of stealing are inherently wrong.

XmanHP548

08-06-2002, 03:54 AM

Have any of you even looked in the alt.binaries.warez.windowsce usegroup recently? It is frequently full of nothing but crappy map software junk. It's not even really worth the time to browse through it.

I am not really much the warez type though, although I have been forced once to live a "pirate's life." I bought the .lit version of the King/Straub book "Black House" for my old Jornada 525 to find out that it did not work with the version of MS Reader that came with Pocket PC 2000. Pissed to high hell, I immediately headed to the "e-book" usegroups and lurked until someone posted a .txt version of "Black House" that I could read on PocketWord. And yup I downloaded it and read that sucker.

But I have left that life of crime behind for now. Hell, I am even paying the bucks to upgrade to OS X.2 for my PowerMac! How pathetic is that? :wink:

rapidnet_rick

08-06-2002, 04:00 AM

The hotdog analogy isn't too good.....

In the case of software, sometimes the hotdog is 100% pure beef, and other times it is 100% pure bull..... More often times it's a mixture of beef and bull....

There have been quite a few times I have purchsed software at an inflated cost, which either did not work correctly, or only lived up to some of the hype....

Do I pirate software?? Sometimes, when there isn't an eval version... If I like it, I buy it, if I don't like it then I remove it......

How many pieces of software had thorns....well, I have removed more than I have purchased....

Rob Alexander

08-06-2002, 04:03 AM

There are two points worth making here, one of which some others have already alluded to.

Point 1. There is a fourth group; those who are tired of getting ripped off by software that doesn't deliver and who sometimes check out new programs before buying them. When I know a program, I just buy it. All of my OSs, MS Office, Photoshop, etc. are things I just buy when a new version comes out. I know what I'm getting and can make a fair judgement about whether it's worth the money. But I've downloaded warez in the past when skeptical about a particular product. Sometimes, I have gone on to buy the program and sometimes I have deleted it, but I really don't feel guilty about protecting myself from fraudulent claims made by unscrupulous developers who promise the world, but deliver nothing of the kind.

For the record, there is NO software on my computers that is not paid for. If I use it, I buy it... every time. But I have downloaded things that sounded good yet turned out to be garbage. Those things got deleted with my thanks to have found out before laying out the cash. (I have also laid out the cash several times and afterward discovered a program was crap, but I don't see any web discussions complaining about the morality of them ripping ME off.) I haven't downloaded warez for a long time now. I have pretty much everything I need on my computer and most of my purchases now are just upgrades to existing products. Also, most companies release good trial versions these days, so I can usually make a fair evaluation that way if I'm considering something new. But if the need arose, I still wouldn't feel guilty about it.

The other thing I've used warez for is to get something I have already bought more quickly. There was some technical software I used to use that took 2-3 weeks to arrive after I purchased it (because the boxes were shipped to the local distributor from overseas on a box-by-box basis). I used to order the product, then grab it from a warez site to have it faster.

Point 2. Intellectual property actually is different than physical property. That doesn't automatically justify any particular action, but it's nonsensical to compare the theft of intellectual property with the theft of physical property. For those who study markets (or law), the distinction is quite clear. Economists express the distinction in terms of "rivalry in consumption". Physical goods exhibit rivalry in consumption as the consumption of the good uses it up. In the hot dog example, the consumed good is unavailable to any other consumer and so exhibits this. Intellectual property is said to be "non-rival in consumption" as the consumption of the good by one consumer does not diminish the ability of any other consumer to consume the same good. This has profound effects on the economics and law of producing, distributing and consuming these goods.

In economics, the conditions for the efficient production of these goods is different from physical goods. Given the non-rival nature of intellectual property, the only thing that allows it to be exchanged in a private market at all is the ability of the owner to exclude non-payers from using it. The stronger that ability, the more the producer may approximate a market for physical goods. As the ability to exclude becomes weaker, the market for intellectual property moves farther and farther from that of physical goods. In the extreme case, in which no exclusion is possible, it is unlikely that any private market for the good will exist at all. If it does, only a small proportion of those who consume the good will voluntarily pay for it. These issues simply don't exist for regular private physical goods.

In law, the fact that there even are separate copyright and patent laws, and attorneys who specialize in those fields, should be sufficient to tell you that intellectual property is not the same as physical property.

Again, this doesn't mean that stealing intellectual property is okay. But when you make silly blanket statements like "stealing is stealing" or "stealing a song is like stealing a hot dog", you lose all credibility. People recognize intuitively that these things are different and when you deny it, your arguments are dismissed by the very people whose opinions you want to change. If you want to change people's minds, acknowledge the differences and be prepared to demonstrate why it's important not to stead this type of property.

Then be prepared that some people simply will not agree as we are going through a serious debate right now about how far we have strayed from the original intent of the original intellectual property laws. Many people recognize that intellectual property law was corrupted in the 20th century and that it no longer does what it was originally designed to do. For an excellent essay on that, see http://tom.weblogs.com/stories/storyReader$409.

Paul P

08-06-2002, 04:13 AM

I am not going to directly comment on this issue, but how hard is it for programmers and developers alike to come up with a definite solution to warez? I am being unfair with this question for I know nothing about programming and what it takes to protect software from pirates. But there are so many incredible programmers creating incredible programs, but they seem to fail at the most basic of elements (rather most 'complex' if we are discussing this). Of course, if people weren't engaging in piracy in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about protecting their software. However, I am not going to question people's morality.

Again, I realize how naive I must sound, but I am just curious why is it so easy to crack software? I realize also that most of PocketPC software is simply not protected, which makes it that much easier to distribute.

08-06-2002, 04:39 AM

I am not going to directly comment on this issue, but how hard is it for programmers and developers alike to come up with a definite solution to warez?

same reason that no matter how well you protect a bank, a building, a plane, anything...there will always be awful people willing to invest more time than you'd ever expect to do horrible things.

to your question, we're getting really close to some good solutions that will stop warez, the bad part is we usually need to give up lots of privacy.

cheers,
pt

Willmonwah

08-06-2002, 04:45 AM

http://www.pdaavenue.com/forum/index.php?board=36;action=display;threadid=691

This seems like an awfully fun and interesting discussion, but I can't access the editorial! The link is broken I think.

Um... since I can't really participate :( , I thought about bringing up a related point.

What about property holders who are abusing what they claim to have "invented" or "discovered," keeping prices high long beyond reason, and maintaining a sort of monopoly over property that would benefit human kind if it was made free.

I'm talking about medicine. :!: Can you own a chemical formula?

Getting back on topic... there must be exceptions to the rights of an entity over "intellectual property"? Who inspires human creativity anyway, and, are there any limits? (The difference between a series of notes stressed by rhythm vs. a recorded performance).

Hey, maybe this is already being covered... sorry if it is...

William

PS- I can't wait to read the essay as well as the responses!

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 04:54 AM

Follow me here...

1) If no one bought software, it would not get made (people can't work for free forever)

But people do buy software. Lots of it. I spend more money on software every year than I do on hardware.

2) If no one writes commercial software for our computers, we'd have vastly reduced choices. This is bad.

Do you really see this happening?

3) Therefore, whether it's simply one person not buying the software, or everyone, it's hurting the software industry. In point of fact, your stealing is hurting ME because instead of supporting the company that makes the product you're using, you're stealing it. And because of people like you, that company has less capital to work with, and therefor has limited resources with which to make the software better for ME, the PAYING customer.

This is just a platitude based on your first two opinions, and has little basis in reality. "Whether it's one person or everyone" makes a fine statement for politicians, but I treat such utterances as an alarm that signals someone speaking in absolutes. People usually only speak in absolutes when they want to prove an opinion, and rarely because they are speaking of facts. (Hey, that was almost an absolute. yay me)

I am going to indulge in a few of my own favorite "absolutes" on the point of piracy. Hey, everyone else is.

1) Most people who pirate software would never, never, never actually buy the software. If they would never buy it, then the company has lost no money. If the company has lost no money, then it doesn't cost me anything. Example in reality: 3D Studio Max; do you really think all those high-school students out there producing (wonderful!) content with 3DS would be able to afford 3DS, let alone actually buy it?

2) Piracy is *good* for larger companies like Microsoft. In some markets it is the only reason they have the penetration they have. In the United States it gives them considerable leverage with law makers to create laws that protect their intellectual property; including allowing them and the SPA to inspect large corporations for license violations. It is large corporations that these big software producers care about, not some kid who downloads a copy of Visual Studio.

3) Piracy is *bad*, very bad, for small software vendors and authors. Anyone who is producing software for individual users and not large corporations is deeply bitten by piracy. Take a gander at some of the warez newsgroups; by and large it is small outfits' wares that are offered up for the hungry pirates. Unfortunately these small houses cannot afford to raise prices to accommodate for piracy or they would go out of business. With no discernable price increase for me, the average paying user, the entire loss is theirs.

This is what annoys me about piracy. I couldn't care less if people (as individuals, not corporations) pirate Microsoft software. It bothers me to no end when I see small software shops close up because they have a great niche application that is irresistible to pirates. Should it bother me that I don't feel that way about it when it's Microsoft software that's pirated? I don't think so, because like I said in my second point, I believe it actually makes them money.

I don't think you can make 3, 4, whatever number of groups and say "This is where you stand!". Everyone is different. For some it is purely an ethical issue (as it is with Jason and many others). For some it is a practical issue (you want to try the software before you buy it). For others it is a financial issue (could not possibly afford the software). Who knows, I'm sure there are actually people out there who do believe they are stealing and enjoy it simply for that reason.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 04:55 AM

This seems like an awfully fun and interesting discussion, but I can't access the editorial! The link is broken I think.

I just tried it, and it worked - keep at it. :-)

bsoft

08-06-2002, 05:02 AM

In the case of stealing software, the only time it is wrong in my opinion is if you would have purchased it had you not been able to steal a copy. Following this rule (ie: category number 2) nobody suffers actual damage but only if you are honest with yourself.

Follow me here...

1) If no one bought software, it would not get made (people can't work for free forever)

2) If no one writes commercial software for our computers, we'd have vastly reduced choices. This is bad.

3) Therefore, whether it's simply one person not buying the software, or everyone, it's hurting the software industry. In point of fact, your stealing is hurting ME because instead of supporting the company that makes the product you're using, you're stealing it. And because of people like you, that company has less capital to work with, and therefor has limited resources with which to make the software better for ME, the PAYING customer.

I can't believe you'd openly admit this. I admire your courage, but pity your short-sightedness.

#1 is wrong. Look at the time and effort that goes into open-source softare.
#2 is right. Commercial software can be a better alternative to OSS.
#3 is also right. However, illegal distribution of software does not cause signifigant losses to software companies (shareware companies are the exception). Also, copyright infringment is, legally, not the same thing as stealing. If you steal a car, then that car is no longer there. If you copy an MP3, others can still use it. They are two fundamentally different things.

My operating system and development tools are legit. I got them at a good price because I shopped around (student discounts also help quite a bit). I had an demo copy of Flash for a while, but I later purchased a legit copy (again, I shopped around and got it for only $150 after rebate). I had a demo copy of PSP5 for a few months, but I later purchased it for $100. I later paid $40 to upgrade to PSP7.

I never had to pirate a single piece of software because of trial and beta programs. I tested XP Pro RC2 for $10. I tried Flash, PSP5, and PSP7 for 30 days. I used the VB CCE. I later purchased all of these programs. Trial versions are incredibly impotant for software vendors. No one would buy a car without a test drive.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 05:23 AM

But...

Everything after this word was just hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft. "If someone is successful, it's ok to steal from them" is a weak argument. Theft is either wrong or it's not - the person you're stealing from is irrelevant. At what point is it ok to steal from a "rich guy"? When he has $100 in his pocket? $500? $5000? What if that $5000 is going to buy a car for his family? You can't draw a line and say "This is where theft becomes ok". Those little software companies you feel for want to survive, and I would imagine that at ANY point they wouldn't want people stealing their software, regardless of how successful they became.

Regarding students who can't afford software, almost every major software package on the market has an educational version. When I was in school I bought PhotoShop 4.0 for $300 instead of the $1000 it cost for the commercial version. $300 was a lot to me, but the company was marking down their products so students like myself could learn it. There are catalogues with 100's of software applications, including the expensive 3D apps you mentioned. Just because a student opts to spend his money on beer vs. software doesn't make it "ok".

I think the lack of a trial version has some merit - I once dipped my toe into the warez pool to try out Corel Knockout because they didn't have a trial version. It turned out the software sucked, so I uninstalled it and deleted it from my hard drive. But if it's something you use, but don't pay for, that's just immoral in my eyes.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 05:30 AM

#1 is wrong. Look at the time and effort that goes into open-source software.

What do you think those programmers do for a day job? Work at a grocery store? In some way, most of they are likely being subsidized by coding that DOES pay. Professional coders make great software - amateur coders make amateur software. Now I've seen some GREAT freeware, but at some point excellent freeware usually becomes shareware because they want to earn a living off their efforts. That's not a bad thing.

I shudder to think of how unstable and lame my computer would be if I were forced to use nothing but amateur freeware developed by people who don't yet have the skills to get a job coding for money. Open source may be the "cool" thing at the moment, and I admire great freeware as much as the next guy, but it's not sustainable. People need money to live.

#3 is also right. However, illegal distribution of software does not cause significant losses to software companies (shareware companies are the exception).

Go and ask Microsoft or any of the other companies that are battling with a piracy rate upwards of 90% in China if they're losing money - guess what, they are (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/item/0,,790472-123112,00.html) - $11.8 BILLION. If you can point me to a factual source of information that says software piracy doesn't cost companies money, I'll gladly retract my statement.

Janak Parekh

08-06-2002, 05:45 AM

But if it's something you use, but don't pay for, that's just immoral in my eyes.
Agreed, and I don't think /dev/niall's necessarily arguing with you; I think his points, and even moreso Rob's, are interesting. I totally agree with you, Rob; piracy is not the same thing as theft, even if both have negative impact or are ethically wrong.

What gets interesting, and here comes my rant, though, is when software evolves. When you buy a piece of software, you're not buying it, you're buying a license that gives you a right to use it. Now, for modern software, you're losing rights that one once asserted: for example, transferability. Admittedly, I don't know if Lotus 1-2-3 v2.01 had a transferable license. But Office XP, for example, actively prevents you from doing it via Product Activation. To me that's unreasonable. (If you're allowed to call Microsoft to transfer it to another computer, let me know, although my limited experiences have indicated otherwise.)

Worse is when the "service model" of software evolves. To Microsoft, it's more profitable to sell me the "right" to use Word for a year's time, and then force me to renew it. This is one of the directions that Microsoft, and a number of software companies, are looking towards. At what point is a "sale" still a "sale"?

Then, consider DMCA, etc. Perhaps you buy a piece of software, then install a crack that lets you uninstall it and put it on another machine without having to go through activation again. Is that right or wrong? Is it piracy? If the EULA were to say you must buy another copy for the other machine is that right?

I don't have any answers here, I'm just saying that while a "product" was something that was easy to define before as having pirated, new directions, with the help of recent laws, is making what is a "product", and privacy, far murkier.

Having said that all, I've bought and paid for every commercial piece of software on my PPC. I really do appreciate the hard work most of these little guys have done, and want to see them continue it.

--bdj

hollis_f

08-06-2002, 06:00 AM

juni

08-06-2002, 06:16 AM

All my pocket pc software (and I have a bundle of apps and games) are bought and legal...I want to support the developers and perhaps contribute in getting even better software for a great platform. :)

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 06:27 AM

But...

Everything after this word was just hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft.

Did you even read anything after that? Or did you just see that I didn't completely agree with you and immediately lumped me in with hot dog thieves?

The part where I talked about the tremendous losses to small developers: A hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft?

The part where I pointed out that people do buy software, and show no signs of stopping: A hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft?

The part where I point out that most pirates would never purchase the software they pirate: A hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft?

I really don't understand your vitriol at my post, and frankly I'm a little offended by it. I'm not even disagreeing with you, and I certainly did not say at any point it is okay to pirate software. About the only difference between the way you seem to feel and the way I feel is that I do not believe piracy hurts large software companies. This most certainly does not equate to a justification for piracy. An example: I believe most of the narcotics laws in existence are detrimental to society; this does not mean I use drugs or believe they are not harmful or destructive.

I have no need to justify theft or piracy, as I do not indulge in either.

bspline

08-06-2002, 06:29 AM

My 2 cents here...

I completely agree that the industry loses money over piracy issues, but it is nowhere near the figures they claim.
Go and ask Microsoft or any of the other companies that are battling with a piracy rate upwards of 90% in China if they're losing money - guess what, they are (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/item/0,,790472-123112,00.html) - $11.8 BILLION.
That statement automatically assumes every person that has a piece of pirate software would buy it if there wasn't a way to pirate it. Not true. Not true by a mile, it's just the way industry has to pump up prices and yell 'see what they're doing? those billions are the bread I can't feed my kids!'.

There's no way out of the loop, 'pirates' do it because software is often considered expensive, industry makes thing expensive (or find ways to suck every penny out of upgrades and support) because of pirates.

Being a third-worlder (Brazil, we're hitting the bottom now... just after Argentinians) I can relate to both sides. I'm a computer animator, so my work is mainly 'intellectual property'. I've had my work ripped off, made me very angry and ultimately there was nothing I could do. Have to live with that.

But, on the other end of the spectrum, I've had my share of piracy, I learned 3D Studio on a pirate copy, which provided me with a job, and the means to buy it, and even then, in a six-month installment on 20% interest rate (cumulative, per month).

What did that teach me? That it is hard to be law-abiding. Especially when the rules don't apply to you. Again, I'm not saying it's right to steal (and it is stealing), but there's no leverage. Here you can't find things like educational software easily (very few vendors offer them), you put with prices that are really geared for developed countries (I make about $500 dollars a month, and that puts me in upper-middle class here), no leasing, and when you finance something, interest rate is upwards of 15% per month.

So do I feel bad when Microsoft says piracy is costing them 11 billion ?
No. And mainly because it isn't.

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 06:42 AM

Go and ask Microsoft or any of the other companies that are battling with a piracy rate upwards of 90% in China if they're losing money - guess what, they are (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/item/0,,790472-123112,00.html) - $11.8 BILLION. If you can point me to a factual source of information that says software piracy doesn't cost companies money, I'll gladly retract my statement.

There is no such thing. There is no factual source of information that says Microsoft is losing $11.8 billion either. You can take your numbers from the BSA (http://www.bsa.org), from an independant geek (http://www.topfloor.com/geek/feb97.html), or you can take your numbers from a Chinese government agency. They will all be different, and they will all be equally justifiable. For every study showing that piracy causes losses of X dollars (usually sponsered by the BSA or a large software company) there are dozens of intelligent rebuttals (usually written by someone who doesn't work for a large software company).

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 06:52 AM

Let me explain *why* I think piracy can be beneficial to large corporations, using Microsoft and China as an example.

Please note that this is not a justification for theft or piracy. I don't think I should have to say that, but...

Microsoft products saturate the Chinese market, largely though piracy. Confusing government regulations and a general unwillingness to crack down on piracy are the major reasons piracy is so rampant in China.

So now we have China with a lot of unpaid software running the back offices of many companies and even government agencies.

You may have noticed that trade relations with China are increasing. As they increase, more and more pressure is brought to bear on the Chinese government to create and enforce anti-piracy laws. Since Microsoft already enjoys wide penetration in the Chinese market, naturally many (if not most) organizations will stick with them, if for no other reason other than momentum. As the country gradually brings piracy under some sort of control, it should approach the same levels we see in North America where piracy laws are more stringently applied.

Millions and millions of new customers who already know they want to use Microsoft products. In my opinion, a good thing for Microsoft.

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 07:03 AM

What gets interesting, and here comes my rant, though, is when software evolves. When you buy a piece of software, you're not buying it, you're buying a license that gives you a right to use it. Now, for modern software, you're losing rights that one once asserted: for example, transferability.

Sadly that's nothing new. ;( Those of you who used BBSs back in "the day"
might remember BBS software called PCBoard. This is the late 1980's, and Clark Development charged a small fee to transfer a license.

Though at least you had the option!

paris

08-06-2002, 08:15 AM

I admit that 100% of the software on my Pocket PC are not bought and are illegal copies from various underground sources.

Well once I bought a Pocket PC 10 months ago I started to explore the Pocket PC World and find what applications were there. I started digging around until I found the 2 major sources for Pocket PC Warez. Any application or game, name it, its there ready for download the most popular a software is the easiest is to find it. I had no idea of what was out there and what were the possibilities of the Pocket PC. But believe me I have installed and tried my self more than 4 GB of pocket pc software. And now I know most of them worth using.
I don’t really use all of the software I install on my Pocket PC the most of them are just installed for me to explore and see what they do and if they are any good. Did I do any harm? Well I wouldn’t have bought all that software in the fist place and I don’t use most of them so there is not a major harm there. Did a do any good? Well you will not believe how many bug reports I have sent to major ppc software developers and help them replicate problems in order to fix them. Well I have the knowledge now of what is out there and I did advice people to buy hardware and software (not illegal). How could I have all that knowledge if I did not do that? Well I guess I am trying to find excuses for my self why I did that.
The only programs that I use much and I would buy (haven’t done so yet) is Cash Organizer 2002 and World Mate. Other software I would miss of my pocket pc is wisbar which is free, dashboard and ewallet which have legally since they were on Compaq CD.
Some of you will say shame on you, but I don’t see it like that, I just can’t afford to buy all the software out in the world just to try them. And yes you will be amazed of how many software are not available on trial.

Tierran

08-06-2002, 08:29 AM

I'm here to defend my hotdog analogy! :evil:

Its really quite simple. It doesn't matter whether take a 'physical' or 'mental' product. Its wrong. A hotdog could be 100% bull, but has a hotdog vendor ever given me a free sample? No. So I've been burned a few times at a ball game by crappy food. I'm sobbing.

Unfair you scream! Its only an $8 hotdog, you're not out much money! You know, I really don't have a problem with the guy who says they use it for 15 days as warez to try it if there's no demo. That's cool. I agree, a program should have a demo for all that cash. If I buy a bike, I ride it first. If I buy a tennis raquet, I borrow their loaner for a few days to get a feel for it. If I buy a car, I test drive it. I try the free samples in the mall to see what I want for dinner. Trying something is good. It lets you know if you want it.

Now, what is wrong? Stealing the software because :

A) You're a pompous, arrogant lowlife (ie drtyblvd) who could only improve the world by jumping off a high cliff or meeting some other quick end

B) You're too stupid to realize that what you're doing is, yes, wrong. No matter how you try to justify it with pretty speech (this isn't targeting anyone in particular, I haven't seen them post here yet...they probably aren't quite savy enough to be at a PDA page ;) )

C) You've deluded yourself by saying it was so expensive you wouldn't have bought it anyway so you're not hurting anyone. I want a Corvette but I can't afford it. While taking a Corvette is more serious, that doesn't make either not equally wrong.

And yes, the punishment should be according to the crime. I don't think software pirates should go to jail. I think a hefty fine to make them realize how expensive their hobby is would be appropriate. And as a programing student who plans to be writing software in 3 years for a living, if anyone of you lowlifes out there think that I wouldn't come after every single person who took my software, think again. Because I'll do whatever I can to find as many people as I can. Because I'm going to be successful and I'll be able to afford to do it :twisted:

dochall

08-06-2002, 12:17 PM

I admit that 100% of the software on my Pocket PC are not bought and are illegal copies from various underground sources.

Now that pees me off more than a dozen copies of 3DSMax.

By and large the Pocket PC vendors are relatively small concerns. While I can possibly make a case for 3DSMax as it doesn't have a trial you are directly stealing from developers who are supporting a new platform.

If they don' t provide a trial version then I would consider mailing them to say that I might have bought their software but as they don't have a trial version I am not going to. If enough members of the PPC community did that we may just see some attitudes changing.

Instead if people do steal the apps we will see more and more ridiculous lengths gone to tie the app to a single machine. (see Tomb Raider) I have a backup machine which I will move software in the event of needing to send in my Ipaq for repair. While all of my apps will now transfer I don't want to pushed into a position where they won't.

GregWard

08-06-2002, 12:47 PM

Not only do the thieving scumbags affect me by increasing the price of software - they're also responsible for the, sometimes enormous, hassle I have to go through to prove that I'm a legit user of some of the software I purchase.

This is so right.

As for justifying "stealing" software - I bet most thieves who would steal your computer would "justify" themselves by saying "well if he's insured it's ok - it's a victimless crime - and , if not, well he should have been!". But even if you are insured you end up, we all do, paying more for your future insurance. Like we all pay more for goods in stores to pay for the shoplifters who "can't afford" to buy goods so they steal them.

The only difference with software is that SOME software companies make outrageous profits and - allegedly - try to control the market!

Having said that - companies who try to sell me on their "wonderful" software and don't have any kind of trial version and won't offer "money back" may be trying to steal from me! To be honest though - my view about these kind of companies is to avoid them and not avoid the issue through warez.

Reluctant Luddite

08-06-2002, 12:54 PM

Put me in group #1, with a caveat--it's wrong to warez software, especially when there are open-source alternatives to just about everything. The time spent looking for warez can be more productively used on a quick google search.

So I gotta disagree with the following (pardon the long quote, but I don't want to quote out of context):

What do you think those programmers do for a day job? Work at a grocery store? In some way, most of they are likely being subsidized by coding that DOES pay. Professional coders make great software - amateur coders make amateur software. Now I've seen some GREAT freeware, but at some point excellent freeware usually becomes shareware because they want to earn a living off their efforts. That's not a bad thing.

I shudder to think of how unstable and lame my computer would be if I were forced to use nothing but amateur freeware developed by people who don't yet have the skills to get a job coding for money. Open source may be the "cool" thing at the moment, and I admire great freeware as much as the next guy, but it's not sustainable. People need money to live.

I don't know if the folks who developed IrfanView, PocketDivx, VirtualDub, CDex, Mozilla, GIMP and OpenOffice are amateurs or pros, but I can't imagine how lame my computer would be without these programs. And PPC 2000 without Wisbar? Aiiee!

Open source is sustainable because some folks are just incredible altruists. Now, I don't know what motivates them (I'm guessing frustration with the status quo) but god bless 'em anyway.

Also, even if another piece of commercial software were never sold again, there will still be a need for programmers (heck, a greater need). More proprietary solutions would be need to developed in-house. Doesn't mean they'll stop releasing software in their spare time.

Go and ask Microsoft or any of the other companies that are battling with a piracy rate upwards of 90% in China if they're losing money - guess what, they are (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/item/0,,790472-123112,00.html) - $11.8 BILLION. If you can point me to a factual source of information that says software piracy doesn't cost companies money, I'll gladly retract my statement.

Re: Microsoft in China--that's a tough call. I know they're losing money due to piracy, but I rather doubt that the industry is losing a full 1.1 billion (the figure is from the Autodesk link).

The fact is your middle-class Chinese individual really can't afford Microsoft's / Autodesk / Adobe's prices.

I'm been in China, working in IT for a foreign-owned firm for almost two years now, and the price on big-name software is the same here as it is in the States--heck, sometimes more. (A retail copy of Windows XP Professional costs RMB 2200, or USD 265.) Now, a college-educated engineer in Shanghai, one of China's most prosperous areas, might make between RMB 3000-4000 a month! They're not going to buy a legit copy of XP until the prices go way down or their wages go way up.

This is also why most branded computers sold in China (with the notable exception of Dell I believe) come with Linux pre-installed (which is as you guess promptly wiped). Even the OEM price to the vendor is a big cost to the consumer.

Juliet Wu, Microsoft China's first local general manager, resigned at least partially over this issue (here's one article about her)

http://detnews.com/2000/technology/0001/01/01010065.htm

Interestingly, retail games sell for a fraction of the price. Neverwinter Nights sells for RMB 99 (USD 12), in a nice tin box no less. Medal of Honor is RMB 78. I was shocked to find Warcraft III selling at RMB 288 ~(USD 35), but it comes in two boxes which are real heavy, so I'm assuming you get good value. Now, people do buy these games--sure, they pirate games as well, but I'm betting it's not 90%.

To make a long story short--provide realistic pricing for developing countries, and piracy will go down. There isn't $1.1 billion of purchasing power in the Chinese software market, so it's silly to claim $1.1 billion in losses.

Cheers!

krisbrown

08-06-2002, 12:57 PM

I very rarely buy pocketpc software, I will always use freeware when I can, some of my most used programs are freeware and I always find them small, easy to use and light on ram, with all of my freeware I use I have sent the authors a cheque, viewers, cellphone software, games.
Most of the commercial software I have tried is just to bloatware for me to use, they seem to feel obliged to give you fancy opening screens and long loading times for your money?
'You get what you pay for' is a fundamental fact of life, Warez will destroy itself by it's own actions and we all will suffer.

Reluctant Luddite

08-06-2002, 01:22 PM

bspline--Well said. Revisiting the Autodesk article (link follows), I'm just not surprised that the wealthiest regions have the lowest rates of piracy, and developing regions have much higher rates. This holds true even within regions, with Japan having much lower rates of piracy than Vietnam, and Brazil lower than Bolivia. Tiered pricing anyone? Anyone? :puppydogeyes:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/item/0,,790472-123112,00.html

You may have noticed that trade relations with China are increasing. As they increase, more and more pressure is brought to bear on the Chinese government to create and enforce anti-piracy laws. Since Microsoft already enjoys wide penetration in the Chinese market, naturally many (if not most) organizations will stick with them, if for no other reason other than momentum. As the country gradually brings piracy under some sort of control, it should approach the same levels we see in North America where piracy laws are more stringently applied.

Millions and millions of new customers who already know they want to use Microsoft products. In my opinion, a good thing for Microsoft.

[All traces of Sarcasm off] [Gentle Humor on] Millions and millions of Chinese know they want their own car too, but they just can't afford it.

If the Chinese economy continues to grow, and the population remains stable, and politically stays calm, in a decade most Chinese companies may be able to afford MS across the board (Exchange, Office, Windows, yada yada.) If MS stiffens product activation before that time though, I think the current wide market penetration may quickly dry up.

rogben

08-06-2002, 01:46 PM

I make my living writing code. I am really annoyed when I find someone has copied my work and portrayed it as his own. I wouldn't hesitate to pursue legal action if that someone was using my work to make money.

But to morally compare any of it to theft is laughable. Violation of an author's license is just that and nothing more... "copyright" is an arcane legal construct, not some kind of natural law. In fact, it runs in direct opposition to nature, in which anything successful or useful is duplicated as often as possible.

And of course, that's what we're really talking about. Duplication. Copying my work may irritate or even harm me in theoretical or material ways, but it will never, ever deprive me of the work itself. In short, it isn't stealing, no matter how many times one insists that it is.

(Please spare all of us any nonsense about lost potential sales equaling theft. My competitors and their products cost me potential sales all the time. Competition, like duplication, is what it is.)

Now, copying something isn't *right* just because it isn't actually theft. As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, I'm more than capable of feeling wronged by the process of copyright violation. But a little perspective goes a long way.

denivan

08-06-2002, 02:02 PM

Warez Warez, well...I guess warez is pretty common in places where hardware is expensive. I paid last november about 600 USD for my ipaq 3660 which didn't leave me much cash for software. But, I didn't knew about PocketPC warez communities, so I bought some software. Some of it was crappy, didn't work or/and had lousy support. So now I use a mixture of freeware on my ipaq and some warezed programs. I do understand that people need to charge money for their programs, but after all, we're talking about small pocketpc programs. Everything has a mental maximum price and for me that's 15 USD regarding pocketpc software. I'm sorry, but I just can't pay that much for something I have to download , isn't boxed, doesn't have a printed manual and probably will have lousy support because it's written by hobbyists in their spare time. On the other hand, sometimes when I enjoy a service that is free and they have a paypal donation button, I do a small 5 USD donation, just because I like it (for instance the trillian messenger on my desktop pc). So, is there a brief point to all this ? I guess not. Piracy is a complex thing which probably will be around for ever. I even think in some cases it will boost sales later on. For instance, the old ms-office (I think version '97) had the super easy cd-key 112-11111111. Off course all students at my school had pirated copies of this Ms Office. Now imagine them 10 years later, they work as It manager in a company and are responsable for IT purchases. If they need an Office Suite, they will probably choose MS Office, because they had good experiences with it earlier. Only now, they won't search for cd-keys on the web, they will be 50+ licenses for their company. Remember, every cloud has a silver lining ;)

Greetz

Ivan

P.S. I'm a 22 year old university student

I want to add something to my above story : The analogy between software piracy and music piracy. People were/are getting fed up with going to the cd-store and paying 17 USD for a music cd with only 12 tracks on it. So , people started downloading MP3's. What was the industry reaction? Try to compensate losses , so they upped their cd prices. Result : fewer people buy cd's , recording industry makes losses, invest in stupid (easy to override) copy protections and doing so make even more losses. Result : cd industry isn't a healthy industry anymore today. Now I'm not a big MP3 fan myself, I do occasionaly download a single MP3 from kazzaa, but I'm not someone who has tons of burned cd-r's. I don't like downloading MP3's because mostly the quality sux, but I also don't like buying Cd's, because it's not a pleasant experience. Cd's are too expensive for me, and they are hardly ever in stock (at least over here). If I had the option of easily buying the occasional track online for a reasonable price, I probably would do it, but for now the cd industry gives me no choice, so I've switched to radio. Just like I mostly use freeware on my pocketpc (altho I do occasionaly give in to the dark side and use a warezed program).

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 02:48 PM

[Gentle Humor on] Millions and millions of Chinese know they want their own car too, but they just can't afford it.

If a business can afford thousands of computers, they can afford a license for their operating system and productivity software. These are the millions and millions I refer to.

The great thing about China is that you can say "millions and millions" about almost any group of people.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 03:17 PM

I was a touch testy last night, likely because I was so shocked to see people coming out and saying that warez was acceptable. I should have known better, but sometimes people surprise me. :? I apologize if I came across a bit strong. :arrow:

The part where I talked about the tremendous losses to small developers: A hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft?

I agree with you on that. :)

The part where I pointed out that people do buy software, and show no signs of stopping: A hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft?

With all due respect, this was just plain silly. :wink: The point I was trying to make is that if EVERYONE pirated software, and NO ONE bought it, the commercial software industry would collapse overnight. That is a fact. So extrapolate from that - is the software industry collapsing a bad thing? Of course it is! If 100% of people pirated software, is that a bad thing? Of course it is, because it would result in the above.

Therefore, regardless if it's 100% or 1%, piracy is harmful. It's just a matter of HOW harmful it is - but it's an ignorant statement to say that "piracy isn't harmful". What people are really saying is "I don't think that MY piracy is harmful" - yet if 100% of people were to do what THAT person is doing, the commercial software they are using wouldn't get made. And then THEY'D be angry about it!

Would Microsoft be able to release another version of Windows XP if 98% of Americans were using illegal versions? Like it or not, the legitimate users bear the weight of the people who use illegal versions.

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 03:25 PM

I don't know if the folks who developed IrfanView, PocketDivx, VirtualDub, CDex, Mozilla, GIMP and OpenOffice are amateurs or pros, but I can't imagine how lame my computer would be without these programs. And PPC 2000 without Wisbar? Aiiee!

I agree, but like I said:

1) Great quality freeware is a RARE thing. I'd say far less than 1% of all freeware out there is good, quality stuff

2) Those people programming these apps are likely doing so in their spare time after working at a day job writing codes that pays them. If you take their job away by pirating whatever code they write during the day, you'll kill their night coding too. It's all tied together.

Now, a college-educated engineer in Shanghai, one of China's most prosperous areas, might make between RMB 3000-4000 a month! They're not going to buy a legit copy of XP until the prices go way down or their wages go way up.

I agree completely on this. I've sent several emails to [email protected] asking them when prices are going to go down - because Product Activation was supposed to reduce piracy and therefore reduce prices, right? :roll: I hope it happens, but I won't hold my breath...

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 03:32 PM

And of course, that's what we're really talking about. Duplication. Copying my work may irritate or even harm me in theoretical or material ways, but it will never, ever deprive me of the work itself. In short, it isn't stealing, no matter how many times one insists that it is.

I simply can't agree with this. If someone takes this new digital video book I'm writing, photocopies it, then sells it in front of book stores, that's directly harming me. It's taking money from my pocket that I use to feed my family and pay my bills - how can that not be harmful? It is.

What you, and others here, are really arguing is that small-scale piracy is "ok" because it's small-scale. But as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, something is either harmful or it's not.

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 04:03 PM

The part where I pointed out that people do buy software, and show no signs of stopping: A hollow, overly-intellectual justification for theft?

With all due respect, this was just plain silly. :wink: The point I was trying to make is that if EVERYONE pirated software, and NO ONE bought it, the commercial software industry would collapse overnight. That is a fact. So extrapolate from that - is the software industry collapsing a bad thing? Of course it is! If 100% of people pirated software, is that a bad thing? Of course it is, because it would result in the above.

People are, in fact, buying software. They will buy software in the future. This is the reality. Everyone not buying software is not. Doesn't sound so silly to me.

I think it's really stretching it to even consider everyone pirating software. It would never happen. So why bother extrapolating from something that will never happen? You can "prove" just about anything if you do that. Of course you are right, 100% piracy rates would result in a collapse of the software industry. I just don't see it ever approaching that level I guess.

Frankly, it's the sort of thing we hear from the BSA, MPAA, etc. etc. ad nasueum. "If everyone...". They don't. So don't bother iffing. ;)

Would Microsoft be able to release another version of Windows XP if 98% of Americans were using illegal versions? Like it or not, the legitimate users bear the weight of the people who use illegal versions.

Would they be able to do so if 98% of Americans switched to Linux? Probably not. Is this ever going to happen? Not likely. And neither is a 98% piracy rate.

/dev/niall

08-06-2002, 04:14 PM

Well, I've doubled my post count in the last 12 hours and accomplished little more than raising my blood pressure for a few minutes last night (and Jason's too by the look of it) ;). Good times....

Jason Dunn

08-06-2002, 04:44 PM

And neither is a 98% piracy rate.

Go to Vietnam and say that. :roll:

klinux

08-06-2002, 06:14 PM

Frankly, like auto insurance, we the people who pay for their software are subsidizing the the people who are using it and not paying for it and that p!sses me off.

What, you wouldn'd have bought it anyway? Then, don't use it! Still don't care, well, I hope one day you will be on the otherside of the fence and try to defend your livelihood aginst people who believe they have a right to steal from you. :roll:

jefito

08-06-2002, 06:40 PM

For me, it all comes down to this: the rights of the creator of the work (whether it be software, which we are dicussing here, or music, a la MP3s which have been mentioned here tangentially) trump the rights of the consumer. That is, if I make a piece of software, then it's my right to put on it whatever conditions/prices/licensing that I want for someone else to use or own it. Or not, if that's what I want. If you don't like those conditions, it's your problem, not mine. Don't use my software.

Just because there is no perceived economic damage on my part, or you wouldn't ever buy it, or you think that you should be able to try it out for free is of little matter. You do not have that right, unless I grant it explicitly.

That is the basis here. The fundamental dynamic. The creator gets to make the rules (so long as they are legal in whatever context applies), and the consumer should honor and abide by them, or not use the product.

Note that I am not saying that horrible enforcement demons will swoop out of the sky and zap you if you use software against the creator's wishes. That will likely not happen, or anything else bad. I just want people to understand that people who actually make things in this world should be respected, and one way that you do that is by honoring their wishes with regards to their products.

I am terribly sorry that some people perceive that software prices are too high, or that some college students are too cheap to spend more than $20 on software for their $X00 device, or that people believe that because there is no economic damage that they can therefore justify duplicating someone's work. That's just too bad. Learn to program for yourself, and undersell that high-priced piece of software. Or at least write to the software and tell them your opinion. Maybe they'll listen, and maybe they won't. That's their prerogative. It still doesn't give people the right to use warez.

Duncan

08-06-2002, 07:10 PM

There are certain things that are wrong bad, wicked - but seem to fall into the category of: 'Oh well everyone breaks that law!'

Speeding, illegal parking, fiddling the taxman, and pirating are all classic examples of lawbreaking that people seem to think they have a right to get away with, and each has its arguments trotted out to justify the activity...

Frankly then - it isn't whether or not software piracy harms anyone that should be the issue. The issue should be that people should WANT to be honest, law-abiding and ethical - and too often instead people argue themselves into believing they are not doing anything really wrong when they break these laws based on simple, practical moral concepts of right and wrong.

This breakdown in the certainties of 'right' and 'wrong' all too often hits home in the end - there is no such thing as a crime that does not in any way hurt someone somewhere down the line...

DrtyBlvd

08-06-2002, 07:52 PM

Woo-Hoo :D

Well this thread took off a bit huh?
*Sheesh* Go to work come home and find this lot!! Anyone would think you lot were unemployed :wink:

Where to start? An apology first? Maybe, maybe...

Part of me says "Don't bother" pursuing the thread, but as I already did, so to speak, I guess it's only right that I am perceived to raise my head above the parapet for a while....

Jase - I would suggest you take my posts upon the merit of their content, not a perception following one of them. Were you to meet me, you may well choose to never read my posts again! (Then again, maybe we'd get on!? :P ) PS - being 'testy' is good - apologising for it more so.

Tiernnan - I pity your competitors with that sort of determination up against them - best of luck :wink:

pt - Your rule of thumb is rubbish. (...and if I have to tell you why, you're a child)

Can't recall who it was that called me a 'low-life' or somesuch - but I have no comment on that anyway.

Wow. SO many good points in this lot - it's a shame there isn't a way to remove the emotive from all of the posts and have a condensed version.

No one really mentioned that ultimately we are discussing morals - everyone (sort of, with a few notable exceptions), jumped right in with their two feet and their stance; and like progress through the desire to kill someone (War), there's little point in pursung it.

Morals.

OK, what have we got? The economic / intellectual / proprietary / Legal / bunch of them all come down to the same thing; Theft is theft, defined differently by each angle if you will; hence the hotdog coming into play - and sure, I'm blame-worthy for not being more specific with regard to what I wrote; if the tray of hotdogs were all alone in the stadium, and there was no-one there selling them, would you help yourself to one? Take it further - say there is a cup by the hotdogs, with a sign on it saying $8 (Are they really that much?!?); do you put the five in? A ten and take change? what if you have a twenty and there isn't any money in the cup?

Ultimately you go home either with a trace of ketchup on your mouth or you don't; with no-one there to judge you, and I am 'pushing the boat out' metaphorically here, it is your conscience that dictates your perceived guilt.... and your stomachs 'happiness' or not!

Interesting points;

- about the '...not seeing a website for complaining about being ripped off...' Agenda Today anyone? Where do software companies, or individuals for that matter, draw the line with paying full price for revisions?

- the 'silver lining' of ultimate corporate muli-licences ? MS loses money due to piracy? Are you kidding me? Were MS to pay for their own licence for their own software, it would cover people like myself, many times over... *Bit of a qualification - If the OS is borrowed from work and installed at home does that count as piracy? Or just Theft? Take a pencil home but not an OS? Which you actually return? etc etc etc)

- "Subsidizing" those who pay for it? Like auto insurance? What? No-one here claimed for an extra carpet when the pipes broke? Exagerated a claim for damages? (Car or home!) The repairers didn't increase their quote to the insurance company? Grow up. (In a nice way - I mean really, really really, grow up.)

- 'Moving on at 12' ? Huh. Some might argue that failing to appreciate the way the world is means one hasn't 'moved on'

Piracy, by which I understand the term to mean creating disks and selling them for profit, is a bad thing. Illegal, immoral, whatever.

Warez. by which I understand the word to mean products gained through free distribution, is a bad thing. Illegal, immoral, whatever.

Rape...
Murder...
Abuse...
Violence...
War...

All of these things exist, and, in some form or another, hurt someone or other. The relative severity of these crimes is dictated by the laws of the society we live in, and are committed by the people who live in the world at large.

They will not be disappearing anytime soon unfortunately. Any of them. Because that is not the way the people who live in the world that commit the crimes will ever act, because Homo Sapiens is exactly that - sapient - and wise means that people will always try to get something for less than it costs...

Does it make me a bad man? Does my heart bleed for MS? Ha.

I never mentioned applications... Which I pay for, happily.

Let him without sin cast the first stone, I think.

08-06-2002, 10:33 PM

pt - Your rule of thumb is rubbish. (...and if I have to tell you why, you're a child).

enlighten me and help my child like mind "get it".

here's what i said...

all this was written by someone who identifies themselves publicly as "drtyblvd". online rule-of-thumb: if someone won't claim ownership of their words, this is often an indication of those words' value.

drtyblvd, it's really easy to post comments like this here to get flamed responses. but they're not very valuable or worth even considering since you're certainly not going to take a real stand and put "skin in the game".

rogben

08-06-2002, 11:16 PM

I simply can't agree with this. If someone takes this new digital video book I'm writing, photocopies it, then sells it in front of book stores, that's directly harming me. It's taking money from my pocket that I use to feed my family and pay my bills - how can that not be harmful? It is.

Now you've got *me* wondering if you're actually reading this stuff, Jason. :) At no point in my post did I say piracy wasn't harmful... in fact, I clearly stated that it can be. I said that it isn't theft, and shouldn't be compared. That's it.

But on the subject of harm... :)

I don't need to copy anything to harm you financially. I can take money from your pocket simply by writing a better book and competing with you. Or by going to your publisher and convincing her to drop you in favor of me. Or if I run a chain of bookstores, I can choose not to carry your work. Or I could go on strike as a member of the print workers' union and prevent your book from seeing the light of day. And of course, as a member of the Consuming Masses, I can just refuse to buy the thing.

So the primary issue clearly isn't financial harm. It's something else, something more nebulous... like fairness. And y'know what? Fairness is a completely legitimate concern, and any anti-piracy advocate who wants to argue the matter on that basis will hear little complaint from me.

But most folks don't seem to want to do that. Perhaps because arguing fairness is inherently complicated, while trying to cast things into a simplistic "right vs. wrong" mold and crafting flawed analogies is easier.

--
Roger

rogben

08-06-2002, 11:20 PM

The issue should be that people should WANT to be honest, law-abiding and ethical...

You're clearly operating under the mistaken assumption that "honest", "law-abiding", and "ethical" are somehow related concepts. :)

Legislation != right.

--
Roger

JonnoB

08-06-2002, 11:32 PM

A free market economy where there is competition and with finite purchasing resources will inherently cause 'harm' to someone who loses market share... but this is by design. If however, the competitor used piracy to dilute the value of the competition, it is unethical (and currently illegal) harm.

If technically feasible, an unbreakable software solution that could negate all piracy would have zero dilution effect. Because software can be broken, the absolute potential is then lessened in value by the piracy that occurs.

Even those who would not buy product are aiding the piracy underground by aiding the spread of software to those who might purchase product had it not been available. Just because someone wouldn't have purchased product does not mean that helping the demand side of the pirate economy doesn't indirectly cause harm and result in guilt of theft by association.

Duncan

08-06-2002, 11:36 PM

Lazy thinking rogben...that the three are related is beyond question. What I did not say was that the three can be equated (which appears to be what you have chosen to read).

Likewise - you said:
trying to cast things into a simplistic "right vs. wrong" mold and crafting flawed analogies is easier.
Firstly ALL analogies are flawed. A perfect analogies would be an exact description of that which the analogy was an analogy of - and thus would not be analogy. Analogies are imperfect but useful for discussing ideas that could otherwise remain nebulous and hard to grasp.

Secondly - 'right vs. wrong' is not inately 'simplistic' as you imply. It can be seen in simplistic ways - but in the end the concepts of right and wrong are simple (not 'simplistic') in the broad sense and complex in the narrow. E.g. - to steal is wrong - simple and fundamantally true. What constitutes stealing can be complex. Where there is a societal agreement that a certain action = stealing - then the simple moral principle may be applied.

Pirating software is, by general agreement, stealing. Stealing is wrong - therefore pirating software is wrong.

If you wish to prove that 'honesty'; being law-abiding and ethics are unrelated I will be fascinated to hear it - as the three have been intertwined in every system of philosophy and jurisprudence yet held sacred by mankind.

Reluctant Luddite

08-07-2002, 12:09 AM

1) Great quality freeware is a RARE thing. I'd say far less than 1% of all freeware out there is good, quality stuff

2) Those people programming these apps are likely doing so in their spare time after working at a day job writing codes that pays them. If you take their job away by pirating whatever code they write during the day, you'll kill their night coding too. It's all tied together.

1). Absolutely.

2). And it's probable, or at least plausible, that their day job involves code that is never released to the public. If another piece of commercial software is never sold again, that doesn't mean there would be no programmers. Heck, there'd be more programmers, laboriously creating previously available commercial apps from scratch for their company (and some of whom would still be those crazy open-source guys :D )

I just feel that the worst-case scenario, the complete collapse of the commercial software market (assuming piracy became the norm) wouldn't stop development (a percentage of which would continue to be open-source).

DrtyBlvd

08-07-2002, 12:16 AM

pt:

I'm not interested in educating you. :sleeping:

"It is my custom to keep my affairs as private as possible..."

Your webpage.

08-07-2002, 12:48 AM

pt: I'm not interested in educating you. :sleeping:
"It is my custom to keep my affairs as private as possible..."
Your webpage. And, I suspect, the reason you are known simply as Phillip.
PS I just read some of your posts... a few inconsistencies there I think.
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10096&highlight=#10096
Spreading the word were we? I must confess I'm tempted to reconsider my stance upon your education. Naw. Not worth it.

my child like brain has no clue what you mean. the quote you quoted was from my web page...the web page that has my name all over it. i'm phillip torrone, everyone knows that. i usually link to flash enabled the book, but i'll hold off on that for now.

my guess, you're saying you'd like to stay anon, which makes sense based on what your stance is...

my point was (and still is) if you're going to be bold and take a big stance, but some skin in the game, maybe write articles, be public. i don't really value anonymous posts as much as people who have a real rep, like jason, etc...most of what you're posting isn't something you'd say in real life right? maybe, maybe not?

i'm not saying i agree, disagree, think you're right or wrong, i'm just pointing out the value of words. that said, you're a smart cookie, i don't think anyone would say you're not, might not like what you have to say...but that doesn't matter.

cheers,
pt

Jason Dunn

08-07-2002, 01:09 AM

Legislation != right.

Under Hitler's regime it was legal to imprison a Jew, take his property, and kill him. Does that mean it was moral?

Laws are made by man. Man is flawed. Morality is an absolute and does not change. The law does not equal morality, though it may be an indication of societal values - but collecting the flaws of humanity and writing them down doesn't make them moral and just.

Jason Dunn

08-07-2002, 01:10 AM

I just feel that the worst-case scenario, the complete collapse of the commercial software market (assuming piracy became the norm) wouldn't stop development (a percentage of which would continue to be open-source).

That's not a risk I'm eager to take - are you? I don't have a team of programmers ready to take over programming all my applications. :wink:

DrtyBlvd

08-07-2002, 01:13 AM

pt -

I'm afraid you get the full me on the web... life is too short to be two-faced. Mind you, being so may make it longer! :lol:

I'm flattered by your remark, but I am also surprised at your comments re 'skin' - How many people posting fulfil that qualification from your vantage point, out of curiousity?

Anonymity? - Not to anyone who wanted to know who I was, or who made efforts to find out - I'm there just like you, just perhaps a bit (a fair bit!) deeper under the surface. (I haven't 'found the book' in me yet :wink: )

marcusbankuti

08-07-2002, 01:22 AM

08-07-2002, 02:34 AM

I'm flattered by your remark, but I am also surprised at your comments re 'skin' - How many people posting fulfil that qualification from your vantage point, out of curiousity? Anonymity? - Not to anyone who wanted to know who I was, or who made efforts to find out - I'm there just like you, just perhaps a bit (a fair bit!) deeper under the surface. (I haven't 'found the book' in me yet :wink: )

there are not many people online that i admire who are anonymous-- in fact i can't think of any. you really can't become a truly connected citizen online unless it's known who you are, if you don't / can't stand behind your words, they're obviously not that valuable. in the pocket pc world, each great contributor isn't anonymous. here are people i admire. wes salmon, jason dunn, dale coffing, jim mccarthy, jared miniman, steve bush, arne hess, chris de herrera, ed hansberry, marlof bregonje, joel evans, walt mossberg...um, those are just a few sorry if i forgot anyone.

posting stuff i guess is different, lots of folks want to be anon, but those folks (i think) on some topics can't really weigh in since they're not ever going to really really weigh in and put their rep on the line. if you won't say something in person, or with your identity, then maybe it's not very interesing to post.

but i guess my challenge to you, and anyone...if you truly feel that warez helps, or whatever. start writing articles, stand up, speak at conferences, start a site...posting really bold comments anonymously isn't that interesting to me, but that's just me.

cheers,
pt

sponge

08-07-2002, 03:00 AM

I'm willing to admit now, I warez a lot. I can't afford all software. I DO make it a point to register quality software, Snails, Argentum, and almost anything by Jacco Bikker. If I really could, I would buy every piece of software I use. But I just can't. As a developer, if you know someone is not going to buy a program, would you rather: a. the person use your program, and spread the word, or b. the person never seeing your program. A could lead to potential purchases, so I'd rather have that happen.

Don't try and tell me you'd rather have someone not spread the word of your program.

One final note, it is impossible to put a price on piracy. Until we can read people's minds.

Rob Alexander

08-07-2002, 07:22 AM

Frankly then - it isn't whether or not software piracy harms anyone that should be the issue. The issue should be that people should WANT to be honest, law-abiding and ethical - and too often instead people argue themselves into believing they are not doing anything really wrong when they break these laws based on simple, practical moral concepts of right and wrong.

Law-abiding and ethical are not even close to the same thing. The 'law' used to allow slavery. Did that make it ethical? Was someone who worked with the underground railroad unethical? Was Martin Luther King unethical when he promoted non-violent protests in violation of the law? The 'law' in Afghanistan under the previous regime supported horrendous treatment of women. Was that ethical? Nelson Mandella was imprisoned for supporting a movement against apartheid. He clearly violated the law. Was he also unethical? The 'law' allowed Enron to hire auditors from the same company that did their accounting. Their employees lost their retirement savings while their executives walked away with millions. Was any of that ethical? Whatever your position on this topic, it cannot be supported by the equation law=ethics.

This breakdown in the certainties of 'right' and 'wrong' all too often hits home in the end - there is no such thing as a crime that does not in any way hurt someone somewhere down the line...

Nonsense, there are plenty of trivial examples. For example, in Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor. In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset. It is illegal to say "Oh, Boy" in Jonesboro, Georgia. New Hampshire law forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe. It's hard to imagine what 'hurt' you imagine is coming down the line from transgressions of these laws.

Laws are easy; after all, they're written down and we have an entire section of our society that does nothing but argue and interpret them. Ethics, though... ethics are hard.

Duncan

08-07-2002, 09:40 AM

Law-abiding and ethical are not even close to the same thing. The 'law' used to allow slavery. Did that make it ethical? Was someone who worked with the underground railroad unethical? Was Martin Luther King unethical when he promoted non-violent protests in violation of the law? The 'law' in Afghanistan under the previous regime supported horrendous treatment of women. Was that ethical?

I get quite irritated when soemone attack a psoition I haven't taken. I did NOT say that 'Law-abiding' and 'ethical' are the same thing. I said that they are related - and only a fool could argue otherwise. My position s simple - it is good to be law-abiding when the law is based on sound positive ethical principles. At no point did I say (nor do I believe): 'the equation law=ethics' Rogben made that connection - I merely said: 'people should WANT to be honest, law-abiding and ethical...' If I felt these three equated to each other than two of them would be redundant. People should desire to be all three - that way unethical laws will be opposed because they are of such a nature that it becomes impossible to be 'law-abiding' and 'ethical'.

I'm damn well insulted by the suggestion that there was anything in the phrasing I used that could suggest I believe slavery or the treatment of women in Afghanistan was justified.

My words were clearly:

there is no such thing as a crime that does not in any way hurt someone somewhere down the line...
Words and their meanings are important. Here the word used was'crime' not 'law'. There are laws that should not exist. Crime is another matter. Crime is an ethical construct. Law is merely a codifiation of principles that, in a society that attempts to be just, can set boundaries and guidelines within which someone can measure their moral and ethical decisions on a societal basis.

So - next time you ant to attack a position I hold or make me out to support oppression - read what I have said more carefully first. I teach citizenship, and the study of morality and ethics, to the next generation on a daily basis - and a fundamantal point I make to them over and over is that we must be careful not to confuse our terminology...

DrtyBlvd

08-07-2002, 09:48 AM

pt -

That's a short list. :?: ...

I appreciate your perspective; and perhaps I may be charged with being naive; but I take people at face value - especially with the 'writen word' ; 'In Vino Veritas', and, I think, 'In typing' - Communication in such a way often gives, indeed to be effective *has* to give, a clear impression of the writer; sure, 'posting' can be just a casual remark, an aside, two lines of text, whatever, and that is not really what I am talking about - when someone takes the time and the effort to post what is clearly a thought out opinion, which may sometimes be judged by it's length, that is worthy of note if only because the person who wrote it took the time and the effort to do so; then ergo there may be some measure of 'belief' behind the words; even it they are purely argumentative / inflamatory / whatever; Hell, they could be a rant on the quality of sauce in a MacDs' for all it matters. And having said that, I have found nuggets of wisdom wrapped up in three lines! (But never in MacDs')

Great Contributor? And a list of 12 people? The net is a bit bigger than 12 people, even if those listed are some great ones, who do some great things - and who have expressed opinions that people, or readers, may or may not agree with during their tenure as web page 'owners'

Why is the rest of the world (ie the non HTML'ing bunch) anonymous? Why have nicknames? At what stage in their lives do people find the net? At what level of their *awareness* do they find the net? How much does that knowledge develop and how fast? Part of the beauty, and I use the word selectively, of the net, is anonymity - not for the bad stuff, the illegal things and so on, but for the fact that that very anonymity allows people who may well have an 'inability' for some reason, to communicate and interact without worry of face to face perception - in some ways, that makes the web a more honest place.

The suggestion that things may be said on the web and not in 'public' is not without merit; So? Turn on your 'filters', tune in your antennae, and 'sift' selectively - otherwise a person 'limits' what might be there for them. It's not my 'job' to educate your "Childs mind" It's yours.

All of these are contributors to the word 'anonymous' - to use an example of sorts; you yourself use PGP; does this mean you are sending mail with illegal content? Or that you are protecting your right to make a point, that you *have the right* to privacy regardless of intent and/or use?

Perhaps, and I am being respectful when I write this, you might be better saying that you only value posts from established figures in the online community?

I made the point to Jason, about judging on merit rather than perception; if the list of people you mentioned are bright enough to create / maintain / develop that which they have, I think it fair to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of intelligent perception, no?

And let's face facts here - no one would host a 'Support Warez' site for very long would they? I'm sure there are gazillions (a technical term don'tcha know) of them out there, (warez sites), every single one anonymous... and worth what? Not much.

Me posting to the extent that I have? I'd [i]like to think it worth a little more than that.

You be the judge :D

Just for the record I am a 36 year old priest living in Cuba, in sin, with one of my ex-parishoners

Not really. Made ya think for a sec though :lol:

Jason Dunn

08-07-2002, 03:38 PM

As a developer, if you know someone is not going to buy a program, would you rather: a. the person use your program, and spread the word, or b. the person never seeing your program. A could lead to potential purchases, so I'd rather have that happen.

Person A: "Hey check out this great program!"
Person B: "Wow - that's great! Where did you get it? How much?"
Person A: "Oh, this is an illegally cracked copy that I paid nothing for."
Person B: "Cool - show me how!"

Come on, let's get serious her for a moment - you're not exactly setting a good example for them, are you? And why should THEY pay if you got it for free? :wink:

2short4words

08-07-2002, 11:46 PM

I have read posts praising the fact that they bought the students version of a software. :twisted: First, I am a student, and my class lasted a couple of months, the evaluation copy lasted 15 days. :evil: I was SOL until I downloaded a pirated copy. I used it, and am still using it.

I do, however, have another piece of software that I bought the Student Version of.... BUT.. READ the fine print, if you want to uses the software for ANY commercial piece, you MUST buy a different copy of the software.

YOU can not uses Student verson of Visual Basic 5., 6., etc. for any product you wish to sell.. You can not use the Student version of a Graphics program in the same manner.

If you are just starting out and you do not have the capital to invest in the TOTAL software, then pirated or hacked software is your only choice. I will, however, in the future BUY it. But for now I will WIN my job and/or clients with this software and build the capital to BUY the other.

rogben

08-09-2002, 07:28 PM

Don't try and tell me you'd rather have someone not spread the word of your program.

The problem there is that you're presuming to know the mind of the developer and the market he's trying to reach. For example, some developers (like me) don't have the resources or inclination to support a large pool of customers... "get big fast" as a business plan died in the first quarter of the year 2000.

So while sure, it's arguable that some developers have benefitted from piracy's peculiar form of grassroots viral marketing, don't assume that all products or their creators will receive similar benefits. A one-person shop working in a niche market probably has all the work it can handle from the outset, thanks.

--
Roger

rogben

08-09-2002, 07:43 PM

Legislation != right.

Under Hitler's regime it was legal to imprison a Jew, take his property, and kill him. Does that mean it was moral?

That was my point. Legislation != right... as opposed to legislation == right.

Morality is an absolute and does not change.

Oh dear. Oh my. I believe we may have found the crux of the problem and an impasse, all in one convenient location. :)

--
Roger

rogben

08-09-2002, 08:51 PM

Lazy thinking rogben...that the three are related is beyond question. What I did not say was that the three can be equated (which appears to be what you have chosen to read).

Ahem.

I didn't say that the three can be equated. I said that there is no equivalency between legislation (or being "law-abiding") and any form of "rightness" with which I am familiar. That you somehow ended up with a rather fanciful misinterpretation may be due to lazy thinking, intellectual astigmatism, or plain ol' crankiness... I'll leave the final analysis up to you.

And FTR, everything is questionable.

Firstly ALL analogies are flawed.

And some are flawed to the point of being useless. Sheesh... can we skip this stuff and get straight to the part where you ask what the definition of "is" is? :)

Secondly - 'right vs. wrong' is not inately 'simplistic' as you imply.

Did I merely imply it? Well then, let me fix that with a flat statement of opinion... "Right vs. Wrong" is an innately simplistic way to analyze anything.

E.g. - to steal is wrong - simple and fundamantally true.

Does channelling Ayn Rand hurt, or does it just make you feel all glowy inside? :)

Stealing is generally a bad thing. Sometimes stealing is necessary. The ethical orientation and significance of the act varies, like most everything else.

--
Roger

DrtyBlvd

08-10-2002, 12:55 AM

Oh dear. Oh my. I believe we may have found the crux of the problem and an impasse, all in one convenient location. :)

--
Roger

ROFL

Duncan

08-10-2002, 01:26 AM

Rogben wrote:

I said that there is no equivalency between legislation (or being "law-abiding") and any form of "rightness" with which I am familiar.

Which was redundant - as I never claimed any such equivalency - only relatedness - not the same thing as you well know. Nor did I claim you said they were equated - I said that you said that I believed them to be equated (which I don't) - something that could not be read into my comments by anyone who had read them with a reasonable degree of thoroughness.

BTW - do you actually understand the difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic'? You appear to have difficulty separating the ideas?. Right and Wrong are 'simple' concepts- only their interpretation can make them simplistic (or complex). Basic Moral Philosophy 101 - the ideas that even undergraduates are expected to grasp before they deal with concepts requiring serious intellectual appliance...

Stealing is generally a bad thing. Sometimes stealing is necessary. The ethical orientation and significance of the act varies, like most everything else.

'A bad thing'?! Surely a 'simplistic' comment in your understanding? Stealing is wrong. Simple concept. Then we look at the complex issues. It is possible to be in a situation where the laws of a country are framed in such a way that an action is defined as stealing when morally and ethically it is the owners of the supposedly stolen items are themselves the thieves. To steal back what is rightfully yours from the thieves, whatever the laws of the country may say, is not stealing (within the confines of many complexified moral codexes) and so is not wrong.

Does channelling Ayn Rand hurt, or does it just make you feel all glowy inside? Meaningless reference.

You obviously have the ability to read and analyse complex moral and ethical arguments. Just because this is the internet does not absolve you of your intellectual responsibilities. I've been teaching this stuff for mnay years - and if one of my students produced arguments as weak, generic and unsupportable as you have - they would be sent away to rewrite thir essay. Because I'm feeling generous I'll give you a C- (for effort).