NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/misc/17111

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!iWarp.intel.com|ichips!tjehl
From: [e-mail] (Timothy Jehl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: PIRACY
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:32:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: ichips.1992Nov18.223217.27252
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <jprad.722012018@faatcrl> <[e-mail]> <jprad.722097796@faatcrl> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Intel Corporation.
Lines: 57
Originator: tjehl@sedona


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scotty A Johnson) writes:
>
> People disobey laws which they do not agree with all of the time.  Perhaps
> you don't, and that is interesting, but we are not talking about JUST you,
> and your belief that American Law is one True Religion.
>
> By the way, "Copyright Law" is not a single standard entity.  It baries
> greatly all around the world, and when a nation-state holds a different
> policy and therefore a different view on the subject, it does not mean
> they do not recognize this "Copyright Law" of yours, it means they have
> their own.
>

Copyright law has to do with the fundamental ownership of intellectual
property.  The real question is, if you bust your butt to come up with
an original concept, should the law allow you some advantage in exploiting
that product for financial gain?  The answer is, at least in the United
States, that you should.

As for what a product is worth, the free market system says that the product
is worth exactly what you can sell it for.  Supply and demand is very much
in effect, and it is up to the the vendor to determine the sales point at
which to market the product.  If there is significant demand at a given
price point, that is by definition a reasonable price for the product.

With regards to breaking the law, there is a large difference between
disobeying a law because you feel it is fundamentally wrong, and ignoring
it because it is inconvenient.  In the latter case, people who are caught
and punished deserve what they get.  For instance, on occasion I have been
known to drive at a speed in excess of the national speed limit.  I do it
because it is inconvenient, but if I get a ticket, I will not be on USENET
complaining that the law is unfair.

In the former case, this is known as civil disobedience.  People who engage
in civil disobedience are acutally attempting to change the law that they
disagree with, and are disobedient in public, in order to advertise their
viewpoint.  These people are willing to accept the consequences of their
actions.  A "civil disobedient" software pirate would not only be copying
software for personal use, but distributing on bulletin boards and in any
other manner possible.  I have to honestly say that I don't see many of
these people, so I work under the assumption that most pirates are of the
latter case.

Therefore, I suggest that software pirates are, in general, simply people
who break laws because they are inconvenient.  They deserve neither sympathy
nor understanding.  The only reason they attempt to defend their actions
is pure rationalization, and done more to convince themselves than to
convince others.  My advice to them is to admit what they are doing to
themselves.  If they are comfortable with their actions, then fine, but
for the average pirate to attempt to take the moral high ground is
ridiculous.

TJ
--

"It really only matters to the people who care."