On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Kalle Pihlajasaari wrote:
> Hi Shane and anyone else who is interested in a moral viewpoint,
>
> Barely on the PIC topic but has some small relevance to datasheet
> copying, printing and code protection.
Morality is an interesting topic. One that I often contemplate myself. Who
has the authority to decide for all of humanity, what is moral and what
is not? Any two people will have different views on what's right, and
what's wrong. I for example, believe it is wrong to directly hurt another
human being. I think most would agree. The line quickly becomes grey.
Some people think it's ok to steal from large organizations. Luckly, most
people don't. It's true that when someone steels from a place like
wal-mart, the prices go up and the rest of us pay. So really you're
steeling from yourself, your friends, and your family. The company has to
replace the loss of the theft. Which is the price they bought it for,
not the price they are selling it for.
I find it hard to draw a corelation between copying a peice of software,
and steeling that same peice of software off the shelves of a large
computer store. When you steel the software, you are taking a physical
thing, that cost money to manufacture. It didn't cost anywhere near the
amount of money that they are selling it for. I think it's absurd to put a
$600 price tag on a cardboard box containing a manual and a CDrom. In all
likelyhook it cost only about $20 to manufacture. A reasonable selling
price would be closer to $50-90. The guy who thought of it could have $5,
and there'd still be lots of money to trickle around to everyone involved
in the processes of creating the software. And you'd surely sell alot more
copies.
If nobody bought software with such a high price tag, we'd soon see the
price comming down to more reasonable levels.
> If morality and intelligence did not have a strong natural (BUT NOT
> EXCLUSIVE, DON'T BITE MY HEAD OFF) correlation then we as the human
> race would indeed have no chance. If we had in general only intelligent
> terrorists and thieves we might as well stop using public transport
> and owning personal property. This is one of the real significant
> reasons that I have faith in human nature, we have survived this long.
We haven't really survied all that long yet. Dinasours were on earth much
longer than humans. Today you'd be hard pressed to find a dinasour. Just
because you survived for a long time, doens't mean you will continue to.
> Without Karma (structured morality) there is very little reason not
> to take a chance.
Karma is good. If more people lived by karma, instead of the dollar, we'd
be better off.
{Quote hidden}> > I didn't think copying software was criminally illegal. ie: You can be
> > sued for copying it, but not charged with a criminal offense such as
> > theft. If I'm right (which is open to debate) then comparing it to the
> > theft of a car isn't appropriate.
>
> Well, I think that when I say this I speak for a fair number of people
> on this list, if you get charged with software theft do not pretend
> that you even had ignorance on your side. You certainly do not have
> the law on your side even though it is poorly enforced in some places,
> some times (China, Russia).
Civil law vs Criminal law. I was simply pointing out that copying software
is not the same as steeling a car. Compare apples to apples. Criminally
illegal and civily illegal are two different things. Either way, you are
breaking the law, and must be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to go out and pirate software, and I'm
not saying that I do it myself. I just wanted to set the record straight.
{Quote hidden}> > It's more like borrowing a friends cassette tape and making a copy for
> > yourself. Or recording a song off the radio. I'm curious how many people
> > who are so gung-ho against copying software, have copied audio.
>
> Equally illegal. Recording from broadcast mediums such as radio
> or television is normally specifically allowed for for personal
> use (as it would otherwise in the USA be unenforceable).
>
> I'm sure quite a few of the people who are against copying have
> transgressed/infringed/lapsed at some time, I know I have but am
> not proud of it and no longer do it. I don't have any 'gung-ho'
> feelings about it as I am also rather against the use of violence
> so the expression is rather inaccurate.
My point exactly. Most people are willing to speak so loudly against
copying software, yet they won't think twice about making a copy of a
friends audio cd for themselves.
> > Or went to the library and photocopied a specs sheet, or had one faxed,
> > when it should have been purchased.
>
> The OWNER of the copyright decides if it may or may not be copied
> without payment of licence/royalty. Often copying of standards and
> sections of books is permited for personal STUDY, making money or using
> it in your work is not usually called study.
Right.
> If someone faxes you something you can only be accessory after the fact.
Unless you asked them to fax it to you.
> I think the real issue lies in whether one believes any value lies
> in the code, doccument, song, video, movie, car, whatever. If there
> is some value then it can be stolen.
Ok. Stolen implies you removed something from someone's possesion, denying
them the ability to use/enjoy it. Removing it from their possesion implies
that they possessed it in the first place. It's hard to remove royalties
from someones possesion, because they don't have them yet.
But it's still wrong, right? Even though I'm arguing for the right to
pirate software, I have to say I do believe it's wrong. And I do believe
people should get their royalties.
But it's not as simple as that. If it's wrong to steal royalties from
someone, shouldn't it be wrong to make a competing product? Obviously that
denies them their right to recieve royatlies on that product. They won't
sell nearly as many if there is a competing firm involved. So by the same
merrit that copying software is illegal, competition should be illegal
too.
Of course, I realize that that's not practical, and most people won't
even entertain the idea that competition denies someone their right to
recieve royalties. Competition shouldn't be illegal. I'm just pointing out
that it's a very grey issue.
And depending on how you look at it, a different and, no doubt, better
moral point of view can be discovered.
> Ideas do have value, wait till one of yours is taken and hope the
> cost of learning is not as high as the amount of value you have taken
> in your life.
That's my idea! Give it back.<g> Seriously though, theft of ideas is
another grey issue. Sure, it's true that if you steel my idea I can't
make any more money off it. But at the same time you can't take my idea
and add two or three improvments to it. The concept of "idea theft" slows
progress. Wouldn't it be great if you could get the code to Windows 95,
or most any software product, and change the little things that you don't
like? Then give it away to all your friends too. Most software would be
much more reliable if this was the case.
The goal in life should NOT be profit. We should NOT live in a money
oriented society. I am 100% against this. In my mind, a profit driven
society is doomed to fail. If profit was no longer the driving force in
society, all of these "grey" issues, would be called sharing. Not theft.
Money has made sharing with your friends illegal. I think that is morally
wrong.
> I would love to live and work in a world where I did not have to
> code protect my PICs but mostly I do because it is the only real
> barrier to people stealing a novel idea that may have taken a lot
> of time to create.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Say YES to morals.
I know my viewpoint is Politically InCorect. I'm not saying no to morals.
Not by any stretch of the imagination. I AM saying that morals aren't
written in stone (well, except for those 10. And I didn't see anything
about stealing ideas in there)
If anyone cares to continue this in private email to reduce list traffic,
feel free to email me. I love the argument and think it will help to
solidify my own developing morals. Right now there's lots of things
that are illegal, that I think shouldn't be. There must be a reason for
these things to be illegal. If the reason is profit driven, you'll have a
hard time changing my mind. If there is another reason, then I'd like to
hear it.
-Shane.
htsoft.com | Phone Fax