🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec15.213054.9635@ryn.mro4.dec.com> rost@tecrus.dec.com (My name is Brian Rost) writes:


>In article <BzB7yM.9u0@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes...
>>Software piracy is decidedly a grey area. Tom is far too poor
>>to buy 6 different $300 word processors for his computer, and
>>never would. But he can easily pirate 6 packages so he does. 
>>The software companies whose product Tom would never have bought
>>are not out anything, and actually get some exposure if Tom
>>happens to show their program to a more scrupulous potential
>>buyer.
>> 
>>Now, Tom tries all the various word processors but finally settles
>>into using one package most of the time. Eventually he gets frustrated
>>at having to pester his buddies to get the latest version or to 
>>look in the manual, so he buys one (1) word processing package that
>>he knows he likes. He keeps copies of the other programs around
>>because he hates deleting things, but almost never (if ever) fires
>>them up again.

>Ah, the so-called "victimless crime"...sounds good but it's far more common
>that "Tom" finally just xeroxes the damn manual and that's that.  

That doesn't solve the problem of having the latest version, and
everyone wants the latest version. The fact is that even the most
unscrupulous pirate has bought an application or two, and probably
doesn't use more than 1 or 2 applications regularly. (Again I exclude
games from the discussion, for lack of experience.)

>I know lots
>of folks who take home a copy of some package they use at work for when they
>are working at home.  This seems OK to me, I have problems with the concept of
>one copy per machine.  

You are morally justifying a crime here...

>I also know many "poor students" who are using pirated software.  Yes, they
>couldn't buy it anyway, but the point is they are ripping off the software
>vendor. It may not seem like a big deal when that vendor is, say, Microsoft,
>but when it's some poor shmuck operating out of his basement it's a 
>big deal.  

A big deal means he should know the difference. If they couldn't buy
it anyway, the poor shmuck doesn't know the difference. My guess is,
he'd prefer to have a thousand students using his software illegally,
than to have noone use it at all. Students eventually get legitimate
jobs and might be in a position to purchase legitimate software for
their legitimate business. They are more likely to _buy_ something
they are familiar with.

The software business seems to be working OK in spite of widespread
piracy. There are a lot of developers out there; some very successful,
some less so. By and large, (outside of students maybe) most computer
owners spend a certain amount of money on software that they most use,
just because it's convenient to have original docs, and get regular
upgrades, and in businesses it is necessary to be above board. This
money gets back to the developers in rough proportion to the number
of users.

How would things improve if it were somehow possible to
eradicate piracy? Would people spend more on software? or would they be
content with fewer packages? Would it be easier for new developers
to break into the business? or would people (unable to try different
packages) play it safe and buy only big-name programs. Compare
the viability of basement software operations with basement electronics
outfits.

>It's funny how people would balk at shoplifting but think nothing about
>pirating software.  I think it's mostly because noone expects they will
>ever be punished for it.

It's not in the least funny, and it has nothing to do with the
likelihood of getting caught. Shoplifting is dead easy if you do a bit
of research.  And the possibility of getting caught buying hot goods
in a bar is as small as getting caught pirating software. Yet many
people that would neither shoplift or buy stolen property, regardless
of the likelihood of getting caught, would (like you) think nothing of
taking home WordPerfect from the work machine for your home machine.
It's because the crime is considered less serious; if the guilty party
is convinced that they would never spend the money for the program,
then they are convinced they are hurting noone by pirating it.

>>I have seen this scenario play out many times. It's illegal, yes.
>>But as bad as stealing 6 TVs? Get serious.

>Lots of people have posed this question many times in many ways, you can 
>see it
>in the Bible where various religious leaders try to trick Jesus into saying
>something contradictory.  As writer Ayn Rand liked to look at it, there is 
>only
>black and white, no grey.  Once you make a moral compromise, you have shifted
>totally over the line.  

What's the point of such a line when we're all on the same side of it?

Ayn Rand or no, I will continue to speed occasionally, but will not become
an axe murderer.

>I really don't care if people want to pirate software, but to use psychobabble
>to try to justify it morally is too much for me.    

You mean like you did for taking home software home from work?

Werner