[plug] Gary ... was Re: "stealing"

[James Elliott]

I think Gary has some good points and is quite right.

There is also a lot of concern in the music and general publishing world,
and it is not too hard to see their point ... if pirate copies are freely
available who is going to pay $65 to purchase a video movie or $20 for a
music CD when you can get pirate copies for a fraction of the cost.  Then
the artists or film producers don't make any money and start boycotting the
countries where these illegal activities are rife.

Are programmers less professional than muso's?  Should they not get paid for
their work?

Now, with software, open source is a wonderful thing and as soon as my final
Uni exams are over (next week) I intend to volunteer my free time to OOo.
However, at the same time I respect the right of a gifted programmer to
decide to make his/her living by doing what he/she does best .... writing
software.  But what incentive is there to lock oneself away for hundreds if
not thousands of hours to produce some elegant and useful software if, by it
very usefulness and excellence it is going to attract the attention of the
pirates .... who should profit from the programmer's work? - the programmer
or the pirate?

I don't think we need to get too hung up or moralistic about it.  If you are
repairing a mate's computer but don't have his/her Win98 CD with you, by all
means use your own - he/she bought one; you bought one; OK so your copy is
now on both computers and technically .....well ...... but who cares? ....
but buying one copy and installing it onto 10 computers is a different
thing, and copying the CD and selling it many times over is positively
wicked and unlawful, unless permitted by the copyright owner.

One important thing we need to be aware of in a "free society" - and I mean
"free" in the sense of freeware and open source software - is that "free"
can be a wonderful thing whereby colleagues all contribute, freely, on a
volunteer basis and share the products of their endeavours .... but "free"
can also attract the dregs of any society, those who take the maximum and
give nothing in return  (and complain the loudest).

James Elliott
----- Original Message -----
From: "garry" <garbuck at westnet.com.au>
To: <plug at plug.linux.org.au>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: "stealing"? was Re: [plug] Computer Angels (10,000 programs)


Even though I'm a part of Computer Angels and exclusively a Debian user,  I
think that there is a place for closed source software.

Just not my place.

If "John Smith's" business model and income is built on the closed source
and-sold-as-is model, he certainly wouldn't say it is a victimless crime
when
someone doesn't pay him for his work. After all, he distributes by sale his
product with the copyright intact. As soon as his work is redistributed
without his permission, his copyright and his ability to earn a living are
affected.

If you have his product legitimately, you are bound by a contract for it's
use. If you don't have his permission, it is stolen goods.

Personally I think that the closed source operating system software business
is in a bit of bother, and the open source model is proving superior. But if
something is sold under certain conditions, ie a licence, there is a legal
AND a moral responsibility to obey that. No matter how much we abhore the
practices of certain really big companies, they do have their rights too.

Respecting this because it is the right thing to do is a part of Ethics..

My 5cents worth..

Garry

> Seriously, for people to understand the issues involved, the correct
> terms need to be used.  Calling copyright infringement "stealing"
> reinforces the attitude that restrictive copyright practices are ok,
> and that it's also ok to have harsh penalties for what are really
> victimless crimes.