Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!calorie.cis.ohio-state.edu!martens From: martens@calorie.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Software thieves (was Re: Software theives) Message-ID: <58013@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 19 Aug 89 20:17:06 GMT References: <30706@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <6846@rpi.edu> <2361@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com> <6865@rpi.edu> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Jeff MartensDistribution: usa Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 44 In article <6865@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >>> I consider actually lifting product from the shelves to be a crime. >>> I don't consider, say, an employee taking a piece of software home, >>> copying it, bringing it back and re-shelving it with new labels and >>> all to be a crime in the slightest.) >I don't care who copies what; as far as I'm concerned, unless >something physical is stolen there is no problem- no one loses >anything except the publisher, and that only theoretically. And don't >even bother to tell me that the employee who takes home a software >package every night to dupe would have bought 180-odd software >packages in a year. They don't get paid that well. So I guess you'd say that if I were to photocopy a copyrighted book and sell photocopies for less than the publishers price, I haven't committed a crime. So what if I broke the law? Nothing physical was stolen, so no crime was committed. I guess I don't see how you can justify stealing software, especially if you've worked professionally as a developer. The salaries of the designers, programmers, marketers, etc. have to be paid somehow. If a large segment of the potential market is getting the product for free, then the business becomes less profitable. What does this mean to Joe User? Well, the developer's resources are cut back, so expect fewer new products, fewer upgrades, less customer support, etc., simply because immoral dweebs feel justified in stealing copyrighted software (or books, or films, or recordings, whatever) and justify their theft by saying, "Duh, uh, but nothing physical was stolen." Maybe the cretin who regularly walks off with free software wouldn't buy 180-odd software packages per year. But, maybe he should have to pay for the ones he actually uses, just to keep the companies producing useful software afloat and active. I have no real problem with someone borrowing software for a test drive -- I've been burned by bad software purchases myself -- but I feel that someone who does this has a moral responsibility to buy the package if he's gonna keep it. Otherwise, he's just a parasite. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Jim & Tammy: living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.