Philosophical Quandry: Piracy - Page 13

Loser · #**121** July 15th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You're not gonna get much help from the navies of the world if you report that your 10,000 tons of cocaine was snatched by a rival cartel.

I would have to disagree with this, though not in such a way that it invalidates your point in any way.

You can get plenty of help. Just hand the right information to the right people. One cartel determines what another cartel is doing and when (they can use resources and facets of human intelligence gather no longer available to mainstream government intelligence), and reports it to The Law. They got help, though not in the same way that a legitimate business would get help.

It is said that no big drug bust occurs that is not the result of a tip or an accident. I wonder if that applies to other illicit activity like human trafficking or stolen goods.

rdouglass · #**122** July 15th, 2003, 08:29 PM

I dunno' but to me it's pretty simple;

If you take something - anything! - without the owners permission, its stealing. Whether that be physical or intellectual property.

When you buy (or license) something, you now have the (original) owners' permission to do only what was agreed upon during the exchange of monies, goods, or services.

Anything else is stealing.

And to all those thinking that an EULA may not be legally binding, think again. Notice in most, if not all, ELUA's they state something to the effect that if you don't agree to the EULA, then return the S/W for a refund. I'm no lawyer but AFAIK that has always held up in a U.S. court of law.

Erax · #**123** July 15th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Granted. But why is stealing immoral ?

Edit : This is meant to provoke thought. I am not questioning the fact that stealing is immoral.

[ July 15, 2003, 19:41: Message edited by: Erax ]

Fyron · #**124** July 15th, 2003, 08:37 PM

It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.

[ July 15, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

rdouglass · #**125** July 15th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.

How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....

Erax · #**126** July 15th, 2003, 08:51 PM

This was going to be an interesting topic but I'll be offline the rest of the day. Argh.

Anyway, I think there should be a separate term. Depriving a person of something is not the same as making a copy of it (not entering into the morality aspect). Calling both 'stealing' seems too simplistic to me.

Just as calling IP 'property' seems too simplistic.

geoschmo · #**127** July 15th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing. If you want to argue it isn't stealing the software itself because it's not physical property and you aren't denying the owner the use of said property, then it is stealing the money the software would generate in sale if you purchased it legally. There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. But you are depriving the owner of something that is rightfully theirs. In plain speak that is considered stealing is it not?

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK · #**128** July 15th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdouglass:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.

How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....

The burden of proof is for the enforcer. You can't prove that any particular person clicked the "I agree" button, opened the seal on an envelope, or otherwise agreed to a EULA without a signed contract. It's not a contract, it's a cheap trick. Maybe some lawyers can make it stick in some cases, but it's still a cheap trick.

Moreover, I agree with the sentiment that many contracts are invalid, according to my own moral standards, because frequently they are many pages of attrocious legalese and are given with the expectation that the signer will not sit there for an hour trying to understand it before signing it. Often such contracts are used by an entire industry, forcing people who need even a basic service (such as housing, or medical services) to accept, or be excuded from something they need. Perhaps not legally, but morally, I see this as unfair bullying by the people offering the contract. Some may say that it's the victims' responsibility, or society's responsibility, to object, and if they get hurt by this, it's the fault of their own complacency. There's some validity to that, but it's akin to saying that mugging victims deserve what they get for not being properly armed or staying home. The system could be changed to make things better for everyone, but again, the people who care about it the most and have the most attention, knowledge, money and power to bear on the problem, are those who stand to gain by continuing to exploit the status quo and perpetuating it as long as possible.

PvK

Fyron · #**129** July 15th, 2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdouglass:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.

How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....

It is not legally binding because it is not a legal document. There is no signing by both (or either) parties, there is no notery present, no lawyer present, nothing.

PvK · #**130** July 15th, 2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing. If you want to argue it isn't stealing the software itself because it's not physical property and you aren't denying the owner the use of said property, then it is stealing the money the software would generate in sale if you purchased it legally. There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. But you are depriving the owner of something that is rightfully theirs. In plain speak that is considered stealing is it not?

Geoschmo

I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.

A few counter-examples:
Software industry likes to claim that they lose billions of dollars they otherwise would have had, because kids and foreigners didn't pay prices they could never afford. They also increase their theoretical losses for people check out a copy of software before buying, find out what crap it is, and so don't buy it. "Hey, if they couldn't get a copy of it, they would've had to pay $300 to find out that our software is worse than shareware! We lost millions of profits we should have had!"

PvK