<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>Re: Possibilities for commercial software?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On 1/26/07 11:01 AM, "Dave Crossland" <dave@lab6.com> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> If it's not the author's wish that the software be freely<BR>
>> copy-able, which is certainly a desire the author's quite<BR>
>> entitled to have<BR>
><BR>
> I am less certain, and judging from most people's actions, I think you<BR>
> are in quite a minority with this belief. I mean, most iPods are full<BR>
> of unauthorised copies, even if some of their tracks are licensed from<BR>
> the iTunes Music Store.<BR>
<BR>
Weren't you the one who was asking whether an error, commonly made enough,<BR>
became correct? If everyone does it, it can _still_ be wrong.<BR>
<BR>
(People need to be very careful about their "intuitive understandings".<BR>
People frequently "intuitively understand" that they haven't had so much to<BR>
drink that they shouldn't be driving. Typically, they're mistaken.)<BR>
<BR>
>> you simply have<BR>
>> no right whatsoever to make (i.e. "publish") copies of a copyrighted work<BR>
>> and give them away. It's illegal. I'm astounded that breaking<BR>
>> the law this way presents no "ethical problem" for you.<BR>
><BR>
> It is illegal, but the law is not an authority on ethics. It is, at<BR>
> best, an attempt to achieve justice. You seem to be saying, "If<BR>
> copying is forbidden, it must be wrong."'<BR>
<BR>
No, I'm saying, "If copying goes against the author's expressed or implied<BR>
wishes, it's wrong." If the copyright notice says, "All rights reserved,"<BR>
then the author's reserved the rights, and it's unethical for you not to<BR>
respect their wishes in that regard.<BR>
<BR>
> But the legal system - at least in the US - rejects the idea that<BR>
> copyright infringement is "theft." You are making an appeal to<BR>
> authority, but misrepresenting what that authority says.<BR>
<BR>
This is a quibble. If there's value in the work, i.e., if the infringement<BR>
has an economic impact, then the infringement can be dealt with just as<BR>
severely as the theft of a physical asset. The judicial route is different,<BR>
but you're straining at gnats here.<BR>
<BR>
> The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in<BR>
> general. To say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning<BR>
> things upside down.<BR>
><BR>
>> If you copy software (music, books, other media, etc.) without permission<BR>
>> of the author, there most certainly _is_ an ethical problem: you're stealing<BR>
>> the possibility of selling a properly paid-for copy from the author.<BR>
><BR>
> I'm not sure you can steal a possibility.<BR>
<BR>
Well, if you can establish that, in the absence of a "free" but infringing<BR>
copy, a person would have bought a copy sold in accordance with the author's<BR>
wishes, you've stolen a sale. If that makes you happier. Again, you're<BR>
quibbling.<BR>
<BR>
Okay, 'splaina me this:<BR>
<BR>
I travel a lot. I take a lot of photos when I travel. I actually sell photos<BR>
here and there as "stock" for magazines, advertisements, etc. You'd seem to<BR>
be of the opinion that the instant I post a reasonably high digital image<BR>
someplace where you can get at it, if you happen to have a friend who likes<BR>
my photo enough to want it in his magazine but doesn't want to pay me the<BR>
asking price, it's "more wrong" for you not to "share" it with him than it<BR>
is for him to weasel out of paying me.<BR>
<BR>
(Please correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong.)<BR>
<BR>
I'm not sure how the relative balance of more versus less "wrong" between<BR>
you and your pal impacts my not getting paid for your friend's use of the<BR>
photo which I took and which I own, by the way. I'm still out the fee.<BR>
<BR>
>> Or do you believe that it's "unethical" for an author to<BR>
>> a) want to be paid for his work<BR>
><BR>
> No, it is totally legitimate for them to want payment, and for us to pay them.<BR>
<BR>
So, you've been paying the artists for all those unauthorized copies of<BR>
songs on your iPod, or buying the CDs on which the songs you've decided you<BR>
like appear...?<BR>
<BR>
>> and/or b) be able to set the terms under which his work is made<BR>
>> available...?<BR>
><BR>
> No, I am not against this. Afterall, without authors being able to set<BR>
> the terms under which their work is made available, we would have no<BR>
> free software :-)<BR>
<BR>
Absent copyright law, you'd have no legal means to _keep_ it free.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>