Re: WAY OT: Warez - A Rebuttal

[Sean <sean_@mindspring.com>]

At 04:46 AM 9/10/2000 -0500, someone argued:
>Lets first look at physical products that you go and buy, like cars. What
kind 
>of car do you think is a better car a top of the line Mercedes or a Honda 
>Civic? I'm willing to bet most people would think the Mercedes a better 
>car. 
>Why? Because it cost more. It's a pretty simple idea. If something costs
more 
>it is generally seen as being "better".
>
>Apply this idea to software. I'll use Adobe for example. They have 
>various 
>versions of Photoshop available. They range in price from, I think, $40
for a 
>consumer level version to about $800 for a professional version. Now the 
>two 
>versions are different, but the Pro version is not going to be 2000% 
>better 
>than the consumer level version as the price difference would indicate. 

Sounds like you're saying that the cost of physical products is justified
because they're physical.  But, point taken - you don't think the pricing
of software is justified.


>Higher prices don't create better products. Just ask Microsoft. 
>Competition 
>creates better products, which usually creates lower prices.

No one made the argument that higher prices create better products (except
possibly yourself in regard to cars or, at least, the perception of quality
in cars).


>Well, no. There is plenty of freeware and shareware software out there. 
>It 
>costs absolutely nothing to use. So, even if no one paid there would still
be 
>software. Ever heard of Linux?

shareware wouldn't survive if some people didn't pay.


>>* Stealing is an ethical and a legal issue... and stealing is wrong.
>
>But so is speeding, running red lights, not wearing your seat belt, 
>carrying 
>concealed weapons, viewing pornographic material if you are under 
>eighteen 
>years of age, drinking if you are under twenty-one, etc. Does that stop
anyone? 

Does it stop anyone? yeah it does.  Does it stop everyone? no.  so what?
Lots of people steal, therefore it's ok?


>>* When you *use* software that you have have not paid for, you are 
>stealing.
>
>Well, I could argue "use" easily, so instead, I'll argue "paid for". Do 
>you 
>'pay' for using the library? Did the Pilgrims 'pay' for the land they
took? Do 
>logging companies 'pay' for the trees they cut down in National Parks? Do
you 
>'pay' for the oxygen your car burns? Do oil companies 'pay' for the 
>damage 
>their spilled tankers create? Do you 'pay' for using your friends 
>swimming 
>pool? Do you 'pay' for listening to the radio? Do I need to go on?  

Sounds like you're nitpicking the statement.  Maybe that should have been
written: when you install, keep and extensively use commercial software
that has been cracked (or you have an illegally obtained password/key), and
do so without paying for it through the proper channels (legal distributor,
outlet or direct), you are stealing. (I threw in 'extensively use' to allow
for the gray area of demoing a cracked product for which no demo is 
available)

and besides, tax payers pay for the library whether they use it or not;
radio is advertising paid for - you just put up with the commercials.
In the other cases you mention, there is either charity involved (using
your friend's pool), injustice or something else that I'm not sure how to
describe (in the case of oxygen burning).

Are you trying to imply that because the north american continent was
invaded by europeans, anything goes?  Or that because the pilgrims
inhabited the land stealing is ok?