Re: WAY OT: Warez - A Rebuttal

["Ben Porter" <azrix@n2music.com>]

Okay. Now my attempt to defend statements I made late at night in a sleepy 
haze ;-).
 
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:10:40   Sean wrote:
>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.

I was also trying to say that certain people *percieve* certain versions 
of software to be good or better than the competition for the simple fact 
that they cost more than the others. I know. I've also fallen into this 
more$$$ = better product fantasy before.
 
>
>>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?

No, it's not okay to steal. But all of those things that I mentioned are 
also "ethical and legal issues" and as such are also "wrong". But, I've 
never heard any "righteous" person going around telling everyone how 
*wrong* it is to speed. And I think we all know what happened when such 
said "righteous" people convinced the American government that drinking 
was *wrong*.

I'm not condoning any part of warez, I just have a really big problem with 
anyone going around espousing some overly righteous view of right and 
wrong. Some people don't see a problem with it. Others do. So who's right? 
Err... Well... Ummm... The good guys? Please just leave it at that.

>>>* 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?
>
No, I'm merely trying to point out the fact that by the definition that if 
you use something that you havn't paid for that you are stealing, then 
there are lots of things that have and are being done that would 
constitute "stealing". Again, I'm not trying to defend warez, I'm just 
trying to refute this rather silly and unneeded rebuttal on warez.

And as for 'extensive use', well, when does using warez cease being a 
'demo' and become 'stealing'? 

Ben Porter.


What are you N2?  Choose from 150 free e-mail addresses.
http://www.n2mail.com