Anybody else have a moral problem with pirated software?

[Not George Lucas]

I am morally opposed to pirating software and selling it (just as I'm opposed to pirating music and movies and selling them). I also believe that it is illegal to pirate software and such.

But

I do it anyway, and I'm fine with that. I just don't sell it.

[melon]

Bubba, get over yourself. I refuse to speak to you. You are dead to me, and that's that.

And, no, I wasn't referring to you specifically. There are several others in this thread who are opposed to software piracy here.

Melon

[melon]

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase
melon, I agree 100% with all these statements. But, for me, it still doesn't justify stealing software. Software companies are idiots for not showing more interest in evolution of technology and innovation, and pricing their software out of the range of young, innovative, talented users (potential hackers), but I say that's their problem. The answer is not to steal from them, any more than it would have been for me to steal a few million dollars from Gary Coleman in 1988 since he was gonna squander it all anyway.

I agree that theft in general is wrong, and, theoretically, I find software piracy regrettable, but I think we are using incorrect analogies. Software piracy would be the equivalent of making an exact copy of an item; the original is still in tact. Gary Coleman would still maintain his fortune.

aside: melon, can you give me the scoop on that frightening picture in your sig and the identity of your avatar? muchas gracias.

The avatar is an example of my artwork. I forget who he is. I think he's in a British rock band. The picture in my sig is from wim-wenders.com, under "Until the End of the World."

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. I respect all opinions on the subject, so I feel no need to change anyone's mind.

Melon

[Kieran McConville]

Originally posted by melon


The avatar is an example of my artwork. I forget who he is. I think he's in a British rock band.

Melon

A member of the late Smashing Pumpkins, is what it struck me as. The drummer? Oh well.

Software 'piracy', nothing to add really. I agree with Ozaurora and others on this one.

[LOVE MUSCLE]

Bubba, your problems with Melon should stay within the confines of the thread where you had issues with him.

In other words, you have picked at Melon when the obvious stimulant was something that happened many threads ago.

Shoot me if I don't make sense here, but this is a new thread okay?

This is not the first time Bubba, c'mon now?

[LOVE MUSCLE]

Originally posted by Kieran McConville


A member of the late Smashing Pumpkins, is what it struck me as.

hahahaha
funny I said the same thing

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon
Bubba, get over yourself. I refuse to speak to you. You are dead to me, and that's that.

And, no, I wasn't referring to you specifically. There are several others in this thread who are opposed to software piracy here.

Melon

GOOD. Again, I was just making sure. It is my sincere hope that this issue doesn't come up again - in this thread or any other - and I apologize for needlessly bringing up here.

Let us now return to the subject at hand.

Originally posted by Not George Lucas
I am morally opposed to pirating software and selling it (just as I'm opposed to pirating music and movies and selling them). I also believe that it is illegal to pirate software and such.

But

I do it anyway, and I'm fine with that. I just don't sell it.

I believe NGL has brought to the forefront an important point about this issue: whether or not you engage in the act should have no bearing on its morality. In other words, I suspect that some who are not opposed to the piracy of software, music, etc., do so because they themselves in piracy. "I do it, therefore I will defend it."

I believe morality is what is, regardless of how closely I personally adhere to it. I believe lying is wrong, and yet I still lie. What that means is that I am ultimately a hypocrite, and I should resolve that hypocrisy. I believe it should be resolved by an effort to lie less - an attempt to rise to the standard of morality rather than lower that standard to where I am.

And Spiral Staircase mentions what I was going to expound on:

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase
I disagree. I think there are many more people copying software instead of buying it than you think. Of course that's just my guess. True, it probably doesn't have a huge impact on Microsoft's bottom-line, but I think it does cost software companies sales. Either way, for me personally, I try to ask myself, "what if everybody did what I'm doing?" In this case, a lot of people would lose a ton of money. So I don't do it, and I ask others not to.

In asking, "what if everybody did what I'm doing?", he's applying a belief that if something universally practiced becomes a problem, it shouldn't be practiced individually.

(I believe Kant had this belief, but I frankly remember ideas from my ethics class more than who believed what. No matter.)

The idea is this: think of an act you would like to commit individually, apply it universally, and look at the results. Dishonesty is the obvious example: it only works to get what you want if most people are honest. If EVERYONE is dishonest, it no longer accomplishes anything.

Let's apply that to stealing software: if everybody stole, the company would make no money and would stop producing new software. Thus one person stealing is dependent on the fact that most people legally buy the product.


But, even if the theft benefited the victim, it's still theft. One can see how piracy CAN help an artist. A while back, Interference offered an illegal copy of Daniel Lanois' "Still Water," which featured Adam and Larry. I immorally downloaded the song and took to it immediately. I requested it as a Christmas present, and a friend bought it for me. If I ever find his other albums at a CD store, I'll probably pick them up - and I will almost certainly buy a ticket if Lanois has a concert nearby. The one act of downloading one song has already led to the legal purchase of one album, and it may lead to more purchases: it has done more good than harm.

And yet - and I cannot emphasize this enough - it is still immoral.

The reason is this: that unauthorized distribution is an infringement of Warner Bros. and Daniel Lanois intellectual property rights. Like all true rights, "intellectual property rights" isn't an euphamism for something protected by the law; it is something Lanois has an indisputable claim to.

Lanois and his publishers have the right to say whether to freely distribute that one song. For better or worse, they chose not to. By distributing or taking the song anyway, you trample over his right to make that decision: that is when it becomes immoral.

One can certainly rectify the situation by buying legal copy at a later date, but that doesn't change the immorality of the initial act.


As a final note, I use the term "unauthorized distribution" with great intent. Had those who own the rights to distribute given Interference permission to offer the song freely, had authorized the act, it would not have been immoral at all.

Further, it is the distribution that is immoral, not the copying. Making MP3's for convenience (on the PC or in a handheld player) and making a back-up of your recently bought software are perfectly permissible exercises of the buyer's right to use his property as he sees fit.

It comes down to a conflict of rights: the publisher's right to dictate distribution of the product and the buyer's right to do what he wishes with what he buys. I believe the buyer's right extends to copying but STOPS at distribution, that distribution infringes on the publisher's rights.

In other words, you can make a billion copies of a piece of software, as long as you're the only one using it. It is my hope that technology always allows for such copying, that moral copying isn't sacrificed to stop immoral distribution.

[Anthony]

This is frankly a highly irreverent discussion. Yet again another debate over morals, and, come to think of it, petty morals.

I don't equate pirate software with theft, hence I have no problems with it. I love piracy. I wish I could thrive off it. Why? Because I know for a fact that the companies on the other side are making billions of dollars or pounds out of frankly, ripping people off (people, who aren't fortunate enough to have a fancy board of directors). If you can acquire pirate software, good for you. If you can't, what a pity. I don't see what the morality is involved in this, but.... I feel, this may be due to my 'immorality'.

Lots of people have been called 'immoral' in this forum and in this particular thread. Before anyone gets offended, I would like to tell those who have been accused of immorality that they should look at the person who's even deigning to call you such. I have been reading this thread over and over, and I can safely say, OzAurora, you shouldn't even regard those who have called you immoral as something substantial. Immorality? They could probably write the book on it.

I can't vouch for anyone who doesn't like piracy, but I personally feel that those who oppose it with such moral passion evidently have never had the fortune of acquiring it. I'd be willing to vouch that those who speak in such bitter tones are bitter because they've probably attempted to come by it in the past, but unfortunately never could.


Calling people immoral over a bunch of computer megabytes is quite frankly, ridiculous. Now, that IS offensive.


Ant.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Anthony

Because I know for a fact that the companies on the other side are making billions of dollars or pounds out of frankly, ripping people off (people, who aren't fortunate enough to have a fancy board of directors).

Ant.

This is a disgusting statement.

On another different note..

I love smugglers.

L.Unplugged

[Achtung Bubba]

Anthony, to no one's surprise, I disagree with about everything you said.

Originally posted by Anthony
This is frankly a highly irreverent discussion. Yet again another debate over morals, and, come to think of it, petty morals

I don't equate pirate software with theft, hence I have no problems with it. I love piracy. I wish I could thrive off it. Why? Because I know for a fact that the companies on the other side are making billions of dollars or pounds out of frankly, ripping people off (people, who aren't fortunate enough to have a fancy board of directors). If you can acquire pirate software, good for you. If you can't, what a pity. I don't see what the morality is involved in this, but.... I feel, this may be due to my 'immorality'.

So, it seems to me that this is your take on the matter: software companies are making a lot of money by selling these products, and the products are overpriced or of poor quality (your definition of being "ripped off" being unclear). Ergo, stealing from them is just fine.

I can't imagine your real complaint is the quality of the product: after all, if you didn't like it, you wouldn't steal it. For the moment, I must simply assume you're talking about the product's being overpriced.

It begs three questions: is it then wrong to steal from the small, privately owned companies, those who also lack "a fancy board of directors" (as if that matters)? Is it wrong to steal from software companies that charge reasonable prices? And, where's the line between a reasonable price and overcharging?

Beyond all that, why limit yourself to software? I see little difference between what you suggest and stealing from those who "rip off" consumers in other fields. Luxury cars and sports tickets are SEVERELY overpriced. Yet, few suggest stealing cars from the Lexus factory or breaking into the ballpark.

(Certainly, you can point out that nothing is phyiscally stolen in the case of software piracy. Do that, and I will continue to remind everyone that you can copy books and sheet music - but that does NOT make the act right. So there's a difference between software and a BMW, but not a substantial one.)

Fact is, in this society of free economies and property rights, companies generally have the right to charge whatever they want for their products. If you don't like it, don't buy the product; it's as simple as that.

Those who can't afford a Lexus buy a Yugo. Those who can't get a box seat at Fenway Park watch the game on TV. And those who can't afford some software product should either find a cheap alternative - and MANY alternatives are free/cheap to begin with - or simply do without.

You can bitch about being ripped off all you want, but that doesn't justify stealing.

And if you don't equate it with theft, what DO you call it? A gift? Or do you think you have the right to have whatever you want?

Lots of people have been called 'immoral' in this forum and in this particular thread. Before anyone gets offended, I would like to tell those who have been accused of immorality that they should look at the person who's even deigning to call you such. I have been reading this thread over and over, and I can safely say, OzAurora, you shouldn't even regard those who have called you immoral as something substantial. Immorality? They could probably write the book on it.

I can't vouch for anyone who doesn't like piracy, but I personally feel that those who oppose it with such moral passion evidently have never had the fortune of acquiring it. I'd be willing to vouch that those who speak in such bitter tones are bitter because they've probably attempted to come by it in the past, but unfortunately never could.

I don't know where to even begin here.

You say you've read this thread "over and over," and yet, when I read it, I don't find a SINGLE instance of anyone personally calling another "immoral" - Oz or anyone else.

(If you could quote the actual comment, I'd very much appreciate it.)

As for the comment that Oz should "look at the person who's even deigning to call you such," I would daresay that NONE of us opposed to software piracy are complete saints. In fact, I admitted as much.

I'll repeat myself, with the salient points in red, since you missed the comment even after reading this thread so very often:

I believe morality is what is, regardless of how closely I personally adhere to it. I believe lying is wrong, and yet I still lie. What that means is that I am ultimately a hypocrite, and I should resolve that hypocrisy. I believe it should be resolved by an effort to lie less - an attempt to rise to the standard of morality rather than lower that standard to where I am.

...

But, even if the theft benefited the victim, it's still theft. One can see how piracy CAN help an artist. A while back, Interference offered an illegal copy of Daniel Lanois' "Still Water," which featured Adam and Larry. I immorally downloaded the song and took to it immediately. I requested it as a Christmas present, and a friend bought it for me. If I ever find his other albums at a CD store, I'll probably pick them up - and I will almost certainly buy a ticket if Lanois has a concert nearby. The one act of downloading one song has already led to the legal purchase of one album, and it may lead to more purchases: it has done more good than harm.

And yet - and I cannot emphasize this enough - it is still immoral.

I HAVE ADMITTEDLY DOWNLOADED MUSIC, IMMORALLY AND ILLEGALLY. I'm not some perfect human, some Ivory Tower occupant dispensing morality to the masses and telling others, "You're immoral and I'm not."

To suggest that's what we're doing is flat-out lying.

And my previous admission that I have pirated music before - though I regret it, and have changed my ways - kinda disproves your little theory that we've "probably attempted to come by it in the past, but unfortunately never could."

But you're "willing to vouch" for that ridiculous idea, right?

Fact is, music and software piracy is ridiculously easy. Half the people in my old college dorm and - ashamedly - a few people in my office of computer science grad students are actively engaged in the practice. I could ask any one of them where to find the latest Napster-like program, or use one of several dozen search engines to find it myself. I can then easily install the program on my own computer and use its high-speed connection to get whatever I want.

Hell, martha - who started the thread - first posted because she was APPROACHED to buy pirated software.

How much easier could it get?

Calling people immoral over a bunch of computer megabytes is quite frankly, ridiculous. Now, that IS offensive.


Ant.

In this case, we're also talking about people's JOBS. Software developers work just as hard as writers, painters, and musicians. To suggest that they are somehow exempt from protection because they work exclusively in "a buch of computer megabytes" is absurd.

More of these other people - particularly writers - and working on the computer. Are THEIR works now free for the taking? Is stealing a digital book somehow less immoral?

Some people - myself included - also believe pornography to be immoral. Is Playboy.com somehow LESS immoral than Playboy magazine because it's digital information?

There's a generally held belief that lying is immoral, be it done verbally (slander) or on paper (libel). If you do it on the Internet, does it somehow magically become okay?

And a pretty knowledgeable guy can write a farily malicious computer virus, destroying a mass of information and hurting businesses. (God forbid, someone could release a virus into this nation's air traffic control network.) Is it somehow morally permissible because it happens in ones and zeroes?

No, Anthony: the medium doesn't matter. THEFT IS THEFT.

[Anthony]

And whats so disgusting about it? That I should be able to avoid being ripped off by exorbitant prices? That I don't feel any shame in saving just a little bit of money that, frankly, the board of directors won't miss?

Well, I'm glad someone finds it disgusting. We can't all have the same taste buds. To me it tastes divine.

Ant.

[Anthony]

Whatever Bubba. I suppose stealing soaps and bathroom utensils from expensive hotels is also theft, as well... and that is costing loads of other people's jobs. Oh, the humanity.

Well, I had a good time being immoral. I saved a lot of money on something that was inconsequential (and, by the looks of it, I haven't deprived you of your job) and would like to think that I spent it on something better, and perhaps more beneficial to others. I'm not making excuses for theft, all I'm saying is that life is not as black and white as all that.

But, thats just me.

I think the only reason why you, as an individual Bubba, feel so personal about all this is because you DO work in software. Well, goody for you.

Ant.

[Anthony]

Oh, and as another piece of information - I've never used music software at all, atleast, not in the 'pirate' term. I buy music the old-fashioned way (and I buy originals), not because its more convenient, but because quality is superior I believe. I don't buy pirate computer software (though my brother does) because I consider it inferior quality and it screws up the computer. I'm a consumer and I have my rights, what I demand I will get. The supplier has his or her rights as well; to supply me with what I want at what I consider affordable. If I don't find it affordable, I can take a hike. I do. What I do afterwards is of my concern.

What I HAVE used, when it comes to piracy, are the pirate videos that were (until a few years ago) legal in the Middle East. We didn't have cinemas back there so when a film in the USA would come out, we would get it on video faster than you can say 'theft' and we would enjoy it. As time progressed, they found better ways to improve the quality of the copy. We enjoyed it, and we considered it affordable. Why on Earth shouldn't the laws of capitalism apply to the individual, as well as corporate bodies? Its the survival of the fittest out there. As you phrased it, Bubba, what DO I care if someone loses their job? I don't. And I don't know many people who DO care about music labels and artists when they make a copy of a friend's cd or tape, I don't know many people who flinch when they are tempted to steal a napkin from a hotel, or God forbid, a bar of soap.

What do I consider theft? Breaking into someone's home three times and stealing all of their electrical equipment, not to mention a mother's jewels. That's theft. In a world of various shades of grey, I'm afraid mediums are imporant.

Ant.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Anthony
Whatever Bubba. I suppose stealing soaps and bathroom utensils from expensive hotels is also theft, as well... and that is costing loads of other people's jobs. Oh, the humanity.

No, someone might not lose his job over stolen soap, but either way, YES, stealing it is wrong, when it comes right down to it. Allow me to quote - and to prune away the cluttering details:

"I suppose stealing soaps and bathroom utensils from expensive hotels is also theft, as well..."

"Stealing soaps and bathroom utensils from expensive hotels is also theft."

"Stealing soaps and bathroom utensils is also theft."

"Stealing is also theft."

"Stealing is theft."

Stealing is theft.

Do you know how Merriam-Webster defines theft? "THE ACT OF STEALING."

And stealing is wrong.

Or didn't anybody teach you that at some point in your life?

Well, I had a good time being immoral. I saved a lot of money on something that was inconsequential (and, by the looks of it, I haven't deprived you of your job) and would like to think that I spent it on something better, and perhaps more beneficial to others. I'm not making excuses for theft, all I'm saying is that life is not as black and white as all that.

But, thats just me.

Oh, you SAVED MONEY by stealing. Well, that makes it all better doesn't it?

Wait. It doesn't.

THAT'S WHY MOST PEOPLE STEAL. They save money taking stuff rather than buying it.

And the excuse that you're spending it on something more beneficial to others is crap. Even if you gave every penny you earned to charity, it doesn't make stealing any better.

I think the only reason why you, as an individual Bubba, feel so personal about all this is because you DO work in software. Well, goody for you.

Ant.

And I think you're not paying attention. I'm not in the music industry, and I think pirating music is wrong. I'm not a songwriter, and I think copying sheet music is wrong. I don't make stereo equipment (and I would actually like a new one for my car) and I still think stealing that is wrong, too.

Is it not possible that people think stealing is wrong OUTSIDE of the personal consequences? Is it not possible that people simply think, stealing IS wrong?

On to your other post...

Originally posted by Anthony
Oh, and as another piece of information - I've never used music software at all, atleast, not in the 'pirate' term. I buy music the old-fashioned way (and I buy originals), not because its more convenient, but because quality is superior I believe. I don't buy pirate computer software (though my brother does) because I consider it inferior quality and it screws up the computer. I'm a consumer and I have my rights, what I demand I will get. The supplier has his or her rights as well; to supply me with what I want at what I consider affordable. If I don't find it affordable, I can take a hike. I do. What I do afterwards is of my concern.

OH, how noble. You don't pirate music because you don't like the low quality of pirated MP3s.

Whoopty-doo.

While I'm at this paragraph, I think I should inform you of what your rights are and are not.

You say, "I'm a consumer and I have my rights, what I demand I will get." Well, no, that's not true. You get NOT what you demand, but what you can afford.

You then say, "The supplier has his or her rights as well; to supply me with what I want at what I consider affordable. " Again, you're wrong: the supplier has the right to charge WHATEVER HE WANTS.

You then say, "If I don't find it affordable, I can take a hike. I do. What I do afterwards is of my concern."

I actually agree, to a point. If you don't like the price, you have the right to not buy.

But you do not have the right to turn around and steal the same fucking thing.

It's okay to think, "That BMW is far too expensive, I'll buy something else." It's WRONG to say, "That BMW's far too expensive, I think I'll steal it and buy something else."

What I HAVE used, when it comes to piracy, are the pirate videos that were (until a few years ago) legal in the Middle East. We didn't have cinemas back there so when a film in the USA would come out, we would get it on video faster than you can say 'theft' and we would enjoy it. As time progressed, they found better ways to improve the quality of the copy. We enjoyed it, and we considered it affordable. Why on Earth shouldn't the laws of capitalism apply to the individual, as well as corporate bodies? Its the survival of the fittest out there. As you phrased it, Bubba, what DO I care if someone loses their job? I don't. And I don't know many people who DO care about music labels and artists when they make a copy of a friend's cd or tape, I don't know many people who flinch when they are tempted to steal a napkin from a hotel, or God forbid, a bar of soap.

"We enjoyed it, and we considered it affordable. Why on Earth shouldn't the laws of capitalism apply to the individual, as well as corporate bodies?"

I have to ask, what the fuck are you talking about? The laws of capitalism should apply to the individual? What "law of capitalism" suggests that's okay to steal what you can't buy?

Last time I checked, PROPERTY RIGHTS were the cornerstone of capitalism: the idea that people OWN things, and can sell those things at whatever price they choose and can protect those things from being stolen, THAT is capitalism.

And, sorry, but majority opinion doesn't matter when it comes to morality: the right thing to do is right, even if nobody does it. It's wrong to steal, even if everybody does it.

What do I consider theft? Breaking into someone's home three times and stealing all of their electrical equipment, not to mention a mother's jewels. That's theft. In a world of various shades of grey, I'm afraid mediums are imporant.

Ant.

So.

If I break in only twice, that's okay? If I only steal some of their electrical equipment, that's okay?

So, something minor - like, say, stealing someone's homework assignment and taking credit for it - that's grey enough that it's not immoral, that it's not theft?

Anthony, that's fucking absurd.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Anthony

I haven't deprived you of your job) and would like to think that I spent it on something better, and perhaps more beneficial to others.

Ant.

I'd like to hear this one.. So Anthony.. Are Software developers scum compared to other individuals.. other people!? Do they not need money to get by month in and month out.. Hahahaha..

Let's hear some more Bull Sh#t, or we can just go back to raving about Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

Can I quote you for a minute..

"Now That IS Offensive."

L.Unplugged

[Achtung Bubba]

I hope I am not going too far in doing this, but I believe one of Anthony's statements deserves a second look.

I'm doing this for two reasons. First, I believe that I tend to make quite a few good points at one time. While the quality of my points may be questioned, the quantity is certainly quite high, and I do not wish this point to be lost in the crowd.

Second, comedian Lewis Black has observed that there are comments so stupid that, when you encounter it...

...your brain comes to a screeching halt, and the left-hand side of the brain looks at the right-hand side of the brain and goes, "It's dark in here, and we may die."

Anthony made one of those comments.

Originally posted by Anthony
I'm a consumer and I have my rights, what I demand I will get. The supplier has his or her rights as well; to supply me with what I want at what I consider affordable.

Look: I come across quite a few stupid statements every day, but very rarely do they reach a level of stupidity so great that I go out of my way to point it out. This comment easily reached that level and surpassed it. If there were an award for most absurd thought of the year, this would be nominated and would most likely be the shoe-in to win. I know of no single word that can describe the comment, so I will use two: monumentally idiotic.

This is, of course, not necessarily an indictment of Anthony personally. I myself have said things that were, in hindsight, quite foolish. It's altogether possible that Anthony is a reasonably bright fellow who just misspoke, or that English is simply not his native tongue.

I believe the statement is so mind-numbingly moronic that an explanation of its faults is unnecessary. Still, others may disagree and call me insensitive for mud-slinging, so let's look at this statement, sentence by sentence:

I'm a consumer and I have my rights, what I demand I will get.

I have to assume that the the phrases are connected, so what Ant means is this:

1. I'm a consumer.
2. As a consumer, I have rights - i.e., "consumer rights."
3. One of these consumer rights entails that what I demand I will get.

I see nothing wrong with the first two points. It is the third point - the assertion that one has a right to get what one demands - that I find so ludicrous. It is first a silly thing to say in that there are demands that cannot possibly be met: the demands to levitate, to travel into the past, and to live forever come to mind immediately.

But, even when considering just those demands that are possible, the so-called right vanishes. Now, either rights are universal or individual. Either everyone has a certain right, or Anthony alone has that right.

I say "everyone," but I mean everyone in a certain group. Some people believe rights extend beyond all humans to include certain animals; some shrink the scope of rights to mentally competent adults. What matters in this discussion is that people other than Anthony have the same rights.

If the right to "get what one demands" extends to other people, the right altogether vanishes. Two people could demand the same house on the same land; the fact that at least one of them will do without means that the right never really existed.

As a retort, one could say that many rights vanish when the rights of others are introduced, when the "social contract" is imposed. In cases of real freedoms, I believe the rights merely shrink to allow the rights of others; one still has the right to speak freely as long as it doesn't encroach on others' rights, such as endangering them and their right to life. In the case of "getting what one demands," the right does disappear completely: a guarantee that one person gets what he wants to any degree runs the risk of trampling over another person's right to keep what he has. In any form, the "right to get what one demands" will require a willingness to take from others.

But if the right is not universal, it is then given to Anthony individually: that he alone has the right to get whatever he wants, at any expense to anyone else.

(If I may be honest and a bit presumptuous here, this seems to be the case, given how callous he appears to be when concerning the rights of others.)

Now, this isn't illogical likd the idea of such a universal right, but it is gallingly arrogant. Certainly, other people in history have acted as if asserting such a right, but they were all brats and tyrants. An honest claim to such a right is made only by selfish infants and power-hungry madmen.

The supplier has his or her rights as well; to supply me with what I want at what I consider affordable.

This sentence is actually quite sensible, if Anthony meant it to say what it said. What it actually says is that a supplier has the right to provide some good or service at price X. I agree, but I also believe he has the right to set prices W, Y, and Z - that he actually has the right to set any price he wants, in all but the most extreme cases of government-regulated monopolies of necessary goods.

I don't think Anthony means that, particularly if he faces no moral dillema stealing from those who "overprice" their goods. What he means, I suspect, is that the supplier has the right to supply the good only at price X or lower - and he has no right at all to supply the good at a higher price.

If that's the case, it's not a right: it is rather an obligation, a requirement to price what he is supplying at price X, at most. Again, that price is what Anthony the consumer considers affordable.

Again we have the problem of whether the definition is universal or personal. If "what I consider affordable" is universal, then we have to consider what everyone can afford. There are some people who own literally next to nothing, and their idea of "affordable" must surely mean "free." That means, every supplier has the obligation of giving their product away.

He may not have meant that. But even assuming that Anthony is the sole judge of what is affordable, he can price goods well below what it cost to produce those goods, and he can still reduce the price to next to nothing - particularly if his appetites far outweigh his pocketbook.

So, we are faced with two possible conclusions: either Anthony's statement is among the most egregious misstatements I have ever seen, or he literally means this:

Anthony has the sole right to have whatever he wants, and everyone else has the obligation to meet those demands at the price he sets.

In other words, the entire world economy bends absolutely to the whim of this one man. That's utterly absurd.

The reality is this:

We all have the right to request an exchange of goods, to request a trade of what we own for whatever another person owns. As a consumer, I have the right to ask for any good, but in the end I might not obtain that good at any price. As a supplier, I have the right to set any price for the goods that I own, and to decide that some goods are simply not for sale.

The reality is, of course, a bit more complicated once we introduce a government, a body designed to protect our rights, economic and otherwise: they can designate certain goods as illegal to own; they can designate that monopolies must have certain prices and that intellectual property rights may eventually expire; and they can make illegal the act of refusing a sale on the basis of prejudice. But no complication can bring us anywhere near Anthony's statement.

Again, the statement is one of the most appallingly idiotic statements I have seen. It should be rejected immediately as such.

[z edge]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
I hope I am not going too far in doing this,

Perhaps, if you learned how to make your valid point in a couple hundred words or LESS , as opposed to these boring 10,000 word essays

[Anthony]

What fun. I haven't been this amused since I saw Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Its incredible how you took an assertion of my rights as a consumer and twisted it into the summary of 'Mein Kampf'. All I fundamentally said, in my oh so questionable English, is that I will buy what I want to buy; I will only consume what I think is fair in terms of price and quality. As it is within my right as a individual, and anybody else's. If we are to look at it through an Economic framework, we will inevitably have to separate Consumer and Producer, and their relative rights. Suppliers have the right to supply at WHATEVER price they wish to. They could try to flog a brownie for X, Y, Z and the entire Greek alphabet if they wished, however, if the consumer isn't willing to buy it, I don't think producers have the right to force them into buying, now, do they?

All I'm doing is stating the bleeding obvious. It was read by most people as the bleeding obvious, and you're being pedantinc over whether the obvious is bleeding or gushing. Now;

Assumption 1; English is YOUR native language. How you can misunderstand a simple statement I don't really know. You seem to be the only one (besides Lemonite, who's English I wouldn't want to question either) who has a problem with the way that was phrased.

Assumption 2; English IS my native language. As I have been here a long time (granted, not as long as you have) and I have always made it clear that I am English, not to mention the fact that its right there beneath my name in all posts in the FROM section, I think it is safe to presume that you know quite well that my native tongue is indeed English. Hence, your patronising sarcasm doesn't really endear me to your point. There were lots of ways of writing your statement, you had to go for something that really wasn't fair.

Assumption 3; I think it is a given that no one (well, nearly no one, some I would give the benefit of a doubt) here would have the audacity, the inhumanity or the egomania to declare 'I can do whatever I want, my rights are higher above than anybody else's'. Basically, you have abandoned all reasonable and coherent judgements which you started with (and I was willing to give the time of day to consider) and have just made stabs at not only my grasp of the English language (which is not in question, for anybody - and I hope it stays that way because I have been tempted far too many times in the past to simply take the roaring piss out of people who's command of the English language are, at best - questionable) but my apparent intelligence. Please don't assume that 'Anthony might probably be a reasonably bright fellow', because the moment you bring intelligence into your argument, you run the risk of touching a sensitive area. You don't know my intelligence, as I do not know yours. I wouldn't consider myself proper to comment on yours in any shape of form, please be willing to extend the same courteousy.

So, what did your last post serve as? Basically, a personal stab at me. You know very well that I did not for a second mean to declare my rights as Global dictator, and you know very well that as poor my grasp of economics might be, I think I know what consumers and producers are entitled to.

The intelligent debate ended a long time ago, before I even posted. All I wanted to say is that there are more important issues in the world, getting tied up over the rights or wrong of computer software seems trivial to me. It probably isn't. Either way, I don't care; I'd rather talk about Ridley Scott with Lemonite.
Which, if he should also stop nit-picking my arguments I would look forward to. You know very well my argument was not based on the logic that 'three times is theft'. You're just being facetious and you know it. What you were supposed to pick up on, Lemonite, but was evidently too subtle for you, was that THAT particular case was MY case. I'm not saying that thats the standard or the definition of THEFT, I'm saying that there are worse things than piracy of software.

Anyway, Bubba. What was the point of this post? I don't like the way you phrase your arguments. I dont like the way you patronise people, and I don't like the way you use profanity. If I may be so bold, its probably a very stressful world you live in where you can get tied up over something as trivial as a debate on the internet where, we don't know each other, we don't care about each other in the slightest, and, more importantly, we don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys of what the other one thinks.

Your harsh tone and offensive statements are uncalled for. I can honestly say that I would endear to your arguments a lot more if it weren't for that.

Ant.

[Achtung Bubba]

z edge:

Sorry about writing posts that are so impossibly long. In an effort to write something short enough that you don't get lost in too many consonants and vowels, I have written you a haiku.

Your attention span
Is shorter than my patience,
But don't press your luck.



Anthony:

I did not "misunderstand a simple argument." Your statement does boil down to "I have the right to whatever I want, and everyone else has the obligation to supply it at the price I demand."

What else could "what I demand I will get" POSSIBLY mean?

I misread nothing. It seems to have been a case in which you simply misspoke.

As I said AND meant, "This is, of course, not necessarily an indictment of Anthony personally. I myself have said things that were, in hindsight, quite foolish. It's altogether possible that Anthony is a reasonably bright fellow who just misspoke, or that English is simply not his native tongue."

You're assuming that I was simply malicious in that particular comment: believe me or not, I was sincerely giving you the benefit of the doubt. Everyone, myself included, have said some very stupid things. And even though it's clear you now live in the UK, that doesn't imply that English has to be your first language.


Regarding your assumptions...

You seem to be the only one (besides Lemonite, who's English I wouldn't want to question either) who has a problem with the way that was phrased.

Funny, I don't remember anyone agreeing with you.


I think it is a given that no one (well, nearly no one, some I would give the benefit of a doubt) here would have the audacity, the inhumanity or the egomania to declare 'I can do whatever I want, my rights are higher above than anybody else's'.

You think it's actually safe to assume that no one declares something so megalomaniacal? You have already proudly proclaimed how you steal from those who you think are overcharging you:

I love piracy. I wish I could thrive off it. Why? Because I know for a fact that the companies on the other side are making billions of dollars or pounds out of frankly, ripping people off (people, who aren't fortunate enough to have a fancy board of directors).

And whats so disgusting about it? That I should be able to avoid being ripped off by exorbitant prices? That I don't feel any shame in saving just a little bit of money that, frankly, the board of directors won't miss?

Well, I had a good time being immoral. I saved a lot of money on something that was inconsequential (and, by the looks of it, I haven't deprived you of your job) and would like to think that I spent it on something better, and perhaps more beneficial to others.

Those are statements of sheer arrogance - maybe not absolute arrogance, but arrogance nonetheless. Either you mean what you say, or you don't have the command of the English language you claim to have.


Further, I may have been a little facetious about your "three times is theft" bit, but I think you can probably see the absurdity of defining as theft ONLY what you see as the most clear-cut cases.

And I DID ask a legitimate question, one you missed. As I asked before, shouldn't something as minor as stealing someone else's homework assignment STILL be considered theft?


You are right in saying there are worse things than software piracy. I'm not at all asserting that the act is the worst thing you can do. But to say that it's not the worst doesn't mean that it's NOT bad to begin with.

Killing someone is worse than beating the hell out of somebody. But that doesn't mean assault is okay. Robbing a bank is worse than software piracy, but that doesn't mean software piracy is okay.

I still claim that the act is still immoral.


And as per my tone...

I don't like the way you phrase your arguments. I dont like the way you patronise people, and I don't like the way you use profanity.

I'll borrow another line from Lewis Black: I know I use the word "fuck" a lot, and I'd apologize, but I don't give a shit.

You have claimed, on multiple occassions, that you steal from others who you say overcharge, that you don't find the act immoral in the least, and that you rather enjoy the act.

Why should I care about your mere feelings if you don't give a damn about other people's PROPERTY?

[Lemonite]

No Subtlety missed Ant...

I like this quote of Bubba's.. "Proudly Proclaim that you steal from those who overcharge you"... hahahaha.. Can I be Friar Tuck Anthony?

*Wonders why Sicy hasn't put one of these little asterisks up giving us her inner psychoanalysis lately.

L. Unplugged