🚀 go-pugleaf

Pierre Perret wrote:
> 
> > From: StarLord <JDS-...@prodigy.net>
> > Alex Bobbs wrote:
> > > DON'T EVEN PRETEND TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!
> > > The "licenses" that make piracy a crime are the most unconstitutional thing
> since
> > > affirmative action. Let's take a look at id softwares license, and what's
> > > unconstitutional:
> >
> > There's nothing "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" about the id
> > software license; it's a contract pure and simple.  It isn't hidden
> > inside anything; it's printed clearly below the seal you have to break
> > to access the software.  If you read this contract and don't like it,
> > any dealer will take it back with the seal unbroken.
> >
> > Read this contract; you do NOT own the software and it is NOT your
> > property.  You have been licensed to USE the software in the manner
> > outlined in the contract.
> 
> Well...
> It is actually something in between: there is no illegality per say (and never mind
> unconstitutionality) in the so-called "software licenses". In that I mean that you
> cannot take the publisher (or whoever is responsible for such obnoxious piece of
> legalese) to court (and win) for just exposing you to it.
> On the other hand, the so-called "software license" does not, despite the software
> publisher's assurances to the contrary, constitute a binding contract. What this
> means is that someone writing some contract terms on an envelope and understating
> that your opening of said envelope constitutes your agreement to the terms does not
> have any legal value, whether or not it is possible for you to bring the package
> back unopened for a full refund. The current laws that relate to the exchange of
> goods "over the counter" simply do not allow unsigned "contracts" of that sort to
> have any standing.
> 
> Now, potential pirates out there should not believe that just because the "software
> licenses" included in off-the-shelf software packages are, indeed, nothing more
> that a toothless attempt at intimidation, they can copy and distribute to their
> hearts' contents. The copyright law still applies. If you buy a software package in
> a store, you do not "own" the intellectual rights to the package like you would
> own, say, an appliance. You just own the materials and have limited rights as to
> what you can do with the software they contain. Just the same as with a book, you
> just cannot go around and distribute copies for others to use (and note that books
> do not contain any license "agreement", because book publishers outgrew such
> lawyer-induced childishness even before copy machines ever existed).
> By the way, there is a "fair use" clause in copyright law that allows one to
> lawfully make partial copies of copyrighted work, but it is well defined in scope
> (with its primary goal being to provide exceptions for educational purposes) and in
> no way allows duplication and redistribution, for monies or for free.
> 
> I have also witnessed here some argumentation related to the prices (some allegedly
> overinflated) of this or that software package. Well, people, live with it: the law
> never said that because a seller put too high a price on something and the
> potential buyer wanted it badly, the latter could go ahead and grab the
> merchandise! That, my friends, is called theft, period.
> One can try to worm his way around it by redefining moral values to suit his
> coveting of another's property, but it is all to no avail. It is theft and it will
> remain so (just try to imagine a world where anyone has the right to do anything he
> or she deems "moral"... If we except a few loonies, everyone quickly understand
> that such anarchy just does not work).
> 
> - Pierre -
Hi...

Actually, if you had software developers who were also pirates, and
that was it for the world, such anarchy would work... the developers
make software and everyone eats it up.  Then, some other guy makes some
other software and everyone else, including the first mentioned
developer eats that up.  So, everything works... even though it seems
like anarchy.

I don't really even care what's theft and what's not.  I'm not
redefining moral values to suit my position... I'm giving you what my
moral values are.  If someone overprices software, do you think I'm
going to shell out that kind of money for something that doesn't
deserve it and can easily be acquired via pirate channels?  Of course
not!

Now, as for how the human mind seems to work, well, I'm no psychologist,
but I can tell you that the human mind seems to work based on personal
benefit and doesn't seem to care about anyone else. (exceptions exist,
and there may be a lot of them, too... don't go into that, please) Now,
saying my mind works that way (and it does seem to, but anyway...), and
there's two options for getting some new hot piece of software.  I can
get it via a convenient warez site, or I can go to the local software
store and purchase a copy.  Given that my personal benefit comes above
all else (sounds to me also like Bill Gates' mind...), which would I
choose?  The warez of course!  Note that I don't believe very many
people really give a [expletive deleted] about Bill Gates and how he
just lost $50 by getting ripped off a copy of Win95.  Out of the
millions he probably earns each day (earns?) I don't believe that one
damn copy -- or a million of them -- is going to oh, so seriously hurt
him.  Besides, given the kind of money he makes (and for nothing... the
only decent product I have from his company is the SideWinder joystick,
which can't be pirated anyway because it's HARDWARE), I think he should
be used to not living in a damn palace like the rest of us.  He didn't
really earn the money he makes, and he doesn't deserve to enjoy it.

[was going to type something here but forgot what]

Alex