in reply to Re: Software piracy- what would you do?
in thread Software piracy- what would you do?

It's my personal belief that informing, snitching, or otherwise sticking your nose into places where it has no business in order to satisfy one's self-righteousness, to stir things up, or for one's own benefit, is among the most base and cowardly of human acts. Just my opinion.

Define "places where it has no business", and we can talk. Is Google such a place? Is this such a place? Is sidewalk in front of your house when you're not there and somebody's breaking into your apartment such a place?

Along those lines...

Let the owners of intellectual property do their own damn enforcement and police-work.
and let the owners of stereos and CDs and TVs stolen out of ground floor apartments while the upstairs neighbors watch do it too?

I don't dismiss the way this mis-hits your nerves, but I think you're drawing too broad a conclusion. The practice of giving information to the police on suspected law-breaking is not the problem, here or in the old U.S.S.R.: rather, unjust laws there, and arguably here (a can of worms I'll try to stay away from) should be your target.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that it is commonly held to be a responsability of all citizens to report crimes that they see: under current law (though you are on record as disagreeing with it), posting somebody else's work on the internet without permission is very distinctly illegal.


If God had meant us to fly, he would *never* have give us the railroads.
    --Michael Flanders

  • Comment on Re: Re: Software piracy- what would you do?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Software piracy- what would you do?
by MeowChow (Vicar) on Jun 05, 2001 at 03:22 UTC
    Define "places where it has no business"

    I suspect you already know what I mean by this. If it doesn't affect you, it's not your business.

    The practice of giving information to the police on suspected law-breaking is not the problem, here or in the old U.S.S.R.: rather, unjust laws there, and arguably here (a can of worms I'll try to stay away from) should be your target.

    This is a very lucid observation. As I've already replied to buckaduck, it really comes down to one's own value system. I feel that one should not inform on people to "authorities" unless another party has been seriously hurt or victimized by a crime. I don't really consider this to be such a case, mostly because I disagree with the law in question. 

       MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print
[reply]
      If it doesn't affect you, it's not your business.

      I am about to make a comparison which may draw 'apples and oranges' accusations. I defend myself in advance by saying that the comparison I make, while extreme, highlights the principle I discuss.

      Suppose that your principle were enacted. Suppose everyone were, legally speaking, an island. Then there would be no responsibility for any individual, who, say, witnessed you being assaulted, to help, or report the crime. If you wish to reap a benefit (such as, in this case, royalties), you do have a duty, whether implicit or explicit, to defend the right of others to do so also. The informers you refer to were not defending any rights of others, but simply infringing privacy for gain. On the other hand, if I report a software pirate, or for that matter any other infringer of copyright, I defend my own treasured right not to have my own work passed off as that of someone else, whether for profit on their part or not. It's not merely about whether you personally have been harmed by a crime, but whether, in an analogous situation, you would want your own rights defended.

      Now, you may not wish to defend merlyn's rights, or to have yours defended. But there is no way under heaven people should be criticised for defending the rights of their neighbours.

      Tiefling
[reply]

In Section Meditations