[KLUG Members] Why does "Software Morality" differ from the rest?

[Adam Bultman]

Here's the kicker:

Some places, like the last place I worked at, have IT people who think 
it's *funny* and *strive* to steal software.  The IT guy thought it was 
hilarious that he used just about 95% pirated software.  And when I had 
the *gall* to ask if I could have linux on my desktop, he frowned, and 
really didn't like it, he tried to shoot me down by saying it's too 
'dangerous', because I had too much power (this is also a person who would 
spend his time poring over weblogs, and shutting down people's access if 
he didn't like it. When I used an anonymization tool, he got angry)

Oh, well.  I'm still kicking around with the idea of reporting him.

adam


On 2 Feb 2002, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> If you read /., you've probably seen the topic:
> "Do You Pay for Your Shareware?"
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/02/1347247
> 
> - THE NEW "SOFTWARE MORALITY" STANDARD?
> 
> Sure enough, most of the posts moderated upto 5 have titles like:
> "the problem is the cost" and
> "Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software"
> 
> In fact, when someone finally posted this one ...
> "I'm honest, but am I in the minority here?"
> 
> Someone shot back:
> "I'm not trying to justify it in any way, but it's not the same
>  as shoplifting, or driving off withoug paying."
> 
> All those arguments are trying to change a "choice" that _you_ make into
> one the commercial software vendor must make.  LUDICROUS!!!
> 
> - STEALING IS STEALING!
> 
> I'm sorry people, stealing is stealing.  You may think that commercial
> software is overpriced, or that the commercial software world has
> "different rules" because reproduction costs are less than $0.50/unit.
> 
> RULE:  *NOTHING* EXCUSE IT PEOPLE!
> 
> If the software works for you, you must "pay the piper."  This means
> either:
> 
>   A)  Pay the price
>   B)  Use an alternative (possibly free software).
> 
> I'm sorry, you've got *NO*EXCUSE*.  You either pay for the product, or
> you take your business elsewhere.
> 
> Worse yet, some of you say, "well, I don't like how the free version
> works, but I don't want to pay for the commercial version" as an excuse
> for pirating.  Sorry, no dice!  It doesn't change _your_ two choices.
> 
> Even worse than that is the mentality, "oh, it's just a little stupid
> app that this free software does anyway."  Well then, you have now
> chosen the "free alternative" so _why_ are you still pirating the
> commercial version???
> 
> - THE "NO ALTERNATIVE" NON-SENSE
> 
> If there is 'no alternative," you _still_ have either 2 choices:
> 
>   A)  Pay the price, or
>   B)  Write one!
> 
> In the case of B, I seriously hope you understand why Open Source
> exists!
> 
> Now weight the costs of B versus A, in the case that there is "no
> alternative."  Yeah, commercial software makes more sense now, eh?
> 
> Why oh why is it that there is always one guy at every LEAP Meeting and
> InstallFest stating either (or usually both!):
> 
>   A)  "I don't pay for my Microsoft software"
> 
> Or asking:
> 
>   B)  "Are you letting people copy this?" in regards to my
>        Loki game CD(s).
> 
> I know LEAP doesn't condone such statements/questions, but there seems
> to be a lot of apathy regarding piracy.  I know /. is not a "prime
> example" of today's "technology affluent" (which is why I read
> NewsForge.NET much more ;-), but it seems they *DO* exist in the
> 
> - THE "SITUATION" IT CREATES
> 
> Just gives Microsoft more credibility in its arguments and/or makes the
> job of "legitimate" users like myself, who work day in an day out
> MS-free, more difficult.  _Especially_ in regards to the whole DOJ-MS
> trial where Microsoft has many people believe it's just an "anti-#1"
> ordeal.
> 
> And you start to wonder why things like the DMCA and UCITA exist.  Are
> the arguments behind them really any worse than the "software morality"
> arguments?  Think about it!
> 
> -- Bryan
> 
> 

-- 
Adam Bultman
adamb@glaven.org