Moral dilemma


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    It is not so much about making me happy, as it is about making @blakeyrat sad.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @boomzilla said:

    At least you aren't arguing stupid things like monopolies aren't monopolies any more though, so I guess that's progress.

    If you really must insist that all property is a monopoly, then so be it. I don't consider it a particularly helpful perspective, 'coz terms applied too broadly lose all meaning, but it's no skin off my nose.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @GOG said:

    If you really must insist that all property is a monopoly, then so be it.

    I really have no idea what you're talking about now. I was talking about the bit of the US Constitution that @antiquarian quoted.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Intercourse said:

    I don't see it that way. Their particular market is dying. Sales of CDs and DVDs are not down because of piracy. They are down because we as a society do not consume their product in that way anymore.

    You'll find that the product is primarily being consumed by way of piracy. Incidentally, it's not just sales of CDs and DVDs that are down - (legal) downloads are taking a huge hit this year.

    It's hard to discuss the present market, given how distorted it is by illegal competition. Besides, the issue isn't so much the format - nobody was particularly wedded to the CD - but the price.


  • BINNED

    He's pretending to have a shoulder alien. Well-established troll technique.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @antiquarian said:

    Would we even know about Beethoven had Hadyn been able to patent the symphony?

    Ah. That awkward moment when you bring patents into a copyright discussion. Hint #1: They are two very different rights. Hint #2: Patents are a state-granted monopoly.


    Filed under: I know the question wasn't actually for me, but what am I if I do not troll


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @antiquarian said:

    He's pretending to have a shoulder alien. Well-established troll technique.

    How do you know he's pretending?


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @boomzilla said:

    I was talking about the bit of the US Constitution that @antiquarian quoted.

    Which - if you read the article I provided - was most likely supposed to be about patents. I guess we'll never know...



  • @boomzilla said:

    How do you know he's pretending?

    @GOG said:

    but what am I if I do not troll

    This gives a hint.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @GOG said:

    Which - if you read the article I provided - was most likely supposed to be about patents. I guess we'll never know...

    I looked at the abstract or whatever was there and ZZZZzzzzzzz. I agree that at least some of the point of it was patents, but they also said Authors and Writings. Whatever stuff anyone thinks it's about, it's clearly about having a monopoly on the stuff.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @boomzilla said:

    At least you aren't arguing stupid things like monopolies aren't monopolies any more though, so I guess that's progress.

    @GOG said:

    If you really must insist that all property is a monopoly, then so be it.

    @boomzilla said:

    I really have no idea what you're talking about now.

    Ok. Now I'm confused. What are you talking about?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @GOG said:

    Ok. Now I'm confused. What are you talking about?

    Fuuuuuuuck.

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @boomzilla said:

    Whatever stuff anyone thinks it's about, it's clearly about having a monopoly on the stuff.

    Which - you'll note - is what patents are all about.

    The gist of the article was that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, cultural output wouldn't be considered a Science or a "useful Art" (same meaning as in "artificer"). This means that the "Copyright Clause" may likely have been understood by the Framers as applying to patents, as opposed to copyrights which might have been considered to be adequately protected under state law.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @GOG said:

    You'll find that the product is primarily being consumed by way of piracy.

    That sounds like a statistic pulled out of someone's ass. Do you work for the MPAA or RIAA?


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    And the word "monopoly" appears exactly where in the Copyright Clause? Was there a hidden tag embedded in the text? Should I pull up raw view?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Let's turn this around to examine the moral issues here. Are the original authors morally wrong to deny this company the use of their software? NB: not asking whether they have the legal right to do so.

    Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to post on my mobile earlier today, but Discourse...


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Intercourse said:

    Do you work for the MPAA or RIAA?

    No.

    @Intercourse said:

    That sounds like a statistic pulled out of someone's ass.

    So,when people have access to everything they might want to listen to or watch, for free, 24/7, at the click of a mouse it seems more likely to you that they will line up to pay for it, as opposed to gorging on the pirated stuff until it starts coming out of their nose? Interesting...

    Do you spend a lot of time on the internet?



  • @Intercourse said:

    .cdx files

    Can you open them with Notepad?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @GOG said:

    And the word "monopoly" appears exactly where in the Copyright Clause?

    Go back and re-read what was written.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @GOG said:

    So,when people have access to everything they might want to listen to or watch, for free, 24/7, at the click of a mouse it seems more likely to you that they will line up to pay for it, as opposed to gorging on the pirated stuff until it starts coming out of their nose? Interesting...

    Do you spend a lot of time on the internet?

    No, but I would wager that most people are not savvy enough to make that happen. You are applying your worldview and experiences to society. Anyone here can find tons of websites where they could watch or torrent. What percentage of the population could do that though?

    As I said, you pulled the statistic out of your ass.


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said:

    I looked at the abstract or whatever was there and ZZZZzzzzzzz. I agree that at least some of the point of it was patents, but they also said Authors and Writings. Whatever stuff anyone thinks it's about, it's clearly about having a monopoly on the stuff.

    What I found interesting about that was that I'm not the only person who thinks patent and copyright laws don't in practice increase the number of creative and practical works available to the public.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @antiquarian said:

    What I found interesting about that was that I'm not the only person who thinks patent and copyright laws don't in practice increase the number of creative and practical works available to the public.

    I suspect that it has a mixed effect, depending on the subject matter and the people involved. I definitely wonder how the effect has changed over time.



  • @boomzilla said:

    How long ago do you figure people starting writing? Are you counting cave paintings? Maybe 6,000 years is too long to really consider being history.

    That wasn't what I meant... there are people who genuinely believe the world is no more than 6,000 or so years old.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Arantor said:

    That wasn't what I meant... there are people who genuinely believe the world is no more than 6,000 or so years old.

    And they are nuttier than squirrel shit.



  • @Intercourse said:

    And they are nuttier than squirrel shit.

    Yes but they don't know that.



  • @Intercourse said:

    And they are nuttier than squirrel shit.

    And calling them on that makes family reunions awkward.



  • @Intercourse said:

    That sounds like a statistic pulled out of someone's ass. Do you work for the MPAA or RIAA?

    Isn't is a proven fact that 47.6% of statistics are made up on the spot? (+/- 3% polling error...)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Arantor said:

    That wasn't what I meant... there are people who genuinely believe the world is no more than 6,000 or so years old.

    I know.



  • @Intercourse said:

    It is not a matter of "We don't support that product anymore." It is a matter of, "We do not sell any software even remotely similar to that anymore, you are SOL."

    @Yamikuronue said:

    If you're abandoning software when you know you have clients who depend on it, the right thing to do is to release the final version as freeware, notify your clients that you're closing up shop, and wash your hands of it. They neglected to do the first point in my list. However, that doesn't mean someone else gets to do it for them.

    The one thing I have yet to see brought up here: what about the right of Intercourse's client to have access to their own data as they need it?

    Don't forget, the whole point of the software is to provide a means of storing and accessing that data. One could argue that if the vendor has ceased (refused, in this case,) support of the software, that Intercourse's client has every right to employ whatever means are necessary to regain full access to their own data.

    If Microsoft decided I was not allowed to use MS Word anymore, fine - that's their right. At least I have Open Office to access my data. But what if there was no Open Office? Are all the documents I created in Word over the past 15+ years suddenly unavailable to me, with no recourse? Is that morally right? Oh, and while I fight this "the right way" - through the legal system, with however many years that takes - in the meantime my business grinds to a screeching halt; hell, that letter I mailed certified to the IRS, Word copy I need to produce now in another court case - oh, I don't have access anymore to that, F---!!!

    @Yamikuronue adeptly points out the ideal scene here - how it's supposed to be. But ultimately we have to make our own choices about what we do when. The legal system offers a system to remedy perceived wrongs when they occur. On days it really works well, it gets adjusted to fit what the majority considers to be morally correct at the time. Situations like Intercourse's client is in right now often provide opportunities to do exactly that. Speaking to an example of that point, Rosa Parks did what many considered to be illegal and immoral at the time, but today we now consider that the bus driver's treatment of her to be the actual immoral act. Times change. In Rosa's case, for the better. I'm hoping the same happens for Intercourse's client.

    @Bort said:

    The vendor is the one who got their client dependent on their product and then cut-off any legitimate opportunity to use it. That's like taking someone on a cruise to an island in the middle of the ocean and then deciding you don't want to sell them a ticket back. Now they're stranded. What are they supposed to do?

    ...and no one else offers any kind of transportation to that island as an alternative. According to @blakeyrat logic, they're at fault for ending up there in the first place.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @redwizard said:

    ...and anyone else who offers transport to that island is a fucking asshat because that guy started making trips to the island and anyone else who does so is just offering a "shitty open source alternative" and anyone who does not want to be stuck on that island can FOAD because he said so.

    FTFY. I think @blakeyrat would approve of my adjustments.



  • @redwizard said:

    Are all the documents I created in Word over the past 15+ years suddenly unavailable to me, with no recourse? Is that morally right?

    The files that save those docs are still available, you just don't have something that can interpret them in a manner you expect. And yes that is completely in the right, it was part of your agreement when deciding to use Word and thus your own fault.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    You forgot the obligatory @blakeyrat



  • @Intercourse said:

    Interesting, but there is nothing of value there. The install directory is littered with .cdx files for starters, so at least portions of it were written in FoxPro. There are database files all over the directories, so the developers used databases instead of tables. The whole thing is a mess. An amazing mess.

    I think that is where the problem is. I have not looked into laws regarding support in their state, and this is pure speculation on my part, but it seems plausible that there is law in their state that requires support for X period of time from last sale. Selling more licenses would extend that window out.

    I personally think that they programmed themselves in to a corner. The application and its data is such a mess that it was easier to walk away than to try to work out an upgrade path. Especially so considering this market it not that big. I would not even consider it if I had not worked out a way to creatively get someone else to pay for development costs. As I did that, the only capital I would be risking would be marketing and sales. Small potatoes.

    The answer here is communicate more. Find out exactly what legal liability they're trying to avoid, and offer an indemnity to it. Or whatever is necessary to overcome the road block. There is no excuse for not trying - not even "it's evidence against me later in court." How much ability to face the court (or the mirror, morally speaking) will you have if you don't try every possible option?



  • @Bort said:

    If I were in the mood to craft faulty moral analogies...

    The vendor is the one who got their client dependent on their product and then cut-off any legitimate opportunity to use it. That's like taking someone on a cruise to an island in the middle of the ocean and then deciding you don't want to sell them a ticket back. Now they're stranded. What are they supposed to do?

    According to @blakeyrat, stealing a boat to get back home would be absolutely morally wrong, even if it's from the same company. The only morally correct solution would apparently be to have anticipated the situation ahead of time and started up your own cruise line to take yourself back. Otherwise, you are obligated to lay down and die for the greater moral good.

    Say, anybody interested in some cheap cruise tickets?



  • On balance, I'm inclined to say that breaking the copyright owner's licensing to allow more copies is both morally and legally wrong. The original seller of the software own the exclusive right to their product, and that rights grant includes the right to NOT make money. That they won't sell the license at any price does not negate the exclusive right.

    The case where the owner can not be contacted (e.g. out of business with no successor) is very different. In that case, there is effectively (but not necessarily legally) no owner, so there is no problem with breaking the licensing, morally or (based on DMCA fragments posted) legally. Conflating this situaltion with the actual facts of the @Intercourse dilemma at best self deception.

    The "Microsoft withdraws Word" example is a flawed analogy. The compay that @Intercourse is working on behalf of is not losing access. The rights holder is refusing to sell them additional access. Totally different scenarios.

    @Intercourse: I think you misunderstood what @tarunik proposed. As I understood his proposal, he was suggesting that you buy the exclusive right from the vendor, not for the intelectual property value, but because you would then have the right to sell additional licenses with no moral or legal ambiguity.

    As usual, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.



  • @locallunatic said:

    The files that save those docs are still available, you just don't have something that can interpret them in a manner you expect. And yes that is completely in the right, it was part of your agreement when deciding to use Word and thus your own fault.

    You are of course correct.

    I asked if that was morally right. As for the EULA, I'm well aware of that point.

    Now we can shine a light on a dark corner of licensing agreements, to the software company equivalent of the mafia: what choice do I have but to accept the EULA when 85% of everyone else also uses that software to communicate with? Isn't that the equivalent of a gun to your professional head: pay for and use this, or else?

    This is why I'm bringing up the moral side of this - and precisely my counterpoint to @blakeyrat's absolutism about the rights of the software developer/owner.

    In my opinion, no one has the right to hold your data hostage.

    This is why I'm glad Open Office is a viable alternative. This is why whenever I do a risk assessment of a software package at work, I at least look at one other competitor that can export that data should the need arise. This is why I hate being backed into a corner with only one choice for doing something and if it fails or is revoked, $deity help you.

    @locallunatic said:

    you just don't have something that can interpret them in a manner you expect

    During the Bosnian war in the 1990's, Serbs offered Bosnian Muslim prisoners only pork for food, knowing full well this was against their religion. It's food, right? What's the problem??? Oh, it's not a food source provided in a manner they'd expect? As someone who is of Serbian descent myself, it's not a moment of our history I'm particularly proud of. Leaving me with inaccessible data is maybe one order of magnitude shy of that level of evil. Cruel? Absolutely.



  • @redwizard said:

    Now we can shine a light on a dark corner of licensing agreements, to the software company equivalent of the mafia

    Well yeah it's that style of system, it's been in use for a long time cause it works. And, personally, I don't have an ethical problem with them doing what you compare with holding a gun to your head. It is a nasty spot to be in, but that in no way absolves you of breaking your end of the agreement. You may still break your end of the agreement, but you aren't in the ethical right (sometimes the only options are which ethical rule to break, but you are still breaking said rule).



  • @locallunatic said:

    that in no way absolves you of breaking your end of the agreement. You may still break your end of the agreement, but you aren't in the ethical right (sometimes the only options are which ethical rule to break, but you are still breaking said rule).

    Then we understand each other. At this point we've crossed over into what's necessary, not what's necessarily right. Screwed up either way you go when you reach that point.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @ufmace said:

    According to @blakeyrat, stealing a boat to get back home would be absolutely morally wrong, even if it's from the same company.

    There are times when it is more acceptable to do otherwise immoral things. It is not acceptable to steal a boat to go joyriding in because the owner refused to give you ride, even if you offered him money. It is acceptable to borrow a boat to save your own or another person's life. So the question is, does this software provide a life-saving service, or would it merely be inconvenient to go without? Note that "losing sales" is, to me, closer to "inconvenient" than "life-saving". The company decided it wasn't important to replace it when they knew this situation was coming, so they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    Note that "losing sales" is, to me, closer to "inconvenient" than "life-saving".

    Agreed.
    @Intercourse said:
    The application amounts to a CRM, but a very specific type of CRM with very specific functionality. It will also deal with private semi-medical information, so security is also a major issue.

    Seems more to it than just a sales app. If it was simply a sales app, a new, basic one can be coded in a short amount of time or one could be purchased "off the shelf" (for lack of a better term).
    Medical information of any type, even a simple blood type entry as an example, means a person's health or life could be affected. Or I could be stretching it - not sure exactly what "semi-medical" means or could mean here.
    Probably shouldn't be posting when tired.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    Are you referring to "exclusive rights"? Addressed.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Intercourse said:

    What percentage of the population could do that though?

    More than you think.

    For a start, it is hardly rocket science. It is exactly as hard as going to Google and typing in name of song/movie. The Chocolate Factory has been getting tons of flack over the fact that it's easier to find a pirated version than an iTunes link.

    I don't mean to put you down, but this particular topic is one I've been following closely and for many years. If you're going to argue with me on this one, you'd better start pulling out data.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Maybe you should start with the data. You are the one who asserted that more media is pirated than legitimately consumed...


  • Trolleybus Mechanic


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    I don't even have to open the link to see the flaw in that citation...


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Intercourse said:

    I don't even have to open the link to see the flaw in that citation...

    Well, I tried. No helping some people.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    No, the entire paper is flawed, right down to the assertion in the title. The paper is shit and anyone can see that without opening it, unless they have a strong bias.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Intercourse said:

    The paper is shit and anyone can see that without opening it

    There was a joke around here, back in Communist times:

    A: Did you read [proscribed book X]?
    B: No, I didn't. But I condemn it!

    Dude, if you already know the answer, then trying to convince you is a waste of time. No worries.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    So your assertion is that

    @GOG said:

    You'll find that the product is primarily being consumed by way of piracy.

    Yet you post as proof a study that only surveyed those who pirate music? That does not prove how many people are doing so, and the article is horribly dated.

    Considering the songs that you downloaded for free through P2P networks during 2005
    a) what % would you have purchased at paid music sites if they were not available through P2P
    b) what % would you have purchased as part of a music CD if they were not available through P2P

    I mean, if I took a study that only surveyed car thieves, and asked them related question, I would be inclined to think that everyone stole cars.

    Plus, this study was done in 2005. It has since been shown that the decline in CD sales was due to the music industry refusing to change their business plans in regards to a new digital economy. They were still trying to perfect DRM by infecting user's computers.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @GOG said:

    Dude, if you already know the answer, then trying to convince you is a waste of time. No worries.

    Not at all, but I could reasonably tell the article was shit without even opening the link. I called that one accurately. The ball is in your court again. You asserted that most people steal media yet you post as "proof" a link that does not even attempt to prove that.


Log in to reply