Moral dilemma
-
Is that the one with [spoiler]slomo and the lock down on a block[/spoiler] ?
I liked that one. It was dark like I imagined the comics to be. A much better Dredd imo than Sylvester.
-
THIS IS VERY FUCKING SIMPLE YOU FUCKING RETARDS, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH THIS.
There are plenty of moral and ethical codes that consider harm as more important than, say, property. And of course, there's often a balancing act, even so. It's fine that you have a bright line standard, but many obviously disagree.
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.
-
Well, it's not, because maybe they just don't want to fire up their license server app.
I suspect all of the stuff to do so is either gone or archived away and the only guy who understands it died two years ago.
-
-
Come to think of it, @Intercourse: could you buy the whole entire hog, source code and all, from the third-party vendor? Or did they do something terminally stupid like delete it all because they thought it wouldn't be ever needed again?
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.
-
I suspect all of the stuff to do so is either gone or archived away and the only guy who understands it died two years ago.
Or that. That is also a strong possibility...
-
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.
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?
-
Are the original authors morally wrong to deny this company the use of their software?
It does have a bit of a smell of a racket. "Here's some software that you can use for that, thank you for paying for it?" "Oh you want some more licenses for that? Can do but won't. You'll have to buy our new product instead."
Do they make a replacement new version? Would it cost more for all the necessary licenses than was offered for the extra licenses for the old software?
They don't get any sympathy from me for being so intransigent and unhelpful if someone were to exceed their licenses. It's a stupid attitude that throws away future custom. Copyright infringement is damaging to the software industry but so are false economies like that.
-
Do they make a replacement new version? Would it cost more for all the necessary licenses than was offered for the extra licenses for the old software?
No they do not. 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."
-
Are the original authors morally wrong to deny this company the use of their software?
Yeah, I'd say so. 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.
-
Kind of like TrueCrypt then but without being free. Hmm.. they are being assholes.
-
However, that doesn't mean someone else gets to do it for them.
I think that morally, it's probably OK. The legality is probably more questionable. I'm certainly sympathetic to not using the property of others without their consent, but is it really rightfully their property any more?
If the company hadn't just stopped selling that sort of software but went out of business entirely, is it still morally wrong?
-
I suspect all of the stuff to do so is either gone or archived away and the only guy who understands it died two years ago.
No doubt.
I'm kind of in a vaguely similar boat except being on both sides: our application's installed by an installer we also wrote, and it hasn't been touched hardly at all since before I've been here (pushing 7 years). I have to modify it to support versions n+1 and n+2 of the Progress runtime instead of n and n+1 like it does now. The thing works quite well, as evidenced by the fact that our customers don't hardly ever have problems installing our application (problems that they wouldn't also manage to have if they installed Word or Java, mind), but nobody else is willing to touch it so it falls to me.
-
If the company hadn't just stopped selling that sort of software but went out of business entirely, is it still morally wrong?
In that case, I feel as though there would be no moral ambiguity, providing no one bought their IP when they closed the doors. Also, in that case it would be firmly also in the right as far as the law goes. The only reason I feel it is morally ambiguous is the fact that they are still operating, but just refusing to support the software.
-
If I employ someone and then neglect to pay them, I have made a moral error as well as breaking the law. However, they are not entitled, morally, to break into my house and steal the money back from me. Two wrongs do not make a right.
-
If I employ someone and then neglect to pay them, I have made a moral error as well as breaking the law. However, they are not entitled, morally, to break into my house and steal the money back from me.
Perhaps not, but they might find some sympathy from me. ;)
-
Playing @blakeyrat's advocate for a moment though: I do think there are situations where breach of contract is morally equivalent to stealing. Such as, agreeing to pay somebody for work and then refusing on some bullshit technicality. There's always an element of, if the civil courts won't rule in their favour then the victim must be at least a bit to blame for not getting a better contract. But if some idiot strolls around South Central LA at 2 in the morning waving a wad of cash around, the mugger that takes it is steal a thief.
However, this scenario being discussed is nothing like that: not morally equivalent to stealing.
Edit: Kind of duplicated @Yamikuronue's post but didn't see it till after.
-
However, they are not entitled, morally, to break into my house and steal the money back from me. Two wrongs do not make a right.
But talking about Two Wrongs with respect to @Intercourse's question is begging the question here (hah!). One of the reasons why @blakeyrat is correct in attempting to separate the law from morality is that a written law cannot incorporate all of the nuances of real life. We typically rely on juries (or changing the law) for that sort of thing.
And the two wrongs vs one right formula isn't necessarily correct. We might reasonably say that using violent and deadly force against another person is wrong. But if you are using it in self defense in reaction to another, it could be a case of the second wrong making a right due to circumstances beyond the simplicity of it being a good and moral thing to not kill people.
-
copyright is property
Wrong. Copyright is a (formerly) temporary monopoly grant. Media sellers have been pushing the idea that it is property in order to gather support for making the monopoly grant permanent (because property doesn't have an expiration date).
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.
-
Property rights do not have sticky, messy things such as fair use attached to them
No, they have other sticky, messy things attached, all of which boil down to a balancing act between the private rights of the property holder and the public rights of those around them. Just consider such things as building codes and zoning laws and then get back to me.
(Aside: I believe that Fair Use, as it now stands, is a mess - mostly as a result of terrible court decisions. The purpose of Fair Use should be to facilitate speech about protected works - as demonstrated by the language of 17 USC § 107 - which has been extended to encompass just about anything, including things such as time-shifting - thanks SCOTUS - by way of courts pulling the law out of their asses.)
-
Copyright is a (formerly) temporary monopoly grant.
Bollocks.
A monopoly exists when the independent supply of commodity goods is restricted.
Copyrightable works aren't commodities - they are not fungible - nor is anyone but the creator able to supply them independently. If I create a work that I keep on my hard drive and never show to anyone, nobody is going to be able to distribute it - not because I have a state-granted monopoly, but because nobody else has access to it.
Copyright is a "monopoly grant" only so far as your ownership of your house is a "monopoly grant". Can someone come and kick your ass out of your own house? Damn right.
You're thinking of patents, which are granted for inventions tha can be (and often are) arrived at independently by numerous parties.
-
Is there a "deliberately missing the point" badge? That quote from the Constitution is there for a reason.
-
I am pretty sure you missed a few definitions of the word Monopoly:
- exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
Compare duopoly, oligopoly. - an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
- the exclusive possession or control of something.
- something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
- a company or group that has such control.
- the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
- (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.
Only one of those supports your assertion.
- exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
-
Funny you should mention that particular part of your constitution, 'coz it's one I'm very familiar with indeed.
Let's see, where was that article? Ah, here it is: The Overlooked French Influence on the Intellectual Property Clause
-
@Intercourse said:
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices
Note the word "commodity:.
@Intercourse said:
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
The government does not grant, but secures IP rights.
@Intercourse said:
the exclusive possession or control of something.
You mean like "property"?
-
Funny you should mention that particular part of your constitution, 'coz it's one I'm very familiar with indeed
And yet, you apparently missed the highlighted part below, to judge by your monopoly comments:
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;
Maybe it's a language thing, though.
You mean like "property"?
I think your use of simile is very well chosen. IP isn't like other forms of property. But it's "like" property.
-
And yet, you apparently missed the highlighted part below, to judge by your monopoly comments:
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;
You'll notice that all property - as a legal term of art - consists in a set of exclusive rights that are secured (guarded) by the government. Do try to keep up.
-
So you really knew exactly what I was getting at. I Have Been Trolled. Is there a badge for that?
-
I don't think so, but we could petition @PJH.
-
It appears @blakeyrat rage quit this thread. That means a rage quit on this forum is close behind.
-
No, they have other sticky, messy things attached, all of which boil down to a balancing act between the private rights of the property holder and the public rights of those around them. Just consider such things as building codes and zoning laws and then get back to me.
But none of the said sticky, messy things you attach to property rights influence your control over how others use your property, which is exactly what fair use does with copyright.
-
You think? His own threads seem to be doing quite well.
-
A man can dream. I am hoping that my @blakeyrat mentions tip him over the edge.
-
@Intercourse said:
It appears @blakeyrat rage quit this thread. That means a rage quit on this forum is close behind.
Wishful thinking. On the other hand, he is overdue. Betting pool, anyone?
-
On when @blakeyrat rage quits next? I am game.
-
But none of the said sticky, messy things you attach to property rights influence your control over how others use your property, which is exactly what fair use does with copyright.
I'm not particularly happy with Fair Use as it now stands, myself, 'coz it's a tail that's starting to wag the dog (see Fox News v. TVEyes). Hopefully, an updated Copyright Act will eliminate some of the worst excesses.
-
@Intercourse said:
On when @blakeyrat rage quits next? I am game.
Making a thread for that would probably precipitate the ragequit. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature.
-
I wonder what @blakeyrat would think about a betting pool thread on when he rage quits next?
-
Leave @blakeyrat alone!
-
@blakeyrat is a sensitive individual. I probably should stop.
I won't, but I probably should.
-
How many @blakeyrat's do you think it would take. Should we do like an over/under on the betting for this?
-
Hopefully, an updated Copyright Act
I wouldn't bet on that. Why? Because the MPAA/RIAA/... have lost their minds in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and they know how to bow the existing system to their masters. Worse yet, they take a 'monetize everything' viewpoint that's pretty darn well incompatible with the existence of fair use and the way computers work, and has already infected their existing efforts to change the law.
Hint: DRM won't magically start working just because you try harder.
-
Also, just a bit of advice to DRM manufacturers, do NOT under any circumstances boast that your DRM is unhackable. You will look like a fool when the DRM you had a dev team of 40 people working on for a year is cracked in less than a week by some kid chilling in his basement with a case of Red Bull and some microwave pizzas. This will happen.
-
Worse yet, they take a 'monetize everything' viewpoint that's pretty darn well incompatible with the existence of fair use
You'll find this is true of any business - and all property for that matter. It's the very purpose of business - to make money. That's why we've got fair use - to restrict copyright owners' exclusive property rights, when absolutely necessary.
Incidentally, I think you misread my intention re "worst excesses". I meant things like time-shifting under Sony (which should properly be classified as de minimis) or bollocks like the Goldie Blox affair or TVEyes.
In short, Congress should probably take a big black marker and underline the part starting with "purposes such as", then do the same with factor 1, then write - in big, friendly letters - "If the use isn't for a purpose of the same kind as those enumerated, it isn't fair, you dumb fucks!"
Incidentally, holding up the MPAA and RIAA as some sort of bogeyman isn't very credible in an age where their members - and the creators they have partnerships with - are slowly disappearing down the toilet because their government refuses to ensure their rights are adequately protected. Just sayin'.
-
You'll notice that all property - as a legal term of art - consists in a set of exclusive rights that are secured (guarded) by the government. Do try to keep up.
From a strictly legal perspective I suppose that makes sense. At least you aren't arguing stupid things like monopolies aren't monopolies any more though, so I guess that's progress.
-
Incidentally, holding up the MPAA and RIAA as some sort of bogeyman isn't very credible in an age where their members - and the creators they have partnerships with - are slowly disappearing down the toilet because their government refuses to ensure their rights are adequately protected. Just sayin'.
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 either get with the change in society, you change your business model to something that people want, or you fade away. In that respect, I say "Fuck 'em. Let them die and be replaced with something that is sustainable."
-
I found this part especially interesting.
As the Supreme Court has noted, under current popular usage of “arts” and “science,” one would expect patents to promote science and copyright to promote arts, yet we know from the historical record that it is exactly the opposite.
Here's a question: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all managed to make a living writing classical music before copyright laws were invented. Would we even know about Beethoven had Hadyn been able to patent the symphony?
EDIT: @GOG, this question isn't actually for you. It's for those of the group who aren't here to troll.
-
@Intercourse said:
It appears @blakeyrat rage quit this thread. That means a rage quit on this forum is close behind.
Maybe we could do him a favor and get him to rage quit fucking life.
-
Your comment is invalid without an @blakeyrat
-
Are you happy now? I mentioned @blakeyrat.
