Re: A Question of Ethics (was: Overriding Acrobat User Settings)

[Peter <pnewman1 -at- home -dot- com>]

Replies inline:

Bruce Byfield wrote:

> Copyright is being challenged by new technlogies, but it's also being
> challenged because people do see a difference between companies and
> individuals. In our society, the right to creators to what they make
> allows them to earn a living. However, when a company has the same
> rights, it can use them to create a monopoly, or for price-gouging. At
> times, too, a company doesn't even help with the creation - it just
> redistributes. This perceived difference is why people who wouldn't
> think of ripping off friends don't think twice about ripping off companies.

Most governments have made a decision to grant a legal monopoly in order
to encourage investment and research. Hopefully, market forces will
prevent "price gouging," whatever that is. 
Just because a right can be abused, doesn't mean it should be lost. How
many millions of folks are killed by automobiles. Does that mean we
should take away your right to drive?
Suppose the Bruce Byfield Company has a copyright. That is a company. At
what size would you deny copyright protection. Doesn't a company have a
right to make a profit if it purchases a copyright from an individual?
Or, is there a difference between purchase and origination. 
I'm just a little confused by your comment. Also, do you think that
companies will continue to pay tech writers as much as they do, if they
did not somehow expect to realize some profits down the road? (put in to
appease Eric.)
BTW are you not really talking about software patents as opposed to
copyrights?

> Sure, theft is theft. And, even though I'm involved with the open source
> community, I don't condone piracy - it's up to the creators to decide
> whether their software is freely available, and everyone else should
> respect their decision. However, ethically, I would draw a distinction
> between stealing from Microsoft and stealing from a starving artist.
> Both acts are wrong, but, since Microsoft won't be hurt as much as the
> artist, I suggest that it would be less wrong to steal from Microsoft
> than from the starving artist - although personally I would avoid both.

Whether any particular act is stealing is like being pregnant. It either
is or isn't.
Should not the producer make the decision whether to open source the
results of the efforts and capital investments?

> Third, the software did have a legitimate purpose. Legally, you're
> allowed to make backup copies of software, but encryption prevents that.
> It could be argued that the company's de-encryption efforts simply
> restore the consumer rights that Adobe had taken away.

Not if your license agreement is to the contrary.
I see a confusion between what you believe one should be able to do and
what one is legally able to do.


-- 
Peter
Mailto:peternew -at- optonline -dot- net

Adapting old programs to fit new machines
usually means adapting new machines to
behave like old ones.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and 
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.