From: eyvind@Lise.Unit.NO (Eyvind Bernhardsen)
Subject: Re: The piracy argument to end all arguments....
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:11:56 GMT

In article <BxuAC0.C2s@starnine.com>, mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
 > In article <1992Nov5.173908.12482@ugle.unit.no> eyvind@Lise.Unit.NO (Eyvind Bernhardsen) writes:
 > >In article <Bx8AC6.FAC@starnine.com>, mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
 > > > In article <OA92-901-306p1_DC448B13@piraya.bad.se> Hans_Bergengren@p1.thulos.bbs.bad.se (Hans Bergengren) writes:
 > >
 > > > >Yup, that's the best way, really. Better
 > > > >than reading every Amiga rag there is, since magazines always lag behind, and
 > > > >a written review is not as good as actually trying out the software for
 > > > >yourself.
 > > > 
 > > > So let's not only steal from the manufacturer of the software, but
 > > > let's cheat the magazine publisher of an honest sale?
 > >
 > >What?  You're seriously saying that finding out about a game before it comes in
 > >the magazines is a crime?
 > 
 > No, I'm saying that copying commercial software is a crime.  YOU'RE the one
 > who said that stealing software was a good way to find out about 
 > software without waiting for magazine lag time.

I did *NOT*.  The original poster, whose name you left out, said that.  I was
reacting to the 'cheat the magazine publisher for an honest sale'.  Seeing a game
before it's finished is *not* a crime (well...  Depends how you got it), and it's
stupid to say that you're cheating the magazine puvblishers out of *anything*.

 > >Forget the piracy, what about News?  Should I avert my
 > >eyes from an article about the A1200, or a new game, or whatever, just because I 
 > >might see something that would make me think twice about buying a magazine? 
 > 
 > That wasn't the issue at all.  But since you brought it up, if
 > someone were to post the passwheel information for a game here, you
 > would be committing a crime by using that information.

*You* brought it up, saying that looking at a game prior to its release would cost
magazine publishers money.  I was saying that deliberately avoiding any knowledge
that *might* make me reconsider buying a magazine was the logical
conclusion to be made from this stand.

 > >You're just reaching for a reason to flame here...
 > 
 > I had a feeling you might see it that way.  But I'm addressing
 > piracy.  period.

How?  I hadn't *posted* anything to that thread before...

 > 
 > >
 > > > > WS> And no intelligent pirate (I see the contradiction there) is going to
 > > > > WS> start arguing for piracy here as giving away his email address 
 > > > >effectively WS> gives away his identity to the world.
 > > > >
 > > > >Why shouldn't you be able to argue for piracy?
 > > > 
 > > > This is a real moron!  Ahhh!  SORRY!!!!  I didn't mean to slander
 > > > the honest, hardworking morons in the world.
 > >
 > >Did you ever hear of the concept of 'free speech'?  I guess not.
 > 
 > Not when it comes to supporting crime.  You can't post phone
 > numbers on BBS's, you can't upload commercial games... trying to
 > convince people that it's OK to do these things is immoral.
 > 
 > There ARE limits to free speech.  Freedom never means "do what you
 > want".  It means "make your own decisions within these moral
 > guidelines".

Yeah, fine.  YOU were saying that anyone arguing about piracy is a moron.

 > >
 > > > Thief.  That's the word.  Common thief, except that every product
 > > > he swipes in the Amiga industry probably has more negative impact
 > > > that the average equivalent $$ common theft... Don't you wonder
 > > > how many "friends" he "shares" his "better than a written review"
 > > > illegal copy with?  How many BBS's?  How many FTP sites?
 > >
 > >Can you back this up?  Are you saying that this person is a pirate and actively
 > >spreads software illegaly?  Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word
 > >'libel' either?
 > 
 > I have not spoken past a hypothetical "he" "him" etc.  Please do not
 > take these statements personally unless you steal software.  Then, please
 > take them VERY personally (as I do when someone steals MY software).

WHAT?  You directly refer to the previous poster, paraphrasing him wherever
possible...  To me, that's a strong suggestion that you're referring to the
poster.  (Who is *NOT*, i repeat *NOT* me, despite the fact that you appear to
think so).

 > > > >In one Swedish FidoNET echo, we have had a piracy debate
 > > > >since about a month, and both sides can share opinions and views. I think that
 > > > >is a good thing.
 > > > 
 > > > Yes, In marketing Amiga software, one becomes quickly aware of the
 > > > terrible piracy problem that exists overseas (term intentionally broad).
 > > > I know of companies that have refused to work with foriegn distributers
 > > > because the controls are so loose.
 > > > 
 > > > And you countries which socially allow this atrocity do it to yourselves.
 > > > Really.  A debate over the ethics of thievery?  How low
 > > > can you go?
 > >
 > >Ah.  I see. you really DON'T know the meaning of free speech.
 > 
 > Methinks it is YOU that have a twisted idea of freedom.

You say 'how low can you go' about a debate on piracy.  Is this a sebate on
piracy, or is debate only a crime whan you're not involved?

 > >Did you actually READ the article?  This person was, in fact, arguing against
 > >piracy, yet you contrive to claim that he's a pirate.  Libel's illegal too,
 > >whether it's on an electronic network or not.
 > 
 > No libel intended.  Just statements about pirates.  Actually, that's
 > MUCH too glamorous a word for thieves.

OK, I misread you.  (As I pointed out, though, there WAS a reason to misread).

 > My intent is to show the speciousness of discussions about "Why Thieves
 > Steal" which ultimately want to cast blame on the manufacturers of
 > the products.  I desire to expose the lack of integrity of those who
 > do not vigorously denounce software theft, but instead choose
 > to defend the practice with rationalizations and lies which
 > seriously hurt all of us.

Yeah, but in doing so, you raged against the Swedish debate on piracy, implying
that it was morally wrong to debate in this way.

Oh, BTW, I have *never* expressed or implied that *anyone*, including myself, is
a pirate. *NEITHER HAD THE ORIGINAL POSTER (WS)*.  You implied that *both* of us
are pirates (or at least have the pirate mentality), him (or her) for saying that
arguing about piracy is OK, and me for disagreeing with you.

-Eyvind

-- 
     //|                             | DISCLAIMER: I don't HAVE opinions.
    // |                             | I just repeat what everyone else says!
\\ //--|miga: There can be only one. |
 \X/   |         eyvind@lise.unit.no | Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!  Ackpth!