Re: A2 Trade/Swap ... site ...

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <8kg5p8$d0n$1@news.imp.ch>,
Henrik Gudat <henrik.gudat@gmx.ch> wrote:
 
> In article <8kfrga$iik$1@merope.saaf.se> , pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul 
> Schlyter) wrote:
> 
>> Doing anything else besides these two things doesn't make sense.
>> It's like, if you see someone crossing the street against a red
>> light, yelling "..but it's illegal, but it's illegal, but it's
>> illegal..."  which of course serves no purpose even if you say
>> something which is correct.  Instead you should call the police, or
>> ignore it all.
> 
> This is inherently wrong. Because you're outsourcing all sanctioning
> to the police. Laws are a reflection of a society's norms and values.
 
They could be, and they should be -- but in reality the laws are a
reflection of the norms and views of those who are in power.
Consider Nazi Germany's laws against jews, gypsies, socialists,
homosexuals, et cetera -- were these laws really a "reflection of the
societys and values"?
 
> The bad thing about criminal or illegal behaviour is not that someone
> was breaking the law but what was considered proper conduct within his
> or her community.
 
Now you're confusing "illegal" with "immoral".  Ideally they should be
the same, but in pracitice they often diverge.  Please don't confuse them.
 
> So, by the above example you're indicating that direct sanctioning without
> making the workaround via the police is meaningless or even bad.
 
It's even illegal: try to fine or arrest the guy crossing the street
against a red light yourself, and you're committing a more severe
crime than he did!  According to the law, only the police and the
courts have the right to enforce the law.  Ordinary citizens only have
the right to keep the offender there, until the police arrives.
 
So if you don't want to call the police, and if you intend to not break
the law yourself, you have no way to enforce the law.  All you can do
is to tell the offender you think he should follow the law -- but if he
chooses to ignore you, there's nothing you can do about that (except
calling the police, which you said you didn't want to do...)
 
> Yet, it can be much more effective and allows for varying outcome in
> each particular case.
 
Yes -- "varying outcome" is indeed the word here.  If you instead
called the police, the outcome would be fixed: the offender *would*
get arrested or at least fined -- he would not have the option to
ignore the law.
 
> A community can deal improper conduct much more flexible (at times
> even too flexible).
 
I guess you see my point here.....
 
> In the end, your descriptions suggest that the individual is controlled
> by a rather Kafkaesque law system.
 
Earlier you said:
 
    "Laws are a reflection of a society's norms and values."
 
Since you now think laws are Kafkaesque, are you living in a Kafkaesque
society?  If so, why are you so insistant that these Kafkaesque laws
should be followed?
 
> However, it should be the other way around. Laws are the product of
> a society.
 
Therefore Kafkaesque laws are a product of a Kafkaesque society, Nazi laws
are a product of a Nazi society ..... et cetera et cetera.  Obviously,
there's no moral obligation to follow immoral laws....
 
> And the more people voice their concerns, the more likely law will
> adapt.
 
This could result in a "lynch mob judge" though, which actually is
even worse.  Remember the US southern states some 50-100 years ago,
where many blacks were tortured to death because "more (white) people
voiced their concerns" against them.....
 
> If citizens are merely "consuming" laws and completely dispense with
> direct sanctioning, the formation of new laws will slow down
> indefinitely because there is no new consent among ignorant people.
 
I don't think so -- hundreds of new laws are created annually, and
hundreds of old and obsolete laws are abandoned, each year.  You
think that's too little?
 
FInally: if people are to be invovled in direct sanctioning, the law
must allow them to do so.  But there's a thin line to thread here, or
else the "lynch mob" situation can easily arise as "more people voice
their concern"....
 
> In the case of piracy, the problem a number of people are having with
> it is not that there's a law that inhibits it. The reasoning is that
> one should ask the owner prior to benefiting from his creation. You
> may call it illegal, I call it unpolite (put mildly). The fact there
> is such a law only shows me that there must be others thinking the
> same way, nothing else.
 
So now you're saying piracy is equivalent to e.g. calling someone
names in a ng?  Both are indeed unpolite....
 
 
I would want to say that piracy is about economy: the software pirate
pirates software for economical reasons: it's cheaper for him than to
buy the software.  This robs the owner of the software royalties he
should receieve.  Therefore software piracy is illegal, and really
equivalent to theft, and should be punished --- quite understandable.
 
 
Now, enter a different scene: the software has been commercially
unavailable for over a decade.  The copyright holder no longer makes
any money on it, he doesn't develop it anymore, he may even no longer
have any of his software around anymore, or any hardware on which to
run the software (obsolete software often runs on obsolete hardware).
Assume someone "pirates" the software.  What's the economical damage
for the copyright owner?  None....  What's the options of the
"pirate"?  Usually he canNOT buy the software, even if he tries,
because it's no longer available.  Technically this is still illegal,
because copyrights last much longer than the lifetime of a software
product.  But is it immoral?  I don't think so?
 
Of course, it's still polite to locate the copyright holder and ask
for permission, or reclassification, first (like I did with Bob S-C:
he no longer had his software or any hardware on which to run it, so
I sent him .DSK images of his own software which he could run on his
emulator.  He seemed to enjoy it).  But what if the copyright owner
cannot be found, despite serious attempts?  Or what if the copyright
owner is a big corporation (e.g. Apple Computer) where more than 99%
of the employees have no idea what this old software is, and where
the remaining 1% who DOES vaguely remember it are too busy to let you
get in touch with them?
 
 
So I would want to suggest this course of actions if you want to
"pirate" a piece of obsolete software:
 
1. Find out if it's been reclassified as freeware.  If it has, go
ahead and copy it!
 
2. Find out if it's for sale, new (the 2nd-hand marked doesn't count
here, since it doesn't bring the copyright owner any royalties
anyway), or has been during the last 5 years.  If it has, buy it,
or leave it alone.
 
3. Find the copyright owner and ask for reclassification, or for
permission for you to copy it.  If he says "Yes", go ahead and copy
it.  If he also says "Yes" to reclassification, go out and tell the
world (e.g. here in this ng).
 
4. If the software hasn't been for sale during the last 5 years, if
it hasn't been reclassified as freeware, and if you're unable to get
in touch with the copyright owner, your own consience plus your
willingness to take risks will decide your actions.  If you copy the
software, you run a small but non-zero risk that the software owner
someday pops up and turns out to be a maniac which, if/when he finds
out that you've copied his masterpiece, gets so pissed off at you
that he decides to sue you.  Only you can determine if you want to
take this risk or not.
 
5. If the software hasn't been for sale during the last 5 years, if
it hasn't been recalssified, if you cannot get in touch with the
copyright owner to get it reclassified, if you copy it anyway, and if
you tell the world you're copying it anyway, expect some people to
start a discussion on the theme "...but it's illegal...".  Up to a
point, this discussion can be amusing, but it's largely irrelevant
and can be ignored.  They're right: it is technically illegal, but
since there's no economic damage to anyone, the police and the courts
will never pay any attention to that case: they have more important
things to do!
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch