Copyright, morality, and Big Tobacco

[dwildstr@mit.edu (David J Wildstrom)]

In article <6i397s$pu0$1@eve.enteract.com>,  <tward@XXXXenteract.com> wrote:
>Rubywand,
> 
>I am truly astonished at your ability to twist the facts and present your
>arguments in such a convincing manner.

And I at yours. Read on.

>Granted, very few companies are going to complain about the Asimov site.
>I will go so far as to agree that some of them, if they knew about Asimov,
>would embrace the tiny bit of publicity. But that does not make it right.
>The US government knows that nicotine causes cancer, yet they continue to
>allow tobacco companies to grow and sell their product in the US. Does
>that make it right? Of course not.


We accept as axiomatic that the government knows that nicotine causes
	cancer (I though it was tar, but that's irrelevant).
We accept as axiomatic that they sbsidize and permit the tobacco industry.
We accept as axiomatic that this is a Bad Thing (TM).

So we ask "Cui bono?" and "Cui malo?" and justify our decision that it is a
Bad Thing (TM) in that it hurts The People. We make the argument that those
hurt by it make a conscious decision to do so. We counter-argue that it hurts
the others through subsidized medical costs and arrive at the definition that:

Something is a Bad Thing (TM) if it hurts those who do not make a conscious
decision to be hurt by it. So far, so good.

Now we apply our criterion to your statement that "they ... would embrace the 
tiny bit of publicity. But that does not make it right." In what way, by our
definition of the Bad Thing (TM), does it "not make it right"? Who is it "not
right" for, exactly? Not for the consumers, who wouldn't have the software at
all if it wasn't for Asimov. Not for the corporation, which smiles and nods and
turns the other way. Not for the government, whose precious courts are saved
one more pointless lawsuit. I can't imagine how you can describe a mutually
agreeable situation to all involved as "not right".

>That's like saying it's up to my neighbor to complain about the burning
>pile of old tires in my backyard that's polluting the neighborhood. I
>can burn those tires all I want until someone proves it's doing some harm,
>right? I can give away someone else's software until he comes forward to
>make me stop, right?

Pretty much, yeah. That's the underpinning of most legal systems, that it is
the responsibility of those harmed by actions to report them to those in
authority. If your neighbor doesn't complain, who will? Are the avenging angels
going to strike you down? Will the Tire Police prowl suburbia looking for
suspicious trails of smoke? You're innocent until somebody cares enough to
take action against you. And if all of your neighbors are content with you
burning tires, then why should any action be taken against you?

Most crimes need a victim.

>The problem here is that =most= of the software on the Asimov site really
>deserves to be there. =Most= of it is old software created by people who
>no longer care one way or another about it. Does that make it right? No.

Yes. See both arguments above.

>But who's going to complain? Unfortunately =some= of the software has no
>business being there. I wonder if Roger Wagner is aware that Merlin is
>there. Roger, if I am not mistaken, is still selling Merlin. Maybe the one
>on Asimov is an older version, but that's an invalid argument. Same goes
>for AppleWorks.

I'm not really clear on exactly who and what's involved here, but yes, that is
a Bad Thing (TM).

>Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and someone yells, "Shut up!"

Shut up! <g>

+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| Brian Wilson's new album, "Imagination" is being released   |
| June 16th! Support your local genius and buy "Imagination"! |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|                       David Wildstrom                       |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+