Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)]

pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
Regnirps <regnirps@aol.com> wrote:
 
>> pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
  
>>> I think Apple Computer would have some similar considerations to make
>>> if they evern thought about suing people posting obsolete software
>>> for and info about the Apple II: even if done illegally, Apple would
>>> have more to lose than to gain from trying to sue these people.
 
>> I understand the marketing and psychology, but do you think this
>> justifies an immoral act?
 
>An immoral act is by definition never justified.  If an act is justified,
>it cannot be immoral.
 
>Considering distributing copies of Apple's "Red Book": is it illegal?
>Probably, but you should really ask a lawyer rather than me about
>that.  Is it immoral?  I don't think so - why?  Because if an act is
>to be immoral, it must hurt someone in some way.  If no-one is hurt
>in any way by some act, where's the immorality of the act?

You make the assumption that what someone is not using now will nerver be used
and is therefore free for the taking.

Say I have two shovels and you have none. You need one. Is taking one of mine
immoral? After all I can only use one at a time. But you forget that I might
have plans to hire someone to help with the other. Yes, this theft is immoral
even though you have not immediatly hurt someone. I had to work to get the
shovel and you will have basically stolen X hours of my limited life's work as
well as injured my ability to carry out my plans for the future.

Charlie Springer