RE: A Question of Ethics (was: Overriding Acrobat User Settings)( 2of2)

Subject: RE: A Question of Ethics (was: Overriding Acrobat User Settings)( 2of2)
From: KMcLauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:59:46 -0400

Here's a continuation of a reply to Andrew.
His was just a handy post to answer, because
it contains arguments that a lot of people
use without really examining them.

>This is why I laugh at those that will willfully "borrow" Windows 2000
>from a pal, but then rise it anger when some artist has their
>work stolen.
>Its hypocritical. Stealing is stealing is stealing. Just
>because Microsoft
>has 57 billion in the bank does not mean it is some how "more
>acceptable"
>to steal from them versus a starving artist with $57.00 in the bank. It
>may FEEL worse - but there is no ethical difference.

Wrong analogy. If you steal my toaster, I
no longer have the use of it. If you "steal"
a piece of software, then unless you took
the CD, the original owner still has the
use of the program. The SELLER can still
sell. What they have lost is an artificially
created and artificially enforced opportunity
to possibly sell to the person who has the
copy.

I see a difference. Perhaps some of you can't.
I'd bet that most of those who profess to see
no difference are telling the lie because they
think admitting that there's a difference might
weaken the case for a possibly lucrative artificial
legal construct.

As I suggested above, there'll soon come a day
when the technology will be so simple, cheap
and ubiquitous that the model will fall apart
the way alcohol prohibition did. People will
simply move on to another model -- probably a
service model or a craftsmanship model.

At the same time, the valid laws will not go
out of style. There will simply never come a
time when the average person feels it is just
fine or "not an issue" if somebody beats their
head in, or steals their goods or sets fire to
their house, or misrepresents on a contract.
Those are the agreements, codified in laws,
that keep society going. Whether consciously/
explicitly or not, people recognize the inherent
utility of rules/agreements against that kind
of behavior and are generally willing to apply
the necessary reciprocity.
The other stuff, like copyright is artificial
construct, brought about by lobbying or for
somebody's political benefit, and will eventually
be outmoded, rendered moot. People are already
demonstrating en-masse that they don't really
see the utility and are no longer willing to
extend reciprocity for such rules.

In other words, it'd be nice if folks would
agree to give me money every time anybody
used my intellectual creations, but it's not
all that likely to happen, so I won't be too
eager to extend that courtesy (and my money)
to others. Reciprocity breaks down (is already
in the process of breaking down) and the rules
lose their power. A wise law-maker gets rid of
such lame-duck laws/rules before their general
rejection can undermine the valid laws, by
a process of contamination or transference.


>Now, most people will acknowledge that a few pirated Windows 2000 disks
>are not a big deal. Okay. But, Adobe spent a lot of money to
>develop their
>PDF technologies so they could make money. They didn't make it so you
>could raise your children better and the whales would all live longer.
>They have a right to defend their technologies.
>
>Now, should a guy who points out a security flaw go to jail -
>no. That was
>a little extreme. But, should Adobe have the right to protect their
>investments - YES. And if that means shutting this guy up -
>then right on.

Right OFF! You want him shut up, buy him off.
If he doesn't STAY bought, THEN use force against
him for breach of contract. But, don't use
force as your first choice means of shutting
him up. Initiiation of force is the easy, sleazy
way out and invites others to do the same to you...
reciprocity, remember?

>Free speech does not mean you can steal somebody's or some
>corporation's
>hard work and blab it to the world.

It wasn't stolen. It was examined. What was blabbed
to the world was the manner in which it was flawed.

The Russian did not enter onto their premises
to learn what he learned. So, no trespass is
involved. He did something inconvenient to
Adobe, but he didn't initiate force against them.

>> Professionally, I am "soul searching" and re-evaluating my
>ethics. This
>is
>> leading me to seriously consider moving away from the self-proclaimed
>> "industry standard" authoring tools developed by these companies, and
>using
>> HTML and similar technologies (which are truly industry
>standard) as the
>> main document development platform instead. I will start by
>converting
>all
>> my MS-Word and PDF files to HTML-based documents.
>>
>> I can accomplish this using authoring software and shareware (even
>freeware)
>> from smaller, yet friendlier and more ethical, developers.
>Inclusively,
>> several of these lesser-known tools can allow me to even produce HTML
>help,
>> multimedia apps, and compiled e-books as executables (.exe).
> Using my
>> ingenuity, I can simplify layouts to even allow documents for print.
>
>Just try to get support on any of those tools when they won't
>do what you
>want. I once needed to troubleshoot and installation of Linux.
>It took me
>6 weeks to track down the information.

BINGO! Sell the software for minimal cost,
then charge for support. That's a model that
doesn't need any dubious constructs like
copyright to make it work.

>
>Last night we got an error on our Win2k box. It took me 20 minutes to
>search Microsoft's web site and find the solution.
>
>This is why "industry" standard tools ARE the industry standard. They
>offer more than just functionality. They offer service, support, and
>something substantial behind them to continue development. I would not
>want to entrust mission critical company issues to some
>freeware tool a 19
>year old nerd from Fork Jabber, MT developed in between games of
>Counter-Strike. I think most company execs would agree with that.

Throw a rock in any direction and you'll hit
a company that is using LINUX on their servers.

>> If members of a profession (such as technical
>communications) decide to
>> simply avoid or reject certain tools or practices, by power of the
>masses,
>> righteousness may prevail.
>
>This is a job not a religion. We're writing docs, not inscribing
>commandments. The fact is - these tools are popular because they offer
>more.

And while they do, people pay. When they
stop offering more, or are demonstrated to
have failed in some respect, then the company
fixes what's wrong/missing so that people
will pay for the next version.

>The open source movement has the same problem that communism
>has - its a
>nice idea that JUST DOES NOT WORK. Both forget one fundamental law of
>economics: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
>
>You cannot have a thriving economy when there is no incentive.
>What is the
>incentive behind me developing Linux drivers? So I get my name
>on a dialog
>box somewhere. Whoop de doo. That may be fine when your 16 and
>live with
>mom and dad. But, let's just say I can't pay my mortgage in
>dialog boxes.

We pay a couple of contractors much more than we
pay me, to develop drivers for Linux. Enough of
our customers and potential customers use Linux
in their enterprise-critical servers that we can't
afford not to support it.

>
>Open source - is great idea, but it needs buy in from the
>companies that
>produce the tools to use it - and those companies need a
>unique angle to
>make their products more in demand than others. There is no money in
>giving things away for free. The dot.com bust should be proof enough of
>this. "Free" does not equal "good."
>
>I'm sorry folks, but somebody has to make a buck if something
>is to become
>a standard. Nobody and no organization is going to invest a gajillion
>dollars into something if there isn't money coming out the other side.
>That's capitalism.
>
>So - be righteous. You either play the game, or the game plays you.

That's exactly the issue.
Obeying.... or not obeying rules that depend on
copyright (or similar artificial construct) is
a game. Most people who would not think of mugging
a stranger for the contents of his wallet would
be quite willing to use bootleg software, or to
break the encryption and make personal-compilation
DVDs, just as they make personal music cassettes
and (more recently) CDs.

They see the utility in exchanging reciprocal rights
regarding person and physical property. They don't
see the utility in following rules that are
designed to inconvenience them, while putting extra
money in somebody else's pocket and shoring up an
economic model that can't otherwise survive.

Everybody has something to lose if reciprocity fails
with respect to initiation of force and fraud.
Not everybody has much, if anything, to lose as
reciprocity fails for intellectual property rights.
People can live and prosper without the latter,
but not without the former.

YMMATV (Your Mileage May APPEAR To Vary...)

By the way, every piece of software that I use
is either free or paid for.

/kevin

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

*** 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.


Previous by Author: RE: A Question of Ethics (was: Overriding Acrobat User Settings)( 1of2)
Next by Author: RE: More ethics... (long, of course)
Previous by Thread: RE: A Question of Ethics (was: Overriding Acrobat User Settings)( 1of2)
Next by Thread: RE: Developing Quality Technical Information (Was Re: Front Matte r


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads