NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/os/msdos/misc/6636

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.8 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: A Frank Discussion on Piracy (Flames, Anyone? :-P )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:29:45 GMT
Lines: 65

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (super-dave) writes:

>>>I recall reading an article in the Wall St. Journal the other day
>>>about the fact that piracy is now a federal offense (correct me if I
>>>don't have the exact label) and that many pirates are now pulling out
>>>of BBSs and otherwise curtailing their activities.

>>I believe the word you want is 'felony'.  If the value (in aggregate)
>>is over something like $2k or there are 10(?) or more copies, piracy
>>is a felony punishible by up to 10(15?) years in federal prison,
>>several HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in fines, or both.

>"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." (Cool Hand Luke - A
>movie with Paul Newman - rent it if you get the chance.)  If I had posted,
>"Hello out there, I have 100 counterfeit copies of Stacker 3.0 for sale @
>$20 a piece," then, the FBI, CIA, Green Berets, and SWAT would be pounding
>on my door.

Uh, pardon me, but what we have here is a REAL failure to communicate.
Where, pray tell, did I say that this law would or should apply to
you, and that you could not or should not be discussing this issue?
My response was to clarify what had been done recently for the
gentleman who was apparently aware that the law had recently changed
but didn't know the details of what it said.

[If you can find such a statement on my part, I'll eat this terminal.]

>What I am proposing is that somewhere on the net, we should
>have a forum where both sides of the issue of piracy could be discussed
>intelligently.

There's not a whole lot of 'both sides'.  It is a violation of federal
law.  End of discussion.  Anything else is rationalizations by people
doing it for why it's 'ok' which, once you come down to it, usually
amount to "well, I couldn't afford this software otherwise," which is
hardly a reasonable rationalization for theft.

>I am not afraid of law enforcement, they are there to
>protect my rights (one of them being - free speech) - and they do a good
>job of it.  If anyone takes offense at my stance on piracy, they are
>welcome to voice their opinion; I just wish people would stop thinking
>that they're going to go to jail if they even think about discussing it.

So do I.  Of course, I also which people would stop thinking that
there are 'two sides' to what, in the final analysis, is simple theft.
Note that I'm not talking about the guy who makes a copy of something
to check it out and then buys it if he likes it or keeps using it and
deltes it otherwise [I don't consider that piracy, per se, and doubt
that even the most militant software company would try to enforce
copyright in such a case -- of course, that 'try it' is for a SHORT
PERIOD, like a week.].

>>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

>Interesting quote for this purpose, eh? ;-)

Yes.  Unfortunately, a lot of people find it 'interesting' who don't
understand the point of it.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.