Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be a fool to pay a billion dollar corporation a monthly fee because they claim to own the software on my personal computer.
Whether it's a piece of code or someone digging a hole it's up who is doing the work to dictate what the value of the product is. If you don't like the terms being dictated find someone else to dig the hole or write the code.
And the authors are the ones engaged in a fraud - trying to keep their cake and eat yours.
What would be the point of spending years and millions developing a software program that could only be sold once? Copyright law is fundamental in a capitalistic society.
Interesting point. I'll just write that common law is generally easily replaceable by statutory and regulatory law. I'd be interested to know which jurisdictions in the US still go by the common law rules for such things vs. those that have made the common law rule obsolete via legislation. And then you have to contend with the contracts clause of the US Constitution even if the common law is still otherwise being followed by a state. Of course, much of this conversation in this case is for naught in this particular instance as the OP doesn't involve the buying or selling of software, but rather the theft of software, but still interesting all the same!
Software is covered by copyright law. When you create something unique whether it's software, a book, an image or a scuplture it's instantly copyrighted by the author. There are minor exceptions to this, if you are employed by me to take photos the copyright belongs to me. If on the other hand you were contract photographer the right of ownership would be spelled out in contract.
Copyrights can be legally transferred but typically the copyright owner licenses the product that dictates how it may be used. A license does not necessarily impede redistribution but instead can also be used to enforce free redistribution. Open source software typically use a license like the GNU. If you were to hire me to modify software code released under the GNU once I give it to you there is no limitations of what you can do with it because the original license has not changed.
The challenge is to explain how this could be wrong (or simply admit that even if the law was broken, nothing morally wrong was done.)
Why don't you explain it to the other broke college kid. The one who didn't get to complete the research assignment because he/she didn't want to break the law.
Then explain it to another broke college kid who borrowed the money or got an extra job to be able to afford to purchase the software and complete the assignment.
Everyone who cheats or steal has some moral justification for their acts, but if you can't see who you are hurting then you aren't looking hard enough.
But in this case the guy digging the hole does the work for free and says he will fill it back up in 30 days if you don't pay for it. Since the hole is in your yard, you keep the hole and deny him access to your yard to fill the hole back up. He gave you the hole. You just won't let him fill it back up with dirt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Whether it's a piece of code or someone digging a hole it's up who is doing the work to dictate what the value of the product is. If you don't like the terms being dictated find someone else to dig the hole or write the code.
The software writers put time, effort, and talent into their work, and deserve compensation for that.
The hypothetical student is using their work to make his own; he is deriving value from their work, and hiding their contribution for his own benefit. The student isn't reselling the software, but is gaining grades, reputation, and possibly money by using it.
If you've ever looked at a scientific paper, EVERYBODY gets credit. I'm credited on a couple of papers just because I was working for the professor on a different project.
If the project cannot be done without the software, then it should be obtained legitimately and given credit because it is a critical part of the work.
If you don't want to pay for the software, redesign the project or do a different project. Or find somebody else to pay for it.
Edited to add: Thread has been cleaned up and reopened. Off-topic and orphaned posts have been deleted. People, please remember that you are in the Philosophy forum, and be sure to make your posts relevant to the topic presented in the opening post. Thank you.
__________________
My posts as a Moderator will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS And check this out: FAQ
Moderator of Canada (and sub-fora), Illinois (and sub-fora), Indiana (and sub-fora), Caregiving, Community Chat, Fashion & Beauty, Hair Care, Games/Trivia, History, Nature, Non-romantic Relationships, Psychology, Travel, Work & Employment, Writing.
___________________________
~ Life's a gift. Don't waste it. ~
In the case of the OP, the software model could allow the college student to pay $200/month for just the months he/she needs it rather than $10k upfront.
This isn't the point in a philosophical thread or a discussion in re: ethics. If you're trying to be practical (rather than philosophical), then do so by considering all the free software available for students, lol. It's simply not relevant.
I believe the OP was trying to distinguish between morality and legality (though in her example, it's the same). That said, to do so effectively, one must pose an ethical question in and of itself, rather than one which intersects with the law (as outlined by OP).
What would be the point of spending years and millions developing a software program that could only be sold once? Copyright law is fundamental in a capitalistic society.
What about those who sell a copy of sheet music, and someone plays it ... and is not paid for his performance.
Should the author also demand a royalty for every performance by customers?
What if someone merely HEARS it, and replicates it ... does he owe the author, too?
Sheet music is a set of instructions to play music.
Software is a set of instructions for a computer to operate.
What's different?
Last edited by jetgraphics; 06-08-2020 at 05:32 PM..
What about those who sell a copy of sheet music, and someone plays it ... and is not paid for his performance.
Should the author also demand a royalty for every performance by customers?
What if someone merely HEARS it, and replicates it ... does he owe the author, too?
Sheet music is a set of instructions to play music.
Software is a set of instructions for a computer to operate.
What's different?
If you get a benefit from performing the sheet music, you pay a royalty. Just like bars and radio stations pay for playing music. The student received a benefit he wasn't entitled to from stealing the software. that's immoral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
