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.
Yes, this is sarcasm. Sorry, so hard to tell without the facial cues. BTW, this happens often which is why stores have restocking fees on electronics. Men would buy a large TV for a special football game and then return the TV to the store for a full credit. Now they have to pay for the "rental" of the TV.
I wrote the post because I am astonished that this thread is going on 6 pages and almost 60 posts. The moral, ethical and legal situation seems so clear to me. Yes it's theft. The "broke" student has received a benefit. He has obtained something of value but the creator developer of the product has not received any value for his contribution although the student has benefitted from the product.
I shudder to consider what other moral and ethical situations are also perceived as questionable or permissible
.
What if they did not borrow the clothes or TV, but instead wove identical clothes or built an identical TV?
This is the more faithful analogy to software piracy. You made a copy of something, you did not take possession of the thing.
If you borrow clothes or a TV, you risk depriving the original possessor of use and also put wear and tear on the item. You do neither of these when copying software.
What if they did not borrow the clothes or TV, but instead wove identical clothes or built an identical TV?
This is the more faithful analogy to software piracy. You made a copy of something, you did not take possession of the thing.
If you borrow clothes or a TV, you risk depriving the original possessor of use and also put wear and tear on the item. You do neither of these when copying software.
Nope.
Go ahead and write your own 100% new code to mimic, say, AutoCAD without using the original product whatsoever...that's perhaps the proper analogy.
Go ahead and write your own 100% new code to mimic, say, AutoCAD without using the original product whatsoever...that's perhaps the proper analogy.
In the case of software, the product (or the source code) *is* the instructions, in the case of clothes the instructions would be things like the loom dimensions and settings. Pirating software for personal use is like a garment factory worker, who has knowledge of the design, creating a homemade version purely for personal consumption without selling it. I doubt there would be much uproar over someone doing this, so why then is the user of software forbidden to avail himself/herself of the code?
In the case of software, the product (or the source code) *is* the instructions, in the case of clothes the instructions would be things like the loom dimensions and settings. Pirating software for personal use is like a garment factory worker, who has knowledge of the design, creating a homemade version purely for personal consumption without selling it. I doubt there would be much uproar over someone doing this, so why then is the user of software forbidden to avail himself/herself of the code?
The garment worker uses machines, processes, and materials someone else designed, built, and paid for. If she goes home and buys her own stuff to build a facsimile of a pair of pants for herself...fine. But that's not what you initially proposed. What you were trying to justify would be more akin to the worker brining in her own cloth, perhaps, on her own time, perhaps, and making the pants on the company's line. "Hey the factory was closed when I used the machines so it's not affecting their output."
Go ahead and become a 'power user' of a product and then write your own code to mimic that product and use it yourself.
Don't just copy someone else's product and claim you created your own version.
Either someone understands the concepts of ethics, morality, and righteousness or they don't. Seven pages of postings show many don't.
Except morality or 'righteousness' relative to a code of conduct isn't universal; it's a philosophical issue/thread as opposed to a legality (and several pages of postings show most aren't making the distinction).
What if they did not borrow the clothes or TV, but instead wove identical clothes or built an identical TV?
This is the more faithful analogy to software piracy. You made a copy of something, you did not take possession of the thing.
If you borrow clothes or a TV, you risk depriving the original possessor of use and also put wear and tear on the item. You do neither of these when copying software.
Clothes are not protected by copyright law. Feel free to copy fashion all you want. Just don't include logos (which are copyrighted). You are welcome to sell the clothes without concern.
You can build yourself a TV if you can get your hands on all the parts you need through legal channels.
With copying software, you cannot attain the parts through legal avenues unless you have permission from the copyright holder. So from a moral perspective, you cannot attain the software legally without paying for it.
In the case of software, the product (or the source code) *is* the instructions, in the case of clothes the instructions would be things like the loom dimensions and settings. Pirating software for personal use is like a garment factory worker, who has knowledge of the design, creating a homemade version purely for personal consumption without selling it. I doubt there would be much uproar over someone doing this, so why then is the user of software forbidden to avail himself/herself of the code?
This is not the case, actually. Code is a copyrighted piece of work. Similar to a book. You cannot copy it without permission.
Your best bet is to purchase the software you would like to use, or purchase/find another one that accomplishes what you need.
Except morality or 'righteousness' relative to a code of conduct isn't universal; it's a philosophical issue/thread as opposed to a legality (and several pages of postings show most aren't making the distinction).
There's moral value added to abiding by laws of society. What may be morally acceptable based on laws in one society is not necessarily acceptable in another society.
There's moral value added to abiding by laws of society.
Point being, the OP asks if it's moral, not legal (and this is a Philosophy Forum).
That said, a person who acts within the framework of their own moral code is more likely to abide by the law.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 01-07-2021 at 03:57 PM..
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.
