about warez.at

Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw at users.sourceforge.net
Fri Oct 19 19:54:53 UTC 2001

On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Guillaume PONCE wrote:
> > But we are on the same side.
> > 
> > Underground software distributors give people more freedom in
> > short-term.
> > Without them, all monopolists, like Microsoft and RIAA would have many
> > times money,
> > would be able to set many times higher prices and would be able to buy
> > more politicians
> > to ban all free software and competition in general.
> > 
> > Just because what these people do is illegal under current broken law
> > doesn't mean
> > that it's wrong or that we should oppose it. Their work is also very
> > important
> > for success of freedom.
> I don't agree with that.
> They do not "give freedom" in any way. They just take it and, eventually, 
> encourage people to do the same.
> In my opinion piracy is not so harmfull to proprietary software.
> Monopolists wouldn't make very much more money because many of the "pirated
> software consumer" wouldn't buy it if they could not have it "free as beer".
> If you cannot buy beer you can:
>   - Steal it (that is what piracy is).

"Piracy" has nothing to do with stealing.
Copyright is just evil law that nobody should obey.

>   - Drink water (if it's still free ;)
> Worst, piracy may be a good vector to popularize proprietary software even among
> those who cannot afford it (but may be able in the future).
> When I was student I couldn't afford M$ Word (that was before I came to the free
> software movement).
> But I had an illegal copy of it so I could use it to write internship reports.
> Many student were like me. Now we are working for companies that buy software to
> enable us to work.
> If the boss of one of these ex-students comes and asks "what do you need to
> write reports?" many of them will answer "Well, I know M$ Word, I used it when I
> was a student".
> With no piracy, current students could investigate other solutions and learn
> about the existence of free software and even use and promote it in their future
> employer componies.
> Piracy corrupts the proprietary way to distribute software but may also
> contribute to maintain it.
> Free software movement, as I feel it, is trying to find a safe new way to
> distribute software, I find it far more interesting.
> It's far more safe to try to make better law than letting law going nasty and
> find ways to bypass it.
> If I could compare with politic I'd say that:
>   - Piracy is a kind of terrorism.
>   - Free software is a revolution.

I can't agree with you. You can't really overthrow evil system by only
legal action, because the system can modify law to set rules of play that
will protect it. And it's not just possibility, but actual fact.
Look what is happening. There's DCMA, software patents, SSSCA, Echelon,
extending duration of copyrights and patents, allowing genes to be patented
and many more. If free software would ever endanger existence of proprietary
software, you can be sure that all proprietary software have enought money
to buy laws that would delegalize or at least limit free software.
And they can also use fake software patents, change "standards" or
sue everyone to do so, just as they are doing now.

And I'm completely sure that if only legal means were used,
we would still have communism here.

More information about the Discussion mailing list