What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then l
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical.... If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
I disagree here. I am a strong believer that people should be able to trade goods/services for prices/conditions they mutually agree upon. If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y
> I think it is morally repugnant of you to break our agreement and decompile.
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself
Sure. I was thinking of this as an example when I wrote my last post. I could write a book, and say to you, "Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that. If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it. But don't buy it, knowing what terms I've laid out, and
"Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that.
You're serious, aren't you? I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset. You really think that that kind of unenforcable agreement for artificial restriction on your "Intellectual Property" is morally correct and promotes innovation? (Don't answer that.)
(It's not moral or legal to sign yourself into slavery; the same will one day be said of "IP" artificial scarcit
I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset.
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights. Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If you don't want to abide by those conditions: DON'T FREAKING BUY WHAT I'M SELLING. Have a little restraint, Mr. Consumer. Jebus.
I am 100% for free trade between people. You, on the othe
Finally, capitalism works. In a true capitalistic marketplace, having unnecessary, artificial conditions wouldn't be benefitial to the seller, since other sellers could enter the market without such fluff conditions and make the sale.
Wow. Your talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly. Your 100% free trade would work just fine if copyright did not create an artificial monopoly which is why there are laws spelling out what can and can't be done with copyrighted works If people enter into contracts (Real contracts that are signed) then other conditions can be imposed, so long as that contract is entered into with the copyright holder. But if I go and buy a copy of M$ Office at Best Buy, both the quid pro quo, and the contract is only between myself and Best Buy - not M$ - thus they can impose no coditions because I have entered into no contract with them THIS IS WHY THERE ARE LAWS THAT DEFINE WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE WITH COPYRIGHTED WORKS.
Wow. Your[sic] talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly.
He actually didn't start out talking about the law at all. He simply said that if two parties agree to something, then morally they should do what they said they would do. That's all. A simple and reasonable idea. And he's saying that if one party doesn't want to do what they say, then morally they shouldn't enter into the agreement in the first place.
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better
not refuse.
What ethical problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then l
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree here. I am a strong believer that people should be able to trade goods/services for prices/conditions they mutually agree upon. If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:5, Interesting)
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure. I was thinking of this as an example when I wrote my last post. I could write a book, and say to you, "Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that. If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it. But don't buy it, knowing what terms I've laid out, and
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1, Flamebait)
You're serious, aren't you? I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset. You really think that that kind of unenforcable agreement for artificial restriction on your "Intellectual Property" is morally correct and promotes innovation? (Don't answer that.)
(It's not moral or legal to sign yourself into slavery; the same will one day be said of "IP" artificial scarcit
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Very.
I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset.
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights. Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If you don't want to abide by those conditions: DON'T FREAKING BUY WHAT I'M SELLING. Have a little restraint, Mr. Consumer. Jebus.
I am 100% for free trade between people. You, on the othe
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Wow. Your talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly. Your 100% free trade would work just fine if copyright did not create an artificial monopoly which is why there are laws spelling out what can and can't be done with copyrighted works If people enter into contracts (Real contracts that are signed) then other conditions can be imposed, so long as that contract is entered into with the copyright holder. But if I go and buy a copy of M$ Office at Best Buy, both the quid pro quo, and the contract is only between myself and Best Buy - not M$ - thus they can impose no coditions because I have entered into no contract with them THIS IS WHY THERE ARE LAWS THAT DEFINE WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE WITH COPYRIGHTED WORKS.
-- Rich
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
He actually didn't start out talking about the law at all. He simply said that if two parties agree to something, then morally they should do what they said they would do. That's all. A simple and reasonable idea. And he's saying that if one party doesn't want to do what they say, then morally they shouldn't enter into the agreement in the first place.