It was a counterexample. The point was to show that the argument was bad because a parallel argument was obviously flawed, not to show anything about witchcraft.

John Stuart Mill wrote "On Liberty," but you were close! He was also a British utilitarian, right after Locke.

It's actually "ethicist," because the english language is phun like that. Wouldn't point it out but you did mangle it twice.




Plenty of ethicists have argued that stealing is sometimes ethically permissable (whether they succeded or not is another matter). Contemporary utilitarians come first to mind, though I don't think utilitarianism has much going for it.



Gonna agree with Dagnev here and offer a reply to that counterargument. Water's handed out freely. Public fountains, rain. That doesn't mean it has no value. A case of Aquafina still costs money to distill, produce, package, make available, etc. Clearly if I liberated my local grocery store's entire water isle I'd be guilty of theft. So, that a substitute for something is freely available is not a sufficient condition for it having no value. In an interesting parallel, it does seem rediculous to pay a dollar (or four at a concert) for a few hundred milliliters of something that covers most of the planet.

Yes, I am a philosophy major. Nothing personal, I just like ethics and analyzing arguments.

Personally, I think that intellectual property rights (and all property rights in the sense of owning capital) are the expression of class interests. Today's technology allows basically free reproduction of information, and that's going to continue to create problems for producers. No, I'm not a communist, though it would be nice if I were. I could wear a beret and Organize. I just took a good Marxism course.

Is pirating morally wrong? I don't know.

Does pirating have deleterious economic effects? Question of fact, and the original topic I think. Accurate, unbiased sources anyone?

What you are paying for in the bottle of water isn't the water itself, but rather the bottling, treating, branding, and marketing process surrounding the water. Bottled water has added value; it is substantially different from 'regular' water. Windows does not have added value outside the ability to run Windows-only applications and proprietary codecs licensed by Microsoft, hence the operating system itself (IE, the code) has no value by itself. I wouldn't pay for Windows if it didn't have that added value, and that added value isn't the consequence of anything but Microsoft's own monopoly.


I'd say it is, but that varies according to circumstance and most importantly, it's not as immoral as actually stealing something.

It probably does, but those don't actually trickle down to buyers or even to developers.

...Verithrax you cheap turd, just get a job and buy stuff like the rest of us...







((This looks like quite an interesting thread. Unfortunately, I'm on my lunch hour and don't have time to read it, so I thought I'd just offer some harmless trolling.))

Duuude, I paid so much money on my copy of The Sims.

Granted, I'm not a chump - I didn't buy boxed WinXP.

I got one of the numerous Guys I Know to get an OEM license.

Stop with the silly witchcraft example you pulled out of your ass, Verithrax. It's distracting the witches.

Microsoft has managed to gain a HUGE market share in the desktop OS market. As Verithrax has said, this makes it a problem for both developers and consumers, since they both suffer a hardship by switching, unless they both switch at approximately the same time, in sufficient mass, which is highly unlikely. Neither wants to take the hit and do it first. Any discussion of the actual value of Microsoft Windows has to take this fact into account.

Name one thing MS Windows can do a competing OS can't, that isn't a consequence of:

1) Patent-encumbered proprietary formats.

2) Microsoft's ill-gotten market share.

3) Patent-encumbered, proprietary, or otherwise unsupported hardware.

Then you may say something of value is shipped with Windows. The way I see it, the most valuable data in a copy of Windows is Space Cadet Pinball and that David Byrne song they used to (Don't think they still do it) bundle with the OS to help you test Windows Media.

Which country Verithrax...

And even if you are, you are obviously removed from the poor class, because you know English enough to correct my spellings and such, and since there are no third world countries where English is the primary language...

You also seem to have the money, and a job, to pay for all the stuff you have bought legally, and you seem to have some form of education. Anyways...

About your response to the articles are FUD, I will use that as an an indicator that any real accomplishment in arguing with you would be akin to me banging my head against a wall, because you have shut your mind off, and only listen to the voices that agree with you.

Arguing with you leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, because all you do is spew propaganda of conspiracy machines about how Microsoft is evil. You know what, out of all the low corporate tactics of today, I think Microsoft is the least evil.

Theft is wrong, you know it. That is why you spend so much time trying to defend your idea that this form of theft is nto theft at all. You can tell a bear he aint a bear all you want, that bear is still a bear.

Lastly, if Linux was accessible to the average computer user, it would get used, Firefox is accessible, people use it. Linux, Unix, whatever, is not. The community is viscious to new users who do not know everything about the OS, so getting help is a pain in the ass, and that is where I give up.

If you think windows has no value, then obviously you have no need for it at all and shouldn't be pirating it either.

while an OS makes it money more on big companies rather then individual users (and thus aren't that greatly harmed by piracy), companies like gaming ones don't make their money on companies and can thus be destroyed by piracy. I you use something, and it costs money you pay for it, if you don't want to pay for it and nobody else pays it for you, then go to a free alternative. All essential things about a computer can be done on free software.


It is infact accessible to everyone that can read a book with the title 'for dummies'

and I have been a VIP and gold member to mandriva for 5 years, and I like to believe we are very newbie friendly.


That being said microsoft also donates money to third world countries (and large sums), fourth world cases and general computer education. They are hardly evil.

That's not true.

I have never had a problem which I didn't find an answer for on various forums.

The 2 reasons why most people don't use it are that games (or specific business software) are being made for windows only, or that they are simply used to Windows and have never heard or seen there is a working alternative (or are victims of propaganda, like the one you are spreading right here).

Of course, I wouldn't call Microsoft evil either, as a company it is doing what's best for it. Morality or ethics rarely have any significant impact on business.

Linux is newbie friendly to other people who have endless amounts of time to fiddle with their computer.

As for a chicken and egg problem, I call B.S.

Mac has increased market share, more and more developers have to make Mac compatible software, because the market demands it. There were quite a few jobs I got turned down for because I didn't have Mac development experience.

Google is another example, where a better product with all the other right factors, replaced the older "standards" and is now the new standard.

As for "Accurate, unbiased sources" apparently no such things exist, because when they were brought up, others accused them of either not being accurate or not being unbiased. All information on the financial status of a company is going to be such information.







That right there is the problem. You think the forums is a good medium to get questions answered. For most people, its likely the worst way to get questions answered.... since you need a computer to read the forums!

Maybe if the Linux community had a hot-line and offered the opportunity for people to call up and have a tech guy come over, they would have a larger market share. Oh but wait, you have to pay people to do those jobs.... Hmmm, funny that.

Anisu:

If you think windows has no value, then obviously you have no need for it at all and shouldn't be pirating it either.

while an OS makes it money more on big companies rather then individual users (and thus aren't that greatly harmed by piracy), companies like gaming ones don't make their money on companies and can thus be destroyed by piracy.

Let me clarify myself (Although, I would like to restate, I legally own my copy of Windows):
Windows, as an OS, has no value to me. The particular very long number which when read by an x86 or x86_64 machine allows it to speak to Windows software and to do the things Windows by itself can do, has no value for me. In fact, it has negative value - I would pay to be able to get rid of it.

The Windows product, which is a pretty CD, jewel case, manual, license, Microsoft bundled software, media and such, has a value, but that value is at least two orders of magnitude inferior to what it costs.

What has value, to me, is what I call the 'Windows Gateway'. That is not created by programmers or marketers or content providers or licensers at Microsoft, but rather by a market that is choked by a Microsoft-owned, Microsoft-enforced monopoly. It consists of the ability to buy and operate games created exclusively for Windows, and (For some other people) the ability to run applications and drivers created exclusively for Windows, and the ability to use the only computing environment they are aware of and have understanding of. Sure we have another alternative in Apple, but Apples cost twice as much and so we can't seriously consider them - They're expensive, shiny toys for people with money to burn or who actually need the things MacOS provides, like iLife. MacOS X could provide me with something equivalent to the Windows gateway, but Apple doesn't seem interested in selling their OS to me as software, or to sell their hardware to me at prices comparable to cheap PC hardware.

The fundamental difference between a game and an application or OS is simply that the game isn't just code; it's also content. You can argue that an OS has some content, but that content is functional and has laughable value, not to mention that the content included with Windows XP (Its art, icons, and such) is overwhelmingly ugly compared to what amateurs have been providing on the Internet for free. Not to mention that the code of a game has value, since a well-designed game is unique, and no free alternative of it exists, although there can be several different games which are essentially the same thing on the market at any give ntime.

daganev:

Linux is newbie friendly to other people who have endless amounts of time to fiddle with their computer.

In any switch, there is an expected time to be spent learning things over again. The thing is, that makes economic sense to a lot of people.

As for a chicken and egg problem, I call B.S.

Mac has increased market share, more and more developers have to make Mac compatible software, because the market demands it. There were quite a few jobs I got turned down for because I didn't have Mac development experience.

Google is another example, where a better product with all the other right factors, replaced the older "standards" and is now the new standard.

That's not due to OS X's inherent superiority, but rather to Apple's excellent marketing practices. I would consider OS X to be about on par with Linux in some things, worse off in some things, and better in some things right now, but they can't, and won't, challenge the Microsoft monopoly. The reason is that they're a hardware company offering software as a selling point, and don't really want to move out of their niche of people with money to burn and a shiny fetish. What Linux needs is probably just a large VAR with money to spend on designing pretty cases and getting good actors to make funny but skewed metaphors on network television.

The cost to switch to Google from AltaVista or Yahoo is zero. You don't have any things you can do on Yahoo you can't do on Google; you don't pay either one; you don't have to relearn anything to use a different search engine, unless you're absolutely retarded and can't find the search box without parental guidance. There is no barrier to switching in the search engine market.

As for "Accurate, unbiased sources" apparently no such things exist, because when they were brought up, others accused them of either not being accurate or not being unbiased. All information on the financial status of a company is going to be such information.

Pretty much. Welcome to real life. Try the misery, I hear it's specially savoury this year.

That right there is the problem. You think the forums is a good medium to get questions answered. For most people, its likely the worst way to get questions answered.... since you need a computer to read the forums!

Most computer trouble does not disable computer or internet access.

Maybe if the Linux community had a hot-line and offered the opportunity for people to call up and have a tech guy come over, they would have a larger market share. Oh but wait, you have to pay people to do those jobs.... Hmmm, funny that.

Quick research has found that such services are not only available, they are also cheaper and better than the support you get from a Microsoft license. Also, they're tech support for EVERYTHING that your Linux distribution supports officially - Usually that means that, for less than the cost of a MS license, you can get tech support for your OS, your applications that came with it, and possibly even your hardware. Also, many users have a tech support hot-line provided for free - We call it the International Geek Friend Conspiracy.

Ok, lets repeat this Verithrax... MICROSOFT DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY stop saying it does.

Oh, and I suggest cleaning up your post, I couldn't read most of it, but I caught that you kept saying monopoly.

Okay, let's repeat this Bogota... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SIGHT stop saying there is.

ETA: Blame Invision, which restricts the amount of quotes I can have in a post. In fact, doing a double post works fine as the two are concatenated, but then I edited the post and it screwed it.

Verithrax... Microsoft does not have a monopoly... I know this because of the very anti Microsoft mac owner currently sitting next to me. I also know this because of the numerous Sun Micro systems labs, Mac labs, and Unix labs at the university I went to. Then there is the IBM OS2 which I believe you can still purchase.

If Microsoft had a monopoly, I would not currently be using Firefox to respond to this post. Do you know what monopoly means?

Are you folks STILL arguing that it's ok to steal as long as the person/company you're stealing from is rich?

Verithrax, I'll be happy to edit your post for you to make it readable if you want. Its really not that difficult. Restrictions are supposed to bread creativity, not laziness.

Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. It is a monopoly because it is the sole provider of the ability to run certain software, which is a consequence of the monopoly it has been holding since the early days of the IBM PC. It has even more of a monopoly on OSes for PCs than Apple has on OSes for Macs. Microsoft has created a market monoculture that, if left unchecked, basically allows them to profit without actually producing value for years on end.

I do, but you apparently don't. A monopoly on desktop operating systems does not entail a monopoly on browser technology and, in fact, Microsoft effectively had the latter for years by leveraging the former (And got an antitrust lawsuit for its troubles).

To put it another way: If DeBeers has a monopoly, I would not currently be wearing LVMH jewelry.


Get a job at Invision and fix it yourself. I already spend enough time writing, I don't want to deal with the limitations of shitty proprietary software so that some people who are only barely literate can parse through my posts. Line breaks and tags are sufficient.

What he means is that microsoft has made arrangements that certain codecs may only be used on a windows operating platform. (like .wma) this is not that suprising since apple iTunes has codecs that can only be used by itunes for example. This has been convicted by a European court now and microsoft has released the codecs so wma can be played in other media players.

It's funny how Verithrax however uses 'games' and 'incompatible hardware' as two examples. Games are ofcourse developed for windows because the market for linux is to small to warrant it (several gaming companies have tried like maxis -now EA games-, and it failed they never got the coding hours paid back) this is not because microsoft goes and pays all gaming companies or something, nor does windows threaten to nolonger send them code for support in windows. This has to do with the fact of these gaming companies are wanting profit too. Likewise HP has sold computers preinstalled with linux and this too was not succesfull.

You will now also see that with the increased popularity many games also come out on macs (and the new macos works on any computer), an example is World of Warcraft.


Verithrax, windows support desk is free in most countries (in belgium it's a 0800 number, completely free)

Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Any program you can get for windows you can get an equivalent program for the mac OS or Linux. At least thats what the Linux guys keep telling me.

Don't want to pay money for Flash, get OpenLazlo, don't like Photoshop? Get Gimp.

As for file formats... give me a break, every company has a monopoly on their own file formats if they so choose. You can't open up a Lotus 1 2 3 file unless you have a copy of Lotus 1 2 3, or have a program that Lotus made a deal with.

LVMH makes Jewlery, DeBeers makes diamonds. Macs don't use Windows to build macs off of, nor does Unix or Sun Microsystems.

and for games there is cedega! (what it's not because it's something you must pay that it's not linuxy)