F
Fox
Guest
Venial because it isn’t grave for these big companies.
- Status
S
slywakka250
Guest
even though the software in question may be sold for hundreds of dollars?
F
Fox
Guest
These companies are faceless, moneymongers that gouge the common man.
D
didymus
Guest
Twelve years? What kind of machine was it? A 486? I can still remember when I traded in my 286 for for a 486, running Windows 3.1 instead of **DOS. **And a 14.4 modem – VRROOOOMMMM!!!
And of course the modem was for visiting BBSes, not cruising the internet.
L
Listener
Guest
Back in the 1950’s when I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism, I was taught the following: Breaking a secular law is not a sin unless the law covers something that is against one of God’s commandments. You would want to obey secular laws because of what would happen if you got caught. During prohibition, when Grandma made a little wine in her basement, was she commiting a sin?
Let me explain. If you were going 90 miles an hour down the freeway of a big city, it might be a sin because you are endangering the lives of the people around you. This would be included in the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” You can even find that endangering the lives of others in a car is specified as a sin in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, suppose you were driving down a freeway in the middle of Montana. There were no other cars on the road. Let’s say there is a barrier so there is no danger that a deer will run across the street. In that case, you would not be guilty of a sin if you felt like going 90. You would, however, have to pay the fine if you got caught. This might be enough to prevent you from going 90 - it’s your choice.
As far as software is concerned, since when does Microsoft have the authority to tell us what is a sin and what is not a sin regarding their software? Assuming that we didn’t break into a store and steal the software that we put on our computers, why is it any of Microsoft’s business how many of our computers that we put the software on? We paid for it, didn’t we?
Now, I’m personally not recommending doing this, since Microsoft will figure out a way to fine you if they catch you. I’m just having trouble understanding why this would necessarily be a sin.
Another question is, what about software that you bought in a second hand store? You wouldn’t have a clue how many computers this software has been on. You wouldn’t know whether or not the person who originally owned it had uninstalled it or not. And if it was for Windows 3.1 (or maybe even Windows 98) even Microsoft wouldn’t care any more.
Let me explain. If you were going 90 miles an hour down the freeway of a big city, it might be a sin because you are endangering the lives of the people around you. This would be included in the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” You can even find that endangering the lives of others in a car is specified as a sin in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, suppose you were driving down a freeway in the middle of Montana. There were no other cars on the road. Let’s say there is a barrier so there is no danger that a deer will run across the street. In that case, you would not be guilty of a sin if you felt like going 90. You would, however, have to pay the fine if you got caught. This might be enough to prevent you from going 90 - it’s your choice.
As far as software is concerned, since when does Microsoft have the authority to tell us what is a sin and what is not a sin regarding their software? Assuming that we didn’t break into a store and steal the software that we put on our computers, why is it any of Microsoft’s business how many of our computers that we put the software on? We paid for it, didn’t we?
Now, I’m personally not recommending doing this, since Microsoft will figure out a way to fine you if they catch you. I’m just having trouble understanding why this would necessarily be a sin.
Another question is, what about software that you bought in a second hand store? You wouldn’t have a clue how many computers this software has been on. You wouldn’t know whether or not the person who originally owned it had uninstalled it or not. And if it was for Windows 3.1 (or maybe even Windows 98) even Microsoft wouldn’t care any more.
S
slywakka250
Guest
yea i’m wondering about that to.
T
Thea
Guest
nope, 386. I started off with a 286 in Tucson, AZ.
F
FuzzyBunny116
Guest
We had our OS installed from another’s disk. Is that alright?
Hmm, looking at all the posts. Sounds way too much lik a mortal sin :/.
It was 2000 pro.
As far as music, I downloaded a lot, because it seems to me that since I wasn’t going to buy it anyway, whats the big deal?
Hmm, looking at all the posts. Sounds way too much lik a mortal sin :/.
It was 2000 pro.
As far as music, I downloaded a lot, because it seems to me that since I wasn’t going to buy it anyway, whats the big deal?
M
MaryAgnes
Guest
Kristina P.:
For example: If someone steals a some of money so that he/she can feed their starving family … is it a sin? If so, is it mortal or venial?
Another: Killing is a grave evil act. But what about killing in self-defense? Sin? Mortal or venial?
Kristina … you are very bright (and correct)! Although we can judge an act as good or bad or grave matter. However, without reading the heart of the “sinner” we cannot judge the action to be mortal or venial–that implies a degree of culpability…
For example: If someone steals a some of money so that he/she can feed their starving family … is it a sin? If so, is it mortal or venial?
Another: Killing is a grave evil act. But what about killing in self-defense? Sin? Mortal or venial?
M
MaryAgnes
Guest
So now you know … you have a choice to make.
M
MaryAgnes
Guest
So culpability depends upon WHO you steal from? It sounds like you are saying because the company you are stealing from is a theif (of sorts) your culpability is less?
Would you then say that it is a venial sin to kill an abortionist?
Your logic is why people still believe capital punishment is okay!
I think software “piracy” is judgable only under copyright law, and not moral law. The acquisition and use of “pirated” software is simply a natural consequence of the law of supply and demand. Much demand, much supply (due to copying technology), hence low prices. SImple economics.
Using pirated software is not stealing per se, because you took nothing away from the company. You only used something they wanted you to pay for (hence illegal), but your use of the illegal copy and not using any copy at all makes no financial difference to the company; they gained nothing more from you. You did not take anything away from them. Because of that, they’re no poorer than they were to start with. They like to use words like “piracy” and “stealing” to instill the guilt factor, when in fact, none of these is taking place. This is because you are not paying for the software; you are paying for a “license” to use the software (license=permission). But the license is an abstraction, and exists only because of copyright law. If copyright law were to cease, then licenses mean nothing. What is effectively happenning therefore is that you’re simply using something without permission from the entity recognized by law. You’re not stealing anything at all.
People always go for the best bang for the buck. That’s life in the capitalist system. If the publishers can’t adapt to changing technology, that’s their problem. Consumers always have the right to the best products at the lowest price. If the software companies want to enforce their rights under the law, the burden is on them to implement whatever security mechanisms they think are appropriate, and have recourse to any relief they can get under the law. They will have this right under civil law, not moral.
That said, I believe there is nothing inherently wrong about copying and using illegal software. However, the copying and use of software is STILL governed by legitimate civil law. It is the violation of a legitimate law (use without permission) that may bear culpability, but not the act of copying itself (the original copy for which you’re not paying anyway, in any case).
That’s why I primarily use Linux and other Open-source software. I’d hate to get raided.
Using pirated software is not stealing per se, because you took nothing away from the company. You only used something they wanted you to pay for (hence illegal), but your use of the illegal copy and not using any copy at all makes no financial difference to the company; they gained nothing more from you. You did not take anything away from them. Because of that, they’re no poorer than they were to start with. They like to use words like “piracy” and “stealing” to instill the guilt factor, when in fact, none of these is taking place. This is because you are not paying for the software; you are paying for a “license” to use the software (license=permission). But the license is an abstraction, and exists only because of copyright law. If copyright law were to cease, then licenses mean nothing. What is effectively happenning therefore is that you’re simply using something without permission from the entity recognized by law. You’re not stealing anything at all.
People always go for the best bang for the buck. That’s life in the capitalist system. If the publishers can’t adapt to changing technology, that’s their problem. Consumers always have the right to the best products at the lowest price. If the software companies want to enforce their rights under the law, the burden is on them to implement whatever security mechanisms they think are appropriate, and have recourse to any relief they can get under the law. They will have this right under civil law, not moral.
That said, I believe there is nothing inherently wrong about copying and using illegal software. However, the copying and use of software is STILL governed by legitimate civil law. It is the violation of a legitimate law (use without permission) that may bear culpability, but not the act of copying itself (the original copy for which you’re not paying anyway, in any case).
That’s why I primarily use Linux and other Open-source software. I’d hate to get raided.
B
Batman
Guest
I don’t know if its a sin, but its certainly a crime…
http://www.dikoplanet.com/Sfondi_Pc/Batman Lights.jpg%between%
http://www.dikoplanet.com/Sfondi_Pc/Batman Lights.jpg%between%
Let me extend my previous post.
Along the same lines is the fact that end-user license agreements that come with popular packages, such as MS Windows and MS Office expressly prohibit the installation and execution on more than one computer at a time. There is, however, no built-in enforcement for many of these packages (Windows XP is a notable exception that comes to mind).
Is it a mortal sin to install on multiple PC’s? You’re doing something illegal, but is it “stealing”? I seriously don’t think so. In fact, for me, it seems excessively restrictive, and, dare I say it, greedy.
Again, I think a lot rides on that fact that you don’t buy software. You buy a license.
Along the same lines is the fact that end-user license agreements that come with popular packages, such as MS Windows and MS Office expressly prohibit the installation and execution on more than one computer at a time. There is, however, no built-in enforcement for many of these packages (Windows XP is a notable exception that comes to mind).
Is it a mortal sin to install on multiple PC’s? You’re doing something illegal, but is it “stealing”? I seriously don’t think so. In fact, for me, it seems excessively restrictive, and, dare I say it, greedy.
Again, I think a lot rides on that fact that you don’t buy software. You buy a license.
D
didymus
Guest
So rather than “stealing” you’re committing breach of contract, which is what the End User License Agreement is.
If you pay for alicense for one PC and then install it on ten, you are still robbing the company because you ought to have gone back and bought additional licenses.
It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise honest people can come up with rationalisations for their own pet petty thefts. For some it’s “working under the table” or pilfering from their workplace. But first place for intellectual castles in the sky goes to the software pirates :tiphat:
No need to get nasty. I said I use open-source software. Not a cent of my money is going to Microsoft.
However, you’re only confirming what I wrote. The crime is breach of contract, not theft. Of course, it’s illegal and should not be done.
I would not go so far as to say mortal sin though. You need to go back and buy additional licenses because it’s required by civil law, which governs your agreement.
However, if you believe it’s sinful in the US, is it sinful in France? Because in France, it’s not illegal to use “pirated” software or other material for personal use.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
Most likely, the original owner of the software quit using that particular program years ago as well. Not legal at the beginning, but ok on a technicality as soon as the other copy quit being used.
No, you didn’t. You paid for a license to use one instance of the software, as the installation program reminds you every time you try to install it. You have about as much of a legal right to copy it at will as you do to copy and distribute a textbook or music album in its entirety.
So long as you have the license certificate / the original disks, you are perfectly safe buying used software - that’s your “proof” you are the license-holder. It is the previous owner(s) who are in hot water for not following the terms of the license about transferring ownership of that license.
W
wOoKiE
Guest
I disagree with all of you.
It wasn’t my choice to live in a society that has Operating systems, microsoft office (open office doesnt open on anyone elses pc) graphic manipulation programs etc as indispensable (they are in my line of study).
Not only are they indispensable but they are ridiculously expensive and overpriced, self-perpetuating (the more microsoft stuff you have, the more updates and new versions you’ll need to buy at some stage) and make millionaires out of people who would enslave us with their creations given the chance.
As a penniless student I (and every other student in my uni) have no reasonable choice but to obtain software any way we can. When I am gainfully employed, I will buy the software I need, despite my misgivings about who the money goes to. I seriously doubt the Good Lord would send an otherwise devout and non-thieving person to hell for not lining Bill Gate’s pockets with more billions.
That goes for all the other money grabbing corporations out there.
It wasn’t my choice to live in a society that has Operating systems, microsoft office (open office doesnt open on anyone elses pc) graphic manipulation programs etc as indispensable (they are in my line of study).
Not only are they indispensable but they are ridiculously expensive and overpriced, self-perpetuating (the more microsoft stuff you have, the more updates and new versions you’ll need to buy at some stage) and make millionaires out of people who would enslave us with their creations given the chance.
As a penniless student I (and every other student in my uni) have no reasonable choice but to obtain software any way we can. When I am gainfully employed, I will buy the software I need, despite my misgivings about who the money goes to. I seriously doubt the Good Lord would send an otherwise devout and non-thieving person to hell for not lining Bill Gate’s pockets with more billions.
That goes for all the other money grabbing corporations out there.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
A better question is. Is it grave matter to pirate software? I would say yes…it is
- Status