>This seems to say two things. First, right and wrong are determined by
>whether or not someone loses money.
Absolutely NOT! In this particular case, the only way someone can get hurt
is if they lose money. I can't think of any other way they'd get hurt.
Everywere I said "lose money", replace it with "gets hurt, loses something,
or is damaged in someway or another". That's what makes something wrong.
In the case I'm talking about, the "hurt, loss, damage" part is when they
lose money. You're not saying that losing money ISN'T wrong are you?
>What a horrible definition of right
>and wrong! Possibly an accurate representation of 1990's morality, but
>Second, it says that it is not wrong to break, ignore, defy, the law whenever
>you don't agree with it. I though Socrates put that one to rest (with his
>life) a couple of millenia ago.
It's not whether or not we -agree- with the law, it's whether or not the
law is right or wrong. I don't know about you, but I don't lose sleep
over breaking an imm*law. For example, Soviet Citizens breaking the
law by printing Bibles in underground printing presses. Sure, breaking the
law is one thing, but when the law is wrong, or pointless, I don't lose
any sleep over breaking it. Of course, copying old, unsupported games isn't
the same as copying Bibles in cummunist countries, but the point is the same.
Laws don't define right and wrong. They can be a good guideline, but they're
not the definition of right and wrong.
Laws have loopholes where people can get by with doing what the law intends
for them to not do. Conversely, since the wording of laws can't cover every
possible scenario, there are instances where the wording may make some things
illegal that the spirit of the law didn't intend and I think that copying
these old programs is a good example of that... an 'anti-loophole' :)
I seriously doubt that any of the old companies would object to you copying
their old software, especially, considering the company isn't around anymore.
And if the copyright falls to the programmer that made it, and you can't
find out who it is, I doubt that he/she would object to it either. I'm a
programmer. I've got an old game I wrote back in high school. I'm the only
one with a copy of it, but if I had published it, closed my company, and
joe blow from East BumbleFlock found a copy of it and couldn't find me, I'd
have absolutely no objection to him copying it. I'd even encourage it.
In one (maybe more) state, (I forgot which), *sex is against the law.
It's an OOOLD law that has never been changed. Now, is it wrong for a
married couple to have *sex in Tennessee, but not some other state just
because some scenile old men in a self-righteous society wrote down on a
piece of paper that it's against the law? Are these people bad people for
breaking the law? You say people should respect the law. That's a miniscule
law. I'm not defending or promoting *sex, but does anyone have any right
telling you how you can or can't make love to your own spouse?
I'm not saying people should break the law whenever they disagree with it.
But when the law is one such as this, when not a single being is hurt from
it, nothing bad becomes of it, good actually comes FROM it, it's not a big
deal, I don't see anything wrong with breaking it. Breaking the speed limit
is probably worse than breaking this law and cops, judges, lawers, whatever,
could care less if you broke the law by driving a little over 55.
Copying an old game made by a company that doesn't exist anymore is harmless.
That's the point I'm trying to make. REGARDLESS of what the law says, I'm
talking about the actual act of it. The law could be anything, but it's
still harmless. Now, if you feel that breaking the law is wrong because it's
breaking the law, well that's another story.
What you're saying then is the act of breaking the law is wrong. Regardless
of what the law is. That's seperate from what the action actually is. Laws
can come and go. The action stays the same. If it's right once, it's right
when the law changes. Although, some people believe that breaking the law
is a m*offence, regardless of the action, it's just the act of breaking
the law that you consider immoral. I don't necessarily agree with that, but
that's another issue. What I'm talking about is the act of copying old,
defunct software from old defunct companies. That's not wrong. At the
same time, you may (or may not) be breaking the law, which some would say
is wrong. But if it IS wrong (it isn't) then that doesn't make the actual
act of copying the game wrong. There are two things going on here:
1. copying the game.
2. breaking the law.
#1 isn't wrong. #2 may or may not be wrong. I'm not debating #2. If you
really want to debate #2, I'd be happy to (in e-mail).
Quote:>If you don't like a law, fight to get it changed. But I can not accept the
>idea that it is either morally right or morally neutral to defy the law. You
>can always move to where the laws are different. But having or not having
>respect for the law _is_ a m*issue in itself.
As I said, defying the law isn't what I'm talking about. Doing another act,
which may or may not result in the breaking of a law is the issue. Forget
the law for a second. Look at the actual issue. Is it or isn't it wrong.
If it happens to be against the law, well, that's another issue that each
person has to deal with seperately.
Some people CANNOT move to where the laws are different. Having respect
for the law may or may not be a m*issue. I don't think it is. Having
respect for what's right and what's wrong is much more important. If people
respected the law and not morality, we'd be no better off than China. It's
law breakers, such as the student protesters in Tienaman square, the
Boston Tea Party participants, the US citizens that refused to pay taxes
to the King of England, and the like that have made America what it is.
(National Anthem playing in the background:) It's a black woman refusing
to give up her seat on a bus. She broke the law because the law was WRONG.
Are you saying that she had no respect for the law? She didn't have respect
for laws that are wrong and neither do I. Even in 1992 there are laws that
are wrong. I'll fight them and at the same time, I may break some of them.
Am I wrong in doing so? I don't think so.
Back to the software issue:
If I'm sitting here in my bedroom and a friend comes in with an old game
that the company has long been gone and the law says I can't copy it and I
really like it, I'm not going to abide by some superficial idea that the
law says I can't so I shouldn't. Here I am with a game in one hand, and
CopyII+ in the other. The company's gone. Why shouldn't I copy it? Who
does it hurt? What makes it wrong? Why is it against the law? What good
does it do me or society to NOT copy it? It's not something I'd buy anyway,
because I CAN'T.
Laws are made to prevent people from invading the rights of others or to
prevent the destruction of 'things'. That's they're sole intent. In some
very specific situations, the law, unintentionally, goes out of these bounds.
If I were a pre-programmed robot with no sense of right or wrong, other than
pre-programmed laws, I'd have no trouble following orders, but I'm not a
robot. I can think for myself. I know what's right and what's wrong.
I don't follow old geasers' around like a lost sheep. If, for some reason,
a situation comes up where I can't decide what's right or what's wrong,
I'll turn to the law. Most things I decide for myself that are right are
also legal, but there are a few circumstaces, such as this, where the law
may say otherwise. I'll usually follow the law. But, I'm not ashamed to
admit that I break the law by going over 55 or by copying old games.
I'm sure I break the law other times that I'm not even aware of, such as
turning right on red in Georgia. My actions may not be immoral, but they
may very well be agasint the law. If I know the law, I respect it. Just
because I have the ability to decide for myself what's right and wrong,
doesn't mean I don't respect the law. But one thing I don't respect is
scenile old men imposing more and more restrictions on me in the country
that's supposed to be the leader of the free world, but I'm getting WAAAYY
off topic here. I could go on and on (and I have) but I think I'll do what's
right and stop here (even though it's not against the law to waste bandwidth,
it's still wrong).