OVER the past few years, a number of people, usually friends involved
one way or another in IT, have asked me about the morality of the use
of unlicensed copies of computer software.
This is, of course, something new to me, because even if I use
computer programs for personal use only and not for profit, I don’t
anymore bother to check whether the software is to be paid for or not
each time I use it.
It’s like reading a book that I may find in some common place. I can
just pick it up, browse and read part or all of it, without having to
check if it has to be paid for or not. Obviously, if it’s a friend’s
book that I would like to take home for a time, then I should ask
permission. But usually, no payment is asked.
We need to clarify the issue more thoroughly. I discovered that the
first law that entitled computer software developers some intellectual
property rights was the 1980 Computer Software Amendment Act of the
United States. Similar laws in other places soon followed.
But these laws at times were too one-sided as they favored the
developers of these products without considering many other factors
that really need to be given due attention and relief.
Like, when new versions come and the users of the previous versions
that now become obsolete and may not be sold anymore suffer some
economic or professional damage because they may have to abandon a
database they have created with the previous versions. These users
should be given some relief.
Or when a developer of a software gains a dominant position in the
market and creates a monopoly, commanding exorbitant prices, in a
field that has become a basic channel for information and
communication. There obviously is a kind of unfairness here, but this
is hardly being addressed up to now.
For sure, we need to distinguish between professional programs used by
banks, big corporations, architectural firms, and non-professional
programs used by students, householders, etc.
Since some of the latter programs are priced too high due perhaps to
the fact that the developer has become a monopolist, some people may
not consider it illicit to make copies for a friend who would use it
not for some lucrative business but for some personal purpose.
We also can distinguish between the new versions and the old ones.
Making copies of the old ones that generally are not sold anymore
should not be a big problem. Anyway, many of these developers make
software with planned or built-in obsolescence for their products.
They should not worry too much if their old products are copied.
Also, we can consider the usual attitude of the police and other
authorities with respect to this issue. They usually are after those
who commit massive frauds, rather than those who make copies that a
single user might give to a friend for personal use.
In all these and given the fact that the whole matter still does not
enjoy very clear and authoritative ethical rules, we should be careful
not to fuss excessively about it, imposing casuistic rules that often
are meant to favor the developers or to confuse and unnecessarily
bother the users.
We have to acknowledge that people have different sensitivities, and
the questions in this field should be raised and tackled in a way that
is respectful of this variety.
If someone feels uncomfortable because he is using programs of unknown
origin, then he can remove such programs. But he should not impose
that rule on the others who feel differently.
This, of course, should not be taken to mean that we are promoting
pure subjectivism here. It’s just that we have to recognize that
people have different levels of knowledge and experience that should
also be taken into consideration when assessing the morality of the
use of unlicensed software.
Obviously, sorting out all the aspects of this issue is still a work
in progress. We need to closely monitor the developments and
controversial situations generated by this issue, and try to resolve
them as promptly and as best we could. All relevant parties should
join hands in this endeavor.
As a tentative final word, we can say that we should not burden the
conscience of those who copy non-professional programs with no
intention of making a profit.
Also, it might be a good idea to inform people on open source
software, since they help restrain monopolistic tendencies of some
developers.
one way or another in IT, have asked me about the morality of the use
of unlicensed copies of computer software.
This is, of course, something new to me, because even if I use
computer programs for personal use only and not for profit, I don’t
anymore bother to check whether the software is to be paid for or not
each time I use it.
It’s like reading a book that I may find in some common place. I can
just pick it up, browse and read part or all of it, without having to
check if it has to be paid for or not. Obviously, if it’s a friend’s
book that I would like to take home for a time, then I should ask
permission. But usually, no payment is asked.
We need to clarify the issue more thoroughly. I discovered that the
first law that entitled computer software developers some intellectual
property rights was the 1980 Computer Software Amendment Act of the
United States. Similar laws in other places soon followed.
But these laws at times were too one-sided as they favored the
developers of these products without considering many other factors
that really need to be given due attention and relief.
Like, when new versions come and the users of the previous versions
that now become obsolete and may not be sold anymore suffer some
economic or professional damage because they may have to abandon a
database they have created with the previous versions. These users
should be given some relief.
Or when a developer of a software gains a dominant position in the
market and creates a monopoly, commanding exorbitant prices, in a
field that has become a basic channel for information and
communication. There obviously is a kind of unfairness here, but this
is hardly being addressed up to now.
For sure, we need to distinguish between professional programs used by
banks, big corporations, architectural firms, and non-professional
programs used by students, householders, etc.
Since some of the latter programs are priced too high due perhaps to
the fact that the developer has become a monopolist, some people may
not consider it illicit to make copies for a friend who would use it
not for some lucrative business but for some personal purpose.
We also can distinguish between the new versions and the old ones.
Making copies of the old ones that generally are not sold anymore
should not be a big problem. Anyway, many of these developers make
software with planned or built-in obsolescence for their products.
They should not worry too much if their old products are copied.
Also, we can consider the usual attitude of the police and other
authorities with respect to this issue. They usually are after those
who commit massive frauds, rather than those who make copies that a
single user might give to a friend for personal use.
In all these and given the fact that the whole matter still does not
enjoy very clear and authoritative ethical rules, we should be careful
not to fuss excessively about it, imposing casuistic rules that often
are meant to favor the developers or to confuse and unnecessarily
bother the users.
We have to acknowledge that people have different sensitivities, and
the questions in this field should be raised and tackled in a way that
is respectful of this variety.
If someone feels uncomfortable because he is using programs of unknown
origin, then he can remove such programs. But he should not impose
that rule on the others who feel differently.
This, of course, should not be taken to mean that we are promoting
pure subjectivism here. It’s just that we have to recognize that
people have different levels of knowledge and experience that should
also be taken into consideration when assessing the morality of the
use of unlicensed software.
Obviously, sorting out all the aspects of this issue is still a work
in progress. We need to closely monitor the developments and
controversial situations generated by this issue, and try to resolve
them as promptly and as best we could. All relevant parties should
join hands in this endeavor.
As a tentative final word, we can say that we should not burden the
conscience of those who copy non-professional programs with no
intention of making a profit.
Also, it might be a good idea to inform people on open source
software, since they help restrain monopolistic tendencies of some
developers.
No comments:
Post a Comment