[DECtalk] decTalk and speech-fx-inc

[Don]

On 7/22/2019 8:44 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
> I’m technically not stealing the software. Stealing is taking something from
> somebody so the original owner no longer has that which was stolen.

You are getting value from that thing, right?  Were you granted permission to
obtain those benefits?  Who are you compensating for that value received?

steal: verb (used with object), stole, sto·len, steal·ing.

- to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right,
   especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

- to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

[snip long attempt at RATIONALIZING theft]

> Copying and
> stealing are two different things. Yes its morally wrong to copy software
> and give it to someone else, but I did not steal it because the developer
> still has his copy, source code, executable, and all.

You are benefiting from someone else's efforts or investment with neither
their consent nor compensation.  They, and they alone, decide who can
use and benefit from their efforts.

Dennis Klatt could have implemented his synthesizer, proudly shown
it to his classmates and thesis adviser.  And, then, locked the design
away in his closet forever.

Had you been one of those people to have seen and heard it before
it was locked away, you would be free to reimplement his idea entirely
on your own.  You could freely use the information he shared with
you -- and anyone else he spoke with -- to come up with YOUR OWN
implementation.  You could then offer your "interpretation" of
Dennis's idea as a commercial product and acrue all of the notoriety
and financial benefits without any issue.

But, if you photographed his prototype, blueprints and source code
listings when he wasn't looking and COPIED his design, you would be
guilty of theft.  He might have trouble prosecuting you for that
theft if he hadn't registered his copyrights on the schematic and
software and had no patentable inventions in the design.  But, that
doesn't change the fact of the matter -- you STOLE something that
wasn't yours.  Even though HE STILL HAS his original copies of the
schematic, software and prototype.

> Will they call it
> stealing when we can manipulate material physical objects and edit those, as
> easily as we copy and edit digital computer files today?

Yes.  Because the original design has value -- it didn't magically
pop into existence.  You are benefiting from that without compensating
the original designer.

Just because it costs very little to COPY something doesn't mean that
the something has very little value.

If you want people to CONTINUE to invest their time and effort into a
technology/invention, then you WANT them to be compensated.  Regardless
of your occupation, I suspect YOU wanted to be paid for YOUR efforts,
right?  If your employer suddenly stopped paying you but expected
you to continue providing those services, how would you feel?
What if he RATIONALIZED not paying you by saying that "business was
bad" and they didn't have the money for your salary?

Why should someone continue to refine something (like DECtalk) just so
folks could STEAL it?  If you thought there was a continued market,
you'd invest your efforts addressing the needs of the people who were
willing to PAY for it.  Or, would repackage it to make counterfeiting
more costly (e.g., sell hardware that embodies the software algorithms
so the thief is forced to buy that hardware or a clone of it -- or,
resort to making one in his basement!)

The fact that you might not be doing this doesn't mean your intellectual
property rights are forfeit.  Ask a lawyer about so-called "abandonware".

Any other interpretation is just rationalization.