"The Pirate's Dilemma" - free e-book

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

May I suggest the book "The Whole Equation" by David Thompson? It's a good read, as well.

I'll look for it (I don't suppose it's in an electronic format?)...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I'll look for it (I don't suppose it's in an electronic format?)...

Sorry, checked ebookmall and amazon (kindle). No e-book available. Used paperback available from under $5 at amazon.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

[pieter]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Businesses are in business to make money, plain and simple. They are not, by their nature or design, charities. You don't blame a business for not being charitable enough, any more than you'd blame a dog for not being able to fly.

Charities get started by people who see a need in one place, a product or service in another that can be applied to that need, and making the effort to connect them through its own channels, including private and public support. In the absence of governments or other organizations, charities step in to satisfy that need. Charities and other organizations are already doing exactly this. Any ineffectiveness on their part is largely due to a lack of private and public support, not on any effort by businesses to stifle their efforts.

So don't blame businesses for not giving their products away to Africa. Blame you, and me, and everyone else, for not buying those drugs ourselves and sending them, or convincing our governments and charities to buy and send them. It does matter whose fault it is. Blame us for ignoring Africa... not IP.

Uhm if I suddenly say that my only goal is to make as much money as a I can does that suddenly stop me being morally responsible? Where is that big moral rule that businesses can't be held morally responsible, just because somebody said their only goal is to make money? Is that part of the same set of dogmas as intellectual property? Businesses are run by people. Actually they are nothing else. Not some mystical entity. And those people have moral obligations when they way they make money means people are dying.

If a medical company has the opportunity to help save thousands of lives, how is that not their moral obligation? Because of intellectual property? Making money is not some God given right even when it means people are dying because you need to make money. Neither is intellectual property a God given right as a necessary tool for a business to keep making money while people are dying.

And you have no idea what I've given for people in Africa, but that doesn't change this medical company's moral obligations. People are dying and we let them in the name of intellectual property. I blame intellectual property for making us ignore Africa. For making us able to hide behind it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

[Walk Broad]

Originally Posted by pieter

Uhm if I suddenly say that my only goal is to make as much money as a I can does that suddenly stop me being morally responsible? Where is that big moral rule that businesses can't be held morally responsible, just because somebody said their only goal is to make money? Is that part of the same set of dogmas as intellectual property? Businesses are run by people. Actually they are nothing else. Not some mystical entity. And those people have moral obligations when they way they make money means people are dying.

If a medical company has the opportunity to help save thousands of lives, how is that not their moral obligation? Because of intellectual property? Making money is not some God given right even when it means people are dying because you need to make money. Neither is intellectual property a God given right as a necessary tool for a business to keep making money while people are dying.

And you have no idea what I've given for people in Africa, but that doesn't change this medical company's moral obligations. People are dying and we let them in the name of intellectual property. I blame intellectual property for making us ignore Africa. For making us able to hide behind it.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but you really need to see the excellent documentary called "The Corporation".

Corporations really are soulless, money grubbing, amoral entities legally created to remove the moral ambiguity of pursuing profit above anything else.

That's why they have nameless, and often faceless, people called stock holders. The corporations sole purpose is to provide a return of investment to stock holders, in fact, in the US, it is a legal requirement.

Once you come to that undestanding, then companies that are the exception to the rule are the ones you can focus to give your support.

It's like the old story about the snake that finally bites the man after the man has helped him: "Well, you knew I was a snake all along. Why are you surprised now that I've bitten and poisoned you?'

[Donnageddon]

::stepping up on Soapbox::

Lot's of great points made here from all perspectives, but I will end that record by adding my opinion.

I can only speak for the U.S., but here corporations are sociopaths. They are sociopaths because they are incapable of doing anything that does not benefit itself. By law they are required to be sociopaths. If a corporation gave 500 million dollars worth of drugs to the poor, without having a stellar claim that the act would be recouped beyond the 500 million dollar giveaway (as an advertisement and public good will enhancing revenue) they would be sued by their shareholders until not a single corporate nameplate remained. And if they discovered a way to make money by killing 1 billion people legally, or conniving property from the public, they must do it! Shareholder value is all that is important!

And, since the 1880's corporations have been considered legal persons in the U.S. Legal persons with no regard for anything but their own benefit.

i.e. sociopaths.

As sociopaths amongst us, they need to be watched carefully and restrained from harming other persons in our society.

When these sociopaths legally have a complete disregard for human life, their actions must be countered. Additionally while fending off the sociopaths, we are not dismissed from our own obligations to do what is right individually and together for the benefit of others.

Should this be done by illegal means, such as piracy? Hopefully not. But remember that when Gandhi marched to the sea to harvest salt, he was breaking the law. Just because it is illegal, does not necessarily make it morally wrong. (And adversly, just because it is legal does not make it morally right).

::jumping down from soapbox::

Did I just compare Gandhi to pirates?

Gosh, I hope not!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Businesses are in business to make money, plain and simple.

Why do you believe that? I know a lot of businesses that have other goals and are only interested in making enough money to satisfy these goals.

[Walk Broad]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you believe that? I know a lot of businesses that have other goals and are only interested in making enough money to satisfy these goals.

It's because you live in Sweden which has a completely different set of rules, laws and culture than the US.

Corporations like Google can get away with the public statement about "Do no evil" because they are consistently turning a healthy profit for their shareholders.

Let that profit diminish and see how long that slogan holds up.

And then see how fast you have a Carl Ichan-type shareholder trying to pull a Yahoo! on them.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Walk Broad

Corporations like Google can get away with the public statement about "Do no evil" because they are consistently turning a healthy profit for their shareholders.

Let that profit diminish and see how long that slogan holds up.

Hopefully it holds up...

But all businesses are not corporations and all businesses do not have share holders.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you believe that? I know a lot of businesses that have other goals and are only interested in making enough money to satisfy these goals.

In the U.S., we call those "non-profit organizations." They are very different entities from for-profit businesses. And they rarely make products that are competitive with other products... if they "make" anything tangible at all.

[Walk Broad]

Originally Posted by tompe

Hopefully it holds up...

But all businesses are not corporations and all businesses do not have share holders.

True, but here in the US at least, we tend to use the terms interchangeably.

Which is why there are probably businesses out there who do just what you suggest, but very few corporations.

Businesses are free if they are a sole proprietership or partnership, maybe even an LLC (Limited Liability Company), to engage in "kinder, gentler" business practices. But even those kinds of businesses tend to lean philosophically toward the model of the corporation.

And again, I am only speaking from my own personal American citizen/business observer point of view.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

In the U.S., we call those "non-profit organizations." They are very different entities from for-profit businesses. And they rarely make products that are competitive with other products... if they "make" anything tangible at all.

I had to chuckle about this post <G>. Microsoft Corp., one of our "premier" for-profit software-producing entities, makes products that are inferior to many of the "free" alternatives. BSD, for example, blows Windows away in terms of stability, reliability, and of course- cost. I administer numerous BSD, Windows, and Linux servers- ALL of my BSD machines have been up for over a year now. Windows? Well, I have managed to keep a few going for 6 months without reboot.

Apache? Runs over half the world's web servers. Also free. Goes to show that the "for-profit" model may not be working so well in the software world.

And while everyone is talking about protecting the rights of the content-distributors, you might remember that one of the greatest writers of the last century- Philip K. Dick- made only $15K during his BEST year! Do you think his publishers profits only amounted to 15K that year? I don't think the profits usually end up in the artists' wallets.....

[Donnageddon]

And if you read Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line, he makes a convincing argument that MS does not produce anything tangible either. (XBox excluded)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Goes to show that the "for-profit" model may not be working so well in the software world.

Well, it certainly shows that the size of the corporation does not necessarily correspond to the value of their product. However, Micro$oft's products notwithstanding, the for-profit model does work in the software world overall.

Don't forget, many of the open-source developers make their living from companies that do pay them, and make a profit from their work. Many of those people, if not so employed, would not be developing open-source products... or their products would not benefit from the resources at their disposal, and therefore might be inferior to what they develop now.

By the way: Finished the book.