Guest Editorial

FidoCop - a netmail response
Douglas Myers, 1:270/720, doug@mdtnbbs.com

I'd like to thank the readers of Fidonews who have seen fit to correspond with me on the articles I write for Fidonews. It's encouraging to find out there are more than six people reading, so I try to reply to each message. I'd like to share this correspondence with Amir Shabashvili of Russia concerning the article last week. He disagrees with me, but he's especially polite about it, and eloquent in presenting his own point of view.

---- extract of a netmail reply to Mr. Shabashvili

AS> I think I got you point. let me reply on only sentence from your
AS> excellent article:

DM> For Fidonet sysops to act against an individual who has
DM> possibly broken the law would essentially be an act of
DM> vigilantism, itself against the law.

AS> You talking in context of Andreas Klein's letter connected with
AS> Ward's decision on well-known there in 2:R50 conflict between FTN
AS> software developer and network member who illegally used mailer
AS> software (Ravel for Mac). (Just for info, Ravel isn't commercial
AS> or shareware soft, it is free, but licensed software. Ever more,
AS> there are 2 versions: first - absolutely free, with usial free
AS> license, and second (advanced), for using it you need to ask
AS> author's permission and receive (free!) key.)

You've got the context right. From what you describe, I'm doubly surprised:

1. Surprised that licensing got to be an issue with the user, since he didn't have to pay any money to use the advanced version, and
2. That the developer would insist on licensing which he essentially gives away anyway.

AS> As far as I know, author asked other side to stop unlicensed
AS> usage of his software and got in reply something like "go to
AS> hell", + some abuse lines in the local pointlist was placed. Do
AS> you think, it must be normal behavior (except abuse stuff)? I
AS> think not.

Many of the arguments in Fidonet seem driven more by testosterone levels than by standards of behavior. This seems little different.

AS> I think, the normal would be to stop usage of unlicensed software
AS> and install free version. There are a lot of free FTN software
AS> appears in last the years, no problemo with that, ever for Mac
AS> (Mac is very exotic computer in 2:R50).

AS> Behavior like described above lead us to author's copywrite and
AS> local laws violation (remember,Policy4 told us "2.1.1 <...> and
AS> do not promote or participate in the distribution of pirated
AS> copyrighted software or other illegal behavior via FidoNet"), but
AS> as for me, moral aspect of the problem is more important.

I view the section of policy which you quote to mean that one should not use Fido as a means of carrying on an illegal activity, not as an excuse to use Fido as a club to enforce legality. The legal issue is essentially between the user and the developer, and uninvolved parties should not be required to enforce anything.

AS> Of course, we can't judje well, we are not professional lowyers,
AS> but we not talking about real life, we talking about virtual
AS> community, where FidoNet policy and common sence are widely used
AS> for any problem resolution. Why we can not use it in this case?
AS> Why we must call a police? Police can't excommunicate someone
AS> from FidoNet. Better I call my NC/RC:)

Police can't hang people either. Better you call your local vigilante committee :)

Why is excommunicating someone from Fido the proper way to handle software misuse? Should the software pirate's voice line be cut? Should his children be expelled from school? Should his driving privileges be revoked?

Problem resolution on Fido should be restricted to the actual problems affecting Fido - not to resolve moral issues.

Certainly we owe software developers our respect and cooperation, but the efforts such as file distribution networks which help promote their efforts are sufficient. Acting as enforcers for software licensing is going too far.

AS> I think, coordinators at any level must process formal policy
AS> complaints dealing with license violation. They must applied such
AS> complaints from software developers only, not from anyone, but
AS> they must.

Let me ask you a question: what should happen to coordinators who don't deal with license violations? Should they be fired? Excommunicated? Criminally prosecuted? Keep in mind that these coordinators are volunteers who simply may not wish to devote the time to all the good causes we could ask of them.

AS> It is _very_ important case for Russia, because of a lot of
AS> pirated CD's saled on every corner, and more than 90% of
AS> installed software isn't legal. In FidoNet too, not 90%, but a
AS> lot, using cracked software and fake keys is usial!

AS> We can't quickly change that. But, we must try.

Why must we try? I honestly respect your opinion concerning the morality of using pirated software... but now we're getting into what's sold in the street corners, far afield from what's being done in my hobby. By virtue of my participation in Fidonet, have I incurred an obligation to safeguard the financial interests of those who write games for children or spreadsheets for bigger children?

Do I someday get to the point where my obligations consume the time I once freely gave to others in persuit of my hobby?