The best post I’ve ever read all day about the whole Apple debacle.
It’s all very well being preachy about right and wrong, but come on if every crime, no matter how small, was punished to the full extent of the law the whole population would be living under house arrest.
For those of you who don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. There’s been quite some lengthy discussion about Apple suing some kids. A little over two months ago, Apple decided to finally put its foot down and act on some people who have illegaly distributed preview versions of its upcoming OS called Tiger.
For a detailed scoop of the issue: http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000369.html
Despite Apple having every right to take such a course of action, it seems to be gaining a lot of bad press – comparing them to Microsoft as a cold-hearted corporation.
For the buzz it has generated: http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000473.html
Most noticeable is that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak himself, as well as other respectable Apple software developers seem to have taken the side of the defendants (to a certain extent).
One reader comment stated:
Apple has shown in the court papers (which I read, did you?) what they are after. Court costs. Lawyer fees (these should be several hundred per hour). Costs of researching the case, of whatever they trump up. Damages they say they were done by leaking the software. They’ve also declared they want exemplary damages, so they want to see the kids punished.
What we have to understand here are the facts before we actually try to dissect this issue.
- He is guilty – the culprit himself has admitted it.
- As far as the legal system is concerned, Apple has every right to dish out the punishment – whatever it may be.
What seems to be the problem is what type of punishment is appropriate. I think the whole debate comes from two sides: One is the full extent of the law, the other is the “more lenient/fair.” Both sides, mind you, are considered “just.”
But really now, was punishment meant to be fair? If you stole something, the “fair” thing to do is to simply give it back… or pay for it. Hence I think it is a given that you have to give the criminals a bit more heat than what’s actually fair – so that they learn from their mistakes.
In this case, is the extreme of ruining someone’s life justified given the crime? I would say it would depend. That’s why there’s the whole concept of “the full extent of the law.” Being punished to the law’s full extent is usually reserved for those who are proven to have malicious intent beyond any reasonable doubt (murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.)… or any defendant which you simply hate and want to see driven to the ground.
The kid obviously was naive and stupid, and deserves to be punished, but certainly not to the full extent of the law. Aside from loss of “projected” sales, he poses no threat to the Apple machine by a longshot. The corporation simply want’s to make an example out of him, which is reasonable enough to expect, but unfortunately, Apple seems to have chosen the wrong person to make an example of – since the latter has already got the public’s sympathy.
I will not go into the whole moral details as the comments found in the second link above already discuss the different points raised from both sides. I just wanted to state for the record, that I choose the defendant’s side too.
Though I understand Apple’s need to enforce policies – it just has to be the bigger man in this case and punish the kid to the extent of which kid is capable of. The kid has already owned up to his mistake and is willing to pay up, so why ask him to pay something that would ruin the rest of his life?
The analogies being compared to the case are not really appropriate since they can’t possibly represent the same caliber of crime.
Arguments comparing it to murder are just ridiculous. Regardless how sorry a person is, if he/she murdered someone, that someone ain’t coming back even if the murderer was the king of Brunei – who decides to give up his kingdom as payment for damages (though I’m sure a lot of people would take that as a settlement hehehehe). There are some crimes that simply need to be dealt with the full wrath of justice, else it just wouldn’t cut it.
Someone also likened it to a ridiculously priced speeding fine. They argued that that why is it ok to fine such “unfair” amounts to citizens, but show mercy to this “poor kid?”
They fail to see that even if a $1000 speeding fine seems ridiculous – it is still very much doable without destroying an individual. It hurts a lot – and that’s where the lesson of the crime hits home. You’ve spent roughly 56k pesos for speeding, you still can get on with your life, and will probably make sure you never do it again.
But in the case of the article, we’re talking lawyer fees, loss of projected sales, etc. If Apple wins (which it will) this guy will have a shitload of money to pony up. The total amount is most probably far from something you can pay and get on with your life. That’s more like something that will consume you for the rest of your life!
And what will Apple get out of all of this? Bad press, and probably some monetary compensation from the blood and sweat of someone who’s life it’s just ruined.
Of course, after all is said and done, let us not forget that the real pirates will still be at it, only smarter now – never to be caught, and dealing so much more damage to Apple’s sales than the kid possibly could.
There has to be a better way!