Interesting exercise. This made me think long and hard—maybe too long. I would order the list somewhat differently, and I wonder what other people’s orderings are. Here is mine:
Things where there exists a clear legal rule against the activity that was arrived by a lawful process (even if many people remain unhappy with it or if it is not effectively enforceable):
Using paywall circumvention software.
Using GNU Parallel [in derived software] without citing it.
Independently decrypting cable or satellite TV.
Things that assume people are nice to reduce cost and benefit from it
Taking free newspapers to use in craft projects or for heating your house.
Accepting a swag t-shirt to get cotton to use for papermaking.
Going to a store without any intention of buying something, just to eat the free samples.
Interviewing somewhere you would definitely not want to work, just for the practice.
Running an ad blocker on your computer.
The category I was thinking about the longest—on and off since this was posted, which led to this response taking so long.
Bringing outside food into a movie theater or amusement park.
I think most countries have laws that allow a host to make rules for their property and expel people not complying with them. My intuition gives mixed results. On the one hand, there is a clear law and custom. Thus I should place this in the top category. On the other hand, the scope this applies to seems to be much larger than it used to be. Whole amusement parks are now private property. My intuition says that places that look and feel like public places—parks, places where many people gather—should follow rules for public places. Thus I wouldn’t bring food to a movie theater or restaurant and follow stricter rules in a hotel but would bring food to an amusement part or concert.
Things that are voluntary and no negative externality results from it
Fixing bugs in open source software without contributing your fixes back upstream.
Listening to NPR without contributing, when you could afford to.
Using Wikipedia without fixing errors you find.
Stopping to watch a street performer or listen to busker without paying.
Driven by commercial incentives
Accompanying friends to a restaurant and only ordering water.
Reading ad supported stuff but never buying anything from the ads.
Fast-forwarding through sponsored sections on YouTube or a podcast.
Buying PS3 consoles and building a supercomputer.
Buying a cheap printer and using third-party ink.
Using a web browser but changing the default search engine.
I thought you were referring to a misuse of the GPL but maybe I got this wrong. I didn’t read up on this specific case. If it is academic tradition then I would put this under the voluntary section.
As GPL software it can’t require you to cite, but it also is pushy about telling you that if you use it in academic work you should cite it (and makes you type “will cite” to get the notice to go away)
Interesting exercise. This made me think long and hard—maybe too long. I would order the list somewhat differently, and I wonder what other people’s orderings are. Here is mine:
Things where there exists a clear legal rule against the activity that was arrived by a lawful process (even if many people remain unhappy with it or if it is not effectively enforceable):
Using paywall circumvention software.
Using GNU Parallel [in derived software] without citing it.
Independently decrypting cable or satellite TV.
Things that assume people are nice to reduce cost and benefit from it
Taking free newspapers to use in craft projects or for heating your house.
Accepting a swag t-shirt to get cotton to use for papermaking.
Going to a store without any intention of buying something, just to eat the free samples.
Interviewing somewhere you would definitely not want to work, just for the practice.
Running an ad blocker on your computer.
The category I was thinking about the longest—on and off since this was posted, which led to this response taking so long.
Bringing outside food into a movie theater or amusement park.
I think most countries have laws that allow a host to make rules for their property and expel people not complying with them. My intuition gives mixed results. On the one hand, there is a clear law and custom. Thus I should place this in the top category. On the other hand, the scope this applies to seems to be much larger than it used to be. Whole amusement parks are now private property. My intuition says that places that look and feel like public places—parks, places where many people gather—should follow rules for public places. Thus I wouldn’t bring food to a movie theater or restaurant and follow stricter rules in a hotel but would bring food to an amusement part or concert.
Things that are voluntary and no negative externality results from it
Fixing bugs in open source software without contributing your fixes back upstream.
Listening to NPR without contributing, when you could afford to.
Using Wikipedia without fixing errors you find.
Stopping to watch a street performer or listen to busker without paying.
Driven by commercial incentives
Accompanying friends to a restaurant and only ordering water.
Reading ad supported stuff but never buying anything from the ads.
Fast-forwarding through sponsored sections on YouTube or a podcast.
Buying PS3 consoles and building a supercomputer.
Buying a cheap printer and using third-party ink.
Using a web browser but changing the default search engine.
Leaving an amusement park for lunch.
I don’t think this violates the law? They say academic tradition requires citing, not the law: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/citation-notice-faq.txt
I thought you were referring to a misuse of the GPL but maybe I got this wrong. I didn’t read up on this specific case. If it is academic tradition then I would put this under the voluntary section.
As GPL software it can’t require you to cite, but it also is pushy about telling you that if you use it in academic work you should cite it (and makes you type “will cite” to get the notice to go away)