Piracy - Page 2

[jwenting]

The law on that point is muddy. A friend of mine actually called an IP lawyer and asked whether he could legally download and play an mp3 of tracks he has only on vinyl or tape (he doesn't own a rig to convert those to mp3 himself).
The lawyer told him it would be legal as he has a right to listen to that music.
Whether that would extend to dubbed versions of material I don't know (nor whether it would apply to any other country).

Personally I would never do anything to give the slightest hint of legallity to pirates, which downloading their products comes down to.
So no cracks (even if I own the actual product), no downloaded mp3 from pirate sites so I don't have to rip the CD to my iPod myself, no downloaded CD images if an installation disk gets damaged (any decent manufacturer will supply a replacement at cost of S&H or even for free, I've done that multiple times), etc.

And no, I've not used a single pirated program or had a single bit of pirated music or film on my systems in something like 15 years now. Not in fact since the first software stores opened in the city I then lived (giving me an idea of the actual cost of the stuff), enabling me to purchase software rather than get it through the old boys network which at the time meant swapping floppy disks around and hoping they weren't infected with bootsector virusses.

[joshSCH]

>It is good to question authority and to make
>our views known to the rest of the world.
Somehow I don't think your stealing software is morally comparable to establishing the United States of America. :icon_rolleyes: Do you really think the best way to disagree with a law is to break it? Do you really think the first thing the founders of the USA did was declare independence? What a bunch of ruffians, who didn't even try to negotiate with Britain and handle things in a civilized manner!

Even so, the same idea applies to both situations. I personally believe there is nothing wrong with pirating, and so I will continue to pirate despite what the law or the government says. Besides, I am not stealing anything. All I do is download stuff from people who give it out. I do not upload anything, and therefore I am not breaking any copyright laws. How am I to know that the program I am downloading is not legit? I am simply an innocent bystander in this whole mess.. :P

>If their product is pirated, then it is their own fault for not making it secure enough.
So I can break into your house, steal all of your stuff, and you'll be okay with it because it's your fault for not making the house secure enough? What's your address?

Actually, yeah. What do insurance companies do after a police investigation of a burglary reveals that the owners didn't lock up? The owners get NO compensation whatsoever (in most cases). It's the same thing with software. If you do not make it safe enough to be released, then you have not done your job properly.. and thus I shouldn't have to pay. If you don't lock up, then you deserve to be robbed!

[Sturm]

Someone give me one reason why I shouldn't "pirate" software? Why should I let corporations control my activities and my life?

I would think you, jtwenting, a staunch Social Darwinist, would support piracy. If companies aren't intelligent or competent enough to secure their software, don't they deserve to go out of business?

[Narue]

>Even so, the same idea applies to both situations.
Riiiiight. I wonder if anyone believes you.

>If you don't lock up, then you deserve to be robbed!
First, I notice you didn't give out your address. Second, most pirated software has measures in place to deter piracy. So it's not like the developers aren't locking the door, it's more like the pirates are smashing it down. If I rob you but you locked the door and set the alarm, did you still deserve to get robbed?

>Someone give me one reason why I shouldn't "pirate" software?
Why should we care if you pirate software? You can rob banks, murder people, and be an international terrorist for all I care. What part of "It's a crime, but you can choose to commit it" is difficult for you to understand?

[Ezzaral]

Even so, the same idea applies to both situations. I personally believe there is nothing wrong with pirating, and so I will continue to pirate despite what the law or the government says. Besides, I am not stealing anything. All I do is download stuff from people who give it out. I do not upload anything, and therefore I am not breaking any copyright laws. How am I to know that the program I am downloading is not legit? I am simply an innocent bystander in this whole mess.. :P

Actually, yeah. What do insurance companies do after a police investigation of a burglary reveals that the owners didn't lock up? The owners get NO compensation whatsoever (in most cases). It's the same thing with software. If you do not make it safe enough to be released, then you have not done your job properly.. and thus I shouldn't have to pay. If you don't lock up, then you deserve to be robbed!

What a load of crap. You can justify it to yourself all you want to. You're stealing, plain and simple. If you have no moral qualms with it, then that's up to you I suppose. No one here can make you believe stealing is wrong. But you are taking for free something that someone spent a lot of time producing and denying them any compensation - no different than if your employer decided to not give you your paycheck because he simply didn't feel like it.

[Ezzaral]

Someone give me one reason why I shouldn't "pirate" software? Why should I let corporations control my activities and my life?

I would think you, jtwenting, a staunch Social Darwinist, would support piracy. If companies aren't intelligent or competent enough to secure their software, don't they deserve to go out of business?

And perhaps you can give one reason why you feel entitled to get everything available for free? Do you have a job? Do you expect to get paid for the work you do? Somehow I'm thinking you probably don't want to slave away at a job for free.

You know, you can get all the software you need for free in a completely legal way - write it your damn self. If it's so trivial that no one has a right to charge money for it then you shouldn't have any troubles at all.

[Sturm]

>And perhaps you can give one reason why you feel entitled to get everything available for free?

I'll assume that you mean "software" when you say "everything." Proprietary software is immoral and antisocial. Their (read: software companies) actions ultimately support a closed society, a society in which sharing is illegal and ideas are controlled by the government, or worse, corporations. If breaking a nominal law is all that stands between me and the empowerment
of myself and the people I know, it's definitely worth it. Information should be unequivocally free and accessible to everyone. The idea that someone can legally "own" information and ideas is ridiculous, wrong, immoral, antisocial, and counter-productive.

It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners. Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction to smooth driving—artificial, because it is not a consequence of how roads or cars work.

Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to use. In a poor country, tolls may make the roads unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be free.

[DimaYasny]

software is not information as such - it is a product. something that was created by people who worked to create it. why shouldn't they get paid for it? would you work for free?

[Sturm]

>would you work for free?

You seem to be incorrectly assuming that you can't make money off open source software.

[scru]

Are you advocating that all software should be open source?

[Ancient Dragon]

>>Proprietary software is immoral and antisocial
Who was it that accused me yestarday of trying to force my version of morality on someone else (see your post #9)? Software does not posses the qualities of being either social or antisocial. If you want something social then go to the local pub and have a beer with the other guys. Just because we write software for a livinig doesn't mean we work for free. Well, I'm a mod here for free but that's different. If we didn't get paid for our work then there would be no software for you and others to steal. You wouldn't even be using a PC.

If you want free software there is always Open Source software such as Open Office and *nix operating systems. There are also a few free online games you can play legally, such as Dunegon Runners and free anti-virus scanners such as avast!

[Sturm]

>Are you advocating that all software should be open source?

Yes, I am.

[Sturm]

>If we didn't get paid for our work then there would be no software for you and others to steal.

How many times do I have to reiterate this? Are people just plain stupid? YOU CAN MAKE MONEY ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

>Who was it that accused me yestarday of trying to force my version of morality on someone else (see your post #9)?

I use the term "morality" to mean "conducive to a good society"

[Ancient Dragon]

How many times do I have to reiterate this? Are people just plain stupid? YOU CAN MAKE MONEY ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

Yes, some have. Most have made nothing at all. Just look at all the shareware, freeware and open source programs. If you want to use and steel something steel one or more of those.

I use the term "morality" to mean "conducive to a good society"

Whose good society? Like in the movie Escape From New York ?

[Sturm]

>Whose good society?

Mine of course.

[Infarction]

Someone give me one reason why I shouldn't "pirate" software? Why should I let corporations control my activities and my life?

So, do you "pirate" from the corporation that makes your clothes? Or the one that sells your clothes? How about the one that owns the gas station at the corner? How about the one that makes the car you drive, or the bus or the subway? Or the one that builds the house/apartment you live in? You've already let all these corporations "control" your activities and life. Why is it suddenly OK to pirate from a commercial (open or closed-source) software company?

[Infarction]

>If we didn't get paid for our work then there would be no software for you and others to steal.

How many times do I have to reiterate this? Are people just plain stupid? YOU CAN MAKE MONEY ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

AFAICT, nobody has said otherwise. And they'd be stupid if they did. Afterall, Red Hat makes about $330 million per year (according to google finance). But that's about 60% of what VMware makes, or 5% of what Google makes, or 1.5% of what Cisco makes, or 0.8% of what MSFT makes (all of these based on 2006 or 2007 Gross Profit values according to Google). Which companies do you think pay better? Which company would you rather work for? Which company would you rather own? And yeah, I know you'll say Red Hat, if only because you're an idealist.

On a similar, I probably wouldn't be in software if I wasn't getting the same opportunities and I doubt I'm the only one. You know how many people at my school wanted desperately to work for Red Hat? 0, so far as I know. Google? about 150 (e.g. the whole department). Amazon? probably again about 30 of them. Microsoft? Probably about 40. VMware, Cisco, etc...? Probably around a dozen each.

Now, take away all the closed source software that we have today and have had for the past couple decades, and where are we left? Probably with something quite reminiscent of *nix systems in the 80s. They worked plenty well back then, probably would have done fine for a niche computing market. There'd be so little incentive to expand into a commodity market, and certainly a lot less development in terms of making the software usable for the average (see: n00b) user at home.

>Whose good society?

Mine of course.

Yours, huh? I don't like yours. I like mine. See how quickly this falls apart?

[Ancient Dragon]

>>Afterall, Red Hat makes about $330 million per year
If they give their software away for nothing then how can they make any money? They have to be selling $330 million worth of something. What that shows is that it is not the open source programs that make money but the spin-offs that are sold for $$$. And the assertion that YOU CAN MAKE MONEY ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. is false. It's not the open source that makes money -- if it was then it wouldn't be open source now would it :) You can't have it both ways -- you can given something away for free and get $$$ for it too.

[Infarction]

>>Afterall, Red Hat makes about $330 million per year
If they give their software away for nothing then how can they make any money? They have to be selling $330 million worth of something. What that shows is that it is not the open source programs that make money but the spin-offs that are sold for $$$. And the assertion that YOU CAN MAKE MONEY ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. is false. It's not the open source that makes money -- if it was then it wouldn't be open source now would it :) You can't have it both ways -- you can given something away for free and get $$$ for it too.

Getting into technicalities, AFAIK the GPL and most open source licenses don't prohibit selling the software. And Red Hat seems to do well enough selling the support service (though, I don't know how much they've contributed to the software either - the cost of all that development (which in this case was largely mitigated by existing GPL projects) may also be prohibitive to some companies).

[Jx_Man]

piracy its bad..its same like you still money without do anything...and its happened in my country...so many piracy here.

[MidiMagic]

I am sort of in the middle on this one:

- The concept of "intellectual property" didn't even exist in law until France created it in the 18th century to "protect artists and authors". So it is not a natural right like the right to life is.

- I do agree that the creator of the work does have the right to be recognized as having created the work in perpetuity.

- I totally disagree with the huge period the copyright law written by Sony Bono provides. Ten years is more than enough.

- I consider the new law's extension of the copyright periods of works made before the new law was passed to be an unconstitutional ex-post-facto law.

- I have a BIG problem with someone doing a work only once, but expecting to be paid as though he repeated all of that labor in each and every copy he licenses some manufacturer to make of the work.

- I disagree with the monopoly powers a copyright or patent gives the creator of the work. Monopolies are ALWAYS wrong.

- Exclusive contracts should be prohibited to remove their monopoly powers.

- ALL patents and copyrights should have compulsory licensing (the way sheet music and stage plays are now).

- The copyright or patent should expire when the product is no longer sold on the market, so those who still need it can get it.

- It should be illegal to buy up or use patents and copyrights to keep a product off the market.

- Making a copy is different in one way from stealing a copy from a dealer. When a shoplifter steals a copy of a CD from a dealer, the dealer is out the money he paid the manufacturer for the CD. It is a real monetary loss. But if someone copies the same CD for personal use, nobody has directly lost any money.

- I DO think that making copies to SELL is wrong, unless the owner of the copyright is paid the compulsory license royalty.

- Copyright violations should be in the realm of torts and lawsuits, not crimes.

- The owner of the copyright should neve4r have the power to compel the destruction of copies made in violation of copyright. The most the copyright owner should have the right to compel is payment of the compulsory license royalty.

- It is wrong to tax those who use blank recording media for purposes other than copying copyrighted material in order to pay royalties to the owners of copyrights that are copied by other people.

- Copy protection is wrong. It causes more trouble than it helps. It also does not disconnect itself if the material goes out of copyright.

- It is wrong to require people to upgrade to a new operating system every 3 or 4 years, or to make old software stop working to force people to upgrade. This is a gross abuse of copyright. The penalty should be loss of copyright and placing the software in the public domain.

- Manufacturers should be required to support software and recording products for at least 10 years after the last sale of the product, and should be prohibited from introducing incompatibilities that make software quit working.

- Our government is TOTALLY WRONG to force people to convert to digital TV.

- There should not be a fee to register a copyright or patent.

[Infarction]

- Making a copy is different in one way from stealing a copy from a dealer. When a shoplifter steals a copy of a CD from a dealer, the dealer is out the money he paid the manufacturer for the CD. It is a real monetary loss. But if someone copies the same CD for personal use, nobody has directly lost any money.

This is one of the arguments that bugs me the most. While I can understand the logic you're using, it's still inaccurate. I'll use Photoshop as my example. How many people are honestly willing to spend $650USD so they can dink around with photos on 4chan, or otherwise use the software for a hobby? And yet, how many people acquire a disc or a disc image with which to install and use the software? Adobe's getting none of the payback they deserve for all these users. And while you may also argue that "they're just losing the costs of the install disc and box" you're wrong. They make an investment of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in labor to get a new version out the door. If they aren't able to get back and satisfactory profit from that investment, then they're not going to continue. Ditto with Microsoft. The software industry probably loses billions in profit because of piracy (of course, that does add up quickly with suites costing up to $10k or more). Fortunately, they've so far been profitable enough to continue making - and more importantly for us, improving - these products.

Now, just to clarify: if you copy the disc as a backup for your own use, that's different. In fact, I believe most EULAs allow for one copy to be made of the media.

[DimaYasny]

>would you work for free?

You seem to be incorrectly assuming that you can't make money off open source software.

you seem to be incorrectly assuming that a one and only business model can work everywhere. it cannot. communism, as bright an idea as it was, is nothing more than a utopia. open source works for community driven projects, to an extent. but any serious corporation that uses linux goes for the paid versions, because of the support and the name.

also, I really can't imagine how huge amounts of programmers worldwide will make a living off the open source model. currently, almost everyone who contributes code to such communities, does it on his or her own free FROM ACTUAL PAID WORK time, when they can spare an hour or two.

[Sturm]

>currently, almost everyone who contributes code to such communities, does it on his or her own free FROM ACTUAL PAID WORK time, when they can spare an hour or two.

Do you realize that the *vast* majority of kernel developers are payed to work on the Linux kernel? Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, and Linus himself are prominent examples of this.

>Yours, huh? I don't like yours. I like mine. See how quickly this falls apart?

Like I said, "morality" differs from person to person.
The fact that most people don't share my "morality" is no consequence to me.

>Software does not posses the qualities of being either social or antisocial.

You don't think it's antisocial to only take from the world of open and free ideas? You don't think it's antisocial for corporations to accumulate patents and copyrights for the sole purpose of making money off royalties? All knowledge should be contributed back to the community, as it allows for an increased rate of innovation.

[scru]

Sturm, by mentioning patents and the protection of ideas, you are beginning to fall outside the scope of piracy. The acquiring of software patents and collection of royalties, while perhaps closely related, are not anti-piracy measures in themselves, but measures to secure revenue. I would cautiously agree with your thoughts on those (remember my middle name?).

However, I do believe that software vendors are right in securing copyrights. And I do agree with the closed source model for those who agree to use it. Here is why: If I invest thousands of dollars in programmers who work day in and day out coming up with code to solve a problem, I would certainly want to protect this method of coming up with the solution. Note that I'm not saying that I want to claim all rights to the solution itself, just merely the way my code does it. Someone else is free to come of with their own solution as long as they use their own code (this is where closed source comes in). And yes, I believe that I (and my programmers) deserve our dues for being creative enough for coming up with this particular solution, and so any profit derived from this particular solution should come to us (hence copyright). Copyrights are nothing new. I'm sure if you wrote novels for a living you wouldn't want everyone to download your best and greatest works off the internet, would you? Making small donations to you whenever they feel like it?

[Ancient Dragon]

>>You don't think it's antisocial to only take from the world of open and free ideas?
No because that world doesn't exist.

>> You don't think it's antisocial for corporations to accumulate patents and copyrights for the sole purpose of making money off royalties?
No -- they have to make money somehow in order to give their employees jobs and paychecks. If everything is free then no one would (or could) work.

If you write a book don't you want to get paid for it? Shouldn't musicians and actors get paid for their performances. Are you proposing to just shut down the copyright and patent offices? Oh yea -- almost forgot your previous stupid remarks about open source making money. If something makes money then its not free and open source is just an illusion.

[EnderX]

Oh yea -- almost forgot your previous stupid remarks about open source making money. If something makes money then its not free and open source is just an illusion.

I'm a bit confused here...please explain your reasoning.

I was under the impression that 'open source' meant literally that. Not that the software didn't cost anything (although I will admit that from what I, personally, have seen much of it doesn't) but that, cost or no cost, fee or no fee, the term literally meant that the source (code) was open; that is, instead of only providing the end product, the original source code would be included so that the end user could modify it for his or her own purposes. Am I incorrect in this?

[Ancient Dragon]

You need to read the original comment YOU CAN MAKE MONEY ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE and post #48 to understand my post #56.

[Ezzaral]

It is worth noting that Josh and Sturm, both of whom express the view that they should be able to copy anything they like without cost, are currently occupied as "student". Those on the side of compensating the producer for the work produced are most all older and employed (or formerly employed in the case of AD).

Context and experience do seem to play a large role in opinions on this matter. I would agree with most of the points regarding copyright that Midi posted. Many think the current system is woefully broken, but still agree that some system to protect the livelihoods of those who produce intellectual property is necessary to ensure continued availability of such works.

People have to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves. These things are not free for most individuals. If the artist, actor, writer, programmer, etc. cannot earn the means to provide for their needs through their chosen occupations then the time that they can devote to such activities is certainly going to diminish. No one is going to starve to death so you can download free music and software. Sorry, you're just not that special.

[jwenting]

Someone give me one reason why I shouldn't "pirate" software? Why should I let corporations control my activities and my life?

I would think you, jtwenting, a staunch Social Darwinist, would support piracy. If companies aren't intelligent or competent enough to secure their software, don't they deserve to go out of business?

Why should you let the supermarket control your diet by setting prices based on market demand and supply? Why not just steal from them too.
By your reasoning that would be the moral thing to do...
Or why not steal a Ferrari or Mercedes? The car manufacturers after all dictate that you can't buy them by setting the price higher than your budget can afford so under your reasoning you're fully in your right to steal one.

I'm a staunch Darwinist indeed. Pirates should be made to walk the plank instead of getting away with their crimes. That's the traditional and highly effective punishment for piracy (alternatively hanging and beheading were also employed if the pirates were caught on land).
Being a Darwinist does NOT mean advocating or tollerating crime. It means requiring and accepting full consequences for criminal and other actions which reduce your lifespan and chances of reproduction, which is why I advocate very strong penalties for most crimes.