Piracy - Page 4

[Narue]

>they feel there's an inequitableness that pervades the transactions
>of life, so they set out to even the score on their behalf.
I don't think it's nearly as noble as you suggest. Given the many wonderful shareware programs out there that are extremely inexpensive for what they give you (and the payment is optional), disturbingly few people actually donate. In fact, it takes people like Jeff Atwood needs to encourage people to do it simply because it's the right thing to do. Perhaps my view is more cynical, but I think people are just too cheap to support developers, big or small. They're too cheap to buy a CD when they could download MP3s.

>While we can agree that theft is generally wrong, I wonder if you
>can acknowlege that there are circumstances that can justify it?
Certainly. However, even if the justification is there it doesn't mean one should take advantage of it. A brilliant example that comes to mind is from the movie Cinderella Man (if you don't mind me using glamorized hollywood events) where James Braddock forces his son to return stolen food despite the fact that the family was poor, freezing and starving, and he was risking losing his children to uphold is ideals. People like that do exist, and they makes the ones who can throw away their morals when life gets hard look ridiculous.

Naturally I can't expect everyone to uphold their morals when things get difficult. Hell, I can't even expect that when it's not difficult. Other posters in this thread proved that.

[dnk]

piracy is illegal,bad,wrong way to get something value. every body who do piracy is never use his mind.bad...so bad

[~s.o.s~]

> where James Braddock forces his son to return stolen food despite the fact that the family
> was poor, freezing and starving
Yeah, that kind of thing looks really good in the movies and *only* in the movies.

> and they makes the ones who can throw away their morals when life gets hard look
> ridiculous.
I am sure those innocent kids would rather prefer to look *ridiculous* than die of hunger...

[Sturm]

>People like that do exist, and they makes the ones who can throw away their morals when life gets hard look ridiculous.

People like that tend to lead poor and miserable lives.

[briansmall]

>they feel there's an inequitableness that pervades the transactions
>of life, so they set out to even the score on their behalf.

I don't think it's nearly as noble as you suggest. Given the many wonderful shareware programs out there that are extremely inexpensive for what they give you (and the payment is optional), disturbingly few people actually donate.
...
Perhaps my view is more cynical, but I think people are just too cheap to support developers, big or small. They're too cheap to buy a CD when they could download MP3s.

>While we can agree that theft is generally wrong, I wonder if you
>can acknowlege that there are circumstances that can justify it?

Certainly. However, even if the justification is there it doesn't mean one should take advantage of it. A brilliant example that comes to mind is from the movie Cinderella Man (if you don't mind me using glamorized hollywood events) where James Braddock forces his son to return stolen food despite the fact that the family was poor, freezing and starving, and he was risking losing his children to uphold is ideals. People like that do exist, and they makes the ones who can throw away their morals when life gets hard look ridiculous.

Naturally I can't expect everyone to uphold their morals when things get difficult. Hell, I can't even expect that when it's not difficult. Other posters in this thread proved that.

Okay, nice stuff. In no particular order .. I don't mind using Hollywood events to provide examples, reference to peoples work, fictional or otherwise is elemental to the exchange of ideas, regardless of the source.

But while one may show grit, morality by sticking to their ethical principles, this does not in and of itself mean that there is only one "way" that is "right", it only means that the one person stuck to thier personal principles.

Sticking to your principles .. if they have any meaningful boundaries .. is a mark of the character of an individual in and of itself. But my principles might quite different from yours.. and neither of us might be "wrong" to follow them.

There are plenty of areas where we might be able to agree that principles, while important to the individual, really are personal rather than based on Universal (or Gods) Law. But we have "hot button issues" that we feel to be of greater importance than "just" our feelings about them. We take them very seriously, believing our principles to be "core" to a basic Law of Life.

I wonder about that. Being areligious, I have only feeling and reason to rely upon in the forming of my principles. I tend to think deeply about them, in particular, what underlies them, as well as the circumstances that they lie within.

Ethics and morals are key to a perfect world. But in a world that is not perfect, they become tools by which others may control you. Thus, principles need to be scrutinized in order to determine if they are appropriate within a larger scope.

I personally believe in a capitalistic structure that rewards effort.

We do not live in a world of unlimited resources, but neither do we live in a world where there are not enough resources to go around.

It is ownership of these resources that ultimately allows "the masses" to be manipulated and exploited.

Ownership of all the resources (land rights) stems from murder or the threat of it. It is this ownership that ultimately decides the distribution of wealth in the game of capitalism that we play.

You can be a player and rise above your peers, but you are a player in a game that has its roots in blood, force and murder.

There are those who see opportunities that others miss. They are innovators and of course, should be rewarded for their ability to innovate. But ultimately thier success comes down to a question of control. You get nowhere if those in control do not let you get there. If you play their game according to their rules, you succeed. Their power is predicated upon control of natural resources.

When the rights to avail themselves of natural resources have been stripped from the general populace, then those in power can employ the general populace to produce goods from those resources, and stand to benefit disproportionately to thier efforts. Those who play this game well rise higher in the income structure, those who don't will fall behind.

But it's a game that's innately flawed, it is unfair in that someone has already "laid claim" to virtually all the natural resources.

Ultimately the "game" has been laid out by thieves and pirates. The rules defend their self ascribed "right" to "our" resources. Deny this, you can see no further, there is no discussion here.

Piracy, as we discuss it here can be thought of as a (miniscule) redistribution of the wealth. What it means is that some people who don't want to play according to the rules of the thieves who have taken their rights to live "off the land" that God gave them are fed up with the system and are grabbing back what they can get.

What they grab sometimes comes from the big players, and sometimes from their brethren.

It hurts to have something stolen from you, and it would be nice if no one did that. But it also hurts to be stuck in a game where you know that the deck is stacked against you; that those who are winning really don't give a damn about whether you win or lose.

Those who choose to play the game do their bit to keep those who choose not to play "in their places".

I think most of our population, without saying so, would simply like to see the "losers" "disappear"... yeh, just get locked up, shipped to someplace far far away ...

But that just makes the next level of players into the "losers" in a stacked game.

There is no question in my mind what so ever that we have enough resources and technology to allow every human alive to enjoy a comfortable state of living with much less effort than we are putting out. There is room for those who wish to have more toys and those who just choose to live minimally, but not in our system as we play the game.

I'm not talking socialism, and I'm certainly not talking communism. But I'm also not talking capitalism as we are practicing it. This is because in our form of capitalism, we have allowed murder to be the underpinning of the power structure. Your life is taken away from you if you threaten the ownership of the important natural resources.

Murder is an inherently flawed premise upon which to base a "fair" system. Any system or structure that is built upon a flawed foundation cannot yield sound results. The underpinnings of any system determine its outcome.

Thus we have a system that does not honor the right of man to make certain life choices, even though we have the technology available to give him a more leisurly life we insist he work 40 to 50 hours a week. It's no surprise to me that some simply choose to ignore the rules and take matters into their own hands.

Who knows, their progeny may well be the ones laughing at us a thousand years from now, ... what will have been "right" then, our propensity to quibble over piracy, or their insistance that the game was stacked and there was no point to playing by the rules?

I do not see this as a matter of being Noble. It is a matter of some people instinctive dismissing the idea that they must play the game that others demand of them.

Shareware doesn't begin to address the bigger issue.

This, from USA today ... hardly proof of anything, but it points to a very real picture:
"The wealthiest 20% of households in 1973 accounted for 44% of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50% in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2% to 3.5%."

This, from another source: "In the 1970s, corporate chief executives earned 30 times as much as the average worker. Ten years ago, CEO compensation was 116 times the average. CEOs now earn close to 300 times as much as the average worker."

And who do you think is buying all the homes and other property ? How is this impacting the poor, or the young middle class?

In this lopsided scenerio, everyone wants to cash in on their meager talent. I don't blame them at all. But they are all players in a corrupt game, and whether they like it or not there are those who say "screw this" to the game, and who avail themselves of a bit here and there without playing by the rules.

I suggest: "Get over it." Fretting about a few players who choose not to honor your ethics is not the issue that matters. The issue that matters is the big game, and to what degree we ultimately let others control us. So far, we have just rolled over, because we are so damned busy looking at "hot button" issues, and we consistently fail to see the bigger picture.

We can only address our real problems by seeing them. We're not looking in the right places, we are wrapped up in symptoms rather than causes.

There will always be thieves. There is more pressure to be a thief today than ever before in American history. And the phenomenon that is causing this is global.

[MidiMagic]

Sometimes it's to make you upgrade. Whether it's Photoshop, Visual Studio, Office, or the latest game from Blizzard, their business model is based on you buying their product. Software companies aren't the only ones doing this. Look at car manufacturers. The average car will last well over 10 years, but the average car owner probably upgrades well within that timespan. Software companies don't make money supporting and releasing updates for a product, they make money selling you a new product.

That doesn't give them the right to do things that purposely break the old system.

Funny, I swear I've seen 10yrs+ old machines still in use. They work quite well, even on the internet. Ok, well they perform a bit slow at rendering, but seeing as to how the media has changed from text to animated graphics since then, it's really not surprising.

I have a 1997 computer that is still in use. But they made things so it can't be used:

- Nothing new is compatible with Windows 3.1. But I have software I don't want to lose, because the company went out of business after the attempt to change to Windows 95 bankrupted them after they made the change to Windows 3.1.

- One ISP I must use won't allow any version of Windows older than XP or NT.

- The files made on the Win 3.1 computer, other than .txt files and .bmp files, are incompatible with current versions of Office. And none of the files (other than .txt files) made on the XP computer are compatible with the programs available on the 3.1 computer.

- None of the dialup switches around here recognize 1200 baud. Only two of them recognize 9600 baud.

- New hardware won't fit the slots in the old computer. They changed the port connectors too.

- New printers can't understand the files made by the old computer. I can't get a replacement printer for it.

These are the things they did to make old equipment unusable.

Great, then all the architectural deficiencies built up over the years will exist, and there'd be no way to improve the OS. Nice idea!

Fix the bugs, but don't change the file structures.

Adobe gained nothing in this exchange, but the user gained use of Adobe's product. Why is it so hard to see that Adobe should receive payment for that?

I didn't say they didn't owe Adobe. What I said is that, for the two cases actually possible (because the guy doesn't have $650), Adobe didn't get anything either way:
- The guy does without Photoshop.
- The guy copies Photoshop.

Welcome to a capitalist society. If you're unemployed, then odds are, you're in need of a bit of education before you'd even be considered for one of these jobs (yes, we are a meritocracy). That said, there are a great many other jobs available to people who can't afford commercial software packages.

The problem is that a college degree is deprecated by the changes companies make to computers. People who got their degrees in computing only 10 years ago are finding no work, because their previous employers used PhotoHouse instead of Photoshop.

And there are no such "other" jobs, with government stealing 72 percent of the economy. We have a 20 percent unemployment rate here, though it is reported as only 5 percent, because the others have had their unemployment compensation terms run out.

[jwenting]

Fix the bugs, but don't change the file structures.

Thus never introduce ANY new functionality, having the world grind to a screeching halt.

Microsoft added to the file formats for nearly 20 years, maintaining backwards compatibility with pretty much every version of their software (and that of pretty much all competitors) they ever created.

Customers started complaining that the software was getting too cumbersome, too slow, incapable of doing what they wanted to do.

So slowly some things were changed to make things leaner and capable of supporting the future, which also causes complaints by people like you who are stuck in the past (or more likely claim to be in an effort to show how "large companies" are "forcing you to upgrade" in order to "control the world", and that their crimes are just "taking what rightfully belongs to us" and "punishing large companies").
We've heard it all.

The problem is that a college degree is deprecated by the changes companies make to computers.

Wrong. A college degree is not intended to be a course in how to use version X of software package Y on operating system Z. It's intended to be a way to learn people to think and learn for themselves.
If those people are too lazy or stupid to do that, they shouldn't get that degree.

People who got their degrees in computing only 10 years ago are finding no work,

That's their own fault for not keeping their knowledge current.
A carpenter who learned his craft using handtools and refused (out of laziness or a misguided sense of where the world was going) to learn to use powertools faces the same problems.
It's got nothing to do with "evil companies" "forcing you", but with your own laziness if you are too stupid to keep up with trends in your chosen field of work.

I've heard every lame excuse for piracy a thousand times, and none of them make any sense except maybe to hardline communists and then only as a means of destroying the "bourgeois capitalist imperial system" as preparation for "the communist world revolution" which will inevitably lead to "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "the destruction of the bourgeois oppression of the masses".
All ideas that died an untimely (in that they should have died a century before) death with Stalin.

[Ezzaral]

>>People who got their degrees in computing only 10 years ago are finding no work,

That's their own fault for not keeping their knowledge current.
A carpenter who learned his craft using handtools and refused (out of laziness or a misguided sense of where the world was going) to learn to use powertools faces the same problems.
It's got nothing to do with "evil companies" "forcing you", but with your own laziness if you are too stupid to keep up with trends in your chosen field of work.

Exactly. I am well past 10 years out of college, have no degree in computing, and have not had any problems finding work. Most developers I know have degrees in subjects other than computing (or no degree at all) and do not have trouble finding work. The burden is on the developer to maintain their relevancy. A piece of paper from a university isn't a ticket to a job for life.

[vegaseat]

...
I've heard every lame excuse for piracy a thousand times, and none of them make any sense except maybe to hardline communists and then only as a means of destroying the "bourgeois capitalist imperial system" as preparation for "the communist world revolution" which will inevitably lead to "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "the destruction of the bourgeois oppression of the masses".
All ideas that died an untimely (in that they should have died a century before) death with Stalin.

Oh my God, Karl Marx the originator of software piracy! Who would have thunk? I need a stiff drink or kick the mule!

I thought that this "commie behind every bush" thing went out with Joe McCarthy the Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin.

[briansmall]

It's got nothing to do with "evil companies" "forcing you", but with your own laziness if you are too stupid to keep up with trends in your chosen field of work.

I've heard every lame excuse for piracy a thousand times, and none of them make any sense except maybe to hardline communists and then only as a means of destroying the "bourgeois capitalist imperial system" as preparation for "the communist world revolution" which will inevitably lead to "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "the destruction of the bourgeois oppression of the masses".
All ideas that died an untimely (in that they should have died a century before) death with Stalin.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, I think it's as good as most, in fact, you make some great points.

But if you're going to call someone dumb, how 'bout if someone calls you a liar?

I would (almost) bet a years pay you have not "heard every lame excuse for piracy a thousand times".

I'll bet you've heard a few or several, some of them more than once. But I won't call you a liar because I could be wrong.

And even if I'm right, I would rather suggest that you have exaggerated rather than lied.

But think about this: Such exaggerations have the same effect as lies, they "get something for nothing".

Your exaggeration is placed in order to lend weight to your argument, where the weight does not exist, and sets the stage for your ludicrous comment that only "hardline communists" would ascribe to any excuse that any person ever could come up with... Period.

Exaggerating in this way is a justification on your part not to look further. In fact, by saying that you've heard it all a thousand times you shows that your mind has probably been closed from the inception.

You may have even been exposed to some thinking that could have changed your mind, if it wasn't closed to the subject.

[vegaseat]

I've heard every lame excuse for .. whatever .. a thousand times!

This is just a figure of speech, something Frank Burns would say. So take it easy on the only moderator we have for this forum.

[jasimp]

This is just a figure of speech, something Frank Burns would say. So take it easy on the only moderator we have for this forum.

vegaseat if you notice jwenting is no longer a moderator.

[vegaseat]

vegaseat if you notice jwenting is no longer a moderator.

Ouch, my bad! I have to congratulate him on his promotion to "Team Colleague" then.

[Bomba]

I stole some gum when I was a kid. I wasn't caught by the store but by my grandmother instead. If I don't have the money to buy something, I simply do without. But if my friend isn't using the software that she legally bought because she bought something else, I have no problem with using it. Someone told me that I am also guilty of theft but I don't quite see it that way. I have also bought software/ cds/dvds etc from second stores and at garage sales. Some people say that is wrong as well.

If I deleberately set out to deny people payment for their hard work or expertise, I do believe that it is wrong. As for music, there are enough sites out there where I can download that one song that I want really cheaply and don't risk getting viruses and trojans and other nasty stuff on my pc. I choose not to engage in piracy.

[vegaseat]

There were times when software was treated like a book. You bought it, it was yours. You could sell it later, but you yourself couldn't use it any more. In software terms that meant wipe it off your disk, that's only fair.

[Infarction]

That doesn't give them the right to do things that purposely break the old system.

Who says they don't have the right to break compatibility? It's their product, they can do as they wish. Not good for customer experience, but it's their choice.

I have a 1997 computer that is still in use.

Herein lies the issue: technologically, you're living in 4th world environments. I mean, c'mon dude, stop trying to keep the world in the stone age of computing. Go out, spend a couple bucks, get a new system. And ffs, stop whining about the obvious consequences of your own choice; deprecation happens in just about any industry.

Fix the bugs, but don't change the file structures.

Some of the bugs were based on the underlying architectures, never mind the file formats. And in some cases, yes the format was bad and really was the cause of the problem.

I didn't say they didn't owe Adobe. What I said is that, for the two cases actually possible (because the guy doesn't have $650), Adobe didn't get anything either way:
- The guy does without Photoshop.
- The guy copies Photoshop.

So, in the hypothetical situation that I hire you, and you work for two weeks and then if I refuse to pay you, it's the same thing. I don't owe you, because you didn't get anything either way:
- I did the work myself
- I got you to do the work
Now, you can say that I'm legally obligated to pay you, and you're right!! (finally.) Of course, the guy who installed Photoshop is also legally obligated to pay Adobe. So your argument doesn't hold much water...

The problem is that a college degree is deprecated by the changes companies make to computers. People who got their degrees in computing only 10 years ago are finding no work, because their previous employers used PhotoHouse instead of Photoshop.

Funny story: my dad was a mechanic for 20+ years. At one point he found out that he couldn't adjust the timing on one of his vehicles because the technology had changed and it was all electronic. He had to take it to a shop to have someone else do it. Oh, I'm sorry, did you have a point here?

[briansmall]

So, in the hypothetical situation that I hire you, and you work for two weeks and then if I refuse to pay you, it's the same thing. I don't owe you, because you didn't get anything either way:
- I did the work myself
- I got you to do the work
Now, you can say that I'm legally obligated to pay you, and you're right!! (finally.) Of course, the guy who installed Photoshop is also legally obligated to pay Adobe. So your argument doesn't hold much water...

Consider:

You think someone owes you anything? Ever?

Life does not come with a guarantee. You could work for me for two weeks and drop dead. Who would I owe? (No one.)

Don't like that one? Okay, try this. You work for me for two weeks, then I drop dead. Who would owe you? (No one)

Okay, how about this? One job might pay you $10/hr, the next job might pay you $100 .. doing the same thing. Is the a "measure" of the "worth" of your work? No, what there is, is an expectation. Maybe the work you've done for me is really of no value at all. Do I owe you for it? Or do I owe you onlybecause we had a contract? Then what is really
owed at any time?

Finally, consider this: Say I work for you for 2 weeks, then the "bomb" (atom bomb) drops, wiping out all but you, me, and the (opposite) sexual partner of your choice. I have all the food, and want to keep it until I can go several hundred miles where there is more. But you take my food, I die, and you survive to repopulate the planet. What was "owed" and where? You didn't owe me, you have done exactly what you were supposed to do. It's natural law.

Every moment we are alive is lived in just this way, but we have covered it up with a veneer of civilized behavior. In reality, we are all locked in a struggle. We don't like see it this way, but ultimately it's a matter of survival. There is no debt. Being nice is nice, but not required by nature.

Owing is NOT predicated upon a "real" thing, or on "natural law". It is predicated upon what we want, what we agree to, and the "rules" we have created in hopes of getting what we want.

At best, "owing" is subject to interpretation. It doesn't really "exist". It's just a contract, which (is generally lop-sided, and) is often not agreed to by the people who don't honor it.

Now:

If I perform work which benefits you, do you think you OWE me? No, because that could never be. There simply is no situation which could accurately be described as "Me, working for You".

Yes, I might spend 40 hours a week doing tasks which you have outlined to me, with the understanding that you were going to pay me at some interval. But what is really transpiring?

This is the point that no one seems to understand. I am not working for you, I am working for myself. This is always true. I am working so that I can get food and shelter, or whatever I want. You are just my means to my end, the tool I use to accomplish my goal.

People live in this fog of not realizing this simple truth of their situation, and in the subtle shift of words, there is a shift of responsibility, which does not, in reality, exist.

The only place I can squarely lay responsibility is at my own feet. I owe it to myself to make good choices, to choose someone who will pay me in accord with what I'm willing to accept. In fact, I could think the company I work for "owes" me more than they pay me. Or less, for that matter. If I want more, I owe it to myself to go where I can get it.

If I write software that no one pays me for, maybe I owe it to myself to find a different occupation.

You get worked up about people not honoring agreements. The part you don't get is that no one is bound to remain in agreement with anyone elses desires.

About half of you are divorced, or will be. Great material loss occurs because of divorces. Enormous emotional pain is involved. What is divorce? A broken contract.

Are you worked up about people getting divorced? In most cases, no, you accept it as a matter of course, even when you are the one it happens to. It's simply understood that the contract is being broken. Certainly the ex-wife does not owe the ex-husband her life.

But you get steamed if someone downloads your software without paying. Even though they do not "agree" to the contract you want to hold them to.

Software, music, whatever. If you can't make money with it, then you simply aren't capable of making money with it. Period. If that's the case, then you owe it to yourself to find another way to riches, and stop complaining about those who simply don't think your software or music is worth what you want them to pay. If you don't want them to steal it, don't make it available to them.

This comes down to "intellectual rights" which is simply not approached rationally. If you have a good idea, and can bring it to market, fine. But the idea that no one else can "take" that idea and develope it themselves is concept that has no "substance" underlying it's basis. It's just a matter of desire, and enforcement.

Having an idea does not intrinsically give you exclusive rights to it for X amount of years. It's just the system we have worked out, and many people don't agree with it.

Oh, and you think your dads predicament a funny story? Okaaaay...

[Ancient Dragon]

>>Life does not come with a guarantee. You could work for me for two weeks and drop dead. Who would I owe? (No one.)
Yes you would -- you would owe the dead person's estate. If you don't pay up then his estate can sue you for the wages and anything else you might own him.

>>You work for me for two weeks, then I drop dead. Who would owe you? (No one)
Same answer as above, for your estate owes me the money and I can sue your estate if it won't pay up.

>>Maybe the work you've done for me is really of no value at all. Do I owe you for it?
doesn't matter what the work I did was worth as long as I fulfilled the contract I had with you. If I fulfilled the terms of the contract then you owe the money.

[jwenting]

I stole some gum when I was a kid. I wasn't caught by the store but by my grandmother instead. If I don't have the money to buy something, I simply do without. But if my friend isn't using the software that she legally bought because she bought something else, I have no problem with using it. Someone told me that I am also guilty of theft but I don't quite see it that way. I have also bought software/ cds/dvds etc from second stores and at garage sales. Some people say that is wrong as well.

If the original media are passed on, the license is passed on as well. As long as no copies are left behind that's just fine.
With downloaded software there is no physical media and the situation gets a lot more convoluted.
Usually it's licensed to a specific person (or legal entity) rather than to the holder of the media, and that license can't be transferred without action by the company granting the license.

[Infarction]

Blah blah blah

Owing is NOT predicated upon a "real" thing, or on "natural law". It is predicated upon what we want, what we agree to, and the "rules" we have created in hopes of getting what we want.
blah blah blah

You are entirely correct in this part. The concept of "owing" something is entirely an invention of our society. However, it's also a requisite to be in our society. If you can't live with the burden of owing somebody what society says is their due, then you are not fit to be in our society.

[briansmall]

>>Life does not come with a guarantee. You could work for me for two weeks and drop dead. Who would I owe? (No one.)
Yes you would -- you would owe the dead person's estate. If you don't pay up then his estate can sue you for the wages and anything else you might own him.

>>You work for me for two weeks, then I drop dead. Who would owe you? (No one)
Same answer as above, for your estate owes me the money and I can sue your estate if it won't pay up.

>>Maybe the work you've done for me is really of no value at all. Do I owe you for it?
doesn't matter what the work I did was worth as long as I fulfilled the contract I had with you. If I fulfilled the terms of the contract then you owe the money.

You're just repeating the party line here. You haven't addressed one iota of the underpinnings of my discussion.

You've just layered one more "magic word," estate,on top of the argument, as though that magically addresses what lies under what I'm saying. It does not.

You have completely missed the point.

[briansmall]

You are entirely correct in this part. The concept of "owing" something is entirely an invention of our society. However, it's also a requisite to be in our society. If you can't live with the burden of owing somebody what society says is their due, then you are not fit to be in our society.

Finally, someone who has an understanding of how things work.

You use the word requisite. I invite you to take a look at that concept as well.

It is a requisite only to the degree that it is enforced.

When the inventions of the social organization no longer serve it, it is time to rethink them.

If you understand what is transpiring, you can address the issue intelligently. If you only look at superficial symptoms, then you cannot.

[Ezzaral]

...
Software, music, whatever. If you can't make money with it, then you simply aren't capable of making money with it. Period. If that's the case, then you owe it to yourself to find another way to riches, and stop complaining about those who simply don't think your software or music is worth what you want them to pay. If you don't want them to steal it, don't make it available to them. ...

And I suppose we should also just make all goods and services available in the same manner of "Here, just take it and pay me if you want to, but if you choose not to, that's okay, it must be my fault for not making it good enough to make you want to actually pay for it"? How long do you believe these goods and services will remain available. As you point out, they owe it to themselves to do something different if they fail to make money on what they produce.

Since you want to dissemble on the philosophical nuances of "owing", perhaps you may want to consider the implications if no party ever felt they had to honor any agreement with any other party. Outside of direct violence to enforce personal expectations, how do you believe that such a society could function?

[Ancient Dragon]

You're just repeating the party line here ... You have completely missed the point.

After re-reading, maybe I did mis-interpret those statements. If I read the answers as if they were spoken from a pirate's point of view, then you are right.

[briansmall]

""Here, just take it and pay me if you want to, but if you choose not to, that's okay, it must be my fault for not making it good enough to make you want to actually pay for it"?

Not at all. What is being placed on the table for discussion, (among other things) is intellectual property rights, a social invention that brings problems with it.

If I work for you and you don't pay me, I leave, go to an "honest" employer. That's easy. If I work for myself, create a program that no one pays me for I still have the same option. I've just chosen employment that isn't working for me.

It is predicated on the notion that I have exclusive rights to something that I cannot actually control. That is a concept that is not supported by natural law.

As long as it works, (well enough) fine. When it does not work well enough, we will have to find a better way.

The laws we have created for our endeavor (social group) are not working as we'd like.
Eventually we will have to face the truth .. blaming those who don't conform (those who cause disruption) can only lead to more and more prisions, or worse, it doesn't fix the underlying problems.

"Since you want to dissemble on the philosophical nuances of "owing", perhaps you may want to consider the implications if no party ever felt they had to honor any agreement with any other party. Outside of direct violence to enforce personal expectations, how do you believe that such a society could function?"

Dissemble on the philosophical nuances of "owning"? Clever question, but innacurate. this is not a philosophical discussion. It is pragmatic. Reducing it to the notion of "philosophical nuances" is a fine way to dismiss that which you do not want to address, point by point.

To answer your question indirectly, I believe than no social order can satisfy everyone. There will always be those who feel cheated, and, there will always be those who disrupt for the sheer joy of disruption. The question is whether the social order is "just" and whether it affords its members that which they want and need to the degree that most of them are willing to conform to the system.

Theoretically, this could happen, if society is equipped to look at itself and change according to the needs of it's people. Ours has little of that mechanism in place.

We look at the behavior of our people and just make more laws against behavior we don't like, rather than addressing the underlying cause.

Those who are successful within the system love it. Those who wish to be successful are unhappy with those who "stand in thier way" .. all the while quoting the law.

But it's a punitive, and insanely crazy system that cannot work the way it's constructed. You are only seeing the result of that.

Complain all you want about those that don't fit the system. Such complaints don't help.

[briansmall]

After re-reading, maybe I did mis-interpret those statements. If I read the answers as if they were spoken from a pirate's point of view, then you are right.

Tthanks for re-reading, but I don't quite agree with your interpretation.

This is not about pirates, it's about whether the system of rewards; the law that we have set up, is adequate to keep the bulk of society appeased. Our law is a contrivance, it's not natural law.

Who hasn't done at least one of these?

Run a red light? Cut into the middle of the intersection so you wouldn't get caught at the red? Cut in and out of traffic disruptively? Failed to legally use your turn signals? Tossed your cigarette out the window? Smoked closer than the lawful distance of a non-smoking area? Cheated a little on your taxes? Divorced? Spit on the sidewalk? Played your music loudly enough to disturb others? Driven when a bit tipsey? Cheated on your spouse?

The list could go on and on, but ANY infraction of the laws of society simply sets you up as a hypocrit if you hold yourself above others who have broken a different rule.

Shades of grey can always be rationalized.

My point is that society can NOT provide a set of rules that will "work" for everyone. such rules are only guidelines. The more people that follow them, the easier it is for everyone. But damned near everyone breaks various rules as they see fit, then they cry loudly when someone else breaks a rule they cherish.

The trick for society is to make rules that are truly sensible, which address the underlying needs and desires of the group adequately so that they do not feel compelled to break those rules. Our society does not fill that bill. We just keep making more laws and punishing more people in hopes that they will abide by them.

It's not stupid have a system which rewards people for their efforts. But a system which leaves millions upon millions on the streets, without health care, or without prospect of being able to improve their lot in life while they watch you get ahead in ways they cannot dream of is bound to run into problems. I'm surprised we have lasted this long.

Some people simply do not choose to play the game because doing so will not afford them the standard of living to which they aspire.

Where do you choose to stand? If you are like most, ... you stand exactly where it profits you most, with the least repercussion to you personally.

[Bomba]

If the original media are passed on, the license is passed on as well. As long as no copies are left behind that's just fine.
With downloaded software there is no physical media and the situation gets a lot more convoluted.
Usually it's licensed to a specific person (or legal entity) rather than to the holder of the media, and that license can't be transferred without action by the company granting the license.

All of the software and games that I download come with a license. Even fonts that I download usually have have a license or contract included in a text file. I choose to honor those licenses. The software that I sometimes get from Sarah is stuff that she no longer uses because she always wants the latest.

The real bottom line here though is about knowingly stealing someone else's work whether it be software or music. And if I am willing to steal by justifing that no one gets hurt, then how many other things can I justify away? Is it ok for me to kick a dog because no one else knows? Then if I get away with abusing a dog, is it ok to abuse a child? How about then when I go rob a convience store or a bank or just snatch some little old lady's purse? I will probably be able to justify that as well. And where will it end?

[briansmall]

All of the software and games that I download come with a license. Even fonts that I download usually have have a license or contract included in a text file. I choose to honor those licenses. The software that I sometimes get from Sarah is stuff that she no longer uses because she always wants the latest.

The real bottom line here though is about knowingly stealing someone else's work whether it be software or music. And if I am willing to steal by justifing that no one gets hurt, then how many other things can I justify away? Is it ok for me to kick a dog because no one else knows? Then if I get away with abusing a dog, is it ok to abuse a child? How about then when I go rob a convience store or a bank or just snatch some little old lady's purse? I will probably be able to justify that as well. And where will it end?

Are you saying there is NO rule of society, no common desire of the masses that you have not chosen to ignore? Ever?

[MosaicFuneral]

You committed necromancy just to call people gay, and post some smileys with X's a O's.

[PCSAWICK829]

i am for and against piracy.. on the one hand, it is stealing, period. But then again, i don't think anyone will argue with me that there are some things in this world that are SERIOUSLY overpriced, (for example) when the workmanship/material that went in to it was almost nothing and they sell it for almost 500%+ profit. i smell fat cats lording over the creators more then creator earning their money for what they made.