Piracy - Page 5

[Ancient Dragon]

Overpriced items is no reason to steal them. Start your own business/company, make something similar, then sell them at a more reasonable price, which shuld quickly put the original company out of business. Open source program as normally just given away for free. Take Open Office as an example. It hasn't put Microsoft out of business with Office 2010, but its a pretty good competitor.

[reccakeys]

I will definitely call myself a Pirate Buster. I really hate piracy. It is like stealing someones work. Now a days there are lots of piracy happening all around the world. I can't think as of now on what should be done to stop piracy, I had an headache...

[PCSAWICK829]

That's all fine, but when someone such as myself doesn't have the manpower/knowledge to create something of the sorts, then yes, something can be overpriced. Take for example forms of transportation. The average person could make something easily enough, but there are many laws and restrictions which prevent things like this from becoming mainstream, just one of many things. I don't think i could learn how to make everything I need/want in life: house, tv, games, computers, printing of books, material for clothes, carpet, dvd's, foods of different type. I don't know anyone who has sat down to learn every single thing like that to avoid paying for overpriced things. Its basically others holding hostages. I can definitely say that the music I did pick up these last ten years, what little i did, was 'gifted' to me, one way or another. When this world pays a single woman taking care of 3 children alone more then they pay a athlete who pays games all his life, then i'll start paying for things like they're worth the price.

[Ancient Dragon]

So you think theft is ok ??? Do you also like to spend some time in prison? Theft is generally illegal in every nation on Earth, and in some countries you might get your hand cut off. Just because you don't want to pay the price for something doesn't give you the right to steal it.

[PCSAWICK829]

theft can *also* be defined as charging 10x the actual value of something. medical cost for example. brain surgery hasn't become advanced enough to justify half the prices of procedures. DNA testing, which my son went through several months ago looking for an issue, is now being looked at as not even 'exactly' accurate, yet cost $4000+ for about 6 or so tests. (PLEASE, don't preach reasons for medical costs, especially if you're a liberal. i work for wellpoint, the biggest blue cross/shield insurer in america and know the workings up and down).Also, a McDonald hamburger: the meat isn't even worth a penny a piece (worked there before, too, as Asst. Mgr.) and god knows the condition of the slaughterhouse and animals it comes from, but they sell it for up to .79 cents. another one: A good free program like Ubuntu Linux exist because everyone knows that you suffer from theft when you buy Microsoft Windows.. a cruddy OS that is full of issues and is way overpriced. hell, they didn't even support their own software w/o charging you for a time. I particularly like that example because more and more people switch to alternative OS's everyday (based on my argument.) =) so yeah, I'll say certain kinds of thefts are VERY ok. ANYWAY. I've seen your previous posts on this thread and i intended to throw in my .01 cents originally, not .79 cents. I'm too tired to get into a moral argument with you. You have your ideas and I, mine. I rest easy knowing that plenty of people agree with me despite what you say, because it happens every day.

[Ancient Dragon]

>>theft can *also* be defined as charging 10x the actual value of something
That's not theft -- its capitalism. You have a choice whether you want to buy those items or not. We choose to give McDonalds $4.00 for a 5 cent piece of burned meat between two pieces of bread. We choose to give Microsoft $150 (or whatever the cost) for Windows 7. We don't have that choice with theft.

[Ezzaral]

Yes, a high price might be called "theft" colloquially, but it is certainly cannot be defined as such.

You have your ideas and I, mine. I rest easy knowing that plenty of people agree with me despite what you say, because it happens every day.

A lot of people agreeing with completely illogical arguments doesn't make them correct.

[PCSAWICK829]

You have your definitions and I have mine. You see things as black and white in this world, where I could destroy any argument of yours for this idea just by telling you to take a walk out in to the wide, wide world. And it may not be correct in your book, but a lot of people agreeing on 'illogical arguments' tends to make things correct anymore. Anyway, as I said, I'm out. Enjoy your thread and trying to paint the world black & white. You're going to need a lot of paint.

[jon.kiparsky]

This is argument is always good for some confusion - people like to flip back and forth between legal arguments and moral arguments, and when those don't work they like to move over to economics, or even (god help us) sociology and the squidgier sciences.

The legal case is pretty simple: in US law and I believe in the law of most industrialized nations, the creator of the work has the legal right to determine the terms of distribution of their work for a period of time. If you violate the terms of that copyright, you are breaking the law. You might not care, and the law might not be enforced, but there you go.

The moral case is also pretty simple, but people don't always agree on which way it's simple. Either it's simple, the creator of the work has a moral right to recompense for the time and effort that they put into creating whatever it is they create, and they can pursue that recompense by selling the thing on their own or by appointing someone else to do that part of the business for them, or it's simple, you've got it and I want it and I can take it without leaving my living room, so I've got a right to it. There are variations, but either you believe that a creator of work has a moral right to withhold their product if they so choose.
One fun point is that people who hold that the creator of the work has no moral right to place restrictions on its distribution generally (as in this thread) cite Stallman at some point, not realizing that Stallman's GPL is entirely conditioned on the right of the creator of a work to limit what the receiver can do with it. If you like the GPL, you are a supporter of copyright, because the GPL only works if we believe in copyright.

[AuburnMathTutor]

Some of the arguments in this thread are just plain ridiculous.

PCSAWICK829:
How much are you selling your TV for? I guarantee I *could* come into your house and take it for free, if I feel you're overcharging me. That seems pretty black-and-white to me.

[marh]

Okey pirazy is wrong but we have learn so much using pirazy and used information that otherwise we need to spend to much money

[Cashmatic]

While most who break copyright laws, give reasoning just like many have listed here. They fail to realize the struggling independent software developers, authors, and musicians who have poured their life’s blood into their work, just to have it stolen.

Have you ever spent hours, months, or even years working on that new software, ebook, song etc., just to have it stolen by pirates and made available for free download to the world? If you have, then you understand first hand that piracy is theft.

[marh]

Everybody agree that pirazy is wrong. The funny thing most of the people i know use it

[joshalb]

Piracy is both illegal, and immoral. So why do people do it? Are those people equally as immoral as piracy? Maybe.

Here's the argument on piracy. Most pirates wouldn't buy something even if they had the money to do so. Therefore, the company isn't losing any profit. They wouldn't of got the money either way. Or would they? Some pirates even go so far as to say piracy is a good thing because even though one person pirated it, he may of told a friend about it and that friend decided to buy it.

Also, is piracy really stealing? Yes? Pirates don't seem to think that. Piracy is simply stealing a copy of something. They're not stealing the real deal, therefore, the company isn't losing money because of it. The pirate is copying something that exists, and taking the copy. Nothing was lost at all.

With that in mind, should people pirate? Guess that depends on your point of view. It's kind of like politics. If you're rich, tax the poor. If you're poor, tax the rich. If you're rich, buy the product. If you're poor, pirate it. This is why debates on piracy are silly. It's a point of view thing. You may disagree with every point I made above, but then again, someone out there agrees with every point I made above.

My two cents.

[Agilemind]

I agree that pirating something that is available for purchase in your area (or will be soon) is wrong.

But, I'm curious about how people feel about pirating something that is not available to you in the first place -> eg. region locked DVDs that are only sold for one region.

Your not depriving the person of money because you couldn't buy it anyway (or you could but you wouldn't be able to watch it). So its not really theft in terms of financial loss unless you know it will become available for sale in other regions at some point.

Assuming you don't use it for commercial purposes.

[Agilemind]

Consider:
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.

Owing is "natural law" in that it has evolved because it benefits both parties in the long run -> its called "reciprocal altruism".

By taking and giving nothing in return you are a "parasite" or "exploiter" and systems of policing/punishment evolves to prevent it.

But it has to go both ways to be stable if either side tries to exploit the other by refusing to fulfill their end of the bargain the other must be able to punish them or the co-operation breaks down.

The question here is really whether piracy is the best way for consumers to punish producers for inequitable deals, or if it is the consumer trying to exploit the producer? Here the problem is information, does the pirate only take from exploitative producers or do they do it indiscriminately, the answer is of course both. Which is why there is the debate (which one is more common). There is also the problem of how to define an exploitative producer -> since this is now in social/cultural realms where evolution has not equipped us with an inborn sense of what a fair price for Photoshop is.

The cure for piracy is to give people another way to punish producers they feel are exploitative. Government is the only one who could create such a system since corporations would prefer to just exploit consumers and consumers have little power to fight back with.

[Lusiphur]

Well I guess if this thread had to be resurrected I might as well participate...

I've noticed that a lot of the arguments for piracy seem to center around 'unfair pricing of the product being pirated' and the fact that the pirates would 'never have purchased the item at it's inflated price and so no actual loss is incurred.'

What I'm curious to know, however, is how many of these so called 'morally justified' pirates take into consideration that the reason the price of the items (software, music, etc) has risen to these levels (at least in part) is due to reduced legitimate sales due to piracy. Most companies these days incorperate a 'buffer' to their pricing to account for the anticipated rate of theft and unauthorized redistribution of their property and this is reflected in higher cost per unit to the end-users who actually purchase the software legitimately.

Continuing along these lines... 'morally justified' pirates indicate that they aren't hurting anybody through their theft (and whether it's a copy or the original thing it's still theft to take something that does not belong to you without permission or compensation). My question is simple enough... If everybody else is forced to pay increased cost per unit to compensate for the practice of piracy then are the pirates not, in fact, harming all of the future legitimate buyers whose prices have been affected by their actions?

The bottom line is that pirates hide behind a thin veil of moral righteousness and spout platitudes about how the market is corrupt and the crime has no victims but, in the end, it's still a crime and people do get affected (even if it is indirectly and not in the immediate scope of things). In the end you're no better than a petty shoplifter who steals from your local convenience store.

Just my 2 cents :)

[jon.kiparsky]

the reason the price of the items (software, music, etc) has risen to these levels (at least in part) is due to reduced legitimate sales due to piracy

The "buffer" claim, to me, is unconvincing. I assume that a seller will price their goods at the maximum they think they can get for the product. (or, more precisely, at the point that they believe will maximize their profit over time) If that's the case, then there's no room to increase the cost. If $15 for a CD is the profit-maximizing price, it doesn't matter what their costs for shrinkage, rent, or wages are. Raising the price to $16 will cost them money.

This is not by any means to justify theft or piracy (or rent or wages, for that matter!), but their effect is being mis-stated here. Rather than floating the price, added expenses determine whether a dealer can afford to sell a product. If $15 is the profit-maximizing price, and the dealer's total costs (including lost merchandise, etc.) are above what he can make selling at that price, he simply doesn't sell that product.

This might eventually convert the product into a specialty item, which can command a specialty price, but that's another story.

[jon.kiparsky]

is ... piracy the best way for consumers to punish producers for inequitable deals

This is nonsensical. If you make the deal, it's a fair deal. We're not talking about water in the desert here. If you want to buy the CD from a given seller, you pay their price. If you want, you can try to bargain with them (look, the case is cracked, can you knock a dollar off?) but they probably won't go for it, in the US at least. But if you can't come to a deal with someone who has what you want, you can't just go and take it.

The way to punish the producer of a product for overcharging you is to not buy that product. That doesn't mean "don't buy it, and steal it anyway", it means do without it until you can find a legitimate transaction that you think is fair.

[Lusiphur]

The "buffer" claim, to me, is unconvincing.

You might note that I said "in part" and not that the entirety of the price is based on this factor. My point is based on the 'bargain basement' pricing increases in places such as Wal-Mart and similar "lowest price" type stores. Over the years their prices have consistently been forced to rise due to factors such as shoplifting moreso than any other cost raising factor.

If we factor this same figure into the inflation at the 'bottom end' pricing of software or other intellectual property (music, movies, etc) then we can show that piracy does, in fact, affect the cost to the end user as I was stating. That's not to say that the top-end pricing isn't excessive (leading to the popular pro-piracy mantra) but to say that ALL vendors charge more than they're due and that there are no victims to piracy are both blatant mis-statements and outright falsehoods used to justify illegal actions and nothing more.

[jon.kiparsky]

I say no part is due to piracy, except in press releases condemning piracy. And again, the logic is simple: if they could profitably charge more, they would, regardless of piracy. Therefore, piracy can't raise the price.

Imagine you own a corner store, and you sell bubble gum - it's a very specialized store. You find over time that selling the gum for $.75/pack would give you a better margin on each piece, but you don't sell as much as when you charge $.50/pack. So you charge the lower price, and you make more money. Now, some bad kids move into the neighborhood and start stealing the gum when you're not looking. How does this change the first equation? You're still losing money when you raise the price - now you're losing money twice, once from the shoplifting and second from over-charging for your market.

If supply and demand is working, shoplifting cannot raise the price, and the same holds for piracy.

[Cashmatic]

If $15 is the profit-maximizing price, and the dealer's total costs (including lost merchandise, etc.) are above what he can make selling at that price, he simply doesn't sell that product.

If supply and demand is working, shoplifting cannot raise the price, and the same holds for piracy.

Both of these our valid arguments for showing precisely what drives many self publishers/developers, out of business.

Self publisher/developers do not have a corner store full of items, but a limited unique set of items.

[PsychoCoder]

Piracy is theft no matter how you decide to rationalize it. As a software developer I have a firm stance on this topic. You will not find a single piece of pirated software/movie/music on any system in my house, period. Just because you want something does not mean you have a right to it.

These software pirates act as if they have some sort of right to software, which is a luxury item not a necessity (I've never seen someone lose their life because they didn't have Photoshop). If you dont have the money to buy a piece of software then you do not deserve to own it, that's pretty simple actually. If you pirate software you're a thief.

[Cashmatic]

Piracy is theft no matter how you decide to rationalize it. As a software developer I have a firm stance on this topic. You will not find a single piece of pirated software/movie/music on any system in my house, period. Just because you want something does not mean you have a right to it.

These software pirates act as if they have some sort of right to software, which is a luxury item not a necessity (I've never seen someone lose their life because they didn't have Photoshop). If you dont have the money to buy a piece of software then you do not deserve to own it, that's pretty simple actually. If you pirate software you're a thief.

I could not have said it better myself.

--The Pirate Destroyer

[jon.kiparsky]

PsychoCoder - bang on. Especially in these days when you have access to so much free/open software, and musicians are doing so much to make their work legitimately available for free, there's no excuse for piracy. It's just laziness.

Here's a question, though. What about "abandonware"? I play and listen to a lot of traditional Irish music, and in that genre, there's a lot of orphaned works. I'm talking about stuff that's owned by some existing entity who is not making it available, and shows no signs of releasing it or selling the rights to someone who will release it. In some cases, the original artists are deceased, in other cases they alive and have explicitly stated that they have no objection to free distribution of the content, but they don't own the content any more.

There is a guy who's set up a page on blogspot to distribute these recordings, which he's transferred from vinyl. His policy is to post only stuff which he can't find legitimately, and to remove titles when the owners of the material make the material available commercially.

The site is at http://ceolalainn.blogspot.com/ - if you look through, you'll see that some of the titles are now just track listings and a link to a source of the content.

This seems like fair play to me. I have some of this material on my computer, and I don't feel that this is piracy on my part or his. Any thoughts on this?