Software piracy: What do you think about it?

[Switch625]

I said wrong always. Because it is. I don't have any pirated software. I will admit to having a few (and I really do mean "a few") mp3s I got from KaZaa, but I have been (as I can afford to) buying CDs to cover them. As you can tell, I used to pirate software and music, but I got over it.

There is so much free stuff out there on the internet, I don't feel it's necessary to steal. I have a ton of freeware, and many free mp3s (MP3.com is a great place to go for free music), and I have no regrets. I will buy the occasional game, and I bought my OS (yeah, I paid money for Win98), but I get by fine with mostly freeware.

 

[floppa21]

Profiting off of someone else's work is wrong.

Not being able to copy a cd I bought onto a tape to listen to in my car is wrong.

I personally think there is a fine line here that has been well described above, but then I voted "who cares". We can talk til blue in the face, it won't change nothing. So it's illegal. NOT UNLESS YOU GET CAUGHT. And people will always be doing illegal things. I wouldn't personally burn hundreds of cds and try to resell them on ebay but others have, do and will. What can you do about it? Buy if you think it's a deal, don't buy if you think it's wrong. We're all so moral... Oh well, that's my vote.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Padma
Richard, the most important thing to me would be to bring the copyright times back down to a reasonable 'limited' time. I like the founding fathers' original idea of 7 years, with an extension for another 7. OK, I know that may sound unreasonable today. I wouldn't complain if it were even as high as 25 yrs.

But the whole idea behind copyright was to allow works to enter the public domain! The creator is given exclusive control for a limited time, and then the work becomes available for ALL to use and enjoy. The sharing of these works is supposed to be more important than the money to be made from them. It was supposed to provide anincentive for the author to continue to create new works, as they old ones wouldn't pay forever. And the flow of these new works into the public domain should benefit society as a whole.

Current copyright law has been stolen by major corporations (Disney, et. al.) to ensure perpetual control over their 'creations'. They are also the drive behind the Digital Millenium Copyroght Act, and the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. The sole purpose of these acts is to take away the consumers' rights of fair use. They assume that all consumers are pirates at heart, and unless forced to abide by the law (including outlawing any fair use rights for digital media) we would go into such a copyright-infringement frenzy that it would destroy their corporations.

I don't think the DCMA is quite as bad as you make out, although I agree with the EFF in a couple of cases that the law has to be more flexible, particularly with research that has a bona fide academic purpose.

But overall, I actually agree; I think the lifetime of the original author/creator plus 10-15 years would do. The original extensions began way back in Wordsworth's time, when he started to ***** that his family would not have a pension, so the logic was that post-death rights would provide for families is sort of ok in my mind. I would, however, agree that the term can be extended by what I would call investment in existing properties; if Disney wants to make money off of mickey mouse, well, okay, but they have to be creating new copyright material on top of the old to qualify; they can't just be a rentier class living like fuedal aristocrats. So, a film like Casablanca would fall into public domain because there has been no new economic activity in Rick's created.

And Scrimshaw, the trouble with your argument is that people put the same work into building PCs, cars, running hotels and cooking food in restaurants, but I suspect you don't dine and dash because it's good advertising for future dinners out, right? I agree that free software can be a good promotional tool. But should it be the choice of the creator/developer to make it free, or should the person who hasn't paid a cent yet get to decide how many copies are given away before "it's time to pay for it?"

 

[sgrig]

Hmm, I'll keep quiet on this one!

 

[CornMaster]

Using software, and selling pirated software is two different things.

One SHOULD NEVER profit off of other peoples work.

That's why when I pirate software and create stuff...it's always freeware.

 

[Akka]

On the whole, I hate to use a prog and to not reward the author that produced it. Still, there is some stuff I pirate allegedly and without a single remorse :
- Microsoft stuff. Prices are purely INSANE and it's not like we have a choice. I ressent forced buy, especially coming from a company that has such a heavy justice track about corruption, trust, deloyal concurrence (spelling ?) and so on.
- Heavily protected programs : when protections are such a burden that an original program is more annoying to use than a pirated one (CD that does not work on some drives, the insane copy protection of WinXP that require you to call M$ each time you change your computer, and so on), I consider that there is a fooling of the consumer. Bang.
On a more general basis, if a company try to rip me off, I'll pirate it. If a company release good stuff and respect me, I'll pay the last single cent for its product.
I was more legal some times ago, but the general tendancies of the market led me on the piracy fringes. As I'm seeing companies less and less respectful of the consumer, releasing more and more buggy softwares, and at the same time accusing the buyer about being a thief and considering him guilty until proved innocent, I felt less and less compelled to act in a respectful manner myself.
To sum up, I'm acting with the company in the same manner it's acting with me : if it treats me honnestly and with respect, I'll be honnest and respectful. If not, then f*ck off.

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
...I make halfway decent money but with software prices like the ones bluemonday pointed out, I cannot afford to buy that kind of software(large applications, games are cheap in comparison). If not for pirated software I'd never have learned what I know of computers and I'd probably only own windows and a few games. Thanks to piracy, I've learned programming(my occupation) and many other applications an average joe like myself cannot afford...

I think that's a great point, and one I hear over and over and over again in warez boards. I have met many people who have made their careers in things like programming, computer graphics, and 3d modeling by downloading a program that would have cost them a fortune. They learned it, got to know it inside out, and once they got thier first job doing it they were set. And one of the embarassing things is that a lot of those games we're out there getting were built using pirated software. A good bunch of games produced by those upstart studios wouldn't have been possible if the fresh-out-of-college geniuses hadn't jakked an SDK.

your IP address has been logged. The men in black are on the way.

Sorry kid, DHCP has got me covered. I don't know what you're talking about anyway. I mean, if there's no illegal software on my harddrive, and no registry entries, and no burned CDs to be found...

 

[NY Hoya]

Hmmmm, less than 40% support intellectual property rights. This is not a good sign.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Akka
- Microsoft stuff. Prices are purely INSANE and it's not like we have a choice. I ressent forced buy, especially coming from a company that has such a heavy justice track about corruption, trust, deloyal concurrence (spelling ?) and so on.

Funny, but you do have a choice: Realaudio instead of Media player, Netscape instead of Explorer, Linux or a Mac OS instead of Windows, Wordperfect instead of Word, and so on. Hell, I know it might sound crazy to you, but there's people I know who run WHOLE COMPUTERS without MS products! If you are being forced to buy MS, it can only be because you want what's inside, not because of some other mysterious "force."

"No choice..." in a marketplace full of choices. What a pathetic excuse for theft. Can't you do better?

R.III

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by floppa21
Profiting off of someone else's work is wrong.

Not being able to copy a cd I bought onto a tape to listen to in my car is wrong.

I agree totally.


Just to clarify from my previous post I think piracy for the purpose of resale is wrong. I have never sold someone else's hard work to anyone and I've never paid for copied software either.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Just to clarify from my previous post I think piracy for the purpose of resale is wrong. I have never sold someone else's hard work to anyone and I've never paid for copied software either.

If you feel so strongly on this issue, when would any sort of piracy be acceptable?

 

[Dell19]

Yes it would, because you are not making a profit out of it. Its still illegal but alot less morally wrong...

 

[philippe]

if we copy games quality games fall.
and now you are thinking what the ......?
a company makes profit by selling games.
if they dont sell enough games what happens?
less money to invest in games!
so less quality games.
so people buy legal games!
or else you get buggy crap games.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Richard III


Funny, but you do have a choice: Realaudio instead of Media player, Netscape instead of Explorer, Linux or a Mac OS instead of Windows, Wordperfect instead of Word, and so on. Hell, I know it might sound crazy to you, but there's people I know who run WHOLE COMPUTERS without MS products! If you are being forced to buy MS, it can only be because you want what's inside, not because of some other mysterious "force."

"No choice..." in a marketplace full of choices. What a pathetic excuse for theft. Can't you do better?

R.III

Pathetic reply too. Saying that I've a choice is a joke. I want a computer mainly to play. If I want to play, it's Windows, nothing else. I have NOT the choice. Internet Explorer is BUILT in Windows, I have NOT the option to ask for an Internet Explorer-free windows. Though, if you were a little more aware of the reality, you should have know that IE is free to download. Realaudio and Media Player are free to download too, again.
Feeling stupid ? You should.
THE thing that I'm forced to get no matter why is the OS. If you think that I've the choice to get MacOS or Linux to play games, then I can only advise you to get out from fantasyland and come back on the real world.

 

[LordAzreal]

I admit, I do use pirated games/software sometimes. But I do it on a try-before-buy basis. A small demo really doesn't show off the game's features as much as a warez download.

But it is still a moral dilemma, because not everyone is that honourable, and would sooner just keep the pirate copy than to actually buy the game legit.

As I am learning programming and going into the gaming industry, I'd hate to see it ruined this way before I can even make a start.

 

[Richard III]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Akka
Pathetic reply too. Saying that I've a choice is a joke. I want a computer mainly to play. If I want to play, it's Windows, nothing else. I have NOT the choice. Internet Explorer is BUILT in Windows, I have NOT the option to ask for an Internet Explorer-free windows. Though, if you were a little more aware of the reality, you should have know that IE is free to download. Realaudio and Media Player are free to download too, again.
Feeling stupid ? You should.

THE thing that I'm forced to get no matter why is the OS. If you think that I've the choice to get MacOS or Linux to play games, then I can only advise you to get out from fantasyland and come back on the real world. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, and Netscape is free, Linux is often free (although you can pay if you really want to) and so on. And although I've run Netscape on MS machines, with the oh so tough problem of simply ignoring the integrated version, I have been persuaded by your clever arguments to feel so stupid, Akka! I will adopt the surly teen angst-hackeresque mantras of piracy because I didn't list the prices while pointing out all the choices you have! You sure got me there!

My point was that there is choice across the board. You just don't like the fact that your market preference is the most expensive choice. Boo hoo. Like is rough, huh? But I've been convinced. Piracy is fair and legal because you can't play games without Microsoft, since the choice of Mac or Linux just isn't good enough.

What a crock.

Your capacity to rationalise theft is amazing. Personally, I wanted a flat screen so I could see games better and not go blind writing. I also wanted an integrated design, too, much like a Mac in the early days with as few wires as possible. And an IBM X41 was the only model that fit my specs, so instead of wasting my time saving like everyone else, I should have taken a page of off your book. Because if I wanted to play games, I was left with no other choice to shoplift it: Big Blue made me do it.

Your whole argument was based on the fact that you were "forced to buy" Microsoft. And there is a world of people out there who aren't forced to buy anything. Maybe you need a little meditation on the meaning of the word "forced" and "choice" before your next software purchase.

R.III

 

[IceBlaZe]

Do you know how many hours programmers worked on Microsoft products?
It's like tons of programmers, working tons of hours.
I don't think you are paying such a high price for that.
If everyone would follow linux we would end up in a non-advancing communism.

 

[Akka]

Well, it's tiring to argue with blind people.
Windows is 90-95 % of the market. It's called practical monopol and it's against all antitrust laws. If you consider that having either the choice of using the 5 % programs that does not work on Windows or getting Windows is having a choice, then it's just a problem between you and the handful of lone neurons that you've left.

Do you know how many hours programmers worked on Microsoft products?
It's like tons of programmers, working tons of hours.
I don't think you are paying such a high price for that.
If everyone would follow linux we would end up in a non-advancing communism.

What a pile of bullshit. Just because something is free you hate it because it reminds you communism. Pay pay pay money money money hu ?

If everyone would follow Linux we would end up with big companies actively trying to make better products to justify the price, rather than relying only on marketting and monopolism.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Do you know how many hours programmers worked on Microsoft products?
It's like tons of programmers, working tons of hours.
I don't think you are paying such a high price for that.
If everyone would follow linux we would end up in a non-advancing communism.

That's indeed a disturbing view. If you take a look at the development that Linux has taken over the years and compare that with Windows (while taking into account the money that was spend on both of them) you can't say Linux is non-advancing.
In fact Microsoft probably slowed down the development.
Funny that you mention Communism. In Capitalist theories the advantage of the system lies within the competition. They argue Communism doesn't have that and is slower in advancing therefore. Well, but where's the competition in a monopolistic market? Why should Microsoft try to make the best they can when the people have to buy what they put out anyway?
Linux on the other hand is driven simply by the wish of it's creators worldwide to improve it. Not for financial reasons but for simple technological interest.
So you say not being greedy is communist? And therefore wrong?

 

[stormerne]

I write software and I manage other people who write software. It's our livelihood. People do steal from us. When we were a small company, people stole from us because they thought we were too small to go after everyone who cheated us. Now we're the international market leader, people steal from us because they reckon we're big enough to stand it. I even hear twisted justifications about them making us "give back something to the community". Needless to say it makes me angry. I only wish I had time visit every one of these scum individually.