Software Piracy

[randallman]

Frewfrux, couldn't you afford NOT to have a car if you moved somewhere else?

A car is a necessity IF YOU WANT TO LIVE WHERE YOU LIVE, right? You COULD, theoretically, survive without it, if you were to move?

That's what makes it a luxury.

It's a LOT more complex than that - but this is totally off topic I live in NYC and if you take my rent <-> cost of living adjustment compared to other areas where a car is ''required'', the higher cost of rent more than outweighs the added salary compared to the cost of having a car with a 'costs less to live here' salary

Its funny, but a large number of people that live in NYC do so because they want to enjoy the NYC life, not because it makes financial sense and because the jobs are weighted vs. other US localities such that the same basic position gets you the same basic standard of living

--Randallman

 

[spankey]

An interesting situation that might be realivant here is that of the lack of supply of the drug used to help people living with AIDS in South Africa. Initailly, the drug development companies said that they would sell the drug, at *full* price to SA. Of course, most people in SA couldn't afford it. So, South Africa said "screw you, we just won't recognize your copy-right on the drug and we will manufacture it ourselves." It wasn't long after this that the drug companies decided to reduce the price of this drug in third world countries.

Not sure if that's *exactly* how it went...but it's what I've heard...like I said, maybe its realivant, maybe not.

I am pretty sure that story is true.
But that proves my point. If I am a drug company, I am not going to invest my hard earned money to combat a disease that some country is going to legally steal. Look at AIDS treatments, how many innovative drugs are coming out to combat it since then? How many erectile disfunction drugs have come out? They have shifted their priorities to "safer" profits.

 

[Efexeye]

Let us accept that exactly as you put it, for a moment.

There remain some issues;

1. What happens if someone refuses to allow you to buy something simply because you live in Sunny SoCal ?

2. What happens if you have a laptop without a built in CD drive ? Do you have to lug around the External drive wherever you go because the software demands that the CD be in the drive ?

3. What happens if you work for a company in the 'third world' that makes computers and, because they are nice guys, they let you have one for way below cost as a perk ? But since you are only earning $50 a week and have a family to support, you cannot afford to buy games legally. Even if we accept that you should not 'steal' the game... should the software company make it available at a price that you can afford since it will not cost them anything to do that ?

4. What happens if you buy a game that has so many bugs that it is not enjoyable to play ? It functions for maybe an hour or two, but then needs to be rebooted, for example.

1. Then I don't get it! There are lots of video games for consoles that don't get released in the US- I don't get to play them, that's it. I can see, however, how this would piss people off.

2. YES, I do! I should have checked beforehand, and, if I didn't want to carry the hard drive, I shouldn't have bought the game!

3. No. companies have an absolute right to charge what they want. The only reason that piracy is an issue is the issue of supply and demand. With a physical commodity, prices are driven by what the market will bear. If something is too expensive, no one buys it, and the price goes down. With software and media, you have another option- to pirate/steal/infringe the copyright. Market forces are circumvented because of the ease with which things are duplicable (is that even a word?).

4. That's a technical issue. I agree that if a product doesn't perform as advertised, consumers should have a remedy. I was irritated that the minimum specs for XP are now being published on the web don't match what is on the box. In the movies, if the movie jumps or is out of focus, I expect to get my money back. If I buy a car that is a lemon, I should be able to return it. Same thing with games- you have a point on this one. However, I fail to see how piracy helps games become less buggy.

 

[Efexeye]

Man, your excuses are becoming more and more lame and desperate

Ah, resorting to personal attacks...the last resort of someone that can't justify their position or has been out-argued.

It's cool, man, flame away- I'm an adult, I can take it. But I won't be goaded into a flame war- I like this topic, and it's been a pretty civil debate so far. I'd like to keep it going.

 

[MattJek]

Ah, resorting to personal attacks...the last resort of someone that can't justify their position or has been out-argued.

It's cool, man, flame away- I'm an adult, I can take it. But I won't be goaded into a flame war- I like this topic, and it's been a pretty civil debate so far. I'd like to keep it going.

I think I was being very civil in my statement. Just stating new facts. BTW, you just have been 'goaded' into one simply by posting this thread

 

[Efexeye]

Please. I don't pay for the air I breathe, is that stealing? I don't pay for warm sunshine, am I stealing when I sit outside? I don't pay to swim in Lake Michigan, is that stealing?

And before you say that I'm paying by exerting effort to breathe or stay alive or go to the beach, then I'll claim I'm exerting effort to acquire a pirated copy of a piece of software.

What air, sunshine, and Lake Michigan all have in common is that they AREN'T SCARCE RESOURCES. Receiving non-scarce resources for no cost is not stealing, because no one is being deprived of anything.


Am I stealing if I drink from a city water supply that some company bottles and sells in grocery stores? For the sake of argument, assume I'm not from that city, and therefore have not pre-paid in taxes for the privilege.

For more interesting examples where copyright infringement != theft, please look at the questions I raised in post #132 of this thread.


Great God a'mighty, THANK YOU.

Come ON, dude, I KNOW you know the difference between a consumer commodity, like a video game or a television, and a free resource, like air or sunshine.

Let's not be ridiculous.

 

[Efexeye]

I think I was being very civil in my statement. Just stating new facts. BTW, you just have been 'goaded' into one simply by posting this thread

Yes, calling my arguments lame and desperate is very civil.

[/end sarcasm]

And if you think this thread is a flame war...you don't know what a flame is.

 

[Control Group]

If I invent something (say, a video game) and get a copyright on it, I can have that relatively 'absolute ownership' to which I am referring. Say for example I invented Civ IV: Call to Flower (heh)... I would have every right to determine the terms by which the 'license to use' is sold (until which time as the copyright expires, as you stated). If I invented a drug to cure HIV and got it patented, that specific formula would be protected by US law for that period of 20 years, during which time I could manufacture, sell, not sell, etc... however I saw fit.

That being said, I'm no lawyer. Perhaps the would-be-consumer has the ability to dictate how I deal with my 'ownership' beyond making the decision to buy or not to buy (under my terms) my product. However, I would find that a bit hard to believe

The "license to use" concept is an interesting point to raise, since EULAs are still in something of a legal limbo, as far as I know. Anyway: you do have the right to determine whether or not to sell it at all, but you have far less in the way of rights to determine to whom you can sell it.

For example: you'd be on shaky ground if you refused to sell your creation to someone because he was African-American. Or because the potential customer was a woman, or a Muslim, or gay, etc.

You are right, though, in that you have pretty much absolute ownership for the duration of the protection. My only point was that your ownership is limited by time, and the only reason I raised it is to point out that the absolute right to ownership that some people on this thread seem to believe in is not recognized in law or by society. For another example, if you've decided to sell the product to someone, under the First Sale doctrine, you cannot prevent them from turning around and selling it to someone else. This concept was fought tooth and nail by the book publishing industry when it was formulated, because they didn't want used book stores to eat into their profits from their intellectual property. In fact, there was recently (still is?) a lawsuit against Amazon.com for putting links to used copies next to the buy new option on their site.

This is the kind of thing that happens if we accept that intellectual property rights are absolute, and it's why I believe it's important to point out that they're not.

And, if intellectual property rights aren't absolute, then it's worthwhile to have a discussion regarding exactly what intellectual property means in terms of control, to determine where, between total control and total lack thereof the line should fall.

 

[MattJek]

Yes, calling my arguments lame and desperate is very civil.

[/end sarcasm]

And if you think this thread is a flame war...you don't know what a flame is.

LOL and calling my argument a 'crap argument' in the first place was civil as well
[end/sarcasm] Maybe you should think twice before starting your rebuttals.... and I couldn't care a rats behind what a flame war is

 

[Efexeye]

LOL and calling my argument a 'crap argument' in the first place was civil as well
[end/sarcasm] Maybe you should think twice before starting your rebuttals.... and I couldn't care a rats behind what a flame is

Okay...I was wrong for saying that was a crap argument, but at least I justified what I said by giving a reaosn why I thought so. You had no comeback, so what you posted was simple slander.

I'll be ignoring your posts from here on out- you're clearly interested more in trolling than the actual debate.

 

[Control Group]

Come ON, dude, I KNOW you know the difference between a consumer commodity, like a video game or a television, and a free resource, like air or sunshine.

Come ON dude, I KNOW you know the difference between a NON SCARCE commodity, like a video game, and a SCARCE commodity, like a television.

Why do you refuse to see the difference between something which has a limited supply and something which has an unlimited supply?

Why do you keep insisting that they're basically the same thing?

 

[Efexeye]

Come ON dude, I KNOW you know the difference between a NON SCARCE commodity, like a video game, and a SCARCE commodity, like a television.

Why do you refuse to see the difference between something which has a limited supply and something which has an unlimited supply?

Why do you keep insisting that they're basically the same thing?

There is an unlimited supply of video games? They just spring into existence, out of the ether? I fail to grasp the scarce/nonscarce angle of this argument.

What am I not getting here?

 

[MattJek]

Okay...I was wrong for saying that was a crap argument, but at least I justified what I said by giving a reaosn why I thought so. You had no comeback, so what you posted was simple slander.

I'll be ignoring your posts from here on out- you're clearly interested more in trolling than the actual debate.

Sorry, I dont know what "trolling" or "flaming" is. Anyways, I did justify my arguments, you just didnt like them because you think you are the only one who has the 'right' opinion on this topic. Youre getting very valid arguments from numerous individuals and youre only offering of-the-wall and hairbrained responses.

 

[Siggy19]

I think one of the issues in this discussion is the difference in perspective between Americans (who do generally believe in what the rest of the world calls Rampant Capitalism) and the rest of us (I was born and live in America, but spent 25 years in Europe in between).

The American perspective is that the creator owns it and has the right to sell it to whomever they wish on whatever terms they wish.

The alternative perspective is that there are reasonable standards that apply to everything (the whole 'common-law' concept).

Thus, to an American, Firaxis has the right to demand that I lug my external CD drive around if I want to play cIV on my laptop that does not have an internal drive.

To the others, Firaxis has the right to be paid for the game, but once I have paid for it, I can do pretty much whatever I want with it apart from making copies to distribute.

Similarly, to the Americans, Firaxis has the right to charge the same amount to everyone, even though that might mean that people in countries with lower standards of living cannot afford to buy it.

To the rest of us, this may be legally right, but since copies of cIV are potentially limitless, they would be dumb to do so.

I don't think that this dispute can be resolved, because it does boil down to an almost religious faith on both sides.

I would like to thank the Moderators for allowing this debate to continue and to thank ALL of the contributors for keeping our tempers under control and keeping this discussion rational.

 

[spankey]

However: You might have noticed that even in the so-called "rich" western civilizations there are problems. Quite a bunch of them, in fact, and probably not the smallest among them the growing discrepancy between rich and poor. At the same time, marketing power is unleashed onto everybody. What is marketing? Marketing is the attempt to incite a desire for something which is not necessarily needed. So it might be cynical but nevertheless true that the urge to get all that wonderful (as the ads say) stuff is proof of the success of a marketing strategy. Marketing makes people want something. Sadly for the companies, there is no effective filter as to WHO wants something, meaning that marketing adresses even those who could not afford the products.

The problem is especially pressing for younger people and ESPECIALLY those in the so-called "lower classes" where your status is determined primarily by what you own and what you (seemingly) can afford.

This, of course, is no excuse, it's just an analysis of what's going on there. It basically comes to to a problem of capitalism, really. And of course, the ease of getting the forbidden fruit AND the fact that you don't take anything physically away from someone (i.e. you don't steal) plays an important role here.

I saw the word capitalism and I had to throw my 2 cents in...
Every economic system has its flaws. Capitalism has a larger gap between the haves and have nots. But, it is a large generator of economic development that should lift all classes. Socialism looks wonderful--guaranteed medicine, healthcare, housing, job security. It just comes out ugly due to humans acting in their own self interest.
For example--free healthcare for all. People use it excessively and the lack of profits (price controls) dries up the supply of health professionals. Lack of providers causes rationing of "free" healthcare.
All government interventions in the marketplace adversely affects quality and/or supply. Rent control-people quit trading up from controlled apartments and remain stationary. profits dry up and new housing starts die. The young and poor who would be moving into these apartments are now frozen out of the area of rent control.

If you think pirating the game is acceptable for any reason, then you are practicing a moral relativism that you find comforting, but stifles innovation and growth

 

[MattJek]

There is an unlimited supply of video games? They just spring into existence, out of the ether? I fail to grasp the scarce/nonscarce angle of this argument.

What am I not getting here?

You can make an infinite copies of CIV or any other game... everyone on the planet can have one. Same thing goes for MP3s and DVDs. The only cost would be the cost of the blank cds and dvds.

 

[Frewfrux]

Here's an interesting situation. A little off topic, but not too much. The company I currently work for owns my thoughts.

That's right, they own my what I think when I think about anything that has to do with what they produce.

And if you think this is not fair or ethical, just think of NASA during the space-race. I know for a fact that NASA had their engineers sign a contract that basically stated that NASA owned what they thought of in the shower...if one of their engineers had an idea for a new propultion system for a rocket while taking a dump in South-East Asia, NASA would legaly own it. (I know this because I have seen a reproduction of a similar contract...wow.)

In this case, NASA trying to win the space race, I think they were in the right to say that they owned their employees thoughts. After all, if an employee came up with any new ideas whatsoever, chances are that they were influenced in part by their current line of work.

I'm just throughing this out there.

 

[randallman]

The "license to use" concept is an interesting point to raise, since EULAs are still in something of a legal limbo, as far as I know. Anyway: you do have the right to determine whether or not to sell it at all, but you have far less in the way of rights to determine to whom you can sell it.

For example: you'd be on shaky ground if you refused to sell your creation to someone because he was African-American. Or because the potential customer was a woman, or a Muslim, or gay, etc.

You are correct, I'd have a pretty hard time practicing discriminitory sales practices, but where do we draw the line between discriminiation and financial decisions (not selling to an africa-american vs. not selling to Zimbabwe)?

This is the kind of thing that happens if we accept that intellectual property rights are absolute, and it's why I believe it's important to point out that they're not.

And, if intellectual property rights aren't absolute, then it's worthwhile to have a discussion regarding exactly what intellectual property means in terms of control, to determine where, between total control and total lack thereof the line should fall.

This is a different issue altogether. This is more with respect to the question of ownership of the 'media' upon which the intellectual property (hereforth referred to as I.P.) is delivered or ownership of a 'license to use' the media that contains the I.P. This leads into the age old discussion about the 'fair use' and the rights to make backups of your 'media' that contains I.P. that you have purchased a 'right to use'.

I think it all really boils down to a clear picture that most of the players in markets revolving around the concepts of I.P. and digital rights need to realize something imporant. If you give someone a copy of the 'media', no matter HOW hard you try to protect it, you've given them the main requirement to reverse engineer said protection. To expect any type of digital rights management or cd media verification or any other copy protection scheme to ever be more than a 'keeping honest people honest' deterrent would be ludicrous.

 

[CyberChrist]

If they can save for the PC, why not for the software?

This response leads me to believe that you must believe there are noone that qualifies as poor people - or that you are ignorant about what it means to be poor. Did you even read my entire post?

 

[Control Group]

There is an unlimited supply of video games? They just spring into existence, out of the ether? I fail to grasp the scarce/nonscarce angle of this argument.

You're engaging in the logical fallacy of false dilemma: you assert that either video games are scarce, or they spring out of the aether. Neither is true. You're equating video games with creation of video games.

Creation of video games is a scarce resource: there are relatively few people/organizations with the werewithal to create a video game.

Existing video games are a non-scarce resource: a given game can be distributed to literally everyone on the planet, with as many copies left over as you care to count.

The task faced by intellectual property law is to have a system by which the scarce resource - creation - is encouraged, despite the non-scarcity of the result of creation. So far, the system has tried to force people to sacrifice a scarce resource (money) for a non-scarce resource (the instance of a creation). It should not be surprising that this is not, and never will be, 100% successful. Since scarcity is directly proportional to value, you're asking people to sacrifice something of economic value for something that has no economic value (you can't resell a PC game).

Intellectual property attempts to impose artificial scarcity on a non-scarce resource.

Now: I understand that content creators need incentives to create. Money is an obvious incentive. If we're going to incent creators with money for their creations, it makes sense to take that money from the people enjoying the creations.

My point, however, is that modern copyright is not necessarily the best, fairest, or most effective way of doing this.