Software Piracy

[woot]

It isn't an arcane legal definition. Not sure why you would think that.

If I am understanding this thread correctly, there are 2 discussions taking place (ignoring the third discussion about RAW and photography)

1. Obtaining photoshop without paying for it
2. Buying a CD or DVD and making a backup copy.

My reference to conversion was not related to Discussion 2. I agree that digital rights management as it pertains to legally purchased digital media and IP is, as you say, a "mess."

However, as it relates to Discussion 1, putting photoshop on your computer without paying for it is definitely a criminal act (likelihood of prosecution notwithstanding). It is stealing. Conversion was just one issue that popped into my head, which is why I brought it up, but I am sure someone that practices IP would be able to speak to this in much greater detail.

Sigh. Again, I haven't heard anyone dispute its criminal status, only whether copyright infringement has ever been legally defined as stealing. That will still be a separate issue from those here whose argument is that it is not materially different from stealing in the colloquial sense, but it would be something.

[falafel]

However, as it relates to Discussion 1, putting photoshop on your computer without paying for it is definitely a criminal act (likelihood of prosecution notwithstanding). It is stealing. Conversion was just one issue that popped into my head, which is why I brought it up, but I am sure someone that practices IP would be able to speak to this in much greater detail.

I'm no IP lawyer, but what reasons do you have for claiming that pirating photoshop "is stealing" as opposed to simple copyright infringement? Thus far, no one has advanced any opinion why woot is wrong on that point.

[creekster]

Help me understand your second paragraph. How is the result the same? How is the producer deprived of their work?

First, value is derived from its availability in the market place. Thus limited availability in the macro (which must be enforced in the micro) is essential to profit, for not only the product copied but also all products sold (if it is very hard to copy or if people simply wont copy it for ethical or legal reasons, it is worth more).

Second, the producers aren't deprived of their work product, they are deprived of the value of their work product. Intangible capital is as legitimate as tangible capital.

Third, they are also deprived of the value of their licensing rights, assuming like most software that which you have impermissibly copied is subject to licensing and not ownership.

Fourth, ethically the copier has no permission to copy it. There is no dispute about who owns it and the owner says you can't have it. That you might be able to evade that edict doesn't mean its OK to evade it. It is still unethical.

In short, the law says it is illegal, thus it is a crime, whether you call it theft or piracy or conversion. Morally, my compass says it is wrong, even if it doesn't offend my sensibilities. Economically, the inability to control supply of your product makes pricing artificially low.

I am not really following what you are troubled with here. Maybe I AM an ignoramus.

[creekster]

Sigh. Again, I haven't heard anyone dispute its criminal status, only whether copyright infringement has ever been legally defined as stealing. That will still be a separate issue from those here whose argument is that it is not materially different from stealing in the colloquial sense, but it would be something.

What are you asking for? You want a statute that defines it as a crime? IP is property. The owner of proeprty gets to decide how it is used. You cant put that property on your computer without running afoul of the owner's wishes, thus you are stealing the property.

[I.J. Reilly]

Help me understand your second paragraph. How is the result the same? How is the producer deprived of their work?

Your third paragraph is, as I've already said numerous time including in the very post you quoted, bombing territory I don't occupy.

The result is the same because both are deprived of the fruits of their labor. Just because one's fruits happen to be rendered digitally rather than physically, does not make the deprivation any less.

[woot]

What are you asking for? You want a statute that defines it as a crime? IP is property. The owner of proeprty gets to decide how it is used. You cant put that property on your computer without running afoul of the owner's wishes, thus you are stealing the property.

Wow! Am I taking crazy pills or am I the worst communicator on the planet? How many times must I repeat myself before someone understands my position?

Other than Falafel, of course. He seems to understand my point.

[woot]

The result is the same because both are deprived of the fruits of their labor. Just because one's fruits happen to be rendered digitally rather than physically, does not make the deprivation any less.

But the producer is absolutely not deprived of their product, digital or not. They still have it, no matter how many times it's been downloaded. The value or marketability of the product might change, but that's something different, as we've already established.

[woot]

First, value is derived from its availability in the market place. Thus limited availability in the macro (which must be enforced in the micro) is essential to profit, for not only the product copied but also all products sold (if it is very hard to copy or if people simply wont copy it for ethical or legal reasons, it is worth more).

Second, the producers aren't deprived of their work product, they are deprived of the value of their work product. Intangible capital is as legitimate as tangible capital.

Third, they are also deprived of the value of their licensing rights, assuming like most software that which you have impermissibly copied is subject to licensing and not ownership.

Fourth, ethically the copier has no permission to copy it. There is no dispute about who owns it and the owner says you can't have it. That you might be able to evade that edict doesn't mean its OK to evade it. It is still unethical.

In short, the law says it is illegal, thus it is a crime, whether you call it theft or piracy or conversion. Morally, my compass says it is wrong, even if it doesn't offend my sensibilities. Economically, the inability to control supply of your product makes pricing artificially low.

I am not really following what you are troubled with here. Maybe I AM an ignoramus.

Yes, yes. Those are all fine points, and they all have nothing to do with my argument.

[creekster]

Wow! Am I taking crazy pills or am I the worst communicator on the planet? How many times must I repeat myself before someone understands my position?

Other than Falafel, of course. He seems to understand my point.

maybe falafel can articualte it then.

[falafel]

Wow! Am I taking crazy pills or am I the worst communicator on the planet? How many times must I repeat myself before someone understands my position?

Other than Falafel, of course. He seems to understand my point.

That might be further condemnation of your communication skills.

[woot]

How about this. I submit that rape is not stealing. Anyone who defines rape as stealing is wrong. They are two different things. They are both wrong, they are both illegal, but they are not the same thing.

If, after reading that, it seems like my point is that rape isn't a criminal act or that I support it, then I'll just give up.

[I.J. Reilly]

But the producer is absolutely not deprived of their product, digital or not. They still have it, no matter how many times it's been downloaded. The value or marketability of the product might change, but that's something different, as we've already established.

But the value of the product is not limited to its physical space, or the marginal cost of production on another unit.

[creekster]

But the producer is absolutely not deprived of their product, digital or not. They still have it, no matter how many times it's been downloaded. The value or marketability of the product might change, but that's something different, as we've already established.

The productios and its value are inextricably linked. You seem to postulate they are somehow different, but they are not. the product is an idea and it has value. That value is taken when it is copied illegally, this the owner's product has been diminished. What he owns is lessened, destroyed.

If your point is that a box of cereal is different than an idea, I would certainly grant you that one.

[Babs]

But the producer is absolutely not deprived of their product, digital or not. They still have it, no matter how many times it's been downloaded. The value or marketability of the product might change, but that's something different, as we've already established.

I submit that rape is not stealing. Anyone who defines rape as stealing is wrong. They are two different things. They are both wrong, they are both illegal, but they are not the same thing.

^

[I.J. Reilly]

How about this. I submit that rape is not stealing. Anyone who defines rape as stealing is wrong. They are two different things. They are both wrong, they are both illegal, but they are not the same thing.

If, after reading that, it seems like my point is that rape isn't a criminal act or that I support it, then I'll just give up.

You do know that in times not so far distant, and probably in many places still, part of the punishment for rape was to pay the father the dowry he would no longer receive, right? If the payment was not for what had been stolen, then what was it for?