Software Piracy

[Coach McGuirk]

So if I follow this...if I steal your car, I am not robbing Toyota of anything because I wasn't going to buy one from them anyways.

I am stealing from you though.

If you pirate software off of the internet you are stealing from someone.

Tim saying that he would never own a Toyota, still doesn't make it right.

I am honestly shocked by Tim's stance, coming from the Software industry.

Sure, you stole from me. I never said anything from a stealing or morally correct standpoint. I said there was no profit loss, as there was no profit to be had in this particular case. That is it.

[tooblue]

Sure, you stole from me. I never said anything from a stealing or morally correct standpoint. I said there was no profit loss, as there was no profit to be had in this particular case. That is it.

There is a profit loss. That profit has in fact already been bought and sold in many ways. Namely by investors who bought stock in Adobe based upon potential profits.

[Coach McGuirk]

There is a profit loss. That profit has in fact already been bought and sold in many ways. Namely by investors who bought stock in Adobe based upon potential profits.

impasse

[tooblue]

impasse

If you consider you being on the wrong side of the argument an impasse ...

[Coach McGuirk]

If you consider you being on the wrong side of the argument an impasse ...

Ditto.

[tooblue]

Ditto.

Ditto only applies if I've done something wrong.

[Tim]

So if I follow this...if I steal your car, I am not robbing Toyota of anything because I wasn't going to buy one from them anyways.

I am stealing from you though.

If you pirate software off of the internet you are stealing from someone.

Tim saying that he would never own a Toyota, still doesn't make it right.

I am honestly shocked by Tim's stance, coming from the Software industry.

Again, I've acknowledged that it's not mine to have and that it's illegal. I only disagree on whether or not Adobe is losing a profit as a result of me having a piece of software I never would've paid for. There's a nuanced difference between a physical product and an imaged product. I would say that a better analogy than the Toyota one (which features a unique product -- stealing a car means taking physical resources) would be if a painter makes a painting, and you buy a poster of that painting that hasn't been approved by the painter. You wouldn't buy one of his prints for whatever reason, so by you having the poster you're not keeping him from making money. The painting was the creation, and he's making money off of selling the image, not the painting itself. That's a bit of nuance in relation to the Toyota analogy you gave, in which a unique physical product is taken and used, leaving the owner WITHOUT his car.

And yes, I'm in the software industry, but that's just a general classification. There are a few different types of models within the industry, and the company I work for only deals in supporting open source products.

[I.J. Reilly]

The argument that you would have never paid for the product is a non-sequitur. If the product was truly worthless to you, you would have never invested the time to acquire it or the hardware space to store it. Now, whether you would pay the cost that Adobe demands for their product is perhaps up for debate, but that doesn't mean that you don't represent lost potential profit.

[creekster]

Again, I've acknowledged that it's not mine to have and that it's illegal. I only disagree on whether or not Adobe is losing a profit as a result of me having a piece of software I never would've paid for. There's a nuanced difference between a physical product and an imaged product. I would say that a better analogy than the Toyota one (which features a unique product -- stealing a car means taking physical resources) would be if a painter makes a painting, and you buy a poster of that painting that hasn't been approved by the painter. You wouldn't buy one of his prints for whatever reason, so by you having the poster you're not keeping him from making money. The painting was the creation, and he's making money off of selling the image, not the painting itself. That's a bit of nuance in relation to the Toyota analogy you gave, in which a unique physical product is taken and used, leaving the owner WITHOUT his car.

And yes, I'm in the software industry, but that's just a general classification. There are a few different types of models within the industry, and the company I work for only deals in supporting open source products.

You aren't stealing the image, you are stealing the idea. That isn't nuance, that's justification. You steal profit from failure to pay license fees, from failing to pay the price demanded, from depressing the marketplace and impacting demand, all by using an idea to which you have no right. Moreover, you agree that you are a still a thief and a thief is still a thief. I am curious, is it OK if I only steal products that are sold at a loss? After all, I wouldn't be stealing any profit, right? Your distinction is without a difference.

[Tim]

The argument that you would have never paid for the product is a non-sequitur. If the product was truly worthless to you, you would have never invested the time to acquire it or the hardware space to store it. Now, whether you would pay the cost that Adobe demands for their product is perhaps up for debate, but that doesn't mean that you don't represent lost potential profit.

See, now that's a good point and an important qualifier: I never would've paid for it at the price they're charging. Is my statement that I would never have used it a function of price or utility? That gives me something interesting to think about. Thanks!

[Tim]

The argument that you would have never paid for the product is a non-sequitur. If the product was truly worthless to you, you would have never invested the time to acquire it or the hardware space to store it. Now, whether you would pay the cost that Adobe demands for their product is perhaps up for debate, but that doesn't mean that you don't represent lost potential profit.

I should also add that I own very few products that I haven't paid for. In the past two years I've purchased software that I generally would've pirated before, and I've rented movies and purchased TV series on iTunes that I previously would've pirated before. There are just a few pieces of software for which (for whatever reason) I've been able to ignore the guilt associated with theft.

Also, not that I'm not justifying it as right, I'm saying that I know it's wrong but that it doesn't bother me.

[Uncle Ted]

No mental gymnastics required.




cheers.

I contribute code to open source projects so I don't feel so bad "pirating" open source software.

BTW, thanks, Space Ghost, for starting these off in the correct order (BSD > GPL).

[Tim]

I contribute code to open source projects so I don't feel so bad "pirating" open source software.

BTW, thanks, Space Ghost, for starting these off in the correct order (BSD > GPL).

Nice! What do you contribute to?

[Uncle Ted]

Nice! What do you contribute to?

FreeBSD and MythTV mostly.

[falafel]

So if I follow this...if I steal your car, I am not robbing Toyota of anything because I wasn't going to buy one from them anyways.

I am stealing from you though.

If you pirate software off of the internet you are stealing from someone.

Tim saying that he would never own a Toyota, still doesn't make it right.

I am honestly shocked by Tim's stance, coming from the Software industry.

No Tick, you are not following this.