Software Piracy

[woot]

you aren't a legal dude, so just curious about the definition of theft to which you refer.

It has been awhile, but I seem to recall that what we are discussing is a form of conversion, which definitely falls under theft, at least from what I remember in my Crim class. Or torts. can't remember which.

I'm talking about the "You wouldn't steal a car!" definition. If there's some arcane legal definition then I'll concede the point, as far as that goes. But what I'm arguing is that piracy is wrong for a completely different set of reasons than stealing a car is.

The association between the two concepts seems to me to have happened largely for the purpose of obfuscating the discussion. Digital rights management is something that is really important and that is a huge mess right now. It needs to get worked out, but to call anything not strictly in compliance with current laws "Stealing!" in which the record companies are increasingly trying to include what used to be considered fair use, by the way, does not advance the discussion.

[beelzebabette]

It needs to get worked out, but to call anything not strictly in compliance with current laws "Stealing!" in which the record companies are increasingly trying to include what used to be considered fair use, by the way, does not advance the discussion.

Perhaps you could give us talking points in your initial post on a topic so we can advance the discussion to your satisfaction.

[falafel]

Perhaps you could give us talking points in your initial post on a topic so we can advance the discussion to your satisfaction.

Oh come on BBB. Woot's making some good points.

[Jarid in Cedar]

This thread is now official bizzare

[BigPiney]

There is a lot of good open source software out there. If I needed to do more than you can with say Gimp or Inkscape, or Audacity, then I would buy the real deal. I wouldn't mind playing with CS5 for a while, though I don't think I could use it for anything near what it is worth. I spend enough time on the computer at work, I don't intend to spend my free time at home on it.

[Flystripper]

I'm talking about the "You wouldn't steal a car!" definition. If there's some arcane legal definition then I'll concede the point, as far as that goes. But what I'm arguing is that piracy is wrong for a completely different set of reasons than stealing a car is.

The association between the two concepts seems to me to have happened largely for the purpose of obfuscating the discussion. Digital rights management is something that is really important and that is a huge mess right now. It needs to get worked out, but to call anything not strictly in compliance with current laws "Stealing!" in which the record companies are increasingly trying to include what used to be considered fair use, by the way, does not advance the discussion.

Lost profits is one damage remedy in a copyright infringement claim. Your piracy, while immaterial individually, is still a component of a company's lost profits due to copyright infringement. Individually you are too insignificant and cost prohibitive for a company to prosecute, but the notion that "I wouldn't have bought it if I had to pay for it" would not hold up in court. The fact is that if you pirated the software, you used it, and that use had value. If there were no value to you, the piracy would not have occurred in the first place. In addition, the software pirate is not the party that determines the value of the illegally obtained software. Legal markets determine that value and the resulting damages to the owner of the copyright.

You really don't think that piracy damages the owners of copyrights?

[beelzebabette]

Oh come on BBB. Woot's making some good points.

I'm unsure what your issue is. I was still reading so I was interested in many of his points. Less interested in his opinion of what the proper term is to advance the discussion. I think you've misconstrued my comment, but I have no goat in this fight.

[falafel]

I'm unsure what your issue is. I was still reading so I was interested in many of his points. Less interested in his opinion of what the proper term is to advance the discussion. I think you've misconstrued my comment, but I have no goat in this fight.

Perhaps I did misconstrue your comment. I took your comment to be patronizing woot, but perhaps I got the context wrong. If so I apologize.

[woot]

Lost profits is one damage remedy in a copyright infringement claim. Your piracy, while immaterial individually, is still a component of a company's lost profits due to copyright infringement. Individually you are too insignificant and cost prohibitive for a company to prosecute, but the notion that "I wouldn't have bought it if I had to pay for it" would not hold up in court. The fact is that if you pirated the software, you used it, and that use had value. If there were no value to you, the piracy would not have occurred in the first place. In addition, the software pirate is not the party that determines the value of the illegally obtained software. Legal markets determine that value and the resulting damages to the owner of the copyright.

You really don't think that piracy damages the owners of copyrights?

I agree with all of this, and this post elucidates some of the reasons why I consider piracy to be unethical.

Your second paragraph is a perfect demonstration of the difficulties inherent in trying to steer the discussion in a useful direction. One can't even make an obvious argument like "copying a CD is different from stealing one from a store" without being accused of thinking there's nothing wrong with piracy.

I wonder why that is.

[RobinFinderson]

No mental gymnastics required.




cheers.

Nothing there like Lightroom. As a semi-serious photog, Lightroom is one product worth the price of admission.

[Katy Lied]

No mental gymnastics required.




cheers.

SG, have you ever read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, by Eric S. Raymond? That article profoundly changed my thinking at the time I read it. I still use its precepts in my work today.

[Katy Lied]

Everything I do has a negative impact on something else. Eating, Driving, Sewage, Dwelling, Heat, Cooling, even my breathing. You could make the list a million items long.

So at item #13,453, you pull out software piracy. The truth is, I used to have Photoshop 3.1, back in the day. I still have 4,000 mp3's. I play royalty free performance on YouTube.

Item #22,478 is parking in the "senior only" parking at church, and claiming I'm old enough.

Item #784 is Income Taxes. Let's just say I try to pay as little as possible.

Item #234,990 is home teaching. Yes I wave when I drive past.

The truth is, I don't have the luxury of worrying about every little nuance of life.

Somewhere down in Oaxaca, a butterfly is royally pissed off at you.

[I.J. Reilly]

I agree with all of this, and this post elucidates some of the reasons why I consider piracy to be unethical.

Your second paragraph is a perfect demonstration of the difficulties inherent in trying to steer the discussion in a useful direction. One can't even make an obvious argument like "copying a CD is different from stealing one from a store" without being accused of thinking there's nothing wrong with piracy.

I wonder why that is.

You are right. The physical act of taking a product off the shelf and walking out of a store without paying for it is different from hitting a few buttons on your computer and receiving software you didn't pay for.

However, the end result is the same- with arguably the effect being worse in passively receiving the software because of the generally relatively higher cost of intellectual capital over that of physical capital. In the end, a producer is deprived of his/her work product without just compensation.

Flystripper is also right in saying that you can't take a product and then declare that it has no value to you. Obviously, it has some value, no matter how nominal. Now, if you would like to debate the value of the product, that is open for discussion. If the producer is unwilling to supply you the product at the price that you find reasonable, well, that's just supply and demand.

[woot]

You are right. The physical act of taking a product off the shelf and walking out of a store without paying for it is different from hitting a few buttons on your computer and receiving software you didn't pay for.

However, the end result is the same- with arguably the effect being worse in passively receiving the software because of the generally relatively higher cost of intellectual capital over that of physical capital. In the end, a producer is deprived of his/her work product without just compensation.

Flystripper is also right in saying that you can't take a product and then declare that it has no value to you. Obviously, it has some value, no matter how nominal. Now, if you would like to debate the value of the product, that is open for discussion. If the producer is unwilling to supply you the product at the price that you find reasonable, well, that's just supply and demand.

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.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm talking about the "You wouldn't steal a car!" definition. If there's some arcane legal definition then I'll concede the point, as far as that goes. But what I'm arguing is that piracy is wrong for a completely different set of reasons than stealing a car is.

The association between the two concepts seems to me to have happened largely for the purpose of obfuscating the discussion. Digital rights management is something that is really important and that is a huge mess right now. It needs to get worked out, but to call anything not strictly in compliance with current laws "Stealing!" in which the record companies are increasingly trying to include what used to be considered fair use, by the way, does not advance the discussion.

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.