On the Virtues of Software Piracy

[HendrixFan]

Pundit, you make a great point. If a song was $1, would people still pirate as heavily? Of course not. But when you are faced with paying $18 for a CD just to get one song, or going online and downloading it, which would most people choose?

Since we are talking about capatalism, if you offer a product that is able to be copied easily, it is up to you to provide an incentive for a consumer to purchase it from you.

 

[Pundit]

<< Are you saying its wrong to pirate software? >>


Yes. I believe that software is similar to music, movies, and art. Someone's creation belongs to them and they should have the right to sell it. Just because it is easy to reproduce, it doesn't mean that people should be free to do so.

 

[HendrixFan]

So you disagree with the Constitutional notion of copyright, which I have already laid out?

 

[Mucman]

This is a personal belief of mine... what the constitution says means nothing... If someone works to make a product that I feel is worth it's value, I will pay for it. If it is not worth it's value, I look to another product that fits the bill.

The problem with software piracy is that it is too easy! I don't think you hear about too many people copying text-books or classic novels, because there is some effort involved there. Although I have heard of some text book piract in East Asia I believe.

 

[HendrixFan]

I agree Mucman, its a personal decision. I have a legal copy of win2000 on my machine, and a legal copy of win98 on my other machine. I even have a paid for copy of Mandrake on my win98 machine (dual boot), even though I didnt have to pay for Linux. All the games I have installed I paid for myself, and all but one piece of software I paid for as well. If I feel the software is worth paying for (windows was $5 through school, so that was worth it), Ill pay for it. Same with music.

But to act like there must be a moral, legal and ethical reason against piracy is absurd.

 

[Ns1]

hash one for the "i wouldn't pay for it anyway so you're not losing anything"


although if i do really like the product, i do buy it (ie blizzard games)

 

[Pundit]

<< So you disagree with the Constitutional notion of copyright, which I have already laid out? >>


Well, I haven't read the US Constitution so I'm undecided. But if someone made a gadget that could cure AIDS or cancer and he had it copyrighted and decided not to share it, that would be bad. With regards to creativity/entertainment, I think it's wrong to pirate.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Student versions of software (even with limited functionality) is a great way to breed future users of your products. People tend to stick with a software supplier they are satisfied with (Powerquest for example), or by a company they've been brainwashed by (Microsoft ). If they used your product all the time while at the university, and then start at an employer with different or no software for that task, they are likely to suggest your software if they were satisfied with it before, and as companies are usually more likely to want to have legit software, they may well buy it.

A lot of packets can be replaced by free ones (Linux with StarOffice and Gimp for example), but people often want to use the same as their friends, even if they can't afford it (students for example) or don't think it's worth spending money on (cheap republicans ). In such a case people are likely to pirate software, but still it means that, if they are satisfied with it, they are likely to suggest it to their employer. Bad for the software companies? Yes, and no. Of course their software is being used without it being payed for, but otherwise alternatives may be chosen, and those alternatives may get suggested to employers instead.

As there aren't many alternatives in the gaming world for specific games: I don't like certain types of games, but sometimes I do like specifics games in that genre. If I hadn't been able to try it out I would never have considered buying it. I didn't really consider buying Wolfenstein until I played the multiplayer demo, then I was hooked and bought it the second it was released in the stores. It was a genre I liked, but I presumed it would be just a Quake 27 or something.

 

[Bluga]

<< if people didnt pirate software they could lower their prices. its a vicious circle. >>



ya right.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< what the hell are you talking about?! none looses anything? what about the the software company that sells it, if people didnt pirate software they could lower their prices. its a vicious circle. >>



But they won't, they'll ask what the customer is willing to pay for it. Same with the music industry, they were asking ridiculously high prices for music long ago, and still are. They claim they have to cause of all the piracy of CDs nowadays, but CDs have been around for ages, and prices were high from the start. The production of CDs was cheap for them after the initial costs were payed for (recordables dropped in price very fast, otherwise AOL and Compuserve wouldn't have been able to send those billions of CDs all the time), and copying it to a tape meant lower quality, but they kept the prices high to get more money out of it.

Software prices in the Netherlands are higher than in the US, here the average game like Wolfenstein sells for $50-$60 in most stores. I bought my copy for $34 (a real CD, just a store that imports them cheaply (and got sued for that by the Dutch music and software industry too), but most games I wouldn't even consider paying $60 for. I can spend a few hours of fun on most games, and then throw them away, but I rather spend money on a game I will like for days, weeks or even longer, than just for hours. I may buy them once they're a few months old and lying there for $5, but even then it depends.

Edit: Typo fixed.

 

[CocaCola5]

Its called seller risks.

 

[Derango]

Software companies sell software. Thats their busniess. Thats how the operate. You don't steal TVs saying "Well...I wasn't going to pay for this anyway, so I might as well steal it." Think about it. Some guy is making his living off of selling software that he spend thousands of hours working on. How would you like it if you were a painter, spent hundreds of hours working on a beautiful piece of art work, and some guy runs by and grabs it, yelling "Calm down dude! I wasn't going to pay for it anyway!"?

See how stupid that sounds?

If you didn't pay for it, you have no right to use it. No "But its so expensive!", no "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so they don't loose anything", No "But I'm a student, I can't afford this stuff". If you can't afford it, don't use it. Your rights do not include the right to use software. Its not a constitutional right. Its somthing you can live without. And like other things, if you don't have the money to live with it, you live without.

 

[ScottyB]

<< Software companies sell software. Thats their busniess. Thats how the operate. You don't steal TVs saying "Well...I wasn't going to pay for this anyway, so I might as well steal it." Think about it. Some guy is making his living off of selling software that he spend thousands of hours working on. How would you like it if you were a painter, spent hundreds of hours working on a beautiful piece of art work, and some guy runs by and grabs it, yelling "Calm down dude! I wasn't going to pay for it anyway!"? >>

It's totally different It would be like going to a friends house who bought the tv, sticking it into a machine you have that copies and reproduces tvs and then taking the copy home to watch.

 

[XFreebie]

its all a bunch of 0's and 1's.

then again retail things are just neutrons, protons and electrons.

i supposed if i was in the software industry, i would be all for them and such. but im not

 

[Jerboy]

<< Copying a game or application from a friend's computer is much different that breaking into your neighbour's house and stealing his wallet. Nobody really loses anything with software piracy, but I still believe that it is an unethical act. I've heard some arguements and justifications for software piracy: the pirate would never have bought the program in the first place; a student using a pirate app will increase the chance that his future employer will use that app (legally), and others.

Software is intellectual property and I am totally against piracy, but I'm wondering this: If it doesn't hurt society, why is it wrong (from a practical point of view)? >>



It doesn't hurt the piracy, but it is emotionally upsetting for the producer and most likely financially damaging to the company. If you started a band and was planning selling your first release on CD-R for five dollar each. The first buyer copied it and distributed fifty copies at school. Even if it was something they wouldn't have bought for five dollars, how would that make you feel?


I know this is hypothetical, but the best protection should provide a way for legitimate users to provide themselve a physical copy to protect the original whilst absolutely shutting out those who can't afford it/don't want to pay for it from using the software. If people don't want to pay for it or can't afford living without welfare, they're certainly not in rights of playing computer games.

 

[ttn1]

These discussions are such a joke. If everyone thought copying a piece of copyprotected software was OK, then software companies would go out of business. All the wonderful software that pirates depend upon would begin to disappear.

Opensource projects would take up some of the slack, but you wouldn't get quick up to date releases. I hate the anti-piracy tactics that alot of companies are trying to push on the public, but that doesn't justify copying someone's copy-protected work. I'm not saying that I'm perfect, but just don't try to justify stealing.

What if you wrote a piece of code that was revolutionary. You pantented it and copyrighted it. You spent a few years developing the code with your own money. Then when you decided to sell it, noone bought it, they just copied it. Your out 2 years worth of salary and all you marketing and development cost. Now that would suck, wouldn't it.

 

[Jerboy]

<< These discussions are such a joke. If everyone thought copying a piece of copyprotected software was OK, then software companies would go out of business. All the wonderful software that pirates depend upon would begin to disappear.

Opensource projects would take up some of the slack, but you wouldn't get quick up to date releases. I hate the anti-piracy tactics that alot of companies are trying to push on the public, but that doesn't justify copying someone's copy-protected work. I'm not saying that I'm perfect, but just don't try to justify stealing.

What if you wrote a piece of code that was revolutionary. You pantented it and copyrighted it. You spent a few years developing the code with your own money. Then when you decided to sell it, noone bought it, they just copied it. Your out 2 years worth of salary and all you marketing and development cost. Now that would suck, wouldn't it. >>




There needs to be some serious legislative change over software piracies. People on low-income tend to get themselve into pirated software trafficketing to get the money for living and buyers are often those who wants, but can't afford to buy them. Since these people have no intention in buying them at full price anyway, they should be punished especially harder.

If trafficketing pirated software resulted in same sentence as trafficketing controlled substances, do you think people will think twice before doing it? I don't care if the reason for selling was making money to live. If they're caught, they can go live in prison. They sure as hell make sure you're alive.

 

[Pundit]

<< There needs to be some serious legislative change over software piracies. People on low-income tend to get themselve into pirated software trafficketing to get the money for living and buyers are often those who wants, but can't afford to buy them. Since these people have no intention in buying them at full price anyway, they should be punished especially harder.

If trafficketing pirated software resulted in same sentence as trafficketing controlled substances, do you think people will think twice before doing it? I don't care if the reason for selling was making money to live. If they're caught, they can go live in prison. They sure as hell make sure you're alive. >>


Jerboy, your right. But my original intention in posting this thread was to determine if it is a victimless crime. Is it?