On the Virtues of Software Piracy

[Pundit]

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)?

 

[Ameesh]

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.

 

[Kelvrick]

I wonder if they really will lower prices or is it just an excuse.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I think Bruce lee would win. Seriously guys, this has been rehashed so many times that it's become a rhetorical question.

 

[Pundit]

<< I think Bruce lee would win. Seriously guys, this has been rehashed so many times that it's become a rhetorical question. >>


Well, I did a search and didn't find a thread close enough.

Ameesh, I agree that prices would drop if the pirates actually purchased the programs. It's just that I had a conversation with a friend today and he said copying software takes no energy whereas growing food or constructing furniture/appliances does. I had no answer for him.

 

[poopaskoopa]

So the programmers/designers/etc, are like robots(solar-powered, which would avoid consuming earthly resources) that can pump out games in no time, he thinks?

 

[hans007]

as a compsci major, it takes more food to feed me to write a program than say a loaf of bread. the resources that it takes to employ and run a software company are far greater than any farm.


stealing software is like stealing 800 loaves of bread in that logic. the fact that you couldnt come up with an argument for your friend means you probably arent all that bright buddy. so at least you learned something.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< Ameesh, I agree that prices would drop if the pirates actually purchased the programs. It's just that I had a conversation with a friend today and he said copying software takes no energy whereas growing food or constructing furniture/appliances does. I had no answer for him. >>

huh?

 

[minendo]

<< So the programmers/designers/etc, are like robots who can pump out games in no time, he thinks? >>


He will understand when some guy his pumping him in the @$$ in Federal Pound Me In The A$$ Prison.

 

[Pundit]

<< as a compsci major, it takes more food to feed me to write a program than say a loaf of bread. the resources that it takes to employ and run a software company are far greater than any farm.


stealing software is like stealing 800 loaves of bread in that logic. the fact that you couldnt come up with an argument for your friend means you probably arent all that bright buddy. so at least you learned something. >>


Your insult was not necessary.

Bread helps us survive. It is tangible. A song/movie/entertainment software is intangible and does not help us survive (in a fundamental sense). It is along these lines that we were arguing. Forget about the law, forget about ethics. I am trying to determine why it is detrimental to society to pirate.

 

[Maleficus]

It's theft any way you look at it man. You are stealing intellectual property, if you disreguards all basis of the opponents arguements such as law and ethics then sure your not gonna have much to argue about. Me stealing your wallet is a detriment to you, Me stealing someones software is a detriment to them. Move this to a large scale basis and it becomes your detriment to society.

 

[poopaskoopa]

<< A song/movie/entertainment software is intangible and does not help us survive (in a fundamental sense). >>


Then stealing frozen cheesecake is ok too... But it's not, and I'm sure your friend knows why...

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<< as a compsci major, it takes more food to feed me to write a program than say a loaf of bread. the resources that it takes to employ and run a software company are far greater than any farm.


stealing software is like stealing 800 loaves of bread in that logic. the fact that you couldnt come up with an argument for your friend means you probably arent all that bright buddy. so at least you learned something. >>


Your insult was not necessary.

Bread helps us survive. It is tangible. A song/movie/entertainment software is intangible and does not help us survive (in a fundamental sense). It is along these lines that we were arguing. Forget about the law, forget about ethics. I am trying to determine why it is detrimental to society to pirate. >>

WTF. A guy MAKES HIS LIVING (READ EAT, SHELTER, CLOTHES MONEY) off of selling software that he developes. Another guy makes his living off of selling TVs. You don't need a TV to survive, it doesn't help you survive.

TV's are programmed. Just because the software lies on a chip doesn't make it much different. Without programs you wouldn't sit at your computer or be posting here.

Dude, stop smoking the dong and get some sense in your head.

 

[Pundit]

<< It's theft any way you look at it man. You are stealing intellectual property, if you disreguards all basis of the opponents arguements such as law and ethics then sure your not gonna have much to argue about. Me stealing your wallet is a detriment to you, Me stealing someones software is a detriment to them. Move this to a large scale basis and it becomes your detriment to society. >>


If you could duplicate/synthesize food with little or no effort, would you do so?

 

[HendrixFan]

Jefferson scoffed at the idea of intellectual property. Its very nature is insecure. There is nothing that grants you the *right* to make money off of selling software, in our capatalist society, it is your decision to enter a market where your product can be easily reproduced. Of course we have laws that get in the way of pure capatalism in that regard. The horse and buggy companies didnt cry about how unfair it was that Ford was selling automotives, and how it would hurt their business. If you have a flawed business model, in a capatalist society, it will fail.

The difference between intellectual property and REAL property is easily explained. If I steal your wallet, you no longer have your wallet. There is a loss on your end, which is why theft is bad. But with intellectual property, if I "steal" something, you still have it. You dont feel a loss, because you still have your copy.

If I were to steal your shirt, and you still had your shirt, do you care?

 

[bozo1]

<< I am trying to determine why it is detrimental to society to pirate. >>


It's also detrimental to those of us who feel morally obligated to pay for what we use and end up paying higher prices as well as having to deal with copyright schemes (XP activation, etc.) due to all the piracy.

 

[poopaskoopa]

<< If you could duplicate/synthesize food with little or no effort, would you do so? >>


After having paid for the hardware that does it, yes I would.

 

[HendrixFan]

The biggest flaw in intellectual property "loss" as reported by software companies, or the music industry, is that they assume that every person who pirated the intellectual property would have paid for it otherwise. That is certainly not the case, as there are plenty of people willing to download something for free, and use it extensively, but would never pay the $400 (for example) for the retail software. Just like someone who downloads an MP3 of a one hit wonder, that doesnt mean they would have otherwise paid $18 for the CD to get that one song.

 

[Mucman]

<< If you could duplicate/synthesize food with little or no effort, would you do so? >>



Yes, that is the same as saying : If you can program the millions (guess) lines of code that makes up your favorite game, then go right ahead! Otherwise pay someone to code it for you!

I can easly duplicate and sysnthesize food on my own! It's called a garden!

 

[Pundit]

<<

<< If you could duplicate/synthesize food with little or no effort, would you do so? >>


After having paid for the hardware that does it, yes I would. >>


Are you saying that using your burner to make a copy of a game is ok?



<< Jefferson scoffed at the idea of intellectual property. Its very nature is insecure. There is nothing that grants you the *right* to make money off of selling software, in our capatalist society, it is your decision to enter a market where your product can be easily reproduced. Of course we have laws that get in the way of pure capatalism in that regard. The horse and buggy companies didnt cry about how unfair it was that Ford was selling automotives, and how it would hurt their business. If you have a flawed business model, in a capatalist society, it will fail.

The difference between intellectual property and REAL property is easily explained. If I steal your wallet, you no longer have your wallet. There is a loss on your end, which is why theft is bad. But with intellectual property, if I "steal" something, you still have it. You dont feel a loss, because you still have your copy.

If I were to steal your shirt, and you still had your shirt, do you care? >>


Are you also saying that it's ok to pirate software?

 

[poopaskoopa]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that every would-be pirate would just settle for playing at yahoo.com if they couldn't get it for free... Some of those guys would pay. You have to know this.

 

[Pundit]

<< The biggest flaw in intellectual property "loss" as reported by software companies, or the music industry, is that they assume that every person who pirated the intellectual property would have paid for it otherwise. That is certainly not the case, as there are plenty of people willing to download something for free, and use it extensively, but would never pay the $400 (for example) for the retail software. Just like someone who downloads an MP3 of a one hit wonder, that doesnt mean they would have otherwise paid $18 for the CD to get that one song. >>


What if they charged $1 for you to d/l the song? Would you pay even if you could still get it for free?

 

[Pundit]

<< Yeah, but that doesn't mean that every would-be pirate would just settle for playing at yahoo.com if they couldn't get it for free... Some of those guys would pay. You have to know this. >>


This is true. But are those people that would settle for yahoo.com inflicting harm? Of course, the others surely are.

 

[HendrixFan]

Im saying, that if you believe in capatalism, there is NO MORAL objection to pirating software, if that is what you choose.

Even if you arent a believer in capatalism, then there is still NO MORAL objection to pirating software if you would not have paid for it anyway. There is absolutely no "loss" to the company in that situation.

And if you agree with Jefferson that intellectual property is a stupid idea (ie - here is something that isnt tangible, easily duplicated, impossible to destroy; but we still want to control it), then there is no moral objection to piracy.

Lastly, if you feel strongly about the US Constitution and fair use rights as an extension, then you would agree that copyrights are FAR FAR FAR too burdensome to the consumer, against what it was traditionally intended for. Copyrights were to be granted for "sciences and the useful arts". Show me software that fits under this category, or music even. Even if you can fit it to that description, which WAS required for a copyright, it was intended to be a limited "monopoly". The reason being that the copyright would allow the creator to reap the benefits of the creation for a short period, then it would enter the public domain for EVERYONE to benefit from. Copyrights were intended to be two sided in its scope. Originally copyrights lasted 7 years, and 7 years back in the late 1700s was a VERY SHORT time. Information didnt travel as quickly as it does nowadays. By the same reasoning, copyrights should now last much less than 7 years before becoming public for everyone to use, because everything can spread so much more quickly.

Are you saying its wrong to pirate software?

 

[poopaskoopa]

<< This is true. But are those people that would settle for yahoo.com inflicting harm? Of course, the others surely are. >>


No, and this is where I have to break out with the old tired song about how stealing is just something that's not easily justified. If your friend and I disagree on this, I'm just going to have to not acknowledge that we exist on the same planet. I don't have the strength to teach this to strangers.