286 replies to this topic

[Alessandro17]

Not everything is always so black and white, IMO, there are various shades of grey
The mentality of a country has also much to do with it.
In Italy absolutely everybody should be in prison for sharing software, music or videos, including my old mother and aunt.

[PookyMacMan]

Oh my! Does that apply even if it's not on public domain?

I was mainly thinking as a general concept, it is not good to rationalize piracy. Definitely it's different from country to country, but I think it's simply good to abide by the law.

[radiking]

if 1$=1euro and if all over the world currencies are equal everybody would be happy coz nobody feels it expensive and every household and company would be running legit softwares
.if an american developer makes a program for 100$ then an indian for example has to pay 5000 rupees to buy the same software this is also a reason y people would not like to buy coz its affordable for americans 100$ is just a note away   but is too expensive for an asian.
well the point is global market is also a key factor.some people pirate software for fun like me just to show friends that its possible like installing mac on a laptop.
few others spend a lot of money purchasing hardware and making a perfect home pc and yet again people think "y should i pay for softwares after i have spent so much"
.its just the restrictions that makes one more tempt to do stuff if mac was free it would have been an other linux distro fighting its way in distrowatch dot com for the first place
i would agree for commercial usage one has to pay for it coz u will be gaining a lot of profits in the end buy purchasing the software.if i would own a hospital and get 10 million$ per month as revenue i wouldn t bother to pay 100$ or even 1000 for a software if its helping me even 1% in running my hospital..if every software were to be free there wouldn t have been people who call themselves hackers and the world would have been virus free upto 90% and also no annoying resource hogging antiviruses y create a virus/trojan when its not worth a dime and time

[Huckleberry Pie]

Alessandro17, on 10 February 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Not everything is always so black and white, IMO, there are various shades of grey
The mentality of a country has also much to do with it.
In Italy absolutely everybody should be in prison for sharing software, music or videos, including my old mother and aunt.

And practically everyone who joined that noontime talent show in my country would've been jailed for using (possibly) pirated source media, well, since downloading an MP3 of a Lady Gaga song to be used for a mashup on a dance number is trivial enough than spend 250-500 pesos to get a legit album.

[ZØØT]

Sharing is not stealing.

If a person has a party at their house on the weekend and plays a thousand songs and then a thousand people show up to listen to those songs -- is the host of the party held liable for allowing those people to hear those songs -- are the listeners each charged with theft? Once the party goers leave and hum those tunes -- are they charged with reverse engineering of an IP?

The World Wide Web, is, after all, like a big gathering of individuals with numerous hosts.

As an electrician I install switches. If a person were to come along and take the switches out and then reinstall them what, exactly, has been stolen? How have I, as an electrician, been affected by that individuals actions?

That is a simple analogy of a virtual world, I know, but I don't get paid anymore for those switches regardless of how long they stay in service or whether or not some insane person constantly takes them out only to replace them.

Do software coders get paid royalties?

Software on the web is 'virtual' it can't be stolen. As long as a server is up, a copy of that software will remain, no mater if it is cloned a google times, it will still exist on the server. What, exactly, gets stolen?

Projected, unrealized profits?

That argument won't win any points for critical thinking but there it is.

[PookyMacMan]

I totally agree with you. However...

Even if I believe what you stated above, I personally also believe that the law presides over my opinion. So if the law says no, even if there isn't a good reason for it I must obey. We could always run for government positions and change things...

Also, devs aren't bad guys...I would feel very sad (and probably indignant) if people kept pirating a piece of software I had put so much time, effort, etc. into. I see nothing wrong with making some profit out of one's work. Hey, that's free enterprise, right?

[.picodev]

Making money off of pirated stuff is NOT okay.Every other usage scenario is OKAY in my book.Piracy improves popularity and then consequently market share,once the individual reaches a point where the money making starts and can buy the stuff.For example,my country,Serbia,wouldn't even exist in the digital domain last 10 years if it wasn't for piracy.Every hospital,goverment institution,every single living being had a pirated Windows,and yet,Microsoft is washing their asses with dollar bills The whole country is pirating..without that,many superstar DJ's,bands etc,wouldn't have had gigs and concerts here.People would be in stone age,and i guess,every brilliant mind has to be given a chance to acquire knowledge and express himself,not only those who were fortunate enough to be born in developed countries,people who take a Macbook as an everyday object,and throw tons and tons of money on a new CPU although they already got an unimaginably powerfull machine which hasn't even reached 60 % of its capacity,EVER.You can't be a skilled programmer/musician/graphics designer using a shovel or a wooden plank,although you would love.No ammount of willpower can make you advance your skills with no tools for the job.So,opportunism is in play.Take what is widely available if you got the smarts to acquire it.In the end,the monetary system of cash and capitalism is a dirty game and those who are less fortunate are automatically not competitive.If i had the money,i would buy everything,no doubt about it. Support the developers,guys.

[TheNavigator]

Swad, on 03 September 2006 - 09:48 PM, said:

I have yet to meet an individual who has actually purchased Adobe Photoshop. Why is that?

Today's Great Debate focuses on the question of software piracy in all its various forms. Is it wrong? Is it analogous to stealing physical goods?

Many people claim that piracy is acceptable and, in some cases, ethical. I know of one Mac developer who has frequently been accused of stealing from open source projects. Is it ethical to steal from an (alleged) thief? What about Microsoft? Why is it that so few people buy copies of Windows? Is it a problem with the user or the product?

Others claim that software piracy is just like any other forms of stealing - it's theft. Those who shoplift are the same as those who take from the latest Serial Box. Is stealing 1's and 0's the same as stealing a physical product? How does piracy affect developers?

Some don't even think about it any more. For them, piracy is the only way to get software.

What say you?

I'm an Egyptian. Therefore, I'll go with the way of that it's the "only" way to get software. It's very hard to get licensed legal software here.

I used to be a hacker too, but I quit before I could be caught "thankfully".

I just have few words to say. If you're giving the price of 1000$ to 0s and 1s, that's bullshit.

[LatinMcG]

navigator. its not 0's and 1's .. its who put al then millions of them there.. the months it took to perfect the software.
however i doo agree 3rd world markets arent able to purchase as much software due to currency exchange being way off to the earnings .

on the other hand i dont agree with apples hardware stance..  ill pirate my hardware all day long.. (Os X in non apple hardware  = hardware piracy   )

[TheNavigator]

I know that. I'm a developer too. I've worked for years on projects, but 1000$ for a single license for photoshop is taking it to a bad way (i don't remember what was "is taking it to" thing actually). I've seen people who a very bit lower than adobe, worked for 4 years on a single project, and they're still working on it, and it's just for 1$!

While Adobe products are much more widely used by the way.

I hate the how they look to be just running after money, not clients' confidence.

[Mr.D.]

Kiko, on 04 September 2006 - 10:27 AM, said:

Im happy with it, im not gonna stop as i wont get caught (wifi).

Maybe if i had more oeny i would buy software, but as im a poor kid, not today.

Wont get caught eh? Good luck with that!

jackt283, on 04 September 2006 - 11:33 AM, said:

You can split it up into two parts: Stealing from software companies that turn over millions, if not billions each year. Stealing from software companies (or authors) that are lucky to turn over $100 in a year.

Obviously stealing from the first lot is great. Do it all the time. Everyday. And encourage everyone you know to do it as well. Burn this software onto CD's and DVD's and distribute it to all of your friends. It is your duty as a software pirate to share this software.

Stealing from the later is kind of nasty. These guys charge like $10, $20 for software, that often times is really quite ingenious. Don't steal from these people, wait until their companies become massive, then steal from 'em.

Not to say that I don't. I steal everything, I'm a thief. But at least I know it's wrong, right?

I'm kind of the same with physical theft. Don't theive from your local newsagent, or corner store. But if you walk into a wallmart or whatever, bring you biggest jacket and get as much of their {censored} as you can - obviously you can actually get caught for physical stealing, unlike piracy (FOR WHICH YOU WILL NOT!!!), so I would only advise to those that are under 15, or very, very good at it.

Seriously, if you make a lot of money from a cerain piece of software (say... photoshop...) then you should pay for it. If your a home user, the software company should be making it free to you anyway. So theive away!!

Obviously I am a big believer in the distribution of wealth.

So a modern day Robin Hood. The problem with redistribution is thats stepping on the backs of people who made that wealth. I'm not talking about Sam Walton, I'm talking about Sandra Walters, the nice 70 year old lady who said "welcome to Wal-Mart" when you walked in. If you don't think that theft hurts the big guys, just ask the little guys who who for them. I used to work in retail so I have some idea of what I speak of here.

ZØØT, on 02 April 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Sharing is not stealing.

If a person has a party at their house on the weekend and plays a thousand songs and then a thousand people show up to listen to those songs -- is the host of the party held liable for allowing those people to hear those songs -- are the listeners each charged with theft? Once the party goers leave and hum those tunes -- are they charged with reverse engineering of an IP?

The World Wide Web, is, after all, like a big gathering of individuals with numerous hosts.

As an electrician I install switches. If a person were to come along and take the switches out and then reinstall them what, exactly, has been stolen? How have I, as an electrician, been affected by that individuals actions?

That is a simple analogy of a virtual world, I know, but I don't get paid anymore for those switches regardless of how long they stay in service or whether or not some insane person constantly takes them out only to replace them.

Do software coders get paid royalties?

Software on the web is 'virtual' it can't be stolen. As long as a server is up, a copy of that software will remain, no mater if it is cloned a google times, it will still exist on the server. What, exactly, gets stolen?

Projected, unrealized profits?

That argument won't win any points for critical thinking but there it is.

Sharing is Caring eh? Which CareBear are you, the cheap one? Like you said, your argument won't win points for (critical) thinking, so there you go...

I used to be a pirate (which, by the way, Sept. 19th is International Talk Like a Pirate Day), stealing music and software galore. Believe me when I say your actions are monitored. The question is how serious others take your actions. Will you get away with it in the short term - most likely. Will you be caught eventually - maybe. Will you be morally wrong - always.

PookyMacMan, on 02 April 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

I totally agree with you. However...

Even if I believe what you stated above, I personally also believe that the law presides over my opinion. So if the law says no, even if there isn't a good reason for it I must obey. We could always run for government positions and change things...

Also, devs aren't bad guys...I would feel very sad (and probably indignant) if people kept pirating a piece of software I had put so much time, effort, etc. into. I see nothing wrong with making some profit out of one's work. Hey, that's free enterprise, right?

I like the 'idea' of using pirated software for testing, but where do you draw the line? How long can you 'test' for? What constitutes a 'test'? PookyMacMan is right. The line has been legally drawn already. If you cross the line, you do so at your own risk. No amount of intellectual justification will change the fact that the law was broken.

Are the piracy laws themselves broken - I think they are. So what are YOU going to do about it?

[PookyMacMan]

^^^^^ +1

I agree that some things are overdone, especially with some things in the DMCA for those of us in the US. (that looks weird written out...)

[Dwight_Chroot]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I noticed it seems most people have embraced the word "piracy" and variants(pirating, etc).

I won't go so far as Richard Stallman, and replace it with "sharing", but I think he's got a valid point in rejecting the term piracy.

Theft of software, violation of copyright <> attacking/plundering a ship, it's a massaged propaganda/Madison Avenue spin to make the topic sexy.

I support copyrights generally, never was a Napster music downloader, but frankly, why on Earth would anybody want to steal 90% of the music and movies clearchanneled at us the last several years, apparantly many people do, but I don't see exactly how that empowered Microsoft as Sherrif Malware the Copyright Ranger;)

Just yesterday I had to explain to a couple twits the reason their "Operating System?" was twitching out was they'd been flagged as suspected "pirates" and argh, that's why your video playback has been downgraded matey...

And point of fact they had stolen complete crap, so I guess it's justice????????

Not really, and if Microsoft had any class, they'd have at least recommended a good book via the player screen instead of leaving these idiots wondering what's wrong with their malware...I mean "Operating System."

I haven't installed OSX yet, but the argument that it's infringement is rather weak. What's bootcamp?

Parallels? How come VMware and Virtualbox honor Apple's "rules" regarding only server VM's, yet YOUTUBE gets to do anything it wants and pick and choose what it censors?



That's a fair use embed.

I found this thread searching powerpc, was curious if anybody had fixed Java and flash(if Sun and Adobe would patch their tag team effort, these machines would still be viable)

and I'd rather use them than live with the machine I'm about to image. I'll post some questions about VPro AMT and out of band remote management soon,

please reject the term piracy, call it theft or any other thing it really truly is, or consider balancing it out by adopting similar charged language for cartel mal-behavior: did you know all computers with SATA controllers have Digital Rights Management?

If that's news(I learned it last week), you should really read up on Advanced Host Controllers,  Ashcrofted is the best label that comes to mind;)

Orwelled?

We were told DRM was going to be an annoyance type of collective punishment like FBI warnings on DVD's you PAID FOR ALREADY.

Did you know it's being implemented to watermark/track your intellectual property? You're not supposed to....

Oops;)

[Mr.D.]

Piracy as defined by Merriam-Webster

I think its very new age and hipster of your to 'reject' a definition or even the whole term that you don't like. I think, and this is just ME thinking here, that an good average run-of-the-mill definition for piracy is taking or using something that wasn't yours or you didn't have permission. The first part of that is pretty clearly spelled out in copyright statements and EULAs. You will have to actually read it to understand it though. The second part has nothing to do with you (I don't mean you specifically, just anyone who is the third party in this) and has everything to do with the person who owns and/or created whatever it is that you want to use/have.

OVERLY SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE:
My neighbor Bob creates a new thingamajig. He thinks it the best thingamajig out there and proudly displays it to his neighbors. That thingamajig sure looks handy I think. Hey Bob, can I borrow that? Well Mr.D. you can, but I need it back by tonight. And make sure you don't copy my thingamajig! Sure, no problem Bob. Now I can 1) Follow his rules that he set out for use of his thingamajig or 2) Reverse engineer his thingamajig, call up that annoying Oxy-Clean guy (the new one with the Aussie accent, not Billy Mays - he rocked) and have him hock MY whatchamacallit on late night t.v.

We have been living in a "post-1984" world since.. .well, about 1984. Educate yourself if you want, protect yourself if you must... but please, don't be a dick and take something that doesn't belong to you or you don't have the proper permissions for.

Oh, and for some further reading, check out Blacks Law Dictionary. Since it doesn't really matter (other than mental gymnastics) what you or I or God or Buddha thinks about this, it matters what our government can enforce about this:

Since the first edition of Black’s, “piracy” also has had a secondary definition that synonymizes piracy with IP theft. As Henry Campbell Black wrote in 1898, the term “piracy” “is also applied to the illicit reprinting or reproduction of a copyrighted book or print or to unlawful plagiarism from it.” This definition is consistent with the 1798 case Beckford v. Hood, one of American law’s first case citations that invoked “piracy” as a proxy for unauthorized copying. In Beckford, the court characterized the case’s primary issue (an unauthorized commercial republication of a book) as “an action upon the case for piracy of copyright.”

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to refresh my torrents app.

[WhatTheTech]

This is just my small opinion, made in the spirit of discussion, not because I think anyone should conform to my standard of morality.

I personally don't believe that file sharing is always cut and dry, however MOST of the time it really is. You want a song/movie/piece of software and you either don't want to or can't pay for it. I'm sorry, but that's hardly the "stealing bread to feed my family" argument that many make it out to be. Now, in response to the "torrenting isn't theft" argument, I would say simply that whether you are copying an item or removing an item entirely, you are still receiving something that did not pay for and have no entitlement to. *Edit*: I would take this further and say that you have no idea as to where the original copy of the media in question came from. Did the file's uploader steal that copy of Lightroom off of a store shelf? Was that movie thieved from Wal-mart? You have no way of knowing, and according to U.S. law, receiving stolen property that could be reasonably conceived as stolen is tantamount to theft.

I personally don't torrent copyright materials as a rule, HOWEVER that's not to say that I haven't. I once found a very obscure book from the 1920's via Google on a torrenting website - a book that I had been looking for in print and at libraries for some years. Despite it being a copyrighted work, I still downloaded it. Does that make it right? Is an obscure copyright any different from that of a latest movie? Not in the eyes of the law, although personally I find some slight distinction, but perhaps because it benefited me at the time. Still, the author of that book (or copyright holder) would have every legal standing to pursue me for this action.

All that to say, whether you believe file sharing is good or not, anyone who torrents some copyrighted media that they did not purchase is possibly breaking the law in their country, and should do so understanding that though they may not like the consequences, they cannot say they weren't warned. Now, while we all have some freedom in choosing our own level of morality and consequent actions (depending on which school of thought you belong to), the law of the land supersedes that. Perhaps not in philosophical importance, but certainly in its ability to dictate your future. I don't sit at my computer looking down at all the "pirates and thieves" on TPB, but what I don't understand are the hordes of (mainly) male young adults (that's me!) and teenagers who seem to think that their actions are above the law, and that there should be no consequence for their actions. If you don't like "anti-piracy" laws, go study law and become a legal activist for net neutrality groups. Downloading season six of Lost is hardly "sticking it to the man".

Still, like I said, I don't sit here looking down upon anyone because we have differing standards. I am sure there are some things that I do in my life that you wouldn't.

Just my 2bitcoins.

[level70steve]

I admit that I been a pirate.  But as much as I learned the difference between what's mine and what's not, it's easy for me to take sides.  There is a side where things have to be paid for up-front before seeing or using.  Then another side where things become free with an option to donate.  And then there is one more side where you own all the stuff you created yourself.  These are the three sides I take into consideration as to whether I pirate anything good or just simply lay low and leave stuff alone for my safety.

Although piracy has gained popularity since the post-1984 era (as most of you would put it), I already learned that piracy is spoiled where there are idiots who don't know what they're doing.  This is another reason I stay low, because most users fake popular software or popular music.  But for the rest of us, as Steve Jobs always says, that does not always mean the end of piracy.  While us the intelligent understand our values and play smart with what we buy or what we get, there will always be someone else online gambling their own freedom by downloading all they want, sharing all they want, or even hacking all they want.  One court case against one particular person is not enough which everyone should already know by now.  While a PS3 and an XBOX 360 both can be considered a toy, I can tell you all from my experience that the Internet itself is clearly not always a toy!

[SS01]

I buy software from small, independent developers. Pirating from these people is completely immoral as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to the big, multibillion dollar companies, I pirate software for two reasons: A: It won't hurt them at all. Mr D has provided a valid example with Wal-mart, but I'm pretty sure that the nice 70-year old lady is still going to get paid if I pirate Wal-mart's software for personal use. B: I believe everything should be open source. When every piece of software is licenced under the GPL (yes, you can sell GPL software), and source is being willingly offered, I'll stop pirating. This software wouldn't be any less profitable in the long run, as I'm quite sure most people (including me) simply won't be bothered to compile from source. As far as the getting caught thing, downloading is actually legal here, and I use a VPN, just in case.

As you've probably guessed by now, I'm anti-copyright.

Just my opinion, I'm not implying anyone else should/has to live up with these standards.

[maximus]

Software is not that expensive nowadays,if you can't afford it there is an open source alternative to many of them. People who torrent apps like Adobe Photoshop will not buy it anyway,and could be satisfied by an open source alternative such as Gimp. Here,in Croatia piracy is normal. 99% of population has some kind of pirated software or a copyright material on their computers,even coffee shops and internet cafe's use pirated OS. There are laws against it but are rarely excersised.

[WhatTheTech]

SS01, on 10 March 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I buy software from small, independent developers. Pirating from these people is completely immoral as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to the big, multibillion dollar companies, I pirate software for two reasons: A: It won't hurt them at all. Mr D has provided a valid example with Wal-mart, but I'm pretty sure that the nice 70-year old lady is still going to get paid if I pirate Wal-mart's software for personal use. B: I believe everything should be open source. When every piece of software is licenced under the GPL (yes, you can sell GPL software), and source is being willingly offered, I'll stop pirating. This software wouldn't be any less profitable in the long run, as I'm quite sure most people (including me) simply won't be bothered to compile from source. As far as the getting caught thing, downloading is actually legal here, and I use a VPN, just in case.

As you've probably guessed by now, I'm anti-copyright.

Just my opinion, I'm not implying anyone else should/has to live up with these standards.

An interesting article on making things open source and why: http://tom.preston-w...everything.html

It prefers the MIT license, and so do I given the parameters of their reasoning, but not for everything.

I do have to pick at one of "your" arguments (in quotes because it has been made by others many-a time). Though your shoplifting from WalMart does not directly affect Gladys, the 70-yr old greeter, and her position with the company, we cannot look at issues like this with such a narrow scope of view. If we are to consider a corporation (Wal-Mart, Adobe etc.) then we must consider the ENTIRE corporation and all of its sources of income. So it's not just you shoplifting that will affect Gladys' job, it's every Tom, Dick and Harry that has EVER shoplifted in EVERY city in EVERY state that has a Wal-Mart. This therefore creates a compounded effect. I would not be surprised is Wal-Mart loses $150,000 a week in stolen merchandise. Forget Gladys, that's a middle-management salary or even seven of Gladys! This is why such actions can ONLY be considered on a more universal scale. So if I go and download Adobe CS6 Master, it's not a huge amount of money Adobe loses out on in and of itself. But when you look at all of the people across the WORLD that are doing so, we're talking billions of dollars. Do you think the music and film industries would be pushing so hard for legislation if we weren't talking enormous sums? They are spending millions right now lobbying for harsher penalties for piracy, which tells me they are currently losing at least that or more.

maximus said:

Software is not that expensive nowadays, if you can't afford it there is an open source alternative to many of them. People who torrent apps like Adobe Photoshop will not buy it anyway,and could be satisfied by an open source alternative such as Gimp. Here,in Croatia piracy is normal. 99% of population has some kind of pirated software or a copyright material on their computers,even coffee shops and internet cafe's use pirated OS. There are laws against it but are rarely excersised.

I agree with you about GIMP for sure. It is what I used for several years before saving up and buying the Adobe Suite. If anyone views this as a sub-standard photo editor, please head over to Deviatart and search for works created by GIMP. I think you will agree that when it comes to digital art, the power of your tools will only take you so far. GIMP served me very well, I finally switched to CS5 for some of the conveniences it offered to my photography biz. You know, the governments of Eastern Europe really should start an interest-free software-selling system, whereby people can pay down the software like a car (except without interest). As I said in my original comment, like it or not it's the law, and there is a certain moral duty to obey reasonable laws. For those that are unreasonable, we either have the option to take action and change the law through petition and activism, or we can practice civil disobedience (at least in the U.S., although I believe the U.N. has similar allowances). The problem is, civil disobedience by theft is rarely a good PR move and I can't see it doing much to promote open software.

[maximus]

GIMP is an excellent example of a superb open source software that is still on par with others of its kind. But it carries what I call "open source stigma" which means,if its free it must be inferior to other solutions. This was true many years ago. Now we got software like Blender,LibreOffice and GIMP and many others that are powerfull open source alternatives.