Piracy Questions?

[eatmyshorts7569]

I know that this Forums is against piracy, but i have a essay do on piracy at my English class and i wanted to know why people are for it and why are they not. So plz state your Thought of why this is right or wrong.


*Plz don’t answer if its simple like "Cuz its Fun or ETC."
*Plz follow the rules of the forums and don’t state website That state programs and or download links FOR PIRATING PROGRAMS.*

[PLOBBY]

Why i think people do it is because its easy and free is the main thing. People are really lazy and dont want to go out make a few bucks and buy what they want. Thats the main reason I would say. people are really cheap and piracy is the cheap way out for them, thats really why. Or just because they think there cool and taking stolen software....

[9mmCensor]

Because people lack money. Or are cheap.
Because the distribution system sucks.
Because people dont like the RIAA.
Because CDs aren't worth buying.
Because they have spare bandwidth to use on something.

[Paul1]

Personally I wouldn't know, but I would guess that people do it on a "try-before-you-buy" basis. If they find that they can't use a certain program for a certain task, they won't go out and spend a lot of money on it. They find the right program and then buy it because it fits their needs. Some programs are really expensive.

[XWRed1]

They find the right program and then buy it because it fits their needs.

Except they usually don't buy it, since they already pirated it by then.

[the adam]

Probally cause they don't feel like paying for stuff when they know they can get it for free. They also probally do it cause they don't know anyone who has gotten caught so they do it. They also know that there are people downloading thousands of illegal files a day so they think this person will get caught before I get caught for download only 4 files a day. Most are probally uninformed and think there is no way to track them down. Some also see it as not being wrong to dl illegal files. Parents don't like doing online shopping so they dl illegal music instead of getting buying files legally. They don't have credit cards and don't feel like driving so they dl stuff illegally.

These are some things I thought off the top of my head. Hope they help :)

[HaTE]

why do people steal in real life? money, either they dont have any or don't think the item is worth that much. look at music, you hear a good song on the radio, so you goto the store to buy the cd, but you don't want to spend $10+ just to get that one song, so you go online and download it illegaly thinking one song isn't going to hurt the band. then theres programs, like windows, people hear on the news all the time about a new virus attacking windows or spyware that steals you info and then they hear from thier friends and family about thier computer crashing all the time or they can't get a programs to work, after all that do you think that person wants to spend $100 on windows, or say the person wants to get in to gfx, but damn $600 adobe photoshop thats alot. in the end people think by just downloading this one illegal program thier not going to hurt the companies who made it, but they don't think about the million other people who are doing the same thing as them.

[eatmyshorts7569]

Thank u guys. plz keep them coming.

[crash013]

It's free.

[UlicBelouve]

Confessions of a non-pay software user.....

I don't GET the items myself, I have a source that does that. Why I do it?

Because it's not worth it for a lot of the stuff. I get Painkiller, play it for a week, then put it on the shelf. Same with Far Cry and Doom 3. When I beat it, I shelve it. I am not paying $50 for a week of games, oer game. Only if I play them online.

As for other programs, like NAV 2005, etc, I use them again because it's not worth paying for them. They charge you $30-$70 as a service fee to fix their product. You have to stick it to them somehow.

I do it to fight the system. They offshore their support to India, paying them 8 cents an hour, and they charge ME $30 for the call. So I have to rip them off back for what they do to us.

Plus, the headaches by Microsoft make it worhwhile to get their items also.

But really, game developers aren't exactly trying too hard to KEEP interest. I mean, they make something revolutionary, and you want to SEE it, and PLAY it, but they after you've "been there, done that", you're like "Was that worth $50?"

I still buy games I genuinely want to keep playing, or that I want to play online.

I think my "been there, done that" carries over to movie and music piracy also. You don't want to shell out a bunch of cash to see somthing that has a thrill value of 10 minutes. Just about any good DVD that I have had someone bring back from overseas, I have also purchased later. Movies, I pirate because they don't hit DVD fast enough. when they do, I get them.

That, or they are movies I will watch once, but don't have that much interest in, and won't pay for.

The piracy thing should tell you one of two things:

Either the stuff being stolen is so good that we would buy it if we could, but can't (movies)
Or they are of such poor quality that we WON'T pay for them. MS sucks, so I have not paid for it.

My father tought be the best thing in value:
IT IS ONLY WORTH WHAT SOMEONE IS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

Windows, I have never paid for. It is worthless to me. I use it because I have to, to help test software, and in customer service, most customers use windows, so I would need to be familiar with that. When windows dominates the user world and forces you to use or be familiar with it, then it is expected to be stolen.

Some games.....WORTH EVERY PENNY. And I would buy them again in a heartbeat. It's just some things are junk, some things are gold. I pay gold for gold, and junk for junk.

If I have to use a particular item to realistically exist in the computer world, then that said item should be chaper than it is. And that's why I use ripped off materials. I do not steal them myself, as I said, someone does that for me.

I hope this aids your report.

[eatmyshorts7569]

idk if u noticed but the comment that crash013 just made gouse under the "Cuz its Fun or ETC." its ok to say that but explain youre self further please. and as far as UlicBelouve gouse. GREAT POST.

*FYI: THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST DAMN PAPER I HAVE EVER WRITTEN*

[UlicBelouve]

I also wholeeartedly agree with stealing to hurt the owner. I had someone get me a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 so that I would know I ripped off Micheal Moore. Edit: I NEVER watched it.

And then also, I am a large fan of classical and foreign-born music. It's tough to get some foreign music legitimately, so I download it myself. If I can get a CD of it, I can (and have somtimes paid $60 for a music CD)

Again, it is only worth what someone is WILLING to pay for it.

[UlicBelouve]

Heh, to pirate a report on piracy....

Send me a copy by e-mail if you can. I'd like to read it.

[eatmyshorts7569]

I also wholeeartedly agree with stealing to hurt the owner. I had someone get me a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 so that I would know I ripped off Micheal Moore. Edit: I NEVER watched it.

And then also, I am a large fan of classical and foreign-born music. It's tough to get some foreign music legitimately, so I download it myself. If I can get a CD of it, I can (and have somtimes paid $60 for a music CD)

Again, it is only worth what someone is WILLING to pay for it.


but dont u guys think that the prices of software, music, and movies are climing higher and higher due to piracy. they are just trying to make up for the loss that they will have thnx to the piraters and are trying to make up for it by highering the prices. So what is the for a citizine to do but to pirate, or just go in and buy it. i personally know that there is no way in hell that im paying for a game that costs $50. but i also do not pirate.

ok so i was a right about somthing.

[UlicBelouve]

but dont u guys think that the prices of software, music, and movies are climing higher and higher due to piracy.

Due to piracy? NO.

More people play games, more people buy games. The reason the prices are that high, and climbing?

Because people are willing to pay that price.

If people didn't shell out $50 for Doom 3, then they wouldn't be selling it for $50.

Let's say at the $50 price, 10 million buy it, 3 million rip it off becuse too expensive. They make $500 million.

If they lower it to $40, and then 15 million buy it, 1 million rip it off, the company makes $600 million.

They have to keep the balance in price to where the demand will maximize their profits. It keeps going up because people keep paying that price, not because people STOP paying the price. If they increase the price....to $60, and then it goes to only 8 million buy it, and now 5 million pirate it....they make $480 million, less than before. They will only raise the price when they know they will not kill demand.

Piracy is not pushing prices higher to compensate. The demand is what raises prices. That's economics for you, though there are far more economic principles that can factor in.

People NEED Windows OS. That's how they can charge so much. The demand is astronomical.

I think if people pirated MORE, the price would go down. The company would rather sell much, much more for less, than to sell very few product for more. Think about it, if they cut the price in half and triples their sales, they would make more. If they double the price (think $100 a game) and cut their sales to 1/3 of what they had, then they lose out. Even getting HALF the sales would break even.

The reason prices go up is because, people are still WILLING to pay that mch for a game. Piracy is the antidote to that disease.

[eatmyshorts7569]

interesting. i never thought of it that way.

[LutaWicasa]

Piracy is the antidote to that disease.


No...piracy is theft, a crime in our society. Legally as well as morally wrong. Which incidently...discussion of illegal activities aren't allowed on these boards.
I would suggest keeping this thread on track.........if it keeps in the direction it has been going, I will indeed nuke it.

[eatmyshorts7569]

yes sir. u guys hear the man.

[UlicBelouve]

"Piracy is the antidote to that disease" is not a statement of support. Going from my previous flow, it's more correctly the thought that....

Piracy [to stop paying fo something] is the antidote to the disease [raising prices because suckers are willing to pay that much].

So I can edit it to say:
"To stop paying for something (whether stealing it or not) is the antidote to the epidemic of price increase due to the mindless consumer dedication to the product line"

So I apologize that I added theatrics to the topic to say that "Piracy is the antidote to that disease."

Although, if salvaging the economy is illegal, then we have a messed up outlook of right and wrong.

[UlicBelouve]

Hrm. Rethinking. I've edited many times to be PC. Which, as I might not WANT to be, I am watching what I say, because regardless of what I think I have the right to say, the admins are the final line in that. I could be justified in what I say, but banned.

Here's the situation in full, and where my affore-questioned statement "Piracy is the antidote to that disease" goes to:

The situation--------------------
Don't want to pay $8 to see movie in theatre.................but want to see the movie
Don't want to pay $50 for a PC game............................but still want to play it
Don't want to pay $20 for a CD....................................but still want to jam to it


pre-piracy solutions-------------------------
Don't want to pay $8 to see movie in theatre.................so I'll wait to rent it (boycott theatre)
Don't want to pay $50 for a PC game............................so I won't play it (boycott game store)
Don't want to pay $20 for a CD....................................so I won't buy it (boycott game store)


Eventually, the problem with this is that it didn't work. The desire to see the movie, play the game, or jam to the tunes outweighed the disdain of paying such prices. And so they, we, paid for said items, and hated it all along.

Then came piracy.

Piracy solutions----------------------------------
Don't want to pay $8 to see movie in theatre, but want to see the movie (pirate it!)
Don't want to pay $50 for a PC game, but still want to play it (pirate it!)
Don't want to pay $20 for a CD, but still want to jam to it (pirate it!)

This was a win-win situation to many, many people, as the previous options just did not work.

Now, what this does, what piracy does, is address the situation....refresh....
Don't want to pay $8 to see movie in theatre.................but want to see the movie
Don't want to pay $50 for a PC game............................but still want to play it
Don't want to pay $20 for a CD....................................but still want to jam to it

So the industry can either address the "don't want to pay" or the "don't want to see/play/jam". Obviously, to solve the problem of "don't want see/play/jam" would kill their product. So they have to address the "don't want to pay".

And there have been many initiatives to do such a thing. Like Pepsi and iTunes (think of it what you will). But they are addressing the "don't want to pay" by giving out free songs.

But, here's the thing, not that piracy is right, but if it gets to such a severe point, then the industry would rather lower their prices to fix the "don't want to pay" problem, than to lose revenue. But if they lose revenue, then they can point to piracy as being the reason for their lost revenue, and get laws passed to crack down on piracy. But who's fault is it, really, for their lost revenue? THAT, my friend, is the focal point of the piracy discussion.

It comes down to pro-piracy "the industry charges too much, so we have to pirate to get what we want, and they don't lower their prices so they lose revenue" to the anti-piracy "stealing the music is hurting the revenue of companies"

That's why I say that piracy is an antidote. Not that it is right, but it's really the best shot of fixing the original problem, that we want X, but will not pay the asked-for amount for X, but cannot resist the desire to have X.

So the industry (record makers, movie makers, game makers) created the ORIGINAL PROBLEM (back when all we could do was boycott) and as such, created a need for a solution. While it may not be legal, that solution was piracy.

This raises a series of philisophical questions: if the ORIGINAL PROBLEM had not existed, would the solution of piracy have come about as prominent as it has?

Who's responsibility, then, is it to fix the original problem?

Who's fault is it for the creation of the solution known as piracy?


Speaking of pirates, then, I pose this:
A ship captain, opresses the crew. They cannot stand this at all. They revolt, and let's say the revolution, by definition, is illegal. Who is the responsible catalyst or trigger for the illegal act of revolution? Would the crew have revolted if the captain had managed in non-oppressive manner? Is it the captain's fault? Or is it the crew's?


Piracy is still illegal, I'll say that. But it would not have expanded as such if there was not a need for it, if it did not solve some original problem. Fix the original problem, and you fix piracy. And I think, though piracy illegal, that it did do a lot to fix the original problem that was not going to have ever occured if it were not for piracy. Would iTunes be giving free mp3s if piracy were not an issue? Would Microsoft still reward "genuine users" of Windows if there were no piracy and everyone were a "genuine user". What developments in online security would we have lacked if not for trying to fix the ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

In a way, and I may take heat for this, piracy should be commended for forcing many to fix that original problem. Now does the end justify the means? Probably not, but if there were no means, there would be no end.

So this is something to chew on.

[DumpALump]

Like Paul1 said sometimes people do the try before you buy thing. I know of a few friends that do that and sometimes I will "pirate" an app for my dad so he can test it out before purchasing it.

Often the trials or demos don't show the full functionality of the product, which is usually needed for someone to be sure they would like to purchase it. There have been many times that I've bought a game only to play it for less than a week then put it away. There have been a few times that my dad purchased some software only to realize after opening it that it doesn't do exactly what he wanted. It might come close, but really wasn't what he wanted to purchase.

If I play a game that I really enjoy then I usually buy it anyways. I'd say piracy has helped me save A LOT of money from crappy games that have great hype/advertisement that after playing for only an hour I just uninstall it. If I had paid the $40 for the game, I would be stuck with a crappy $40 paper weight.

Same with my dad who purchased his software and found it to not have the features he wanted. Now he is stuck with his purchase and has to go out and find another piece of software that does have the features he is looking for.

[UlicBelouve]

Ah, so DumpALump.....we have another item to add to the original problem from above.

I ask again, who's fault is it that we have piracy?

[XWRed1]

No...piracy is theft, a crime in our society.

Software piracy isn't exactly theft, that's an entire subject of it's own.

Theft induces a scarcity on the victim, piracy does not. I.e., if you copy a game I bought, I still have my copy. The company making the game still loses money, but only if you'd have been able and willing to buy it anyways. So it's all rather murky and touchy feely.

Both sides don't compromise on it:

The vendors consider every single pirated copy to be a lost sale, which is silly if it is something like Photoshop that costs $500 a pop -- if it was IMPOSSIBLE to pirate, those pirates wouldn't have bought it, they'd have gotten something cheaper like Paint Shop Pro or The Gimp.

The pirates say it doesn't hurt anyone because you aren't depriving anyone of their copy. The company still loses *some* sales however, although the real lost sales will always be less than the inflated numbers based on every pirated copy.



And of course you can use piracy as a segue into software licensing. Lots of companies don't consider themselves to be selling you anything at all, they are merely giving you a license that gives you a legal right to use a given piece of software in some manner. So then are you stealing/pirating, or merely breaking a contract? Can't break a contract I didn't agree to anyway, me being a hypothetical pirate. So I'm really commiting a copyright violation. That doesn't sound like stealing does it?

[LutaWicasa]

I'm a very simple man.
I live a very simple life.
I hold very simple beliefs.
If I take, keep and use something that isn't mine...that's theft.

[ghettocomp]

.....And of course you can use piracy as a segue into software licensing. Lots of companies don't consider themselves to be selling you anything at all, they are merely giving you a license that gives you a legal right to use a given piece of software in some manner. So then are you stealing/pirating, or merely breaking a contract? Can't break a contract I didn't agree to anyway, me being a hypothetical pirate. So I'm really commiting a copyright violation. That doesn't sound like stealing does it?

an example Which is where I feel that many Linux packages seem to be. the software is free to download, but many companys make 'slight' changes then say they own the right to charge you to use the software. Right down to the operating system itself. So, from that point - Just who is the pirate?

[eatmyshorts7569]

an example Which is where I feel that many Linux packages seem to be. the software is free to download, but many companys make 'slight' changes then say they own the right to charge you to use the software. Right down to the operating system itself. So, from that point - Just who is the pirate?

ok so big companys also pirate, so do you uys think is it right for the 6 pack joe to pirate too. ( by this i mean break Copyright)

[Soundmaster2.0]

Some companies charge way too much money for things... but most people who pirate are just too lazy to make the money and spend it on the software.

[XWRed1]

If I take, keep and use something that isn't mine...that's theft.

So you agree that pirating isn't theft also, since you aren't taking anything? :D


an example Which is where I feel that many Linux packages seem to be. the software is free to download, but many companys make 'slight' changes then say they own the right to charge you to use the software. Right down to the operating system itself. So, from that point - Just who is the pirate?

Actually, the GPL requires them to make an derivative work (i.e. a further modified version) freely available. So they can't take a GPL'd work, make slight changes, and say that you can only buy it from them. There's no commercial distros that do that as far as I know. Some of them fudge it, like Suse and Lindows though.

[9mmCensor]

I'm a very simple man.
I live a very simple life.
I hold very simple beliefs.
If I take, keep and use something that isn't mine...that's theft.
Wouldn't it have to be someone else's to be theft?

What about a quarter on the street? Its not yours, but if you take it, keep it and use it for a phone call, would that make you a theif, or someone who merely had good fourtune?

What if you take your Dad's car? But then your like, "snap, this was a bad idea", and return it? Is that theft? Because your taking it, and using it, but not keeping it.

If you buy a computer and they give you a peice of software, and you keep and use it, but the software was, without your knowledge stolen, does that make you a theif? Because you didn't "take" it from the owner.

[firebat45]

heres an example. I am a beginning 3d animator. I want to learn about animation. The program i use costs nearly $4000 US. If i had not pirated it, i wouldn't be using it. If i don't use it, i don't learn. If i don't learn, i will never buy it, or become a professional animator.

[I.M.O.G.]

I see piracy as wrong - if you aren't stealing from the vendor, you are still causing economic loss somewhere. Perhaps you wouldn't actually purchase what you pirated, but the fact that you pirated it directly implies that you are fulfilling a need with it. For example, a need for entertainment perhaps - maybe you would have rented the movie, although you would not have purchased it. You pirate it however, and then you do neither.

The fact is that if you pirate, you are fulfilling some need which you have, and if you did not or were not able to pirate, you would find another way to fulfill that need. You can say well I wouldn't have bought it anyways... But you would have done something else to fulfill that need, and someone is being deprived of their rightful compensation.

That is my philosophy on pirateing. I do think that pirateing is an engine however for improvements and change in the way information systems goods are delivered... All this technology and WWW access is still very new, and I believe that improvements will be made which will make it increasingly difficult to do things the way they are done currently.

I'm not sure if that will be good or bad though... The flourishing of the PC industry has really been built upon piracy IMO. I mean if you think about it, before PC's came along there weren't people running out in droves to get typewriters - typewriters were bought as utility machines. PC's have their market as entertainment systems largely due to the cost at which entertainment can be obtained for them - there is a large driving force of active and passive piracy behind things.

Those are my thoughts, I hope they assist you in your assignment. I can elaborate on anything if you think it would be further helpful.

[Slackfumasta]

You guys are using very specious logic to justify the theft of software.

If you pirate software, that is stealing. Plain and simple.

I work for a software company. We make a few different, interrelated products that we spend tons of money to develop. We don't spend that dough so that you can have it for free - we spend that dough so we can sell it and make money. If you pirate it, you have stolen from us, no matter how many times you say that it's not worth the money or that you would not have bought it anyway. You still have no right to use it without paying the money for it.

Analogies involving finding money on the street, or taking somebody's car do not apply here because software is in it's own category. It can be replicated any number of times unlike money or cars. You can't 'borrow' software like you can borrow a chainsaw from your neighbor, they can't compare to each other.

We have a little over 50 employees here, and our payroll is in the millions. We have servers to purchase and maintain, advertising to buy, real estate to lease, plane tickets to buy, etc. If everybody pirates our software, guess what? We don't make enough money to stay in operation and then no more of our software gets developed. That sort of thing happens every day.

There are cracks available for our software. I can find them easily with Google, freely available for anybody to download. It costs us money to keep up with them in order to prevent people using our software illegally. In the end, yes, it drives prices up, have no doubts about that.

In conclusion, justify it however you want: If you use software that you did not obtain legally, you are stealing. There is no legitimate argument against it. The whole 'We like to try it before we buy it' crowd is stealing just as much. Any 'real' software package (not talking about $50 games here) will allow you to have a trial period absolutely free. We do it - we offer 30 day trials for all our products. You don't even have to speak to anybody, just give us an email address to send a temporary license key to. I buy all the software that we use internally here, I know how common trial licenses are. Heck, you can even get 120 day versions of Microsoft software if you want to.

If you pirate, you are a thief. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[schnikies79]

Stealing is stealing is stealing. People shouldn't try and justify it.

Dayton

[9mmCensor]

The try it before you buy it is applicable when software trials have some fuctions removed.

[eatmyshorts7569]

You guys are using very specious logic to justify the theft of software.

If you pirate software, that is stealing. Plain and simple.

I work for a software company. We make a few different, interrelated products that we spend tons of money to develop. We don't spend that dough so that you can have it for free - we spend that dough so we can sell it and make money. If you pirate it, you have stolen from us, no matter how many times you say that it's not worth the money or that you would not have bought it anyway. You still have no right to use it without paying the money for it.

Analogies involving finding money on the street, or taking somebody's car do not apply here because software is in it's own category. It can be replicated any number of times unlike money or cars. You can't 'borrow' software like you can borrow a chainsaw from your neighbor, they can't compare to each other.

We have a little over 50 employees here, and our payroll is in the millions. We have servers to purchase and maintain, advertising to buy, real estate to lease, plane tickets to buy, etc. If everybody pirates our software, guess what? We don't make enough money to stay in operation and then no more of our software gets developed. That sort of thing happens every day.

There are cracks available for our software. I can find them easily with Google, freely available for anybody to download. It costs us money to keep up with them in order to prevent people using our software illegally. In the end, yes, it drives prices up, have no doubts about that.

In conclusion, justify it however you want: If you use software that you did not obtain legally, you are stealing. There is no legitimate argument against it. The whole 'We like to try it before we buy it' crowd is stealing just as much. Any 'real' software package (not talking about $50 games here) will allow you to have a trial period absolutely free. We do it - we offer 30 day trials for all our products. You don't even have to speak to anybody, just give us an email address to send a temporary license key to. I buy all the software that we use internally here, I know how common trial licenses are. Heck, you can even get 120 day versions of Microsoft software if you want to.

If you pirate, you are a thief. No ifs, ands, or buts.


ok so i was right about somthing.

[UlicBelouve]

I see piracy as wrong - if you aren't stealing from the vendor, you are still causing economic loss somewhere.

I disagree. Again, back to the original problem I posed way back when, I'll get to that in a moment.

And with other further arguments, that "piracy is stealing, period", I agree with THAT POINT.

But the original problem is that one is producing a product that falls under one of two categories:
1. We want it, but don't want to pay the outrageous price.
2. It's might be a junk product, but don't want to pay the price for a potential paperweight.

So I again think that CAUSING piracy is the fault of the vendor, for not matching their prices appropriately to demand. So if piracy then causes economic loss, then it is the fault of the vendor for not adjusting the price to a range where it will be more widely purchased. It would similar (though not perfectly so) to a car manufacturer making an outrageously overpriced vehicle that is easily stolen. What will happen? People will want the car, find it is easier to steal than to buy, and then they will steal it. Let's say additionally it is hard to trace. I would say that the MANUFACTURER would be at fault for 3 things: making the car so high-priced to not match up to demand properly, making it so easy to steal, and possibly making the demand for it so high.

The CAR THEIVES did not make the product so high-priced
The CAR THEIVES did not make the product so easy to steal
The CAR THEIVES did not generate the demand for the product.

In a same way, PIRATES do not make movie prices so high, they do not make software easy to steal, and they do not make games so desired to be played. It is the fault of the industry here, and I feel that piracy is a natural response to this, almost a way of forcing this economic problem to resolve itself.

What should happen (not that it will) is that, again, the industry adjusts their prices to get the mainstream piracy to purchase their products. They lower prices by half and triple their sales, the ECONOMY wins out. THAT'S THE POINT. They need to find a way to adjust their prices to maximise profit. This will never happen if people keep paying the outrageous prices that they ask for. Piracy, while theft, is probably the most blatant slap in the face to say, "we're not paying this much for this product." They need to either generate enough disire for the product that people DO want to pay the outrageous price (by offering bonus goodies to "genuine users", like MS is doing), or they need to lower the price.

And we will NEVER, EVER fix the problem if we are shallow and blind and say "Piracy is theft, period." NEVER EVER EVER fix the problem that way. It is the blindness that comes with being unable to see the original problem.

War is bloody. War kills people. War may thus just be murder. But to say "War kills people, so war is bad, period." Is just dumb. You have to look beyond all that in that instance too. Why the war? Why the killing? Is there something that needs to be fixed here, and what is it?

Ask the same question about piracy. YES, IT IS THEFT! We know that already. (though some cases can be argued, just go with it being theft) But ask, please ask, is there a bigger problem that needs to be fixed, and how do we fix it? I say yes. Piracy is trying to get us, as a society, to focus on a larger problem. The industry has screwed up te suply versus demand, and as economists of past said, there may be some theft then. Piracy just took that to a whole new level because the theft was so easy and so untraceable.

So we need to recognize that mainstream piracy (some people will always steal this stuff) will not end until we fix the original problem. If we refuse to fix the original problem, piracy will continue, and to be blind to the original problem is to be ignorant of a larger socioeconomic problem, and piracy will never die then.

I would love to see where we no longer need piracy, where the mainstream piracy dies. But just calling piracy theft and passing laws to prosecute it will not be what ends piracy. No, that won't stop it at all.

[seadave77]

It would similar (though not perfectly so) to a car manufacturer making an outrageously overpriced vehicle that is easily stolen. What will happen? People will want the car, find it is easier to steal than to buy, and then they will steal it.

So if some people offer my grandparents to buy there house and they decline, it would be their fault that the people shoot them and take it anyway because it is easier to still than to buy? Or it's the gas stations fault that I drive away without paying because I think the price of gas is to high.

[Slackfumasta]

So in other words, you are saying that the vendors have created a world in which you need to steal. I think that's a load of bunk personally.

1. We want it, but don't want to pay the outrageous price.

As with any other product, if you don't want to pay the price, why do you think you deserve to have it anyway? So you don't want to pay $80,000 for a Mercedes, does that make it okay to steal it? Of course not.

2. It's might be a junk product, but don't want to pay the price for a potential paperweight.

If you don't want it, you have the right not to buy it. You still don't have the right to steal it, whether you think it's justified because you want to 'try it out'. You can't hijack somebody's BMW because you want to try one before you buy it.

So I again think that CAUSING piracy is the fault of the vendor, for not matching their prices appropriately to demand.

Again, you are wrong. It costs real, hard dollars to develop a product, and that development cost is reflected in the price, sometimes regardless of the demand. Sure, sometimes a product ends up costing much more to develop and sell than it is worth, and if that is the case then the public doesn't end up buying it. I can think of a few software packages that fell into that trap. However, your option is to simply not buy it; just because it's overpriced doesn't mean that it's okay to steal it. You do not have the right to use something that you don't want to pay for, regardless of whether or not *you* think it's overpriced.

Don't like Microsoft Windows because it costs $200? Use something free like Linux. Disputing the price of something does not mean it's okay to steal it.

The CAR THEIVES did not make the product so high-priced
The CAR THEIVES did not make the product so easy to steal
The CAR THEIVES did not generate the demand for the product.

Please spare us the "It's so-CI-ety!" line. Nobody forces you to steal because you can't afford something. You are the one making the decision to take something that is not yours, thus putting the blame for the crime solely on your shoulders, not on the shoulders of the car manufacturers/software developers. You don't HAVE to have a fancy car or Adobe Photoshop. If you want them, you have to pay for them, and you have to pay the price that they sell for.

Piracy, while theft, is probably the most blatant slap in the face to say, "we're not paying this much for this product."

What?

Piracy is the most blatant slap in the face to say, "we're not paying ANYTHING for your product."

One of our products sells for $13,000. Somebody who wants to pirate it still isn't going to pay $6000 for it when they can crack it for free. And in the end, they are still doing the stealing. We are not travelling to their offices with shotguns and saying "You WILL buy our product for full price and you WILL like it!" If somebody doesn't want to pay for our product, they shouldn't be able to use it at all, even if they don't think it's worth $13000.

Piracy is trying to get us, as a society, to focus on a larger problem.

No it isn't. Piracy is out to get software without paying for it. You can't romanticize it by making it out to be some sort of anarchistic "Fight the man, power to the people" movement. Most of it is financially motivated. If everybody paid for their software, people wouldn't have to pay as much for it.

You sound as if you are doing nothing more than trying to justify your actions by shifting blame anywhere but yourself, such as shifting it back to the developers. Nobody is forcing you to use Windows or to play Doom3 or HL2 or to chop photos in Photoshop, and thus there is no driving need for you to have to obtain these products illegally. If you want them, you should pay for them, the same as the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

[Paul1]

You can't hijack somebody's BMW because you want to try one before you buy it.

While that is true, you can go to a BMW dealership and take a BMW for a test drive. You can't go to <insert name of corporation here> to try out <insert name of expensive product here> and see if it's exactly what you're looking for. Just an observation...

Edit: You can't get a refund for an opened game/application at as store (if I recall correctly). If you don't like a piece of hardware that you bought from a store.. say a hard drive, you can return it for a refund and get a bigger hard drive. Say you bought a 60GB hard drive for a store. When you get home, it turns out that you need more than 60GB to author DVDs for your studio or something. You take that hard drive BACK to the store, get a refund or exchange it for a BIGGER hard drive or something. The same case doesn't apply to software. Once you open that package, you can only exchange it for the same piece of software.

[Slackfumasta]

While that is true, you can go to a BMW dealership and take a BMW for a test drive. You can't go to <insert name of corporation here> to try out <insert name of expensive product here> and see if it's exactly what you're looking for. Just an observation...

Many software packages have trial versions, as has been mentioned previously. You can bet that nearly all packages that are priced in the high end, say $1000+, have trial versions available.

Go to microsoft.com, type in 'SQL 120 day evaluation', and you'll see the option of downloading SQL server with a trial license key.

All of our software packages have trial versions. They are fully functional.

Hell, even a lot of games release demos for you to try out.

In the end, not being able to try out a product first is a reason to not buy it, but not a reason to steal it.

[I.M.O.G.]

UlicBelouve: I will not fully counter your points as my original points already overtook your statements meant to be a response - they only responded to part of my statements however, as your points obviously fail agains my complete statements. I just have a few thoughts...

If you cannot afford a Caddillac, the right thing to do is not steal one. You buy a Saturn, like the one I drive.

And let me get this right, did you say its the fault of the industry for making "games so desired to be played"? LOL

Please provide sources if you suggest that prices on the products are too high. You are no expert on the economics behind the pricing points of various software, so it would do well for this argument to see the opinion of trustworthy sources on this point, if you want it to carry any weight.

Again, if you don't like the prices of big hollywood movies, B-movies can be entertaining and cheaper. If you don't like the prices of CD's by popular groups, there are plenty of underground and indie groups that will give you their stuff for free just for publicity - 50cent himself announced that he wouldn't be where he was if so many people wouldn't have downloaded his songs when he was small. He stated that downloading is great for artists who need to get noticed, but it hurts people when they make it big.

If you can't afford something nice, you don't steal something nice - you legally obtain something else that will suit the same purpose.

There is a problem with people thinking that they deserve or have a right to things which they have no right to - you must buy the right. If you can afford it, then you should enjoy it. If you cannot afford it, then it is wrong to use, take, or steal it. What you or I actually do, is completely irrelevant as that shouldnt' be discussed here... But it is wrong, and we should recognize that regardless.

[Rumrunner]

I think it's the thrill of being able to obtain an extremely overpriced, marked up, inflated, product such as photoshop (which is highway robbery itself) for no cost. Also, at the hacking level; they do an extensive amount of research and have an incredible amount of knowledge, and the genius to crack software.

***I don't support piracy, but if someone buys a copy of software, THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO IT WHICH INCLUDES MODIFYING IT.***

Furthermore, they also have the right to put thier files on a FTP site. Of course downloading these files could not be legal because they are copyrighted.

[willkill1337]

As a 16 year old, me and many of my friends cannot afford software.

If we could, we'd buy it.

[Slackfumasta]

I think it's the thrill of being able to obtain an extremely overpriced, marked up, inflated, product such as photoshop (which is highway robbery itself) for no cost. Also, at the hacking level; they do an extensive amount of research and have an incredible amount of knowledge, and the genius to crack software.

***I don't support piracy, but if someone buys a copy of software, THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO IT WHICH INCLUDES MODIFYING IT.***

Furthermore, they also have the right to put thier files on a FTP site. Of course downloading these files could not be legal because they are copyrighted.

Modifying your software does not include 'cracking' it to enable people to use it without paying for it, something that happens to Photoshop practically before it's released.

It also does not include the right to redistribute said software.

[Slackfumasta]

As a 16 year old, me and many of my friends cannot afford software.

If we could, we'd buy it.

You can't afford it, but that doesn't give you the right to steal it. It's not a justification!

You can't afford an Acura NSX either, so you'll just have to do without. You are not guaranteed the right to play HL2.

[I.M.O.G.]

I am seeing the same things you are slackfu... It seems it goes back to the problems of the have's and the have-not's very often.

The have-not's like piracy because then they too have the means (easy theft) to enjoy what the have's have the means (earned money) to enjoy.

I think many of the people here, agree that it is basically theft and is wrong... But there are multiple perspectives on why it is still done.

[Rumrunner]

Modifying your software does not include 'cracking' it to enable people to use it without paying for it, something that happens to Photoshop practically before it's released.

It also does not include the right to redistribute said software.

They do have the right to change, mutilate, or write any addition including a crack. It is thier constitutional right. I could create a million cracks right now and then call the feds and tell them what I did, and they would say "call me back when you share it" Even then, I could not be prosecuted if the crack didn't lie in the directory of the software. The person whos downloads it on the other hand, may be prosecuted.

[9mmCensor]

They do have the right to change, mutilate, or write any addition including a crack. It is thier constitutional right. I could create a million cracks right now and then call the feds and tell them what I did, and they would say "call me back when you share it" lol.
no. there is a law against that. dmca i think. (evil)

[I.M.O.G.]

They do have the right to change, mutilate, or write any addition including a crack. It is thier constitutional right. I could create a million cracks right now and then call the feds and tell them what I did, and they would say "call me back when you share it" Even then, I could not be prosecuted if the crack didn't lie in the directory of the software. The person whos downloads it on the other hand, may be prosecuted.

You have to read the end user license agreement - this is what explains to you what writes you have purchased. 9mm may also be right, in the sense that dmca is legislation which makes it a crime to help someone infringe a copyright. You can read the exact specifications here:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

[UlicBelouve]

I would ask that ALL OF YOU RESCIND THE "YOU" PORTIONS!

I do not steal any of this, I have have no illegal actions to justify!

Someone else steals them, yes, and brings them to me. I have someone else who steals them for me. Although, the movies are purchased overseas, the act of which, the purchaser has not violated anything but US law, in a non-US country, obviously.

So I would ask that you not label ME a pirate or a thief, because I have not pirated or stolen.

Also, the main distinction between pirating and stealing a car is that pirating is more or less a more perfect crime. We cannot viably steal cars, as it is difficult to do. It is just the ease of piracy that adds to it as well.

But I am done. If arguing the side of the pirates thus MAKES me a thief and a pirate, then you obviously lack the argumentative level necessary to even see things from my view. This is sickening.

I've studied terrorism at a viety of locations, including the United Nations. I've seen the same thing, where terrorism is just bad and needs to be stopped. Anyone who even argues from the side of the terrorists is a terrorist themselves. And that ignorance leads to more terrorism. Similar thing here, but I will not share any further thoughts with those whose rank is "The llama goes Oink! Oink! Oink!" or somesuch.

[Slackfumasta]

Licensing agreements generally prohibit the modification of the software.

From Microsoft's Windows XP EULA:

* Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation and
Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or
disassemble the SOFTWARE, except and only to the extent that
such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law
notwithstanding this limitation.

So no, you cannot make any modifications you want. Some things may be allowed, but certainly reverse-engineering a piece of software to find out how it's license keys are encrypted (which is how at least one of our software packages has been cracked) is expressly forbidden.

[Slackfumasta]

I do not steal any of this, I have have no illegal actions to justify!

Someone else steals them, yes, and brings them to me. I have someone else who steals them for me.

In the US, reception of stolen goods is just as illegal as stealing them.

Ignorance of the law is also not a viable defense in this country.

[I.M.O.G.]

Ulic, "you" and "I" are being used in general senses as they are easier than typing "a hypothetical third person". If you choose to take it personal, its probably best you don't discuss. "you" meaning "any person".

Terrorism is another topic. It is a violent act, and is wrong. However, sometimes there are motivations behind the actions that definetly need to be addressed.

Piracy is our topic. It is a theftful act, and is wrong. However, sometimes there are motivations behind this action which need to be addressed.

I see that is your point - so I understand you well. You did a good job of getting your point across. We simply disagree on the motivations behind piracy. You think it is because of unfair prices, which paints people as freedom fighters, pirating for the greater good so that change will occur. I think it is for various other reasons, and people who pirate stuff often like to provide explanations which rationalize their actions.

[Rumrunner]

Licensing agreements generally prohibit the modification of the software.

From Microsoft's Windows XP EULA:



So no, you cannot make any modifications you want. Some things may be allowed, but certainly reverse-engineering a piece of software to find out how it's license keys are encrypted (which is how at least one of our software packages has been cracked) is expressly forbidden.

All right, you got me there. So in that case, when you buy a program, the copyright protection is basically saying that you don't own the program then. There is an amendment that allows people to change the program for interoperability though.

Now aside from all of this, A crack can still be made as long as the software code isn't changed. I don't see how they could make that illegal.

[Free_Loader]

This is definitely a great topic. I agree in that Piracy is stealing.

There are endless reasons for motivation. I honestly think there are no cures to Piracy especially since one of the motivations for Piracy is just plain ole' fun. I am not nearly skilled or have the know how to crack or Pirate software. Some people just want everyone else to know that nothing is fool proof and are willing to take the risks. I honestly believe that a higher percentage of businesses use software legally than not. It is the single users who are doing most of the Pirating. It doesnt make it right but it could be fact. Now the businesses do pay for software but the single users do not and probably are not the majority. Now this is illegal and is not an excuse but, can companies be using the excuse to overprice the products to the end user? And is it really enough of a problem that taking measures against it are worth the effort? Software companies can use this as a an excuse for lost profits but it depends on who does the counting, right? These are arguments for another day.

[Paul1]

Many software packages have trial versions, as has been mentioned previously. You can bet that nearly all packages that are priced in the high end, say $1000+, have trial versions available.

Go to microsoft.com, type in 'SQL 120 day evaluation', and you'll see the option of downloading SQL server with a trial license key.

All of our software packages have trial versions. They are fully functional.


Agreed. As I said in my other post, I would imagine that people resort to piracy on a "try-before-you-buy" basis if such options are NOT avaliable. It was just a speculation.

[Rumrunner]

Software piracy today is like Marijuana use was in the 70's. Illegal, but err well ya know.

[schismspeak]

So I would ask that you not label ME a pirate or a thief, because I have not pirated or stolen. You knowingly accept the illegal goods, you might as well be stealing it yourself because it's the same damn thing If you can't afford to obtain it legally, don't buy it, or get someone to steal it for you. All I hear is you making excuses for your actions or the person that steals it for you. No one was suppose to reveal what they did do, and you did just that, and I have no control over myself when I see people spewing bs and trying to justify what most people consider wrong.(Even alot of the people that do it!)

[Slackfumasta]

I honestly believe that a higher percentage of businesses use software legally than not. It is the single users who are doing most of the Pirating.

I don't know whether or not that's accurate. It could be I suppose. I know that the smaller companies that I have worked for seem to be rather prone to 'misuse' software, which amounts to the same as software piracy.

I'll give you an example: Bob works in Marketing. Frank sends Bob a marketing strategy flowchart that he made in Visio 2003. Bob wants to open it, but Frank is not all that computer literate, and did not send it out in a format that Bob could open on his computer, because Frank has Visio and Bob does not. Bob calls Frank, and Frank shows him where the installation files are on the network to install Visio, and shares his license key with him. Because Microsoft allows a certain number of activations before it shuts off a key, Bob is able to activate Visio and he and Frank go on their happy way.

Sound far fetched? It isn't far fetched at all. See, I feel very strongly about this because it's part of my job to watch out for things like this. Not only to I not want people pirating our software, I don't want our users to end up pirating software either. It happens all the time. One thing that happens frequently is somebody is working on a piece of code and wants to test it on their machine, and it requires a SQL database. So, they go ahead and install SQL from their buddy's MSDN subscription, which is not allowed per the license agreement. They could have used MSDE or MySQL for free and completely legally, but it's easier to just borrow an SQL disc from a next door neighbor.

When I first started at my job here, it was messy. A dozen unlicensed SQL servers. Half of those didn't even have OS licenses. Many people in the company were using an installation of MSOffice that came from MSDN subscriptions (not even their own subscriptions). It was like pulling teeth, but I have straightened out our licensing issues. It earned me quite a reputation as a spender; I am only out-spent by our Marketing department.

The last small company I worked for refused to buy any software for themselves. They were a computer builder / network company. Every last copy of Win95/98/NT that was sold from that place was a pirated copy. They didn't do the pirating themselves, they bought them from some guy in San Francisco who did it. It was incredible how blatant it was - our first shipment of Win98 from this guy resulted in CDs in blank jewel cases with Avery labels stuck on them with an installation code. The same code on each one.

I left that company, and ever since I've always made sure that my office was protected. It's not worth risking the fines for misuse of software.

[I.M.O.G.]

Software piracy definetly happens much in the way that slackfu described... People somehow "end up" with software installed, even though IT didn't put it there and tries to control it as best they can. Still, I would definetly say that the majority of businesses maintain legal use, depending on the nature of their IT people mainly. Most infringement seems to be casual as I have witnessed it - either through lack of understanding, or very occasionally intentional, but never by the management.

In a business environment, as IT, I will always demand that anything I'm involved in is done by the book. If misuse is going on, and things get hot in the cooker, IT's goose is the one which will get cooked. Too much risk to do it any other way.

[UlicBelouve]

I have not pirated or stolen, just using items I may not have paid for. Cite the law broken then, please. And you say I spout BS.

[Mr.Guvernment]

Except they usually don't buy it, since they already pirated it by then.


You would be suprised how many people buy it and those who dont buy it are usually those who would not of bought it anyways.....


It is a debatly fact as there is no proof for either side to show they would of bought it or woudlnt

I have bought many items since i was able to "try" them out first since a developer was not willing to take time to make a demo.

I think if more companies made better decent demo's to really experience the game - then more people would buy games.

[I.M.O.G.]

We linked the DMCA - there are violations you have made listed there. It's PDF, if it were doc or similar I would underline or bold the parts which specifically apply to your situation.

[schismspeak]

I have not pirated or stolen, just using items I may not have paid for. Cite the law broken then, please. And you say I spout BS.

We linked the DMCA - there are violations you have made listed there. It's PDF, if it were doc or similar I would underline or bold the parts which specifically apply to your situation.




And to get back on track.

People pirate software for one main reason, because they don't want to pay for it, and think cause they won't pay for it they are entitled to steal it. The people that say they are sticking it to the man, if they had the money they would pay for it, and not "stick it to the man". "Sticking it" is just a bad justification for their actions.

[UlicBelouve]

US Law only applicable in US.

[Mr.Guvernment]

There can be more then 1 main reason - it is there - why not get it?

The groups who obtain these items could not careless if joe blow was able to download it - the reason they do it is a competition, and that is all - most any gorup will tell you, you like it buy it - i know doesnt mean people will, but at least even they are pushing it

As said i still stand by: most people who download it would not of bought it anyways and there are ALOT of people who will buy if they like.

[I.M.O.G.]

You asked what laws you broke, we showed you.

International law and US jurisdiction is different - but it does not gaurantee impunity. You just have to look at a different source for what the rules are, and then what is actually enforced also depends on local governments.

Mr.G: Nice insight into why the releases get released... Seems to hold pretty true from what I've seen also.

[ou_phidelt]

My reasin for pirating, im broke. i make just enough money to pay the bills. if i had the cash i would buy what i use. for music i would use itunes, will never ever buy another cd unless its a gift, there prices have gotten insane. i would much rather buy dvd's than pirate them but i dont have the financial resources to do so. is it wrong, yes, i know that. when i have the money to pay for these things i will, but at the moment i cant. i know that doesnt make it right but that's the way it is.

the one exception is windows. i will never pay for unless they change. they do not put out a quality product. they put out crap that has so many flaws in it that its not even funny. i will not buy windows until they change there ways and stop using there monopoly for a reason to produce junk.

i havent read the whole thread so this may have been discussed. But what about people that use netflix and blockbusters all you can rent deals. if you used blockbusters deal you could copy every dvd in the store for either 15 or 25 a month, i dont remember. plus the cost of media. thats alot more than most could download.

i also would like to read a copy of your paper. phidelt_1820@mail.com thanks, hoped i helped a little.

[eatmyshorts7569]

yes sir as soon as im don. its do 3/28/05 so its gonna take a bit.

[Slackfumasta]

US Law only applicable in US.

You live in the US, correct? According to your location, you do. That means that the laws apply to you in this country.

You could just say, "I pirate software because I'm broke / too cheap to buy it, and I know it's wrong and it makes me a criminal, but I don't really care.", rather than trying to paint it as some noble Rebel Alliance vs. Evil Empire socio-economic love story, because that's a load of dog doo. You're not "fighting the power" or "sticking it to the man", you are stealing, but you simply don't care.

[Terminat.]

Great thread so far!

Some heated debates so far. Here's just my opinion:

I would say that piracy is wrong.

However, you have to look at things from multiple perspectives. It is all too easy to take the moral high ground and say that pirates are nothing better than criminals.
However, Slackfumasta, you work for a software corporation. I understand your point of view - but some people do want software yet can't afford it.

Many people would prefer to buy software, if they had the money. And, while many simply do it for financial reasons, many do it as an expression of outrage at the hundreds of millions of dollars made by corporations every year.

E.g:

paint it as some noble Rebel Alliance vs. Evil Empire socio-economic

But that is the case for some people! Some people, although not necessarily pirating for financial reasons, think they shouldn't shell out another portion of their hard-earned cash just so another CEO can buy a third Ferrari.

I'm not saying I agree with this - because I certainly don't. But you have to see it from multiple perspectives.



So - while I do not denounce piracy - I do not judge people who download stuff illegally. Whether some do it for financial reasons, or some do it to strike out against the ridiculous profits made by corporations - it is their choice, and they are doing it from the comfort of their own computer. It's not like stealing a car, for instance - people are not adversely affected, at least not in the short-term.

[ps2cho]

You can't afford it, but that doesn't give you the right to steal it. It's not a justification!

You can't afford an Acura NSX either, so you'll just have to do without. You are not guaranteed the right to play HL2.

Just an observation...i really think people should stop admitting to having illegal software, first of all, its wrong as stated in the arguements above and also, you never know is watching over this. Keep to the thread...personal experiences...with....yes..stealing should not be posted. Keep to the thread's objective.

Oh and To the above post, You cannot expect because an item is too expensive for one person, to be the same for the next. This is not communism here, Everybodies financial situation is their own cause and effect, everybody is bound to have different incomes. Big Billy here makes 15k a year, is he going to be buying $4000 adobe products? I think not. You guys are turning this into a financial debate. If you cannot afford the product, you SHOULD NOT have it. Although its not fair, lifes not fair. Live with it. Work hard in school and you will plenty of chances in life to get whatever you want.

[UlicBelouve]

These items would be true if I ever stole anything in the first place. The items which the DMCA prohibits have occured overseas. I just have someone bring me back the items. I do not even pay for them.

So, all I am doing is owning something. The copying, encryption breaking, burning to DVD, etc, is 1. Not done by me, and 2. occuring overseas, outside of the DMCA.

So if and when I break the provisions of the DMCA, and it is IN the US, then yes, I am at fault. But currently, someone else breaks them for me, and they are outside the DMCA jurisdiction. Breaking the encryption Ripping DVDs is prohibited by the DMCA, but what if it is done outside the US? And, I had not been the one to rip and break the encryption....making a copy for personal use itself isn't illegal. Cracking the encryption system to do so may be. A lot of things are sketchy with the DMCA to begin with. I may posess "virtual contraband", but the DMCA does not stretch that far yet.

You could say I was aiding in a crime, but if the act is not criminal in THEIR area, and thus not a crime, how could I aid in one?

I'm not supportive of the "fight the power" movement at all. You can quote me saying piracy is theft. I picked a side to argue, I picked the HARDER side to defend, and tried to defend it. Now, if you are simply attacking me because I DEFEND one side, not particularly BELIEVE it, you are seemingly having the same ill-wishes for those that defend murders. They chose a profession to defend the criminals. They still believe murder is wrong. As I believe piracy is wrong.

But I do not do the piracy, I just benefit from it. And I will yield when benefiting from piracy is a crime, but I expect pepsi and iTunes to yield as well, because their "free songs" benefitted and existed SOLEY because of piracy. And they have made significant money from that deal.

So I use something I have not paid for. Again, not particularly a crime. Many youth use computers they have not paid for. It'd be different if I ripped things off myself. But I do not.

It's like driving a stolen car that someone else stole and gave to me. They stole the car and commited the crime. Morally wrong, but, meh. Morals in the technology world, huh? Who'd have thought?

It's all legal until you get caught.

So again, what laws have I broken? I just get a package on my doorstep (this is quite literal sometimes) without paying, from an overseas source. Or I meet the guy face-to-face when he returns from overseas.

I'm enjoying being labeled a criminal simply for defending (and not particulalry believing) criminal beliefs. If this is "the power" then no wonder people want to fight it.

[I.M.O.G.]

Its simply frustrating that you do not recognize yourself as someone who is breaking the law... You simply do not want to find the specific letters of the law you are violating, and frankly I don't blame you because I don't want to dig through things to find it either. :)

So if I got this right, you are saying that piracy is theft, but you essentially have nothing to do with piracy, because all you do is accept goods?

Refer to the national eligibility section on page two here, which you ignored earlier. This refutes your "its not from USA" argument which you believe gives you impunity:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

[Mr.Guvernment]

say that pirates are nothing better than criminals.



It was made law in some US state that illegal software distributers / downloaders can NOT be refered to as pirates any longer, since "pirates" still exist in today's age and there is no comparision between what the 2 do in terms of the more harsh things real pirates do.


Simple - if you are obtaining some form of software that would other wise ONLY be availible if you were to purchase it with funds - you are breaking the law

[UlicBelouve]

Then I'll argue the simple thing that many argue about international law being law then, and apply it to this case.

Law is law only if it is enforced.

I know many who just won't care about enforcing this. I work for some ISPs, and many there think that while we have to at least respect the DMCA, think it's a load of bull.

That, and there are also many, many people they will have to hunt down before coming after me, and one, I have covered my tracks well, and two, I have enough bargaining chips (ie, worse offenders) that I can use.

And the amusing thing is, if I get reported to my ISP, I work for them, so it'll likely be handled by some rep such as myself. And I know how little they care.

"Simple - if you are obtaining some form of software that would other wise ONLY be availible if you were to purchase it with funds - you are breaking the law"

What law? It depends on the method of obtaining it, not just obtaining it in general. Breaking the encryption as a mean of obtaining it, is illegal. Obtaining it, just by the broad definition, not illegal. There must be some illegality in the method of obtaining it. Swiping it from the store, breaking the encryption, cracking the programming, etc, is the illegal act.

One cannot be arrested for having a pack of cigarettes they did not pay for. You have to show that they stole them, used counterfeit money, etc. Just because they HAVE them on their person IMPLIES they were obtained by illegal means, but does not imply that THEY were the ones to break such laws.

[UlicBelouve]

"Any such discussions regarding stolen property will be dealt with swiftly, and the offending member risks complete loss of membership privileges in our Forums."


Ah, then this forum should be closed then. Again, hard to break the rules if even the admins disregard them. I'll risk my membership.

[David]

My views on piracy arent really that solid and thought out but here goes:

1) Software, Music and Video is different from physical, tangible property like cars, money etc. If I download a movie off a friend at a LAN party (whether he knows this or not) he still has his movie. I am not depriving him of his movie. If he doesnt know I took a copy does it actually make any difference to him?


To take (the property of another) without right or permission.


Is this depriving another of property? It could be argued that we are, by copying software/audio/video depriving an artist/programmer of money.

Note: This is a general observation, not meant to justify any of my thoughts.


2) Of the people who download audio/video/software, how many would have actually bought said software/audio/video? To say all would is naive, to say none would is daft. You also have people who download because they can, so they can say "omg hay guys i dled 3874364MB of teh warez last night lolz" to their friends.

Personally, I avoid downloading software. If I download music or video, I try it and if I like it I buy it.
Albums I have bought in the past year or so after downloading some tracks and liking them:
Snow Patrol - Final Straw
Keane - Hopes and Fears
Maroon 5 - Songs About Jane
U2 - All that you cant leave behind, how to dismantle an atomic bomb, Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby
The Killers - Hot Fuss
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
Idlewild - In The Remote Part.

That is 10 albums I otherwise wouldnt have bought.

I downloaded Team America off the internet. It was OK but wasnt great, so I deleted it. Same goes for a few other films. I downloaded Troy and liked it, so bought it. Same for a couple Monty Python films (Life of Brian, Holy Grail).

I have spent a good £150 to £200 on Music and DVDs I otherwise wouldnt have bought.

[Terminat.]

It was made law in some US state that illegal software distributers / downloaders can NOT be refered to as pirates any longer, since "pirates" still exist in today's age and there is no comparision between what the 2 do in terms of the more harsh things real pirates do.


Apologies... living in the UK, I didn't know that. I will refer to them as "illegal software downloaders" from now on.

While - in my earlier post I urged people to look at illegal downloaders benevolently - I admit that illegal downloading causes serious problems for the digital community - hence me being against it.


A classic example of this is STEAM. This was created as a direct combat to illegal downloading - and it has caused nothing but pain for HL2 users!

For all those 56kers in tears because STEAM wouldn't let them play arguably the greatest FPS ever to be made - or someone for whom STEAM just wouldn't work - their suffering was caused by illegal software downloaders!!
STEAM simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't for illegal downloading.

[Vio1]

From the comments in this thread, one can assume that overclocking is theft aswell. Person A buys a P4 2.8ghz cpu and overclocks it to 3.8ghz. A 3.8ghz cpu is available, and intel spent tones of money developing it, yet you arent paying for it.

Person B buys the P4 3.8Ghz cpu and coughs out the large amount of money for it.


It seems that overclocking is just as unethical as piracy seems. If you wanted a 3.2ghz computer, would you buy a 2.4ghz cpu(which costs less) that you know can easily reach 3.2ghz or would you spend extra and pay for the p4 3.2ghz cpu? If your goal was 3.2ghz and not higher wouldnt overclocking be lost revenue for Intel?

[Terminat.]

From the comments in this thread, one can assume that overclocking is theft aswell. Person A buys a P4 2.8ghz cpu and overclocks it to 3.8ghz. A 3.8ghz cpu is available, and intel spent tones of money developing it, yet you arent paying for it.

Ah no... I assure you - overclocking is a very different matter.

Firstly - people are using items they OWN and simply making more use out of them. Like someone tuning up a car, or tweaking a musical instrument.

Secondly - overclocking is done entirely at the risk/expense of the person. If it goes wrong, they PAY for a new item - and they paid for the original item too.

[Vio1]

Its not so different. If you can afford a 3.8ghz cpu but buy a 3.2ghz cpu because you know how to overclock that is lost revenue. Is it not? If overclocking wasnt possible then you would have payed the full amount for the 3.8ghz cpu. Its all about intent. If you purchase a slower cpu with the intent of speeding it up to speeds that are more expensive, then you are part of the cause of the companies lost revenues. If you buy a 3.2ghz computer because that is all you need, and discover overclocking at a later date and decided to push it, that is a different story, because your intent wasnt to purchase a faster cpu to begin with.

You must agree with at least this much of what I said: Overclocking usually means lost revenue for the cpu manufactorer. If the option of overclocking wasnt available, then you would buy the speed you need instead of buying a cpu you know which can achieve the desired speed at a lower cost to you.

There seems to me a very strong correlation between overclocking and piracy. In both cases you are getting more then what you paid for (or didnt pay for).

[diggingforgold]

I think a majority of pirates don't think what they are doing is wrong. Here are my ramblings:

I don't think many pirates download software or music on a try-before-you-buy basis, for the simple fact that: If you already have it, why get it again. You can also download free trials of many types of software. So I think that reasoning is, for the most part, bogus. But there are some people who do this.

I also don't think many pirates think that what they are doing is "stealing". I think they believe that since they are not taking something from someone else, and since they are not selling the software as if it were their own, that it's more like getting something for free than stealing.

If you think about it, what are the differences between "Stealing" and getting something "For Free". If you removed the aspect of "taking from someone else so that you have it", they kind of become blurred as the same. And that's exactly what's happening with piracy. The difference between "Free" and "Theft" is blurred, and many people don't accept that what they are doing is theft. Pirates also believe that they are copying this music or software from someone who willingly gave it to them, and somewhere down the line, someone paid for it from the manufacturor. So, they believe, no harm was done.

Before digital stuff, I think most people had a clear idea of this topic of stealing. If I steal something from you, it's bad because that person loses what they owned. This became known as theft. There were no grey areas. It was wrong. Example: I used to own a van. Inside that van I had a few portable CB radios, along with a few electronics. Someone broke into my van, trashed the inside, and took my property. I was upset because someone stole my stuff. I never recovered it.

What if you were the manufacturor of those CB radios and other electronics. Would you be mad over this incident? Probably not. Why? Because no wrong was done to you or your company.

Now lets look at that from a digital standpoint. What if these people were able to copy my electronics with little expense and with great ease, without breaking into my van, and without doing any wrong to me. And what if they were able to copy these electronics for their friends and their friends friends, and even some people they don't even know. Would I be upset? Probably not. Would I consider it theft. No. Why? Because I still have my stuff, and no wrong was done to me.

What if you were the manufacturor of those CB radios and other electronics (again)... Would you be mad over this? Yes. Why? Nobody was taking anything from you or your company. No wrong was done to you or your company. So why would you be mad? Because those people could have came to you for those electronics, and you could have made some money, instead of getting them for free elsewhere. You might consider it theft of a sale. It's the same feeling you would get when a rival company were to put out a competitive product, and the people went to them instead.

Are you seeing the picture? Now we are entering an age where we can make a direct copy of something, with very little effort, time, or money- and we can do it without having another person lose what we took. So many people feel that piracy is not theft, and I agree with them.

Now, since most pirates dismiss the possiblity that they are "thieves", we come to another part. Licensing and/or copyrights. This becomes less of a topic of "theft" and more of a topic of "business". Which is why we are seeing more companies and organizations sueing people in civil court, rather than seeing people in criminal court...

So I will ask this question to pirates: You say piracy is not theft... OK, we will give you that one... but what is your moral response to part of piracy where you violate the terms of the EULA?

Many will say, "Well I never really agreed to those, I just clicked "I Agree" so I could continue". But I'm interested in what others say about this aspect. Is not taking the EULA or copyright seriously "morally wrong"? I think this is the real question here.

[JerMe]

Its not so different. If you can afford a 3.8ghz cpu but buy a 3.2ghz cpu because you know how to overclock that is lost revenue. Is it not? If overclocking wasnt possible then you would have payed the full amount for the 3.8ghz cpu. Its all about intent. If you purchase a slower cpu with the intent of speeding it up to speeds that are more expensive, then you are part of the cause of the companies lost revenues. If you buy a 3.2ghz computer because that is all you need, and discover overclocking at a later date and decided to push it, that is a different story, because your intent wasnt to purchase a faster cpu to begin with.

Deviations:


You purchased the chip.
You are willing to purchase another chip in the event of failure (disregard RMA discussions)
You cannot create perfect copies of the chip.


Car analogy, Mustang GT vs Cobra. If I have the ability to tune the GT to perform as well as the Cobra, am I gulity of costing the company lost revenue, in a manner that's illegal?

Usually piracy entails downloading software that has been illegally compromised, for the purpose of not paying for it. Once the "pirate/filesharer/downloader" (loose terminology) has obtained the software, there usually isn't a need to tweak the it - the "pirate" takes the software "as is", and uses it accordingly. Hence it's difficult to make a claim comparing overclocking to piracy.

You must agree with at least this much of what I said: Overclocking usually means lost revenue for the cpu manufactorer. If the option of overclocking wasnt available, then you would buy the speed you need instead of buying a cpu you know which can achieve the desired speed at a lower cost to you.


No, overclocking usually doesn't mean lost revenue for the CPU manufacturer. Consumers may tend to stick with a manufacturer because of loyalty to a product due to their experierence with that product's past performance, which would actually be a gain in terms of future profit.

If overclocking wasn't available then yes, we would buy the speed we'd need - that's obvious, since we'd have no choice. Can't disagree with that. ;) I'm going to assume that you're linking the availability of pirated software to the overclocking ability of certain procs, and that if proc manufacturers denied overclocking, we wouldn't be "stealing MHz" from the manufacturers (in reality manufactures lock and superlock because of shady vendors OCing lower-end procs and reselling them as higher procs.) In the sense of the f'ed up vendor, yes, it is definitely illegal. However, recognizing the potential of a chip to go beyond it's rated spec cannot be compared to piracy at all. Piracy implies theft of that of which is not yours - if the chip is rated at 2GHz, due to average stability over multiple platforms or whatever the manufacturer deems, and if the chip can do 2.5GHz, good for you, you purchased a good chip and you are well within your rights to obtain that speed. Nothing illegal there.

Overclockability of hardware components sometimes is an asset to the product (e.g., Mushkin BH5.)

In addition, overclockers constitute a small percentage of the chip market, and the properties of the hardware are what causes us OCers to purchase the hardware in the first place. The converse could be argued, vis a vis I purchased an Intel chip because I could overclock it, and thus the manufacture would turn a profit in the sense that the OCer did not turn to AMD.

Again, insert your favorite car-tuning analogy here.

There seems to me a very strong correlation between overclocking and piracy. In both cases you are getting more then what you paid for (or didnt pay for).

Again, you paid for the hardware. Going back to the car analogy, the car manufacturer will not hound you if you decide to upgrade in any fashion that you choose. A large company that charges for their work most likely will pound on your door if you make their software freely available.

Hardware is hardware, which is a different class than software. The ease by which software can be distributed illegally cannot be compared to "milking processors for extra MHz." "Intent", as was laid out, cannot be used as grounds to connect piracy and overclocking - the intent to overclock is not the same as the intent to steal.


- Jer

[Vio1]

Im not saying that overclocking and piracy is one and the same, but there are strong ties. Sure you pay for your hardware, but the bottom line is that you werent fair with intel/amd. If you want the fastest computer available, then to be fair to intel/amd you would have to purchase there best cpu and overclock that. That would only be fair. Other then that you, as a potential customer of there higher end cpus, are reducing there income. Wonder why Intel motherboards cant be overclocked? Because intel realizes that if you want 3.8ghz, buy 3.8ghz.

I understand the "tweaking the car" annology, however some things have become socially acceptable while other things have not. Ask intel what they think of overclockers.

My point is not that overclocking is piracy or is necessarly theft, it results in potential lost revenue and is not fair to the company.

I keep giving these examples... and i feel i need to once more:

(bare in mind these prices are made up)
Lets say you can buy a 3.2ghz cpu for $250 while the 3ghz cpu is $200. By buying the 3ghz cpu and overclocking it to 3.2ghz you saved $50. That is money that rightfully should be intels. Sure essentially its the same cpu clocked differently....but thats not the point. That $50 is lost revenue for intel, if you like to admit it or not. So, isnt that comparible to a person who goes out and downloads a game worth $50? Sure intel did get SOME money, but so did the game developer (cause there must have been someone who initially bought the game and shared it online). Sure its not clear cut as that.. but you get my point.

Of course hardware is hardware and software is software, but my correlation is about lost revenue and fairness to the companies.
Dont get me wrong, i love to overclock... as can be seen in my sig, i just cant see how people can be blinded by media propaganda that 1= wrong but also 1a= socially acceptable.

There are a few reasons people overclock there cpus:
1)They dont have enough money to pay for top of the line hardware
2)They want the ultimate computer
3)They enjoy the act of pushing the limits


Im not condoning piracy or overclocking ( :) ) im just illustrating a connection many people dont want to accept. Heck... if we were all perfectly moral this forum would not exist.

[man_utd]

I will throw this in: There are a lot of people (most often these are the ones who get raped horribly with millions of dollars of software), who do it to just archive it all. Most will never do it, they do itjust to have it.

Also, I think a lot of people have a hard time drawing the line between physical property and intellectual property. It's especially hard when even congress can't decide what the differences are, so a lot of people say "What the heck." and continue on with it.

[eatmyshorts7569]

wow this is becoming good but i have bad news. my teacher said that changed the type of the essay to pursuasive so i cant use oppinions as facts but i can use most of the oppions to support the facts. so as soon as i can ill get on the essay and do some reaserach.

Just an observation...i really think people should stop admitting to having illegal software, first of all, its wrong as stated in the arguements above and also, you never know is watching over this. Keep to the thread...personal experiences...with....yes..stealing should not be posted. Keep to the thread's objective.

Oh and To the above post, You cannot expect because an item is too expensive for one person, to be the same for the next. This is not communism here, Everybodies financial situation is their own cause and effect, everybody is bound to have different incomes. Big Billy here makes 15k a year, is he going to be buying $4000 adobe products? I think not. You guys are turning this into a financial debate. If you cannot afford the product, you SHOULD NOT have it. Although its not fair, lifes not fair. Live with it. Work hard in school and you will plenty of chances in life to get whatever you want.
and nice point rob.

[>HyperlogiK<]

UlicBelouve cafeful dude, sometimes it isn't best to shout things out from the treetops.

Also whether priracy is wrong or not is depeandant on three things, the intentions of the user, the effect on the developers/vendors and the situation of the user.

Most cases of piracy seem to fall into (or between one of these categories).

CASE 1
You ACTUALLY intend to try before you buy (as I occasionally have), you are a new user (so the company expects no revenue from you (as opposed to you being a returning customer that they expect to trade with) and so loses nothing), and you are unable to obtain an adequate demo version. I don't think that this is wrong.

CASE 2
You don't really intend to try before you buy (but would like to claim so), you have bought a previous version (but don't really wish to shell out the cash again), and you can afford to buy the software. This is pretty much wrong.

CASE 3
You just want to use/learn an expensive package (say 3DS Max or Adobe Premier) Gmax, After Effects (or open source stuff) just won't cut it as you need/want to learn the pro features. you are a new user (so the company expects no revenue from you (as opposed to you being a returning customer that they expect to trade with) and so again loses nothing), you can't afford either by a long way and never would consider buying them anyway. Also as a non commercial user you are not gaining anything material from using the product (it can't be said that you are making money from the hard work of others). Legally of course this is still wrong, but morally it is not so clear cut.

I believe that whether something is immoral should be judged by the negative effect of the act, and the negative intent of the user. Unlike Case 2 it is difficult to claim that either is the case.

[David]

Regarding the ethics of overclocking - if I buy a CPU I often buy the fastest that will fit my needs, without going to far over budget. Say I bought a P4.

Say the 3.0GHz was £150
3.2GHz = £160
3.4GHz = £180
3.6GHz = £205
3.8GHz = £235

I would buy either the 3.2GHz or 3.4GHz. Why? Because anything over 3.4Ghz and the extra money for 200Mhz is getting more and more. 3.4Ghz is fast, and fits my needs.

So I get my shiny new 3.4GHz CPU home, and WHOA it overclocks to 3.8GHz? Did Intel just lose £55? No, because I would have still bought a 3.4GHz CPU regardless of how well it did or didnt overclock.

Of course this point doesnt work so well if you deliberately select a CPU known to overclock well (eg 1.6, 2.4A P4s, or XP1700+ JUIHB DLT3Cs).

At the end of the day it comes down to fair use. What is fair use?

IMHO:
Is fair use to buy a car and to buy a turbocharger for it? Yes.
Is it fair use to buy a CPU and try and run it faster than its rated speed? Yes.
Is it fair to take a copy of software for free rather than pay for it? No.
Is it fair to download music for free and even if you like it to never buy it? No.
Is it fair to "try before you buy" and download a few tracks to see if the music is good before forking out for an album? Yes.

[Penel]

BUY THE SOFTWARE PEOPLE!!! Programmers need to eat too :)

[firebat45]

allright, everyone who thinks bill gates needs more money raise their hand





thats what i thought.

[Niku-Sama]

well i think some of you have to take in to consideration the backupfactor (mabe you have and i missed it?)

any way its all about the allowed one legal back up thing....but some people are dumb as hell and dont know how to back up their **** so they download it...the goverment complains about all this "illegal" downloading where a big part of this downloading are these dumbasses....

granted no one could be as dumb as the Bush-meister but still

[Mr.Guvernment]

^^^ i dont think people download something because they dont know how to back it up. If they dont know how to back it up - chance are they have no clue

1. where to download it from
2. once downloaded - how to extract it from it's likely compressed format
3. once extracted how to burn it to back it up onto CD / DVD

So that is a rather unlikely reason.

[Soundmaster2.0]

Everyone says "I'm just backing up my games,movies,etc..." yea thats bs. Some people legitimately back up their stuff, and then there are the people who back up several copies which just so happen to fall into all their friends hands.

Although I still think microsoft is the devil.

[UnseenMenace]

I also wholeeartedly agree with stealing to hurt the owner. I had someone get me a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 so that I would know I ripped off Micheal Moore. Edit: I NEVER watched it

Sorry to inform you but you never actually ripped off Micheal Moore or anyone else for that matter as Micheal Moore supports people being allowed to download his films free of charge so long as they are not making a profit from them :-

http://www.sundayherald.com/43167

[phrkshw]

OK , I got a question ......

I bought Neverwinter Nights the day it came out . Bought ALL the expansions . Now ....... I still play this game . Love this game ( as a friend :) ) . But a year or so back , my Play disc , which you must have to play or install the game , started with this little crack from the center heading towards the outside of the cd . Now as the avid NWN player that I am , I said I'll call them and get a replacement cd ........ WRONG ..... " You will have to repurchase the entire game " . WTF !?!?!?!?! Now I was willing to send them 5-10 bucks for the cd , but to respend 40 bucks ? NFW !!!!!! So what did I have to do ? I had to dl an " Illegal " copy of this cd .

I still play NWN and I spend money on their website dl'ing expansion packs that cost anywhere from 3.99 - 9.99 . Now was it wrong for me to do that ? Was it right of them to try and make me buy it all over again ?

Now if it werent for pirating I would be SOL . I never said it was right , but it sure is nice .

[voodoomelon]

I also wholeeartedly agree with stealing to hurt the owner. I had someone get me a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 so that I would know I ripped off Micheal Moore. Edit: I NEVER watched it.


Just noticed this. You aren't ripping him off if you don't watch it. You are ripping him off as soon as you do; you'll be watching it for free.

As things stand, all someone has done is compressed it or whatever and stuck it on a VCD/ DVD-R. How does that affect Michael Moore?

You haven't ripped him off yet.

However technically, as soon as you do watch it (if ever), Moore will probably see that as a success on his part, as he has "gotten his message out there".

BTW, it's worth the watch to see how much of an idiot of a president you have over there. Course you don't need a film to tell you that.

"Now watch this drive..."

God he's an idiot...

;)

[voodoomelon]

Oh yeah, and what UnseenMenace said ^^^^.

(Just noticed)