PC Software Legitimacy Poll

[kickingzebra]

Ok, I am here is an example that does fit, some of the names have been changed to protect the privacy of the individuals. In fact the whole story is simply an analogy, but that is perhaps the best way to depersonalise the situation, and then apply the ethics.

Einstein is a very smart man (hence the name). He doesn't sleep much, and stays up weeknights trying to think of ways to make the world a better place.
No one can understand half the sentiments that come out of his mouth, but he has this one equation that he has been working on that would change the way man understands the physical realm.

The Big Bad Wolf is a trust fund kiddy, with money coming out his ears, and a dog eat dog view to life and business. He stays up weeknights too, trying to figure out how to get better returns on investment. Ethics don't matter to the Wolf, only the bottom line.

Einstein, in a flash of brilliance, comes up with this equation, that really could open the door to a lot of changes in the way humanity does things, and huge efficiency increases. He terms it E=MC2, and in the haze of acadamia, thinks about protecting his intellectual property, and even calls the lawyer, but forgets to go to the appointment.

The Big Bad Wolf, on one of his many business trips, stumbles across Einstein, who as a genius, but still a simple minded academic, mentions this equation that could change everything. The Wolf sees the equation, and with a bit of jiggery pokery, when he gets back to corporate HQ reterms it to W=PS(4/2) and calls in the Intellectual Property lawyers, applies for his patent, and begins making and selling a product that will make use of said equation.

Now in the world of the consumer, The Big Bad Wolf has quite a name as a slash and burn operator. He starts selling this product, and it really does begin to revolutionise the world.

A large percentile of the world, though they have qualms about the BBWs business ethics, still bemoaningly purchase the product, and use it to great advantage. However the remaining minority, knowing that the BBW is such an operator, fart in his general direction, and use the product, but not paying for it.


Story over, the question is, who is the real loser here?
Honest Consumer A?
Consumer B?
The Big Bad Wolf?

Option D, none of the above. The losers are:
Einstein
The rest of the world

Einsteins intention, in this story is the betterment of society, so it is likely his eventual product would have been much more easily available, and probably more useful in general.

Unfortunately, because people colluded with BBW, einstein was never able to afford to A; begin Intellectual property recovery, B; streamline the product and make it more useful, and C; distribute it.

The actions of the few and all that.

Now if any of us were in einsteins shoes in this story, we would be rightly up in arms!
But if we had been part of consumer group B, then we would have given away the ethical and moral high ground, and would have no right to argue if someone were to take something of ours, because it suited them better.

If it was your business idea, stolen and exploited at a more profitable rate than you could have yourself, you would be rightly annoyed.

I think it was Live that said
"Precious Declaration says, whats your is mine, and mine you leave alone, now"

The double standard lives, and that, good sirs, is hypocrisy to the Nth degree.

[Drunken Monkey]

Ok, I am here is an example that does fit, ....

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

If Gates is the Big Bad Wolf, Einstein must be the developer of the code that Gates stole and labelled BASIC for the Altair 8800? (Was it MITS? My memory fails me); and by pirating software, this hobbyist software guy who was screwed in 1975 is still being screwed by 'us' (the software pirates) and that 'everyone else' (what, people who don't use computers?) also suffers.

No, don't answer that. I'm just being facetious.

[kickingzebra]

Well, bearing that in mind, I won't be leaving my wallet on the table with greens visible.

You still haven't answered how loudly you would scream if somebody stole something off you.

[Ixion]

But that is one of the distinctive things about "software piracy" . Noone actually loses anything.

You have a CD. You copy it for me. Now you still have your original CD, and I have one too. Noone has actually lost anything. The original author says he "lost a sale". But that may, or may not , be true. It maybe that I don't think much of what is on the CD. For free (or the cost of a blank CD) it's worth having. But I wouldn't pay retail price for it. Or maybe I just can't afford it. But in future I may be able to. So a "pirated" copy now may in fact secure the original author an actual sale of the next release, that he would not otherwise have had. This is the whole basis of shareware. It is overly simplistic to assume that each "pirate" copy means one less sale.

[StoneChucker]

You have a CD. You copy it for me. Now you still have your original CD, and I have one too. Noone has actually lost anything. The original author says he "lost a sale". But that may, or may not , be true.

I say it is a lost sale, the person who has the pirated copy, has something they wanted but that they didn't have to pay for!. Forget about Microsoft guys, I never even meant that corporation. Think of games, expensive audio / graphic software, anything...

It maybe that I don't think much of what is on the CD. For free (or the cost of a blank CD) it's worth having. But I wouldn't pay retail price for it. Or maybe I just can't afford it. But in future I may be able to. So a "pirated" copy now may in fact secure the original author an actual sale of the next release, that he would not otherwise have had. This is the whole basis of shareware. It is overly simplistic to assume that each "pirate" copy means one less sale.

If you don't think much of the software, don't copy it - simple. A hell of a lot of software has a demo version, why not use that if available? I'll tell you why - because the pirate wants a fully functional version of a software title they don't want to (and never intend to) pay for. They do it because they can, and then act like it's their right, and that it's ok. No matter how much you tell yourself it is, it isn't.

People who make "demo" copies rarely say "hell I like this, I'll chuck my copy out and buy an original". They just want something for nothing. The New Zealand mentality I mentioned does not imply what DrunkMonk wrote. I meant there is a certain, well represented element of this country who honestly believe that taking whatever they want, from wherever they can is ok. I guess they learn from generations of old that if it's easily available, taking what they want is much easier than working for it.

Plus you'd be ripping off a small, probably owner operated franchise running low margins. It's a different kettle of fish, mate.

I guarantee you, people who think that they shouldn't have to play the game and pay for what they want don't look at who they are stealing from and say "No wait, this software vendor is small and operates fairly, I'll rather try and actually pay for something for once".

Every arguement anyone on here writes either directly or through intentions references Microsoft as the vendor we're discussing. Forget about bloody Microsoft, and other shark-natured vendors. People who think they are above paying for goods steal from any & every vendor. It's just a little harder to justify to yourself stealing from honest companies.

Also, I wonder why software vendors are increasingly becoming similar to MS with regard to their business practices. With "clients" like you lot, one day every company will deserve to be ripped off.

Now, did ANYONE happen to catch that I'm not saying don't copy stuff? Hell, I sometimes speed but I at least know that it's wrong.
I really think we have to agree that society has changed it's values so much that the point I tried to make will obviously never come to light. I hadn't realised that things had already changed, that's all. I mean nowadays, it's basically every man for himself (or herself...), it's not surprising most people carry that with them and their values.

I don't think any less of people who copy stuff, this whole time I was referring to those people's concept of it. I think this has been bashed about enough, I'm tired

[MrMelon]

I've got oem windows 2k/xp stickers on my laptop and my pc which means I have licenses to use both. Have you ever tried getting a replacement copy of the particular version and build of windows which you're licensed to use but have misplaced the disks? It's painful and I believe expensive. Fucked if I'm going to jump through hoops and pay again when I've got a burnt copy of xp which does the trick perfectly.

Microsoft seem to have a habit of buying innovative companies that make cool products, then destroying the product and bringing out their own overpriced, bloated versions which don't do the job nearly as well. Then they wonder why people just warez their shit half the time. Warez (illegitimate software) has been and will be around forever.

Don't get so worked up over it.

[StoneChucker]

He he he, my blood pressure is too labile to allow me the pleasure of getting worked up. I don't care enough about anything to burst a blood vessle (literally )

Hey, like I said - I'm a 10 year + veteran "sailor"

[rwh]

This is a bit of a goat trap for me. The term is copyright infringement, not theft or piracy. It's still wrong but is covered by different laws.

Hooray, I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this.

Calling it theft brings up all these totally bogus comparisons about HSVs - where the rightful owner of the stolen HSV doesn't have it any more. Copyright infringement doesn't do that.

The same is true of the video store example, if I'm reading it right - if you take the DVD home and don't return it, that's theft; the store hasn't got it any more. If you take it home, copy it and return it, that's copyright infringement; the store gets to rent it out again as usual, with the relatively minor exception of the person who copied it not wanting to rent it again, which they quite possibly wouldn't have anyway.

I don't support copyright infringement, but at the same time we shouldn't blow it up out of proportion by comparing it to far worse crimes.

Also, I do know people who download mp3s or whatever in breach of copyright - and they do from time to time then go and buy the CD because they like the music.

The other point is that copyright is an artificial concept, and I think only a couple of hundred years old or less. It's not a fundamental human right. If we didn't already have the tradition, would we still think it fair for someone to expect to get paid again and again for work they've only done once? How about when it isn't even the person who did the work, but a big company that paid them to do it?

I'm not advocating copyright infringement here; we should stick to the laws that have been put in place (or at least retained) by our more-or-less democratically elected government, but there's no reason we shouldnt challenge those laws from time to time.

My other reason for opposing copyright infringement applies mostly to Microsoft (sorry StoneChucker). Not only do I think it barely hurts them in terms of lost sales (and it certainly doesn't hurt them in terms of actual lost product), I think it actually helps them. As long as people are copying their software, they're not using something else. And if they're not using something else, they'll continue to have a near monopoly, making it harder for anyone to compete. The usual argument for buying MS Word, for example, is that 'we want to exchange documents with other people, and they all use Word' - it's a vicious circle. There are plenty of other formats to exchange data in, but as long as people assume that everyone has Word, they'll keep using it, and so everyone has to have Word ... Bugger.

My current challenge is to find myself a laptop that doesn't come preinstalled with Windows - they're pretty rare, especially here, but they do exist. I'm not going to illegally copy Windows for it; I don't want it at all, I'm putting Linux on it. And the last thing I want to do is give more money to Microsoft for a product I'm not using, that they can use to fight the product I do use ...

Hmm, that was a bit of a rant ... never mind.

Richard

[terbang]

Im all paid up on my machine. Its a big industry with dodgey copies of software everywhere. When I was in Jakarta I was in a mall (senayan mall) picking up bits for my computer and the shop next door, with full advertising, was fair humming and generating a lot of heat as they were furiously copying all sorts of stuff. They were burning it to discs, packaging it and selling it as fast as they could produce it. I had a browse around and there was all the good stuff at dirt cheap prices. I struck up a conversation with one of the girls working there and when I asked if what they were doing was legal, she cheerfully replied "NO" (tidak) and continued with her version of the way the world was, while steadily pirating more software.

[StoneChucker]

Hooray, I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this.

Calling it theft brings up all these totally bogus comparisons about HSVs - where the rightful owner of the stolen HSV doesn't have it any more. Copyright infringement doesn't do that.

The same is true of the video store example, if I'm reading it right - if you take the DVD home and don't return it, that's theft; the store hasn't got it any more. If you take it home, copy it and return it, that's copyright infringement; the store gets to rent it out again as usual, with the relatively minor exception of the person who copied it not wanting to rent it again, which they quite possibly wouldn't have anyway.

I don't support copyright infringement, but at the same time we shouldn't blow it up out of proportion by comparing it to far worse crimes.

Also, I do know people who download mp3s or whatever in breach of copyright - and they do from time to time then go and buy the CD because they like the music.

The other point is that copyright is an artificial concept, and I think only a couple of hundred years old or less. It's not a fundamental human right. If we didn't already have the tradition, would we still think it fair for someone to expect to get paid again and again for work they've only done once? How about when it isn't even the person who did the work, but a big company that paid them to do it?

I'm not advocating copyright infringement here; we should stick to the laws that have been put in place (or at least retained) by our more-or-less democratically elected government, but there's no reason we shouldnt challenge those laws from time to time.

My other reason for opposing copyright infringement applies mostly to Microsoft (sorry StoneChucker). Not only do I think it barely hurts them in terms of lost sales (and it certainly doesn't hurt them in terms of actual lost product), I think it actually helps them. As long as people are copying their software, they're not using something else. And if they're not using something else, they'll continue to have a near monopoly, making it harder for anyone to compete. The usual argument for buying MS Word, for example, is that 'we want to exchange documents with other people, and they all use Word' - it's a vicious circle. There are plenty of other formats to exchange data in, but as long as people assume that everyone has Word, they'll keep using it, and so everyone has to have Word ... Bugger.

My current challenge is to find myself a laptop that doesn't come preinstalled with Windows - they're pretty rare, especially here, but they do exist. I'm not going to illegally copy Windows for it; I don't want it at all, I'm putting Linux on it. And the last thing I want to do is give more money to Microsoft for a product I'm not using, that they can use to fight the product I do use ...

Hmm, that was a bit of a rant ... never mind.

Richard

Well done, that was very well written - I even partially agree with you
.
.
.
Holy crap, that horse is now flogged beyond recognition

[avgas]

If its worth the money - pay for it.
Simple rule for anything.
If i made my bike look like a ducati, act like a ducati etc i dont believe thats theft. That would be dedication.
Why cant these people who are against pirate stuff see that.
I dont like the "poor student" thing, but when you are one of these (like i was) - who the hell is going to fork out $$$$'s for the likes of MATLAB, SOLIDWORKS etc

[rwh]

...post advocating (sort of) copying ...

Thanks for the green, but I don't think I was advocating copying (of proprietary software) at all ... just suggesting that it's not as evil as actual theft - especially in terms of the harm it does to the vendor.

Oh - the other reason I don't like it is that it distorts the competition - comparing value for money between illegal Windows and legit Debian (my choice of Linux distro) isn't a fair comparison at all - even if Debian still wins

Richard

[StoneChucker]

Thanks for the green, but I don't think I was advocating copying (of proprietary software) at all ... just suggesting that it's not as evil as actual theft - especially in terms of the harm it does to the vendor.

Oh - the other reason I don't like it is that it distorts the competition - comparing value for money between illegal Windows and legit Debian (my choice of Linux distro) isn't a fair comparison at all - even if Debian still wins

Richard

I'm sure green repper knows what you meant

[The_Dover]

What about recording TV shows and movies?

Isn't that the same breach of copyright?

[kickingzebra]

I'm fairly sure that is covered under a slightly different law, but publicly showing blah blah blah would be being rude.