Pirate Parties (political)
category: general [glöplog]
olli: Well, what's unethical about that is making use of some server without permission, or tricking it into thinking that you have permission. But I don't see the point of fining someone or putting them in jail for using those services, when it's so easy to put DRM on the server (ie. reject pirate copies). Consider how Guild Wars works.
i'll just want to add that piracy=cancer and yesso is an idiot who thinks that trains keep riding even if everybody stops paying.
I was expecting a different screenshot, but you get the idea.
skrebbel, if you think that I think that, you obviously didn't pay attention to what I wrote.
you wrote
good going, pirate! yarr!
Quote:
I don't think it's unethical to use the train if you are sure you won't harm the train company or any other passengers at all.
good going, pirate! yarr!
That's not the same as thinking that the train will keep going even if nobody pays. It's as if I said "a person should have the right to never buy lettuce", and you interpreted it as "The lettuce industry will survive even though no one buys lettuce."
Also please try to understand that I'm talking about whether piracy should be illegal or not. I'm not talking about whether we should like it or not. You can't just make everything you don't like illegal, to try to make your own personal utopia. Putting someone in jail or fining them is direct harm, and if you care about behaving ethically, you need to very carefully justify that, and not just for some reason like "because you want to enforce an ideal world where there is a thriving software industry".
But it seems I'm just repeating myself. I already said more than should be necessary for someone to understand my position, so I shouldn't write more about it.
Quote:
A lot of people say it's OK for governments to throw people in jail, or fine them, for pirating software, and the reason is that "if they don't, the software industry will collapse". Well, that's fine with me. I hope it doesn't happen that way, especially since programming is my job, but if an industry can't survive unless it harms innocent people, then we must let it die.
Also please try to understand that I'm talking about whether piracy should be illegal or not. I'm not talking about whether we should like it or not. You can't just make everything you don't like illegal, to try to make your own personal utopia. Putting someone in jail or fining them is direct harm, and if you care about behaving ethically, you need to very carefully justify that, and not just for some reason like "because you want to enforce an ideal world where there is a thriving software industry".
But it seems I'm just repeating myself. I already said more than should be necessary for someone to understand my position, so I shouldn't write more about it.
If "piracy" == cancer than what are the organisations fighting "piracy"? After all they're a hundred times worse than the thing they're fighting (assuming that "piracy" actually harms society which is still a very debatable topic).
Hehe, Lukullus... I think my C64 copy of Defender Of The Crown was by him :)
"a person should have the right to never buy lettuce"
And of course everybody has the right to take the lettuce from the farmers, who make a living off of farming lettuce. That's essentially what software piracy is.
And your "helping, not hurting" argument is silly. Anybody who copies a movie/game is a potential buyer of the product. Anyone who goes on the train without paying is of course also a potential ticket buyer. By going on the train without paying you are not "not helping", you are hurting the train company. They have X passengers and only get paid for X-1. It's a loss, even if not a big one. The same applies to software companies. X people use the software, X-1 actually paid for it. X people are enjoying and using the software, but one of them gave nothing in return for it. That's a loss.
So what if it suddenly became legal to, as you put it, "not help" the software companies? I think even you can see that the act of "not helping" (as in your idea of not helping) would be pretty harmful to the industry.
Here's an example:
Imagine 200 people using a software and only five of them are paying. The other 195 users are doing a great job "not helping" the author of the software to bankruptcy. They are using his software, obviously enjoying it, but they gave the author nothing in return, which is basically theft.
In the same sense you can't make everything you like legal.
This is not to say I'm not downloading warez at this very moment... :)
I just think it's stupid to try to justify software piracy, because there really is no way you can.
And of course everybody has the right to take the lettuce from the farmers, who make a living off of farming lettuce. That's essentially what software piracy is.
And your "helping, not hurting" argument is silly. Anybody who copies a movie/game is a potential buyer of the product. Anyone who goes on the train without paying is of course also a potential ticket buyer. By going on the train without paying you are not "not helping", you are hurting the train company. They have X passengers and only get paid for X-1. It's a loss, even if not a big one. The same applies to software companies. X people use the software, X-1 actually paid for it. X people are enjoying and using the software, but one of them gave nothing in return for it. That's a loss.
So what if it suddenly became legal to, as you put it, "not help" the software companies? I think even you can see that the act of "not helping" (as in your idea of not helping) would be pretty harmful to the industry.
Here's an example:
Imagine 200 people using a software and only five of them are paying. The other 195 users are doing a great job "not helping" the author of the software to bankruptcy. They are using his software, obviously enjoying it, but they gave the author nothing in return, which is basically theft.
Quote:
You can't just make everything you don't like illegal
In the same sense you can't make everything you like legal.
This is not to say I'm not downloading warez at this very moment... :)
I just think it's stupid to try to justify software piracy, because there really is no way you can.
And don't come and say that the quality of software wouldn't change for the worse if it became legal to copy it freely. Open source and freeware software has never been able to compete with the commercial industry, because mostly the people getting paid produce better software make better software (a few exceptions aside).
Linde, by that logic, trolls are committing theft too, as they are ruining a common good at the expense of other's time and work.
Linde: It's not a loss, it's a *potential* loss, which is exactly why I said that "piracy" being harmful is still very debatable.
A lot of people who download music or movies are still spending the same amount of money on buying music and movies as well as they did before, so how can there be a loss then? Money doesn't magically appear once you forbid p2p programs. I know there are freeriders but there are also people who spend more after getting in touch with p2p (afterall still the best try-before-you-buy system there is).
Also, your statement about open source is absolute bollocks. In many areas open source is superior to commercial software. Which is not that strange because it are the *same people* who are working on it (open source is a hobby for many people, commercial software is their work).
A lot of people who download music or movies are still spending the same amount of money on buying music and movies as well as they did before, so how can there be a loss then? Money doesn't magically appear once you forbid p2p programs. I know there are freeriders but there are also people who spend more after getting in touch with p2p (afterall still the best try-before-you-buy system there is).
Also, your statement about open source is absolute bollocks. In many areas open source is superior to commercial software. Which is not that strange because it are the *same people* who are working on it (open source is a hobby for many people, commercial software is their work).
Are you implying that I'm "not helping" your time and work?!
To make you not think so I will tell you that I think piracy is necessary. Some day the soft and record companies will realize that they are overcharging for their products, but to make an impact and not just killing the whole industry piracy needs to remain illegal.
To make you not think so I will tell you that I think piracy is necessary. Some day the soft and record companies will realize that they are overcharging for their products, but to make an impact and not just killing the whole industry piracy needs to remain illegal.
sparcus got it right. For all the MPAA/RIAA/WIPO members that shout about how much money they've "saved" the music/movie industry, you can pretty much guarantee that 90%+ of this supposedly saved money would NOT have been spent on the media that was downloaded.
Sure there are some hardcore downloaders who will never pay for anything, but most people's thought process goes like this: "I really don't care about the Hoff's latest movie, if I download it for free and watch it then great, but if I can't download it there's no way I'm going out and buying/renting it". Thus no consequential loss.
It's a false economy, just like the billions $ in settlement fees from Napster/Grokster/Kazaa never actually making it to the artists who had their stuff downloaded.
Also the train analogy is false. It doesn't actually cost any music or movie studio a penny when their content is pirated/downloaded. Sure there might be (false) financial loss (as I/sparcus just explained), but there is no capital expenditure. Train operators have capital expenditure. They must pay for the trains, the maintenance, the staff etc.
Sure there are some hardcore downloaders who will never pay for anything, but most people's thought process goes like this: "I really don't care about the Hoff's latest movie, if I download it for free and watch it then great, but if I can't download it there's no way I'm going out and buying/renting it". Thus no consequential loss.
It's a false economy, just like the billions $ in settlement fees from Napster/Grokster/Kazaa never actually making it to the artists who had their stuff downloaded.
Also the train analogy is false. It doesn't actually cost any music or movie studio a penny when their content is pirated/downloaded. Sure there might be (false) financial loss (as I/sparcus just explained), but there is no capital expenditure. Train operators have capital expenditure. They must pay for the trains, the maintenance, the staff etc.
Oh, and sparcus:
This is a good point, but I really don't know anyone who's downloaded a game just to try it and then paid full price for it. I know people who download and buy records though, so I guess your right. But what I was arguing about was wether piracy should be legal or not. If it was, most people would be freeriding and it wouldn't be profitable to make movies or software anymore.
That's why i wrote "(a few exceptions aside)". In areas where security is an issue I think open source projects are great, because there are so many people willing to look through the source code and find bugs and errors. For example I enjoy firefox way more than internet explorer, because IE has a history of being a swiss cheese when it comes to security holes and Firefox is being looked at and debugged by thousands of people.
Quote:
A lot of people who download music or movies are still spending the same amount of money on buying music and movies as well as they did before, so how can there be a loss then? Money doesn't magically appear once you forbid p2p programs. I know there are freeriders but there are also people who spend more after getting in touch with p2p (afterall still the best try-before-you-buy system there is).
This is a good point, but I really don't know anyone who's downloaded a game just to try it and then paid full price for it. I know people who download and buy records though, so I guess your right. But what I was arguing about was wether piracy should be legal or not. If it was, most people would be freeriding and it wouldn't be profitable to make movies or software anymore.
Quote:
Also, your statement about open source is absolute bollocks. In many areas open source is superior to commercial software. Which is not that strange because it are the *same people* who are working on it (open source is a hobby for many people, commercial software is their work).
That's why i wrote "(a few exceptions aside)". In areas where security is an issue I think open source projects are great, because there are so many people willing to look through the source code and find bugs and errors. For example I enjoy firefox way more than internet explorer, because IE has a history of being a swiss cheese when it comes to security holes and Firefox is being looked at and debugged by thousands of people.
Well, I guess my definition of "a few" is than a bit different from yours :-)
Quote:
Sure there are some hardcore downloaders who will never pay for anything, but most people's thought process goes like this: "I really don't care about the Hoff's latest movie, if I download it for free and watch it then great, but if I can't download it there's no way I'm going out and buying/renting it". Thus no consequential loss.
This is another good point. But if piracy suddenly became legal (and that was what the argument was about, right?) the ones who really would buy the movie if they had to would download it too. And then the Hoff wouldn't be able to make a living off of movies and he'd have to have his own Jerry Springer-like daytime talkshow or something to make money... That'd suck.
[qoute]Also the train analogy is false. It doesn't actually cost any music or movie studio a penny when their content is pirated/downloaded. Sure there might be (false) financial loss (as I/sparcus just explained), but there is no capital expenditure. Train operators have capital expenditure. They must pay for the trains, the maintenance, the staff etc.[/quote]
Sure, not per downloaded copy, but they need a lot of money for their $1 gazillion production. Call it false or whatever, but I doubt they would get enough money if software piracy was legal. Which is what we're debating.
To quote yesso:
Quote:
Also please try to understand that I'm talking about whether piracy should be illegal or not.
I think I need to point that out again.
Quote:
Well, I guess my definition of "a few" is than a bit different from yours :-)
I don't think our definitions are very different. It's just that I simply don't think that there are many areas wher open source software excels over commercial software. I guess it's a matter of opinion. :P
The majority of software on my computer is either commercial or in some cases freeware. I can only think of a few open source ones like modplug tracker, Dev-C++ and Firefox. These are programs I use because none of the commercial alternatives suits me better.
Actually "piracy" is legal in the Netherlands. We are free to download music and movies, even from illegal sources. We're just not allowed to spread it.
People still buy cd's and dvd's though.
People still buy cd's and dvd's though.
Quote:
This is a good point, but I really don't know anyone who's downloaded a game just to try it and then paid full price for it. I know people who download and buy records though, so I guess your right. But what I was arguing about was wether piracy should be legal or not. If it was, most people would be freeriding and it wouldn't be profitable to make movies or software anymore.
shareware doom... trial mmorpgs...
please stop talking crap.. -_-
Quote:
I don't think our definitions are very different. It's just that I simply don't think that there are many areas wher open source software excels over commercial software. I guess it's a matter of opinion. :P
The majority of software on my computer is either commercial or in some cases freeware. I can only think of a few open source ones like modplug tracker, Dev-C++ and Firefox. These are programs I use because none of the commercial alternatives suits me better.
oh, you should be paying for the commercial alternatives! you're hindering their potential profit!! they wont have money to invest on the $1 gazzilion product this way! please stop killing the software scene!!
Well you sort of got me there, sparcus!
But it's still not legal to spread it. So I guess the police are picking on the distributors.
If piracy was totally legal people could stand in the street and sell warez out in the open. You wouldn't have to be a computer wiz to get the latest 0-day releases and less people would buy the original products.
But it's still not legal to spread it. So I guess the police are picking on the distributors.
If piracy was totally legal people could stand in the street and sell warez out in the open. You wouldn't have to be a computer wiz to get the latest 0-day releases and less people would buy the original products.
Quote:
shareware doom... trial mmorpgs...
please stop talking crap.. -_-
Wow, so you got the full game in your shareware doom version?! Cool! And you got to play the trial MMORPGS for more than thirty days or whatever?! Awesome! You can legally get full commercial games for free!
Quote:
oh, you should be paying for the commercial alternatives! you're hindering their potential profit!! they wont have money to invest on the $1 gazzilion product this way! please stop killing the software scene!!
If i used and enjoyed the commercial alternatives maybe I would, as I did with windows and office. Stop playing dumb. But most likely I would illegally download them.
Remember that we're debating wether piracy should be legal, not if it's right or okay. I think it's okay, but if everybody did it (which would probably be the case if it was legal) it would definitely hurt the industry.
the industry deserves beeing hurt to begin with.
and btw, newsflash, everybody already does piracy.
and before anyone asks, no, im not active in the warez scene.
and btw, newsflash, everybody already does piracy.
and before anyone asks, no, im not active in the warez scene.
"hurt the industry" is a relative thing. DivX has been around for ages, MP3 even longer than that, yet each year we see more music and bigger budget blockbusters being made. "Slightly reduce profits" would be more accurate.
That's mirrored for large company piracy (eg: Microsoft, Symantec etc software). It really doesn't hurt them, it just reduces their profits. Windows/Office is probably one of the most pirated bits of software around, yet are Microsoft in trouble? No, because their products are used in businesses who will never use warez, and thus who support them financially (and also supplied on OEM equipment at vastly reduced cost).
When you're talking about small, indie bedroom developers making a living off their individual products that aren't used for business that's a different issue.
The argument should be whether it's legal for individuals to pirate software. Businesses should always have to pay.
The best argument for making piracy legal (or rather, all software free) for personal use is WinZIP. They make 100% of their money from businesses buying site-wide licenses. An excellent product, fills a niche, it's worth buying. I doubt they make much cash off personal purchases. It's a living example of how it can work.
The best reason for not making it legal for personal use is because it will kill indie developers with mediocre products, stifling the market. Coders won't put the time in to develop the apps knowing that unless they create the best-in-the-industry they won't get paid. That has an upside - reduction of shite software, and a downside - lack of innovation/new products regardless of quality.
That's mirrored for large company piracy (eg: Microsoft, Symantec etc software). It really doesn't hurt them, it just reduces their profits. Windows/Office is probably one of the most pirated bits of software around, yet are Microsoft in trouble? No, because their products are used in businesses who will never use warez, and thus who support them financially (and also supplied on OEM equipment at vastly reduced cost).
When you're talking about small, indie bedroom developers making a living off their individual products that aren't used for business that's a different issue.
The argument should be whether it's legal for individuals to pirate software. Businesses should always have to pay.
The best argument for making piracy legal (or rather, all software free) for personal use is WinZIP. They make 100% of their money from businesses buying site-wide licenses. An excellent product, fills a niche, it's worth buying. I doubt they make much cash off personal purchases. It's a living example of how it can work.
The best reason for not making it legal for personal use is because it will kill indie developers with mediocre products, stifling the market. Coders won't put the time in to develop the apps knowing that unless they create the best-in-the-industry they won't get paid. That has an upside - reduction of shite software, and a downside - lack of innovation/new products regardless of quality.