About software piracy

[Lost_Wanderer]

Import and export is how International Commerce works. C’mon, you think it’s unfair that if a foreign company doesn’t open up shop in another country, so the prices for that now “locally” produced product are lower?

With that kind of thinking, there would be no International Trade!

I’m no economist but one thing I know about Trade is that it’s supposed to be fair. The only things I know my country’s good at making are fish, agriculture, and human resources (which some people might even call slavery granted that some of the most popular overseas jobs we get are labor and domestic help).

But software? Don’t make me laugh. We’d be another Japan if that actually happened. The only software that we’re good at using is of the “espionage variety” (viruses, hacking systems etc.)

I mean look at your country, your economy enables you guys to trade in all kinds of products (food, technology, human resources) and at the same time, provide for your local population. Mine on the other hand, is many kinds short and one kind is software.

Now tell me, why would one country trade one kind of product it has (software) to another country that doesn’t have it when the latter is only trading you the kinds of products the former is already capable of producing for its own local population?

Is that a fair trade? I think not.

One way of thinking, to solve your question of locally produced software, would be to develop a competitive product locally, rather then claim some Robin Hood type mentality in using illegal software. Be honest with yourself, that use of illegal software is sketchy, or in the gray area, morally speaking.

Tell that to GMA (our current President), not me! A person who resorts to piracy in this country is no thief trust me, they’re just another victim of the poverty that politicians never seem tired of sinking us under. Take up your proposals with people who were supposed to be in charge of the economy, not the people who suffer (from beggars even up to the middle-class) from their mistakes.

Besides, you think I’d still continue pirating software if they could produce it locally? Heck no! Pirated stuff has such bad quality that I would love to use original licensed stuff if they weren’t so bloody overpriced by shipping costs and waiting periods.

 

[Greg27]

I think downloading pirated software is wrong in the sense of being a sin (it is really a species of theft) and also risky since pirates operate outside of the legal regime, including those of trade practices and consumer protection. As with other pirated and bootleg products, pirated software may well have in built ‘nasties’ designed to render you vulnerable to hackers and other cyber-crooks, as well as possibly having unpredictable effects on your computer. The world of cyber-crime is growing very rapidly and hackers regularly use downloaded software (pirated or not) to gain access to information they then use for various e-crime, including identity theft, fraud, stealing or selling information, ripping off online bank accounts, and so on.

On top of this, courts have regularly enforced severe penalties (such as large damages awards) against people who knowingly infringe on copyright.

These factors online should convince people to not download bootlegged products onto their computer, even without bringing theology into it.

“I’m no economist but one thing I know about Trade is that it’s supposed to be fair. The only things I know my country’s good at making are fish, agriculture, and human resources (which some people might even call slavery granted that some of the most popular overseas jobs we get are labor and domestic help).”

I agree international trade and trade law should be fair, but often richer countries do unfairly exploit their economic power (including through international investment, trade and IP regimes) against the weaker and poorer states. This has been a problem especially with access to patented drugs needed to treat AIDS and malaria. However, allowing fragrant violation of the laws relating to legitimate commerce also creates problems, because pirated goods (especially medicines) are often made with no consumer protection in mind, and have had tragic results (especially in the fake medicine trade). The elements of criminality in such industries also adds to the problems since criminals disregard the law completely and don’t care about the consequences bad, faulty or posionous knock-offs have on third parties, or even use pirated material to further criminality (such as providing hackers for example opportunities to steal information, or insert viruses and worms onto the target computer). A wrong cannot be made right by doing more wrongs.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The elements of criminality in such industries also adds to the problems since criminals disregard the law completely and don’t care about the consequences bad, faulty or posionous knock-offs have on third parties, or even use pirated material to further criminality (such as providing hackers for example opportunities to steal information, or insert viruses and worms onto the target computer). A wrong cannot be made right by doing more wrongs.

Yes you have a point that pirated software and crack programs can be chock-loaded with bugs, viruses, and worms. It’s one reason why many computers here suffer so much. However, what choice do people in poor countries such as mine have? You’d be surprised at how backwards you’d have to take us if you insist that piracy be stopped. The people’s dependency on such software is beyond any remedy that involves crackdowns and confiscations. I in fact, as a former internet cafe owner (and internet cafe hopper) have witnessed many pirated games being used in the business. Such games are obviously all the rage and if you don’t have it, you’ll have yourself a painfully empty shop.

In short, it’s too late. The only option is for companies to compete with these pirates. It’s easier said than done, I’m sure but I find it a far worse crime to deprive people.

 

[Zatzat]

Software “piracy” is no sin. You get no guarantee that buying a software will work in the first place.

So, if a software developer invests untold resources and a couple years of their life developing a stellar software program…and only one person buys the program for $25.

Then that one person cracks the software and puts the program on the internet for people to download for free.

Then those who’ve downloaded the pirated software, also put it out on the web…soon there are hundreds of free copies floating around the net.

Soon enough, tens of thousands of people access the pirated software and download it for free…with virtually no one paying for it.

If you don’t think that’s a sin, I think you’re just justifying pirating.

Perhaps you’re forgetting that for every software program, there are** real people** who’ve created the programs. People who are trying to feed their families on the revenue generated from the sales of their programs.

 

[terminated007]

So, if a software developer invests untold resources and a couple years of their life developing a stellar software program…and only one person buys the program for $25.

Then that one person cracks the software and puts the program on the internet for people to download for free.

Then those who’ve downloaded the pirated software, also put it out on the web…soon there are hundreds of free copies floating around the net.

Soon enough, tens of thousands of people access the pirated software and download it for free…with virtually no one paying for it.

If you don’t think that’s a sin, I think you’re just justifying pirating.

Perhaps you’re forgetting that for every software program, there are** real people** who’ve created the programs. People who are trying to feed their families on the revenue generated from the sales of their programs.

Lo! Every software developer is (or should be) aware of piracy and some of them are pirates themselves. No mature or experienced software developer just gets up and starts programming something without thorough analysis. Embedded in the software development life cycle is a process called Risk Management which software developers (should) follow. If not, giant software manufacturers like Microsoft and Adobe should have gone bankrupt because of piracy no talk of the competition they face from open source softwares / freewares.

Software developers have a target audience. Almost everybody who uses commercial or proprietary softwares for commercial purposes pays for them. The minority (mostly those who can’t afford) turn to rely on trial versions, freewares or pirated copies.
Pirating does not really influence the business of software companies as some people think. Software companies are making big time profit. Their worse nightmare is the competition from freeware let alone rivals and not piracy.

So why does piracy not really influence profit making. The reason is that manufacturers (in general) have a target audience and the majority of those who pirate are those who can’t afford to buy the software in the first place (they don’t fall under the target group).
Do you think a company like Adobe with all its expensive software packages is thinking of making profit from third world countries or from students?
A company like Microsoft clearly understands that now. I will tell you why shortly.

It’s true that there might be some people out there who have selfish motives: like to use other peoples products to make gain but I strongly believe that the majority of pirates out there are just those who can’t afford and use pirated copies for home use only.

The fact is that, those who can’t afford to buy software are never going to buy it anyway. It is very important to consider this point.

Microsoft kinds of understand this point and that’s why they came up with the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance

As a student, I can now get ALL Microsoft products for free. The same should hold true for other students. It all depends on the deal between some Universities and MSDNAA.

If MSDNAA did not exist would I have been paying for any MS product? NO! Why? Because I can’t afford. I need so many of their products (for personal / home use) and just can’t afford to be paying for them. Thank God, MS understands that. So their target audience aren’t students and those in third world countries (I believe).

Keeping all that aside, I believe that if one buys something (be it software or hardware), he becomes the owner of that thing and thus, has the right to use the product the way he likes. He can decide to give it to a friend.

So I am still to understand how giving/sharing is a sin. It seems as if nobody has a problem with sharing hardware. So I still don’t understand why some people think that sharing software is a sin. The argument that one deprives the manufacturer from making profit does not fit in all scenarios as I have explained above. One can as well say that giving a car to a friend who can’t afford to buy a car is also a sin. Giving is Good! Especially giving to people who can’t afford.

Software developers are aware of piracy but they will prefer to compete with freeware and rivals than with useless pirates.

 

[Zatzat]

Pirating does not really influence the business of software companies as some people think. Software companies are making big time profit.

It drives prices up for consumers who obtain their software legally. Do you think the big software companies take the financial hit for copyright losses? Nope, the consumer does.

Let’s put your claim in some other situations that some people regularly justify as being Ok because of the " big profit" angle;

False insurance claims do not really influence the insurance industry as some people think. Insurance companies are making big time profit.

False tax claims do not really influence the government as some people think. The government makes big time profit.

Knock off designer goods do not really influence the name brands as some people think. The big name brand manufacturers make big time profit.

Bootlooged DVD’s do not really influence the production companies as some people think. The production companies make big time profit.

…I believe that if one buys something (be it software or hardware), he becomes the owner of that thing and thus, has the right to use the product the way he likes. He can decide to give it to a friend.

What you believe, is not shared by the courts or the designers of the software.

So I am still to understand how giving/sharing is a sin.

It’s not sharing, it’s stealing. It’s deliberately distributing a consumer good that you haven’t the colour of right to distribute.

 

[terminated007]

What you believe, is not shared by the courts or the designers of the software.

My claim is a valid one. We can either share everything or nothing.
People have their selfish interests and they can lobby for laws to suit their taste. I am partially anti-copyright and I am not a fan of human courts. Trust me.

It’s not sharing, it’s stealing. It’s deliberately distributing a consumer good that you haven’t the colour of right to distribute.

We could all twist definitions to suit our desires. File sharing is file sharing. There is no need trying to twist the definition. I can give my computer to whoever I like or I could decide to make the contents of my computer available to whoever I like.

Let the law makers of the Catholic Church decide on whether that is right or wrong.

 

[TarkanAttila]

So here’s a question for ya - what about games so old that the original creators have moved on and/or no longer exist?

A lot of software like that is called “abandonware” (as you may know).

If the company that produced it no longer exists, and none of the original artists are making a dime off of it whether it is sold or not, is it a crime to distribute abandonware?

For instance, Caesar 3, while not technically abandonware, was made by a defunct company named Impressions Games. Former employees of IG now work for a company called “Tilted Mill”, but as far as I know they have not claimed copyright. Is it illegal to distribute it then?

And is it right for a company to stop selling a certain product to a certain/the entire market but still claim copyright on it - especially if there is a demand for it?

And what about versions of games that are currently being sold or distributed, but for a different, abandoned platform (thus, these other versions are no longer supported)?

For instance, I think The Learning Company (who merged with MECC) is still selling Windows versions of “The Amazon Trail”, and “The Oregon Trail”. But there are also DOS versions of those games floating around. They work perfectly fine if you have the right tools (DOSBox or VDMS work very well), but they vary from the Windows versions of the games (lack of certain sounds or music or animation usually).

On the question of pirating newer stuff that doesn’t concern those kinds of questions, I’m in a bit of a struggle. I mean, yeah, you can copy the code and the 1s and 0s “word for word” and the programmer doesn’t lose a thing, but it’s also kinda like plagarism - except that you aren’t claiming that this work is yours, nor is the writer concerned with the idea that you might be claiming it’s your work. It’s all about the money the writer is losing to the copier.

 

[Zatzat]

theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/net-piracy-taking-toll-on-jobs-european-study-says/article1503357/

'A study into Internet piracy by a Paris-based consultancy published on Wednesday showed that 1.2 million jobs in the European Union could be lost over the next five years if more is not done to clamp down on illegal downloading.

…Those industries generated €860-billion ($1.194-trillion) and employed 14.4 million people in 2008. But in the same year, €10-billion and 186,000 jobs were lost to piracy, the study found.

If that trend continues – and the rapid increase in illegal downloads and advancing piracy techniques suggest it will – then up to 1.2 million jobs and €240-billion worth of European commerce could be wiped out by 2015.’

Now, could the few holdouts please explain again how piracy and file sharing isn’t a sin?

 

[terminated007]

theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/net-piracy-taking-toll-on-jobs-european-study-says/article1503357/

'A study into Internet piracy by a Paris-based consultancy published on Wednesday showed that 1.2 million jobs in the European Union could be lost over the next five years if more is not done to clamp down on illegal downloading.

…Those industries generated €860-billion ($1.194-trillion) and employed 14.4 million people in 2008. But in the same year, €10-billion and 186,000 jobs were lost to piracy, the study found.

If that trend continues – and the rapid increase in illegal downloads and advancing piracy techniques suggest it will – then up to 1.2 million jobs and €240-billion worth of European commerce could be wiped out by 2015.’

Now, could the few holdouts please explain again how piracy and file sharing isn’t a sin?

Once again, file sharing is not illegal!!! (in any part of the world). I don’t know why you keep associating file sharing to sin.
Legal or illegal download is part of file sharing because a file or a copy of a file gets transferred from one location to another.

You should explain to us how that study makes piracy a sin.

Unfortunately, there are no references in that study. Nothing was said about how the study was carried out. There are no facts to support that study.

If piracy were such a big issue, why would the European Parliament be reluctant to pass stronger legislature? This quotation is from the article

But she said it would be tough to secure passage of stricter rules as several parliamentary groups are strongly opposed.

I personally don’t see how my behavior affects these industries. The fact is that, piracy or no piracy, I wouldn’t buy certain things.

You might also wanna read some of the comments on that article

I guess there is an assumption that everyone would actually buy all the songs they download for free. I would say that assumption is very flawed.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m not claiming to be guilt-free from this, but I will say that, given those states, it would seem that piracy causes grief for some people, and probably will not stop doing so. They live off of this stuff.

It kinda boils down to: What Would Jesus Do? I don’t know that he would take whole games illegally just because he wanted to play with it.

If you want to play something but can’t afford it, find some other way to divert yourself - like by reading a book or by listening to or playing uncopyrighted, freeware, or (assumably) abandoned games. There’s a lot of fun in them thar pixels.

I am guessing that is the right thing to do. Even though I have some pirated material of my own.

 

[Zatzat]

What Would Jesus Do?

Funny, I don’t see that question around here as much as I’d have thought.

Yes, what would Jesus do?

 

[terminated007]

Funny, I don’t see that question around here as much as I’d have thought.

Yes, what would Jesus do?

What is the catholic church doing? The catholic church is never hesitant to call a sin a sin. We all know about this when it comes to abortion, homosexuality etc.
Until the catholic church weighs on this issue, I believe I just have to rely on my reasoning.

For me, if my friend shares something he has paid for with me, I wouldn’t reject it. Until the church says otherwise, that is my position.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Another question: If one considers piracy to be a sin, and if one owns a pirated game, and carries it with him to the point that it becomes abandonware or freeware, is he in a state of sin any longer? And if so, how can he resolve it and still have his game?

EDIT: And terminator, while I do understnad you logic, it is not so much a question of sharing as it is a question of what you are sharing.

For instance, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that it’s OK to share a sandwich, but is it not a sin to share pornographic magazines with a friend (falling for the sin yourself, and doubly making it worse by luring someone else in)?

Sharing is good…

… but what is it that we are sharing?

 

[terminated007]

So here’s a question for ya - what about games so old that the original creators have moved on and/or no longer exist?

A lot of software like that is called “abandonware” (as you may know).

If the company that produced it no longer exists, and none of the original artists are making a dime off of it whether it is sold or not, is it a crime to distribute abandonware?

For instance, Caesar 3, while not technically abandonware, was made by a defunct company named Impressions Games. Former employees of IG now work for a company called “Tilted Mill”, but as far as I know they have not claimed copyright. Is it illegal to distribute it then?

And is it right for a company to stop selling a certain product to a certain/the entire market but still claim copyright on it - especially if there is a demand for it?

And what about versions of games that are currently being sold or distributed, but for a different, abandoned platform (thus, these other versions are no longer supported)?

For instance, I think The Learning Company (who merged with MECC) is still selling Windows versions of “The Amazon Trail”, and “The Oregon Trail”. But there are also DOS versions of those games floating around. They work perfectly fine if you have the right tools (DOSBox or VDMS work very well), but they vary from the Windows versions of the games (lack of certain sounds or music or animation usually).

On the question of pirating newer stuff that doesn’t concern those kinds of questions, I’m in a bit of a struggle. I mean, yeah, you can copy the code and the 1s and 0s “word for word” and the programmer doesn’t lose a thing, but it’s also kinda like plagarism - except that you aren’t claiming that this work is yours, nor is the writer concerned with the idea that you might be claiming it’s your work. It’s all about the money the writer is losing to the copier.

I don’t know if this is the right forum for such questions. I guess that’s why you didn’t get a response. People here are more interested in the morality…(I guess)
So the questions you are asking about “abondonware”…, I wonder if there are people on this forum who could fill you in on that:shrug:

 

[terminated007]

Another question: If one considers piracy to be a sin, and if one owns a pirated game, and carries it with him to the point that it becomes abandonware or freeware, is he in a state of sin any longer? And if so, how can he resolve it and still have his game?

EDIT: And terminator, while I do understnad you logic, it is not so much a question of sharing as it is a question of what you are sharing.

For instance, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that it’s OK to share a sandwich, but is it not a sin to share pornographic magazines with a friend (falling for the sin yourself, and doubly making it worse by luring someone else in)?

Sharing is good…

… but what is it that we are sharing?

You are very right. It’s a question of what one shares.
Before I forget it seems as if your case is a little bit different from mine. If you believe you are actually doing something wrong, then why don’t you stop and start doing the right thing? If you can buy, then why don’t you just buy? To keep the stuff and wait for it to become an “abandonedware” doesn’t make any difference in your case.
Anyway that’s your case. People have different reasons for pirating.

One of the arguments copyright supporters have made against piracy is that they claim that it deprives the manufacturer of his/her return. They claim that if one shares something like a CD he has paid for with friends, it deprives the manufacturer of his/her return.
You said that sharing something like a sandwich is good. Note that sharing a sandwich might also deprive the sandwich producer of his/her return. That is true if the receiver of the sandwich was actually going to buy a sandwich.

I find it ok to police those who make copies of copyrighted materials and make profit by so doing (illegal vendors). In this case, it is clear that they are depriving the manufacturer of his return. The other cases are based on assumptions which are not true (or let me be fair: are not always true).

This is really funny. As I understand, it is actually okay to share a copyrighted material but without making copies of it. I read in another post that if one buys a CD (music), he is not even allowed to rip the stuff into mp3. (That’s really absurd!)
This is the area where some of us disagree with the existing copyright laws. So one is allowed to share the stuff with as many people as possible but without making physical copies of it. Note again that by so doing, one can still make that assumption that the manufacturer would be deprived of his return. But in this case, they however don’t make that assumption.

Technology today makes it very easy for people to share files. If one is allowed to share a copyrighted material with friend(s), I don’t see why he is not allowed to do that via file sharing. I don’t see why the way he does it matters.

Hence, I believe that the existing copyright laws interfer with the right of the purchaser to do what he wants with the item purchased.

About the pornographic magazine stuff: Yes, luring someone to sin is a sin as the Bible clearly says. Anyway, that’s something else.
There is a very high possibility that someone in possession of an x-rated material might be tempted to sin. I wouldn’t however rush to any conclusions if I see someone with an x-rated material b’cos I have no inkling why he is in possession of it and what he uses it for. There is a saint who actually spent money on Prostitutes but for a good course.

If you are interested, there is another thread on this issue, specifically on file sharing

 

[mawst]

I for one do not believe one may own information. In the case of downloading things, this is exactly what it is. Granted copyright laws may apply in certain instances, we know that while we should obey our rulers, they are not the moral authority (laws and so forth).

I have no problem downloading TV shows that are free to watch. I just don’t see a case against that.

Movies are another matter, though again, I think if the true intent is for educational use, I don’t find it to be morally wrong, that’s a personal opinion I have.

Software is another matter. Personally I prefer Linux and Free/Open software, however take the example of Photoshop. For personal use, I don’t think (again) it’s as wrong as for example making a profit from your work with it. In that case I would say most definitely it is gravely wrong to do so.

I admit I have not covered all nuances/intricacies, but personally, I don’t download anything that I can afford anyways, so there is no lost profit, nor is anything “lost” from the “victim”.

Ultimately I submit to the correction of the Church, but those are my feelings on the matter. I certainly think it is a shame for example that a choral or classical piece of music cannot be heard by someone simply because they cannot afford it.

Further I find it appalling that someone may be denied knowledge on the basis of their socio-economic class. This is most certainly the case with books (ebooks) and documentaries.

I had an encounter with the USCCB on this subject. I wished to use the summaries for the books of the Bible that are in the NAB on my website. Naturally I went the route of asking for permission. I was denied, even though I run a Catholic Apologetics website.

To this I responded by invoking section 107 of the United States Copyright act. I used the material anyways. How dreadful that people would be denied the knowledge contained therein because they did not buy an NAB.

I wouldn’t personally condone buying the NAB, I don’t think it’s a good translation, but the summaries on the books are skillful, informative and important knowledge.

There is certainly dilemma in this subject. I pray the Lord have mercy. Further I think intent matters quite a lot.

 

[kdcampbe]

A few questions to consider:

1. What is the difference between downloading a copyrighted work for personal use and checking out that same work from the Public Library? In neither case does the author/creator “get paid”, and in both cases someone originally paid for the work. The only difference that I see is the sheer number of people that benefit from the work without paying for it.
2. I work in the computer industry. For some reason, I have a problem with pirating software, but I do not have a problem with pirating most other copyrighted works.
   Why? I’m not sure, and I will have to think about it further. Anyone else feel this way/can offer insights?

I would suggest that anyone interested in these things read “Free Culture.”

The original purpose of copyright laws, this is discussed in the book, are to “promote the advancement of the useful arts”. They were drafted in a world when large scale copying/production of books was limited to the few people and companies who could afford a printing press. However, in those days, there was no law forbidding a person from copying, by hand, any book for their own use.

The technology has changed, and the laws need to change to reflect that.

 

[terminated007]

I had an encounter with the USCCB on this subject. I wished to use the summaries for the books of the Bible that are in the NAB on my website. Naturally I went the route of asking for permission. I was denied, even though I run a Catholic Apologetics website.

wow

 

[rodomonte]

How did you arrive at your conclusion that a 100% profit margin is just wrong? Can you put a price on the knowledge that is required to make this software? Apparently they can. Prices are dictated by market forces. If demand is high, prices raise. If demand is low, prices drop. If prices are high, the product must be in high demand, and you’ve been outvoted.

Microsoft was charged with antitrust violations. It is the 800 lb gorilla in the operating system and office applications business. Bill Gates was at one time worth $100 billion on paper. I think that was before Tom Brokaw called him out for his lack of charitable contributions, which he and his wife now make. Gates should have gone to jail. He drove many small software developers out of business through predatory practices, but they were afraid to testify against him. The price was therefore not determined by market forces.

Many businesses use Microsoft products and can pass the high cost on to customers. For personal users, the license terms are onerous. You can’t sell the software to someone else. You can’t even give it away to someone else. Imagine if this were applied to books - no libraries. How Gates gets away with this I don’t know. MS also upgrades all their software products about every two years, whether they need it or not, forcing everyone to pay more money than they should have to. If you buy a Microsoft product, you represent a perpetual annuity. You may choose not to upgrade, but eventually you will run into compatibility issues and they will stop supporting your version.

You have to ask yourself if it is wrong to steal (if copyright infringement is theft) from an obscenely rich crook.