About software piracy

[didymus]

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.

The library buys a book/recording (and the author gets paid) and lends it to one person at a time. And, I would argue, people pay for the books in the library with their taxes, whether they ever use it or not.

Downloading creates an endless number of unpaid-for copies. We are told that the worker is worthy of his hire. Downloading is just robbery.

1. 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?

So the shoe pinches when it’s on your foot, eh?
Actually, I have no problem with software being protected but I hate EULAs. Fine, I won’t copy it. But why shouldn’t I reverse engineer it (as if I could)? Why do you need my name address, tel # and blood type?

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.

Maybe.
I’d say that patent applies to software more than copyright, or that a separate category needs to be created for software with a shorter protection period.
As to abandonware – it goes into the public domain five years after the company stops supporting it. This should at least encourage companies to keep supporting products or make their new products really new.

 

[curlycool89]

]Software piracy is theft, plain and simple, and most new software these days easily sells for $50 or more per individual license.

I think whether/how a license constitutes being property would be an interesting discussion. Like if you have a CD, that’s obviously property and you could argue that the stuff on the CD is tied to that property. So if you have some software that has one “license” (let’s say Office), would installing it on 2 computers be considered theft? You’ve already paid for the physical property (the CD and software), so you own it.

 

[chicosaur]

What should I do?

After reading all this, I feel so guilty. Am I now suppose to delete everything from my computer because my cousins gave me all the programs I have on my computer that he downloaded from online. Ah, but I need the programs.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What should I do?

After reading all this, I feel so guilty. Am I now suppose to delete everything from my computer because my cousins gave me all the programs I have on my computer that he downloaded from online. Ah, but I need the programs.

What if your cousin gave you a car that he stole? You might say “but I really needed that car!”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think whether/how a license constitutes being property would be an interesting discussion. Like if you have a CD, that’s obviously property and you could argue that the stuff on the CD is tied to that property. So if you have some software that has one “license” (let’s say Office), would installing it on 2 computers be considered theft? You’ve already paid for the physical property (the CD and software), so you own it.

The media that stores the software is inconsequential. What you pay for is not the media (that only costs about 20 cents). You pay for the license to use the software. You do not “own” the software. You only own a specific license. As such, you are bound by the conditions of that license. If those conditions say that you may run the software on only one computer, then one computer is all you are allowed to run it on. If you find those conditions onerous, then you are free to buy a competing product that has more liberal licensing terms. If there are no such competitors, and if you think it is so easy to write great software, then hire some programmers and start a software company and fill that void.

 

[dragonview]

Three questions:

1. Are the digital 1’s and 0’s being offered for purchase by some vendor?

If something is offered for purchase, and you opt to circumvent that, you are stealing.

1. Does the photograph that you took constitute “original artwork”? (definition to be worked out in ensuing discussion)

If your photograph is not “original artwork”, then you are violating copyright, and you are stealing.

1. Can two people use the camera at the same time?

It is possible for the “lender” and the “borrower” to both listen to the song at the same time, in different locations. Compare that to the camera, where if one person is using it, the other is not.

Ok, I studies electronic for something: imagine I make some gadget that allows two people to use the camera at the same time. THEN I would be stealing?

About the 1s and 0s, I think that if someone sold someone else his used notebook and the owner of the notebook made a copy for me, he wouldn’t be stealing- it is HIS notebook.

Gottago.

 

[edwest2]

About how to confess pirating software, ask, or just call, a priest.

The law doesn’t need to change. What needs to change are people respecting the rights of others. People don’t spend time and money to go to school to make all this stuff, professionally, for nothing. They would prefer to do this for a living.

Here’s some food for thought from the Entertainment Software Association:

theesa.com/policy/antipiracy.asp

The only difference between then and now is that printed works can be turned into digital bits, making counterfeiting that much easier. However, as Netflix is offering streaming content to subscribers for a monthly fee, those who share the same files, and directly or indirectly encourage others to do the same, are stealing copyrighted content.

I remember when Kinkos would call our office and tell me they have a customer who wanted to run off a complete copy of one of our books. The answer was always no. Why? He did not have the “right to copy” which is what copyright means.

I’ve watched poor families go to the Detroit Public Library, either to read books or give kids access to computers - for free. In fact, I can go to the Wayne State University Library today and sit down in front of one of their computers - for free.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TarkanAttila]

What should I do?

After reading all this, I feel so guilty. Am I now suppose to delete everything from my computer because my cousins gave me all the programs I have on my computer that he downloaded from online. Ah, but I need the programs.

This is a tad late, but I’ll offer it anyway.

If there is software you have that is pirated, but that is useful to you, you can get rid of the pirated software and obtain free software that does much the same thing. For example, there are many different video recording programs. Some, like FRAPS, cost money. Others, like CamStudio, are free. Some sound editors, like FruityLoops, cost money. Others, like Audacity, are free. Some computers games like Colonization and Civilization cost money. They have clones (like FreeCol and Freeciv) which are free and open-source.

I’ll bet there’s almost no software you can’t find a free version, clone, or substitute of, even if the free version is not as convenient.

If you have even a trickle of money coming in, you can also go on Amazon and eBay and find dirt-cheap copies of whatever program you want. Not to mention, there are sites that sell games and other programs, and sometimes have HUGE sales on games. For example, I recently bought The Sims 2 Double Deluxe on GamersGate for $5. It was on one of their sales - they have them quite often. Considering the original Sims 2 + Nightlife + Celebration Pack would have cost $50-60, that’s quite a bargain. And on Amazon, I bought a copy of Office XP for $10. Yes, it’s 10 years old, but it does almost all of the things that cna be done in Office 2003 or 2007 (which cost at least $30, and often $70 or more).

You can find any and everything you need without turning to piracy. And even if there’s something you can’t find for less than $10, remember: in a few years, it will be. Be patient, and remember that even without that software, you are richer than many people dream of being. You have the Kingdom of Heaven waiting for you at the end of your life. And the king of kings will make you a prince in His kingdom. No kilobyte or megabyte is worth surrendering that - especially when you can find such cheap alternatives for most things.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Put the shoe on the other foot - if you created a software program and people took it and used it without your permission or didn’t pay you for it would you consider it stealing?

 

[dragonview]

Put the shoe on the other foot - if you created a software program and people took it and used it without your permission or didn’t pay you for it would you consider it stealing?

If copying was stealing, many saints that had hand-copied books (copied by themselves or paid for copy) would have been thieves. Nowadays some want to make us believe that: that if the saints where here now and saw a book and copied it today by hand or paying someone else to copy it for them they would be stealing, while it was not so some time ago seemingly because it was harder to do so. I don’t see how anything else has changed about that except for the fact that today it is an easier task to do.

If I want to make money off the software I would sell some kind of ‘key USB’ that allows you to download it in the computer you are using in such a way you cannot use the program without the key USB, but you can upload it if you want- if you uploaded your download it won’t work without a key USB anyway. You can sell the ‘key’ to anyone you like, give it, you can copy the downloaded file to another computer, but you will have to get a ‘key’ to make it run and you cannot make a copy of the key, not because I forbid it but because the key is a hardware. It is your property, of course. If you can copy it, it is all yours, but the cost of making it at home (the work, know-how, money, time, etc) that it means would make you prefer buying my key. I don’t forbid to try and make one. If a person feels like making one and truly does so, then I would consider that my price is too high (making hardware is NOT easy). I would try to hire anyone that does so. Some would then come and try to make business with their version of the key only if they expected to make a lot of money off it (hard if my price is fair). You would have, of course, to update your key to get your software updated (go with the key to a store where it is sold or send it there so the PHYSICAL update is done), maybe for a price, and the owners of non-original keys would sooner or later be out of date.

If you are hardcore enough to copy the hardware, I complain not that you do so- you beat me. I wouldn’t consider it stealing.

 

[Chaplain777]

Not to be too simplistic, but the fact the term has the word “Piracy” in it ought to be enough to let you know it is wrong.

 

[TarkanAttila]

If copying was stealing, many saints that had hand-copied books (copied by themselves or paid for copy) would have been thieves.

Nowadays some want to make us believe that: that if the saints where here now and saw a book and copied it today by hand or paying someone else to copy it for them they would be stealing, while it was not so some time ago seemingly because it was harder to do so. I don’t see how anything else has changed about that except for the fact that today it is an easier task to do.

Consider that in the days of Jerome book copying was so rare a thing that it was practically unheard of. Hardly anyone was literate, and a book would have been useless to most people. There was no market for books. The only people who used books were church structures (like monasteries, cathedrals, schools) and royalty (and even then, only sometimes). Not to mention, until the invention of the printing press in the 1400s, it took long, painful hours and much money to make books. So the copying and claiming profits off of books would have been a joke in the Ancient and Middle Ages.

Nowadays many people can read. Books have become far more valuable in the public eye. They want to know EVERYTHING, and with the Internet, laser and inkjet printers, and mass publishing, the written word has never had a bigger supply nor a bigger demand before! Lots of people have information to supply. And lots of people are willing to buy information. There is now a massive market for information. And now there are the means to make such a market that were not in place before.

People can also afford to buy information which may or may not be useful to them. In many cases, books, movies, and Internet documents are mainly used for entertainment rather than education. We’ve got a lot of superfluous entertainment media these days that no one absolutely needs. Why steal that which you do not need, or that which you can or may someday afford?

If I want to make money off the software I would sell some kind of ‘key USB’ that allows you to download it in the computer you are using in such a way you cannot use the program without the key USB, but you can upload it if you want- if you uploaded your download it won’t work without a key USB anyway…

Interesting idea. That would be a surefire way to ensure your payment for your information - if anyone would still buy such a thing.

If you are hardcore enough to copy the hardware, I complain not that you do so- you beat me. I wouldn’t consider it stealing.

Ah, but what if someone started disseminating plans to copy your hardware, allowing people to take the information on the USB drive and put it onto his cheap hacks?

Also worth noting, anyone can hack anything these days. It would take a miracle to make any software hackproof. What we need is not more DRM and copyright protection from companies. We need to learn to respect a company or a person’s right to a fair wage for the work they do to provide you with information or entertainment you would not have otherwise because you are not a computer programmer, an actor, a director, a scientist, an English major, etc etc etc.

Similarly, allowing abortions, birth control, and sterilizations doesn’t make the problems of divorce, objectification of women, or crisis pregnancy go away. Respect of the dignity of the humanity of the woman and of the child does.

 

[dragonview]

Consider that in the days of Jerome book copying was so rare a thing that it was practically unheard of. Hardly anyone was literate, and a book would have been useless to most people. There was no market for books. Nowadays many people can read.

You know? Usually, when you steal something considered worth almost nothing from someone you don’t consider it is not a sin to do so, but a venial sin. Sin anyway.

That copying was almost unheard of can define if it is sin or not?

So it was not stealing because it was harder to make money off it? So if you wrote a thick book in, let’s say, Esperanto nowadays about how to attract an extinct bird and I make a copy it is not stealing? It is extremely hard to make profit off it!!

And lots of people are willing to buy information. There is now a massive market for information.

So it is stealing because it is easier to make profit off it? So if tomorrow it became harder it wouldn’t be so?

Why steal that which you do not need, or that which you can or may someday afford?

What I ask is why is it stealing if the original property is not destroyed, just shared. If you learned a recipe off a course in the internet you paid for and taught it to someone else, if we follow copyright laws, doing so would be piracy, because the other person didn’t pay for it and ‘you have no right to copy it’ because ‘the recipe is not yours’.

Ah, but what if someone started disseminating plans to copy your hardware, allowing people to take the information on the USB drive and put it onto his cheap hacks?

I care not. If my software is so bad or so abusively expensive to people that they aren’t willing to pay for my work, it is a good way to tell me. Google pays for Linux developers and Linux is free- Google pays because they use their work and they LIKE it, not because they are forced to do so. This way they keep monopoly of vital tools and information at bay, we avoid the exploitation of the poor.

 

[edwest2]

You know? Usually, when you steal something considered worth almost nothing from someone you don’t consider it is not a sin to do so, but a venial sin. Sin anyway.

That copying was almost unheard of can define if it is sin or not?

So it was not stealing because it was harder to make money off it? So if you wrote a thick book in, let’s say, Esperanto nowadays about how to attract an extinct bird and I make a copy it is not stealing? It is extremely hard to make profit off it!!

And lots of people are willing to buy information. There is now a massive market for information.

So it is stealing because it is easier to make profit off it? So if tomorrow it became harder it wouldn’t be so?

Why steal that which you do not need, or that which you can or may someday afford?

What I ask is why is it stealing if the original property is not destroyed, just shared. If you learned a recipe off a course in the internet you paid for and taught it to someone else, if we follow copyright laws, doing so would be piracy, because the other person didn’t pay for it and ‘you have no right to copy it’ because ‘the recipe is not yours’.

Ah, but what if someone started disseminating plans to copy your hardware, allowing people to take the information on the USB drive and put it onto his cheap hacks?

I care not. If my software is so bad or so abusively expensive to people that they aren’t willing to pay for my work, it is a good way to tell me. Google pays for Linux developers and Linux is free- Google pays because they use their work and they LIKE it, not because they are forced to do so. This way they keep monopoly of vital tools and information at bay, we avoid the exploitation of the poor.

---

“exploitation of the poor”? Please explain.

Peace,
Ed

 

[henrikhank]

If someone would go into a church and be noisy he/she would be stealing some people’s silence. That is stealing.

What do the Popes say about piracy?

 

[henrikhank]

If someone would go into a church and be noisy he/she would be stealing some people’s silence. That is stealing.

Many journalists may actually be stealing people’s silence so they are thieves.
It seems that the debate/discussion on piracy in a way is trying to answer three basic questions: What is stealing and why is stealing wrong? Who are we stealing from? God or just human persons/beings?

the Pope on silence and journalism: youtube.com/watch?v=bki_0VnSo5Q
the Pope on internet: youtube.com/watch?v=NkbXNNGk6Jo

 

[dragonview]

Many journalists may actually be stealing people’s silence so they are thieves.
It seems that the debate/discussion on piracy in a way is trying to answer three basic questions: What is stealing and why is stealing wrong? Who are we stealing from? God or just human persons/beings?

the Pope on silence and journalism: youtube.com/watch?v=bki_0VnSo5Q
the Pope on internet: youtube.com/watch?v=NkbXNNGk6Jo

Yes: what is stealing?

Here I have: taking or retaining goods from someone else against the owner’s will, without intimidation of people or force.

Take sayings, sentences and verses from another one and giving them as own.

The definitions of taking always refer to material taking, not copying. That way, if you copy my homework you aren’t taking it and you aren’t stealng it unless you present it as yours…

 

[edwest2]

As a professional who works in the publishing business, I am amazed at the comments here.

Don’t take what isn’t yours. That means no downloading of books from torrent sites, or software. If you are not sure you can have it for free, legally, don’t take it and use it.

Streaming movies are available from Netflix for a monthly fee. So what are you paying for? Nothing? Download the same movie from a pirate site - nobody gets paid. That is stealing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[dragonview]

As a professional who works in the publishing business, I am amazed at the comments here.

Don’t take what isn’t yours. That means no downloading of books from torrent sites, or software. If you are not sure you can have it for free, legally, don’t take it and use it.

Streaming movies are available from Netflix for a monthly fee. So what are you paying for? Nothing? Download the same movie from a pirate site - nobody gets paid. That is stealing.

Peace,
Ed

Problem is copying is not taking. If you go to a museum and you copy the name of an artist or of a picture you aren’t ‘taking’ the name, you aren’t stealing it. But Copyright says that if you take a picture of the image you are ‘taking’ the picture. There isn’t much difference about it except that it is much harder for other to have that image rather than the image of the name. Why? Because it is original. It says that copying is legal or not not depending simply on consent but on how hard it is to make a copy, how many have it before someone makes a claim of ownership, and if it is original. I mean, it is like saying "If everyone has the recipe for fried chicken and you copy it you aren’t breaking the law, but if it is a single person and you copy it you are. When you steal, this kind of rules don’t apply. Tell me a non-copyright case where copying= stealing.

If you download a movie from a pirate site (I’d like to mention I don’t download music or movies) the site is probably winning some money off it. And that nobody earns money, if happens, doesn’t mean you are stealing. The website is sharing it with you, just as a library shares books for free to everyone, just that this time you can get a free copy from the book.

People like to pay for good work. That happens to Linux: Google pays to the makers of Linux and its applications, and they are all free and Open Source for everyone. They believe that is the way to progress: to share, not to privatize. And, you should know, we wouldn’t be in the ‘information era’ if it wasn’t because the rule was that programs were all open source, as it was a lot harder to make progress starting always from scratch or paying the worth of a source code. If you spent 5 years making a source code it would be free for everyone so nobody has to last 5 years making another one that does the same, so a program that could take 10 years from scratch could be done in 1 taking from all shared source codes.

 

[Okowita]

I want to say that I don’t want to commit any sins at all.
Now after some research I have read that breaking the law in your country and download copyrighted work is a sin.
This is something I have been “used” to do for years. I want to end this sinning once and for all.
I wonder though if it is a sin to use/watch/listen to the copyrighted works that I have for private use?
Is it a good deed to erase this copyrighted material that have not been paid for?