New Question about Software Piracy

[rcwhiteh]

I cannot believe we are having this discussion.

Patents are granted in this country to allow someone who develops a new invention to recoup any expenditures made and to benefit from the fruits of labor by selling the right to produce copies of the invention for a royalty. Allowing someone to profit from an original idea, and having others see the inventor earning a profit, is an incentive to others to develop their own inventions and improve the lot of mankind. We hope that the invention will be beneficial, but even if it isn’t, the inventor has the reasonable expectation of protection for his/her intellectual-property rights.

Similarly, copyrights are granted to authors to identify the new, original work as belonging to them. An author grants a publisher permission to publish a new work in exchange for a fee and a royalty; revocation of that permission is difficult unless the author can prove that the publisher isn’t living up to the terms of their contract.

If I’m doing a research paper, and I quote someone else’s work without explicitly identifying the source, I’m guilty of plagiarism because I’ve presented the work as mine, which is dishonest.

If I buy a package of copyrighted software, I have no rights to the source code; that information is the property of the programmer who developed it or the company who employed that programmer. I buy a license to enjoy the functionality of the application; in other words, I’m buying the right to use the tool for my legitimate purposes.

If I’ve bought a game, and I tire of playing it, I can give away or sell the game to another person at whatever price I can get so long as I surrender the game in toto; that is, I cannot keep backup copies, and I must uninstall the software from my computer (if it’s a computer game) because I’m transferring my license to enjoy the game to another person.

I can’t make a copy of the game and sell it to anyone else; that’s piracy, and I think we can all see that. That said, it’s also wrong to give someone a copy of the game and keep the original because I cannot assume the author’s right to license the right to enjoy the game.

Shareware is a different system of software distribution, and doesn’t fall under this argument unless I try to sell the software as though I were the author. I can repackage the software and charge for the media and packaging costs, but I can’t claim the rights to the licensing fee because I didn’t write it.

So: to the original question - yes, it is wrong to violate the laws governing patents and copyrights simply because you don’t agree with them. This is malum in lex - wrong because it’s against the law.

It is also malum in se - wrong in and of itself - because you’re treating the software as though you were the author, and that’s dishonest.

Whether you want to invoke the 4th Commandment or the 7th Commandment, abuse of software licensing is wrong whether you’re keeping copies, selling copies or reverse-engineering the code.

It’s that simple.

 

[Benedictus]

rcwhiteh:

I cannot believe we are having this discussion.

I find it interesting. I am not endorsing violating copyright laws, nor do I engage in that behavior myself, but it is a useful exercise to discuss these issues. As I’ve stated in this thread, I think that people should be free to modify and/or redistribute software that they possess.

Patents are granted in this country to allow someone who develops a new invention to recoup any expenditures made and to benefit from the fruits of labor by selling the right to produce copies of the invention for a royalty. Allowing someone to profit from an original idea, and having others see the inventor earning a profit, is an incentive to others to develop their own inventions and improve the lot of mankind. We hope that the invention will be beneficial, but even if it isn’t, the inventor has the reasonable expectation of protection for his/her intellectual-property rights.

See my previous statements about the term “intellectual property”. I don’t think that software or algorithms should be patented. Largely, this is based on my “an algorithm is a recipe” belief.

Similarly, copyrights are granted to authors to identify the new, original work as belonging to them. An author grants a publisher permission to publish a new work in exchange for a fee and a royalty; revocation of that permission is difficult unless the author can prove that the publisher isn’t living up to the terms of their contract.

Again, I’m not suggesting violating EULAs. I’m suggesting that EULAs that prohibit the free redistribution or modification of software are unjust. I don’t think there is a clear parallel to software (i.e., books, tools, etc. are different than software).

Software is not really a physical thing, but it is not like a book either. A book is a static work. Software is more of a tool that we use to accomplish a task, but, again, software is not like a hammer either. A program is really a set of instructions, so it is somewhat like a recipe.

If I’m doing a research paper, and I quote someone else’s work without explicitly identifying the source, I’m guilty of plagiarism because I’ve presented the work as mine, which is dishonest.

True, but irrelevant. I’m not suggesting that people have the right to redistribute software while claiming they are the original authors. I’m only saying that they should have the right to redistribute software–they should give credit where credit is due.

If I buy a package of copyrighted software, I have no rights to the source code; that information is the property of the programmer who developed it or the company who employed that programmer.

Yes, that’s how the world works right now. I just don’t think that is how it should be.

So: to the original question - yes, it is wrong to violate the laws governing patents and copyrights simply because you don’t agree with them. This is malum in lex - wrong because it’s against the law.

This has been discussed in this thread already. We are not obligated to follow unjust laws (such as certain aspects of the DMCA or the FCC broadcast flag ruling).

It is also malum in se - wrong in and of itself - because you’re treating the software as though you were the author, and that’s dishonest.

Oh, another fancy Latin phrase (loqueris latine?). At any rate, I’m not suggesting that people act as though they are the original authors of software, I’m suggesting that people should be free to modify or redistribute software while still giving credit to anyone else who has contributed to the software.

Whether you want to invoke the 4th Commandment or the 7th Commandment, abuse of software licensing is wrong whether you’re keeping copies, selling copies or reverse-engineering the code.

Reverse enginnering something is another can of worms. Granted, some/many EULAs specify that I can’t reverse engineer the software, but the situation is more complex.

I have an interest in reverse engineering device drivers so I can get my WiFi card (for example) to work with Linux. Now I might be able to do this without the benefit of the binary device drivers my manufacturer has released for Windoze, in which case I may or may not be violating the EULA for the device driver.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

I don’t think that software or algorithms should be patented. Largely, this is based on my “an algorithm is a recipe” belief.

An interesting fact is that in the 1980’s, software was not allowed to be patented because code was considered simply “statements of the laws of nature”. Only after people realized there was more money to be had did they begin to fight for patenting/copyrights.

 

[ktm]

Benedictus:

True, but irrelevant. I’m not suggesting that people have the right to redistribute software while claiming they are the original authors. I’m only saying that they should have the right to redistribute software–they should give credit where credit is due.

Oh, another fancy Latin phrase (loqueris latine?). At any rate, I’m not suggesting that people act as though they are the original authors of software, I’m suggesting that people should be free to modify or redistribute software while still giving credit to anyone else who has contributed to the software.

I don’t buy this argument for one second. What you are describing is exactly software piracy. When some pirate posts an illegal copy of some software on the Internet, he is “redistribut[ing] software while still giving credit to anyone else who has contributed to the software”. Does a pirate say, “Yes, this is GTA, which I wrote myself?”

I have an interest in reverse engineering device drivers so I can get my WiFi card (for example) to work with Linux. Now I might be able to do this without the benefit of the binary device drivers my manufacturer has released for Windoze, in which case I may or may not be violating the EULA for the device driver.

Is this the part where you start writing “M$ $ucks”?

BTW, writing, modifying and (re)distributing GPL’ed code is an entirely different ballgame and you know it. You have (admirably) made the decision to allow others to do whatever they want with your code. You have zero right to make that decision for others who have decided to sell their software and not release it under GPL or some similar license. That is precisely what you do when you pirate music CDs or commercial software.

 

[ktm]

Dr. Colossus:

An interesting fact is that in the 1980’s, software was not allowed to be patented because code was considered simply “statements of the laws of nature”. Only after people realized there was more money to be had did they begin to fight for patenting/copyrights.

So what? If I can make a living selling software which I developed using my own resources I paid for, what’s wrong with that?

I don’t recall ever hearing something along the lines of your “statements of the laws of nature” reference. Where did you see that? I did not realize nature was driven by bits and bytes of software code.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

ktm:

I don’t recall ever hearing something along the lines of your “statements of the laws of nature” reference. Where did you see that? I did not realize nature was driven by bits and bytes of software code.

My timeline was a little off. It was in 1980 that the Supreme Court decision of Diamond v. Chakrabarty changed its decision (regarding financial software). Prior to this decision, the courts and patent office had followed the 1948 decision of Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. which stated that “[t]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are 'manifestations of … nature, free to all men and reserved exclusiv ely to none.” Software was held to be a set of mathematical formulas and thus not patentable.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

So what? If I can make a living selling software which I developed using my own resources I paid for, what’s wrong with that?

Nothing’s wrong with that. What I believe is wrong is the fact that with EULAs, you’re not selling the software at all. You’re selling an innocuous “license” that is separate from the software. I don’t believe it’s honest to sell tangible media but to say that the program contained on them hasn’t been sold at all.

 

[ktm]

Dr. Colossus:

My timeline was a little off. It was in 1980 that the Supreme Court decision of Diamond v. Chakrabarty changed its decision (regarding financial software). Prior to this decision, the courts and patent office had followed the 1948 decision of Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. which stated that “[t]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are 'manifestations of … nature, free to all men and reserved exclusiv ely to none.” Software was held to be a set of mathematical formulas and thus not patentable.

Fortunately this is not current law. But thanks for the reference – that’s quite interesting.

 

[Benedictus]

ktm:

I don’t buy this argument for one second. What you are describing is exactly software piracy. When some pirate posts an illegal copy of some software on the Internet, he is “redistribut[ing] software while still giving credit to anyone else who has contributed to the software”. Does a pirate say, “Yes, this is GTA, which I wrote myself?”

Piracy involves theft, but as we’ve been arguing in this thread, sharing software isn’t theft. If I don’t “own” the software I’m sharing, then it isn’t theft because the other person who receives it from me won’t “possess” it either.

Is this the part where you start writing “M$ $ucks”?

It’s no secret that I’m unfond of Microsoft’s business practices. This isn’t necessarily because of my views on software freedom. I know a lot of software engineers and programmers who realize how poorly written Microsoft’s software is who don’t share my views.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

rcwhiteh:

I cannot believe we are having this discussion.

I didn’t have a chance to respond to this earlier. I wish the issue of intellectual property would be addressed by the Holy See in some manner. But since it hasn’t, it is up to the faithful in good conscience to look at the problem and come to a rational understanding. The reason I posted this question initially was because I wanted a better understanding of the moral and ethical reasoning behind each side’s arguments. So far this thread has been very informative to me (and I hope others), and has illuminated facets of the problem that I hadn’t considered. But while the discussion has gotten closer to the real moral question (what can and can’t be done with intellectual property?), it is not finished yet.

My question now is, what exactly makes digital media inherently different from other forms of intellectual property? As I have stated before, one is not prohibited from building a copy of a chair for himself. In addition, one is not prohibited from copying books or sections of books (otherwise they wouldn’t have Xerox machines in libraries!). One is not even prohibited from recording music from the radio or movies on television. So what is it about digital media that is so different from all of these things? If there is nothing different, then we have a double standard and either nothing should be allowed to be copied, or everything should. If there is something inherently different, well I guess that’s what I want to know.

 

[roymckenzie]

Benedictus:

We are not obligated to obey laws that are immoral. If I believe that portions of the DMCA, for example, are unjust, I don’t think I’m obligated to follow them.

My Friend what is the “DMCA”?

 

[Dr.Colossus]

DMCA: Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Full text here:
copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

 

[roymckenzie]

Benedictus:

Piracy involves theft, but as we’ve been arguing in this thread, sharing software isn’t theft. If I don’t “own” the software I’m sharing, then it isn’t theft because the other person who receives it from me won’t “possess” it either.

It’s no secret that I’m unfond of Microsoft’s business practices. This isn’t necessarily because of my views on software freedom. I know a lot of software engineers and programmers who realize how poorly written Microsoft’s software is who don’t share my views.

First of I want you to know I love you man!

Second, you are just plain wrong.

I have been in the industry since 1981. I can say without question with out Microsoft we would not be in this forum. Microsoft made it so systems could be used by the common non-technical man. IBM never thought the PC market would amount to anything more than a toy and Apple was (is) run by brilliant men who have never understood marketing the PC.

I believe it is very important to pay for the software you receive. Without end users paying for the software the software developers don’t develop. If you think the software is over priced don’t buy it. The market has set the price not Microsoft, if the market could not sustain the price then Microsoft would be out of business. As for built in obsolescence, it is the consumer that are demanding faster more productive software that does more and more. Trust me Microsoft is very happy to try to meet our demands for more and more.

As for the poorly written argument, it truly sounds to me like jealousy. If you can build a better mouse trap build it. Intuit built a better mouse trap with Quicken and sometimes I use FireFox for my browser. Many of the Microsoft products are not the best in the industry, and those are struggling. Many of Microsoft products are the best and those fly off the shelves. If you don’t like Microsoft I urge you to dump it and use an open source product.

We owe to our obedience to Jesus to pay for the product we use. We are not perpetuating an intrinsic evil by paying for the software we use. We are following the law which we are called to do if it is not intrinsically evil. We are also providing incentive to the software manufacturer to continue to put out products we want. I see it as an everyone wins.

Agani I love you guys!

 

[Benedictus]

roymckenzie:

I have been in the industry since 1981. I can say without question with out Microsoft we would not be in this forum.
It’s hard to say. I agree that MS has had a very effective marketing strategy that has popularized the PC, but I think that even without MS, computers would still by found in every home, even if they took a bit longer to catch on. But the world of “what ifs” is not very interesting to me. Too speculative.

If you think the software is over priced don’t buy it. The market has set the price not Microsoft, if the market could not sustain the price then Microsoft would be out of business.

If MS raised the price of XP Home by $30, would sales decrease? I doubt it. MS has a stranglehold on the OS market (as much as it pains me). I admit that Linux is not the best choice for my grandmother. I am actually a big Mac fan (esp. since OS X is a real Unix system), but those machines are WAY overpriced. Maybe when I get a better paying job I’ll drop some money on one.

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that MS has a lot of flexibility in setting prices. If they set prices much too high, their sales will fall, no doubt. But there are still a lot of people who have no real alternative.

But hey, I never claimed to be non-biased with respect to Microsoft. I just plain don’t like them. There are companies that produce closed-source, proprietary, commercial software about whom I have much less antipathy.

As for the poorly written argument, it truly sounds to me like jealousy. If you can build a better mouse trap build it. Intuit built a better mouse trap with Quicken and sometimes I use FireFox for my browser.

Funny you should mention Firefox because I had Internet Explorer in mind when I wrote “poorly written.” MS has not addressed any of the major issues with IE in the past few years. They release some bug fixes and tacked on a few features, but there are still some major issues they haven’t addressed. Plus, I like the tabbed browsing in Mozilla and Firefox.

I think Windows has some issues too. I am convinced that a lot of the issues would go away if MS released more source code for Windows. There have been a number of backdoors and other security flaws in Windows that just couldn’t exist in a free or open source OS.

I’m not jealous about MS. I don’t really care about Microsoft. I paid for an OEM version of Windows XP Pro when I bought my laptop, and that’s the last Microsoft product I ever intend to buy. Next time I will avoid the Microsoft tax altogether.

If you don’t like Microsoft I urge you to dump it and use an open source product.

I use free (as in free speech) software whenever I can. Ironically, I’m writing this on a Windows machine, only because I can’t get my wireless card to work right under Linux while using WPA-PSK (the card manufacturer doesn’t release very good drivers for Linux).

 

[All4lifetoo]

quote=Dr. Colossus

The law does not seem to be contrary to the moral order (i.e. it is not immoral for me not to copy the software), nor the Gospel specifically. However:

Is the law contrary to the fundamental rights of persons?

Possibly. The law places restrictions on the right of ownership of a legitimately purchased piece of merchandise. It is inarguably the right of the original manufacturer to retain the ability to make and sell his product. But it is not the right of the manufacturer to be guaranteed that his product will sell. Going back to the chair analogy, if I buy (or even see) a patented chair in a store and figure out how to make one, I may do so legally so long as I don’t sell it. I may even make as many as I want and give them away. This may hurt the sales of the original chair, but it would not be immoral or illegal, because in a capitalistic society there is no guarantee that people must buy the chair from a manufacturer (actually, that would be a form of monopoly, which is illegal).
[/quote]

No, you may not make or use the patented chair at all! If you make or **use **the patented chair you break the law.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. – 35 USC 271(a)

 

[All4lifetoo]

Benedictus:

For the record, I write software for a living, and, like most programmers, I don’t write commercial software. Instead, I write software to fit a specific need–to accomplish a certain task. Almost all of the software I write is free (as in free speech) and is distributed under the GNU General Public License.

I love it when people redistribute the software I write. I like it even more when they adapt it to their needs. Hopefully they share their changes with me, but they don’t have to explicitly let me know what they are doing.

As the creator of IP and thus the copyright owner, you can give it away if you like. That is part of your ownership rights. Those who do not want to give it away have that right too.

 

[All4lifetoo]

Benedictus:

Piracy involves theft, but as we’ve been arguing in this thread, sharing software isn’t theft. If I don’t “own” the software I’m sharing, then it isn’t theft because the other person who receives it from me won’t “possess” it either.

It’s no secret that I’m unfond of Microsoft’s business practices. This isn’t necessarily because of my views on software freedom. I know a lot of software engineers and programmers who realize how poorly written Microsoft’s software is who don’t share my views.

This is the strangest definition of “possess” that I have ever heard.

If I had my Black’s with me I would give you the legal definition of possess, but since I don’t here is the common definition:

**Main Entry: pos·sess
Pronunciation: **p&-'zes also -'ses
**Function: **transitive verb
**Etymology: **Middle English, from Middle French possesser to have possession of, take possession of, from Latin possessus, past participle of possidEre, from potis able, having the power + sedEre to sit —more at POTENT, SIT
**Date: **14th century
1 a : to have and hold as property : OWN b : to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill
2 a : to take into one’s possession b : to enter into and control firmly : DOMINATE <was possessed by demons> c : to bring or cause to fall under the influence, possession, or control of some emotional or intellectual reaction <melancholy possesses her>
3 a : obsolete : to instate as owner b : to make the owner or holder — used in passive construction to indicate simple possession <possessed of riches> <possessed of knowledge and experience>
- pos·ses·sor noun

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

and here is the common definiton of possession:

**Main Entry: pos·ses·sion
Pronunciation: **-'ze-sh&n also -'se-
**Function: **noun
**Date: **14th century
1 a : the act of having or taking into control b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership c : OWNERSHIP d : control of the ball or puck
2 : something owned, occupied, or controlled : PROPERTY
3 a : domination by something (as an evil spirit, a passion, or an idea) b : a psychological state in which an individual’s normal personality is replaced by another c : the fact or condition of being self-controlled
- pos·ses·sion·al /-'zesh-n&l, -'ze-sh&-n&l also -'sesh-n&l or -'se-sh&-n&l/ adjective
- pos·ses·sion·less /-'ze-sh&n-l&s, -'se-/ adjective

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

One who has something under one’s control is in possession of the object regardless of whether one owns the object. There is no way you can rationalize the theft by claiming that it is not theft.

 

[Vouchsafe]

Other posters have mentioned fish and licenses and never put the two together…

In parts of the United States, Native Americans hold territorial fishing rights for salmon and other restricted fish. However, they do not have the right to resell them to the general public.

Recreational fishing licenses do not allow the same catch limits as a commercial fishing license. And all fishing licenses require you throw back fish that are too small. So, a license to fish still has its inherent limitations.

---

On another tangent:

As to what the Holy See/ Mother Church thinks about intellectual property? The answer is clear in the Church’s own course of action.

Are all of the works of art at St. Peter’s, the Vatican Museums and churches around the world free? Yes, you may take a picture while there (no flash!), but I believe you must obtain rights for printing these works in a commercial publication.

And in terms of music, are we as church choirs allowed to photocopy lyrics and pass them out? Not hardly. We must turn the books back in quarterly or annually, depending on the title. A new one is sent out in its place. If a song is missing (that is not in the public domain), you are out of luck. Choir directors in a Catholic church who flout these rules can find themselves in need of the protection of St. Cecelia.

Some denominations break these laws all the time, photocopying lyrics or running them on projector/slide screens without buying them. It has never seemed the Christian thing to me, to steal from those musicians who wrote the music.