Pirated windows 10

  • Thread starter Thread starter Babinicz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arkansan said:
I’m not moving the goalposts. Downloading pirated software to your personal computer does not inflict harm on the copyright owner. They remain in precisely the same position as if the downloader had never even existed.
Click to expand...
As I said before, that is the wrong dichotomy. The fact is the pirate does exist. The correct dichotomy is between using Windows and paying for it or using Windiws and not paying for it.
Stealing a donut, on the other hand, leaves the donut owner with one donut less than he otherwise would have had. That he might have done the same thing to himself is irrelevant to the morality of stealing it.
Click to expand...
The harm is not in the physical loss of the donut. The harm is in the loss of the money that should have been paid for the donut, The baker does not want donuts, he wants money.
 
Last edited:
When I use the word “harm”, I’m not speaking in an abstract sense. I mean harm in the sense of “causing loss”.

The act of taking a donut, irrespective of anyone’s subjective intentions, involves taking away from another person what belongs to him/her. The victim has less than he did before the taking.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Arkansan:
I’m not moving the goalposts. Downloading pirated software to your personal computer does not inflict harm on the copyright owner. They remain in precisely the same position as if the downloader had never even existed.
Click to expand...
As I said before, that is the wrong dichotomy. The fact is the pirate does exist. The correct dichotomy is between using Windows and paying for it or using Windiws and not paying for it.
Click to expand...
Neither the downloader’s existence nor his subjective intentions give the copyright owner any pre-existing claim on him. Counter-factual hypotheticals about what a person would have done if the situation were different do not affect the objective morality of the person’s actions.
 
Software professional of 35 years here, with a long standing interest in licencing issues.
  1. As seems to be the near universal agreement in this thread, pirating software is theft, pure and simple. In the same way that pirating movies or music is. That is the consistent advice on this question whenever it’s raised on CAF.
In general the sum of money is not large so it is not a mortal sin. I was interested in @Vico’s citation on the related question of whether multiple instances of pilfering small amounts can constitute a mortal sin.
  1. Your case, of upgrading a pirated Win8 to Win10 is a special case. Pirating Win8 was a sin of theft, and should be confessed if it hasn’t already been. However, upgrading to Win10 is not an additional theft and requires no restitution on your part. With Win10 Microsoft wanted to move all existing users to the same version and so allowed upgrades at no cost from all versions. They deliberately chose to enable this for pirated versions, and even pushed it without the users consent.
In general, managing software licenses is now done by the company which provides the software. There are so many different licenses (commercial, upgrade, free, trial, demo, etc…) and software is so ubiquitous that it is too difficult for users to keep track of what they’ve paid for and the T’s & C’s for each app. So, unless you have done something to deliberately steal a program you can trust that you have it validly. In this case, Microsoft have chosen to give a free upgrade to a pirated Win8 installation.

So, keep your Windows 10, and confess pirating the Windows 8, if you haven’t already done so.
 
Last edited:
Of course it would be theft. I’ve never disputed that.
Whether or not the baker would derive any harm in your example would depend on whether that particular donut would have sold before it spoiled/expired.
 
Socrates92 said:
Of course it would be theft. I’ve never disputed that.
Whether or not the baker would derive any harm in your example would depend on whether that particular donut would have sold before it spoiled/expired.
Click to expand...
Suppose 24 donuts were made and 22 were stolen. The two remaining donuts were sold, at which point the baker closed his shop and went home. On his way out the door, one customer came looking for donuts and had to be turned away. Now which one of the 22 thefts harmed the baker?
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
Arkansan:
I’m not moving the goalposts. Downloading pirated software to your personal computer does not inflict harm on the copyright owner. They remain in precisely the same position as if the downloader had never even existed.
Click to expand...
As I said before, that is the wrong dichotomy. The fact is the pirate does exist. The correct dichotomy is between using Windows and paying for it or using Windiws and not paying for it.
Click to expand...
Neither the downloader’s existence nor his subjective intentions give the copyright owner any pre-existing claim on him. Counter-factual hypotheticals about what a person would have done if the situation were different do not affect the objective morality of the person’s actions.
Click to expand...
The fact that people use Windows is what gives the software developer a pre-existing claim on the money for it. Not paying for what you use harms the developer who was rightfully expecting to be paid. That harm us not abstract. It is real.
 
A man illegally downloads a $200 Windows OS, while having 4 $100 bills in front of him. Which 2 of those does Microsoft have a pre-existing claim on?
 
Arkansan said:
When I use the word “harm”, I’m not speaking in an abstract sense. I mean harm in the sense of “causing loss”.

The act of taking a donut, irrespective of anyone’s subjective intentions, involves taking away from another person what belongs to him/her. The victim has less than he did before the taking.
Click to expand...
As I said, the baker does not want donuts. He wants money. He is not harmed by having one less donut. He is harmed by not getting paid for that donut.
 
Perhaps I’ve been unclear.

Theft is an immoral act which consists in taking away what belongs to another person. The act of stealing is in itself wrong, even though it doesn’t particularly upset the victim.
 
What specifically do they have a claim on? Does the universe have an obligation to make $200 dollars appear for them?
 
Arkansan said:
What specifically do they have a claim on? Does the universe have an obligation to make $200 dollars appear for them?
Click to expand...
Whatever answer works for donuts also works for software. So you tell me. If I sneak into a bakery and eat $200 worth of donuts, besides getting a really upset stomach, what claim does the baker have on me?
 
The baker has a claim to restitution from you in the amount of $200. The source of your obligation to pay comes from your having deprived him of his property (the particular donuts he owned).

This does not work in the case of software, since downloading it does not deprive the copyright holder of it. Claiming that the copyright owner is being deprived of the purchasing cost of the software does not work since he does not have any pre-existing claim on whatever money you would have paid him with.
 
The amount which one expects to be paid (ignoring the middleman, aka the employer for simplicity) depends on his sales forecast and assessment of market demand when pricing his product. There is no right or wrong per se with respect to sales forecasts. There is accurate and inaccurate. There is no obligation for potential consumers to conform to a developer’s anticipated sales.

Assuming that one never intended to pay for said software (and would do without if unable to steal) a forecast counting on that sale would simply be inaccurate.
Stealing the software in this scenario is not materially different from the perfectly legitimate alternative in which the developer also did not make the sale. Therefore the developer suffers no material harm as a result. Is stealing as such still immoral? Yes, of course.
 
Well, personally, if those donuts were to catering what Windows 10 is to operating systems, I’d probably send the baker an invoice for my waste management services.
 
Just to point out something that seems to be missing (sorry if I missed it):

Within the world of software, you generally aren’t purchasing software. You’re acquiring a license to use it. Some basic models are:
  1. Open-source software, where you are given access to the source code and a license regarding how one may use that source code. This can cause variations in how those using the source code are allowed to use it commercially and their obligations to give back should they modify anything.
  2. Freeware, which generally just gives you the license without requiring payment. Source code is not guaranteed.
  3. Lifetime use. This is probably what people are most familiar with regarding products like Windows. If some cases, especially OSs, the license was bought by one company (e.g. Dell) and activated on a computer that they now provide you. These licenses last for life.
  4. Subscription services, where you buy a limited-time access to the software and must keep paying after a certain amount of time.
I’ll skip over the first two here because they’re already provided for free.

In the third case, downloading the software is not really the point at which you steal it. Yeah, you’ve got the executable, but if it just sits there, the only one losing value is you for time, bandwidth, storage costs, and contributing to the lifetime degradation of your hard drive. The software’s owner, however, has yet to lose anything. However, once you start using the software with an illegally-acquired key, you have taken something “tangible” from the company - that key. In fact, this could potentially even come down to harming the person who legally has the key, and I’ve been the victim of that twice - once for a game and once for, believe it or not, Windows Vista. This actually does make it somewhat analogous to stealing a doughnut. Not only have you taken something tangible from the owner, but you’ve also deprived someone who may have legally acquired it.

Subscription software is a little trickier because there generally aren’t license-activation keys. It’s also very unlikely that you’ll actually steal it, but bear with me. If you somehow manage to sneak your way into their system and use it, then there are still tangible losses. For instance, you’re taking computing resources on the server that could otherwise be moved to another customer. This does cost money, and some companies do seek ways to quantify how much these computing resources cost down to a very micromanaged degree. (I’ve been part of a team that did this. No, I’m not getting into more detailed than that.)

Ultimately, while software itself is more intangible than your average product, there are tangible affects when people illegally use the software. This can be through the keys, computing resources, hardware degradation, electricity, etc.
 
I’m pretty sure the free windows upgrade to 10 was geared specifically for people like you - so you would get onto the 10 platform and start using their app store. Also people still stuck with decades-old versions. (I would still use XP if I could)
 
The National Security Agency probably has you in their database by now.

With that kind of resume, they may now want to hire you.

LOL.
 
I installed ubuntu. Im not going to use windows 10 unless I buy legal license. This new system is new for me but looks user-friendly.
Someone said about that free upgrade but for me its not fair that I upgraded to win 10 with pirated license.
I have money for games but mainly it was from sites where you do tasks for currency which you spend on gift cards etc. And I buy games months after release, so they dont cost full price but are discounted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top