Stealing items off the internet

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’ve just came off a long, long discussion with a friend about this. I’m beginning to doubt my position. It’s essentially down to whether or not it’s within government’s authority to create copyright laws.

smndtupidisaftr, you say copyright is immoral, please explain.

Copyright is immoral because ideas are not scarce. For elucidation of this position, I’ll point to two examples: air and wood. Both are plentiful and abundant. We are charged for one, yet not charged for the other. Why? Scarcity. Wood is a scarce item that we can conceivably run out of. There is a replacement cost associated with wood. With air, there is no such replacement cost. The idea of stealing air is laughable. You can’t be sued for stealing someone else’s air because it is not scarce. As soon as you take someone’s air, more air comes to replace it. In this sense, air cannot be stolen because no one is deprived of its use by you using it. With wood, that is not the case. As soon as you take someone’s wood, there no longer have the wood. Thus, one of the requirements for something to be classified as property is that it is scarce.

Now, let’s extend this analysis to ideas. Are ideas scarce? If I copy someone’s idea, do they no longer have the idea? Of course not. They still have use of the idea. So if you can’t steal something that isn’t scarce, then how can you steal an idea? Let’s extend this to pirating. When you copy a song, is someone necessarily deprived of the use of that song? Nope. Right when you copy it, the supply of the song, so to speak, increases. We cannot conceivably run out of the song (sounds absurd, right?), so how can we call it property? This is why copyright is immoral. It creates scarcity where there is none, and so grants an immoral privilege to the first creator.

As for any practical concerns you have of a world without intellectual property rights, consult this book.

dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

And remember, copyright is a modern phenomenon. We got along just fine before these laws came about.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hm. But what about those who have put time into developing softwares, producing films and drawing comics? Do they not have a right to monetary income for producing these in the first place for our use?

If you watch a film why shouldn’t you pay for it?

And remember, copyright is a modern phenomenon. We got along just fine before these laws came about.

That bugs me yes, government control over copyright, etc., is non-existent in history before modern times.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

What part of these don’t you understand?

rationalization - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

steal
To take (the property of another, including intellectual property) without right or permission.

Software Piracy
“Consumers break the law when they make unauthorized copies of software. Whether for profit, free distribution, or personal use, such duplication constitutes copyright infringement. Copyright owners can sue infringers for damages that may include profits made by the infringers, or statutory damages of up to $100,000 for each work infringed. The penalties are more severe when software copying is done.”

It’s a rare case indeed when the law says it’s illegal but the Church says it’s OK.

 

[ExplosiveOxygen]

Breaking a “Terms of Use Agreement” is not ethical or moral.

What ever happened to “love your neighbour as yourself?”

There are many items on the internet that have no terms of agreement. Look for freeware and opensource.

 

[Bearontherun]

There are many items on the internet that have no terms of agreement. Look for freeware and opensource.

That’s all fine and good. I agree that if it is legit opensource or freeware, then there is no problem in using it.

Copyrighted material is a completely different case.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Hm. But what about those who have put time into developing softwares, producing films and drawing comics? Do they not have a right to monetary income for producing these in the first place for our use?

No. The labor theory of value is a falsehood. Just because you work at something means that the work is worthwhile. If the work is valuable, then you will get paid for it. You do not deserve to get paid for doing something. This is why we generally accept the subjective theory of value today.

If you watch a film why shouldn’t you pay for it?

I would if that was the only way I could get it. Otherwise, I don’t see the point.

That bugs me yes, government control over copyright, etc., is non-existent in history before modern times.

It’s something that is often overlooked.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

What part of these don’t you understand?

rationalization - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

steal
To take (the property of another, including intellectual property) without right or permission.

Software Piracy
“Consumers break the law when they make unauthorized copies of software. Whether for profit, free distribution, or personal use, such duplication constitutes copyright infringement. Copyright owners can sue infringers for damages that may include profits made by the infringers, or statutory damages of up to $100,000 for each work infringed. The penalties are more severe when software copying is done.”

It’s a rare case indeed when the law says it’s illegal but the Church says it’s OK.

Yet as I’ve already argued, intellectual property is not real property because it is not scarce.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Yet as I’ve already argued, intellectual property is not real property because it is not scarce.

So everyone and anyone could conceptualize, codify and produce the software you have stolen! So why didn’t you create yourself instead of stealing someone else’s work? Who do you think you’re fooling, besides yourself that is? I can assure you you are not fooling God, us nor the authorities if they catch up with you.

 

[Xlainamo]

Yet as I’ve already argued, intellectual property is not real property because it is not scarce.

While I am not fond of copyright laws, and you are describing a perfect utopian world in which we would like to live, I can’t say that I agree 100% with your mentality.

If we are to buy/charge only the scarce goods, that also means that charging for services is immoral. So not paying a doctor or a lawyer or a technician is not theft

(however I understand that hiring someone forms some kind of ‘relationship’; which is nonexistent with the developers or creators of downloaded intellectual property)

 

[markomalley]

And I have created intellectual work for which I have not been paid. I sympathize with you.

Just a question: what happened to you was legal or illegal?

Had the company decided to pursue it and the court agreed with us, it would have been considered a violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation…a violation of a regulation, not a law. And the recourse would have been to cancel the contract with the other company and award it to us. Likely our company’s legal fees would have also been reimbursed.

But it would have been exceedingly difficult to prove any criminal wrongdoing, just civil.

Still your experience of intellectual theft is not the same as filesharing. Your experience is about the original patent stealing. They deprived you from the ability to be commercialised at all.

When you are downloading a pirated copy of Photoshop you are just downloading its usage. You are not downloading the source code to exploit and divulge it, depriving thus Adobe from commercializing it.

How would have you felt if your project had been commercialized, yet a certain percentage (be it 10% or 80%) of it was pirated?

Let’s put it in another way that would be more realistic. Had we produced this system for the government agency in question and another agency then decided to generate a solicitation for the same type of system, that likely would have been fair for another company to bid on it. They would have been able to use the same type of hardware topology but write their own software to control that hardware (once the system is the property of the government, its topology is then in the government domain; the IP of the individual hardware components would have remained the IP of their manufacturers; and the software would have always been ours even had we sold the system…we would have simply licensed it to the government with limited rights.

On the other hand, had this hypothetical other government agency asked for our EXACT system with our trade name and another company bid saying that they produced that system with that trade name, then that other company would have been guilty of violating trademark law. If they somehow got a copy of our software and either reverse-engineered it or gotten a copy of the source code from the government and then recompiled it with their company logos on the spash, they would have been guilty of violating copyright law. Both of which are punishable by civil and criminal penalties.

Please consider the above as an attempt to define and view the complex matter of filesharing from different perspectives. I believe it is far more complex than “it is theft” and yes, it can be moral. Not always, but it can.

What you are alluding to in regards to licensing of copyrighted works is a valid point. I, too, think that copyright owners would be wise to look at novel types of licensing schemes. We see that, to a degree with Microsoft, and their volume licensing scheme that they use with government and large business markets. Essentially, the client pays for the number of seats and then is licensed to do as he wills with that number of licenses. Maintenance is included so the customer has the ability to upgrade the software when that comes available. I believe it is a pretty lucrative business model for them. I would think Adobe would do well to do the same as far as their Creative Suite (and components). And it would be nice to somehow (perhaps through a third party intermediary), make that type of licensing scheme available in the small business and home markets. I have a major problem paying $450 for MS Office Pro and over $1000 for Adobe Creative Suite, but I would have no problem paying a monthly or annual seat charge for the use of the same.

I see that in the music business with services like Rhapsody, where you pay a monthly fee to have access to the library (and royalties are paid to the artist each time a track is played over that service). I also see the beginnings of it with Netflix-like services with their streaming movie capability. I would like to see that type of service expand. The nice part about it is that artists are not forced to participate in those types of schemes; they make a business decision to participate or not.

But I still see that filesharing…unless you own (not license) the property…is contrary to commutative justice.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

This rationalizing away the theft of intellectual property is an excellent example of the level to which the ethics and morality of civilization has sunk, particularly the younger crowd. The discussion turns my stomach so I’m bowing out before I really say what I’m thinking.

 

[ExplosiveOxygen]

That’s all fine and good. I agree that if it is legit opensource or freeware, then there is no problem in using it.

Copyrighted material is a completely different case.

No worries, people who use cracked copyrighted material are being influenced by the idea that somehow stuff that is free is useless.

 

[JoelTheGeek]

Greetings all, I just created my account so I could add some things to this discussion. I am a software developer. Our house, food, clothes, money we put in the collection plate - everything comes from my software development job. That means my salary is paid by customers buying our software (and professional services/support). I have worked as a developer professionally now for 11.5 years.

If you look at my computers, you’ll find nothing but legitimate software. Besides the fact that it’s “just right” to pay, I like to support my peers out there also making their living off of software. That doesn’t mean that I’ve dropped thousands of dollars on commercial software either. I use OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office for instance. I couldn’t justify buying Photoshop at full price either. I was using Photoshop Elements until a few months ago when Adobe offered me CS5 for $300 which I bought.

So many people claim that they don’t have the money for software. I bet that’s usually not true. I bet that most of you have a better cell phone that I do, a better car, better TV, cable TV (we have none), etc. It’s all about priorities.

So what about the church? The Catechism (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm) states:

"The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. "

Software is the fruit of my daily labour. I don’t write much documentation, or do much else. At the end of the day, software programs/changes are what I have to show for my labour.

Back when I was a starving student, I was able to buy “Academic” versions of software from companies like Microsoft and Wordperfect for next to nothing. Most of these companies will also give free copies to charities and churches (i.e. Adobe for those who think they’re evil adobe.com/aboutadobe/philanthropy/software.html and Microsoft microsoft.com/canada/licensing/charity.mspx).

Also, the licenses are often very flexible. For instance, Adobe happily lets you port your Photoshop license from Mac to Windows. They also let you install it on more than one machine provided that you only use it on one machine at a time.

So while you might think that Photoshop or Office pricing is absurd, if you had any idea the number of single man hours that were put into either product (even on a minor update), you might understand more.

Oh and regarding freeware and open-source licensing, they almost always have terms attached (look at the classic GNU gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html or BSD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses licenses).

That’s my $0.02

Joel

 

[Bearontherun]

Greetings all, I just created my account so I could add some things to this discussion. I am a software developer. Our house, food, clothes, money we put in the collection plate - everything comes from my software development job. That means my salary is paid by customers buying our software (and professional services/support). I have worked as a developer professionally now for 11.5 years.

If you look at my computers, you’ll find nothing but legitimate software. Besides the fact that it’s “just right” to pay, I like to support my peers out there also making their living off of software. That doesn’t mean that I’ve dropped thousands of dollars on commercial software either. I use OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office for instance. I couldn’t justify buying Photoshop at full price either. I was using Photoshop Elements until a few months ago when Adobe offered me CS5 for $300 which I bought.

So many people claim that they don’t have the money for software. I bet that’s usually not true. I bet that most of you have a better cell phone that I do, a better car, better TV, cable TV (we have none), etc. It’s all about priorities.

So what about the church? The Catechism (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm) states:

"The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. "

Software is the fruit of my daily labour. I don’t write much documentation, or do much else. At the end of the day, software programs/changes are what I have to show for my labour.

Back when I was a starving student, I was able to buy “Academic” versions of software from companies like Microsoft and Wordperfect for next to nothing. Most of these companies will also give free copies to charities and churches (i.e. Adobe for those who think they’re evil adobe.com/aboutadobe/philanthropy/software.html and Microsoft microsoft.com/canada/licensing/charity.mspx).

Also, the licenses are often very flexible. For instance, Adobe happily lets you port your Photoshop license from Mac to Windows. They also let you install it on more than one machine provided that you only use it on one machine at a time.

So while you might think that Photoshop or Office pricing is absurd, if you had any idea the number of single man hours that were put into either product (even on a minor update), you might understand more.

Oh and regarding freeware and open-source licensing, they almost always have terms attached (look at the classic GNU gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html or BSD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses licenses).

That’s my $0.02

Joel

:clapping:

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

While I am not fond of copyright laws, and you are describing a perfect utopian world in which we would like to live, I can’t say that I agree 100% with your mentality.

If we are to buy/charge only the scarce goods, that also means that charging for services is immoral. So not paying a doctor or a lawyer or a technician is not theft

(however I understand that hiring someone forms some kind of ‘relationship’; which is nonexistent with the developers or creators of downloaded intellectual property)

Services are scarce. Can I get someone to wash my shower without necessarily denying someone else that person’s services? There is not an unlimited amount of shower washing to go around. First, you need someone to do it. Second, you need the materials to do it with. Lastly, you need the time. There’s a ton of scarcity involved with a service.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

So everyone and anyone could conceptualize, codify and produce the software you have stolen! So why didn’t you create yourself instead of stealing someone else’s work? Who do you think you’re fooling, besides yourself that is? I can assure you you are not fooling God, us nor the authorities if they catch up with you.

Before you start condemning me, maybe you would like to tell me where exactly my analysis is wrong?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

This rationalizing away the theft of intellectual property is an excellent example of the level to which the ethics and morality of civilization has sunk, particularly the younger crowd. The discussion turns my stomach so I’m bowing out before I really say what I’m thinking.

It would be better that you leave emotions aside so that you can review the subject fairly. I used to feel the same way you do, but eventually I was swayed by the arguments.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Greetings all, I just created my account so I could add some things to this discussion. I am a software developer. Our house, food, clothes, money we put in the collection plate - everything comes from my software development job. That means my salary is paid by customers buying our software (and professional services/support). I have worked as a developer professionally now for 11.5 years.

If you look at my computers, you’ll find nothing but legitimate software. Besides the fact that it’s “just right” to pay, I like to support my peers out there also making their living off of software. That doesn’t mean that I’ve dropped thousands of dollars on commercial software either. I use OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office for instance. I couldn’t justify buying Photoshop at full price either. I was using Photoshop Elements until a few months ago when Adobe offered me CS5 for $300 which I bought.

So many people claim that they don’t have the money for software. I bet that’s usually not true. I bet that most of you have a better cell phone that I do, a better car, better TV, cable TV (we have none), etc. It’s all about priorities.

So what about the church? The Catechism (vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm) states:

"The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. "

Software is the fruit of my daily labour. I don’t write much documentation, or do much else. At the end of the day, software programs/changes are what I have to show for my labour.

Back when I was a starving student, I was able to buy “Academic” versions of software from companies like Microsoft and Wordperfect for next to nothing. Most of these companies will also give free copies to charities and churches (i.e. Adobe for those who think they’re evil adobe.com/aboutadobe/philanthropy/software.html and Microsoft microsoft.com/canada/licensing/charity.mspx).

Also, the licenses are often very flexible. For instance, Adobe happily lets you port your Photoshop license from Mac to Windows. They also let you install it on more than one machine provided that you only use it on one machine at a time.

So while you might think that Photoshop or Office pricing is absurd, if you had any idea the number of single man hours that were put into either product (even on a minor update), you might understand more.

Oh and regarding freeware and open-source licensing, they almost always have terms attached (look at the classic GNU gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html or BSD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses licenses).

That’s my $0.02

Joel

So what? The fact that something takes a long time to make does not make it valuable. Just because you work hard does not mean that you deserve to get paid.

Now I’m still waiting for a real response to my scarcity argument. Something cannot be property if it is not scarce. Since ideas are not scarce, how can they be property?

 

[Bearontherun]

This is why copyright is immoral. It creates scarcity where there is none, and so grants an immoral privilege to the first creator.

What is immoral about having rights to something that you have created…in essence stopping others from profitting unjustly from your original work and your ability to earn money?

The ability to create valuable, desirable, and useful things is indeed “scarce.”

If these skills are so prevalent, why don’t we all just create all our own games, music and programs? It is because others can do better. They deserve compensation for allowing us to use their creations.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

What is immoral about having rights to something that you have created…in essence stopping others from profitting unjustly from your original work and your ability to earn money?

The ability to create valuable, desirable, and useful things is indeed “scarce.”

If these skills are so prevalent, why don’t we all just create all our own games, music and programs? It is because others can do better. They deserve compensation for allowing us to use their creations.

They would get compensation. I’m just denying that these things are property. Again, for any practical concerns, see:

dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm