Software Piracy

[Halt]

Well, could be they just don't want to waste there money on something they know they can get free easily.

Like myself. I KNEW I could get FL8 Producers Edition free. But I shelled out $180 for it.

And I love it, knowing that I bought it.

[monkofevil]

I know that piracy of software is a crime, and wrong morally. I will admit that it's pretty easy to just use open source programs such as reaper, vlc, etc... I still pirate the occasional CD or artist, far fewer movies, (but I DO copy netflix disks), and the major pieces of software. This is a matter of conveniece, I am under no illusion that this is right, or justified, and anyone who does is completely deluded, or simply wanting an excuse to feel good about what they are doing.

In the end, there is no "right" to pirating something. If you are comfortable stealing, (be it digital or otherwise) I am in no way obliged to stop you. Considering how little it actually effects the company in question, I would say that piracy is not AS bad as stealing. But that doesn't make it right. As I said, it's a matter of comfortable convenience. I know what my final reckoning will be, and I know that eventually I'll get the money and begin to repay artists and companies for their hard work, that is one of the more gratifying feelings in the world.

[OverCoat]

I think used sales are just the price developers pay for gamers being cheapskates.

Of course we're cheapskates. A new game is $40-60! That adds up, dude. Plus we won't even know if we like it unless we rented it, which is another $5 right there.

Anyway, Dhsu, you underestimate a consumer's hunt for a bargain. I dunno how many times a day I have to put up with people going YOU HAVE SALE TODAY? WHEN SENIOR DISCOUN? YOU HAVE DISCOUN FOR ITEM? TOO ESPENSIVE!

UGH

I think some people in here re: used games have gaming set to a higher standard or something, but seriously, it's a product just like anything else, consumers have the RIGHT to buy, resell, and trade the item they bought and now own.

[zircon]

if I steal an apple I don't think I am infringing on the copyright for apple trees

You're also not stealing the apple tree's identity. I didn't say they were equal. I said it's just appropriate shorthand. Again, "identity theft" has nothing to do with theft. It's not theft at all. But it's a faster way of saying what we want to say and it's easier to understand in casual conversation.

[Palpable]

Also, how would renting help the developer more? If I rent, the money goes to Blockbuster, not to the developer. Blockbuster has paid for the game once, just as someone has paid for the game once in order for it to end up on the used shelf at EB Games. The developer doesn't see a cent of the rental money.

This isn't true for all rental agreements any more. I'm pretty sure that now Blockbuster actually pays part of the rental fee to the copyright holder in exchange for a much much lower initial cost to purchase the movie. This makes sense because I think they were probably losing money purchasing lots of movies up front to meet high demand, then get stuck with a bunch of overpriced discs as demand goes down.

But whatever. I don't see the market for physical media lasting that much longer, which means that a used market probably won't exist either.

[monkofevil]

But whatever. I don't see the market for physical media lasting that much longer, which means that a used market probably won't exist either.

Consoles will have physical media for a long while yet. It's far too easy to make patches for purely digital copies of games, I mean, look at steam and steambuster.

This of course, doesn't take into account that new consoles can be modded to run burned copies of disks, without the use of modchips or the like, (eg. Xbox 360) which is a console companies biggest fear.

[anosou]

You're also not stealing the apple tree's identity. I didn't say they were equal. I said it's just appropriate shorthand. Again, "identity theft" has nothing to do with theft. It's not theft at all. But it's a faster way of saying what we want to say and it's easier to understand in casual conversation.

Sure but it kinda twists the truth somewhat. In my opinion theft is worse than copyright infringement since theft DIRECTLY AFFECTS the victim. I'm not saying it doesn't affect an artist when someone copies their song, I'm just saying it's very hard to 1) prove the direct connection, 2) compare to the loss of a physical object and 3) take people to court.

Calling it 'stealing' is making it a bit too simple and it hurts the debate, especially since you need to be very exact when it comes to legal consequences AND technology since the legal system hasn't yet adapted to all the new technology (see lawsuits against VCRs and revolts against public libraries ;P).

[SpanishFly]

Yeah, I agree that piracy and theft are different. But the definition of what "theft" is or what "piracy" is are going to change from person to person so you're probably never going to find a universally agreed definition. For example, some people think that say...downloading the latest episode of House would be piracy, and there are many more who insist it's far from it since it's not something that's released like a movie dvd or a video game.

Edit: As mentioned just above though, some people also think you shouldn't be allowed to like tape a show or something. Though...I might be interpreting what the above poster meant wrong.

[Narroo]

But what if there is no possible monetary loss when pirating a piece of software? Like an out of date version of Multimedia Flash "X"?

If it can be bought, and paid for in a way that helps the makers, then pirating is wrong. but, what if its something like an old game which hasn't been made for 10 years? IF you can find it, buying second hand doesn't help the company who made it, if they even still exist. They would never know the difference, so does it matter?

Then there is the PSP, which proves pirating is bad, since a lot of money has been lost from it to pirating. Shesh.

[SpanishFly]

Well, yeah, I've heard about that. But apparently the 360 can be just as bad, though I get your point. Say though...you wanted to see a made for TV movie from 10 years ago that was never going to be released and your only way to see it was via downloading/piracy. Is that really wrong?

[zircon]

Sure but it kinda twists the truth somewhat. In my opinion theft is worse than copyright infringement since theft DIRECTLY AFFECTS the victim. I'm not saying it doesn't affect an artist when someone copies their song, I'm just saying it's very hard to 1) prove the direct connection, 2) compare to the loss of a physical object and 3) take people to court.

Calling it 'stealing' is making it a bit too simple and it hurts the debate, especially since you need to be very exact when it comes to legal consequences AND technology since the legal system hasn't yet adapted to all the new technology (see lawsuits against VCRs and revolts against public libraries ;P).

It doesn't hurt the debate since we're talking about casual conversation and usage here. Legally speaking, obviously it's "copyright infringement". I'm just pointing out that we ALREADY use the word "stealing" (which is synonymous with "theft") to describe what happens when you use someone's identity without their permission. That is a well-accepted standard and in fact I think even the legal term for that IS identity theft. So, the word is already diluted.

What I think hurts the debate is the silly semantics game of "is it REALLY stealing or not"? The answer is very clear. No, it isn't, legally, "stealing" because theft has a very specific definition. Piracy is, very simply, copyright infringement and nothing more. So, let's move past the "is it stealing" debate because there shouldn't BE a debate about that topic. The use of the word "stealing" to describe it is just easier in terms of writing it, and it more succinctly summarizes what the act is, whereas copyright infringement is a more vague phrase to the average person.

[Nase]

Talking about music software, a major reason for me to go legal was entirely selfish:

You can have absolutely everything, and it requires zero effort.

I found that very bothersome. You can get this DVD from a friend that has gazillions of high end synths and fx on it, and the value you see in it tends to diminish. It's this mess of a million tools you can't ever learn to use properly.

Maybe it's just a symptom of the capitalist mindset, but whenever I bought a tool after a year of using my established tools, I knew I had wanted it for a long time and had the motivation to dig into it.

I still do pirate things like Photoshop and Flash, because while I'd never buy them for my own use, I need them for uni projects here and there.

Student's licenses for those apps are still too expensive for me to consider buying them for some stuff that I'm required to do occasionally.

I guess my morals regarding piracy aren't based on strict law that much, but rather on how much I get out of a particular program, and how much i can empathize with its creator.

I do happen to think that a positive effect of piracy is that it enables some piss poor individuals (note: not me) to unleash their potential. Face it, open source stuff isn't there yet in every department.

Still, of course I also pay for products I use a great deal because I want the brilliant mind(s) behind it to get something in return, and find it pretty sad that a lot of people don't understand that mindset and think everything's just up for grabs.

A lot of my friends call me stupid for buying my music software

[anosou]

It doesn't hurt the debate since we're talking about casual conversation and usage here. Legally speaking, obviously it's "copyright infringement". I'm just pointing out that we ALREADY use the word "stealing" (which is synonymous with "theft") to describe what happens when you use someone's identity without their permission. That is a well-accepted standard and in fact I think even the legal term for that IS identity theft. So, the word is already diluted.

What I think hurts the debate is the silly semantics game of "is it REALLY stealing or not"? The answer is very clear. No, it isn't, legally, "stealing" because theft has a very specific definition. Piracy is, very simply, copyright infringement and nothing more. So, let's move past the "is it stealing" debate because there shouldn't BE a debate about that topic. The use of the word "stealing" to describe it is just easier in terms of writing it, and it more succinctly summarizes what the act is, whereas copyright infringement is a more vague phrase to the average person.

Agree'd. The point is that I said it wasn't stealing per say as an edit just as an addition to the discussion. Nothing wrong with that imo. BGC questioned it and thus it became MORE of a discussion since he didn't agree with me. There shouldn't be one but there is one because apparently not everyone agree's on the definition. It's not a silly semantics game if the answer isn't very clear to everyone, which it obviously wasn't ;P

Man, we really argue a lot Andy Truce?

[monkofevil]

I still do pirate things like Photoshop and Flash, because while I'd never buy them for my own use, I need them for uni projects here and there.

Student's licenses for those apps are still too expensive for me to consider buying them for some stuff that I'm required to do occasionally.

Tell it like it is.

[Toadofsky]

Tell it like it is.

Choir get's up whilst obligatory organ keyboard music playing, "SING IT BROTHA! OH DON'T STOP THE TRUTH! HALLELUJAH!"

I'm such a pig.

[Nase]

Tell it like it is.

Yup, I am. Studying illustration requires you to work with those apps in some courses, and the teachers basically acknowledge that you need to have the programs to continue working at home. Their usual advice to freshmen is to ask someone in a higher semester for the program. One of them even had the animation program he was teaching with on his USB stick for anyone in need of it.

Before you go on attacking the credibility of my school, remember that you don't need incredible sums of money or a scholarship to study around here. So if the school actively pursued the distribution of pirated software, a lot of courses simply couldn't be held because there'd be no money for official licenses for the students. The Uni has their own, but those stay on the computers there.

[Megaman1985]

i would never pay for old software(nes, snes, sega) again, emulators have made it so dang easy for me to have every game.

[Flare4War]

Bill Gates publicly acknowledged that pervasive pirating helped make Windows as ubiquitous as it is, so there's actually potential benefit to software manufacturers themselves, but I'm also talking about the intrinsic value of what people DO with said software. Pirating games, yeah sure, you're not really "giving back" by playing games... but if a poor genius Brazilian student pirates 3D Studio Max, After Effects, and Photoshop, puts together the best animated short film the world has ever seen, and gives that away for free, there's a little karmic compensation going on. It's a subtle point - these are subtle arguments - but I think some people draw a line when it comes to creative software (Adobe, MAX, audio stuff) as to whether you're using it to make money, or whether you're giving the music/movies/whatever you make with it away for free.

That's probably a "slippery slope" argument, as they say, but it's certainly one that further muddies already dirty waters. Draconian DRM, companies violating the GPL and reselling other people's hard work, etc. are all other topics that should come into play.

I think of myself as a good consumer who's poured tens of thousands into music, movies, software, and games, but I also don't come down really strongly on either side of this argument... I think an idealist/anarchist "pirate everything" attitude is juvenile and ridiculous, but also feel like the 21st century has irreversibly changed the nature and dissemination of intellectual property, and the corporate world needs to adapt.

This is so bingo. What people are doing with the software etc. after they download really ought to be taken into consideration. I don't know how I would change it or how it will change eventually but the corporate world is going to have to adapt. It especially seems this way since as this thread proves most people don't see anything wrong with it or at the least justify it part of the time.

[SLyGeN]

@ Slygen

That wasn't entirely directed at you, I'm not making accusations or taking anything personally. It's all for the sake of the discusssion

A couple things though, Omnisphere isn't a game, it's a ~$500 synth instrument. (If you already knew that, my bad, I just gathered from your post that you assumed it was a game).

Also, the reason I was mincing theft and piracy in that instance is because whether or not the copy was physically shoplifted or pirated still pisses me off, because I paid money for my right to use the program and the people on the other side of this fence did not, thus I compared it to someone cutting in line when they have no right, and I've paid my dues.

Again, I personally don't care about trying before you buy, and if Cubase doens't have a demo version, then it's their own fault if people pirate their software for (genuinely) evaluational purposes. Once you've evaluated it fairly though, I think it shows good form () to either buy it or delete it. Which it seems you did, so rock on.

Oh, I took no offense or other personal issue with that post. And you're right, I assumed that Omnisphere was a game. Thanks for setting me straight.

Mincing words, likewise, was not directed at you specifically. I see that others are now also getting fed up with the general habit of arguing over definitions.

[SoulinEther]

Argh. Argh argh argh. This hurts me. Seriously, ow.

I JUST LOST MY FUCKING POST... TWICE.

Therefore, I concede to Native Jovian; it's not worth my time to continue this debate. To summarize, I basically said there's alternative means to making money as an artist/producer (being paid for the service of your work rather than the product) by, basically, filling a demand rather than creating a supply. (but do not feel at all obliged to carry on the argument, because to me, you've won.)

Sunshine and lollipops. This time, I copied this text before i hit "submit".

And it paid off, because I had to do post again.

[zircon]

Yup, I am. Studying illustration requires you to work with those apps in some courses, and the teachers basically acknowledge that you need to have the programs to continue working at home. Their usual advice to freshmen is to ask someone in a higher semester for the program. One of them even had the animation program he was teaching with on his USB stick for anyone in need of it.

Before you go on attacking the credibility of my school, remember that you don't need incredible sums of money or a scholarship to study around here. So if the school actively pursued the distribution of pirated software, a lot of courses simply couldn't be held because there'd be no money for official licenses for the students. The Uni has their own, but those stay on the computers there.

Hmm, not sure I buy this. Your school doesn't have media labs that you can work in? You can't use free software, ie. GIMP? Drexel, for example, has 24/7 media labs. All students in the appropriate programs get access, thus there's no excuse to pirate anything.

[FlagshipAmadeus]

Hmm, not sure I buy this. Your school doesn't have media labs that you can work in? You can't use free software, ie. GIMP? Drexel, for example, has 24/7 media labs. All students in the appropriate programs get access, thus there's no excuse to pirate anything.

I find that usually (but not always!) free alternatives are not even close to as powerful of programs, or don't use the format that the class program uses. Also, if you already have a student right or whatever to be using the program, what difference does it really make between in the lab or at home??

Anyways, I just now ordered a CD that I would never have even known existed had I not downloaded three of the songs from it first... whoa I guess that piracy did some good after all

[The Coop]

Hmm, not sure I buy this. Your school doesn't have media labs that you can work in? You can't use free software, ie. GIMP? Drexel, for example, has 24/7 media labs. All students in the appropriate programs get access, thus there's no excuse to pirate anything.

Not everyone lives on, or near, campus. As such, driving out day after day can eat up a lot of gas, money, and time. So, you wind up with people downloading a trial version, and then using a program like runasdate to make the trial version last longer than 30 days (assuming they just don't download a cracked version outright).

[prophetik music]

Yup, I am. Studying illustration requires you to work with those apps in some courses, and the teachers basically acknowledge that you need to have the programs to continue working at home. Their usual advice to freshmen is to ask someone in a higher semester for the program. One of them even had the animation program he was teaching with on his USB stick for anyone in need of it.

Before you go on attacking the credibility of my school, remember that you don't need incredible sums of money or a scholarship to study around here. So if the school actively pursued the distribution of pirated software, a lot of courses simply couldn't be held because there'd be no money for official licenses for the students. The Uni has their own, but those stay on the computers there.

i agree with this. we were basically required to have finale or sibelius during undergrad, but as musicians who have to buy upwards of six hundred dollars a semester in music (not to mention at least that much in books) when most of us don't have jobs, it's really tough to save up the cash for a program like that. and houghton didn't supply any sort of discount through a tech program of any kind.

[Nase]

Hmm, not sure I buy this. Your school doesn't have media labs that you can work in? You can't use free software, ie. GIMP? Drexel, for example, has 24/7 media labs. All students in the appropriate programs get access, thus there's no excuse to pirate anything.

The computer labs close at 8 PM, like the rest of the school. If everyone not owning legal copies of the programs he needs only used the computers at school to get his stuff done, the place would be helplessly overcrowded all the time. Not enough capacity.

Please reread the second paragraph of my post and think about whether your situation might be different

GIMP? C'mon. It's not a bad app, but not in a league with Photoshop. Besides, what about all the 1st semester courses that teach doing projects in Photoshop and just that? It's an industry standard, and I'm pretty sure most people in my school who're doing some serious work with it are gonna buy it as soon as the jobs start rolling in.

This is a general point regarding professional tools I think: The more serious the tool, the more users feel they owe it to themselves to buy it once they're getting serious with it.