Pirated Software - when is it okay?

[stratobastard]

Are you serious or joking?

Half & half

[longcat]

holy **** this thread is exhausting.

[exnihilo]

seroius point for consideration:

I don't understand why you think once you "buy" intellectual property, you are entitled to it for all eternity. If it is considered intellectual "property" it is afforded the majority of the tangible rights that any object would have.

If you "lose" your car - you can't just go get one off of the lot.
If you "lose" a diamond you don't just go to the jewelry store and take one from under the glass.
If I leave the windows of my house open, I don't just go to the store and take a roll of carpet because of rain damage.
If I "drop" a guitar.....


Once you "purchase intillectual proprty, there is SOME form of media involved to transfer that to you. A book, a disc, a file, etc. YOU are responsible for that form of media. If it is lost, stolen, damaged, YOU don't own it anymore. Those things go together. It's why you can't LEGALLY copy an album to a tape for your car. The Album is one thing (vynil disc - physical) and intellectual (Boston's music). There is a cost to each pressing or copy of tape etc...You PAID for a vynil version. The tape is a different thing and it has different costs and benefits.

You can't buy a ticket for a 3rd economy seat on a a 767 and then go hop in the back seat of an F-18 (assuming a Wild Weasel version with back seat, etc...).

I find it very interesting that people are making this lifetime distinction exclusion to "intellectual property." The emphasis is property - not intellectual.

Wrong. In this case of intellectual property, as it pertains to software, the ownership lies with the "key". If we were to apply your irrelevant examples to this scenario, the property would be akin to your car keys, and the software "key" would be akin to your car. So, Phd, if you lose your car keys, is the vehicle no longer yours? No, you go to the dealership and get a new set.

cg

[uOpt]

seroius point for consideration:

I don't understand why you think once you "buy" intellectual property, you are entitled to it for all eternity. If it is considered intellectual "property" it is afforded the majority of the tangible rights that any object would have.

If you "lose" your car - you can't just go get one off of the lot.
If you "lose" a diamond you don't just go to the jewelry store and take one from under the glass.
If I leave the windows of my house open, I don't just go to the store and take a roll of carpet because of rain damage.
If I "drop" a guitar.....


Once you "purchase intillectual proprty, there is SOME form of media involved to transfer that to you. A book, a disc, a file, etc. YOU are responsible for that form of media. If it is lost, stolen, damaged, YOU don't own it anymore. Those things go together. It's why you can't LEGALLY copy an album to a tape for your car. The Album is one thing (vynil disc - physical) and intellectual (Boston's music). There is a cost to each pressing or copy of tape etc...You PAID for a vynil version. The tape is a different thing and it has different costs and benefits.

You can't buy a ticket for a 3rd economy seat on a a 767 and then go hop in the back seat of an F-18 (assuming a Wild Weasel version with back seat, etc...).

I find it very interesting that people are making this lifetime distinction exclusion to "intellectual property." The emphasis is property - not intellectual.

Intellectual property is made usable to you (in the legal sense) by granting you a license to do certain things with it (such as using software). The physical media have little to do with it. Except by ways of ripoff and charging people for a new license when the physical media is damaged or loss.

The music industry in particular has to answer the question why they first sold you a license to listen to a recording on vinyl, saying that much of the money is for the artist, and why you have to pay a license fee from scratch as if you never had one for the same recording when buying a CD. They now answered the question by removing the artists from the money flow, kinda.

If the intellectual property companies had it their way VCRs would always have been illegal to have. You wouldn't be able to sample your CDs to listen to them on a music player or your PCs, they would have you buy a band new license on each device. Running bittorrent would be impossible or illegal even for legal uses (yes there are those). Lucky for us they went so greedy that the law makers and law interpreters couldn't side with them anymore.

[stratobastard]

Wrong. In this case of intellectual property, as it pertains to software, the ownership lies with the "key". If we were to apply your irrelevant examples to this scenario, the property would be akin to your car keys, and the software "key" would be akin to your car. So, Phd, if you lose your car keys, is the vehicle no longer yours? No, you go to the dealership and get a new set.

cg

I asked this like 6 pages ago, isn't this what, product registries are for?
Kind of like your car registration being available at DMV if u lose it

[misterwhizzy]

Wrong. In this case of intellectual property, as it pertains to software, the ownership lies with the "key". If we were to apply your irrelevant examples to this scenario, the property would be akin to your car keys, and the software "key" would be akin to your car. So, Phd, if you lose your car keys, is the vehicle no longer yours? No, you go to the dealership and get a new set.

cg

Aren't the rights of the buyer outlined in the license agreement? With CD audio, you don't agree to a license, so it's different. But the user's rights are determined by the agreement, which may or may not include the ownership being tied to the key.

[exnihilo]

Aren't the rights of the buyer outlined in the license agreement? With CD audio, you don't agree to a license, so it's different. But the user's rights are determined by the agreement, which may or may not include the ownership being tied to the key.

You're correct. I was speaking (and I know with the emphatic, "wrong", this might sound trite) in regards to the spirit of the law; not so much the letter. I really don't know how much water the EULA would hold now, in respect to the media itself, with the recent court ruling - that you cannot [physically] steal code.

In the end, I was, more or less, speaking to the ridiculous analogies everyone are using. We just really love our philosophical fallacies.

cg

[Reload in 5]

I disagree. My own moral stance is actually more akin to 'moral perspectivism' rather than strictly moral relativism, although perspectivism is a form of relativism. Nietzsche pioneered the sort of thing i'm talking about, look it up.

In such a philosophy, it is perfectly reasonable to think that you're own view is correct; but also that it is no more than equal in it's validity to anyone else's own view, and to also judge and respond to incidents according to your own perspectivist morality without undermining the premise that the moral stance of the people p!ssing you off is no less valid than your own.

Such a view could only be seen a contradictory if you are unable to hypothetically consider morality to be relative in the first place.

So you are saying that those that show moral absolutes are right? Or at least as right as you? Because that means that you are wrong (if they are right and believe in absolutism)
Or are you saying that they are wrong? Because if you say they are wrong that means you are wrong (since your stance is that others beliefs are as valid as yours)
You see the issue? either way you are wrong.

Title says it all. Whether its plugins, vsts, or daws, its so easy to obtain software illegally.

Let's not assume that "you just shouldn't do it." People are going to do it.

What makes the most sense for when someone should make the purchase? After a try-before-you-buy period of 30 days? Once they make a profit using the software?

Morally, financially, practically, what is the best way to navigate these waters?

Share thoughts, and go!


EDIT: Please don't get mad at me, as a recording engineer I get asked this question about once a month and I just want some other views. I own my software legitimately. This discussion should have an element of fun in it, even if we grill each other about our answers

Stealing plugins, vsts or daws is wrong, regardless of the rest of the thread.
Regardless of your views of whether buying pirated excel in Indonesia is right or wrong, the question posted was about people in a first world country stealing products used for recording.

[GuitarStv]

seroius point for consideration:

I don't understand why you think once you "buy" intellectual property, you are entitled to it for all eternity. If it is considered intellectual "property" it is afforded the majority of the tangible rights that any object would have.

If you "lose" your car - you can't just go get one off of the lot.
If you "lose" a diamond you don't just go to the jewelry store and take one from under the glass.
If I leave the windows of my house open, I don't just go to the store and take a roll of carpet because of rain damage.
If I "drop" a guitar.....


Once you "purchase intillectual proprty, there is SOME form of media involved to transfer that to you. A book, a disc, a file, etc. YOU are responsible for that form of media. If it is lost, stolen, damaged, YOU don't own it anymore. Those things go together. It's why you can't LEGALLY copy an album to a tape for your car. The Album is one thing (vynil disc - physical) and intellectual (Boston's music). There is a cost to each pressing or copy of tape etc...You PAID for a vynil version. The tape is a different thing and it has different costs and benefits.

You can't buy a ticket for a 3rd economy seat on a a 767 and then go hop in the back seat of an F-18 (assuming a Wild Weasel version with back seat, etc...).

I find it very interesting that people are making this lifetime distinction exclusion to "intellectual property." The emphasis is property - not intellectual.

Let's say I buy a wooden chair. I take the wooden chair home, and use it for a while. I like the wooden chair. I then buy some wood, go into my garage, and build an identical replica wooden chair. Years go by and the original wooden chair wears out until it is unusable. According to your argument, it should be illegal to use my backup wooden chair . . . that would be stealing the wooden chair intellectual property (despite the fact that my building the wooden chair has nothing to do with the chair designer / original wood worker / etc.). This example is EXACTLY like making a backup copy of music that you already own with your own equipment.

Still with me? Now let's take it a step further. How many people in this forum have built guitars based on Leo Fender's design from scratch? Why is it that nobody is going into their threads and saying "You son of a *****! Infringing on Leo Fender's intellectual property!" Let's take it a step further. Seymour Duncan creates pickups to replicate the sounds of humbuckers from the 1950s. How come we're not saying "You utter company of *******s! Why are you stealing Seth Lover's intellectual property? Anyone who needs a '60's style humbucking pickup should just pay for a vintage Les Paul."

Just because it's easier to create an exact copy of something digitally doesn't mean it's any different than making an exact copy of something with common materials.

[Reload in 5]

There is no issue here, other than you not understanding what moral perspectivism is.

It refers to the morals themselves, and not any opinions about their scope or truth.

that's fine as long as you admit moral absolutism is every bit as legitimate and correct as your beliefs.

[uOpt]

Let's say I buy a wooden chair. I take the wooden chair home, and use it for a while. I like the wooden chair. I then buy some wood, go into my garage, and build an identical replica wooden chair. Years go by and the original wooden chair wears out until it is unusable. According to your argument, it should be illegal to use my backup wooden chair . . . that would be stealing the wooden chair intellectual property (despite the fact that my building the wooden chair has nothing to do with the chair designer / original wood worker / etc.). This example is EXACTLY like making a backup copy of music that you already own with your own equipment.

Still with me? Now let's take it a step further. How many people in this forum have built guitars based on Leo Fender's design from scratch? Why is it that nobody is going into their threads and saying "You son of a *****! Infringing on Leo Fender's intellectual property!" Let's take it a step further. Seymour Duncan creates pickups to replicate the sounds of humbuckers from the 1950s. How come we're not saying "You utter company of *******s! Why are you stealing Seth Lover's intellectual property? Anyone who needs a '60's style humbucking pickup should just pay for a vintage Les Paul."

Just because it's easier to create an exact copy of something digitally doesn't mean it's any different than making an exact copy of something with common materials.

That's because the chair has no patents anymore on it (and if it had they would be expired). Copyright doesn't apply.

You might get into a trademark discussion if you copy stylistic elements of the chair too closely (or if the chair is made by DiMarzio and you paint it all beige, you bloody product pirate you).

A piece of software is covered by a currently valid copyright claim. That's the difference.

[GuitarStv]

You might get into a trademark discussion if you copy stylistic elements of the chair too closely (or if the chair is made by DiMarzio and you paint it all beige, you bloody product pirate you).

This is exactly what I was proposing - an identical copy of the chair.

A piece of software is covered by a currently valid copyright claim. That's the difference.

OK, good. Then your argument is not one of morality, but one of legality. Morally, both actions above are identical . . . you're copying someone elses work and benefiting from it in a way that has no direct impact on the original author of the work.

[uOpt]

This is exactly what I was proposing - an identical copy of the chair.

That doesn't mean that there are trademarked aspects to the chair. A common American dining chair can certainly be copied atom for atom without hitting anything trademarkable (unless you hire DiMarzio's lawyers).

OK, good. Then your argument is not one of morality, but one of legality. Morally, both actions above are identical . . . you're copying someone elses work and benefiting from it in a way that has no direct impact on the original author of the work.

No not all. The guy who made the 2007 chair didn't invent the chair as a concept and has probably copied the specific design and color from somebody else. If you make chairs like him you will compete based on who has the more efficient marketing and manufacturing.

A small software company writing a game or an audio plugin has had one-time investments in making this product and will die if the money doesn't come back. Competing with them has to be done by doing your own one-time R&D investment.

[GuitarStv]

No not all. The guy who made the 2007 chair didn't invent the chair as a concept and has probably copied the specific design and color from somebody else. If you make chairs like him you will compete based on who has the more efficient marketing and manufacturing.

There's no discussion of competition or resale here. I'm making and using the chair for my own personal use, as a 'backup' of the first chair. Something that Aceman says is wrong.

A small software company writing a game or an audio plugin has had one-time investments in making this product and will die if the money doesn't come back. Competing with them has to be done by doing your own one-time R&D investment.

A small chair making carpentry business is dependent on selling chairs. If they don't sell enough of them, they'll die due to their investments in wood, store space, and advertising. Competing with them was done by doing my own investments . . . I need to invest in lathes, saws, sanding paper, and various other carpentry tools.

The point I'm trying to make is in response to Aceman's comment that it's somehow wrong to produce a copy of something you own. Nobody sees the carpentry example as being immoral, but many in this thread have indicated that the same thing related to software is.

[uOpt]

A small chair making carpentry business is dependent on selling chairs. If they don't sell enough of them, they'll die due to their investments in wood, store space, and advertising. Competing with them was done by doing my own investments . . . I need to invest in lathes, saws, sanding paper, and various other carpentry tools.

Chair guy has neither moral nor legal rights to keep people from competing with him by making identical products.

Software guy does. From a copyright perspective you are allowed to make an identically behaving software, but you aren't allowed to actually copy his source code or binaries.

The point I'm trying to make is in response to Aceman's comment that it's somehow wrong to produce a copy of something you own. Nobody sees the carpentry example as being immoral, but many in this thread have indicated that the same thing related to software is.

Well making an identical copy of software for your own use is neither illegal or morally wrong. Why do we discuss this?

[GuitarStv]

Well making an identical copy of software for your own use is neither illegal or morally wrong. Why do we discuss this?

You seem to have missed the post that I was referring to:

seroius point for consideration:

I don't understand why you think once you "buy" intellectual property, you are entitled to it for all eternity. If it is considered intellectual "property" it is afforded the majority of the tangible rights that any object would have.

If you "lose" your car - you can't just go get one off of the lot.
If you "lose" a diamond you don't just go to the jewelry store and take one from under the glass.
If I leave the windows of my house open, I don't just go to the store and take a roll of carpet because of rain damage.
If I "drop" a guitar.....


Once you "purchase intillectual proprty, there is SOME form of media involved to transfer that to you. A book, a disc, a file, etc. YOU are responsible for that form of media. If it is lost, stolen, damaged, YOU don't own it anymore. Those things go together. It's why you can't LEGALLY copy an album to a tape for your car. The Album is one thing (vynil disc - physical) and intellectual (Boston's music). There is a cost to each pressing or copy of tape etc...You PAID for a vynil version. The tape is a different thing and it has different costs and benefits.

You can't buy a ticket for a 3rd economy seat on a a 767 and then go hop in the back seat of an F-18 (assuming a Wild Weasel version with back seat, etc...).

I find it very interesting that people are making this lifetime distinction exclusion to "intellectual property." The emphasis is property - not intellectual.

. . . hence my comments.

[uOpt]

Well, Aceman is incorrect so there

[GuitarStv]

Well, Aceman is incorrect so there

Finally, something everyone can agree upon! *Hi-5*

[stratobastard]

Well, Aceman is incorrect so there

The most absolute, sig worthy post, ever

[Reload in 5]

In such a philosophy, it is perfectly reasonable to think that you're own view is correct; but also that it is no more than equal in it's validity to anyone else's own view, and to also judge and respond to incidents according to your own perspectivist morality without undermining the premise that the moral stance of the people p!ssing you off is no less valid than your own.

Such a view could only be seen a contradictory if you are unable to hypothetically consider morality to be relative in the first place.

... not sure if serious.

I think you should go and do a bit of reading on this topic mate.

I am serious and I have studied this topic. You said that your view has no more validity than anyone else, thus moral absolutism (a view) is as valid as your point of view. According to this, both are correct (or at least as correct as each other) which is not possible.
if absolutism is correct, then by definition relativism cannot be, as absolutism says that relitivism is incorrect.
If absolutism is incorrect, then by your beliefs you are also incorrect (as your beliefs are no more valid then absolutism)
the only way relativism works is if you ignore this.

furthermore you stated that you judge and respond to incidents without undermining the premise that the moral stance of the people pissing you off is no less valid than your own. Yet your statements and actions in this thread do just that, as you imply that those claiming moral absolutism are incorrect.