Pirated Software - when is it okay?

[AlexR]

Think about it this way. If you lost favorite Telecaster would you expect Fender to give you a new one?

I hope you don't think thats in any way a relevant example.

I would say its like you losing the key to the case, or the key to your car and the company refusing to sell/cut you a replacement if they were the only ones who could do it.
You'd get someone else to do it or replace the entire lock for sure.

[Jessie's ghost]

Clueless people are clueless.

[sosomething]

Shut up, food.

I've only made it this far into this thread, but this is my favorite Seymour Duncan forum post ever in the history of the world and I'm sigging this ****.

[sosomething]

OK, I've read the whole thing now.

Some of you guys are hilarious.

I won't reiterate the things other people have said here because if you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it just because I said it. But I submit this:

If you've ever downloaded music or software illegally, you might have the benefit of claiming you are ignorant.

If you've ever actually put the work into developing software or, for chrissakes, recording a real goddamn album, and you still download music or software illegally, you are a bastard.

Steal if you're going to steal - I can't stop you - but stop trying to rationalize the act and just admit that you are committing an act of thievery. The whole "The company wasn't going to make the money from me anyway" argument is utter bullsh1t and if you actually believe that, you are probably too stupid to contribute beneficially to this discussion. There is something to be said for deserving to have something because you paid for it, and not deserving to have it because you didn't. If you would never pay for one of my records, but you download it illegally, you might not be taking money out of my wallet, but you ARE stealing. The people who paid for the record deserve to have it because I worked my ASS OFF to make it, and they gave me MONEY in exchange for being able to enjoy it. You didn't. That record represents my time, money, blood, sweat, and ****ing grey hair so keep your selfish, thoughtless little hands off of it. You didn't earn it.

[formula73]

Hell, a lot of you guys justify murder in various ways... defence of property, self defence, they deserved it, etc...

Are you ****ing serious????? That's such a ridiculous comparison that I can't even wrap my goddamned head around it. Aside from that, I have nothing to add that hasn't been said, already. If they can't get it through your thick skull, I sure as hell can't.

OK, I've read the whole thing now.

Some of you guys are hilarious.

I won't reiterate the things other people have said here because if you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it just because I said it. But I submit this:

If you've ever downloaded music or software illegally, you might have the benefit of claiming you are ignorant.

If you've ever actually put the work into developing software or, for chrissakes, recording a real goddamn album, and you still download music or software illegally, you are a bastard.

Steal if you're going to steal - I can't stop you - but stop trying to rationalize the act and just admit that you are committing an act of thievery. The whole "The company wasn't going to make the money from me anyway" argument is utter bullsh1t and if you actually believe that, you are probably too stupid to contribute beneficially to this discussion. There is something to be said for deserving to have something because you paid for it, and not deserving to have it because you didn't. If you would never pay for one of my records, but you download it illegally, you might not be taking money out of my wallet, but you ARE stealing. The people who paid for the record deserve to have it because I worked my ASS OFF to make it, and they gave me MONEY in exchange for being able to enjoy it. You didn't. That record represents my time, money, blood, sweat, and ****ing grey hair so keep your selfish, thoughtless little hands off of it. You didn't earn it.

Best post of the thread, right here.

[JollyRoger523]

Here, you have used the fact that a group is not 'going to get any money from me' as a justification for taking for free something that cost them money to create. The moral implications are not much because what you are stealing wasn't for sale anyway, but nonetheless it perfectly sums up my stance.

I'll be the first then to declare that i've stolen lots of intellectual property. I've stolen music and software.

I first started stealing music as a kid, lending people's tapes and making copies of my own... i was from a poor family and couldn't afford to buy my own tapes, i even used to scrounge the blank ones from friends... so this was my only way of listenning to music. Then when my parents got a PC when i was about 15, i started using Napster... again, because i could not afford to buy music of my own. At this time i also used to borrow CD's from the public library and use my CD re-writer to make copies... no different than making a mix-tape right? When i became a little older and pieced together my own PC, i borrowed a cracked copy of windows from a friend, again because i couldn't afford a genuine copy.

Now as an adult, i still steal stuff but somewhat less. It's still a money issue. Sure, i have money, but i don't have enough to be plowing into art and music and frankly i have better things to spend my money on (paying off student debt, general bills, helping out my parents with money, etc). Some would say i should just do without then, or if i really wanted it i'd 'find the money from somewhere'... but no thanks.

A recent example is some Rosetta Stone software i downloaded to learn spanish. The set is £320, and honestly i just don't have the spare cash for that in the same way we're not all playing Suhr's or Gibson Historics. Rosetta Stone Inc "weren't going to get any money from me anyhow". If they sold the package for £50, i'd have bought it, but it's not within my price range.

So what are the costs/benefits of me doing this? Well, the costs... i only moderately wanted to learn spanish and in fact it's on hiatus due to other commitments, so even if i could have pulled the money out of thin air, i doubt i would have wanted it enough to make the purchase. But let's just say i would have, then the cost thus far is that Rosetta Stone (a company worth $225.4m) have lost one customer. And the benefits? Well, i have found the software so brilliant that when i am in a better financial position i WILL buy it, and not only that but when i get 'round to learning Arabic i'll buy that version legit from the start. Furthermore, i have sung the praises of the brand to anyone who will listen and perhaps this has resulted in more customers for them and a better reputation. Given everything, i think the company has GAINED from me stealing their stuff.

I have also stolen a lot of music. Some stuff, like the Cinematic Orchestra and Mogwai i've been listenning to... i download it so that i can give it a try (very little difference from listenning to it on a non official youtube channel if you ask me) and if/when i like it then i will buy it. I'll support smaller bands like these guys, and i'll buy their stuff if it's good. I don't like to spend a lot of money on music because it doesn't make good financial sense to me but i'll do what i can. But The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Pfft, i'm not too fussed on their music anyway and certainly not enough to spend money on it... and i'm hardly depriving them of food and water. Again, i think there's a lot to be said for the expossure and advertising that comes with people listenning to your music for free... that's what radio used to be about... and there are certainly a couple of young Rolling Stones fans out there who are my doing.

Overall, i only steal stuff that i just won't spend the money for... and since it's just intellectual property, the owner has not expended any additional cost by me making a copy. These companies are not losing money because i wouldn't have bought it anyway, and if anything they gain a lot by the referrals and praise. Finally, i buy stuff then when i can afford it and justify the cost. I've bought my operating system, my anti-virus, all the music i own by smaller artists, i own a lot of dvds (could never find a reliable source to download from, hahaha!), i go to concerts when i can, etc.

Also, my morals are quite different to most people's here i think. I laugh at people who look down on my for downloading music, it's a very minor crime.

Hmmm let's paraphrase and change a few things here:

I really want this high priced classy prostitute but can't afford her. So I decided I'll just sexually assault her. It's not like she is out any money cause I was never gonna pay for that p---y anyways. Sure if she were a two dollar wh-re I'd pay her. Maybe one day I'll be rich and actually pay her what she is worth. Actually I've told all my friends how great she was and they are now saving their money to spend a night with her. So you see she has actually GAINED by me sexually assaulting her. I laugh at people who look down on me for sexually assaulting women. Yes it's a crime. No it's not immoral.

Hmmm, doesn't sound so funny does it.

By no way am I trying to put theft on the same level as sexual assault. I'm just pointing out how f'n stupid your logic sounds by trying to justify your actions.

[GuitarStv]

http://gizmodo.com/5901263/court-rul...-computer-code

"downloading computer code doesn't constitute stealing under the National Stolen Property Act." according to US courts.

[aleclee]

It's okay if you're going to use it to beat your spouse, kids, or pets.

On a more serious note, a lot of the "pirating" thrown out in this thread is more likely fair use. You're entitled to a backup copy and, practically speaking, a backup is pointless if it can't be restored.

As for the rest, if you don't want to pay for software, use open source stuff. How can you justify pirating Photoshop when GIMP is free? ProTools is pricey but Audacity (and a bunch of other DAW software) is available at not cost. The rest of it is just rationalization, IMO.

[ImmortalSix]

It is always okay. If not for pirated software, millions of poor people in the world wouldn't be able to create, produce, work, etc., etc. because they can't afford genuine Microsoft, genuine Cakewalk, genuine Cubase. A talented but broke guitarist for example, wouldn't be able to get his music out to the world without using pirated ProTools or Sonar. He can't possibly afford a genuine copy or rent a recording studio because he is too ****ing poor.

It is not just about black and white you know. There tons of other factors. You can't throw a poor mother for stealing food for her starving children because stealing is wrong.

Huge ideological difference between us here.

If you want things, work for them.

It's beautiful, really - if you want something, and you need money to get it, work hard to earn that money. Then, not only will you be able to have the thing, but you also will have experienced personal growth by working hard, and also by working hard and associating working hard with getting what you want. Which is the way the universe works. Literally.

If you need food for your kids, and you don't currently have enough money to do so (pretty implausible, a 5 pound sack of rice and a 5 pound sack of beans could feed a lot of kids for a long time, and cost basically nothing), you need to find a way to get that food, which is usually to have money to buy it.

I'm guessing that the mom who steals food or the guitarist who steals ProTools made choices to spend what they had on other things. Which means they either need to go without the thing they want now, or they need to have made different choices that would enable them to afford what they want now.

If everybody goes out and takes what they want with no differential - no sacrifice they have to make to get that thing, then what is the incentive for anyone to work hard?

If she wants to feed her kids, she just takes the food. If I want to feed my kids I wake up early and go get after it. I would argue that my way is better.

Listen to this: HEAPS AND HEAPS OF NSFW LANGUAGE:
http://soundcloud.com/hunterjsmith/adam-carolla-on-occupy-wall

That's my whole thing.

[GuitarStv]

Yep. Try going up to your car dealer and telling them you lost your car so they should give you another one.

If you lose your product key to windows but have the install disk, you still can't ever install it again. To use your car analogy . . . it's like losing your car keys and going to the dealership and having them tell you that you need to buy a new car. Ridiculous. Nobody would stand for that if a dealer told them that, why should we accept it because software companies are telling us that?

On a more serious note, a lot of the "pirating" thrown out in this thread is more likely fair use. You're entitled to a backup copy and, practically speaking, a backup is pointless if it can't be restored.

As for the rest, if you don't want to pay for software, use open source stuff. How can you justify pirating Photoshop when GIMP is free? ProTools is pricey but Audacity (and a bunch of other DAW software) is available at not cost. The rest of it is just rationalization, IMO.

People tend to throw around the term 'fair use' without actually knowing what it means. Legally (in the US) fair use means that you can use something under fair use law for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research".

Backing up your software is not fair use. Downloading or buying pirated software that you already own as a backup is illegal (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html). Duplicating software that you've purchased yourself is perfectly OK though. My issue with this is that a lot of software (windows 7 for example) is not always possible to create a backup CD of it. . . misplacing/losing the product code also renders the software unusable. If it's not possible to create a reliable backup of software, then pirating something is your only alternative to use the product you've already purchased.

[sosomething]

I'm guessing that the mom who steals food or the guitarist who steals ProTools made choices to spend what they had on other things. Which means they either need to go without the thing they want now, or they need to have made different choices that would enable them to afford what they want now.

I hear what you're saying, but I would be hesitant to tread into this territory because the risk of reductionist reasoning is very high.

Some of those moms stealing food were born HIV positive, with developmental delays, a drug addiction, isolated from a functional education or even basic literacy and raped into puberty... People for whom those better choices literally are not present on any vector without direct philanthropic intervention. And this isn't even an example of the rare exception to the rule; there are people living in this situation within a radius of a mile for half the folks reading this post right now.

...and that is to say nothing of people living in war-torn places like Central Africa with zero access to an infrastructure to provide basic necessities or services, and "job skills" involve things like "hiding my children from the militia" and "learning to spot land mines before my crutch hits them."

Generalizations and schemas are valuable cognitive tools humans use to comprehend and align big ideas to big things, but the trade-off is that we sacrifice the ability to apply absolutes in good faith.

I just felt it needed stated. That's why I limited my comments to matters of intellectual property.

Understand that I automatically append the words "within reason" and "except in cases of starving children in Africa" to your posts.

[ImmortalSix]

Understood.

It is important to note that most of my post was directed towards saying that, in short:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

If something's coming to you, it's coming from somewhere.

[verbotenco]

Understood.

It is important to note that most of my post was directed towards saying that, in short:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

If something's coming to you, it's coming from somewhere.

You are too much man. You take all these forum conversations too seriously. Your thinking is deeply in depth.

[GoldenVulture]

That's the first time I've seen the first law of thermodynamics used to explain pirating.

[sosomething]

You are too much man. You take all these forum conversations too seriously. Your thinking is deeply in depth.

From reading your posts, it would do you some good to do a little more thinking deeply in depth.

[ImmortalSix]

That's the first time I've seen the first law of thermodynamics used to explain pirating.

To be serious for a moment - my personal style of communicating is heavily steeped in metaphor, analogy, and simile because I find it to be an extraordinarily effective method of helping people connect the dots.

I can go on all day about the particular details of something, or instead I can drop a familiar concept and have the reader infer its application to the present topic - and the logical underpinning already exists, I don't have to explain it.

[stratobastard]

There'es no copyright on energy

[formula73]

There'es no copyright on energy

That's only because it grows on trees. Everything should belong to everybody. There should be no copyrights. If everybody got paid equally, regardless of effort or end results, there'd be no reason for anybody to be upset about property.

[GuitarStv]

From reading your posts, it would do you some good to do a little more thinking deeply in depth.

[stratobastard]

That's only because it grows on trees. Everything should belong to everybody. There should be no copyrights. If everybody got paid equally, regardless of effort or end results, there'd be no reason for anybody to be upset about property.

Lol... actually, it's in the air & sunshine; I get 99.9% of my power from solar panels & wind generator