Why I don't like piracy: a software developer's thoughts.

[Sayvara]

Because you give permission to that software not because you think someone deserves it or not because you like that person or even because you think the world needs it--you give access to anyone who will pay.

Assuming a software developer has no pride in what they do; has no sense of public good; and is only in it for the cash is an unfounded opinion at best...

Good thing it's not the opinion I expressed, but only a slanted caricature of it.

Read what you wrote again. You excluded the possibility that I might be doing it both because of the public good and because I want to make a profit in the process.

No, I excluded the possibility that you might "give access" or "give permission" to individual persons for any other reason than profit. You're the one who put words in my mouth when you started talking about 'why you were doing it'. Check my post--I said nothing about your *motives* for creating the property, only the terms on which you give others access to that property.

And if you don't want me to polarize your arguments, perhaps you should be a bit clearer in your way of expressing yourself.

I think I'm perfectly clear--it's just that I don't think you're either intelligent enough to discuss a topic of this complexity, or you are incapable of doing so because your zeal for your position prevents you from seeing what the other side is saying. It's perfectly clear that I'm not talking about motive when I use phrases like "give permission" or "give access." You just either chose or was not able to distinguish the difference between using words like "permission" and "access" and using words like "motive" or "intention".

If I'm unclear to you, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. You're just not capable of doing so in a productive fashion. That is why people are starting to call you a troll.

Trying to insult people's intelligence while at the same time accusing them of trolling... the irony.

And looking back at one of my latest projects I was involved in, which involved taking part in the development and launch one of the first major DRM free music & software stores, I say your statement is flawed.

And do you actually *own* that software? Or did you just *work* on that software?

Me, my colleagues and our client all were in stark agreement that DRM-free was the way to go. Originally the music labels demanded DRM for some of the sales. Our client worked very hard to be rid of the requirement, both because it gives a competitive edge (until everyone else do the same), but also, explicitly, because this was very valuable to enhance the user experience, which was the guiding principle during the work. And eventually the client succeeded. When we got the call, we all cheered. Not only did it mean slashing out a major chunk of work, but it also reflected exactly the kind of software we wanted to make, and how we wanted the end-users to be able to enjoy their purchases.

So while I personally did not own the code, the spirit and the sentiment both among us that did the actual work of creating the software, and those that own it, is that DRM-free and a good user experience were essential.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

So where do you get off talking about the Principle of Mine and Yours?

That's just a silly attempt to use semantics to try to avoid the subject at hand: is piracy disrespectful of owner rights or not? Whether I personally am the owner or not of software that I used as an example has no bearing on the subject at all.

I'm getting kind of tried of you trying to nitpick your way through a discussion you don't even seem to have a position in. You're constantly attacking my arguments but presenting little of a stance yourself. Do you have an alternate position on the subject expressed in the OP or are you just shooting your mouth in order to go against me for the heck of it?

/S

 

[Lord_Windy]

I learnt in computer science that when you buy an item of software, you have only bought the license to it. You haven't actually bought the software, which gives you only the rights to the software which the owner of the software give you. And you agree to the conditions once you install the program. Im pretty sure most programs require you to agree to some terms and conditions of use.

I see exactly what Sayvara is sayin. I felt outrage when other students in my IPT class used my code which had taken me countless hours to write for my assignment for their own assignments without as much as telling me, one guy simply took my USB without me noticing while in class and just copied an older save of my assignment, searched thro and took out all the code that he couldnt come up with himself, then distributed it to his mates.

And while it wasnt the same thing, and I didn't lose any money or grades over it as the teacher saw pretty well straight away that those 3 guys had simply stolen my code, its the closest I can view it atm.

Im starting my own games company after I finish uni, and I guess im going to be confronted by this issue myself.

 

[tobyornottoby]

The charging of money only helps the owner/seller to make (3) a reality. So if the owner/seller wouldn't make money off a person, why is it disrespectful for that person to have the property anyway?

it is disrespectful to those who DID pay money for it

 

[Akafrank]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/9/24/

 

[Alex_P]

I'd say that trying to treat software like just another physical product that you sell on a unit-by-unit basis is already a "flawed business model." It costs you nothing to make a copy and anyone can do it -- that's a non-rivalrous, non-excludable good that you're trying to pass off as just another rivalrous, excludable consumer product.

I still pay for it because I'd rather support a good company with a flawed business model that throw them to the dogs, especially since people are still struggling to come up with alternatives.

(Oh, and I'm a software engineer, by the way.)

-- Alex

 

[KimMR251]

I am actually writing an article about piracy...I was a bit "ignorant" in the sense that I didn't know the fine lines of what "copyright" actually meant, and that it was actually limited...and of course, the purpose for such an essential (and constitutional) right.

Just a few thoughts really:

It is pretty clear that piracy harms all of us. But at the same time, (excluding the motives that have no commercial purpose), many of those who purchase pirated copies or perhaps even copy the software themselves cannot afford it. At the same time, it cannot be denied that gaming has become such an integral part of culture ... much recreational time and even family time constitute some form of gaming... When it is so popular, how do you fight against it?

I read up on new legislation and even the uproar of the secret anti-piracy agreement. There is controversy everwhere with new legislation that seem to go "over the line" with regards to protecting copyrights; copyright law is a fine balance between giving the public domain access to information while at the same time fairly compensating the creator for their contribution of their creative work...

I am not sure piracy will ever be fully eradicated unless more strict criminal penalties are used ... but then again, the argument of "punishing unreasonably" may arise...

who knows...I think I will always be somewhat befuddled with this topic...

 

[Voltrox747]

Alright, like I said before I'm not going to argue the moral points like everyone else wants to, but I'm curious about one thing. Sayvara, how do you feel about someone who pirates only for the purpose of trying things out? That is, watching an anime before it becomes available in the U.S., or playing a game they're not sure they want to buy? Assume that this person buys the product if they like it. Someone asked you this before and you didn't fully answer it. Again, assume that the pirate DOES buy anything that they enjoy and would want to watch/play a second time. This is something I do often with Japanese products as many of them don't show up here or if they do they take forever.

In my case, I feel that I'm simply having the chance to give the product a fair assessment before I pay money for it. For instance, I enjoyed watching Full Metal Alchemist long before it showed up on American TV (it was still technically legal to watch it the way I did at this point as well), and I'll be buying the full series sometime whenever I find it for a decent price (I'd never pay full retail price for an anime, ever. I just don't care about them that much.). Is this wrong to you or not? Keep in mind that I never would have wanted to buy it had I not watched it before it was licensed here, as I would much rather watch an ongoing story all at once than on a weekly basis. If I hadn't had that chance, I wouldn't have even seen it at all unless a friend bought the box set first, since I don't watch TV and I certainly won't buy a series I haven't watched already.

I'm not asking you because I'm undecided on the matter, I'm only curious about where you stand on it, since your posts have been somewhat vague on this particular type of piracy and most of your arguments against it concern those who pirate something they would have bought and don't pay for it, thus robbing you of a sale.

 

[Alex_P]

So, since the dawn of recorded history, we've had stuff that is difficult to create and difficult to replicate, like hand-copied books. This is what our concepts about "property" exist to handle.

Later on we developed goods that were costly to create initially but relatively cheap to replicate, like printed books. Our copyright and patent law systems were created to deal with these.

Now, however, we've got a variety of things that are costly to create initially but cost basically nothing to replicate, like digital documents.

Yet we're still trying to use our copyright and patent systems to deal with them. And "Big Content" is constantly trying to make our IP laws more like vanilla property law (well, actually more like a ridiculous mix of the most restrictive elements of IP and vanilla property law) because that's to their direct advantage. Now they have to push mountains of bad legislation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRO-IP_Act] through the legislature just to maintain the status quo.

-- Alex

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Is piracy wrong? No. And shut up.

 

[Hawgh]

Is piracy wrong? No. And shut up.

Yes, shut up. Now we have wasted two posts without saying anything meaningful, ain't that just glorious?

On a meaningful note: piracy pretty much comes down to sidestepping of giving something to get something. As such, I would consider it lazy, selfish, thoughtless, perhaps even wrong; no pain, no gain.

However, there are many instances where piracy is the only option to find out if that shiny new game is actually trash or not.
If it is, you throw out the ISO-file & forget about it. If it's not, you go and buy the game, because you want to signal that more of the same would be appreciated. In that case, piracy is an efficient tool, a dirty tool perhaps, but still effective.

There are also cases like Spore to show how piracy can be used to get a point across.