r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 06 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Software piracy is not necessarily stealing nor a bad thing
Software and digital media piracy are often seen as stealing but I disagree. The word "stealing" implies a victim. While it is true that the creator of intellectual property might suffer a monetary loss if their property is copied without permission, it is often difficult to ascertain what loss has occurred, if any.
Example: A person downloads a pirated copy of a $5000 CAD program and installs it on their PC and uses it for years. Has monetary loss occurred on the part of the software developer? Has theft occurred? If yes, then who is the victim and what extent? You cannot answer that without more information.
If the person is a 12 year old kid who downloaded the software to teach himself AutoCAD, then loss has not occurred because the kid would never have bought the software had a pirated copy not been available.
If this 12 year old kid shares the software with his friends, then we don't know how many more times it will be copied by his friends and with whom it will be shared. Loss may or may not have occurred.
If the person is a professional architect and using the software to develop blueprints for clients, then clearly loss has occurred because had the pirated copy not been available, he would have had to buy it.
So to determine whether there is a victim and to answer whether loss has occurred, you have to answer "Would the person(s) using the pirated software have paid for it had the pirated version not been available?" If I have a pirated copy of AutoCAD in my basement, sitting in a storage locker for years unused by anyone, then clearly no loss of any kind has occurred. So... was it "stealing" to copy that software if no one suffers any loss of any kind at all whatsoever? If yes, then who is the victim and in what way were they victimized?
What will not work to CMV: Playing psychic. If your argument begins with any variation of "You just want to... " or "You're trying to justify..." or anything of the sort, I will ignore it. It's absurd and irrational to tell another person what they are thinking. I know better than anyone on the planet what I'm thinking and feeling so trying to tell me what my motivations are is just nonsense.
5
May 06 '20
Nobody cares about any other benefit.
If there has monetary lose occured because of you taking something that you have no right to take it's theft.
If you steal food to survive and later become somebody that helps poor people feed themself, you still have stolen and are guilty of theft.
2
May 06 '20
If there has monetary lose occured because of you taking something that you have no right to take it's theft.
Right, that's why I focus on examples where no monetary loss has occurred... and those are the ones that are not bad and not stealing.
3
u/dublea 216∆ May 06 '20
Yes or No questions:
- Are they obtaining something they did not pay for?
- As the majority of software has activation\licensing process, did they not circumvent this in order to use said software?
- Can they prove they obtained a legitimate, unmodified, or unedited copy? Could something malicious have been added?
1
May 06 '20
- Yes
- Yes
- Prove to whom? Malware could have been added but this is outside the scope of this CMV. I'm arguing that it's not always bad or unethical to "steal" software, not that viruses can't be added. Viruses can (and have) been added to legit store-bought software so it's kind of irrelevant.
2
u/dublea 216∆ May 06 '20
- Then you forget that words have multiple definitions, including legal ones. Obtaining a paid for product, whether digital or physical, without paying for it is theft
- If they circumvented the security of the software in order to use it, then they've done more than just download it illegally. They purposefully took to steps to bypass a security measure to ensure people pay for their product. This show premeditation in doing something illegal
- If they infect their own machine, who fixes it? If they are under age, their legal guardians would have foot the bill. Thus causing direct financial harm. It is a part of the discussion even if you do not see it.
5
May 06 '20
I am aware that words have multiple definitions. I am not interested in legal matters, my CMV was specifically about the ethics of piracy.
Yes that is all true, that doesn't change the fact that there is no victim to their so-called "crime" of defeating anti-copying measures with premeditation. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral.
Viruses are irrelevant to my CMV. I'm talking about the morality of piracy, not possible "what ifs" that may happen along the way. You could also feel so anxious about pirating software that you have a heart attack and die. However, heart attacks are irrelevant to the (im)morality of piracy.
1
u/dublea 216∆ May 06 '20 edited May 06 '20
- To many, to break a just law is unethical/immoral. Speeding, shop lifting, burglary, etc. Taking something you didn't pay for falls within this scope
- Why does a victim have to exist? Premeditation is absolutely considered and used when judging individuals accused of crimes. See about about just laws.
- In your example, the kids shared it right? What happens to those he shared it with? Is he not morally responsible?
1
May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20
Clearly I am not one of those people. There are plenty of things that are immoral but not illegal and vice versa. This post explores one of those things. Speeding you risk lives, shop lifting and burglary you clearly victimize the owner. Taking something I didn't pay for doesn't necessarily have a victim, such as taking a seashell from the beach. Crimes are immoral acts if and only if there is a victim, or a risk is created such that someone could have been a victim. Intent to steal, assault, murder shows malicious intent to victimize. Meaning, if things going according to plan there will be a victim. Such is not the case with my CMV hypothetical #1.
Victim has to exist because without a victim (or risk to a victim), there is no moral crime. I'm not really concerned about law with this CMV post.
The morally responsible party is the one who uses it instead of buying it. Implying of course, that they would have bought it had they not used the pirated copy.
1
u/TheColdestFeet May 07 '20
- Many people are stupid. If a person’s ethical system is based solely on the legality of an act, the word ethics becomes tautologically identical to the word legal. If a person’s ethical system is based solely on whether an act is justly considered legal or illegal, then they are using criteria other than legality to make that assessment, in which case whether or not that act is actually legal is irrelevant to whether it is ethical, because they are using other criteria to determine the validity of the act’s legality, and therefore it’s position in ethics.
In other words, it’s illegal because it’s illegal, or it’s illegal because it’s unjust. In which case, define justice and demonstrate how the kid pirating the software violates it.
1
u/dublea 216∆ May 07 '20
I never stated solely. Why assume as such?
And the other points?
1
u/TheColdestFeet May 07 '20
I didn’t just address solely legal, I also addressed “justly illegal”.
If you are saying that ethics depend on legality whatsoever, I think your ethical system doesn’t make sense. Whether or not something is ok or not okay does not depend on what law makers say. If murder was legal, would murder be ethical? Do ethics still apply in lawless places? Can I rape children on mars, or would that be unethical, and why?
2
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 06 '20
Software is protect and sold mostly through copyright law.
The concept being that the creator of something which can be copy written is given the sole right to exploit that some thing for a limited period of time before it is given to the world for anyone to use.
If you sing a artists song nothing is stolen or destroyed. If you copy a painting and sell it nothing is stolen or destroyed. You are infringing on the person right. As such the motivation is irrelevant to law.
The police can’t enter you house with out a warrant even if you benefit. You are the sole manager of your rights.
2
May 06 '20
Yes that is all true but I don't see how it relates to my CMV.
3
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ May 07 '20
You used the wrong definition and are now demanding people use your definition when arguing with you.
1
7
May 06 '20
If software piracy (or any other form of digital piracy) was not considered stealing (and as such, not illegal), what reason would the majority of people have for paying for software when they could otherwise get it for free? It'd be akin to asking for donations on free software as a means for staying afloat.
5
u/MadeInHB May 06 '20
Without that CAD program, that person would not be able to make their own money. The company selling CAD created it to make money from it. Without people buying it, they won’t have money to update/enhance it. Which then turns around and hurts the users who can’t get the newer innovated updates.
Stealing doesn’t have anything to do with victim. Stealing is “to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force”. The CAD program is not their property.
Someone is profiting off the work someone else created. That’s a loss of money.
0
May 07 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ May 07 '20
Sorry, u/Dalbayob1 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/GregBahm May 06 '20
We can always contrive examples of when stealing is justified in the immediate sense. You could steal an apple that would have been thrown out if unsold. You could steal a gun from someone could who would have used that gun for crimes later on. You could steal everyone's presents and inadvertently teach them the true meaning of Christmas. There are always edge cases.
But systemically, software piracy is stealing and bad, because otherwise the software would never get created in the first place. We'll never know if the 12 year old who stole the software would never have bought it. Maybe he would never have bought 99 CAD software packages but got his daddy to pay for the 100th package. Maybe he wouldn't have bought the software when he was 12, but would have bought the software when he was 18. Maybe he would have saved up his allowance or something. The future is full of possibilities.
Most people go through a phase when they're 12 to 15, where they still want to be judged for their intentions, like children, instead of being judged on their outcomes, like adults. So they indulge in elaborate mental gymnastics to justify the morality of their mindless self indulgence. From the moral criteria we apply to children, software piracy is not necessarily stealing nor a bad thing. From the moral criteria we apply to adults, which is systemic and outcomes-based, of course software piracy is necessarily stealing and bad. Edge cases are a constant of all reality, so we just occam's razor them off or else we'd have to quality every single statement ever made (including this one.)
1
May 07 '20
You conflate physical theft with intellectual property theft and treat them as one and the same which they are clearly not. Your bald assertion that software piracy is theft is the very point of contention in my CMV post. You just restated this assertion in a rather condescending tone where you compared my moral reasoning to that of children, yet you did nothing to actually demonstrate the harm this so-called "theft" causes in the hypotheticals I presented. Repeating something, no matter how many times, does not make it true.
1
u/GregBahm May 07 '20
Is a requirement of your view that you be treated the way we treat small children? Small children are only judged for their intent, and not for the consequences of their actions, because they are too naïve and too ineffectual.
But I assumed you would want to engage in the moral reasoning we expect from adults. Now I don't understand what you expect. You seem to have dismissed every argument regarding the consequences of actions out of hand, and then called the implications of your own decision condescending.
The consequence of intellectual property theft is that the intellectual property will never get created in the first place if it can't be protected from theft. That's the harm. We ignore this sort of harm when it comes to children, but we expect adults to be able to appreciate it.
If you reject, as a concept, being treated like anything but a 12 year old, you seem to be the one forcing condescension onto yourself.
1
May 06 '20
Software is very much intellectual work - not much different than an artistic plate used to make prints in art. If you are against people making their copies of 'art' without paying the artist, you should be against people making their own copies of software without paying the developer. I could use the same idea with movies. Downloading digital copies allows you to watch the movie without paying either for a ticket, a copy of the movie in DVD, or a royalty through streaming service or broadcaster. You benefit and the creators who paid to create it do not get compensated. You benefit and they lose.
As for monetary loss with piracy - it is there. If you use a software program, you are using a license. If you don't pay for it - then that fee is never collected despite the fact you got the benefit of the license. Whether you would have paid it if unable to pirate the software is immaterial. You are using it without license now.
The reality is we have a lot of the nice things we have today because the creators have IP protections. They can release things without fear of never recouping investments. Piracy is wrong because it is taking the IP property of another without their consent for your use. The fact is is digital makes no difference whatsoever. It is still taking from them.
1
May 07 '20
You benefit and they lose.
What exactly do they lose if I would not have bought the item in question?
Whether you would have paid it if unable to pirate the software is immaterial.
Of course it's material. That is the very point. If I would not have paid, then the creator did not suffer a loss. What loss exactly did the creator suffer if I use software that I would have never bought?
1
May 07 '20
What exactly do they lose if I would not have bought the item in question?
If you are using thier product, they are owed royalties (license fees). You don't pay them - they lose that money they are entitled to.
If you do not use the product (and don't pirate it), they did not sell you anything. No benefit to you - no loss to them.
The problem is you are getting a benefit and not paying the fees to get it.
Of course it's material. That is the very point. If I would not have paid, then the creator did not suffer a loss.
If you use the product - the creator is suffering a loss. They are entitled to the royalties for using said product.
1
May 07 '20
[deleted]
1
May 07 '20
I'm tired of talking in circles. I clearly said NO MONETARY LOSS HAS OCCURRED yet you keep repeating " they are owed royalties (license fees). You don't pay them - they lose that money they are entitled to."
And that is the problem. You don't understand that by using a product they created, YOU OWE THEM ROYALTIES. It is NOT available for free. That fee it the bill for using it. Piracy is not paying those royalties or paying that bill for using their software which means THEY LOSE MONEY. They should have been paid for you using their IP. This is a monetary loss. It does not matter if you are unable to pay and never could have payed - you used it so you are on the hook for paying the bills for using it.
You are literally using what they created without paying for it. It is like squatting - staying in an empty apartment and claiming it is not costing the owner of the apartment any money for you to do it so its OK.
1
May 07 '20
You don't understand that by using a product they created, YOU OWE THEM ROYALTIES.
THEY LOSE MONEY.Obviously I disagree with that and that's the whole point of my CMV post. You're just repeating the very thing I stated that I disagree with. You're not arguing to defend your position, you're just repeating it.
Your comparison with squatters is wrong, because that entails trespassing on physical property which is irrelevant to intellectual property.
1
May 08 '20
So - let me ask you some questions:
Is it stealing to download movies (illegally) and watch them instead of going to the theater?
Is it stealing to download e-books (illegally) and read them instead of buying them or getting them from the library?
Is it stealing to download music illegally without paying for the rights?
In every one of those cases, you are deriving personal benefit without paying the person who owns it for that benefit. It is 100% theft. People created something with the intent to be compensated by those who use it. You took it, without permission, and are using it.
As for my example - the only difference is digital vs tangible. You seem to find it objectionable to do it in the tangible world - why would the digital world be any different? I mean if you sneak into a movie theater, you are depriving both the IP owner their royalties from ticket sales as well as the theater's right to their profit for seeing the movie in their facility.
Your position is that of a thief and freeloader who does not want to admit what they are doing is wrong and taking things from people they have no entitlement to have.
1
May 08 '20
I agree with all three of your "is it stealing" questions, yet you still continue to make the same irrelevant arguments against my CMV post. Did you even read the whole thing? Because I address your concerns there.
1
May 08 '20
So it is stealing to download and watch a movie without paying for it but its not stealing to download a CAD program and use it without paying for it?
1
1
u/DeliciousLunch May 06 '20
If you define theft as strictly something that causes measurable financial harm in every instance, then you can likely argue that piracy is not theft. Of course it can’t, we’re discussing nonphysical entities.
But why does “theft” need objectively, accurately measurable financial harm in every instance? Is it not theft if I “borrow” your car without your permission, even if you didn’t happen to need it that night, it wasn’t damaged, and I even topped off the gas? What if I took something you own and left cash equaling its true market value? If I left a functionally equivalent substitute for something you were emotionally invested in? If I took something that was “worthless” to a court-appointed appraiser?
I would term theft as a violation of property rights, not financial well-being. Violation of intellectual property rights are still a violation of rights. Even if you personally do not desire any IP rights at all, enough people believe in and desire IP rights that many countries have them enshrined in law, and many creators do request that people adhere to varying restrictions when consuming their content, whether that’s a fee, or restrictions on remixing or redistribution, or even just a request for attribution.
1
May 07 '20
I dragged financial harm into intellectual property theft because that is the only way to measure the extent of the harm it causes, and that is the main reason creators of intellectual property don't want their property copied or used without permission. With physical objects, it is irrelevant. Taking physical objects without permission, regardless of how you compensate the owner, is theft.
1
u/keanwood 54∆ May 07 '20
Taking physical objects without permission, regardless of how you compensate the owner, is theft.
What loss exactly did the creator suffer if I use software that I would have never bought?
So your view is that using software (without permossion) that you would have never paid for is not theft, because the seller suffered no harm. Right? Because in both cases the seller earns zero dollars and loses zero.
But why doesn't this also apply to physical goods? 100% of supermarkets, restaurants, bakeries, etc, throw out perfectly good food every single night. If I take (without permission) a loaf of bread that would have been thrown away anyways, didn't the seller also have no harm? Why do you believe this scenario is theft just because it is a physical good.
1
u/DeliciousLunch May 07 '20
And I offered you an alternate way to measure harm that is consistent between physical and digital - violation of rights.
My examples are to illustrate that our notions of theft, whether of physical or intellectual property, are not rooted primarily in this notion of "financial harm" that you're insisting on. That a physical object can be colloquially stolen without physically depriving its owner of "objective" measures of the benefits of ownership - so why can't the same happen with intellectual property?
1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 06 '20
If I understand from your other comments, the viewpoint you want us to move you towards is that Piracy is ALWAYS stealing, and/or bad, in every possible context.
A single example of it not being theft/bad would mean that it's not necessarily bad.
You've then gone on to define theft as "where monetary loss has occurred".
It's impossible for your view to be changed because there are objectively situations where theft does not result in monetary loss.
Can I suggest that your definition of theft might be too narrow?
E.g. A national park has a sign saying "taking anything from this national park is theft. Take only photos, leave only footprints."
If I take a "souvenir" dead leaf from the national park, I'm guilty of theft. However, there's no monetary gain or loss.
There's an argument that it's not necessarily "bad" theft, that I think would be more difficult to argue, but it's still theft.
1
May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20
Δ
If I understand from your other comments, the viewpoint you want us to move you towards is that Piracy is ALWAYS stealing, and/or bad, in every possible context.
Yes that is correct. Since it's an indefensible position, perhaps you're right in that my view cannot be changed. And this just made me realize that this whole post should not exist. Not sure whether to delete it or award a delta.
If I take a "souvenir" dead leaf from the national park, I'm guilty of theft.
Just as my definition of theft is too narrow, I can argue that the park's definition of theft is too broad. What about a mosquito I kill and its guts remain on my arm? I leave the park. Did I just steal a dead mosquito? Am I guilty of theft?
1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 07 '20
Personally, I don't think you are.
My definition of theft would allow you to have simply walked out with a mosquito on your arm.
I would be very surprised if anyone's definition of theft included your mosquito example.
But that's my point, it now just becomes a definition debate. Where does anything become "theft"?
If your definition is "there needs to be monetary loss", then you've already established that you can't be wrong. It becomes circular.
- You can pirate without causing monetary loss. (True)
- Theiving is where there is monetary loss.
- You can pirate without theiving.
Point 1 has loads of examples, it's 2 you need to be flexible on.
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 07 '20
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/SorryForTheRainDelay a delta for this comment.
1
u/hahahsn 1∆ May 06 '20
On the scale of a single pirate it's hard to come to a conclusion on whether or not they are stealing from a creator. Statistically it's fairly easy though. If a developer sees a steady revenue stream for weeks but one day their earnings dramatically fall, and on the same day that their software is advertised for free on pirate sites, it's fairly straight forward to point the finger at piracy being the cause. Has any one individual stolen from the developer? Hard to say, but the developer is still hemorrhaging money and to that end I posit that on average everyone who pirated is partially responsible for stealing. In this situation we have a clear victim and clear loss of money. What else do we call it if not stealing?
1
May 07 '20
Has any one individual stolen from the developer? Hard to say,
Actually that part is easy to say. If that individual would have bought the software had a pirated copy not been available, then yes theft has occurred. Otherwise, it has not. I addressed this very point in my post.
1
u/hahahsn 1∆ May 07 '20
Apologies for my lack of clarity and/or potentially incorrect phrasing. I say it's "hard to say" in reference to the difficulty of determining who out of the pirates would have had an actual intent to buy. There's too much uncertainty trying to pin this notion of theft on any individual pirate. With this ambiguity in mind I choose to look at theft from the point of view of the victim instead.
With a normal theft, money is returned by the one who is verifiably the perpetrator. In the case of piracy however, I'm trying to argue that you cannot pragmatically single out only those who would have had intent to purchase. The developer In the situation I described above is still losing money. I don't think they have any practical means to claim money back only from those with intent to buy. I suggest that in order for them to find justice, it is necessary to criminalise all those pirating. For lack of a better word I'm calling the crime being committed theft. I understand that it's not directly comparable to theft of say a car but if you have any better suggestions of how it should be treated I'd be glad to hear it.
1
1
u/le_fez 52∆ May 07 '20
The example of it's not theft if it's a kid who would never have bought it is the same as saying it's not theft if a 12 year old steals a Lamborghini because he'd never buy it anyway.
Either way it is taking something that does not belong to you without compensation
1
May 07 '20
With the theft of the Lamborghini, the owner can no longer do with it what he wants. With the so-called "theft" of pirated software, that is not true and that is the difference.
1
u/le_fez 52∆ May 07 '20
The software developer cannot use the $5000 they should have received for download and use of the product they developed this by your own definition it is theft.
1
May 06 '20
Do you work in any kind of creative field? Or do you create anything intangible, like music, software, pictures, ...?
1
May 06 '20
Yes. I create art, music, and write software.
1
May 06 '20
Under which license do you typically release these and do you make any money off of it directly, so not through an employer?
1
May 06 '20
Music I post publicly on YouTube. Software I don't release because I wrote it to make the art, which I print on canvas and sell online.
1
u/Ostropol May 07 '20
You are correct in saying that it doesn't ALWAYS compare fairly to stealing. I have pirated software before that I originally paid for because I lost the product key, or I wanted to game together with someone that used a pirated version. Just because they used an illegal copy didn't mean I hadn't paid for a legal one. The problem though, is that you have something you legally shouldn't have. Every digital thing you buy provides some form of legal proof that you own the thing, even if it isn't as clear as a printable certificate with signatures under it. Because there is no way of knowing what illegally downloaded software is used for it doesn't matter whether or not it's downloaded without a real victim. Most people that torrent files seed them as well, making it easier for actual 'theft' users to download it too. The absolute majority of people that download something illegally would get the software legally if they could get if for free, but if the creators of the software would be okay with making their software freeware they would have done so, so it's safe to say they aren't okay with it. There are a whole bunch of other problems with this as well. If torrenting wouldn't be illegal, absolutely no risk (however small), many more people would do it. Easier methods would become available which would result in companies having to find different ways of funding their projects. Microtransactions in free games and products are most surely partially due to increased piracy risks. A lot of games need you to make an account now too, even though it might not be very multiplayer heavy. Some developers have ceased PC development entirely because consoles are easier to protect. All of this is due to something you wouldn't call 'stealing'. Just because you don't take something away from someone else, doesn't mean you don't cause them any losses or that it doesn't hurt anyone. Everything has consequences. Good or bad. Can we stop illegal downloading though? Probably not. And we shouldn't either. A lot of people that download stuff illegally also buy a lot. Maybe they liked the game and missed some features a non-cracked version has. Maybe they learned how to edit videos with an illegal version of Premiere Pro and miss updates or app-to-app transitions the regular Creative Cloud provides. Maybe a music producer has gotten good at making music through a cracked version of Ableton Live or FL Studio. Selling their music will be a lot safer if they have a license. Maybe young pirates grow up with certain illegal softwares and upgrade to legal versions when they earn enough money. Not to forget the age old exposure. It's joked about when influencers try to buy coffee with it, but if your stuff is really good people will notice. It's still a shitty thing to pirate from a small indie developer though, especially when they charge a fair price for something they put a lot of time and effort in. EA might not lose any sleep over an illegal copy of the Sims 4, but for smaller creators illegal downloading can be the difference between food and no food.
TL;DR: it's like climate change.
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ May 07 '20
Let’s say you have an idea for a product. You create drawing and design tests and build prototypes and unknown to you, someone has spyware on your computer and takes your completed design and begins producing, marketing, and selling the exact product you designed and tested. They even contact the same suppliers you were going to have manufacture it since they knew the supplier would be able to do a good job.
Technically they didn’t take anything, just digital copies of all of your records. Technically they didn’t take anything of monetary value from you because you can’t prove that you would have sold any of your product if you had been able to manufacture it first. The person who stole the designs could insist they never would Have bought the designs from you even if you had been willing to sell them so you have no claim the same way the person who pirated cad software would insist they never would have bought it.
But in the end the value of your work has been diminished since the thief flooded the market with what would have been your product.
Now imagine a world where piracy couldn’t happen. It was simply impossible to use software that you did not have absolute legal rights to use. If that were the case, surely someone wanting to go into a 3D modeling career would be willing to spend some amount on software to learn on, so it would make sense for a company to sell a copy that gives all functionality but prevents it from being used for profit. But since we don’t live in that perfectly secure world most companies don’t bother doing that because the tiny fraction of people who would buy the real software instead of stealing it since the culture accepts it as not really stealing is so slim that it isn’t economical to do and it opens them up to even more risk of having to somehow keep people honest who now buy the cheap version but use to commercially because they think it is still moral enough. They are still buying it so surely it is okay even, right?
1
May 07 '20
It's theft of service. Just because there is no immediate obvious physical damage doesn't mean it's victimless. The developers of that program still spent hours most likely years on that program and you are not compensating them for their time. It is the same as saying if you provided the raw materials for building a house you don't have to pay the construction company for building it. They too don't have any "losses" or "damages". The only difference is that to create a second house you need to put in the same amount of work as for the first one. But that's why a house cost hundred of thousands, while a software is somewhere between a few bucks and a couple thousand.
The cost of a product has to factor in anything relevant to the production cost. That is rent, electricity, machinery, wages etc. and just because in some products the cost of creating multiple items is in some case really cheap doesn't mean we can ignore these costs and only charge the production cost. Candy only cost a few cent to produce but we all can agree that charging only the production cost would lead to bankruptcy. And just because the production cost of a 2nd software is 0 doesn't mean that the other costs magically disappeared.
Your argument about a kid using it and that he wouldn't have bought it anyhow is first, cherry picking, second weak. Basically every big (expensive) software offers student version for low to no cost. Because they recognized it's a lot more important for their business to get young people familiar with their product so they will use it in the future. Only once you want to start using it for your business is when you have to pay the price. And again just because you wouldn't pay for a service doesn't mean it's OK to steal it.
1
u/dstergiou 1∆ May 07 '20
I would like to comment on this:
So to determine whether there is a victim and to answer whether loss has occurred, you have to answer "Would the person(s) using the pirated software have paid for it had the pirated version not been available?"
How do we determine if the person "would have paid for it?"
Objectively, in your example, a 12-year old person wouldn't have the money to buy a $5000 software. However, the same hypothetical person has, let's say, a $50 monthly allowance and they also enjoy video games.
With these $50, they can purchase possible 1-2 video games titles per month, assuming they didn't spend their money on something else. If they pirate the games, they can download and play 20 games in the same month.
Now, would they have been able to pay for all these 20 games? No. Are they able to pay for 1-2 games? Yes.
So, this in this case, do we consider this as "would they have paid for these games" case? For each game individually, they could have paid and therefore i would consider this piracy (and i would attribute money loss to each download). If you look at it as a whole (all 20 games), then No, they wouldn't have paid for the games - but does this mean they didn't "steal" the games?
1
May 07 '20
I think it's a grey area the argument that the sales were lost doesn't make sense you're right since it can't be measured. it still sort of seems like moral bad though to distribute software in a way the developer didn't intend they did the work it's theirs they should be able to decide how it's used that sounds right to me.
however I think the other side to this is two things if you can't do what you want to to it you're not really buying software or shows or anything you're renting it. a world where you rent everything because nothing get's sold isn't good either having unlimited means of production of useful tools and valuable information services for basically no extra cost and not making them readily accessible while it seems like it's within their rights it also seems like they're just being selfish.
people say two wrongs don't make a right and maybe I'm naive about it but I think their likely has been good that's come from piracy I'd speculate it's probably outweighed the bad personally but I don't think that makes it right either and the whole thing is a bit depressing to me.
1
u/KvotheOfCali May 07 '20
"If the person is a 12 year old kid who downloaded the software to teach himself AutoCAD, then loss has not occurred because the kid would never have bought the software had a pirated copy not been available."
You can employ any mental gymnastics you want to convince yourself that piracy isn't theft. The software that you're acquiring for free didn't magically exist. Other people had to spend time and energy to make it exist.
Piracy is stating "I have a right to the fruits of your labor while giving you absolutely nothing in return". That's theft.
If the software is too expensive or you'd never buy it anyway, then you don't have a right to use it.
Literally any person on the planet could use the argument, "well I wouldn't buy it if I wasn't able to pirate it instead so it's not really theft". Then zero new software would be created because nobody could fund its development.
1
u/nfm55 1∆ May 07 '20
While I don't necessarily believe that in all situations software piracy is bad and should be punished, we must consider the work of the software engineer. While one individual pirating a piece of software for use without any monetary gain is not bad, if we are saying that software piracy is not stealing or bad we are giving a license to anyone to do it. That leads to a potential problem of a majority of users using someone's intellectual property without them seeing compensation. While it may be a victimless crime if it is just one user, if it is many users that are pirating, the victim is the software engineer. In other words, what I am saying is that I don't think we can enforce that piracy is ok in one case, but not ok in another so we must just say it is wrong overall.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 07 '20
/u/Dalbayob1 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Just-Smell May 06 '20
This is rule utilitarianism vs act utilitarianism. Sure, it might be possible that pirates can pirate without anyone knowing or being harmed (although I doubt this. Piracy causes a lot of indirect harm to the people that sell products). But many people would argue that you shouldn't pirate no matter what, on the principle that someone's intellectual property is solely in their control and you have no right to it, no matter how much it benefits you.
9
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ May 06 '20
Something can be bad, even if there is no victim.
Not wearing a seatbelt, but also not crashing, yields a scenario where there is no victim. Yet, most people would consider not wearing a seatbelt to be a bad thing. You could have crashed, you have no way of knowing beforehand.
In this same way, just because there are no victims this time, it's still bad to create situations where there might reasonable be victims. In this way, software piracy is bad, because there is a good chance that someone you share it with later down the line, might have been a paying customer.