Software Piracy Seen as Normal

Spad writes "The BBC is reporting that people don't see downloading copyrighted material as theft, despite concerted efforts by the games, music and movie industries to convince them otherwise. The report, titled Fake Nation, claims that '[People] just don't see it as theft. They just see it as inevitable, particularly as new technologies become available...The purchase of counterfeit goods or illegal downloading are seen as normal leisure practices,' However, they also found that while people are generally not buying counterfeit software from dodgy dealers on street corners, they are still happy to purchase them from people they know at the office/pub/school in addition to downloading them. Nobody can really be that suprised by the 'popularity' of downloading pirated software, but I was a little thrown by the apparent willingness of people to pay for pirated copies of it."

Comments

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy isn't theft. Theft is the action in wich one denies others acces to the stolen goods. Piracy doesn't deny anoyne acces to the pirated goods. So piracy is per definition not theft.

Re:Not surprising

[Zebidiah]

Using your logic, my refusal to buy a particular music\movie is theft whether I "pirate" it or not.

Re:Not surprising

[mkro]

Since we like quotes from old American geezers ("...deserves no liberty at all"), here is one from Thomas Jefferson:

"He who receives an idea from me receives it without lessening me, as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening me."

I'm sure he didn't refer to an iso of GTA: San Andreas found on a Swedish bittorrent page, but the counter-argument at that time also could have been "Candles cost MONEY, I think I deserve something back for the flame you just infringed upon" or "Do you know how much TIME I used to come up with that idea? Now I might have to work the fields instead of thinking out new stuff in the future"

Re:Not surprising

[ShieldW0lf]

It's not piracy either. Piracy is an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state.

It's called copyright infringement. Calling it theft, piracy, etc is a manipulative attempt to confound discussion by depicting copyright as a piece of owned property which can be stolen when in actuality it is nothing more than a government run incentive program to fund the arts.

Not too many people will stand up and say that they think stealing someones car is appropriate behavior. Not too many people would say it's appropriate to steal a CD from a music shop. But if you ask them "Do you think it's appropriate behavior for people to borrow their friends CD and make themselves a copy", you find a very different response. Case in point, the article.

For all those people out there who constantly parrot "Whatever, it's stealing" whenever the subject comes up, do stop. It makes you look stupid, it's rather offensive to regurgitate such transparently manipulative crap in a forum that's presumably frequented by more intelligent people, and it rather quickly kills any discussion of the real issue: Should copyright be granted at all, why, and what limitations on its scope will result in the greatest benefit TO SOCIETY.

Re:Not surprising

[Zebidiah]

There are two words for it: "Copyright Infringement"

Re:Not surprising

[DrHyde]

Yes, it is piracy. From the OED:

" 2 fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights
conferred by a patent or copyright. "

It goes on to illustrate this with a few quotation, the earliest of which dates from 1771.

Re:Not surprising

[ShieldW0lf]

IMHO there is an undergoing lame attempt to try and make copyright infringement look like a really bad thing when common sense actually tells us that there's no big deal about it.

Common sense might even tell you that increasing peoples exposure to varied creative works makes them more creative by inspiring them, makes them more intelligent by exposing them to various ideas and forcing them to decide amongst them, makes them more tolerant of others by increasing their awareness of cultural diversity and enriches their lives.

Common sense might even tell you that copyright legislation harms our society and everyone who lives in it, and that we should take a serious look at getting rid of it.

Have you noticed how uncommon common sense is these days?

Re:Not surprising

[temcat]

One that wouldn't buy your product anyway cannot deny you revenue. The situation is more complex.

Copyright is an artificial monopoly. Because it's artificial, people don't tend to respect it naturally, as opposed to physical property right or right to live, respect to which grows and is maintained naturally within any culture (at least towards peers - it could be otherwise with, say, slaves). Hence the common attitude towards copyright infringement: it's illegal, but it's not wrong.

Illegality of unauthorized copying is only the means of leveraging that monopoly. Indeed, if we legalize copying, it removes the incentive to buy your product from people that would otherwise buy it. Therefore you can't say that somebody who copied your creation deprived you of something, but you can say for sure that if copying was legal, you wouldn't get much at all.

Personally, I don't think that without copyright life would be much worse. The amount of content would of course reduce drastically, but the percent of true art as opposed to artistic-like prostitution would be much higher.

Re:Not surprising

[Mycroft_VIII]

Most dictionary definitions reflect common usage, this particular common usage is brought on by a compound of both propaganda (by the producers attempting to add emotional spin to an otherwise borring sounding crime) and the adoption early on by some groups of 'pirate' to inflate thier self image.
However Piracy originally meant pretty much what the GP said with respect to sea-going enterprises.
I imagine that definition is still a good laymans translation of most leagle definitions of the word. I don't know that you would be charged with piracy if caught making 2000 bootleg copies of a Brittny Spears album (poor taste perhaps, copyright infringement certainly).
IIRC it's derived from 'privateer' which meant essentially a private ship with one countries official permission to attack the vessels of another country they were at war with. A pirate was simply a privateer without such a letter, and perhaps no particular care as to the targets nationality.
It's an interesting aside that the 'jolly roger' skull and crossbones flag wasn't an identifier of pirates per se, but rather of intent- no quarter given or asked. It took alot of anger to raise that flag.

Mcyroft

Re:Not surprising

[sumdumass]

It's like those reality cop shows. After watching one for the first time i came to the conclusion that they were nothing but propaganda tools to trick citizens into thinking that gettign pulled over for a burnt out license plate light is enough justification to search the entire car and cart someone off for magicaly finding a bunch of drugs under the spare tire. Or make people think it is acceptable to get shot for not stoping when a police officer yells at you.

Calling copyright infringment stealing and getting the public used to acknowledging it as the same only paves the way to introduce laws declaring it as stealing. After they are successful, you won't find it offensive or even concerning when your brother in law serves five years in jail and pays thousands in fines for downlaoding the latest Metalica blunder. Right now people see it as the big corps trying to punish the little guy who cannot afford to pay thier extorionate fees. Wait until file swapper are disliked as much as the welfare families that drain tax dollars from important projects like ball stadiums just because they think they have a right to eat and live.

Re:Not surprising

[JaredOfEuropa]

For all those people out there who constantly parrot "Whatever, it's stealing" whenever the subject comes up, do stop. It makes you look stupid, it's rather offensive to regurgitate such transparently manipulative crap in a forum that's presumably frequented by more intelligent people, and it rather quickly kills any discussion of the real issue: Should copyright be granted at all, why, and what limitations on its scope will result in the greatest benefit TO SOCIETY.

*sigh*. Calling it stealing has nothing to do with manipulative crap. Perhaps it's just laziness; "copyright infringement" is a rather more unwieldy word than "stealing". The exact definition of "stealing" may not fit the crime, but in common usage the word is used or this sort of thing often enough. When people hear about someone coming in late for work all the time, someone sneaking into a movie theatre, they say: "that's the same as stealing, you know!". Please take your own medicine and stop stating "It's not stealing!" every time this subject comes up, because it will, as you say, kill any discussion of the real issue.

But enough about language nitpicks. The point of the article was not that many people think that the definition of "stealing", as laid down in dictionary, does not exactly fit the crime of copyright infringement". The point was that many people do not see copyright infringement as immoral, or at most as a minor misdemeanor.

As to your last point: There are some people, myself included, who believe that artists should be able to reap the fruits of their work, and retain full rights to them. I think that copyright is a basic moral right that in principle belongs with the artist, and is not something to be lightly toyed with in order to maximise the benefit to society, as if we're communists dividing up the harvest.

Re:Not surprising

[Xerp]

Well, in my dictionary by definition it is theft:

theft (n)

the action or crime of stealing.

steal (v)

verb (past stole; past part. stolen) 1 take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. 2 give or take surreptitiously or without permission: I stole a look at my watch. 3 move somewhere quietly or surreptitiously. 4 (in various sports) gain (a point, advantage, etc.) unexpectedly or by exploiting the temporary distraction of an opponent.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I would find the *legal* definition of "piracy" more relevant to the discussion than what OED says.

I would find the dictionary definition far more relevant than the legal one. We aren't (in most cases, at least) lawyers, and this is not a court. What matters is the subject at hand, and the meanings of the terms "copyright infringement", "IP theft" and "music/software piracy" are clear to everyone in this context.

I find it rather hypocritical that those on the anti-copyright side of the debate so frequently attack the other side for using the terms "theft" and "piracy" in an emotive way, while at the same time insisting everyone should reject common language that's been in use for centuries and use the fluffy-bunny-friendly-sounding "copyright infringement" instead.

I look at it this way: if we're debating the ethics of beating someone up, the discussion is likely to use terms like assault. Technically, in a legal sense, we probably mean battery, or ABH, or GBH, or wounding, or attempted murder, or manslaughter, or murder. The one thing we almost certainly don't mean is assult, since this doesn't (in most jurisdictions) require physical abuse. However, what matters is the ethics, the common language is "assault", and accepting and using that term is a far more effective way to debate those ethics.

To put it another way, everyone on every side of every debate uses language that tends to support their position. Language is not neutral, and probably never can be. However, if the best argument you've got is an attack on language, then you've got no attack on substance. And in debating terms, that's the same as having nothing at all.

Re:Not surprising

[ShieldW0lf]

As to your last point: There are some people, myself included, who believe that artists should be able to reap the fruits of their work, and retain full rights to them. I think that copyright is a basic moral right that in principle belongs with the artist, and is not something to be lightly toyed with in order to maximise the benefit to society, as if we're communists dividing up the harvest.

Yes, there are some people who feel that way, particularly amongst those who have a vested interest in such a system being perpetuated. But, like the article says, people who feel that way are in the minority.

One thing that "basic moral rights" generally have in common is that a person needs to initiate an interaction with you in order to violate them, and that if people just leave you alone, your basic moral rights end up being respected. Like the right to life... to violate that right I must kill you. I can't think of any "basic moral rights" that can be taken from a person without interacting with that person.

But copyright isn't like that at all. You can write a song and perform it, someone overhears you and sings it walking down the street where I hear it and write it down and sing it around the campfire. Not only have I not interacted with you, unless you go running around trying to catch people, you won't even be aware that I've done it. And if you aren't a musician by profession who earns their livelihood by their music, I've done you no harm whatsoever.

As far as your comment about "toying with things in order to maximise benefit to society as if we're communists dividing up the harvest", lets get real for a minute here. Copyright would not exist if it weren't for "societies" resources being used to compel compliance. Laws are ALWAYS about maximising the benefit to society except in cases where the laws are not imposed by the society but by a non-representative ruling body. There is no other reason for a law to exist in a democracy. We outlaw murder because we collectively determine it's a benefit to us all to do so, and worthy of the resources we allocate to preventing it from occurring. We don't outlaw picking your nose because, even though it's kind of gross and distasteful, wasting our resources enforcing such a law isn't in our best interest.

So yeah, perhaps I'm wrong and you really DO have some moral right to come into my life dictating that I must stop singing a song I like unless I meet your terms, even if I don't know who you are and wasn't even aware you existed until you came looking for me. But unless it's in our collective best interests as a society to support cops, lawyers and judges while they look for me and take me to task for violating your so-called moral rights, we shouldn't be doing it.

Re:Not surprising

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It figures that no one knows much about ole' TJ anymore. Somehow, I get the impression he might actually approve of magical candles that can be used by 1 million people simultaneously. I'm sure candlemakers would have been unhappy, but most as a whole would have looked at it as if it were a boon. Not every village had its own chandler, after all. And those that do, it would no longer be the most efficient way to light up the night.

Re:Not surprising

[autophile]

I'm sure candlemakers would have been unhappy, but most as a whole would have looked at it as if it were a boon. Not every village had its own chandler, after all.

+1: Surprising. Use of the world "chandler" in a contextually correct sentence.

--Rob

People don't mind paying

[Zebidiah]

People don't mind paying for software\music etc. They just don't like being ripped off with overly inflated prices.

Re:People don't mind paying

[nurhussein]

This is *especially* true in developing countries where people just can't afford to buy legit stuff, since the content cartels all want to push it at US prices.

A legit DVD movie is around 80-120 ringgit* in Malaysia. That's enough money to eat for one or two weeks. Would Americans pay the equivalent of a week of meals for a single DVD? I doubt it.

Try selling at prices people are *willing to pay*, like the pirates do (10-12 ringgit per DVD), and they'll be more than happy to do so.

--
* ringgit == unit of Malaysian currency. 1 US dollar is 3.8 ringgit.

Re:People don't mind paying

[ShieldW0lf]

I do, at least where music and literature are concerned. I find the idea that a few large corporations "own" all the music I grew up listening to and uses that "ownership" to prevent the vast majority of humanity from being allowed to listen to more than a fraction of it to be downright criminal. That being the case, I won't give them one thin dime of my money, and I'll go out of my way to make a free copy for anyone who wants it so I can further deprive them of operating revenue.

As far as I'm concerned Universal, Sony/BMG, Warner and EMI are the enemy and I'm happy to do my part in destroying them utterly.

Taking from the rich has never been seen as theft

[Dancin_Santa]

There has been a popular meme throughout history, back to the days of the Old Testament that said that beggars were entitled to the excess of any farmer's crop. If the vagrant were to walk past a farm, they could take as much as they needed from the outer ring of crops, but they were not to venture inside.

This is because it is thought that the person doing the work of farming had more than enough to feed himself and his family, after all, he's got huge tracts of land and will sell the amount he doesn't keep for himself at the market. What little scraps are taken by the passing beggar will hardly be missed.

The same attitude exists with regards to copyrighted materials. "I, one lone person, can't possibly make a dent in the amount of revenue that the copyright owner will make." (It's the same reason many people don't vote.) And they are correct. Individually, they make no impact on the final numbers. They aren't even a rounding error in many cases. But in large numbers, all these individuals refusing to pay for the material (to the copyright owners) make a huge impact.

When every vagrant takes their "fair share" from the outer ring of a crop field, the crop gets smaller and smaller until the farmer and his family starve.

propaganda

[Sweetshark]

... despite concerted efforts by the games, music and movie industries to convince them otherwise ...
Here (germany) these TV-commercials are as bad as the mainstream (streamlined) popmusic. They are without heart. In cinemas they often get booed at. They are even less convincing than the products these guys want to sell.

That's because it isn't Theft

[jawtheshark]

It's copyright infringement and the punishments for that are much much higher. You're better off shoplifting a CD or Software than actually copying it. At least if you consider the possible punishments.

Color me surprised...not

[Willeh]

From my own experiences, it's absolutely true what they're saying. I was copying c64 games for my friends (not for profit ofcourse) back when i was about 7-8. It moved on over the years (tape swapping in school, more games copying). It sort of snuck in. Why? Because it was so damn EASY. That's right, morals got conveniently put on the backburner, just to listen to the latest tunes or play the latest shit-hot game with my friends.

Fast forward that to the present: IT'S STILL EASY! Games, movies music are so readily available(for free) i'd be embarassed if i produced any of it. For the less techno-savvy people under us, it's still relatively easy, maybe a magnitude or 2 less, plus they now have a little disposable income to throw around for the sake of convenience, so they might buy the latest movie released from some dodgy bloke out of his trunk. Is this right? NO. Is this illegal? YES! Is it easy? You bet! They're basically doing it because it's convenient, easy, cheap and they've been doing it for years.

Having said that, personally i'm now working and have a lot more money to spend, so i'm buying stuff all the damn time. The solution to all of this: I have no clue, but DRM-short-of-a-gloved-hand-up-the-ass isn't the way to do it.

Re:NEWS FLASH!

[PakProtector]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is one of those moral/philosophical things that's been pissing me off for some time.

You, AC, a prude. You think the morals and customs by which you live are natural laws, and that there is something defective with anyone who does not follow them. While you and I do agree that certain behaviours are despicable (or, if not despicable -- who are we to judge?), that they are atleast not behaviour we ourselves would engage in, I am willing to accept that fact that what I and the culture I was brought up in consider 'right' are not universals.

For example, I break the law all the time, many times a day. When I'm not breaking the law, it's not because I 'fear the law,' or 'agree with the law.' It's because I wouldn't act in an 'illegal' manner to begin with, because it's against my personal morals.

And similiarly, if I find a law inconvenient or wrong, I have no qualms breaking it.

And anyone who would swear to me, on their own stack of bibles, that something being illegal was the only reason they didn't commit such an act (as opposed to fear of punishment), why, I'm quite positive they're insane, so delusional that they truely believe it.

In closing, you're a prude.

And I have no idea what I originally intended to say.

Oh, wait. Here it is.

Pedophiles may, in fact, be "victims" of Humanity's own preference towards young women. Let's face it: Men who picked Young Women had a better chance of having more offspring, and if that preference for Young Women was genetic, then pretty soon everyone would be a decendant of men who liked young women.

And any woman who could look younger than she was would have a better chance of getting a better mate.

So, in short, you get a runaway Fisher effect -- women keep on retaining their young longer and longer, or stay immature older and older, and men constantly prefer younger and younger women. So it's no wonder there are some males who find children sexually attractive.

Goto any pre-civlization hunter-gatherer group and ask the men there what age they prefer in a mate. They'll say "Between Puberty and First Child." That's rather young, you know.

And considering the fact that those people live pretty much the same way all of humanity did for a damn long time, well. Nevermind.

I should probably point it out, at this point, that I think Pedophilia is a rather disgusting condition.

Also, the only NAMBLA is the National Association of Marlin Brando Look Alikes.

Breach of contract isn't theft

[evilandi]

The reason people don't see breaching copyright as theft, is because it isn't theft.

In order for something to be theft, there has to be an "intention to permanently deprive". You have to take something away from someone. That's the legal definition.

If you copy something, the original is still perfectly usable. Nobody is deprived of the original for a moment.

The copyright "industry's" attempts to equate breach of copyright with theft has fallen upon deaf ears because people aren't that stupid; they know the analogy is stupid from the start.

Bodies which name themselves using the phrase "copyright theft" are open to public ridicule, because everyone knows that breach of copyright absolutely not the same nor even similar to theft.

Re:Breach of contract isn't theft

[Peaker]

Instead of getting stuck over word-definitions, let's talk about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG. Morally, ethically, legally. In all cases, it is WRONG.

Copyright for unlimited times has no basis in the Constitution, and thus it is legally wrong.

Copyright in the information age is restricting everyone's freedom far more than it promotes "Science and Useful Arts" which is its purpose. Copyright never goes into the public domain which means it limits society's freedom without giving back to society! Binary code is copyright-able, which means it helps only the copyright owner, and does not help society create derivative works in the future (which is, again, the purpose of copyright). Thus it is morally wrong, as well.

The question of whether to copy or not to copy, when paying for the copy is out of the question affects not the creator of the original, and thus it is ethically neutral.

You are wrong on all accounts.

Re:Taking from the rich has never been seen as the

[zoney_ie]

There's another problem with piracy, besides the theory that the producers are out of pocket as a result.

In Ireland at least, the warning that piracy (of films in particular) supports terrorism, is quite true. While those actually pirating the stuff themselves aren't, those who buy pirated movies at the market, etc., are most likely buying from the equivalent of an IRA high street store. One of the IRA's rackets is pirated goods (the others being smuggled cigarettes, diesel, etc.)

Not sure how true the ad at the start of the movie is in the States, but just to let you know, it's not as crazy as it sounds.

Actually...

[DuranDuran]

Actually from my own research, it's much more likely that the participants knew that it was wrong but have developed fairly compex ways of justifying their activity. It's called "neutralization", whereby deviants 'neutralize' the social controls that normally inhibit illegal behaviour. This theory was originally put forward in 1957 by Sykes and Matza, and you can read about it here and here.

Re:Actually...

[Andrew Cady]

Actually from my own research, it's much more likely that the participants knew that it was wrong but have developed fairly compex ways of justifying their activity. It's called "neutralization", whereby deviants 'neutralize' the social controls that normally inhibit illegal behaviour. This theory was originally put forward in 1957 by Sykes and Matza, and you can read about it here and here.

You could say the same thing about the media lobbyists creating the copyright law, etc. Research on psychology cannot presume anybody "knows" what is wrong, because that presumes the researchers have that knowledge themselves.

That copyright infringement is wrong is a difficult case to make; directly it hurts no one. That copyright is wrong is much easier; it directly deprives most people of access to most of the world's artistic work, and also prevents us from doing a lot of great things.

From an economic perspective, copyright is just a very bad mechanism to fund a public good. Copyright infringement, on the whole, most likely increases the efficiency of the mechanism, by increasing the number of copies, and thus the value, of the copyrighted works.

What's fair?

[Andrew Cady]

The basic fact is that we can copy material whether we have authorization or not. Those who would profit from our purchasing it wish us to purchase it, and they appeal to our altruism -- they want us to purchase their copies because we want them to have our money, as if they were a charity. This is not far-fetched, in general. There's nothing wrong or silly about asking for charity. Charity and altruism are things I am willing to offer, and many others are too.

But are the people asking for charity here people who would ever give the same to us? They claim to be in need, and us to be able to help; but if we are in need, will they help? Will Microsoft ever lower its prices just because it can afford to and it would save us money? Or do they price their software wherever it makes them the most money?

If corporations base all their decisions entirely on their own personal profit, how can they ever expect us to sacrifice our personal profit for their good? Is that fair?

I believe in sharing, but when I share with others, and they don't share back, I stop sharing. I only pay for free software.

Pirate goods aren't worth it

[RichardX]

Seriously. Don't do it.
I thought I was getting a bargain when I bought a bunch of stuff off this pirate I met in a pub, but I later found out that the parrot was in fact dead, and not just pining for the fjords as he claimed, the eyepatch was for the wrong eye, and the cutlass was made of plastic.

Still, at least I didn't feel quite as ripped off as the time I bought a DVD from this bloke I know - he works in a place called "HMV". Paid £20 for the DVD, I did.. what what do I find when I get home and pop it in my player? I'm forced to sit through a bloody two minute intro lambasting me for my evil criminal pirate ways, and how I, personally, am causing the entire film industry's collective children to die a horrible death from starvation. And it was all encrypted so I couldn't (legally) make a backup of it for my own personal use.

Bloody inferior quality goods. I've learnt my lesson. I'm sticking to Bittorrent in the future.

Morality

[keean]

When justifying war, the argument is often made that the death of a few is justified by the saving of many more.

We often say the moral action is the one that brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of people.

Therefore copying software, many gain something for free, at the cost of depriving a few of income.

By the above argument you have a moral obligation to copy as much software as possible... Or the justification for 'moral-war' is invalid. Both cannot be true as that would be a self contradiction.

You could argue that by copying, people will stop writing software - but that is obviously rubbish as we can see from the free-software movement.

Besides, if people stop writing generic software because of piracy, people will have to pay programmers directly to adapt free software to their needs. If the ammount of money available to invest in new software is constant - more money will now be spent on new features and entirely new software products... In other words copying software stops companies writing one product and then sitting back and collecting money for effectively doing nothing.

164 year old prophecy comes true

[hey!]

From Lord Macaulay's 1841 speech on copyright extension:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass [...] there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men.
[...]
Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.
[...]
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

There's Chinese proverb that states: many laws make many criminals. It isn't just that reasonable activities are criminalized; it's that acts that ought to be criminal become more respectable by association.

Unauthorized use of software somebody has created with the idea of supporting himself through selling it most certainly is theft. It is not theft of the work, it is theft of the revenue that the author could expect. Granted, the author can't name any arbitrary price the way SPAA does in press releases; it's ecnomically naive. But pirates don't have a moral leg to stand on: they can't say this thing has no value so I shouldn't pay for it; if it had no value they would not pirate it.

The problem is that the entire system of intellectual property has become imbalanced, incomprehensible harmful to the public good. In part this has to do with bad laws like DMCA, in part with legal practices like blending licensing and copyright in mass market sales. But nonetheless, the public can't work productively with the current IP situation. One great overlooked advantage of F/OSS is that it is comprehendable. The most complicated F/OSS license is GPL, which (a) is not complicated by commercial license standards (b) standardized and widely used and (c) completely safe for anybody who isn't in the business of selling software.

No surprise

[Peaker]

Most people have long forgot the purpose of copyright.

And no, folks, it is not meant to reward authors.
Copyright has for a long time stood without legal basis (Violating the "Limited Times" clause), but for the last 20 years, its also violating its original purposes.

Lets restore the original copyright:
1. Limit all copyright times to the minimum required to pay back for creation costs (along the lines of 5 years).
2. Cancel copyright on functional information (such as software). The power it grants the copyright holder over its user, even in a limited time, is too great. Software creation, in most cases, requires little to no financial incentive, and in niche cases where it does, payment to programmers is still possible.
3. Allow copyright, but only apply it to inter-legal-entities copying. This would mean that EULA's have no effect (You really shouldn't need extra permission from the copyright owner to run the copy you bought!).
4. Disallow copyright of the binary-form of software and creations. Only allow copyrighting Software in source form (And yes, music in its "source" forms). This is because copyright is all about making the derivative works possible in the future, in order to grow society's information base. You can make derivative works from public-domain software source, but you cannot make derivative works from binary blobs, even if they go into the public domain. How does it promote Science and Useful Arts to create dead-end pieces of information?

Lord MacAulay

[panurge]

I can't help adding that Lord MacAulay practically wrote the Indian legal system himself, and that anyone who gets past his nineteenth century writing style will discover, as I did, that far from being some stuffy legal figure he was a serious progressive. He argued for greater democracy, for the abolition of the privileges of the aristocracy, and (although he had to be very careful how he wrote in those days) he would clearly have supported the abolition of the monarchy and the introduction of a republic. He also attacked the use of religion to exclude groups from society. Even his popular stuff, like his Lays of Ancient Rome, need rereading. The last of the Lays is an attack on the aristocracy in support of popular democracy, and they are supposed to represent the evolution in understanding as the Roman empire developed. My English teacher at school rubbished the Lays because, she said, they contained many errors and were unrealistic. It was only years later that I read MacAulay's own commentary where he explained that he had deliberately tried to write them from the standpoint of someone knowing no more than a Roman of the time, and with the exaggerations that a verse writer would put in. MacAulay 2, English teacher 0.

It's a pity he's not around today when some of his targets are getting to be so big again.

Re:164 year old prophecy comes true

[1u3hr]

I think copyright infringement of things like Photoshop is even more destructive than theft... Piracy devalues the product.

No. Piracy of PhotoShop is one of the prime reasons it is unchallenged as an image editor. If every aspiring graphic artist had to cough up hundreds of dollars for a legal copy, many of them would think seriously about the much cheaper alternatives (PaintShop Pro, [until recently], Gimp, Ulead, PhotoPaint, etc). There would be many more if there was a market, but there isn't. If you're poor you use pirated PhotoShop, when you get a job in the field you insist on using it and the company buys it. Pretty much the same way that MSWord became the de facto standard. Consider that though MS and Adobe make a lot of noise about piracy in the Third World, the only time they do anything serious is when countries decide to get honest, and start looking at Linux instead of Windows, for instance. Then MS brings out the hugely discounted version. Until then, they were happy for the pirates to build their market share, knowing that if the economies grew to the point of being able to afford to buy software, they would be already locked in. Adobe has brought out several cut-down versions of PhotoShop for similar reasons, like PhotoDeluxe, which was bundled with scanners and such, to fend off other cheaper image apps that would have been bundled otherwise and obtained a foothold in the market.

You have got to be kidding me

[Vladan]

2. Cancel copyright on functional information (such as software). The power it grants the copyright holder over its user, even in a limited time, is too great. Software creation, in most cases, requires little to no financial incentive, and in niche cases where it does, payment to programmers is still possible.

I don't understand how this comment gets modded +5 Insightful with no dissenting opinions on a forum for computer technology professionals. When did the average Slashdot moderator become a warez kid?

How else could I explain such support for cancelling copyright on software? Software patents yes, copyrights no. I know this is an open source community but you can't seriously believe that you should ban closed source software development.

Open source is great, forcing open source on companies isn't. If someone should decide not to disclose source for his program, that should be up to him, it shouldn't be up to the warez kids to scoop it up and claim "oh, but I am entitled to violate the contract because of my interpretation of the historical meaning of copyright."

All software isn't fun to develop, and even if it is, you can't waste time trying to assemble a team of dedicated and qualified volunteers to work on your huge project. That's why finanical incentives sometimes are necessary. And don't forget that developers are being paid as we speak to develop open source software.

As is often repeated, most software development is done in-house. If a company develops a tool for itself, do you really believe a competing company should be allowed to use that tool without the creator's permission just because it is in binary form? Even the GPL enforces terms on binaries.

Finally, don't forget that the distinction between binary and source is only in your head. Assembly language may very well be the only source for some programs.

Re:NEWS FLASH!

[Kjella]

Pedophiles may, in fact, be "victims" of Humanity's own preference towards young women.

Actually, I would make it even more general and say that "of Humanity's sex drive". Its biological purpose is to create reproduction, but it is wildly inaccurate. Just look at the numbers of people attracted to the same sex, or for that matter to a blowjob, which is absurd from a biological point of view. It has been more beneficial to create an extremely strong sex drive which makes "everything" attractive (including stimulating yourself) than it was to evolve a finely refined attraction to male-female intercourse. A shotgun approach, if you will.

Of course, being biologicly advantagous has nothing to do with morality, just numbers. There's been some long and flameful discussions over things such as rape. If mankind was only driven by instincts and emotions, there would be no free will, no morality. Morality is a question of choice, a wolf is neither moral or immoral as we know it when attacking a sheep.

So, to sum it up, despite the attractions a person has, that person also have choices, and those choices have consequences. It may be a reason, but it is not a justification. To take advantage of a very drunk (adult) woman because you are horny is a reason, not a justification. That goes the same for most any human emotion.

The victimization is really a big trend I see everywhere. Victim of his genes. Victim of his childhood. Victim of his education. Victim of his religion. Victim of society. Victim of propaganda. Victim of violent video games. Nothing is your responsibility, nothing is your fault. If we were talking about thought crime, I could see the defense that someone is pedophile by nature. But to commit a crime, he made a choice and must suffer the consequences. Just like the rest of us when we give in to temptation.

Kjella