As for your examples, those that do violence do need to be punished, since it's hard to imagine a crowd would only break things that belong to them, and not harm someone else. Incitement is not a valid law, in my mind. So, if I get on TV and say I'll give $10,000 to whoever brings me the severed head of plague3106, you'd say I haven't done anything wrong?
So I don't really see what your point with your examples were The point was to illustrate that most of us, even you, already accept that the right to free speech is sometimes overshadowed by other rights. Once we agree on that, we're just quibbling over which and when.
so, basically you're saying "boo hoo. Its too hard. I want it handed to me on a platter" That's an interesting statement; let's explore that. One could, if one wanted to be a dick, level the same criticism at all open source supporters.
After all, crackers modify software all the time without access to the source code. You don't need source code to modify software: the source code just makes it easier. So you might as well say that everyone who's in favor of open source just needs to roll up their sleeves and put in a little reverse-engineering effort like a real man, right?
Well, no. It isn't merely a matter of degree. Modifying software without access to the source code isn't just a little harder, it's so much harder that it's impractical and, in most cases, simply wouldn't get done.
Similarly, building your own Tivo clone -- not a MythTV box but something that'll actually run the rest of the Tivo software -- isn't just bothersome, it's impractical. It wouldn't get done, and thus the software wouldn't get modified or put to effective use. It defeats the purpose of the GPL just like withholding the source code would, even though it doesn't violate the letter of the GPLv2.
Thank you for proving that it isn't about "open and free", and that GPL3 is about controlling people's use. You just made my case for me, unwittingly or on purpose. Well, it was a poor choice of words for me to say "if they want to dictate how it may be used", because as you and I both know, the GPLv3 doesn't restrict use any more than the GPLv2 does. It restricts distribution.
No longer is it about freeing the code so that it remains and all changes can be applied back to the original tree, now it is about dictating how, when and who can run the code. That's simply not true: it restricts distribution, not use. Are you just mistaken, or are you lying on purpose?
Mass is only known to us through its gravitational effect; if anti-matter falls away from matter, it must mean that it has negative mass. Mass is also known to us through its inertial effect, i.e. the relation between a force on an object and the resulting acceleration. If something had negative mass, then pushing on it would make it come toward you.
Tell me exactly where Tivo (good example) restricted the code's (use, distribution or modification)? Like I said, they prevented users from putting the modified code to effective use. You can't run it on the Tivo that's using the original GPL code, which I'd say is enough of a restriction in itself, but even worse, there's no replacement. You can't buy an "open Tivo" that will run the same code, and good luck building one yourself.
The only restriction was you couldn't do it on a Tivo. Boo Hoo. Make your own Tivo-like device, using the same software. You have the code, it shouldn't be too hard. You and I both know that's not practical. Yes, someone theoretically could build their own custom box that's compatible with Tivo, at great expense in time and money, but no one actually would.
But noooooo, that isn't good enough. RMS and people like him think they know better than everyone else, and want to dictate their terms. Well guess what, people are going to stop using stuff if they can't use it the way they want. Good! Let Tivo write their own OS if they want to dictate how it may be used. That's far more reasonable than expecting end users to build their own Tivos to run the modified code.
The end result is that people are going to stop using GPL3 software, because they aren't going to run to RMS to ask his permission. With GPL2, the conditions were simple, and nobody needed permission to use anything. Only thing that mattered was the code. The same is true of the GPLv3, of course. You don't have to ask anyone's "permission", you just have to abide by the terms of the license if you distribute the code - same as you did under GPLv2, except those terms are now slightly different.
No matter if you agree with the changes or not, you have to admit that the changes have nothing to do with improving the code, because GPL2 already handled this perfectly fine. How, or why, do you expect people to improve code when they know no one will be able to use the improved version?
That's why the GPLv3's changes do, in fact, have something to do with improving the code. They make it worthwhile to improve the code by ensuring that end users will actually be able to install and run it.
Under GPL, if someone uses my code to do something else, then their code effectively becomes my code as well, and they have to play by my rules. Therefore, I am restricting their ability to access control over their own time and creative works. I have effectively limited the other developer. The same is true of the BSD license:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
If another developer uses your BSD-licensed code, you're "restricting their ability" to distribute that code without a copyright notice or disclaimer, just like if they use your GPL-licensed code, you're "restricting their ability" to distribute a compiled version without source. The only difference is the set of restrictions. And of course, in either case, the other developer willingly chooses to take on those restrictions in exchange for using your code.
Hmm.. so you can violate my right to privacy or speech or religon, if you say you're doing so to protect my right to live? Well, for better or worse, we the people have decided the answer is yes. Look at the laws against inciting a crowd to violence, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or committing fraud: your speech is restricted in order to protect the rights of others.
If you want code open, then let it be open. If you want to control how or who uses your code, then don't make it free. At least be intellectually honest about it. The result of GPL3 is exactly the same as a EULA that restricts who and how software is run. Nope. You're confusing "use/run" with "distribute". The GPLv3, like the GPLv2 and most other open source licenses, restricts how you may distribute the code, not how you may use it.
The GPLv3 is no more or less "intellectually honest" than the GPLv2 was, and the "political ax" is no different. The agenda of the GPL was, and is, to give end users the freedom to modify the software, redistribute their changed versions, and put those changed versions to effective use. The changes in the GPLv3 are there because some companies figured out a way to sneak around that last one.
In this case, RMS is wrong. If RMS was truly about "Free" as in "freedom" he would have chosen BSD style license, which has even less restrictions. Maybe you should let him define what "free" means to him instead of substituting your own definition. Come on, you might as well be complaining that the BSD license takes away your "freedom" to distribute the software without a copyright notice or to use the authors' names in your advertising.
I even go further and will predict to you that GPL4 will be even more restrictive as people figure out ways around the restrictions of GPL3 that RMS doesn't like. Care to make a wager? If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise?
When they say "piracy", what they really mean is "poor sales". They see that their game isn't selling well, they see a lot of people playing it for free, and they assume that if only they could've stopped those pirates from playing for free, the game would've sold more copies. But, as we know from basic economics, that isn't how it really works.
If you want a laugh, go through Freedom to Tinker's archives and look for the BitTorrent threads George Ou has posted on. For example, this one. Every time he opens his virtual mouth, he flushes a little more credibility down the toilet.
But there are strong and weak copyrights, now, aren't there? I mean, that's why Kodak corp chose the name, because it didn't mean anything in any language, but it was easy to remember. If I were to make a solution for cleaning natural fibers and I called it CottonCleaner, that would be a pretty weak copyright, as anything else that cleans cotton would use those words in their own product descriptions. Those are trademarks, not copyrights. The only connections between trademark and copyright are (1) they both restrict speech and (2) some people misleadingly use the term "intellectual property" to refer to both of them.
Sure, AT&T may be GSM as well as TMobile, but Sprint & Verizon are CDMA... and some refuse to let off network cell phones on. Verizon won't activate ESN's that are not from their own phones. Verizon will - it's Sprint that won't.
I think it is a PAL thing. There used to be 16:9 sets here that would only do 480p, but they never became mainstream. They were a cutting-edge product even then, so I'd expect any of the early adopters who bought one to have quickly moved on to HDTV when it became available. Today, I think it's easier to find a digital 4:3 TV than a non-HD 16:9 TV.
'Some' people would have a problem with paying for their neighbor to do that. But that wouldn't happen in this case anyway, since the "free" access would be subsidized by whoever owns the spectrum (e.g. by selling ads), not by taxpayers.
Okay then let's just destroy all car factories and see what happens to the cars... Uh... what the hell are you talking about? That would be analogous to killing all the artists and authors, which, as you know, is not what I suggested.
In a world without copyright, there's no reason anyone would have to stop working. Even without a monopoly on copies, they can still create new works and get paid for doing it.
You claim that nothing will change. After all scarcity of creation != scarcity of goods/services, right ? Well let's check. I wouldn't say nothing would change; it would be a different market. However, it'd still be a market, and artists and authors would still be able to make money, in the same way that accountants, barbers, teachers, and almost everyone else makes money today: by providing a service that people are willing to pay for.
You'd have to be an utter fool indeed. Planning for theft (which is your suggested solution) means not producing beyond substinence level plus minimal safety margin. That doesn't make any sense. You don't think everyone else whose labor output isn't protected by government monopolies produces at "subsistence level plus minimal safety margin", do you? Of course not. They produce as much as they're paid to produce, and so could an artist or author. They don't need copyright in order to get paid for working.
Furthermore, if you're going to call my solution "planning for theft" (when, I remind you, it's really nothing more than the standard service model of exchanging labor for money), then I guess I'll call yours "planning for dictatorship", because it's based on the assumption that you'll be allowed to limit what other people can do in their own homes with their own property.
That's true, but I'd wager widescreen EDTV is even less common than HDTV. And I doubt most respondents to that survey would know the difference, or want to admit it: if I spent $2000 on a TV that only had 480 lines, I'd call it HD anyway just to sleep at night.;)
There is no winning. Then why did you bring up the context and comfort nonsense in the first place?
It's a different choice, and one they did not make. Actually, it's a choice they didn't have to make either way. Like I said, every other game manages to fill the screen whether you play it in 4:3 or 16:9. The developers of the Penny Arcade game would've done the same thing if they cared about providing a quality product.
Sorry you can't understand that, but some of us do. That's funny, because you really don't seem to understand the issue here.
"It was easier for Apple to make Linux user friendly than it was for them to fix Windows"
Actually, I believe the quote would have been it was easier for Apple to make UNIX user friendly [...] OS X doesn't run Linux it runs BSD. And of course, Apple computers didn't run Windows anyway. The quote should be: "It was easier for Apple to make UNIX user friendly than it was for them to fix Mac OS 9."
Compared to Windows 2K XP was a failure from the user's standpoint. I disagree. Recall that before Windows XP was released, there were two different branches of Windows: an NT-based "professional" branch (NT 3.x -> 4.x -> Win2K) on the one hand, and a DOS-based "consumer" branch (95 -> 98 -> ME) on the other.
Well-written apps should have worked equally well on both branches, by sticking to the common subset of Win32 that was available on both, but in reality they didn't; there was common software that would run on 9x but not 2K, and vice versa. Windows XP's major achievement was to unify those branches into a single NT-based OS that was both shiny enough and compatible enough to serve as a 98/ME replacement for average consumers.
Maybe the eye candy was "extra bloat", but I do think it helped attract customers who would've stuck with ME otherwise. And that's a good enough goal in itself: the DOS branch was fundamentally less reliable and less secure than the NT branch. If a little bloat is what it took to get people off of the weaker branch, giving them a more solid OS and making developers' lives easier, then so be it.
Remember, this isn't a movie where there's One True Aspect Ratio
No, it's not a movie. But chances are you may have seen a movie. And having seen a movie, in that aspect ratio, helps provide previous visual context and helps the format feel more comfortable. You're right, I have seen a movie. What an astute deduction, good sir.
But I've also seen TV. Lots more TV than movies, in fact. And I've seen games, every one of which (that I've seen) manages to fill the entire screen. So on the context and comfort scale, 4:3 wins out.
Beyond that, framing is totally up to the artist - in photography, some things look better totally square, others look better wide. It all depends on the content. And because the game is heavily built around art by artists, it simply would not look or feel the same if you simply arbitrarily hacked the thing to fill your ancient screen. Gee, maybe they should've thought about that when they were coming up with the design. But it's funny - this sort of thing doesn't seem to stop everyone else from designing games that work equally well on 4:3 and 16:9 screens.
And that brings me to me last point, is that basically Penny Arcade would say you are a wanker for using such an ancient display device with modern consoles. Get with the program, it's not like small 720p sets cost that much at this point. Why would I buy a new TV that's smaller than the one I already have? That's a step down, not up; I'm not about to shrink everything else I watch just to make the Penny Arcade game more readable.
On the other hand, if I want to get a TV of equal or greater size than the one I have now, then yes, they do cost that much. I'm not spending $800 on a TV when I have a perfectly good one that cost less than half that much.
Furthermore, it's not like I'm the only guy out there who has better things to spend his money on than new TVs. One third of Xbox 360 owners are using a standard TV. That means one third of the potential buyers of this game are left in the cold, simply because the developers were too lazy to do what every other studio does and make the game playable on a 4:3 screen.
It's not like the Penny Arcade game is the first or last game that is going to give you issues with your weak display. You're right, it's not the first. It's the second. Carcassonne is also fairly unplayable on a standard TV, but (1) at least it's not letterboxed, and (2) it costs half as much as the P-A game. Every other game I've played manages to fill the entire screen and uses reasonably sized fonts.
As for whether it's the last... hopefully by the time a majority of games are only playable on HD, the sets will have become affordable.
Well, I looked up the stats, and I must say I'm shocked to find that two-thirds of Xbox 360s are connected to an HDTV. Still, that means they're pissing off 33% of their potential customers.
How exactly does the visual style benefit from using less of the available screen?
Remember, this isn't a movie where there's One True Aspect Ratio and something must be lost to fit it on another screen. This stuff is rendered in real time.
... you'd better live in one of those 11% of households that have an HDTV, or you'd better get used to squinting, because it's nearly unplayable on a standard TV. The text is unreadably small, and the whole game is letterboxed so everything is 25% smaller than it should be.
Really, is there any excuse for letterboxing a video game? It's not like there are boom mikes just off-screen that need to be covered up. The game doesn't have to be "modified from its original version" -- everything is generated on the fly anyway.
That software was written in good faith, so you should act in good faith. This means that it was written in the assumption that you would have the good sense not to copy it, even if you were able. But you'd have to be an utter fool to assume that information won't be copied or shared. It's like assuming that water won't be wet, or things won't fall when you drop them. It takes effort to stop that stuff from happening, and you surely can't expect someone else to do it for you against their own interests.
So yes, in a strictly limited, very short term view you're right. Copying does not directly damage the currently available software. (just as making stealing cars lawful will TODAY increase the number of available cars in the USA. No, it won't: that's the difference between property and ideas. Stealing a car doesn't increase the number of cars in the world, it just moves them around. Copying a file, on the other hand, does increase the number of copies of that file in the world.
You see, it devastates future supply of available software completely*. There won't be any cool games if producers expect them to be copied. There won't be any non-political movies (since the incentive to make movies will obviously no longer be the enjoyment, rewarded with $, of the people who watch them, but influencing them). You're assuming the only way to make money as a game designer, movie producer, etc. is by doing all the work for free, trying to sell copies later after the work is done, and setting up a complicated system of laws in an attempt to get paid repeatedly (over the next several decades) for work you only did once (over a period of months).
But that's not true. You can find an audience beforehand and sell your labor directly to them, which is how it works in pretty much every other job there is. That business model is already common enough in the open source world: if you want a feature added, and the official developers aren't interested, you can hire a programmer to write a patch for you. You aren't buying a copy of the software, you're paying for a service; if you then release that patch for free, everyone will benefit.
because of a simple psychological effect it will also destroy the value of these movies in people's minds, even in your mind (value = scarcity, even in most domestic animals you can see this behavior). So it will be actually worse than this : there won't be any software, which you will totally agree with, since you won't want any software to begin with. Nor will you want books, nor films. Only to be utterly horrified once everyone did indeed get rid of movies. Needless to say, that way lies disaster. Nonsense. Scarcity of programs != scarcity of programming labor or talent.
Then they can do without. Just wondering : do you feel bad that thieves are denied the use of your car ? No ? The alternative to denying a thief the use of your car is that you are denied the use of your own car. If it's between me and the thief, well, I'll choose myself.
Software doesn't work that way, though. When my choices are between "I get to play it" and "you and I both get to play it", why shouldn't I choose the latter? If it's good for me to have something I like, surely it's even better for both of us to have something we like.
Isn't it hypocritical to force others to let their stuff be stolen and not do the same yourself ? That's a poor analogy. The whole problem with stealing, the very reason that stealing is wrong, is that when someone steals your stuff, you don't have it anymore. But if it were possible to "steal" something without taking it away from its rightful owner, this sort of "stealing" would be no big deal; in fact, it'd be a good thing, increasing happiness and reducing scarcity.
With software and other data, it is possible to do that. It's called making a copy.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, crackers modify software all the time without access to the source code. You don't need source code to modify software: the source code just makes it easier. So you might as well say that everyone who's in favor of open source just needs to roll up their sleeves and put in a little reverse-engineering effort like a real man, right?
Well, no. It isn't merely a matter of degree. Modifying software without access to the source code isn't just a little harder, it's so much harder that it's impractical and, in most cases, simply wouldn't get done.
Similarly, building your own Tivo clone -- not a MythTV box but something that'll actually run the rest of the Tivo software -- isn't just bothersome, it's impractical. It wouldn't get done, and thus the software wouldn't get modified or put to effective use. It defeats the purpose of the GPL just like withholding the source code would, even though it doesn't violate the letter of the GPLv2. Thank you for proving that it isn't about "open and free", and that GPL3 is about controlling people's use. You just made my case for me, unwittingly or on purpose. Well, it was a poor choice of words for me to say "if they want to dictate how it may be used", because as you and I both know, the GPLv3 doesn't restrict use any more than the GPLv2 does. It restricts distribution. No longer is it about freeing the code so that it remains and all changes can be applied back to the original tree, now it is about dictating how, when and who can run the code. That's simply not true: it restricts distribution, not use. Are you just mistaken, or are you lying on purpose?
That's why the GPLv3's changes do, in fact, have something to do with improving the code. They make it worthwhile to improve the code by ensuring that end users will actually be able to install and run it.
If another developer uses your BSD-licensed code, you're "restricting their ability" to distribute that code without a copyright notice or disclaimer, just like if they use your GPL-licensed code, you're "restricting their ability" to distribute a compiled version without source. The only difference is the set of restrictions. And of course, in either case, the other developer willingly chooses to take on those restrictions in exchange for using your code.
The GPLv3 is no more or less "intellectually honest" than the GPLv2 was, and the "political ax" is no different. The agenda of the GPL was, and is, to give end users the freedom to modify the software, redistribute their changed versions, and put those changed versions to effective use. The changes in the GPLv3 are there because some companies figured out a way to sneak around that last one. In this case, RMS is wrong. If RMS was truly about "Free" as in "freedom" he would have chosen BSD style license, which has even less restrictions. Maybe you should let him define what "free" means to him instead of substituting your own definition. Come on, you might as well be complaining that the BSD license takes away your "freedom" to distribute the software without a copyright notice or to use the authors' names in your advertising. I even go further and will predict to you that GPL4 will be even more restrictive as people figure out ways around the restrictions of GPL3 that RMS doesn't like. Care to make a wager? If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise?
When they say "piracy", what they really mean is "poor sales". They see that their game isn't selling well, they see a lot of people playing it for free, and they assume that if only they could've stopped those pirates from playing for free, the game would've sold more copies. But, as we know from basic economics, that isn't how it really works.
If you want a laugh, go through Freedom to Tinker's archives and look for the BitTorrent threads George Ou has posted on. For example, this one. Every time he opens his virtual mouth, he flushes a little more credibility down the toilet.
I think it is a PAL thing. There used to be 16:9 sets here that would only do 480p, but they never became mainstream. They were a cutting-edge product even then, so I'd expect any of the early adopters who bought one to have quickly moved on to HDTV when it became available. Today, I think it's easier to find a digital 4:3 TV than a non-HD 16:9 TV.
In a world without copyright, there's no reason anyone would have to stop working. Even without a monopoly on copies, they can still create new works and get paid for doing it. You claim that nothing will change. After all scarcity of creation != scarcity of goods/services, right ? Well let's check. I wouldn't say nothing would change; it would be a different market. However, it'd still be a market, and artists and authors would still be able to make money, in the same way that accountants, barbers, teachers, and almost everyone else makes money today: by providing a service that people are willing to pay for. You'd have to be an utter fool indeed. Planning for theft (which is your suggested solution) means not producing beyond substinence level plus minimal safety margin. That doesn't make any sense. You don't think everyone else whose labor output isn't protected by government monopolies produces at "subsistence level plus minimal safety margin", do you? Of course not. They produce as much as they're paid to produce, and so could an artist or author. They don't need copyright in order to get paid for working.
Furthermore, if you're going to call my solution "planning for theft" (when, I remind you, it's really nothing more than the standard service model of exchanging labor for money), then I guess I'll call yours "planning for dictatorship", because it's based on the assumption that you'll be allowed to limit what other people can do in their own homes with their own property.
That's true, but I'd wager widescreen EDTV is even less common than HDTV. And I doubt most respondents to that survey would know the difference, or want to admit it: if I spent $2000 on a TV that only had 480 lines, I'd call it HD anyway just to sleep at night. ;)
Actually, I believe the quote would have been it was easier for Apple to make UNIX user friendly [...] OS X doesn't run Linux it runs BSD. And of course, Apple computers didn't run Windows anyway. The quote should be: "It was easier for Apple to make UNIX user friendly than it was for them to fix Mac OS 9."
Well-written apps should have worked equally well on both branches, by sticking to the common subset of Win32 that was available on both, but in reality they didn't; there was common software that would run on 9x but not 2K, and vice versa. Windows XP's major achievement was to unify those branches into a single NT-based OS that was both shiny enough and compatible enough to serve as a 98/ME replacement for average consumers.
Maybe the eye candy was "extra bloat", but I do think it helped attract customers who would've stuck with ME otherwise. And that's a good enough goal in itself: the DOS branch was fundamentally less reliable and less secure than the NT branch. If a little bloat is what it took to get people off of the weaker branch, giving them a more solid OS and making developers' lives easier, then so be it.
Remember, this isn't a movie where there's One True Aspect Ratio
No, it's not a movie. But chances are you may have seen a movie. And having seen a movie, in that aspect ratio, helps provide previous visual context and helps the format feel more comfortable. You're right, I have seen a movie. What an astute deduction, good sir.
But I've also seen TV. Lots more TV than movies, in fact. And I've seen games, every one of which (that I've seen) manages to fill the entire screen. So on the context and comfort scale, 4:3 wins out. Beyond that, framing is totally up to the artist - in photography, some things look better totally square, others look better wide. It all depends on the content. And because the game is heavily built around art by artists, it simply would not look or feel the same if you simply arbitrarily hacked the thing to fill your ancient screen. Gee, maybe they should've thought about that when they were coming up with the design. But it's funny - this sort of thing doesn't seem to stop everyone else from designing games that work equally well on 4:3 and 16:9 screens. And that brings me to me last point, is that basically Penny Arcade would say you are a wanker for using such an ancient display device with modern consoles. Get with the program, it's not like small 720p sets cost that much at this point. Why would I buy a new TV that's smaller than the one I already have? That's a step down, not up; I'm not about to shrink everything else I watch just to make the Penny Arcade game more readable.
On the other hand, if I want to get a TV of equal or greater size than the one I have now, then yes, they do cost that much. I'm not spending $800 on a TV when I have a perfectly good one that cost less than half that much.
Furthermore, it's not like I'm the only guy out there who has better things to spend his money on than new TVs. One third of Xbox 360 owners are using a standard TV. That means one third of the potential buyers of this game are left in the cold, simply because the developers were too lazy to do what every other studio does and make the game playable on a 4:3 screen. It's not like the Penny Arcade game is the first or last game that is going to give you issues with your weak display. You're right, it's not the first. It's the second. Carcassonne is also fairly unplayable on a standard TV, but (1) at least it's not letterboxed, and (2) it costs half as much as the P-A game. Every other game I've played manages to fill the entire screen and uses reasonably sized fonts.
As for whether it's the last... hopefully by the time a majority of games are only playable on HD, the sets will have become affordable.
Well, I looked up the stats, and I must say I'm shocked to find that two-thirds of Xbox 360s are connected to an HDTV. Still, that means they're pissing off 33% of their potential customers.
How exactly does the visual style benefit from using less of the available screen?
Remember, this isn't a movie where there's One True Aspect Ratio and something must be lost to fit it on another screen. This stuff is rendered in real time.
... you'd better live in one of those 11% of households that have an HDTV, or you'd better get used to squinting, because it's nearly unplayable on a standard TV. The text is unreadably small, and the whole game is letterboxed so everything is 25% smaller than it should be.
Really, is there any excuse for letterboxing a video game? It's not like there are boom mikes just off-screen that need to be covered up. The game doesn't have to be "modified from its original version" -- everything is generated on the fly anyway.
But that's not true. You can find an audience beforehand and sell your labor directly to them, which is how it works in pretty much every other job there is. That business model is already common enough in the open source world: if you want a feature added, and the official developers aren't interested, you can hire a programmer to write a patch for you. You aren't buying a copy of the software, you're paying for a service; if you then release that patch for free, everyone will benefit. because of a simple psychological effect it will also destroy the value of these movies in people's minds, even in your mind (value = scarcity, even in most domestic animals you can see this behavior). So it will be actually worse than this : there won't be any software, which you will totally agree with, since you won't want any software to begin with. Nor will you want books, nor films. Only to be utterly horrified once everyone did indeed get rid of movies. Needless to say, that way lies disaster. Nonsense. Scarcity of programs != scarcity of programming labor or talent.
Software doesn't work that way, though. When my choices are between "I get to play it" and "you and I both get to play it", why shouldn't I choose the latter? If it's good for me to have something I like, surely it's even better for both of us to have something we like. Isn't it hypocritical to force others to let their stuff be stolen and not do the same yourself ? That's a poor analogy. The whole problem with stealing, the very reason that stealing is wrong, is that when someone steals your stuff, you don't have it anymore. But if it were possible to "steal" something without taking it away from its rightful owner, this sort of "stealing" would be no big deal; in fact, it'd be a good thing, increasing happiness and reducing scarcity.
With software and other data, it is possible to do that. It's called making a copy.