" Piracy "

[Harrypotter_fan]

So they put in the hard work to make the software and you just use it without them gaining anything?

EDIT: People have the option to not agree to the EULA.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Well if we go by that then software companies are going down tomorrow. One buys and then shares with the entire world practically - that's what internet has made possible.

Right! But I'm not saying that the developers shouldn't earn. Just that calling people thieves is not correct. But if you listen to the software companies that's what they are saying. The thing is they want something that is not possible, something that flies in the face of reality. They've had all their way since Microsoft came up with software copyrights, it's time for a change. But these companies are refusing to accept that, refusing to let the status quo change. They want the law to protect them from something it really can't. That apart do you really think piracy will bring down the software industry? That should have already happened then?

 

[King Pietersen]

Companies are refusing to give you permission to pay for their software once and then share it with thousands of people, how dare they........

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

Because its illegal right now. If it was made legal, big corporations too would 'share' software and developers will lose loads.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

So they put in the hard work to make the software and you just use it without them gaining anything?

I don't think I said that they shouldn't earn, rather that it is unfair to expect their users to compromise on their rights. Users have a right to copy and share what they pay for. This hurts the developer's revenue for sure, but if that is so, the software/companies need to interact with their users and come up with a system that is of mutual benefit. Presently the system is a very skewed one. The software makers impose conditions as they will, and the user is expected to comply with them. And they don't want to discuss, they want the present system to be implemented in total.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

Why shouldn't they make conditions that benifit themselves? After all, they are the ones who created it. They have the right to impose conditions.

 

[Themer]

Right. But I don't agree with the EULA. I don't buy/download the software. I'm not a customer. Instead I run a pirated copy. Are they losing anything? What are they complaining about then?

Again all those who agree with the EULA, do they also agree with their right to share being taken away? Do they have an option? Why does the law allow the customers rights to be compromised for the benefit of the software company/developers? Why not instead make it mandatory that all softwares be free to share, that it be illegal to make such an EULA that prohibits sharing, or compromises the fundamental rights of consumers.

If you don't agree with the EULA then you should not be allowed to have the software.
What are they losing? Its rather obvious potential revenue. They have lost the money that you would have paid for said product.

You seem to misunderstand your own rights. You enter a contract with the producer of the product by paying money for it and in return are given a license for the game. This license allows you to use the software you DON'T own the software and have no right to sell it on, copy it (for means other than a back up or achiving). You have the right to give you own license to someone else like lending them a disc as they will enter a contract with the producer when the software is installed.
No one should have the right to share something that isn't theres so your agruement holds no weight on that front and they infringe no rights by insisting that you don't copy it and sell it to someone else.

 

[FreddieFan]

Users have a right to copy and share what they pay for.

That's rubbish. In some cases, I would agree - I wouldn't, for example, mind you lending your car to someone else, because lending it prevents you from using it. Anything that can be used simultaneously by the person who bought it and the person they lent it to should not be legally shareable, for the reasons already mentioned - one person would buy the software and share it with the whole world. No-one would produce any software under such circumstances - I take it that isn't the conclusion you desire?

The software makers impose conditions as they will, and the user is expected to comply with them.

The user agrees to the conditions when they install the software. If you refuse to agree to the conditions, then don't buy the software. That's your choice as a consumer. The companies have every right to impose sensible restrictions on their products, which they do, to avoid the situation above. Firms can charge whatever they like for their goods, and supply and demand will dictate if they sell or not. If you refuse to buy a game for anything more that ?10, then don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the price will come down. At the end of the day, you wouldn't steal a car simply because you thought it was too expensive.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

If you don't agree with the EULA then you should not be allowed to have the software.
What are they losing? Its rather obvious potential revenue. They have lost the money that you would have paid for said product.

You seem to misunderstand your own rights. You enter a contract with the producer of the product by paying money for it and in return are given a license for the game. This license allows you to use the software you DON'T own the software and have no right to sell it on, copy it (for means other than a back up or achiving). You have the right to give you own license to someone else like lending them a disc as they will enter a contract with the producer when the software is installed.
No one should have the right to share something that isn't theres so your agruement holds no weight on that front and they infringe no rights by insisting that you don't copy it and sell it to someone else.

Why do you suppose that I might want it enough to buy it? I do believe that those who do need softwares for professional purposes do buy them and agree to the terms thereof. The ones who pirate obviously aren't those who could afford those softwares atthe prices the companies are selling. Now if I can't buy something, not at the price the company is selling, I'm not a potential customer, so no loss of revenue there.

As for the EULA, I've already asked if that is correct. Those who agree to the EULA, do they really 'agree' to the EULA? Is there an option there? The rest of the argument obviously relies on the EULA being correct/fair, that the user should indeed have no rights to copy and share. I obviously see that copying and sharing as nothing wrong, independent of the EULA. You paid for something, and you have a copy in your possession, you have a right to copy it. I really don't see that those rights as having tto be guaranteed by anyone else or by the law or the EULA, that they are fundamental rights and that the EULA is in fact in contravention of them. Which of course brings me back to square one. That is if I don't agree to the EULA I can't have the software. If I can't have the software, on my terms, not the EULA, I'm not a potential costumer, as such they are not losing anything.

 

[Themer]

Why do you suppose that I might want it enough to buy it? I do believe that those who do need softwares for professional purposes do buy them and agree to the terms thereof. The ones who pirate obviously aren't those who could afford those softwares atthe prices the companies are selling. Now if I can't buy something, not at the price the company is selling, I'm not a potential customer, so no loss of revenue there.

As for the EULA, I've already asked if that is correct. Those who agree to the EULA, do they really 'agree' to the EULA? Is there an option there? The rest of the argument obviously relies on the EULA being correct/fair, that the user should indeed have no rights to copy and share. I obviously see that copying and sharing as nothing wrong, independent of the EULA. You paid for something, and you have a copy in your possession, you have a right to copy it. I really don't see that those rights as having tto be guaranteed by anyone else or by the law or the EULA, that they are fundamental rights and that the EULA is in fact in contravention of them. Which of course brings me back to square one. That is if I don't agree to the EULA I can't have the software. If I can't have the software, on my terms, not the EULA, I'm not a potential costumer, as such they are not losing anything.

If you don't want it enough to pay for it then don't get it. Quite simple.

No such fundamental rights exist, I've said it before in this thread that you have no right that entitles you to the product. If things were like that then I could go into a shop take all their stock say that I didn't really want it enough to buy it and I feel the way society is governed in such a sense that I have to pay for things is wrong and its my fundamental right to have them.

Don't be so deluded to think otherwise

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

That's rubbish. In some cases, I would agree - I wouldn't, for example, mind you lending your car to someone else, because lending it prevents you from using it. Anything that can be used simultaneously by the person who bought it and the person they lent it to should not be legally shareable, for the reasons already mentioned - one person would buy the software and share it with the whole world. No-one would produce any software under such circumstances - I take it that isn't the conclusion you desire?

The thing is it is possible to share. My question is whether copying and sharing stuff (digital) is wrong on it's own? When you have laws that make a normal activity illegal to protect/benefit a section of the society, then I believe such laws must benefit the whole society, not just those that the law aims to protect/benefit. If that happens I don't see why I would ever want to copy or share something to detriment of the developers. But are the software companies agreeable on this?

The user agrees to the conditions when they install the software. If you refuse to agree to the conditions, then don't buy the software. That's your choice as a consumer. The companies have every right to impose sensible restrictions on their products, which they do, to avoid the situation above. Firms can charge whatever they like for their goods, and supply and demand will dictate if they sell or not. If you refuse to buy a game for anything more that ?10, then don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the price will come down. At the end of the day, you wouldn't steal a car simply because you thought it was too expensive.

Right. But if it were possible to copy that car, like we can copy digital data, will it be fair to call you a thief because the car manufacturer apparently lost a potential customer? No if you ask me.

mukund_nadkarni added 11 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...

If you don't want it enough to pay for it then don't get it. Quite simple.

No such fundamental rights exist, I've said it before in this thread that you have no right that entitles you to the product. If things were like that then I could go into a shop take all their stock say that I didn't really want it enough to buy it and I feel the way society is governed in such a sense that I have to pay for things is wrong and its my fundamental right to have them.

Don't be so deluded to think otherwise

By that logic I should be deleting all the pirated softwares and music I have on my hard disk simply because, well, I don't have enough money to buy them, so I shouldn't be having them! But how would that benefit the software and music companies? I wouldn't be using any softwares that I'd have to buy, neither would be buying music. Maybe some music, but still nowhere near to what I have on my hard disk at the moment.

As for going to a shop and lifting the items there is concerned, well that is not the same as piracy is it? And you can't point to the ways things work right now and say that that's the way should always work. If it were indeed possible tomorrow to copy real life items as we do digital data today, will you say that the same set of social and legal conditions should be applicable then as well?

 

[FreddieFan]

If it were indeed possible tomorrow to copy real life items as we do digital data today, will you say that the same set of social and legal conditions should be applicable then as well?

Obviously, or no-one would produce them. I can't be bothered to continue arguing with you. Fact is, you're wrong, it's against the law and I hope you get punished for it someday.

 

[Themer]

Yes you should delete all you pirated software and music from your hard disk. You can't afford it so shouldn't have them. It wouldn't benefit them directly but its their property that you have no right to listen to without their permisson what ever way you look at it. The fact that you can't afford them doesn't affect the situation at all as the products are something that are essential like food.

Themer added 7 Minutes and 43 Seconds later...

Obviously, or no-one would produce them. I can't be bothered to continue arguing with you. Fact is, you're wrong, it's against the law and I hope you get punished for it someday.

I agree with those sentiments.

 

[King Pietersen]

No, they're willing to entertain sensible thought, and coherent reasoning, not this utter drivel. You're basically saying that you'd be happy to put years of work into something (say a music album), before releasing it, then once it's released you'd be happy for 1 person to buy it, and then have the freedom to 'share' it with everyone they know. It's a ludicrous opinion, and no matter what way you fumble your way around it, it's stealing.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Sorry I deleted that post! It read as follows :

And I thought you guys were really interested in debating the various points. Rather you are not willing to entertain anything that challenges your opinions.

As for drivel mate, difference of opinion doesn't count as drivel.