Themer
Chairman of Selectors
It does if thats your opinion.
" Piracy "
- Thread starter Chetan0304
- Start date
mukund_nadkarni
Club Cricketer
If you say so.
The developer has to cover the costs before they make money, remember that, they have to pay rents, utilities, distribution costs, salaries, advertising, etc like any normal business. You have no right to share the media that the developer sells to you unless stated otherwise (shareware, is quite self-explanatory!).
Your rights? It's their product and they sell it as they see fit, you have no choice in that matter and you can't just twist it so it does fit your beliefs as it breaks the rules.
I think I'm understanding your opinion more now, would it be fair to say that you believe that as it is technically possible to share it, the companies haven't done enough to protect it and thus you can distribute it as you want?
mukund_nadkarni
Club Cricketer
More or less, but nothing to do with copy protection. I'm definitely making a difference between digital data and other physical objects here, on technical grounds, because it is very much possible to make a digital copy. If you use the analogy of vodka, then you will also have to extend the same privileges that a vodka enjoys, rather it's user actually, of being able to share freely. Needless to say then, as Kshitiz said the software industry as it works today will collapse. I definitely do not believe that digital data has to be treated in the same way as vodka. That it is fundamentally different. However I do think that because it is technically copy-able the traditional system where the owner sets a price depending on his own terms as well as demand is not correct. This is so because you are expecting people to refrain from something that is technically not at all stealing. And as you expect them to do that you also expect them to buy softwares at exhorbitant rates. Which is the fallacy of this system. Which is why piracy happens in the first place. And if the companies do expect people to refrain from copying so that they don't make a loss, it's only reasonable to expect sensible pricing from them. That apart they are crying themselves hoarse over those who might never buy their softwares but have their copies. I'd really love to know what exactly any company loses if someone gets a copy of their software who can't afford it?
mukund_nadkarni added 11 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...
Exactly what I disagree with. Ties in with what is said above. The users do have a say in the pricing. The technical realities are such. As for 'right' I imply that right as it exists, not necessarily guaranteed by society or law.
FreddieFan
International Coach
This is the flaw in your argument - this is indisputably wrong.
sohum
Executive member
Quite simply, you can't lose something you never had.
Let's look at an analogy that actually works (maybe). What are the properties of digital data? Easy to copy. Easy to distribute. For free. Let's look at the form of digital data that is software. Years of research, development, testing, time and money go into it.
Now let's suppose you buy an original joke book. It contains a lot of original jokes written by the original authors--and all copyrighted. You read some really funny jokes and decide to tell them to your friends. You have essentially copied the knowledge of the joke to someone else. But you haven't moved any physical atoms (unless you have a loud voice, I guess).
This is essentially what happens with software. Someone buys it and then gives other people copies of it. We don't see authors of joke books going around screaming that their jokes have been stolen and that they have lost hundreds of dollars from people not buying their book.
So what's the difference? Money. A lot of money goes into software. Maybe too much money? I think what really hits the software companies are pirates that sell software. That is a segment where they can truly claim losses because someone was willing to pay money for it, but not the posted price.
What's the solution? At the moment the best solution we have is measuring pirated software as being illegal. And the reason is that no one possibly understands the realities of the digital generation enough to build laws that sensibly represent them. Just transferring laws over doesn't work. Think of the difference between software and physical items as a difference between adults and children. If we were so naive as to apply the same laws to prosecute children who have committed crimes as we did to prosecute adults, are society would be far worse off. This is an issue that our generation needs to actually, seriously think about instead of blindly following the laws built by the generation before us--who grew up in a world of analog TV's and cassettes.
Finally, to say that everyone intelligent completely agrees with the situation is ridiculous (don't know if anyone ever said it but I'm stepping onto my soapbox now
). Different people react differently. The Open-Source industry grew out of a hatred for intellectual property rights, ridiculously over-priced software and confusing legal licensing agreements. The OS industry functions on one very simple rule: If you're going to copy something, credit the original author.That's all I have to say about this topic. As a software engineer about to enter the corporate world I cannot vehemently say that all software should be free, because then I would have no livelihood. However, I still have the confidence that there is a solution possible that is fair towards all the parties involved, and that solution is not to sue the hell out of everybody.
Insomniac
Title Recipient
Just to add to sohum's post, I feel that it will be almost impossible to stop piracy in one way or another, and one idea that investors and corporations need to look at is allowing software to be free, but ad-sponsored.
Prehaps this may be the only way to allow all parties to be happy, and for the companies to make money off their product.
Prehaps this may be the only way to allow all parties to be happy, and for the companies to make money off their product.
To be honest I would only pirate because I can't afford to be spending ?40 on one game and other ridiculous prices. Companies can't claim to have lost a sale from me because I didn't take anything physically from them, am not gaining financially from their product and wouldn't have bought it anyway. This is just my case and many others will be different.
Not really. I'm no better off financially by pirating a product then not getting it at all. Only if I was going to buy it initially but chose to pirate instead would I see any financial benefit i.e save myself the expense. I wouldn't gain or lose money if I were to pirate something. Now, selling pirated material is a different matter altogether.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
You're no better off finacially but you have gained something, the product in question.
Chetan0304
Chairman of Selectors
I must be the in the top list , bought the T Series audio release of Slumdog Millionaire
No difference between the original and between my friends Album (he d/l from net >.pk)
No difference between the original and between my friends Album (he d/l from net >.pk)
Hmm...interesting question. If you acquire a product for not cost, with absolutely no intention to sell it, can you say to have gained something financially? I mean, it is of no financial worth to you as you'll never trade it in, while at the same time it is an asset with financial worth, even if you aren't gonna cash in on it.
Similarly, if you never intended to buy something, but only acquired it via other means cause it was free/very cheap, can the companies honestly claim to have lost a sale? I may never have bought Cricket 07 (For example), but just because I found it free on the net I decided to play it. Had I not found in on the net, I would have gone without it and be happy.
Interesting dilemmas there. Guess it is how you look at it. If you see obtaining some software for free that you had no intention of buying anyways and have no intention of cashing in, you have neither robbed the producer of a sale nor gained in monetary value with no work, and so technically you haven't pirated.
But if you did obtain something you would have bought otherwise, or obtained something that you eventually sold/traded/given to someone else who would have bought it, it could be claimed you stole from the company in question, and hence pirated.
I think these are the key points now, seeing as how it's been settled that Software is different from Physical goods in that the person you 'steal' the software from still has his own copy. It's just about whether you have stolen a potential sale from him, and hence indirectly money that should be his. But if you obtained it and weren't a potential customer anyways, no were you likely to cash it in, you've avoided indirectly stealing Cash from him, and so haven't 'stolen' anything.
But then you could argue that you are enjoying the benefits of the program without paying the guy who created it. You are playing the game or using the software and having fun, but the guy who made it is earning nothing off you. You are using his software without paying him to use it, you are using it against his permission. This ties in with the licenses thing. You haven't paid for the license to use his game/music/software, and so legally, he hasn't given you permission to use it. You are using it against his will. And that should be illegal.
But the protection for this stuff is so flimsy that anyone can access it and share it and use it freely, and so if they wish to make things stricter and harsher and be able to enforce the fact that you need a license to use their things, they need better protection. Problem is, on the Net, there will always be someone one step ahead who could crack whatever defence there is before passing it on...
So in the end, if they really want to reduce Piracy, there only hope is to create DVDs for Games/Musics/Movies/Software that are un-crackable and un-accessible, forcing everyone who wants to enjoy the benefits to pay for it. But again, this is virtually impossible, and so they should change their laws and their means.
But yea, no doubt, Piracy is illegal...
Similarly, if you never intended to buy something, but only acquired it via other means cause it was free/very cheap, can the companies honestly claim to have lost a sale? I may never have bought Cricket 07 (For example), but just because I found it free on the net I decided to play it. Had I not found in on the net, I would have gone without it and be happy.
Interesting dilemmas there. Guess it is how you look at it. If you see obtaining some software for free that you had no intention of buying anyways and have no intention of cashing in, you have neither robbed the producer of a sale nor gained in monetary value with no work, and so technically you haven't pirated.
But if you did obtain something you would have bought otherwise, or obtained something that you eventually sold/traded/given to someone else who would have bought it, it could be claimed you stole from the company in question, and hence pirated.
I think these are the key points now, seeing as how it's been settled that Software is different from Physical goods in that the person you 'steal' the software from still has his own copy. It's just about whether you have stolen a potential sale from him, and hence indirectly money that should be his. But if you obtained it and weren't a potential customer anyways, no were you likely to cash it in, you've avoided indirectly stealing Cash from him, and so haven't 'stolen' anything.
But then you could argue that you are enjoying the benefits of the program without paying the guy who created it. You are playing the game or using the software and having fun, but the guy who made it is earning nothing off you. You are using his software without paying him to use it, you are using it against his permission. This ties in with the licenses thing. You haven't paid for the license to use his game/music/software, and so legally, he hasn't given you permission to use it. You are using it against his will. And that should be illegal.
But the protection for this stuff is so flimsy that anyone can access it and share it and use it freely, and so if they wish to make things stricter and harsher and be able to enforce the fact that you need a license to use their things, they need better protection. Problem is, on the Net, there will always be someone one step ahead who could crack whatever defence there is before passing it on...
So in the end, if they really want to reduce Piracy, there only hope is to create DVDs for Games/Musics/Movies/Software that are un-crackable and un-accessible, forcing everyone who wants to enjoy the benefits to pay for it. But again, this is virtually impossible, and so they should change their laws and their means.
But yea, no doubt, Piracy is illegal...
That's how I see it though. Nobody can come to me and say "You cost (____) a sale because you downloaded their new game". I was never a potential customer and will never be one. I have not taken the physical game disc and box but just the files that would be on that very disc. I do not intend to sell this and never will do so. Therefore, the game is only worth some hours of enjoyment to me and thats all.
Infact, in some cases piracy helps promote certain films/games/albums etc. many people are reluctant to buy certain things whether due to lack of promotion or uncertainty of the items quality. After downloading for free and ejnoying it, many then go on to buy the very same item but also tell all their friends/family, many of whom will also buy it. Therefore, the company has indead gained many extra sales instead of lost.
Infact, in some cases piracy helps promote certain films/games/albums etc. many people are reluctant to buy certain things whether due to lack of promotion or uncertainty of the items quality. After downloading for free and ejnoying it, many then go on to buy the very same item but also tell all their friends/family, many of whom will also buy it. Therefore, the company has indead gained many extra sales instead of lost.
