Piracy, although wrong, helps balance the equilibrium of life.

A balance can be reached:

1) If fat-cat corps. and companies charge too much for a product to line their fat pockets, people are more likely to resort to piracy, and therefore the company may lower prices to make the genuine product more attractive than the pirated one.

2) Piracy tends to lack quality but makes up for it in price.

Most importantly:
3) New anti-piracy technology will be invented because of piracy, so piracy wouldn't last if companies were so concerned about it for their loss of profits.

I am a person still in full-time education AND trying to learn new skills like programming and sports and stuff, I can't afford to buy everything brand new, I can't afford to buy everything legit. So what's the solution? Support the fight AGAINST piracy by using pirated software (although never for commercial gain). If that confuses you, read rule #3 again.

PS: Speaking from a legal side, how many bytes of digital memory do you have to copy before it's considered piracy? If I edited one byte of data in an EXE/song/picture/whatever, would it still belong to the company who developed it? What about 2? When does it no longer become the company's?

And just like stealing has been a crime for centuries, sharing has been an act promoted for just as long. Digital piracy lies in between and should be treated as such, not as one or the other.

And to say that people have only been negatively effected by piracy is perhaps a bit strong. I might even go so far as to argue the case that while Doom 3 created far less income due to piracy, there would not be a Doom 3 if Doom 1 and 2 weren't so widely pirated.

But that's not something anyone could prove. And it doesn't change the fact that it's iD's right to say how their creations can be copied and the rest are in the wrong if they don't follow the requirements of the copyright holder.

Quote: Original post by red_sodium
Piracy, although wrong, helps balance the equilibrium of life.

A balance can be reached:

1) If fat-cat corps. and companies charge too much for a product to line their fat pockets, people are more likely to resort to piracy, and therefore the company may lower prices to make the genuine product more attractive than the pirated one.

Not having money is not an argument for infringing copyright laws. It is akin to saying: -I like that Rolls Royce but I don't have the money so I build a perfect copy of it. Although it may seem ok to you it is infact not, when discovered you would be subject of infringement of copyrights, numerous patents etc...
not to mention illicit use of a known brand name.

Quote:
2) Piracy tends to lack quality but makes up for it in price.

Piracy tends to be source of numerous viruses, trojans and other pests. Not forgetting it is harmful for a working economy, they are parasites from an economical point of view.

Quote:
Most importantly:
3) New anti-piracy technology will be invented because of piracy, so piracy wouldn't last if companies were so concerned about it for their loss of profits.

A working market needs to protect itself from parasites. The common argument that states: A person who copies would most likely not buy it anyway(or copying is not a loss since they didn't purchase it) is a fallacy . Infact, many of those who have the option of copying are thinking they "save" money by doing so. Money they would spend (and rightfully so) on a game that seem interesting to the potential customer. When purchased the money spent invigorates the developer (like a blood transfusion to a bleeding patient suffering from bloodsucking parasites) whom in return can develop (hopefully) even greater games.

Quote:
I am a person still in full-time education AND trying to learn new skills like programming and sports and stuff, I can't afford to buy everything brand new, I can't afford to buy everything legit. So what's the solution? Support the fight AGAINST piracy by using pirated software (although never for commercial gain). If that confuses you, read rule #3 again.

It is not confusing at all. You admit to piracy because of a faulty notion of you having a *right* to copy because of your current financial situation. Trying to state some fictious laws is not helping your case either.

Quote:
PS: Speaking from a legal side, how many bytes of digital memory do you have to copy before it's considered piracy? If I edited one byte of data in an EXE/song/picture/whatever, would it still belong to the company who developed it? What about 2? When does it no longer become the company's?

You are trespassing on a license which is a crime but that is just the one crime, care to hear a few more?

Okay, I'm not condoning piracy here, I would only use pirated software under certain conditions, for example, I would never use a pirated copy of 3DSM, because although I think it's very expensive and obviously out of my price range, it can justify its price, and I would be using it for commercial gain most likely. I honestly would have no qualms about using a pirated copy of Word.

MichaelT, you make some reasonable arguments, but they don't directly relate to what I said. You are talking from a legal standpoint, and I am talking from a moral standpoint. What about your moral views on the subject?

You didn't seem very clear on your thoughts on the digital version of Theuses' paradox either.

Quote: Original post by red_sodium
Okay, I'm not condoning piracy here, I would only use pirated software under certain conditions, for example, I would never use a pirated copy of 3DSM, because although I think it's very expensive and obviously out of my price range, it can justify its price, and I would be using it for commercial gain most likely. I honestly would have no qualms about using a pirated copy of Word.

Well, that is your decision but it still doesn't make it right.

Quote:
MichaelT, you make some reasonable arguments, but they don't directly relate to what I said. You are talking from a legal standpoint, and I am talking from a moral standpoint. What about your moral views on the subject?

My moral standpoint is that people need to pay for the software they use. In the end there are people who try to make a living out of it, feed their family and so forth. I would love for companies like Microsoft to offer very light versions of programs like, let us say, Word for free. That kind of goodwill would only be good for all concerned.

Quote:
You didn't seem very clear on your thoughts on the digital version of Theuses' paradox either.

I don't confuse maintenance with building a replica, even if it means that all parts eventually are replaced(at which point it is a replica). That is a simple trap that I won't fall into. Besides, they own it and can do with it as they please. That is not much of a paradox either, just a simple confusion about originality.

Quote: Original post by Mayrel
The notion of property is not an inherent feature of the universe.

So are the notions of law and crime. Yet you do accept these notions as inherent to human life.

Quote: Original post by Mayrel
On the other hand, copyright has no inherent benefit to the consumer.

A copyright associates an author with his/her work. When an author can control how his/her work is distributed, then the value associated with that work can be ascertained by the consumer. Otherwise anyone would be able to claim authorship for any work and you get tainted knock-offs with no intrinsic value.

Quote:
It is also undeniably the case that copyright does not cause creators to be compensated for their work. Instead, creators are compensated only in proportion to how well their work sells.

Copyright goes beyond strict economic value. An author may wish to create work for various reasons, be it personal, intellectual, political, etc. and for which uncontrolled duplication is not in line with that author's wishes.

Quote:
I can drink the beer you stuffed my fridge with. Cheers!

And I can eat your pizza in the freezer. Let's have a party!