Aries_37 wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Aries_37 wrote:
Copying. That's exactly what it is. Copying is morally different from stealing as noone is losing anything. The age old argument of 'I wouldn't have bought it even if I could afford it' makes a lot of sense. I get to use (perhaps enjoy) your stuff, you lose nothing, and my enjoyment of it affects you in no way whatsoever. If your greed doesn't like that (and it's perfectly human to not like it), then stop it. If you can't, as your product is immaterial and ridiculously easy to replicate perhaps then you will get only as much as you deserve. That's not to say that copying is or isn't right, or fair, I'm just distinguishing it from stealing which is always unequivocally wrong. The value of anything is not just based on how good it is, it's also based on how rare and how easy it is to control it's distribution.
Right here is why the rest of your sentiments don't matter.
Unauthorised distribution of software contra theft of physical objects is the difference between indirect and direct loss. It's loss in either case, and that means theft. You cannot hide behind traditional definitions of words that have not evolved with time and technology, as the concept defined by the words has covered misuse of immaterial property for centuries.
You cite "greed" as the main motivator for fighting piracy, and you say that unauthorised distribution doesn't affect the rights owners involved. Do you know what a business model is? Do you know how to project costs and profits in an environment where you cannot control your product? Unauthoirised distribution of
any kind affects developers and publishers, as uncertainty of
any kind in a market will make investment a significantly higher risk. Unauthorised distribution of software will always represent an intangible, immeasurable element of uncertainty, and will always discourage investment.
You also seem to have this strange illusion that it's good and fair that consumers decide how much a manufacturer "deserves" for a service or product. That's not how the real world works. I assume that in your world, your employer also gets to decide how much you "deserve" for your services by arbitrarily deciding whether or not to pay you? I mean, if a developer can spend his time making a product that you use without paying for it, why should your employer pay for the work that you spend your time on, right?
You can try to justify theft all you want, but you're still a thief.
Well I don't really see how it is a loss to the company in any way that does not occur legally. It's about the same sort of loss to you as if I had walked straight past your product on a shelf in a store. I had no intention of paying the price you wanted for a copy of your work. It has zero potential for repercussions on your business.
Not only is it still a loss to the company, as you still figure into the element of uncertainty that makes their industry a risky investment, but, again, as you yourself said, whenever anyone copies a product and obtains it for free, it loses perceived value. You're part of the many millions of people out there who steal products and use them for free, who make people looking at buying the product think twice about paying for something that everyone else got for free by stealing it. It has massive repercussions. You're trying to justify stealing a service simply because you wouldn't have paid for it in the first place. Any way you try to look at that, it's theft, and it hurts the manufacturers.
Aries_37 wrote:
Is it fair that I get to enjoy something that you wanted money for, for nothing? Probably not. As I did say before I'm not condoning copying or piracy, but it is very different from stealing in that it is more morally grey. In terms of any possible loss to the company it a lot more like lending than stealing. When you lend something out the company who made it certainly won't be condoning it's use by parties other than yourself, as that could be a potential indirect loss as you would put it. If you then imagine that the product will most likely only be used once and is easily transferrable between friends you have got yourself a semi decent analogy of software piracy. Is your friend stealing? How about if he had no intention of buying it either way? Is it fair that he gets it's full use just because he is fortunate enough to have a friend like you?
That absolutely does not make sense. You're trying to argue that stealing isn't stealing just because the thief didn't want to pay for the product. You just justified pretty much any form of theft anywhere.
Aries_37 wrote:
Of course unauthorized distribution will hurt investments, that's because the product itself is poorly conceived in that there is no way to control it's distribution. Any product that is easily copied, intellectually or otherwise is not a product with much value to an investor, whatever you want it to be worth.
That's such a poor, failing logic that I don't know where to begin. Are you trying to tell me that software companies have been of little value to investors throughout history?
Aries_37 wrote:
Should laws intervene to make such poorly thought out products viable?
If you're suggesting that what makes a product "poorly thought out" is that people are likely to steal it, then I'm afraid law has already intervened on the side of manufacturers. You see, there are laws against theft.
Aries_37 wrote:
Should laws add the missing dynamic that the product needs to allow it's developers to charge whatever they want for it?
If the "missing dynamic" is being able to release a product without fear of it being stolen on a massive scale, then look above.
Aries_37 wrote:
Or should the product, like all other products and services come with their own intrinsic value that is due to it's own difficulty to replicate as well as there being a base demand for it.
It has nothing to do with the difficulty involved in replicating a product. Entertainment media thrives on replication, and entertainment media has its own intrinsic value that is due to the public perception of the product, and the demand that it generates. If you think that digital media derives value from being difficult to replicate, then you obviously have no understanding of how the market works.
Aries_37 wrote:
Surely this is how a real free market should operate? You can make an exact replica of a rolex and give it out for free but people will still want the real thing. That is because there is more value to the product than it's base function. That is what constitutes a good product that will make money.
You talk about this like everyone is guided by a strong moral compass. Media piracy is actively serving to
remove any value from the media beyond the bits that make it up, and those can be had for free through theft that millions of people encourage. The number of people who will illegally copy a game and buy a legal copy if they like it is a fraction of the people who illegally copy games and keep them, regardless of whether or not they like them. If you're trying to pass off theft as being integral to a free market, you're failing.
Aries_37 wrote:
Not to mention that noone could replicate a rolex without a substantial cost and distribute it freely without a substantial loss. Like I said before movies and music can have this intrinsic quality, but video games do not. Moreover when you consider that most entertainment media is incredibly subjective, falsely advertised and cannot be refunded as retailers are too scared you will copy it- now the product not only has poor control but it's quality is questionable too. Should a product or service's price be based on what people are willing to pay for it? If you want it to sell it should. Doctors would be the first out on the streets if people worked out a way to treat themselves.
I find it hilarious that you cite free market values, and then argue that manufacturers shouldn't be able to set the price for their own products. You seem to think that entertainment media doesn't sell. I'm afraid that you're dead wrong. It does sell, in massive quantities, and people are willing to pay for it. YOU may not be willing to pay for it, but if you try to justify theft because of this, and if you try to blame the product for having qualities that you don't like, you're reeking of a sense of entitlement that I really cannot take seriously.
