BF2S Forums Is file-sharing actually stealing?

First, I believe people should have the right to sell their stuff for whatever price they want, insofar as it doesn't violate trade laws.

***

From the perspective of someone with a partially-disposable income, here's the way I look at it (doesn't mean it's legal to act on, it's just the opinion I've formed):

OK when:

- Want to test and the demo's either unavailable or an inadequate representation of the software.
- Learning the ins and outs of a program for educational purposes. I'm aware that there's student versions of software, but some of these have restricted features and are still prohibitively priced for an already strapped student. Developers are already aware of this, and most of them are unofficially ok with the matter, as when a student graduates into a professional, that will be the software they know and (hopefully) love.
- Downloading the soundtrack to a movie already in possession. I cannot make sense out of spending more (or even nearly as much) for a 30 minute soundtrack than I did for its 120 minute film. I still buy soundtrack CD's, but only if reasonably priced. Movies anymore often come with a digital copy, so why not a digital soundtrack?
- You've already bought a license, but the hard copy was damaged.
- The product is officially under public domain, even if it's still sold.

Not OK when:

- You don't think a game's worth $40, but want it in your collection anyway.
- You can't afford toys, but want to have them anyway.
- 'Testing it' is really just an excuse to use it for years.
- You've sold your copy second hand and want it back, but don't think you should buy it.
- It's so old that you don't think it's worth buying.
- It's so bad that you don't think it's worth buying.
- You're part of the 'in-crowd' who hates EA, Microsoft, or whoever, but you want their stuff anyway.
- You're going to use development software for commercial purposes (not learning), but don't want to purchase a proper license.

Development of software in the computer industry has evolved from a spirit of cooperation and sharing to advance the state of art for program to one in which cooperation is virtually forbidden. Programmers should work together to make software freely available for humankind rather than supporting efforts to restrict its issue. Richard Stillman

Make of that what you will, but I don't blame people for wanting to put food on their table and get rich.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-10 16:56:46)

Man With No Name wrote:

Is Rosetta Stone really worth $549.00?

If it actually works as well as advertised, I'd say it's reasonable to expect it to be just under the value of a course. Going off of reviews, though, not all seem to have the same stamp of quality. I've heard native speakers complain about elements of inaccuracy.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-10 17:08:42)

BN wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

Is Rosetta Stone really worth $549.00?

Hell no!

Try Michel Thomas.

Hey, never heard of that one. Taking a look now.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

Is Rosetta Stone really worth $549.00?

If it actually works as well as advertised, I'd say it's reasonable to expect it to be just under the value of a course. Going off of reviews, though, not all seem to have the same stamp of quality. I've heard native speakers complain about elements of inaccuracy.

Its not all that great really.  I got it for free when I was in the Army.  Now that Im out, its kind of hard for me to pay that much money for something that I had (and neglected) for free

Pubic wrote:

There are business models which can make a profit from the provision of free software.  Sadly, a lot of companies neglect these models.

Then again, there's tons of free-license software for anyone who wants to look.

or

Piracy would be reduced if prices were reasonable...$110 for a latest Xbox game in Australia is extraordinary.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n48/ … cylulz.png

This argument is bullshit.  Copy or not, you are taking someone's labor product without their consent.

As for the original question, no, file sharing per se is not theft.  That's too broad a brush.

I agree.  Also, you are taking their product without giving fair (or established) value for it.  That little picture is not a valid argument; it is only a justification and rationalization.

You buy a dvd and have to sit through 3 minutes of "it's illegal to steal dvds" crap.

If each of my music tracks cost, say $1. I'd have had to spend thousands for my music collection. Close to $5000.

Even the most die hard music fan isn't going to fork out that much.

FatherTed wrote:

my dad's prob spent somewhere in the region of 9k on his, and that's only the CD stuff.

I've probably spent around 2k on mine

I'm talking about the "kids these days who do nothing but pirate stuff"

Companies need to adapt and put out or shut up. Hulu is a great example of this. In the US it's a success... I'd much rather go on Hulu and watch the last few episodes of 24 I missed than download them off of BitTorrent.

But, Hulu only works in the US. If the studios and license owners don't want to make Hulu available to everyone, then they shouldn't cry when people in other countries turn to piracy to catch up on shows. To quote Trent Reznor, "they're ripping people off and that's not right."

There's nothing to debate here. If the maker of the software/music/video has not given approval for file sharing, then it's stealing. Whether you think it's fair or not is totally irrelevant. If that business model doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean that it's not stealing, it only means they're not going to stay around forever.