If and only if you make the assumption that if piracy didn't exist, the pirate would actually buy the app. I don't think that case can be made.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cost of App Store Piracy Pegged at $450 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If and only if you make the assumption that if piracy didn't exist, the pirate would actually buy the app. I don't think that case can be made.
How exactly? Because if you didn't clone the chocolate bar, you would have bought one, yes? And by the sheer nature of the store, it isn't there for you to clone chocolate bars in. The shopkeeper has to pay rent/bills/the cost of the chocolate bar you cloned.
Or option 3 in which they download it for free. Really enjoy the game. Play it loads till they complete it. Then realize there's no point paying for something that they are now bored with.
re: dear pirates
Dear "Me" (AKA. holier than thou), please stop pretending the issues are this simple and clear-cut.
Stealing is a concept that only applies to tangible, physical goods. Stealing, by definition, means you removed an item from a stock of items someplace without compensating the owner for it.
What we have here is a big dispute over how much legal protection an author of an intangible work is really entitled to, when people choose to ignore the licensing agreements they've drawn up for them.
I'd say that this is VERY much a gray area. Digital data can be perfectly duplicated as long as someone has access to ANY ONE COPY of it. That's the nature of the medium and there's really no good way around it. (DRM is a poor attempt at getting around it, and we can all see many reasons that fails to be adequate.) So what we've got here are authors enjoying all the benefits of being able to sell digital material they publish, but demanding the law artificially restricts people from obtaining copies except through THEIR distributors, according to their arbitrary "terms of use".
I don't happen to feel it's a good use of my tax dollars to let my own government play "collection agency" for software developers who are trying to strong-arm every last person into paying to download something they wrote.
I *do* think that the legal line should be drawn where someone is attempting to COUNTERFEIT the original distribution (or channel). EG. If you hacked DNS servers to redirect iTunes users to a fake iTunes store, and collected people's money to download copies of the software you hosted - THAT should be punishable by law. You redirected funds people INTENDED to give the providers of the media to yourself, via deception. Same with people who crank out thousands of fake copies of Windows 7 and make people think they're buying the real ones.
When my buddy copies me a piece of software, or I grab something off Usenet (or even manage to get an iPhone app to work without paying, via apps on my jailbroken phone), so what? I'm still not a legal, registered owner of the product in question. I can't get support for it if I call in or email them. I may have placed a copy of their code on my hardware, but I never really entered into a licensing agreement with them. This is more an "ethical" issue at this point... Do I feel like I "owe" the developer their asking price for what I've got? Depends a lot on how much I use it and maybe how many other things of theirs I already bought before (and may or may not have gotten my money's worth on), and potentially many other things.
Dear "Me" (AKA. holier than thou), please stop pretending the issues are this simple and clear-cut.
Stealing is a concept that only applies to tangible, physical goods. Stealing, by definition, means you removed an item from a stock of items someplace without compensating the owner for it.
What we have here is a big dispute over how much legal protection an author of an intangible work is really entitled to, when people choose to ignore the licensing agreements they've drawn up for them.
I'd say that this is VERY much a gray area. Digital data can be perfectly duplicated as long as someone has access to ANY ONE COPY of it. That's the nature of the medium and there's really no good way around it. (DRM is a poor attempt at getting around it, and we can all see many reasons that fails to be adequate.) So what we've got here are authors enjoying all the benefits of being able to sell digital material they publish, but demanding the law artificially restricts people from obtaining copies except through THEIR distributors, according to their arbitrary "terms of use".
I don't happen to feel it's a good use of my tax dollars to let my own government play "collection agency" for software developers who are trying to strong-arm every last person into paying to download something they wrote.
I *do* think that the legal line should be drawn where someone is attempting to COUNTERFEIT the original distribution (or channel). EG. If you hacked DNS servers to redirect iTunes users to a fake iTunes store, and collected people's money to download copies of the software you hosted - THAT should be punishable by law. You redirected funds people INTENDED to give the providers of the media to yourself, via deception. Same with people who crank out thousands of fake copies of Windows 7 and make people think they're buying the real ones.
When my buddy copies me a piece of software, or I grab something off Usenet (or even manage to get an iPhone app to work without paying, via apps on my jailbroken phone), so what? I'm still not a legal, registered owner of the product in question. I can't get support for it if I call in or email them. I may have placed a copy of their code on my hardware, but I never really entered into a licensing agreement with them. This is more an "ethical" issue at this point... Do I feel like I "owe" the developer their asking price for what I've got? Depends a lot on how much I use it and maybe how many other things of theirs I already bought before (and may or may not have gotten my money's worth on), and potentially many other things.
I cannot believe you went there. You are gullible enough to believe this whole mess was caused by the average American.
The problem was mainly caused by predatory practices from bankers and other credit issuers . Sure, customers who spent more than they could afford are also part of the issue, but the truth is they are more like victims of a predatory system that collapsed over it's own greed. Guess who ended up with huge pockets of cash after practically ******** and pissing over the small guy?
This whole sense of entitlement has always been the same. People want more than they deserve, it has always been this way. The difference is that, in the case of music, movies, books, software and every other thing that can be digitalized, it's far easier to get nowadays so everyone does it.
About the legality and morality of piracy, well this is a difficult point. I honestly cannot compare a guy who points a gun to an innocent person to steal something, to someone who just does some clicking around to get something. Some people even download music being unaware that is, for some, illegal.
In this case, yes, absolutely, developers deserve money for their work.
In the case of the entertainment industry, **** it. They should be working on developing ways of making money out of existing models (p2p and streaming servers, etc) instead of fighting a useless battle.
Copying is not theft
Some people just wont pay attention.
Copying is not theft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ
Copying can be COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Stealing, and Theft requires that I actually take something from you. When pirating software, movies, or music - nothing is actually taken.
However, pirating IS unethical, and CAN be considered COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Now, the only REAL costs of pirating can be what people have mentioned related to things like bandwidth costs, or service related costs.
You cannot count lost "potential" revenue as theft. If I was going to go to a movie but got stuck in traffic and didn't get there - did the traffic steal from the movie companies? No. If I was going to download a game and a friend said don't bother because it sucks - did my friend steal from the game developers? No.
Stealing and Theft are bad.
Copyright Infringement is illegal but not always bad, and much more of a "grey area" in many ways.
Intellectual property is a new concept that never really existed until the 1900s. We are still working out the kinks. You can't really own ideas - if that is the case then Avatar is a blatant rip-off of Pocohantas and should be shut down...
The real answer is that if you make a product good enough and sell it at a price that it is worth - people will buy it. Focus on that...
I have a jailbroken iPhone because I use TMobile. I have never installed or even searched for a pirated app. I have bought about 50 apps that I use frequently on my jailbroken iPhone.
My reasons for jailbreaking:
1. To use a carrier other than AT&T
2. To enable picture messaging (MMS) on my 1st gen iPhone
3. To use SBSettings to make it easier for me to change settings like brightness or turn on or off WiFi/Bluetooth.
Thats it.
But copying is not theft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ
Some people just wont pay attention.
Copying is not theft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ
Copying can be COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Stealing, and Theft requires that I actually take something from you. When pirating software, movies, or music - nothing is actually taken.
However, pirating IS unethical, and CAN be considered COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Now, the only REAL costs of pirating can be what people have mentioned related to things like bandwidth costs, or service related costs.
You cannot count lost "potential" revenue as theft. If I was going to go to a movie but got stuck in traffic and didn't get there - did the traffic steal from the movie companies? No. If I was going to download a game and a friend said don't bother because it sucks - did my friend steal from the game developers? No.
Stealing and Theft are bad.
Copyright Infringement is illegal but not always bad, and much more of a "grey area" in many ways.
Intellectual property is a new concept that never really existed until the 1900s. We are still working out the kinks. You can't really own ideas - if that is the case then Avatar is a blatant rip-off of Pocohantas and should be shut down...
The real answer is that if you make a product good enough and sell it at a price that it is worth - people will buy it. Focus on that...
I have a jailbroken iPhone because I use TMobile. I have never installed or even searched for a pirated app. I have bought about 50 apps that I use frequently on my jailbroken iPhone.
My reasons for jailbreaking:
1. To use a carrier other than AT&T
2. To enable picture messaging (MMS) on my 1st gen iPhone
3. To use SBSettings to make it easier for me to change settings like brightness or turn on or off WiFi/Bluetooth.
Thats it.
But copying is not theft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ
I know people who bought the iphone just to they can get free apps through jailbreaking.
It's not a shocking that people will choose a pirated app over a legit one.
Look at record sales as an example. It is what it is.
It's not a shocking that people will choose a pirated app over a legit one.
Look at record sales as an example. It is what it is.
It can definitely be made in some cases, which is enough.
And if you're arguing the moral side of piracy, what then makes you morally entitled to the app in the first place? There have been a lot of arguments against piracy being theft using morality as a base, but I haven't seen any that explain what gives the argument a moral basis...
And again, not attacking, just curious.
WTF? No it doesn't. Ideas are "stolen" all the time. http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
No, we're having an ethical discussion. Some people just have no morals.
Yes, thievery has always been a tricky grey area. Thankfully it was decided long ago that taking something that isn't yours is wrong.
As I said before, "the backbends..."
Frankly your command of logic is thin at best.
The fact is if your argument persisted through out the community social order would break down as no one would feel the need to pay the fair price for that widget.
The argument works fine you just haven't accepted responsibility for your immorality.
Dave
It is a lost unit of sales that is the point. You in effect have stolen from both the store and the manufacture, to satisfy your personal needs. The Snickers people can manufacture as many as world consumption demands so in many ways the argument is very similar to the one here we are having about software. There might not be great value in that unit of something you took, but the fact remains it has value and you are morally obligated to pay for what the vendor values the item at.
The fact is if your argument persisted through out the community social order would break down as no one would feel the need to pay the fair price for that widget.
The argument works fine you just haven't accepted responsibility for your immorality.
Dave
Again, it does. The store re-orders (and is probably insured for the theft, though won't post a claim for the $.75 or whatever a snickers is this day) so the missing sale will eventually happen (plus there are, what, 36 snickers in a box?). At the end of the year, the store will calculate it's loss due to theft and, if it can't reclaim it from insurance, will up the prices the following year to compensate for potential loss.
WTF? No it doesn't. Ideas are "stolen" all the time. http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
No, we're having an ethical discussion. Some people just have no morals.
Yes, thievery has always been a tricky grey area. Thankfully it was decided long ago that taking something that isn't yours is wrong.
As I said before, "the backbends..."
Interfering with my right to dispose of my legally-recognized intellectual property the way I choose is obviously thievery, just like if you interfere with my right to enjoy my physical property. Playing semantic games to differentiate trespass on chattels from larsony is just silly.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The effects of copyright infringement and theft are not the same. Your statement makes that very clear. In that case, intended or otherwise, we are in agreement.
From Miriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing
STEALING
to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
In what way is app piracy not stealing by this definition?
While that's true, there's also another way of looking at it.
If you install an app and (for argument's sake) use it, you are able to do something that you otherwise would have paid a price for. In that sense, you've become richer by the price of the app. That money would have gone to the developer/seller instead of staying in your pockets.
Now does that matter in any practical way? Most likely not, people who pirate software will do that for whatever reasons they can justify, and people who try to make money from software will condone it and try to estimate the revenue they could have had if only piracy didn't exist.
A developer makes an application and LEGALLY offers the application at a cost to the consumer. If the consumer feels they want or need the application enough, they purchase the application.
You, the stealer, decide that you want or need the application as well, but does not want to pay the COST of the application, because 99 cents is way over your budget. SO instead, you pirate a copy of the application you wanted or needed.
The application has a cost but you didn't pay the cost to get the application. I don't care if it's a cloned snickers bar or an iFart application, but it is offered to the regular consumer at a PRICE. Legally, to get this product, you have to pay the PRICE. If you get it without paying the price that you are asked to, then you are stealing. Period.
Piracy is WRONG. I don't care if you call it stealing or copyright infringement or whatever, it is plain WRONG.
WTF? No it doesn't. Ideas are "stolen" all the time. http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
No, we're having an ethical discussion. Some people just have no morals.
Yes, thievery has always been a tricky grey area. Thankfully it was decided long ago that taking something that isn't yours is wrong.
As I said before, "the backbends..."
These are the worst rebuttals I have ever seen.
Truly man, are you just a bad debater or do you just have a weak argument?
When you "take" a CD from a store, someone else cannot buy that CD legitimately. When you "take" a copy of an app from a developer, the developer still has the app they can sell licenses to others with. You are not really understanding the differences between piracy and stealing.
It doesn't work logically. Morality does not come into play here. You can't logically state that theft and copyright infringement are identical because they aren't.
For the record, immorality isn't exclusive to theft. I'm just saying they are different, and should be handled differently.
I'll argue against anyone who claims they have a moral right to copy someone else's work.
Actually, I'm not remotely. Reread my post, I said that a lot of the same people I hear bitch about the government are, themselves, completely irresponsible.
Being the bigger beneficiary doesn't make one more or less culpable, it just makes them either smarter or luckier...
But your point is far too oversimpified, the problem was not primarily caused by bankers and credit issuers, by government, or by individuals. It was caused by all of the above, and by the incredibly horrible parenting and education systems of the past 25 or so years. But really, even establishing this point will take forever.
The point I was making was one of entitlement, and if you don't think that's happening, you're either one of the people who feels entitled or you're not paying attention...
(general you, not you specific)
You're sort of missing the point. Wanting more than you deserve isn't a sense of entitlement, it's just desire. The point is to work for what you want, not feel as though you deserve it.
Being a generation with a large proportion of middle class (i.e., the children of first gen "new money") has a lot to do with this as well, but again I don't really want to go into it here.
Well, the gun part is technically assault, it's not actually part of the theft. But I otherwise agree with the perspective.
This argument makes no sense. Why should developers benefit and entertainers not? If anything it should be reversed, since developers are at least working in the same field...
You're looking at the END result of the taking, rather than the taking itself. You TOOK it when you weren't supposed to, period.