Piracy is theft. That's not my emotions saying that, that's a fact. Software is property. That's all there is to it. You're looking at the effect of you pirating software rather than the act of pirating itself.
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
Piracy is theft. That's not my emotions saying that, that's a fact. Software is property. That's all there is to it. You're looking at the effect of you pirating software rather than the act of pirating itself.
Ok? Depriving someone of their rights isn't stealing. It's IP infringement, apartheid, segregation, Jim Crow, whatever you want to call it. Rights cannot be stolen.
Plenty of studies on the music and software industries have shown that piracy is good for business, for reasons already pointed out earlier in the thread (more exposure, trial period, etc.).
At least they didn't assume that each pirated download was a lost sale like the entertainment industry is so fond of doing.
However, as someone about to start their own app business, I must admit that I couldn't care less about any of this. Piracy isn't always a bad thing, after all there are studies showing that music "pirates" are also those who buy the most.
I'd also like to point out that this data assumes that people who pirate apps didn't later buy them, which - as I just mentioned - is unlikely the case.
However, as someone about to start their own app business, I must admit that I couldn't care less about any of this. Piracy isn't always a bad thing, after all there are studies showing that music "pirates" are also those who buy the most.
I'd also like to point out that this data assumes that people who pirate apps didn't later buy them, which - as I just mentioned - is unlikely the case.
What entitled that right of yours? Tell me why I should respect it. Give me an argument defending intellectual property.
I just love that. I violated your right to exclude me by not recognizing the "right" you just made up. There is no universal human right to intellectual property. Sorry to break it to ya. And since we live on the internet, and I can copy your stuff from an entirely different country, there is no reason why I should respect the laws from your country if I deem them dubious, as I do your intellectual property rights. So before you can claim I have violated you, you must provide an argument that would make me recognize your right to exclude me from your intellectual property. That's the beauty of the internet, it allows you to reject the laws you deem bogus.
I didn't claim that it was. You claimed that "Unless you're reselling the app you haven't deprived the copyright owner of anything other than this phantom revenue..." I was just pointing out that you were wrong in this statement.
Actually ....
I'd be very willing to reverse my position, if someone was able to provide me with a convincing argument to do it.
That's a big reason I bother debating these issues in the first place. I've actually come full-circle over the years on something I thought I was firmly decided on; Capital Punishment. (I was firmly "pro", until I was presented with an argument I couldn't refute. Now I'm "pro" in theory, but against in the current political setting.)
Unfortunately, so far, most of the "anti piracy" arguments I see are the same, tired old points that always get brought out - complete with claims that it's the same as "stealing" or common theft, or some claim that it's about protecting one's "freedoms". (Sorry, but someone physically entering my home without permission and using my stuff might not mean he/she stole anything of mine, but it in NO way equates to obtaining a copy of some commercial software without paying the licensing fee. I'd agree that I was "violated" by them entering and using my property without permission, but we already cover that act under "trespassing" laws, so totally different issue....)
There *are* laws against copyright infringement, as it currently stands. My argument is that they're unjust and corrupt laws. The DMCA is *terrible* legislation, and was passed only after big content providing industries paid off legislators to push it through.
I'd be very willing to reverse my position, if someone was able to provide me with a convincing argument to do it.
That's a big reason I bother debating these issues in the first place. I've actually come full-circle over the years on something I thought I was firmly decided on; Capital Punishment. (I was firmly "pro", until I was presented with an argument I couldn't refute. Now I'm "pro" in theory, but against in the current political setting.)
Unfortunately, so far, most of the "anti piracy" arguments I see are the same, tired old points that always get brought out - complete with claims that it's the same as "stealing" or common theft, or some claim that it's about protecting one's "freedoms". (Sorry, but someone physically entering my home without permission and using my stuff might not mean he/she stole anything of mine, but it in NO way equates to obtaining a copy of some commercial software without paying the licensing fee. I'd agree that I was "violated" by them entering and using my property without permission, but we already cover that act under "trespassing" laws, so totally different issue....)
There *are* laws against copyright infringement, as it currently stands. My argument is that they're unjust and corrupt laws. The DMCA is *terrible* legislation, and was passed only after big content providing industries paid off legislators to push it through.
The Congress of the United States when it passed Title 17 of the United States Code.
As a federal district court judge once told me: "when they tell me I don't have jurisdiction over them, I just smile and throw 'em in jail."
Psystar are making money off Apple (or were) but no one who bought a system from them was going to buy one from Apple anyway so its all alright?
Common law burglary is breaking into the dwelling house of another at night with the intention of committing a felony. I don't think that's the term you wanted to use.
Oh...right. Good catch.
This is a case where a company's revenue stream was tied directly to a copyright violation, so it's not the same as app piracy.
Nice but the problem is the guy in China doesn't fall under your jurisdiction. So if he copies your intellectual property and then passes it on to me free of charge, I haven't done anything to you. Let's see you throw the Chinaman in jail.
It's also funny you avoid providing an argument to defend your claim and just presume the rightfulness of your laws. How arrogant.
Yes if you can detect that it is cracked. The latest methods of cracking make it harder to detect. It's a moving target.
Actually that's only the first section of the Wikipedia article. Try reading the rest of it, namely the part that wasn't written by Sir Matthew Hale in the 1600s.
You don't need insurance against theft either.
You pirating? No. Everyone pirating? Yes. As profit margins fall, the choices to a company are either produce a crappier product, stop producing it, or charge the handful of people who actually pay for it more for the product.
I agree with your latter point, but I'm coming from the same place. Oddly I'm one of the few people here who actually deal with piracy on a professional level, and I'm pretty ambivalent towards it, I'm solely arguing within the logic people are putting forward. There have been so many posts that I'm not sure that the thread I'm following with you is the same one that we're actually both typing, so I apologize of the point is getting diluted, but what I'm saying is that there is an economical impact to piracy. And piracy IS theft of intellectual property; legal definitions aside, it's as simple as that, and it is certainly different than stealing a physical product, just as shoplifting and armed robbery are different...
OMG SEE! SEE!
JAILBREAKING DOES AFFECT APPLE!
...
450 million ain't chump change people. I have nothing against people who jailbreak, but don't pirate apps. (Like me asking will do anything.)
JAILBREAKING DOES AFFECT APPLE!
...
450 million ain't chump change people. I have nothing against people who jailbreak, but don't pirate apps. (Like me asking will do anything.)
When you USE the (illegally copied) software you receive, you are making a copy and/or derivative work in violation of 17 USC. (By copying into the computer memory). Since you are not legally entitled to the copy, the safe harbor provision of 17 USC 107 does not apply.
Sheesh!
Honestly, I'd prefer that developers spent more time making innovative apps and didn't have to worry about coming up with "innovative ways to prevent piracy". I understand the realities of the situation, but the statement is a bit ridiculous.
Perhaps I should spend more time coming up with innovative ways to keep hackers/spammers out of my website/blog/email/etc instead of spending that time on coming up with new and innovative content?
Honestly, I'd prefer that developers spent more time making innovative apps and didn't have to worry about coming up with "innovative ways to prevent piracy". I understand the realities of the situation, but the statement is a bit ridiculous.
Perhaps I should spend more time coming up with innovative ways to keep hackers/spammers out of my website/blog/email/etc instead of spending that time on coming up with new and innovative content?
Again, this is EXACTLY why I'm not gung-ho on prosecuting digital piracy. And why I'm not a member of the RIAA, nor is my company.
re: Psystar
Oh geez... are we *really* going here?
Again, very different situation!
Psystar was *making a profit* selling systems with Apple's operating system pre-installed on them, without getting legal permission from Apple to do so. The real "sticking point" here is that customers were essentially lied to by Psystar. The company presented itself as legally able to provide the end-user with an OS X compatible machine running OS X, when that wasn't the case at all.
I have NO problem with someone building their own "hackintosh" machine, buying a copy of OS X for themselves, and proceeding to hack around to make it all work. In that scenario, everyone wins, really. Apple made money selling another copy of OS X to someone. PC hardware manufacturers made some money selling another motherboard, CPU, RAM, power supply, case and hard drive. The user paid for every single item he/she used, so no "theft" involved. AND, there was no "middle man company" involved, falsely promising the solution had some sort of legal "support" as part of the deal.
Things get very different when you try to sell products you're not legally entitled to sell, vs. sharing a copy of one without profiting financially at all from said sharing.
Oh geez... are we *really* going here?
Again, very different situation!
Psystar was *making a profit* selling systems with Apple's operating system pre-installed on them, without getting legal permission from Apple to do so. The real "sticking point" here is that customers were essentially lied to by Psystar. The company presented itself as legally able to provide the end-user with an OS X compatible machine running OS X, when that wasn't the case at all.
I have NO problem with someone building their own "hackintosh" machine, buying a copy of OS X for themselves, and proceeding to hack around to make it all work. In that scenario, everyone wins, really. Apple made money selling another copy of OS X to someone. PC hardware manufacturers made some money selling another motherboard, CPU, RAM, power supply, case and hard drive. The user paid for every single item he/she used, so no "theft" involved. AND, there was no "middle man company" involved, falsely promising the solution had some sort of legal "support" as part of the deal.
Things get very different when you try to sell products you're not legally entitled to sell, vs. sharing a copy of one without profiting financially at all from said sharing.
Perhaps; it depends on how much you whine and cry about hacking when you do nothing to stop it.
My friend's dad was a superior court judge in souther California. He used to make similar comments, which always cracked me up AFTER a few drinks (before those drinks I would argue philosophy with him, which entertained my friend immensely).
And? Slavery was once legal. Copyright terms were once sane (before Mickey Mouse bought himself some Senators).
Legal != right, and illegal != wrong
Also, let's not forget the purpose of copyright: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
I think most people here are trying to get through that it's not "Not wrong." but rather not the same as stealing.
I live in europe, in europe content made available to be downloaded is always legal regardless of the state the software is in. Does this mean european law permits stealing? No, when you buy the app it is YOUR property and you can give the app to who ever you want right? I mean if you buy a CD you can give it to a friend right? the person wouldn't have paid anything for it but he still gets the product. The only difference here is that software can be replicated indefinitely, software having this advantage doesn't make it any less of legal use though.
Clearly.
They may or may not have been willing to pay 99 cents. It's quite possible that they were willing to pay 99 cents but simply preferred to pay nothing.
Regardless of whether they were willing to pay 99 cents or not, however, they have stolen (i.e. taken without permission something that they have no legal right to take) something from EA with a market value of 99 cents.
If someone breaks into your house and takes something without permission, do you really think the fact that they wouldn't have been willing to pay market value for it means that they didn't steal from you?