Right you are but since there can no be reason as to why anyone would have a right to scan my computer, due to my right to privacy, no one could know that I had the illegal copy. So how could anyone prosecute me for having a copy of it, unless I commit some other crime that entitled a search of my property? Or am I missing something? So it all boils back down as to why I should respect intellectual property. I need an argument.
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
Right you are but since there can no be reason as to why anyone would have a right to scan my computer, due to my right to privacy, no one could know that I had the illegal copy. So how could anyone prosecute me for having a copy of it, unless I commit some other crime that entitled a search of my property? Or am I missing something? So it all boils back down as to why I should respect intellectual property. I need an argument.
450 million to a company worth many billions is chump change. Let's not forget also that many developers have made a pretty penny too, despite this evil piracy.
Again, a flawed argument, as slavery impeded on the rights of an individual, so outlawing it was actually constitutional (and, oddly, in a similar spirit to copyright law).
Yes but, using the US, that definition is based on the capitalist market (note: NOT free market) concept that market competition=progress, which in the current structure is still very true. Removing the income generated by copyrights does infringe the individual's ability to further the progress of sciences and useful arts.
And yes, I realize that my response is vague and full of arguable points, but so was the original.
We seem to be getting a lot of useful arts, so I'd say it's working.
And the question I was responding to was "who says you have those rights?" Whether you think those should be your rights is irrelevant.
Finally, your complaint about mickey mouse is irrelevant - the exclusive rights that prevent making copies of software (except for the dmca) have always been there - the right to prevent copies, distribution and derivative works. All that has changed is the duration of these rights. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy with a 20-year copyright term on apps either, so what's your point?
Agreed. And also don't forget that Apple is primarily a hardware company, regardless of the profits made on their software and selling via itunes.
That said, it doesn't really justify piracy either...
I think you'll find it does. If you download an unauthorised copy of something for private use, it's a civil matter. If you make money from unauthorised copies of things, it turns criminal. There is massive difference between the two.
Actually, I think it is the term he meant b/c he seems to demonstrate a low level of understanding of the law & economics -- otherwise he'd know that burglary doesn't equal theft, and theft can involve intangible property.
re: profit and copyright infringement
That's not traditionally true at all!
Until the DMCA was passed in 2000, the original wording of the copyright law made a distinction that an infringement was NOT a criminal offense if an "attempt to gain financially from the infringement" couldn't be shown. It *also* said that more than 10 copies had to be made of a given work to qualify.
IMHO, that made MUCH more sense than what it was changed to later....
That's not traditionally true at all!
Until the DMCA was passed in 2000, the original wording of the copyright law made a distinction that an infringement was NOT a criminal offense if an "attempt to gain financially from the infringement" couldn't be shown. It *also* said that more than 10 copies had to be made of a given work to qualify.
IMHO, that made MUCH more sense than what it was changed to later....
I am sure that's not the norm. I would think that's the exception. Just like a commercial that states you can make craploads of money working at home making jewelry, the fine print states that this is not common.
Yeah and open-source development also furthers the progress of the sciences and arts (what arts aren't useful?). So the appeal to progress won't cut it for intellectual property for it is obvious that there can be significant progress without intellectual property holding. See firefox.
This statement is odd, as it is one of the primary motivations for the existence of said laws...
I am not commenting on your general point, but in most cases it would be relatively easy to find evidence that you downloaded an illegal copy of an app. Most people severely overestimate their anonymity on the internet.
So you only obey the law if you think you might get caught?
And you think there is no way to get caught without a "scan of your computer?"
Ok, good luck with that.
As with any market, you will make little by copying what's already there, whereas by introducing something new you will attract many more customers.
And, again, as with any market, the innovaters are in the minority.
I'm pretty sure Apple knows the amount of additional money Apple would have made if none of the alleged piracy had never occurred is much closer to $0, than it is to $140,000,00 and that is the actual reason Apple isn't "losing" additional money wasting time preventing piracy that either isn't actually happening or doesn't actually cost Apple or anyone else any money. I hate ridiculous inflammatory "news" claims like this.
The profit motive has been a far greater source of innovation than has open source ideals.
Please enlighten me how you would accomplish this without violating my privacy rights.
Open-source is a choice. There's no reason that both markets cannot co-exist (and do, just like how I am currently working in Firefox and posting this in Safari). And open-source depends on other people contributing to the work voluntarily; if all software was open-source and nobody paid for software, there would need to be a heck of a lot of developers with good hearts who wish to contribute, since the average pirate is unlikely to spend their time on development (again not aimed at you, for all I know you could be a contributer to firefox).
Also, I know a lot of people involved in OpSo dev, and they make their livings developing software for other companies. If those companies couldn't pay them to develop the closed source software, they wouldn't be able to spend the time (or in some cases, even have the knowledge to) contributing to the OpSo projects...
Totally OT, but what was the point that changed your mind about capital punishment?
Not entirely true. And the opensource market has led to innovations in the private market that may never have existed before. The main reason the profit motive has contributed more to innovation is that it is larger and has been around longer (though I agree with the basis of your point, see my last post).
I can partially agree with you on that point. I am arguing that the effects are not the same. I would however argue that the effects are the most important aspect this equation, and the reason that it should be handled differently.
The reason I don't think they should be referred to by the same name boils down to the following:
If you replace piracy with theft in the following sentence, it makes no sense:
"The effects of piracy and theft are not the same and should thus be handled differently"
"The effects of theft and theft are not the same and should thus be handled differently"
???
Using the same term for two things that have different effects is just confusing. If you want, I can call them virtual theft and physical theft. Using the same term warps peoples thought process and they do consider the effects of virtual theft and physical theft to be one and the same. Theft is theft right?
The illusion that virtual theft and physical theft have the same consequences is probably my biggest pet peeve, and I don't like anyone furthering the illusion. This illusion shapes government policy and allows companies to employ whatever anti-competitive practices they want as long as they are "fighting piracy". If people actually understood what was going on, some of these things wouldn't happen. As long as piracy is viewed in the same manner as physical theft, it will be handled incorrectly and honestly, the paying customers are the ones that will feel the effects.
I only obey laws that I can defend the merits of intellectually, i.e. on the basis of arguments that I find convincing. Otherwise it isn't a justifiable law and we all know what Augustine has to say about that.
Please do enlighten me.
Oh, pretty please, when will I be able to make up garbage and have MacRumors post it to their main page???
75% of stories posted to MacRumors.com contain information that is pure conjecture or taken out of context ... or was that 25%? Since each of those pages are viewed 100,000 times, we estimate the actual number of people being misled by stories on MacRumors.com to be 300,000.
Augustine also said that Unicorns exist because he could imagine them. No point in the argument here, just saying...