There it is again that rhetorical flare for appeals to moral standards. Tell me, what morality is there in the world other than might makes right, and more importantly, how did you ever come to know about it? As for your gamble... I'll take it, time will tell whether or not I seriously transgress the law. But just to be clear, your argument is based on prudence and an appeal to authority. Just the thought of the Milgram experiment makes me shudder all over again.
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
There it is again that rhetorical flare for appeals to moral standards. Tell me, what morality is there in the world other than might makes right, and more importantly, how did you ever come to know about it? As for your gamble... I'll take it, time will tell whether or not I seriously transgress the law. But just to be clear, your argument is based on prudence and an appeal to authority. Just the thought of the Milgram experiment makes me shudder all over again.
For those of you in favor of copying (pirating) of software, there is a program called CATIA (CAD for complicated systems like cars and airplanes) that is something like $20k per seat PER YEAR. I suspect I could get a download or a few DVD's for ten bucks or so, but does that make the "economic value" $10?
Nope. The economic value is the cost of development and deployment plus a reasonable profit margin, say 20-40% (China GDP growth is about 10%), divided by the number of users. That is the "breakeven cost".
I suspect that is closer to $10k than $10.
If we do not deserve 10% profit, chinese sellers of good to the USA do not either. What say we shoot for -30% GDP growth in China?
Rocketman
Nope. The economic value is the cost of development and deployment plus a reasonable profit margin, say 20-40% (China GDP growth is about 10%), divided by the number of users. That is the "breakeven cost".
I suspect that is closer to $10k than $10.
If we do not deserve 10% profit, chinese sellers of good to the USA do not either. What say we shoot for -30% GDP growth in China?
Rocketman
Merriam-Webster doesn't add anything to this debate. Whether copying Photoshop without paying for it is stealing, or taking a Lexus without paying for it is stealing are semantic questions. The original question was if the two are analogous.
There is an obvious, undeniable difference between the two: the incremental cost in manufacturing, transporting, and storing a Lexus is a big fraction of the price a consumer is asked to pay, while the incremental cost to the developer of duplicating Photoshop is ... wait for it ... exactly zero. That makes the two acts different. A bum who could never afford a Lexus costs somebody something when he hotwires it, and smashes it into the nearest post. But the poor student who could never afford Photoshop, hurts no one when he copies it, and if his rich uncle is exposed to it through his nephew and goes out and buys it, Adobe wins, or if the student becomes a rich uncle and sticks with Adobe (legally) because of familiarity learned in college, again, Adobe wins (hence educational pricing).
So call them both theft or stealing if it helps you sleep at night, consider them equally immoral or unethical, but don't call them the identical, or exactly the same, or even similar. Differentiation is not necessarily justification. The law treats them differently because they are different.
(And the comparison to the guy who plays your PS3 naked is nothing if not proof the acts are not the analogous.)
There is an obvious, undeniable difference between the two: the incremental cost in manufacturing, transporting, and storing a Lexus is a big fraction of the price a consumer is asked to pay, while the incremental cost to the developer of duplicating Photoshop is ... wait for it ... exactly zero. That makes the two acts different. A bum who could never afford a Lexus costs somebody something when he hotwires it, and smashes it into the nearest post. But the poor student who could never afford Photoshop, hurts no one when he copies it, and if his rich uncle is exposed to it through his nephew and goes out and buys it, Adobe wins, or if the student becomes a rich uncle and sticks with Adobe (legally) because of familiarity learned in college, again, Adobe wins (hence educational pricing).
So call them both theft or stealing if it helps you sleep at night, consider them equally immoral or unethical, but don't call them the identical, or exactly the same, or even similar. Differentiation is not necessarily justification. The law treats them differently because they are different.
(And the comparison to the guy who plays your PS3 naked is nothing if not proof the acts are not the analogous.)
Good so the argument has finally come to full end. Once there are enough piraters there will be nothing wrong with it. The thing we need to do then is to encourage piracy.
I know. It's like you have a long strip of road with a solitary hamburger stand. Now a new hamburger stand opens up right across street. Does the first business say they've "lost" money for every single person who frequents the other business?
People who believe the numbers in this story would be total Kool-Aid drinkers (3 apps stolen for every 1 bought, 1 billion apps bought... c'mon!).
*coughs* Proxy Masker *coughs* Enable it before downloading. Much more sticky to get the proxy masker service to find the TRUE IP source.
Also, as a Canadian, I use it get access to Hulu. Does that mean I'm "stealing" every time I watch 'Heroes' on NBC.com instead of GlobalTV.com?
With regard to the original article that has started this debate, the figures it uses quite simply don't add up.
If true, each of the 3 million devices that carry pirated materials would have ON AVERAGE 510 pirated paid apps on them, or at least downloaded to them.
So, whilst I understand that this has been an opportunity for many people to attempt to debate their points of view on the whole theft / piracy / copyright infringement thang, the article itself it utter tut, and should be treated as such.
If true, each of the 3 million devices that carry pirated materials would have ON AVERAGE 510 pirated paid apps on them, or at least downloaded to them.
So, whilst I understand that this has been an opportunity for many people to attempt to debate their points of view on the whole theft / piracy / copyright infringement thang, the article itself it utter tut, and should be treated as such.
Exactly! And, if you choose the civil disobedience route, then take responsibility. Thoreau spent his night in jail, after all.
When you were born here. Or, more specifically, when you turned 18 and accepted adult citizenship.
I use Appulo.us to test the apps. I test apps I am not sure about and if I like them, then I buy them. If I don't I delete them. Apple needs to provide a way like Appulo.us to test drive full versions of apps for short periods of time IMO. And no way it is 3-1
Nice slippery slope argument. Care to demonstrate the inferences involved though?
Perhaps. But civil rights were won by exercising free speech and influencing the lawmakers, not by the rampant violators.
Using the same argument, I could say that they should be reversed because of the actions, both legal and illegal, of the Klan. But they won't be because that is not the will of the people and, moreover, the original guiding philosophy of the constitution, that the rights of the individual are paramount.
Um, no. Once we reach that point (if we do), and there is a change to the laws (if that happens), the model on which the products themselves are produced will rapidly change. It's already happening in music, where production values for most of what I hear every day seem to diminish with each year. Good or bad (I actually prefer something warmer than overproduced crap, personally), it's an example of what will likely happen, unless the key code is then opened up to a community of developers who will want to improve it. Which, without those developers earning money from either a foundation (like the Linux foundation) or companies like Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, etc., they likely won't have the income to support such endeavors...
Just one perspective on how things could shift. Maybe everything will shift to a free use/high quality model, but I highly doubt it.
I can't be born into a social contract for a contract is something which is a mutual voluntary agreement between at least two people (children and babies are incapable of consent). Further, I don't remember that more "specific" event which you talk about. I was granted citizenship by birth right. Nothing I did or didn't do could remove that. I never agreed to, and never signed, any contract. And since the very concept of a contract precludes the possibility of imposing it upon another party (now doesn't it?), unless I say so I never accepted the contract. Please try again.
Um... apples to apples here?
I'll try a theory here. I'm not sure if it will work out, but here I go.
It's no different than using a C-band satellite or FTA (Free-To-Air) satellite dish to get a bunch of television stations you'd otherwise PAY for if you sub'd to cable or small dish (DirecTV, Dish Network). Look at all the unencrypted ("in the clear") channels like religious and special interest channels you get for free if you use the right way of getting it.
I'll try a theory here. I'm not sure if it will work out, but here I go.
It's no different than using a C-band satellite or FTA (Free-To-Air) satellite dish to get a bunch of television stations you'd otherwise PAY for if you sub'd to cable or small dish (DirecTV, Dish Network). Look at all the unencrypted ("in the clear") channels like religious and special interest channels you get for free if you use the right way of getting it.
Another reason why I think more money should be spent improving education and less bailing out banks. Improve the quality of education for a generation and in ten years we have far less problems like we do now (or, at least, people better equipped to deal with them)...
Basic common sense. Logic as follows - the majority of people work on something in order to get paid (i.e. make a living - sure they do it for other reasons too, but working to live is the great motivator). Once you take away the ability to work for your own benefit, and start working ENTIRELY for the benefit of a group of complete strangers, motivation ceases.
Here's a very simple example JohnDoe98... take something you're good at - maybe something you even like doing. Make or work on whatever it is for me. Right now. I'm serious! No I probably won't pay you, but it is for my great benefit, and maybe everybody else's too. I'm dead serious. Make something for me now. Please. And I have to want to use it.
Also, as far as citizenship is concerned, no you didn't really have a choice where to be born (tough luck cupcake), you do have every right whether or not you want to follow the laws here. If you don't want to, you don't have to - but you have to pay for the consequences of your actions, whichever they may be, for good or bad. We don't sign a contract to be controlled by gravity either. But tough luck.