Cost of App Store Piracy Pegged at $450 Million

[disconap]

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.

Actually you can. From the time you are born in the US until 18 (unless you are emancipated), you are the responsibility of your parents. So they made the social contract and are responsible for your actions. At 18, you become responsible; you can refuse that responsibility and refuse citizenship or you can join the system. By having a job/paying rent/utilizing services provided by the society, you are committing to abide by its rules. In other words, if you don't want to abide by the rules of a society then you also relinquish all but your basic human rights within it. Of course, our legal system doesn't function that way, but we're discussing theoreticals, not practicals. Obviously if you are assaulted the police will help you regardless of whether you pay your taxes. But that's more an issue of you not accepting responsibility for being part of a society, not of whether or not you are one.

Do you have a driver's license? A passport? Ever paid taxes? In all of these things you sign a form which, in part, states your citizenship.

And are you seriously saying you don't think you can relinquish your citizenship? It's actually pretty easy to do.

 

[cmaier]

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.

First, contracts do not need to be signed (other than the famous statute of frauds common law exceptions and any other statutory exceptions). Second, by continuing to live in this country and not renouncing your citizenship, your act of omission signifies consent to abide by the laws of whatever jurisdiction you are in or to pay the consequence. When you are arrested you don't get to say "i never agreed to that law."

 

[spydr]

The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me either. If jailbroken apps are getting pirated apps from somewhere, how is App store statistics even coming into play here? Clearly they are not downloading from App store and just not paying for it

 

[disconap]

Once there are enough people in favor of piracy, and there would be "nothing wrong with it..." Then things like the app store and basically every decent software developer will cease to exist.

Not to compare them by any means, but this is the same guiding philosophy that leads to every racist and classist movement in existence. It's also the same philosophy that leads to positive social change. So just stating that as some sort of rallying cry doesn't really end the argument, it's just a statement...

 

[JohnDoe98]

Perhaps. But civil rights were won by exercising free speech and influencing the lawmakers, not by the rampant violators.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the expressions of free speech and those influencing the lawmakers but I think you are grossly underestimating the power that was achieved as a result of direct civil disobedience. Before you can get the right people involved to defend your case you need to show them there is enough support for it, as a general rule.

 

[disconap]

First, contracts do not need to be signed (other than the famous statute of frauds common law exceptions and any other statutory exceptions). Second, by continuing to live in this country and not renouncing your citizenship, your act of omission signifies consent to abide by the laws of whatever jurisdiction you are in or to pay the consequence. When you are arrested you don't get to say "i never agreed to that law."

Right. And actually, this isn't limited to being a citizen, it covers just being in a jurisdiction, as a foreigner doesn't get to say that either...

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

People are pirates because of the people who aren't.

 

[disconap]

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the expressions of free speech and those influencing the lawmakers but I think you are grossly underestimating the power that was achieved as a result of direct civil disobedience. Before you can get the right people involved to defend your case you need to show them there is enough support for it, as a general rule.

Oh, no doubt. But with true civil disobedience comes accepting the responsibility of actions. Real anarchists don't cry "injustice" when arrested for breaking the law, they accept it as a probable outcome of their actions. It's just the followers who get talked into stuff that don't understand why they are made to pay for their mistakes. Not to sound like a broken record, but again, Thoreau spent his night in jail...

 

[JohnDoe98]

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.

There have been enough examples already given in this discussion to refute this point. Go read back, look for the open source stuff and the music examples like Radiohead.

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.

I already am. I'm working on your mental health right now, and though you might not realize that you want me to continue doing so, your true self does so be grateful "cupcake".

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.

There is a difference between a natural law like gravity and a nominal law like intellectual property as we are discussing. I suggest you read up on the distinction before you continue to equivocate on the issue.

 

[paradox00]

I'm no pirate, but the numbers from this story seem highly unlikely. Don't get me wrong, I know very well HOW to pirate, but I think this sounds a bit too paranoid.

I also understand the justification pirates use (developers asking too much / I wasn't going to buy it anyways / you can't actually -steal- information)... and I completely disagree with them. Pirating IS stealing. You're stealing more than mere information. It doesn't matter if what you take continues to exist and be in possession of the creator. Pirates steal people's time and hard work. And the vast majority of developers aren't huge corporations - they are people JUST like you trying to make a living out of honest work.

Piracy can be:
Try before you buy - download software, test it. If you don't like it, delete it. If you like it, buy it. Some people actually do that.
Getting content you can't possibly buy - My most common example would be Japanese anime (of course you should buy it when you can)
Breaking DRM on purchased content - Ripping a DVD/Blu-ray to your computer for convenience would be one example
Downloading DRM free version of purchased content - Sometimes DRM is so bad but that it detracts from the user experience and the pirated version is better

The list above are some of what I would refer to as "non-malicious" forms of piracy. With these forms, the content creator has been compensated, or it isn't possible to compensate them yet. The blanket statement piracy is theft lumps those in with taking something off of a store shelf. Is that really fair? It should also be noted some of those form of piracy are the results of anti piracy practices themselves.

The common belief that piracy equals theft gives companies a blank check to do whatever they want with their content and the ironic thing is that the people engaging in piracy that are the least affected. DRM doesn't work because it only requires one person to break it and seed it to others. On the other hand, it can be used to lock paying customers into a companies line up. Buy a movie from Apple? Congratulations you can only watch it on Apple devices. Buy ebooks from Amazon? You better have a Kindle or at least a Kindle app. It can also be used to take away consumer freedom while maintaining the illusion of being generous. Some people will pay extra for a Blu-ray with a digital copy.... but why can't we just make our own? Or why can't iTunes have an import DVD button? Others just take away freedom: games with install limits. Some leads to frustration: ever get a game/software with a missing digit in the product key? These are only problems that paying customers face and I seriously question the effectiveness of any of these measures against piracy. People always talk about the rights of the content owners, but what about the rights of the consumer? Why can we be bent over backwards?

Yes there are malicious forms of piracy and yes, some piracy does lead to a loss of profit, but how long are we going to view it as nothing more than simple theft and allow companies to do whatever they want to "prevent" it? Here in Canada, we had a bill introduced to make it illegal to unlock cell phones due to "piracy". Luckily nothing came of it, but what did it have to do with piracy?Nothing. All you need to do is mention piracy and you get a free pass. I think it's time that society as a whole actually took the time to study what piracy is instead of just conjuring up an image of someone taking something off a (digital) store shelf.

I'd argue that DRM serves no purpose and should be eliminated, but if that doesn't fly, why not require a universal standard so that companies can't lock you in to their products? If people understood what was really going on, we could have these kinds of discussions, but for this to happen, the piracy is theft meme must die.

 

[disconap]

There have been enough examples already given in this discussion to refute this point. Go read back, look for the open source stuff and the music examples like Radiohead.

Not for nothing, but Radiohead lost money on the download thing, and sales on the physical product when it finally came out were lower than expected (though still pretty high). Then again, Radiohead could do what they did because large companies spent MILLIONS of dollars on building their image over a decade, so they have that luxury. If you're in a band, try to do what they did and see what happens; I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly, highly improbable.

EDIT: Also because for a band in Radiohead's level of celebrity, the majority of their income comes from touring and licensing, not sales (though sales can be a solid amount).

 

[JohnDoe98]

I'm going to stop engaging the contract issue, not because I concede but because I think it's pretty moot to debate the issue (it's taking things a little too far afield from intellectual property rights). Anyway, as I already said, I agree that if push comes to shove, I can't say in court I never agreed to that law and I've agreed that one has to accept the consequences of one's actions. But that is a far stretch from claiming that intellectual property rights have "morality" on their side and that to violate them is equivalent to violations of moral strictures like theft (which itself is subject to boundaries and limitations, no one thinks its wrong for someone too poor to feed himself to steal some bread).

And since, unless I am mistaken, it is conceded that no one will go after piracy unless it is motivated by making a profit, there really is no objection to piracy other than paranoia, i.e. the highly unlikely possibility that someone could sue you.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Im still amazed that people can logically connect theft of material good and reproduction of data.

Im against piracy as much as the next guy, but spewing out the propaganda the RIAA and MPAA throw around doesnt help the issue at all.

The Pocket Guide to Theft and Piracy:

 

[cmaier]

I'm going to stop engaging the contract issue, not because I concede but because I think it's pretty moot to debate the issue (it's taking things a little too far afield from intellectual property rights). Anyway, as I already said, I agree that if push comes to shove, I can't say in court I never agreed to that law and I've agreed that one has to accept the consequences of one's actions. But that is a far stretch from claiming that intellectual property rights have "morality" on their side and that to violate them is equivalent to violations of moral strictures like theft (which itself is subject to boundaries and limitations, no one thinks its wrong for someone too poor to feed himself by stealing some bread).

And since, unless I am mistaken, it is conceded that no one will go after piracy unless it is motivated by making a profit, there really is no objection to piracy other than paranoia, i.e. the highly unlikely possibility that someone could sue you.

Some people think (and many European nations build into their laws) the concept of "moral intellectual property rights" which are based on the idea that people should be free to control the fruits of their own intellectual labor. Typical examples are where an artist can legally prevent a purchaser of his art from defacing it by spray-painting a moustache on it.

 

[dafootballer]

wow they really pulled these numbers out of there ass i doubt installous even has 1 million downloads yet and most people dont even have a clue on how to get them or know what jailbreaking is

 

[Tesseract]

There have been enough examples already given in this discussion to refute this point. Go read back, look for the open source stuff and the music examples like Radiohead.



I already am. I'm working on your mental health right now, and though you might not realize that you want me to continue doing so, your true self does so be grateful "cupcake".



There is a difference between a natural law like gravity and a nominal law like intellectual property as we are discussing. I suggest you read up on the distinction before you continue to equivocate on the issue.

Ah, now you're just trolling and not even trying to see the points in my argument. There's really no point in continuing. Nevertheless, you didn't produce anything that I wanted nor needed. Point made. Things don't get made unless there is enough personal incentive for it (that evil hateful word "profit"). That's just the way the universe works. But hey! I guess you'd still have your Radiohead and opensource... or maybe not since much of what they do involves the circulation of "profit" anyways. But if you ever want to make a quality product that you will never get paid or reimbursed for (even a book of 'information' will do!), that I will consume, please get back to me, and I'll concede my point. And you can hold me to that.

Oh, and I guess you missed the point, but the comparison between making a contract between man-made law and natural law (gravity) was that many things you don't have control over. You make a choice and live with the consequences. Many human laws - whether written or not, work near the exact same way as the law gravity.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Not for nothing, but Radiohead lost money on the download thing, and sales on the physical product when it finally came out were lower than expected (though still pretty high). Then again, Radiohead could do what they did because large companies spent MILLIONS of dollars on building their image over a decade, so they have that luxury. If you're in a band, try to do what they did and see what happens; I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly, highly improbable.

EDIT: Also because for a band in Radiohead's level of celebrity, the majority of their income comes from touring and licensing, not sales (though sales can be a solid amount).

Point well taken but that doesn't mean the adequate model for the music industry ought not to be that their celebrity comes from the free dissemination of their music and their income from touring alone, or for movies to get their income from theatrical releases. It's the squeezing of the orange thrice that bothers me.

 

[cmaier]

Im still amazed that people can logically connect theft of material good and reproduction of data.

Im against piracy as much as the next guy, but spewing out the propaganda the RIAA and MPAA throw around doesnt help the issue at all.

The Pocket Guide to Theft and Piracy:

Because it's not true. Theft is the interference with a property right. It does not imply permanent deprivation of property except in the vernacular.

By your argument I can't steal a service either. I can have someone paint my house by promising to pay him, and then not pay him, and that's not theft?

 

[miquez]

Are you serious

Are you, and all others who have never heard of App Store piracy, serious?

It's been around since I can remember...ohh, and it's ridiculously easy, too.

Of course only on jailbroken phones, but still...

Did you guys know that people can even SYNC the cracked apps with itunes? Oh, and anyone can crack any app with an automated tool...

It's really sad...

I also didn't know that piracy of apps existed. I feel like we would have heard about this by now. Do they mean that if for example I buy an app, and I share it with my brother, I pirated it to him? Because as far as iTunes is concerned, we authorized both our computers so we could share music and thats perfectly okay in terms of Apple's policies, so that's not pirating. I think the author of this article is confused, and possibly stupid.

 

[Stella]

1) Good luck with that.
2) Who in my household would be charged?
3) How do they know no one was using my ISP? Or do the logs trace all the way back to my specific computer?

If Apple ever did this, they'd get such a bad rep. They'd be as bad as RIA, on their witch hunt ( and there are plenty of false positives ).

At the end of the day, it would be overkill!

 

[JohnDoe98]

Some people think (and many European nations build into their laws) the concept of "moral intellectual property rights" which are based on the idea that people should be free to control the fruits of their own intellectual labor. Typical examples are where an artist can legally prevent a purchaser of his art from defacing it by spray-painting a moustache on it.

Some people also happen to think that if by the fruit of your labor you manage to identify some unique gene, that that discovery or "fruit" ought not to be under your control (maybe you should be rewarded but to give you control is lunacy). If I happen to be able to develop a cure that requires using that gene then it is not clear to me why I should have to pay the price you set.

 

[Digital Skunk]

The Pocket Guide to Theft and Piracy:

I am starting to believe that the only people that really believe this garbage are the ones that not only have NO creative bone in their body, but are also people that have never created ANYTHING intellectual, artistic, or otherwise in their lives.

No offense to you NSB.

Some people also happen to think that if by the fruit of your labor you manage to identify some unique gene, that that discovery or "fruit" ought not to be under your control (maybe you should be rewarded but to give you control is lunacy). If I happen to be able to develop a cure that requires using that gene then it is not clear to me why I should have to pay the price you set.

If that's the case then I shouldn't have to pay you for the cure. Or better yet, no one should.

You can discover the cure for cancer and get nothing in return, maybe a reward of a Best Buy gift card worth .... $1000. Then the medical companies can sell your cure (a pill let's just say) for $1000 a pop (which is a good price for a CURE nowadays).

I am sure you won't be upset, and think it's fair of course.

 

[JohnDoe98]

If that's the case then I shouldn't have to pay you for the cure. Or better yet, no one should.

Fine with me if your ok with paying for the production costs of the pills.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Hi

I think Apple needs to work with carriers to offer unlocking without a jailbreak and also start banning IMEI's of jailbroken phones found to be running pirated apps.

Jailbreaking and unlocking are two different things but I do agree with banning those who do either. Bandwidth is one. I know it is at least a theory if not even backed by actual tests but part of AT&T's network issues are due to those using non 3G authorized apps on jailbroken iPhones over the 3G network. Let's also recall some Push app issues because of cloning to unlock iPhones.

Cost? I would love to see an itemized detail of this cost. Show me where it has cost anyone anything.

Not making money, is not the same as being cost it.

Get your language right.


And no, I don't pirate apps.

Well... The "Push" functionality is a cost for Apple and developers since they need to provide servers and bandwidth. Stolen Push enabled apps give no $$$ to developers but yet cost developers. Let's not forget that it adds possible problems ( more users that the developer doesn't anticipate or immediately be aware of ) and those problems can hinder those who officially / legitimately acquired the app.

Who cares, how many of the people who pirated software would have really bought it?

I've always hated this excuse. The pirate puts plenty of effort into acquiring this "free" copy, don't tell me it isn't worth something. Apparently the pirate has interest in it and given long enough, he / she would probably 'cave' and purchase it at the requested price.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

@Digital:
I make music and do a little graphic design. If someone pirated my songs i would not be happy, but i wouldnt claim they stole something from me, because they didnt. I have lost nothing but a vague 'potential profit' that may or may not have existed in the first place.

Because it's not true. Theft is the interference with a property right. It does not imply permanent deprivation of property except in the vernacular.

By your argument I can't steal a service either. I can have someone paint my house by promising to pay him, and then not pay him, and that's not theft?

You are paying the Painter for him time, time that can only be spent with you. If you have a magic box that can create a copy of the painter to work on your house it would be different.

If i download a copy of Program ABC off the internet it consumed no time, material, or anything from the developer. If i had a guy paint my house it would consume his/her time.

The thing about piracy is that it does not consume, it replicates. Im not by any means endorsing or supporting piracy, merely the usage of correct terms.