Sidebar Sidebar
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

What psychotically absurd article.

The assertion that the people who've pirated apps would have actually bought all the apps they've pirated, had they not been able to steal them, is absolutely 100% psycho babble B.S.

If this article is not pulled from this site today, this site has serious problems.
 
i don't really put a lot of credibility into an an analysis by a news site that caters primarily to day traders.

especially a site that doesn't provide a link to their source data and analysis methodologies.
 
jccbin said:
In order to pirate, the phone must be jailbroken.

There is no way that such a small percentage of jailbroken iPhones produces that much piracy.
Click to expand...

Small percentage?

You guys are living in the matrix (aka the not real world). If you are a dev (which I assume most of you aren't), you will know that the piracy rates of iPhone apps is mind-blowing. Jailbreaking using blackra1n takes less than 2 mins and requires zero knowledge of the command line. You literally download an exe and run it. Boom...phone jailbroken.
 
pmz said:
What psychotically absurd article.

The assertion that the people who've pirated apps would have actually bought all the apps they've pirated, had they not been able to steal them, is absolutely 100% psycho babble B.S.

If this article is not pulled from this site today, this site has serious problems.
Click to expand...

How about if you actually read the entire article before commenting? The report made no such assertion. Rather it estimated that only 10% would have been sales. You can argue with that estimate if you want, but your original comment was obviously based on an erroneous understanding of the report.
 
3D0G said:
How about if you actually read the entire article before commenting? The report made no such assertion. Rather it estimated that only 10% would have been sales. You can argue with that estimate if you want, but your original comment was obviously based on an erroneous understanding of the report.
Click to expand...

Simple psychology. Stealing is bad. I am not a bad person. Ergo:

1) piracy isn't stealing
2) no harm done since I wasn't going to buy the software anyway (and I refuse to conceive of any other harm rather than the loss of the direct sale, because that might result in me feeling guilty again)
3) "there's no such thing as intellectual property, man. property should be free. now give me another one of those special brownies"
 
JohnDoe98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Open source is not public domain, though. Firefox is the intellectual property of the contributors, and to use it you essentially have to agree to the Mozilla Public License, GPL, or LGPL. If you don't but use it anyway, you're either directly breaking a contract you voluntarily entered with the developers, or you got it from a source which itself was breaking such a contract and thus had no right to distribute it.

So open source software can and does get "pirated" in the same way closed source software gets "pirated". Whether money is involved or not is just a detail of the specific contract.
 
cmaier said:
Simple psychology. Stealing is bad. I am not a bad person. Ergo:

1) piracy isn't stealing
2) no harm done since I wasn't going to buy the software anyway (and I refuse to conceive of any other harm rather than the loss of the direct sale, because that might result in me feeling guilty again)
3) "there's no such thing as intellectual property, man. property should be free. now give me another one of those special brownies"
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiments of your post, but I couldn't discern any direct connection to my post (the one you quoted). Just curious...
 
3D0G said:
I agree with the sentiments of your post, but I couldn't discern any direct connection to my post (the one you quoted). Just curious...
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, the linkage was weak. You were responding to another "not everyone would have bought the software" message, and it just triggered me.
 
Hopefully they plug these holes up, though I doubt they would bother.

I know a few people who pirated software whilst at college just because they could. Once they got jobs or grew up they went the legal route. There's a wide range of reasons for pirating, all rubbish of course.
 
powerbook911 said:
THis is just amazing to me.

The Apps are tied to your iTunes user account, so it makes no sense to me how they do it.

Furthermore, these Apps are cheap, I buy one whenever I want, and it doesn't hurt my wallet.
Click to expand...

There are apps in Cydia that when installed on the iPhone, can hack any app on the persons phone that removes the DRM. Once that is done, they just copy the app from the phone to the computer and offer it on dozens of sites that exist only for the purpose of offering these apps. People can download TomTom, Navigon, Megellon, you name it. A person doesn't have to spend a dime on a single app because they are available for free on these forums. There is even an app in Cydis that allows you to download these pirated apps right onto your phone saving you the trouble of visiting these forums. The apps work instantly.

Saurik, the creator of Cydia was supposedly shocked as he reported one day on a tweet, to find out how many people used Cydia for the sole purpose of downloading these pirated apps. I guess he thought people were mostly init for the custom themes and lock screens.
 
There is no real argument about theft. Theft is defined as depriving someone of their property without permission. Important to note here is that property is defined as the set of rights a person has with regard to a given object.

It makes no difference whether that object is a car or a file. If you pirate software you are depriving someone of their rights with regard to an object. You have committed theft.

The degree of the crime is relative to the infraction. Obviously, a person isn't going to pay the same penalty for stealing a 5-dollar app as he would for stealing a Ferrari. But the fact that the penalties are different in no way changes the essential nature of the act.

When you pirate software, you are depriving the owner/creator/licensor of the software of rights with regard to his software . . . namely, the right to be paid for its use. You are committing a theft.

To what extent property rights exist with regard to software and intellectual property is something the courts are still dealing with. There have been a couple cases up in front of the SCOTUS in the last year, and I think there's another one pending for this session. We'll see what happens.

As for the moral arguments: they are not necessary. I think they are actually harmful. Leaving behavior up to a moral decision is a bad idea, especially when we have legal concepts that cover those grounds.

We don't need to say that it's morally wrong to murder someone when it's painfully clear that murdering a person deprives them of certain rights. But when people start talking about morals, anything goes so long as it suits your agenda.

It was morality that sparked prohibition. Slavery was defended on moral grounds. Moral arguments are used more often to deprive people of rights than they are used to increase our freedoms. Or they are used to justify atrocities in the name of XXXXXXXX.

We should do away with moral arguments at the social level. By all means, adhere to them as individuals if you choose.

The basic problem with moral arguments is that what is "moral" is too often conflated with what is legal. This problem doesn't seem so bad. After all, we all have fairly similar ideas about morality, right? (hah!).

But what is much worse is the assumption we now have: that what is legal is also moral. And what is illegal is also immoral.

It probably doesn't sound like it, but I'm a fan of morals. I'm also a fan of laws. I just think we need to keep them separate.
 
MacViolinist said:
To what extent property rights exist with regard to software and intellectual property is something the courts are still dealing with. There have been a couple cases up in front of the SCOTUS in the last year, and I think there's another one pending for this session. We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

The case is In re Bilski, and it involves so-called "business method patents." The issue is to what extent a not-patentable mere algorithm or mental or business process becomes patentable by the fact that the "invention" is limited to the performance of that process using a computer. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all appeals from the Federal District Courts in patent matters, recently declared that there is a two prong test. Such a patent is patentable under 35 USC 101 if it either is "tied to" a machine or it "transforms matter." This is a more rigid test than earlier tests.

Most people expect that the Supreme Court will find the test too formulaic, but it's not clear whether the result will be broader or narrower protection of what people often refer to as "software patents."

The problem is that the Supreme Court is unlikely to close the obvious loophole - any such method patent can be rewritten as an apparatus patent (and thus be unquestionably permissible) by changing it to read something like:

A computer with access to a computer readable medium configured to execute instructions contained on that medium, those instructions, when executed, causing the computer to perform the following steps: ...

At most we're likely to get rid of claims that read like:

A method comprising the following steps:
- calculating .... using a computer
- display .... using a computer
- sorting ... using a computer
 
OK, let's assume that piracy is stealing and the definition of piracy is the theft of someone's idea, patent, music, software, etc. Also, by some definitions here it this thread, the loss of profits caused by "try before you buy" is also considered piracy, because you're "stealing" the money they would have gotten if you had bought it.

Let's make it interactive. Raise your hand if it's true.
1. Have you ever walked by a magazine stand, saw an interesting article on the front page, picked it up, read the article, set it back down, and left the store without buying it? You just commited piracy. Although you didn't steal the physical magazine, you didn't contribute to the magazine the article was in, unless the magazine was free.

2. Have you ever borrowed a DVD or CD from a friend, watched/listened to it, gave it back, and never bought it yourself whether or not you liked it? Piracy. You gained entertainment from a movie or CD that was not yours and didn't pay for. I would go out on a limb and say that's just as bad as downloading a movie/CD from a P2P site (only for personal use, not to resell). They're not getting paid either way so it's ok, right?

3. What about a book. Have you ever borrowed a book from someone, read it, didn't buy it later? Again, piracy.

Cut-and-dried, If you answered yes to any one of them you are a thief.

If you honestly answered no to all three then you are seriously a great person who cares about the people who make the stuff and I applaud you.

I do not advocate piracy. Yet, I am guilty of all three, thought I'm not proud of it....as are a lot of people, even if they don't know it.
 
These numbers do not account for the fact that most people who pirate software would not have paid for it, ever. Without piracy, a lot of apps would get very little attention or use. I'm not saying it's right, it just is what it is. If you don't have $ to buy it, you either never use it or you find other ways to get it. It's not money lost, it's money Apple and app developers never would have gotten anyway.

I know a lot of folks who have bought apps after seeing a pirated version on someone else's iPhone
 
Aimeniac said:
OK, let's assume that piracy is stealing and the definition of piracy is the theft of someone's idea, patent, music, software, etc. Also, by some definitions here it this thread, the loss of profits caused by "try before you buy" is also considered piracy, because you're "stealing" the money they would have gotten if you had bought it.

Let's make it interactive. Raise your hand if it's true.
1. Have you ever walked by a magazine stand, saw an interesting article on the front page, picked it up, read the article, set it back down, and left the store without buying it? You just commited piracy. Although you didn't steal the physical magazine, you didn't contribute to the magazine the article was in, unless the magazine was free.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. Piracy requires making of a copy or derivative work.

2. Have you ever borrowed a DVD or CD from a friend, watched/listened to it, gave it back, and never bought it yourself whether or not you liked it? Piracy. You gained entertainment from a movie or CD that was not yours and didn't pay for. I would go out on a limb and say that's just as bad as downloading a movie/CD from a P2P site (only for personal use, not to resell). They're not getting paid either way so it's ok, right?
Click to expand...

This is not piracy either. Again, you didn't make a copy. Furthermore, your actions are protected by the right of first sale.

3. What about a book. Have you ever borrowed a book from someone, read it, didn't buy it later? Again, piracy.
Click to expand...

Again, no copy, and right of first sale.

The issue is not whether the author gets paid. As has been said multiple times, the issue is whether you infringed the author's RIGHTS. The author has no right to prevent a bona fide purchaser of the book from lending it. The author has no right to prevent you from browsing a magazine.

The author DOES have the right to exclude you from making copies or derivative works, and when you pirate you steal that right from him.
 
cmaier said:
No you didn't. Piracy requires making of a copy or derivative work.



This is not piracy either. Again, you didn't make a copy. Furthermore, your actions are protected by the right of first sale.



Again, no copy, and right of first sale.

The issue is not whether the author gets paid. As has been said multiple times, the issue is whether you infringed the author's RIGHTS. The author has no right to prevent a bona fide purchaser of the book from lending it. The author has no right to prevent you from browsing a magazine.

The author DOES have the right to exclude you from making copies or derivative works, and when you pirate you steal that right from him.
Click to expand...

I agree that making a copy is piracy. Who's to say the borrower wouldn't have bought it if the friend had not loaned it to him? If he would have bought it, then wouldn't that also hurt the market? If he wouldn't have bought it, then no harm done, eh? That's pretty much the arguement I'm seeing a lot of. The pirate who would or wouldn't have bought it...same thing (sort of). I'm not saying that you should tell your friends to buy it for themselves and not lend it to them, just contrasting the issue.
 
Aimeniac said:
I agree that making a copy is piracy. Who's to say the borrower wouldn't have bought it if the friend had not loaned it to him? If he would have bought it, then wouldn't that also hurt the market? If he wouldn't have bought it, then no harm done, eh? That's pretty much the arguement I'm seeing a lot of. The pirate who would or wouldn't have bought it...same thing (sort of). I'm not saying that you should tell your friends to buy it for themselves and not lend it to them, just contrasting the issue.
Click to expand...

The "who's to say" is simple. Once more, with feeling: piracy and stealing involve the interference with a property right of the owner of real or intellectual property. They are defined by this interference. They are not defined by whether or not the property owner is injured in some way. Owning property does not give you infinite rights to it. There are infinite ways to be injured that do not result from theft.

Copyright holders have no legal right to prevent a bona fide purchaser of a copy from lending that copy. Since they have no right, being lent the copy is not piracy or theft. Just as me creating something better than the thing you are selling, or me competing at a lower price is not thievery.

The line is much more black and white than you wish to admit. The test is simple: did the person interfere with your property right or not?

You keep trying to assert that we are claiming that "if you injure the author, you are stealing." That's not what we are saying. We are saying "if you interfere with the author's proprietary rights, then you are stealing." You are making a strawman argument by arguing against an absurd point that no one is trying to make.
 
cmaier said:
The "who's to say" is simple. Once more, with feeling: piracy and stealing involve the interference with a property right of the owner of real or intellectual property. They are defined by this interference. They are not defined by whether or not the property owner is injured in some way. Owning property does not give you infinite rights to it. There are infinite ways to be injured that do not result from theft.

Copyright holders have no legal right to prevent a bona fide purchaser of a copy from lending that copy. Since they have no right, being lent the copy is not piracy or theft. Just as me creating something better than the thing you are selling, or me competing at a lower price is not thievery.

The line is much more black and white than you wish to admit. The test is simple: did the person interfere with your property right or not?

You keep trying to assert that we are claiming that "if you injure the author, you are stealing." That's not what we are saying. We are saying "if you interfere with the author's proprietary rights, then you are stealing." You are making a strawman argument by arguing against an absurd point that no one is trying to make.
Click to expand...

You make good points. We're both saying piracy is bad so that's good enough for me. I just think if you like it you should buy it.
 
cmaier has some good points. First of all, what we are talking about here is copyright infringement, it´s not piracy and it´s not theft in a legal sense. I have more often than not seen kids running around calling people "thieves" or "pirates", and i tell you what, this is what makes me mad. I´m not trying to downplay the issue, but i think we should at least call it what it is, an infringement of copyright.

From statistics we´ve also learned that the minority of iPhone users have jailbroken their devices, the majority hasn´t even done so and therefor can not use any program in an illegal way. Not everyone from this minority of jailbroken iDevice Users have hacked their device to download software illegally, there are some who did it to be able to use their phone at all (Think about China who hasn´t had the iPhone officially available as far as i know), or to install custom software (SBSettings, Backgrounder, No Rotate Plugin etc.)

While i agree that copyright infringement is a problem to a certain degree, i don´t think it it´s that huge of a problem some people want to make us believe. The opinions differ a lot around developers, i´ve seen comments by the developer of Exosyphen who has developed games for over 8 years, not only on the iDevices but also on the Palm and the PC. For him copyright infringement is a sale boost, as it creates awareness to his product for free.

So it´s really hard to say how much impact on lost sales copyright infringement really has, as we are dealing with hypothetical values. Some people might even download an illegal version, test it out, and then replace it by a legit copy from the App Store. It´s much more convenient to have regular updates and having the good feeling of supporting what you enjoy. Not all people are a bunch of little whining kids, who want to get everything for free. There are those among the users of illegal copies, yes, but i think they wouldn´t buy the product anyway.

I just think if you like it you should buy it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that´s fair. If you like what you see, honor the work.

Cheers!
 
tblrsa said:
cmaier has some good points. First of all, what we are talking about here is copyright infringement, it´s not piracy and it´s not theft in a legal sense.
Click to expand...

I think the current law says that it is, in fact, theft. Again, see cmaier's points. He or she is on target with this issue. Theft is an infringement on the rights a person has with regard to an object.

Borrowing a book or looking at a magazine doesn't count because the vendor has already purchased the book or magazine, and thus has purchased a set of rights, like the right to display a book or magazine. Someone who purchases a book and then lends it out has a) bought a set of rights to the book and b) gives up a certain set of rights by lending the book.

I do think that cases like Bilksi will move the Court to view intellectual property differently than what we currently do, and in that respect, I respectfully disagree with cmaier. I don't think it's a matter of re-writing a thought-process into a concrete object. If it were that simple, I doubt the Court would have taken the case.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to cmaier. I do think that the oral arguments in Bilski are much more interesting than my speculation or the petty drama that's been written about it by all the hack tech (should I call them heck?) sites.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

I also agree that intellectual property laws can be redundant when compared to copyright laws. Ultimately I think software, music, etc. will all eventually end up being dealt with in that way. I could be wrong. The main difference is the set of rights a creator has with regard to copyrighted material. It's a different set of rights than a home-owner, for example.
 
I suppose Apple doesn't do more to secure apps because they assume anything they do will be cracked eventually. Which is most likely true. And I know they're loathe to do anything against the hardware of the users, because it'll cost them hardware sales, and they assume that the money made in those sales is higher than the added App Store revenue. Which is also most likely true.

It's still BS, though. There is realistically nothing that most developers can do to secure their apps on the platform. Seeing 2.8 pirated users for every paid user on an app that costs less than a dollar must be quite disheartening.

Hopefully the 4,1 is locked down like mad and has significant anti-tampering countermeasures.
 
I think the current law says that it is, in fact, theft. Again, see cmaier's points. He or she is on target with this issue. Theft is an infringement on the rights a person has with regard to an object.
Click to expand...

Depends on which law you are talking about. In Austria and i bet in whole Europe "Theft" is something where you take away a material object. Software is immaterial, so you can´t steal it in a way a thief steals your car for example.

There is realistically nothing that most developers can do to secure their apps on the platform. Seeing 2.8 pirated users for every paid user on an app that costs less than a dollar must be quite disheartening.
Click to expand...

There is something you can do. Apple has introduced the possibility to work with DLC, this prevents "piracy" or whatever you wanna call it at least to a certain extent. Developers should try to experiment with that, to check if they gain more sales by it. I´d be interested to see honest sale comparisons.
 
The American conception of theft stems from British common law as I suspect does the Australian. Theft required the following elements:

1. unauthorized taking or using of another's property
2. Intent to permanently deprive the other of that property or a dishonest mens rea

in any British colonial jurisdiction, the law thus is based on the idea that using something that doesn't belong to you when you know it doesn't belong to you is theft.

If you choose to exclude piracy from theft then you shoud also exclude joyriders, someone who steals your car after you hand him the keys, the guy who steals the horse you lend him, a guy who fails to pay for services rendered, a guy who steals his neighbor's cable TV service, etc.

While I know nothing about Australian law, I would be shocked if they had no concept of theft of services, and thus I don't believe your definition.

tblrsa said:
Depends on which law you are talking about. In Austria and i bet in whole Europe "Theft" is something where you take away a material object. Software is immaterial, so you can´t steal it in a way a thief steals your car for example.



There is something you can do. Apple has introduced the possibility to work with DLC, this prevents "piracy" or whatever you wanna call it at least to a certain extent. Developers should try to experiment with that, to check if they gain more sales by it. I´d be interested to see honest sale comparisons.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back