Uber Disgusted w/ This Issue: Piracy

[ZoomZoomZoom]

I think there are more serious issues, and crimes. Using pirated software isnt like stealing, not in the sense of walking into a store and walking out with a handful of items you didnt pay for. Software is different, you just pay for the right to use it - not the actual software itself (that remains the propery of the creators) and so using it without paying means you are using it without permission. However you are never actually taking anything 'away' from the original creator -- The argument is that you 'would have bought it' if you didnt get it for free. Thats not always the case, but then sometimes it is.

We can bring this into the view of website designers. When someone codes a website, that's intellectual property there. Let's say you're a website design company, and I'm the little guy without a lot of cash. I want to have a nonprofit site, just for personal use, like a blog. You spend hours of your time coming up with beautiful templates, priced at $50 each. I'm a poor college student, and can't afford it. And even if I could, I'd spend $50 elsewhere and I wouldn't purchase your design anyways. Does this justify my going onto a filesharing network and stealing your design for my own use. (Assuming that you can get website designs off of filesharing networks.) Remember, this is hours of your time spent putting together this layout, and you have to make a living off of this.

Does it justify it any more if you don't know about it? After all, the web is a big place.

And even if you're all right with it, how do you think the people who pay for it feel? Let's say StarbucksSam went and purchased your $50 design, and then sees that me, the kid on the corner, and the guy living two houses down from him all have the design, and we didn't even pay a cent. He's just spent $50 supporting your work, where he could have gotten it for free.

 

[bankshot]

Give me a break. IS there a EULA ANYWHERE that states that you cannot run Frontrow on any other machine? Is there a EULA that states you cannot hack, modify, reverse engineer, or otherwise enable it to run without a remote, on another mnachine, and/or both?

You show me where this EULA is, and I will agree its wrong. You don't show me a EULA, I commend these people who cracked the app for being so inclined.

That's ridiculous. You're saying that unless an EULA specifically forbids it, it's ok to copy any software and run it wherever you want? Insane, and absolutely false. US copyright law automatically prevents you from legally making and distributing copies of Front Row without permission from Apple, and Apple hasn't given that permission. Any time a new intellectual work is created, it's automatically copyrighted and protected by all applicable laws in the US. End of story. nbs2's excellent response about OS X licensing is just icing on the cake.

Of course you can hack it, modify it, do whatever you please with it as long as you paid for that copy. You just can't make new copies and distribute them to people who didn't pay for it. And the only way to pay for it right now is to buy an iMac.

Software piracy is nothing like autotheft, or a violent crime. Despite what the media says, it's not funding gangs or organized crime rings or the taliban or jihad. Software piracy has been around a lot longer then before the Bush administration.

I find it funny how so many people waste effort and money on pirates when they could be spending that money on the homeless, making sure no other country nukes us, or going after REAL criminals.

But whatever. To each his own.

I agree with this sentiment. Piracy is not nearly as bad as many evils in this world. It's not the reason for the downturn in music/movie/whatever industry sales, contrary to what the RIAA and MPAA say. But as I said before, that still doesn't make it ok. And it's making life harder for those of us who want to play fair and easily manage content that we've legally purchased.

 

[XNine]

From what I understand, 10.4 is required to be on a machine running Front Row, and that Tiger is being used to copy or run Front Row. Front Row contains copyrighted material. The EULA of 10.4 begins by informing the user that "It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. If you are uncertain about your right to copy any material, you should contact your legal advisor."

However I may be wrong and it can be run on 10.3. There, the EULA states that "It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. If you are uncertain about your right to copy any material, you should contact your legal advisor."

Now, a person may say that they are not copying the material. Well, I refer you to §2(A) of the EULA which states in part that "This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time" Apple Software is defined as software, documentation and any fonts accompanying the license. Front Row is distributed with 10.4 on the new iMac, rendering this license applicable.

As for hack, modify, reverse engineer, I refer you to §2(C) of the EULA which states in part that "except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."

I am not a legal professional and am not engaged in the practice of law. I do not represent myself to be a legal advisor. I will continue to provide my reading of the EULA. That I leave to professionals.

I may be asking questions of the wrong person sinc eyou did state that you're not a legal advisor, etc. But does this EULA for OS X contain EVERYTHING that is installed? BEcause, if you notice every time you download an update, or download a new full version (v.5, v.6, etc.) each piece of software has a EULA. That in itself would suggest to me that Frontrow indeed has its own EULA, but where? If not, then can it be assumed that it is free to use on OS X as long as OS X itself is a legal version?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm just asking honest questions try to bring this wayward topic back to order.

 

[RobHague]

We can bring this into the view of website designers. When someone codes a website, that's intellectual property there. Let's say you're a website design company, and I'm the little guy without a lot of cash. I want to have a nonprofit site, just for personal use, like a blog. You spend hours of your time coming up with beautiful templates, priced at $50 each. I'm a poor college student, and can't afford it. And even if I could, I'd spend $50 elsewhere and I wouldn't purchase your design anyways. Does this justify my going onto a filesharing network and stealing your design for my own use. (Assuming that you can get website designs off of filesharing networks.) Remember, this is hours of your time spent putting together this layout, and you have to make a living off of this.

Does it justify it any more if you don't know about it? After all, the web is a big place.

And even if you're all right with it, how do you think the people who pay for it feel? Let's say StarbucksSam went and purchased your $50 design, and then sees that me, the kid on the corner, and the guy living two houses down from him all have the design, and we didn't even pay a cent. He's just spent $50 supporting your work, where he could have gotten it for free.

I think id be more worried about people taking them and trying to pass them off as their own (especially making money from it). However we are not talking about the small software companys here - im pretty sure they get a lot of support from users because they know that if everyone ripped the app the development would die and this utility they like using would too.

I belive Microsoft have started offering insentives to buy their software, like freebies for registering ect. I know ive found little codes in the back of music cd's to get access to special content on the bands websites and such.

Actually -- on the subject of Front Row and the iMac im more interested in Photobooth cos im getting a new cam with my system and it looks fun.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

I think id be more worried about people taking them and trying to pass them off as their own (especially making money from it). However we are not talking about the small software companys here - im pretty sure they get a lot of support from users because they know that if everyone ripped the app the development would die and this utility they like using would too.

I belive Microsoft have started offering insentives to buy their software, like freebies for registering ect. I know ive found little codes in the back of music cd's to get access to special content on the bands websites and such.

Actually -- on the subject of Front Row and the iMac im more interested in Photobooth cos im getting a new cam with my system and it looks fun.

I would be more worried about people taking the design and selling the design as their own, too - in fact, this does happen. However, the fact that there's something worse than people taking my design without paying for it doesn't make it any less wrong that people have taken my design. They're not so bad but they're still committing a wrong. Also - remember that it also has an effect on the guy who actually did run out and pay the money for his product.

Doesn't matter if it's a small company or large company that's being stolen from. When anyone pirates photoshop from Adobe, they're not pirating just from the company "Adobe." They're stealing from the guys who code, who design the box, the guys at UPS who ship the box, maybe the guy at Best Buy who sells the software - it's still taking something from the guys at the bottom. It's a little bit they're taking from everyone, but put it into perspective when hundreds of thousands of people are taking these little bits.

 

[CanadaRAM]

The record companies especially feel entitled to never-ending growth and whatever profits *they* feel are reasonable.

Ummm... Yes.

That is the basis of the western free-market system, which comes part and parcel with property law and copyright law rights of ownership and legal protection against theft.

I have something. I can ask any price I want for it. If it is too high for you, you don't have to buy it or own it. If I want to sell more units, I can choose to lower the price OR advertise and convince people it's worth the price, or both.

Point being: You don't have to agree with the record companies' pricing policies, you can choose not to partake of their products. You don't, however, get to choose to steal it because you don't agree.


Rick: You fail to see the point about intellectual properties. It's not like returning a stolen TV or a shoplifted item and saying no harm no foul (which is also like saying driving drunk is no crime as long as you don't hit anything or anybody).

The value of an intellectual property is the right to copy it and sell it (or NOT sell it, which is also a right), and the potential for income attached to that. The ACT of copying it injures the copyright holder by denying them that opportunity to sell it to that person. It is immaterial whether the person subsequently decides to erase it or go and buy the CD.
Immaterial.
The copyright owner's CHOICE about how their work will be duplicated has been removed, and that's the foul.

 

[savar]

OK then. I'll come over tonight aroud 3 AM and take your TV.
If I like it, I might pay you for it. If I don't, I promise not to watch it.

At this point, I would like to refer to my first post in this topic. Your analogy above is totally inconsistent with the two following principles: 1) there is no marginal cost (aka material cost) to the producer for downloading music, 2) there is no opportunity cost to the producer if you download music you weren't going to buy anyway.

In your analogy, there is a material cost to Rick because he no longer has a TV that he used to have. If you like it enough to buy it but refuse to pay up, then there is also an opportunity cost because Rick doesn't get money that you would have paid to him under other circumstances -- namely where property rights could be completely enforced.

Ah, the logical fallacy ad hominem tu quoque.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
If I litter, then I am not justified in calling you out on stealing copyrighted material?

Wow, impressive...but quoting "datanation.com" hardly makes your argument true. Allow me to counter with a quote from a slightly more important source of moral guidance, the bible: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Rick's point is that we all do bad things. Don't judge somebody else for petty crimes if you commit them yourself.

Once again, given the two tenets outlined in my first post and repeated just above, please indicate to me who the victim is when I download an MP3 of "Summer Song" by Joe Satriani, and try to discern the degree of injury caused to that victim. (You don't have to address the fact that I liked the music so much that I went out and bought THREE of his CDs if you don't want to.)

Fortunately more and more people are beginning to realize it, but a good portion of the world is still totally backwards on this concept: the universe we live in is RELATIVE in every single way. There is nothing absolute about it, and that principle filters down into every aspect of life, even morality. I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but it's time you found out.

 

[jdechko]

I would agree with those who say that pirating is wrong both legally and morally. I have pirated many pieces of software and music. I have also "cracked" specific software (games) to obtain functionality other than was provided by the game developers (no cd cracks).

The "problem" that I have is actually a 2-fold complaint.

1) This story is on the front page of MR. It doesn't need to be.
2) The thread turned into a "How to..." thread rather that a thread *about* it being cracked.

I guess I would just be disappointed in these two things more than what people do in their own private homes.

 

[savar]

Actually, your friend sounds like he might be the type of person that piracy would benefit. It sounds like he needs more notoriety to build a decent size fan base. Missing profits due to piracy may be compensated with increased turn-out at his shows and the ability to play larger, more profitable venues, or improved chances to actually get a recording contract (though he probably wouldn't make much money from the contract itself).

crackpip

YES! And furthermore, artists (esp. small-medium artists) make far more from touring and merch than they do from album sales. Especially small-medium artists signed to medium-large labels. The per album profit to the band is embarassingly small. Most of what you pay for is huge executive salaries and ludicrous amount of promotion.

To respond to others, I am a shareware author. I have seen 10s of thousands of downloads of my product go by with only a couple hundred registrations. I understand the frustrations associated with piracy, but I don't view those users as lost users. I refuse to believe that most people will steal a program that they like when they are capable of paying for it.

I am also an amateur musician. I'm not into music for the money. I don't believe that music can be a "job"...it just doesn't work that way. If you wouldn't do it for free, then you're not making good music. At best, you're making a commodity good.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

At this point, I would like to refer to my first post in this topic. Your analogy above is totally inconsistent with the two following principles: 1) there is no marginal cost (aka material cost) to the producer for downloading music, 2) there is no opportunity cost to the producer if you download music you weren't going to buy anyway.

I agree that the TV analogy has some holes. Refer to my website design analogy if you want the "marginal cost/opportunity cost" holes covered better.

Allow me to counter with a quote from a slightly more important source of moral guidance, the bible: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Rick's point is that we all do bad things. Don't judge somebody else for petty crimes if you commit them yourself.

A murderer sees another murderer and says, "You're a murderer." The other murderer turns to him and says, "Who are you to judge?" There are two main problems with the other murderer's response. 1) The first murderer is not judging - he's stating a fact. 2) The fact that the 1st man is a murderer does not make it so that the 2nd man is not.

Fortunately more and more people are beginning to realize it, but a good portion of the world is still totally backwards on this concept: the universe we live in is RELATIVE in every single way. There is nothing absolute about it, and that principle filters down into every aspect of life, even morality. I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but it's time you found out.

I disagree with this comment... but I don't see how it relates to the thread anyways. If you're trying to say that "wrong" is relative, and there is no set "wrong" or "right" and that everything's just some degree of morality, that's crazy talk.

 

[0098386]

A strange way of thinking, but I download and try things before I buy. hell if i'm going to spend a lot of money (which is anything over £10 for a student without a job) then i'd like to know what im getting first. especially with less and less shops/online places giving out refunds for unwanted software.

I downloaded Half Life 2 (cracked), Doom 3 and Tiger. And guess what? I bought all of those.
Before I went to a chinese restaurant I tried some samples of dim-sum in Costco. I liked it so much we went to a chinese restaurant a couple of days later.
I watch an advert for a show to help me decide if i should watch it. etc.

Isn't it your right as a consumer to take back goods that you don't like? but like i said with less companies offering refunds its the only option left.

 

[bankshot]

Once again, given the two tenets outlined in my first post and repeated just above, please indicate to me who the victim is when I download an MP3 of "Summer Song" by Joe Satriani, and try to discern the degree of injury caused to that victim. (You don't have to address the fact that I liked the music so much that I went out and bought THREE of his CDs if you don't want to.)

As much as I come down on the anti-piracy side, I do believe that the "try before you buy" model, if faithfully executed, is morally ok. It's not legal, but it's moral in my book. IF the work is widely available for purchase, and IF you either (a) delete it and never listen again or (b) go out and buy a legal copy soon after trying it out, then I don't see a major problem. As you said, there's no loss like there would be if someone took a TV and "tried" it for a few days, or hotwired a car from the dealership and drove it around for a few days.

But the key is that most people don't go out and buy what they like after "trying". They're too lazy, cheap, whatever. That's where Joe Satriani loses a sale. In your case, he gained three. Bravo! Good for you, good for Joe. And in my personal opinion, you should buy all the rest of his stuff too, because he's flat out awesome. By far my favorite guitarist (today I'm really enjoying the new G3 Live In Tokyo cd that came out yesterday, which I bought of course ).

 

[Macmaniac]

YES! And furthermore, artists (esp. small-medium artists) make far more from touring and merch than they do from album sales. Especially small-medium artists signed to medium-large labels. The per album profit to the band is embarassingly small. Most of what you pay for is huge executive salaries and ludicrous amount of promotion.

Just because the system is broken does not mean you have a right to steal from it. In the end you are still taking profit away from the artist, even if their share from the album sale is small. I know it sucks how the RIAA and reocrd companies gobble up most of the profits on album sales and leave little to the artist. But that does not justify you stealing the song and saying "I am doing my part to fight an unjust system!"

If you want to change the way things work run for congress, pass laws requiring fairer treatment of artists by large companies. Or get a bunch of investors together and start your own record label and give artists a 50% cut of album profits.

If you really want to support a band buy the music legally, go to a music store and listen to CD, you can do that they have listen booths! Then u can buy the cd from the store or buy only the tracks you like off ITMS.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

As much as I come down on the anti-piracy side, I do believe that the "try before you buy" model, if faithfully executed, is morally ok. It's not legal, but it's moral in my book. IF the work is widely available for purchase, and IF you either (a) delete it and never listen again or (b) go out and buy a legal copy soon after trying it out, then I don't see a major problem. As you said, there's no loss like there would be if someone took a TV and "tried" it for a few days, or hotwired a car from the dealership and drove it around for a few days.

I agree that "try before you buy" might in the end be a better business model, given the conditions that you've given. But even if all people fulfilled those conditions, it'd still be morally wrong. Legally, try-before-you-buy without the consent of whoever owns the rights to the intellectual property is wrong. In terms of profitability, it's right. But if the record companies don't want it - and if they're too stupid to want to adopt a method that can earn them money - then we still don't have the rights to the music.

Basically, try before you buy: Practical? Yes. Legal? Irrelevant, because laws that are largely unenforced are hardly laws. But moral? Still a no.

 

[BrianDavid0523]

Technically, Front Row isn't for sale, so there can be no theft or piracy.

 

[crackpip]

Ummm... Yes.

That is the basis of the western free-market system, which comes part and parcel with property law and copyright law rights of ownership and legal protection against theft.

I have something. I can ask any price I want for it. If it is too high for you, you don't have to buy it or own it. If I want to sell more units, I can choose to lower the price OR advertise and convince people it's worth the price, or both.

As a single company or person within a larger market or a fledgling market this is true. However, at least in the US, when the major players in an established industry get together and decide pricing, this is artificial price fixing and is illegal. The record labels have been convicted of this. They have been convicted of stealing millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands if not milliions of people.

I would be surprised if this type of collusion is not illegal in Canada as well. It's certainly illegal in the EU.

crackpip

 

[andiwm2003]

............................One of the anti-DRM complaints I see most often seems to assume that they somehow owe it to us to let us copy stuff we bought, but that's bogus. There's no obligation there, moral or otherwise. .................... We lose.

there is a moral and a legal obligation to let us copy drm-protected disks. just read the law. the fact that hundreds of people make this law shows that there is a legal right and that there is a moral right. if you believe the goverment in general does the legal thing.

 

[thedude110]

Ummm... Yes.

That is the basis of the western free-market system, which comes part and parcel with property law and copyright law rights of ownership and legal protection against theft.

We disagree, but along the same fault line, at least.

I would argue that the idea of intellectual property is a fallacy that locates itself within the western free-market system. It's the free market that's the problem!

 

[bankshot]

Basically, try before you buy: Practical? Yes. Legal? Irrelevant, because laws that are largely unenforced are hardly laws. But moral? Still a no.

Always good to hear different opinions in a thoughtful discussion. I'm curious - what do you think of record stores that allow users to listen to the full product before making a purchase decision? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing they don't have explicit permission from the copyright holders to do this. If they did give permission, then I'd assume that we'd have situations like the iTMS where some labels or artists don't want to allow it. Then record stores would have to keep massive lists of what's ok to preview and what's not, right?

To me, doing this at a record store is functionally equivalent to my downloading the music and listening to it once at home before making a decision. That's my justification for saying that it's morally ok. It's also no different from going over to a friend's house who has a copy and listening there before I decide. Is the download method different because I don't personally know the person who originally bought the CD it ultimately came from? Or because it's not via an established retail channel? I'd say the lines are blurry at best. Because there's no harm done during the preview process (AS LONG AS it's only a preview - people who continue to use the downloaded copy ARE doing harm), and the outcome is a proper sale (or no further use), my feeling is that it's ok.

Of course, I don't mess with p2p stuff these days, too much hassle, too much crap to wade through. I preview at iTMS if I can, Amazon or artist's website otherwise. Last time I downloaded something to preview was around 2000 in the heyday of Napster, and I promptly bought the CD at Best Buy the next day.

 

[andiwm2003]

Technically, Front Row isn't for sale, so there can be no theft or piracy.

umm, my car isn't for sale either. so you say it can't be stolen? my identity is not for sale. so you say it can't be pirated and used to shop for p0rn?

theft is theft. it's that simple.

 

[bankshot]

Technically, Front Row isn't for sale, so there can be no theft or piracy.

I'd say this is wrong on two counts:

1. Front Row IS for sale, bundled with every new iMac. You want Front Row, buy it and get an iMac thrown in free.

2. Something doesn't need to be for sale to make it wrong/illegal to copy. Copying any work without permission is "theft" (in the "copyright violation" sense, not in the "take" sense) and piracy.

 

[Josh]

I respect the rules here on MR. I would hate it if Apple forced the shut down of MR due to intellectual property rights issues.

MR is a public forum. Apple could not shut it down because members post things that violate any issues simply because they used MR as the means to do so.

Giving Apple that right would be giving them the same right to rip out your voice box simply because you may use it to tell someone something that would violate one of their policies.

Now if the staff/owners of MR were posting that kind of thing, then yes...but MR is not responsible, and cannot be held accountable, for anything it's members say or do.

 

[thedude110]

theft is theft. it's that simple.

*holds out copy of Les Mis to andiwm*

 

[mfacey]

I've read a large part of this thread and have been thinking about where I stand on this topic. Yes, I've downloaded files off P2P networks, etc. And frankly, I don't really give. Yes its stealing, but its just too easy. It has become so common that people consider it no worse a crime than driving over the speedlimit. Its just a fact of life.
I'm sure the music industry will continue to try to prevent people from illegally distributing music. The same goes for software and movies. Fact of the matter is, people have always been copying music, software and movies. Now we have the ability to do it with hardly any quality loss. I guess we just adjusted our standards, ie. now we don't settle for below par copies.

What I'm trying to say here, is that this is really a somewhat useless discussion. For the time being the problem isn't going to be solved, so the companies and the digusted people will just have to live with it.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

Always good to hear different opinions in a thoughtful discussion. I'm curious - what do you think of record stores that allow users to listen to the full product before making a purchase decision? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing they don't have explicit permission from the copyright holders to do this. If they did give permission, then I'd assume that we'd have situations like the iTMS where some labels or artists don't want to allow it. Then record stores would have to keep massive lists of what's ok to preview and what's not, right?

To me, doing this at a record store is functionally equivalent to my downloading the music and listening to it once at home before making a decision. That's my justification for saying that it's morally ok. It's also no different from going over to a friend's house who has a copy and listening there before I decide. Is the download method different because I don't personally know the person who originally bought the CD it ultimately came from? Or because it's not via an established retail channel? I'd say the lines are blurry at best. Because there's no harm done during the preview process (AS LONG AS it's only a preview - people who continue to use the downloaded copy ARE doing harm), and the outcome is a proper sale (or no further use), my feeling is that it's ok.

Of course, I don't mess with p2p stuff these days, too much hassle, too much crap to wade through. I preview at iTMS if I can, Amazon or artist's website otherwise. Last time I downloaded something to preview was around 2000 in the heyday of Napster, and I promptly bought the CD at Best Buy the next day.

I've actually never gone to a record store with full length tracks for preview. I would think that offerring full length tracks for preview would be logical at a record store; After all, you can't take the playing kiosk home with you. (That's what separates it from a full length preview on iTMS.) The problem isn't with previewing, necessarily. All frills aside, people are engaging in an action that abuses the ownership rights of a company. Stupid as I agree that the company is - and I also know that the record companies are guilty of many wrongs - fighting it wrong for a wrong isn't the way I see as making things right.

I used to download a ton of stuff, and then after a few years I decided to erase all of it and buy all of my music. I actually didn't have a love for music before downloading, so in a way pirating exposed me to music and gave recording labels another customer. But even though the situation turned out win-win in the end, I still regret having stolen so many tracks of music for that period of time. I'm unhappy that there would not have been a way around how things were then, that if I hadn't pirated I wouldn't be a music customer today - but that doesn't put my wrongs into any better justification.