Of course it is justified. Piracy shows that charging for software is universally wrong. It is the antithesis of a certain part within your self. And of neckties.

So, confronted to Stallman's dilemma described at 5'30 in the above video, you choose the less evil ?

Better is not to use proprietary software, so you don't have to pirate.

here is a funny little something:

when there was a economic downturn, the skirt length of dresses lengthens. Why? Because the ladies wearing them used it to symbolize that they could afford the extra expense. Its counter-intuitive as hell if one try to think of humans as rational about spending. But if one drag status seeking into it, spending money on these kinds of things during a downturn becomes a kind of social finger thumbing ("i can afford to waste money on entertainment, you cant").

This factor, the human hunt for status, is so often overlooked in figuring out activity its downright tragic.

This is a dubious argument, as you assume that those people who copy it would have never paid for it, and, perhaps even more importantly that those who DID pay for it would have paid for it even if they had the option of just copying it.

And how do you cover the original cost ? Through the first sale paying the spent time and resources ? That would mean the first (and only) buyer of, say, Oracle would have to pay a few billion dollars. At which point nobody would buy it, and Oracle would simply not exist.

Software is cheap exactly because of the economies of scale. If you treat software as hired labour, it would become so expensive that it would render itself useless.

I don't see what makes you think that I assume what you think I assume. What you're talking about here is completely different. Anyway this wasn't my point.

Whether or not someone who gets a pirated software would have bought it otherwise is not relevant. If you mean that illegal redistribution should not exist because it is a loss of income for sellers, well as I said this is circular reasoning.

The income exists only because redistribution is forbidden. As soon as it is not forbidden, this income doesn't exist anymore, and there is no loss for something that doesn't exist.

I don't know, and why not ? Anyway this is not my business. I'm not the one who should seriously think about it, instead or trying to sue this problem out.

So what ? Be it. It wouldn't mean that people wouldn't need data basis anymore. Where there is a need, there is some people working on it. Other market forces would enter the game. It might be free software, it might be the system you've just mentioned. Economics always find a way. I don't know exactly what would take place, but I trust human forces and I'm sure things wouldn't work that bad. After all, non-redistribution rules are preventing people for doing stuffs. Without them, people can do more stuffs. I don't see how, by allowing people to do more stuffs, the overall result could be worse.

Anyway in the video in a previous message, Stallman explains his view on this unemployment and economical aspect. He does make sense and worths listening.

I very much doubt about that.

Software does exist as a hired labour. Maybe it is not major part of the sector, but it does exist.

Also, keep in mind that if non redistribution rules were to disappear, basically all software would be free. These savings would probably compensate for the cost of salaries of developers who would be hired to respond to specific and commercially imperative needs. Also a market could be established where teams of developpers would join to answer demands from firms. I don't see why such things couldn't work out. I even guess it actually does nowadays. I think you call that IT consulting in english.

So you refuse to think about it, however you don't mind taking the decision to infringe copyright? Seems like you're just using any argument you can to fit your needs. In other words, you're cheap.

I'm done with this thread, as usual, you're just trying to find excuses for yourself.

Take care,

The question is: How can you talk about fairness when it has to take place inside a political system which is inherently unfair? You can't, that's why some of you have to stick to artificial concepts like EULAs or other rubbish like copy protection or DRM. Of course the subject is pretty complicated, and of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but like so often, the morals get in everyone's way, rendering this thread almost use- and pointless. The piracy movement is much more than most i have read in this thread so far. However, i prefer to discuss this issue with cultural theorists or philosophers. Not with professional programmers, lawyers or businessmen, or anyone else whose mind is embedded in (post)capitalist ideology and/or juridical frameworks. Sober theory outside the box is the key here, which is unlikely, yet not impossible to be found in a corporate forum. But since it deals with open source, things could be worse.

ah, reminds me of a great episode of the screen savers. a mini debate started between Patrick and Leo. Patrick got on his high horse and said when he was a kid and was caught doing something wrong he was spanked.

funny.

i love forums and i used to think they were a place to have mature, deep discussions about ANYTHING. no, i was wrong. if a moderator disagrees with you, you can be banned or the thread locked, simply for voicing an opposing opinion.

but i will give you my mature, deep thinking insight into this topic.

whats right isn't always the law and the law isn't always right.

that said, copyright and DRM has gotten very out of control. now, i do see where one would say its wrong to download a film, or song, when you haven't legally purchased it. i also see where its wrong to purchase a song and then when the DRM servers that support that file no longer function, you cannot use the file you purchased.

piracy is a complex topic. its not one simple thing. its certainly not as simple as piracy = theft.

theft of what? the millions of dollars the film industry MIGHT have gained in the future? the film industry has no rightful claim on our money. money that could put cloths on your back and food in your stomach, send your kids to school.

enforcing copyright on the internet to the point of denying a person access to the internet is an abuse of a communication tool (the internet). a tool that should not be owned by any one entity. and certainly not controlled at the sole benefit of capitalism.

when it comes down to it, we should choose a free internet over the trillion dollar film and music industries. lets stop buying films / music from the major companies, and stop pirating them. and pass laws against the industry's selfish manipulation of the internet.

Leo at another point said "piracy is a victim-less crime."

thats a brave thing to say, especially on TV. and if you're on your high horse, you may be too high to have any kind of open mind. during the american revolution, it was "right" to stay loyal to great Britain. loyalists were the conservatives of their era.

do you want to be a high-horse riding, "loyalist" conservative or a free thinking human being?

today, we (the working class) are saturated with film, tv, music. its apart of our daily lives. it shapes the cloths we wear, the food we eat, our interests, our relationships. but to the film, tv and music companies, we are nothing more than consumers for them to manipulate and profit from. reality to the consumer and reality to the companies are very different things.

an example would be your friend next door who grew up watching a television show with his parents. feels an emotional and memorable link with this show. but the company holding the copyright either doesn't re-release it at all (on dvd for example) or releases only part of it. he now feels compelled to pirate the content he desires.

The companies want you to desire the content they own, but they want to regulate how you access that content and maximize their profit through any means, no matter how ridiculous, patronizing or insulting to your intelligence.

we should get our entertainment directly from other human beings, not from the giant heartless parasites we call the film, television and music industries.

if you keep your viewpoint so narrow that you think of piracy in terms of honestly paying for the things you want, which is a very good thing, then you are short changing yourself.

the old saying that "you get what you pay for" is completely untrue. if you truly get what you pay for, your dollar would go way beyond what it does today.

if things cost only what they cost to produce, society would have much more food, more electronics, more clothing, more electricity, more everything available. and guess what; less crime.

i believe in a small percentage above the cost of manufacture, but that "profit" should go to further company development, not huge salaries, bonuses, stock holders, etc.

its interesting that they want to automate workers at the store level, when the highly paid executives could be replaced with automation much more easily than a cashier. a computer program would make better and faster decisions than greedy, over paid executives, at a lower complexity than interacting with a customer.

anyway, getting back to the topic of piracy. it depends on which is more wrong:

violating copyright or paying more than you should?

I thought about it quite a lot, and I just don't like to repeat myself.

And why should I tell you how you must rule your life and do your business ? If you're silly enough to try to sell things that are so easy to copy, this is your problem, not mine.

Whether or not the end of copyright would be good for your business, honestly I don't care much, indeed. But really I don't know why I should.

Basically you say :

« law should enforce copyright, otherwise I'd be jobless. »

And you say I'm the one that justify myself ?


If you really want my advice, here it is :

Just stop trying to sell numbers and become a consultant, or whatever else.