Every day I surf to a web site called ZDnet: one of the major technical "news" sites on the internet. ZDnet obviously wants to get as many readers as possible (better to attract advertisers), which makes their articles extremely conservative. Nonetheless, it's a great source for article ideas. In fact, I get perhaps half a dozen good concepts a month from them, which is more than enough to guarantee that I return regularly.
One of the best sources for ideas is not the articles themselves - it is the "Talkback" feature. This allows their readers to post comments about each article in a public arena. You can even post responses to previous posts. Some of these discussion get quite lively and extremely interesting.
Recently there was an article on ZDnet about software privacy. The article sited a report from the BSA (Business Software Alliance) stating that Microsoft and other large companies are losing incredible amounts of money due to software piracy. The article, as is common for ZDnet, was vague and not very useful, but the main point was simply that software piracy is a problem.
Since the article was about Microsoft, I knew that there would be a very lively discussion in the "Talkback" section. I was not disappointed: the forum was downright vehement. It seems that many people (at least a large number of those reading this particular article) have no problem with software piracy.
So, for your entertainment, here are snippets from some of the responses that I found after this article, along with my own comments. Keep in mind that these responses are from "adults", and they are serious.
One reader wrote:
Most of the software downloaded would probably have never
been bought by those people anyway. My friend, for example,
used to play around with PhotoShop when he was in high
school, but really, would a 15 year-old-kid ever need to
buy it for legitimate purposes?
I found it fascinating that it seems (to this reader) that it's okay to steal something if you would "never have bought it anyway".
Another reader added his comments:
They should focus on the real abusers, like the Asian CD replicators, and companies that use multi-million dollar software illegally. The home user is small potatoes.
Another interesting argument. Apparently it's okay for the home user to steal software.
I could really care less....I use pirated software... and I freely admit it. And I'll keep using it as long as I can get it. Ethics and morals are overrated anyway. :)
Actually, the only people I've ever heard state anything like "ethics and morals are overrated" are those who are unethical and immoral. These people fail to understand that morals and ethics is what makes society work, and a lack of ethics and morals is what causes crime, unemployment, drug usage, divorces and all of the other evils of the world.
The 14 year old who downloads PhotoShop IS pirating the software, HOWEVER, Adobe has not lost a sale. This kid would NEVER have bought the software.
I found this kind of comment over and over and over. Again, it seems that many people feel it's okay to steal something if you would "never have bought the software anyway". Wow.
It is my understanding that "piracy" is the act of reproducing copy written works for profit. If no one is profiting from the download how is it piracy?
It's piracy because the person who has downloaded the software and is using it is profiting. He or she is getting value, and thus is profiting.
I purchased MS Windows XP to install on my new hardware but will not due to it's intrusive nature of not allowing me to make more than 3 hardware changes to my computer without paying another lic. fee to do so (I plan on making more than 3 changes in the next year).
Now, since I won't install the WinXP, I guess that sorta makes the copy of MSXP Office Pro & MS Publisher that my wife received "free" while taking a recent class nearly worthless to us also (oh, we sorta paid for it in the long run...she's a school teacher, and the copies provided are lic. by MS and are given away as a part of the settlement in the federal case), not to mention that we paid for the class in cold hard cash. (Seems like more of a sweetheart deal there for MS than us).
Hmm, so if you bought a car and it didn't work, you could go back to the lot and steal one that does? Very interesting.
I think both your arguments are lopsided. Especially the reference to thieves in prison. There's a big difference between stealing a car and copying software. The software copy doesn't cost anyone. The corporate mouthpieces like these software organizations hype up the *potential* sales lost. If there's no potential sale, there's no loss.
Well, ignoring the bandwidth and server costs, software is extremely expensive. Some products require hundreds of thousands or millions of man hours to design, implement and produce. In fact, an operating system like Windows 2000 costs billions to design and implement, and billions more to market. That money has to be recouped and hopefully even more will be made.
If they don't want their junk copied, then make better protection for their products.
Oh, so if a person does not install good locks on their home, then it's okay to walk in and steal their belongings?
Folks, think about why someone would pirate software they don't need. The answer? Proprietary file formats....and you know what that leads to.
Oh, so if you buy a car with Goodyear tires (and assuming they are the only ones that fit), then it's okay to walk into a Goodyear and steal the tires just because the only place you can is Goodyear and it so happens that you cannot pay them?
Unlike blind faith in what's right and wrong, I exercise some judgment. I won't pay $300 for MS Office, since I use only a tiny subset of those features.
Hmm. Another interesting argument. I guess it's okay to steal a car if you don't plan on using the radio and cruise control.
Secondly, just because a company writes a piece of software, they don't actually have any right to profit from it. You don't even have a "right" to get paid for going to work each day, but you would probably stop showing up each day if you didn't get a paycheck.
Wow, a software company can pay billions of dollars for research and development of a new product, but they have no right to profit from it? That's fascinating.
Yeah, just like at one point movie studios complained that VHS would cause them loss of profit. Look where they're now, raking it in big time.
I think it's stupid to claim that since stealing is bad, software piracy is bad. It's not like stealing money or a car. With intellectual property, it's only wrong to steal if you're making money on the stolen property, or causing loss of profit for the companies. With the vast majority of so called piracy...the PhotoShops and the AutoCADs downloaded by some teen punk are hardly a problem for the software companies.
Excuse me? How stupid can you be?
You feel it's theft but other don't. It's only your definition.
I love this argument. I'm not stealing because I don't call it stealing. Sheesh.
A 12 year old kid is not going to buy photoshop. However, if they download photoshop and use it for a few years, and eventually move into a job where they are using photoshop, they will eventually own a retail version. The "pirated" versions of software used at home for educational, hobbies, etc, and not for profit, do not cost the software company money, and may eventually create a sale.
So it's fine to steal because stealing leads to educated people who might, in some distant future, purchase the product? Just weird.
But I'll never pay for the software I use at home - not until the EULA is modified so that the vendor has to take responsibility in case the software damages or loses data.
Another interesting argument. So if you don't like the car warranty, it's okay to steal the car?
it seems they would have more important things to do rather than harass an unprofitable company with 6 employees!
So it's okay to steal if your company is not making a profit?
So- forget about pirating- it is and always has been just the way of the web.
Oh, how silly of me. Because it's easy to steal, it's okay to steal!
If they wanted to prevent piracy, they'd sell the product at a more reasonable price. That way, maybe, just maybe, users wouldn't be FORCED into using illegal and pirated copies for home and personal use.
So now it's the company's fault! They are forcing you to steal! Boy, I didn't know they were so powerful!
I also feel that morality is a very personal issue and should not be shoved in other's faces.
So even the concept of stealing is "a personal issue". In other words, this person might even be able to kill people, because he has a different definition of morality!
Another person said copyrights did not protect authors from copying! He claimed that society set up copyrights for it's purposes and could override them when it wanted to. Well, copyright laws exist to give the author the first and (if he wishes) only rights to the item. Copyright exists for the author (or whoever he sells or gives the rights to), not society at large by any means. And yes, this is intended specifically to give the author the chance to make some money, fame or whatever off his own works.
At far as the justifications for piracy, that's all they are. The company that produces something has the right to set the terms under which that something may be used. YOu have the right, if you disagree, not to purchase the product.
Think how it would work if you didn't agree with the price of a car. Too expensive for you? Just wait until the dealer is not around, then steal it off his lot. It's okay, right? He priced it too high, and you need it to drive to and from work so it's okay just to take it!
Oh, perhaps you could argue that a car costs money to build and a software download is free?
Well, no one gets hurt by your download, you say? Even if it is a crime, it's victumless, right? well, wrong again. By stealing a program you are not paying for it, and that means the price you would have paid had you purchased it does not go to hard working people trying to make a living. Shareholders, managers, marketers, advertisers, engineers, vendors and thousands of other people working honest jobs do not get a share of that money you would have paid.
I recently received several email messages which took exception to my depiction of unemployment as caused by a lack of ethics and morals. Here is a sample:
Unemployment!!! I and many other people in Oregon are currently unemployed and if one were to believe you then about 7.1% (nearly highest in the nation) of the Oregon population lacks ethics. What kind of moral relativity game are you playing? Are you really willing to say that I and others unemployed lack morals? I disagree completely, what I lack is a job. My morals are quite intact. I feel that you are morally obligated to retract and apologize for this insulting, demeaning and senseless comment.
I was not necessarily referring to "the unemployed" in this article, but the reasons for unemployment. I would certainly label the antics at Enron, which resulted in tremendous layoffs and unemployment, as unethical conduct on the part of the criminals ... er, managers in charge of the company at the time. Companies which take huge risks, poorly funded ventures into wild internet schemes, and so on all, in my mind, fall into the realm of bad ethics.
And, of course, one could get into a discussion about the government's welfare program, which seems to almost encourage unemployment.
You see, many view working as a privilege - I view "having a job" as a fundamental right of all human beings (whether that job is working in a factory, staying home and taking care of the kids, tending the farm, going to war or whatever). In fact, "working" may be necessary for the basic sanity of an individual - look at how many of the rich are in fact insane (just look at the life of Howard Hughes, for example).
Managers and those who own and run companies have basic responsibilities towards those they employ. Obviously those who "managed" (and I use the term loosely) at Enron and other big companies did not fulfill those obligations, and thus they are immoral and unethical. Now I will pose a question: who is the worse criminal? A person who murders one man, or a manager who acts as a "white collar criminal" and skims money from the books, resulting in 7,000 layoffs and the associated misery? I sometimes wonder if our justice system goes after the correct criminals ... Just food for thought.
Unless otherwise noted, all photos and text is Copyright © Richard G Lowe, Jr.