I'm one of those people who would pirate just because I could. It was almost a game, trying to amass as much warez as I could, to the point that 90% of the stuff I got I either never used, or used only once.
That changed over time. As my time became more valuable, I couldn't spend all day fiddling with software anymore. I became more focused, downloading only stuff I used a lot. And then it hit me: It would be far easier to just buy the damn thing for $10, $20, $50, whatever and not have to hunt shit down, find a keygen, or in the worst case crack it myself.
So now I don't pirate anymore. It's not out of a feeling of moral obligation, but rather because I appreciate the convenience. And, realizing that pirates are people at various points on the price/effort spectrum, I don't even worry about my own software being pirated. Why should I, when I get income aplenty from it even with pirates in the equation?
It probably depends on the business, but I know several developers of music production software that can correlate huge drops in sales with the release of new cracks of their software to the exact day.
I think we are a little too quick to assume that a pirated copy is not a lost sale.
Private torrent trackers are also fuelled by this drive. The 'game' abstraction has been made so real with ranks, stats, leaderboards and so on. It really is quite amazing how willing people are to sink time into providing a service, moderating, sourcing, encoding (people sink LOADS of time into learning the finest details of x264), cracking, uploading and distributing all for for no material gain outside 'the game'.
That's exactly why I subscribe to Netflix. Sure, I could spend time looking for the latest movies, especially the latest ones that are hard to come by in more legit forms. But it's just not worth it, and if the fun of mischief is not there anymore, I'd rather just wait 3 months till Netflix carries it.
It is easier to pirate, and pirated versions of software generally restrict calling home so IMO some pirated software is better than the non-pirated version.
It's always been rumored that Adobe software, especially Photoshop, has been easy to pirate to encourage adoption with a user base that might otherwise seek alternatives. As those people hone their skills and eventually find jobs, Photoshop is the norm and what their employers purchase licensing for.
Well, I must admit that when I was a kid I taught myself how to use most of the Creative Suite via pirated copies (back then it was the Macromedia Suite plus whatever Adobe was calling its software at the time). I'm now employed because of those skills, and my employer has to purchase annual copies of said software for me to use.
I've heard that too, but I have no idea if it's true. (Surely, Photoshop would be pirated regardless of how much DRM is added).
But it's definitely not only the goodness of their heart that leads many companies to offer free or cheap software to students. Microsoft BizSpark is all about giving startups free Microsoft software in the hope that they'll build on the MS stack.
It was that way for me. Back in 2001 I got a iMac G3 500 while I was in collage. I used a p2p program called http://www.carracho.com/ to get Photoshop and Dreamweaver. The next summer I got a job at the university doing web design. The university bought me legit copies of the software since I preferred to work on My iBook and not the POS they had on my desk.
What exactly is HARD to pirate?
edit: More specifically, Crack. I remember x-force having sources in all the major places ready to dump it to their cracker division.
Adobe Software in no longer easy to pirate. From what I understand people have to go to great lengths to pirate CS6, same goes for Office 2010, a friend told me that to pirate it he had to call Microsoft and mess around with files, it's not just a keygen anymore.
I remember when Bill Gates came to Romania to launch their Microsoft branch here, and in front of the public the country's president himself told him how helpful the pirated version of his Windows has been for Romania. It was quite hilarious and a ballsy thing to say to Bill Gates.
But I think Microsoft and Bill Gates have learned to accept that, because imagine if China, India, and all the other poor countries out there were forced to use the free Linux instead of the pirated version of Windows. Then Windows would've had 50% or less market share in PC's, and that would've meant they wouldn't have had a monopoly in browsers, nor in Office anymore. So having Windows everywhere, even pirated, has helped Microsoft a lot to get its monopoly position.
I think in the next decade, it will be Android which will be what Windows was for all these kids in poor countries. It will be much cheaper to even get the hardware for it than it was to get a PC 10 years ago, and this time the software will actually be free and open source. I truly believe Android will revolutionize the world in this sense.
It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Apple are trying to slow it down right now, and make the devices more expensive than they should be through bogus licenses and lawsuits, but they won't stop it.
I'm glad things worked out for Vlad -- when I was younger, I pirated a fair amount of software and games, and, like him, I think it enabled me to get inspired to learn more about computers in general and, indeed, now I stare at them all day for work.
But.
I'm not sure what the bigger point is, here. Should we be okay with piracy as long as the pirate is using it for self-betterment? Do games count for that? What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? (Or, to take a wild leap: Is it cool for a kid to steal a car if he learns how to be a mechanic from it?)
Today, I do feel there are some motions towards providing better access to software and hardware in poorer parts of the world. Which is great. And, to be frank, the quality of both cheap hardware and open source software is insane relative to twenty years ago. So, again, I'm not sure what Vlad's bigger point is.
If the point is to justify piracy, I think he only does it in the very narrowest of ways: Considering the state of technology in the 1990s, piracy enabled people in poorer parts of the world (and kids in wealthier parts of the world) access to the growing information technology industry. I'm not sure that argument exactly holds in the same way today.
Finally, Microsoft can survive a fair amount of piracy. But not every software company can. What happens when this "it's cool because I'm using it to educate myself" stance kills software companies? Or game companies? Or media companies? Is that better for everyone?
---
EDIT: I'm not equating the act of stealing a car with the act of pirating Windows. I am merely wondering about the general nature of morally justifying a crime based on it being done for self-improvement. If we say it's okay in a case of software piracy, are we okay with it in other contexts?
The point is that taking strong measures against copyright infringement is stupid. Many (if not most) of the people that do it would pay a reasonable price if it was possible for them to do so.
Also, stealing a car is nothing like copyright infringement. There is absolutely no parallel you can draw there.
You seem to be assuming that simply because something is a crime it is therefore morally wrong. I don't think piracy needs justification because copying something is not morally wrong. OTOH, stealing a car (without justificaiton) is morally wrong.
If piracy caused future GoT episodes to not be made, that would be a bad outcome. But it won't happen. A series of GoT costs $50 million to make and they could probably fairly easily crowdfund it, (e.g. $10 * 5 million or some other multiple). I'm sure lots of people would be prepared to pay that amount (or a lot more) to ensure they could watch the next series -- I know I would.
I think that the answer is open source, now there are a lot of alternatives and you don't need piracy for learning stuff, now probably piracy makes you dumber
Since the car analogy isn't working: Let me try another one, equally with flaws no doubts. :-) Piracy as we known it is rampant of the coasts of Somalia (Yes, I am talking about real world pirates). One of the reasons why that is happening is the systematic breakdown of the livelihoods of fisherman in the region due to dumping of toxic wastes of those coasts and the free flow of arms. Now, it is arguable that those fisherman are using the monetary flow from piracy to lift themselves from poverty which is a good thing. However, I do wish to point out that that analogy is based on my philosophy that e-piracy is not a victimless crime, as long as you have at least one data point of a person who would have paid for the game/movie/software but didn't do so because he/she had easy access to a torrent.
To be honest, I don't care about people pirating stuff. It is the moral justifications that seem rather specious at best. What is wrong with accepting that you are doing something wrong and... keep doing it if you wish?
If a kid goes through the trouble of learning how to download, crack, and install software, I see that as a good barrier of entry for someone to start learning a piece of software. If you are going through all that trouble, chances are you are really interested in what you are pursuing and there is a bigger chance you may pursue a career in design/dev. And when you do enter the field, your employer will purchase licenses for you. I know that if I didn't pirate software as a kid, there is no way in hell I would be working in the web now. Also, when I was learning, I pirated all of my software. Now I don't have a single pirated program on my PC. And I gladly pay $50/month for the Creative Suite.
Or the software companies can release 'lite' versions of their software intended only for personal use and then rely on employers/schools and people purchasing the full versions to make most of their money.
You are overly western-centric, if you honestly think that the world in the 1990's is any different than it is today.
The only difference is that the there has been a shift of development, where some Eastern European and South American countries can now afford software licensing, but at the same time massive numbers of people in Africa and Asia have reached wealth levels that are sufficient for buying computers yet too low to afford the software.
I think he's completely unaware of the GNU/Linux distributions and the gratis software that comes along with them and the freedoms that that software offers to the user.
"
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. "
I don't see how Free software has anything to do with his post. First, there is only good Free software for certain things. Especially when the author was younger, there were no good Free software alternatives for many popular commercial products.
Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office, and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up. The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in many domains as well.)
And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing.
I say the same thing about audiobooks / lectures. In high school, I spent most of my part-time job listening to lectures about economics, game theory, linguistics, all sorts of topics. This was enabled 100% by piracy. Some of these lectures are worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, which I obviously could not have afforded as a high schooler. Still, the fact that I got all of that content and learning for basically free is in some sense, in my mind, a good outcome of piracy, even though I don't advocate for piracy (in fact, I think it's a large problem).
For the record, now that I have money, I purchase the lectures that I listen to. Maybe if I become wealthy, I will go back and buy the ones I listened to.
The side effect of privatizing what could be a public good is that is means denying to billions what they could have for free so that a relative handful will have an incentive to pay for it.
Moreover, I think that piracy mostly happens because either it's the only way or because it's way too cheap.
The first case is similar to how I was as a kid: I pirated all my games and software and copied all my music, and then bought the best games and the best albums that I could afford. I owned the games and cds that I considered the best, and worth owning. I paid for them so that I could own them: not because I would've wanted to make sure the authors could make a living. No amount of piracy laws and copyright enforcement would've added anything to the funds I had at my disposal. I already spent whatever I had.
The second case is why some people hoard files. They download full discographies and filmographies of nearly everything there is because copying is so cheap it's practically gratis, copying can be fun, and just to make sure that if the world comes to an end they'll still have years of entertainment in their hands. They probably watch and listen one percent of what they're downloaded, and they probably actually buy one percent of that one percent.
There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less.
I'm not really surprised to read this. These cases, I'm sure, are a dime a dozen. I did the same thing in middle school; I pirated Photoshop and started to learn the ins and outs. Led me to getting an internship which led me to getting a job and settling on a decent career path. Now I own most of the thousands of dollars of software I used as a kid.
I can agree and sympathize with this until he said that most people pirate out of need, not greed. Not sure that's really accurate but I'm also not sure it's measurable.
Point in case, I've been trying to buy Windows 8 in Bolivia for the past three weeks and STILL can't buy it legally anywhere.
Every option has been exhausted and I'm kind of annoyed. I wanted to ditch my pirated version of Windows 7 and finally go legit now that I can afford it, but Microsoft just won't take my money.
It's not just developing markets like Romania. I grew up in poverty in Australia, and pirating software was simply the only way to access it.
Without access to the software, I would never have been able to learn the skills required to earn the money to pay for the software now.
I'm not saying that piracy should be accepted for that reason; I'm saying (and I believe the OP was saying) that piracy is simply the only way to access the tools required to get out of poverty for many, many people.
This shouldn't be how it is, but some serious thought has to go into how to make things available fairly to those people who would otherwise just pirate it. Some money is better than no money, and software that is frequently pirated is obviously in demand with people who can't afford it.
On the one hand this chap, "[downloaded] an infinite number of games and software - all illegally," while also refers to people who pirate out of greed as - and this is verbatim - "bumholes". Despite the obvious hyperbole, it seems very likely that this man himself was once a bumhole.
The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available.
This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak.
There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.
And with this regional pricing crap, the same companies are petitioning Congress and SCOTUS to ban first-sale doctrine on "stuff" coming in from abroad.
"Sorry bub, you bought that X from the company who makes them, in another country. And because they sell stuff cheaper in THAT country, you have no rights to what you buy past yourself. Even if I did sell to you."
Regardless that companies use price arbitrage on everything under the sun, including the workers and the WHOLE company (to get away from higher tax regimes). We peons aren't allowed to use the same tools the big guys use.
I grew up in Silicon Valley in the 80s and I was not one of the fortunate---anything more than $5 was crazy expensive. But having a way to access the technology definitely changed my life trajectory. I don't condone piracy but I understand it. And yes, now I work in high tech and I pay for everything---even donate and occasionally volunteer because of all of this.
I think the article wasn't so much about the glory of piracy and how you can make a profit out of it. Rather, it is a perspective on desire and finding a way to feed it. I think that this is the one of the best things about living in our current state of the internet: if you can get the initial tool (the computer or the smartphone) you open up access to so much opportunity.
In addition to gaining experience through the use of pirated software, I think there is also a lot to be said for knowledge and experience gained through the process of committing piracy and attempting to do so undetected.
As a matter of course, pirates often find themselves becoming quite knowledgeable about topics (audio and video encoding, protocols (FTP, NNTP, BitTorrent, etc.), tools such as BNCs and VPNs, encryption, storage methods, etc.), all of which have valid uses aside from committing piracy, that they would otherwise have little motivation to explore.
The desire to commit piracy undetected acts as a motivation for people to gain a deeper understanding of the systems they are interfacing with, and this is often a good thing.
Interesting point here. But it forgets that it is a well known reality from software vendors, who basically choose how well protected their software can be. As an example, an interesting move was Apple's one with Logic Pro. I remember previous versions being uncrackable, needing a USB dongle. And then, as a move to conquer market share, the only protection is now just a serial number (I'm not even sure if Logic calls home to check it... ). The more people can use your technology for free in a training / learning / amateur way, the more you will become a standard, the more you will sell licenses to your customer base : the professionals.
Downloading a pirated version of Visual Studio 6 over a 56k modem definitely changed my life in high school, and allowed me to write code I wouldn't have otherwise been able to. (I still have those discs, mostly for nostalgia's sake.)
Of course what changed my life even more was subsequently downloading Slackware Linux (on that same 56k connection!) and realizing that I didn't need to pirate an expensive IDE to write code...
"Of course cheap and accessible software would be a lot better, but there’s so little of that going around."
GNU.
I have no problem with pirating (except for the word). But why illegally download an expensive OS when better, free versions abound on the net? Stay legal, and have a more powerful, hackable OS to go with your clean conscience.
> There are many commentators online trying to split hairs and say that pirating is not the same as stealing. As such, it isn’t a crime.
Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post) but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.
I would be interested to hear how piracy can justified, not for multi-million dollar corporations and defunct organisations, but for small businesses and individuals.
Adobe and Microsoft can sustain their products being pirated wholesale partly because it undermines their smaller competitors.
It's easy to justify downloading episodes of syndicated television shows, platinum albums, or computer games from 1992, but as a startup-centric site, it seems more relevant to question the impact of piracy on small independent businesses/artists/producers.
Maybe they should be "grateful for the publicity", or "flattered" that their product has been downloaded thousands of times on thepiratebay.org. Maybe the losses incurred are made up for by a wider audience and more sales once the user has reached maturity...
I realize mine is a pretty unpopular opinion on Hacker News, but I probably would not hire anyone who thinks pirating software is morally acceptable. The way I see it, any argument for piracy is simply rationalization.
The point is that someone has invested a lot of time and money into creating something and they are offering the usage of that software for a price. If you use it without paying that price, then you are disrespecting the person that created it because you are ignoring their wishes for the thing that they have invested a lot of time into. It just feels very wrong to me.
It's your right to not hire anyone you don't like, but then it's our right to thing you're stupid. You are. And then you are spoiled. And invested too much into the whole "I'm creating something so great that I'm entitled" school of thought.
If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered.
The very nature of the action of them trying to get your creation - even though they don't have money - is testament to the value they think you have created.
If they keep pirating your stuff every time you release a new version - you really should re-consider your pricing options or your distribution strategy. It means you are likely leaving money on the table.
[+] [-] kstenerud|13 years ago|reply
That changed over time. As my time became more valuable, I couldn't spend all day fiddling with software anymore. I became more focused, downloading only stuff I used a lot. And then it hit me: It would be far easier to just buy the damn thing for $10, $20, $50, whatever and not have to hunt shit down, find a keygen, or in the worst case crack it myself.
So now I don't pirate anymore. It's not out of a feeling of moral obligation, but rather because I appreciate the convenience. And, realizing that pirates are people at various points on the price/effort spectrum, I don't even worry about my own software being pirated. Why should I, when I get income aplenty from it even with pirates in the equation?
[+] [-] cageface|13 years ago|reply
I think we are a little too quick to assume that a pirated copy is not a lost sale.
[+] [-] glomph|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
I think the problem is that now it's just so easy it's not fun anymore.
I also eventually realised that I had only a finate amount of time on this planet and I don't need every discography in the world.
[+] [-] ihaveajob|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ixacto|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meritt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ender7|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lumberjack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
But it's definitely not only the goodness of their heart that leads many companies to offer free or cheap software to students. Microsoft BizSpark is all about giving startups free Microsoft software in the hope that they'll build on the MS stack.
[+] [-] johnpowell|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tyrant505|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yozmsn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
But I think Microsoft and Bill Gates have learned to accept that, because imagine if China, India, and all the other poor countries out there were forced to use the free Linux instead of the pirated version of Windows. Then Windows would've had 50% or less market share in PC's, and that would've meant they wouldn't have had a monopoly in browsers, nor in Office anymore. So having Windows everywhere, even pirated, has helped Microsoft a lot to get its monopoly position.
I think in the next decade, it will be Android which will be what Windows was for all these kids in poor countries. It will be much cheaper to even get the hardware for it than it was to get a PC 10 years ago, and this time the software will actually be free and open source. I truly believe Android will revolutionize the world in this sense.
It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Apple are trying to slow it down right now, and make the devices more expensive than they should be through bogus licenses and lawsuits, but they won't stop it.
[+] [-] chasing|13 years ago|reply
But.
I'm not sure what the bigger point is, here. Should we be okay with piracy as long as the pirate is using it for self-betterment? Do games count for that? What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? (Or, to take a wild leap: Is it cool for a kid to steal a car if he learns how to be a mechanic from it?)
Today, I do feel there are some motions towards providing better access to software and hardware in poorer parts of the world. Which is great. And, to be frank, the quality of both cheap hardware and open source software is insane relative to twenty years ago. So, again, I'm not sure what Vlad's bigger point is.
If the point is to justify piracy, I think he only does it in the very narrowest of ways: Considering the state of technology in the 1990s, piracy enabled people in poorer parts of the world (and kids in wealthier parts of the world) access to the growing information technology industry. I'm not sure that argument exactly holds in the same way today.
Finally, Microsoft can survive a fair amount of piracy. But not every software company can. What happens when this "it's cool because I'm using it to educate myself" stance kills software companies? Or game companies? Or media companies? Is that better for everyone?
---
EDIT: I'm not equating the act of stealing a car with the act of pirating Windows. I am merely wondering about the general nature of morally justifying a crime based on it being done for self-improvement. If we say it's okay in a case of software piracy, are we okay with it in other contexts?
[+] [-] gonehome|13 years ago|reply
http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...
[+] [-] lucian1900|13 years ago|reply
Also, stealing a car is nothing like copyright infringement. There is absolutely no parallel you can draw there.
[+] [-] autarch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cabalamat|13 years ago|reply
If piracy caused future GoT episodes to not be made, that would be a bad outcome. But it won't happen. A series of GoT costs $50 million to make and they could probably fairly easily crowdfund it, (e.g. $10 * 5 million or some other multiple). I'm sure lots of people would be prepared to pay that amount (or a lot more) to ensure they could watch the next series -- I know I would.
[+] [-] fox91|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eshvk|13 years ago|reply
To be honest, I don't care about people pirating stuff. It is the moral justifications that seem rather specious at best. What is wrong with accepting that you are doing something wrong and... keep doing it if you wish?
[+] [-] majorlazer|13 years ago|reply
Or the software companies can release 'lite' versions of their software intended only for personal use and then rely on employers/schools and people purchasing the full versions to make most of their money.
[+] [-] winfred|13 years ago|reply
The only difference is that the there has been a shift of development, where some Eastern European and South American countries can now afford software licensing, but at the same time massive numbers of people in Africa and Asia have reached wealth levels that are sufficient for buying computers yet too low to afford the software.
[+] [-] BadDesign|13 years ago|reply
" “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. "
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[+] [-] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office, and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up. The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in many domains as well.)
And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing.
[+] [-] natural219|13 years ago|reply
For the record, now that I have money, I purchase the lectures that I listen to. Maybe if I become wealthy, I will go back and buy the ones I listened to.
[+] [-] siliconc0w|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yason|13 years ago|reply
Moreover, I think that piracy mostly happens because either it's the only way or because it's way too cheap.
The first case is similar to how I was as a kid: I pirated all my games and software and copied all my music, and then bought the best games and the best albums that I could afford. I owned the games and cds that I considered the best, and worth owning. I paid for them so that I could own them: not because I would've wanted to make sure the authors could make a living. No amount of piracy laws and copyright enforcement would've added anything to the funds I had at my disposal. I already spent whatever I had.
The second case is why some people hoard files. They download full discographies and filmographies of nearly everything there is because copying is so cheap it's practically gratis, copying can be fun, and just to make sure that if the world comes to an end they'll still have years of entertainment in their hands. They probably watch and listen one percent of what they're downloaded, and they probably actually buy one percent of that one percent.
There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less.
[+] [-] imjared|13 years ago|reply
I can agree and sympathize with this until he said that most people pirate out of need, not greed. Not sure that's really accurate but I'm also not sure it's measurable.
[+] [-] sergiotapia|13 years ago|reply
Every option has been exhausted and I'm kind of annoyed. I wanted to ditch my pirated version of Windows 7 and finally go legit now that I can afford it, but Microsoft just won't take my money.
A torrent just works.
[+] [-] keithpeter|13 years ago|reply
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
Is Windows 8 not available for download in Bolivia? If so is that some silly regional trade reason? Or are network speeds too low?
[+] [-] samuellevy|13 years ago|reply
Without access to the software, I would never have been able to learn the skills required to earn the money to pay for the software now.
I'm not saying that piracy should be accepted for that reason; I'm saying (and I believe the OP was saying) that piracy is simply the only way to access the tools required to get out of poverty for many, many people.
This shouldn't be how it is, but some serious thought has to go into how to make things available fairly to those people who would otherwise just pirate it. Some money is better than no money, and software that is frequently pirated is obviously in demand with people who can't afford it.
[+] [-] rcush|13 years ago|reply
The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available.
This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak.
There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.
[+] [-] TheAmazingIdiot|13 years ago|reply
"Sorry bub, you bought that X from the company who makes them, in another country. And because they sell stuff cheaper in THAT country, you have no rights to what you buy past yourself. Even if I did sell to you."
Regardless that companies use price arbitrage on everything under the sun, including the workers and the WHOLE company (to get away from higher tax regimes). We peons aren't allowed to use the same tools the big guys use.
[+] [-] amy_seqmedia|13 years ago|reply
I think the article wasn't so much about the glory of piracy and how you can make a profit out of it. Rather, it is a perspective on desire and finding a way to feed it. I think that this is the one of the best things about living in our current state of the internet: if you can get the initial tool (the computer or the smartphone) you open up access to so much opportunity.
[+] [-] aes256|13 years ago|reply
As a matter of course, pirates often find themselves becoming quite knowledgeable about topics (audio and video encoding, protocols (FTP, NNTP, BitTorrent, etc.), tools such as BNCs and VPNs, encryption, storage methods, etc.), all of which have valid uses aside from committing piracy, that they would otherwise have little motivation to explore.
The desire to commit piracy undetected acts as a motivation for people to gain a deeper understanding of the systems they are interfacing with, and this is often a good thing.
[+] [-] mappu|13 years ago|reply
Pirates always get the better product (with the possible exception of AAA online multiplayer games).
[+] [-] robryan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julienmarie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktf|13 years ago|reply
Of course what changed my life even more was subsequently downloading Slackware Linux (on that same 56k connection!) and realizing that I didn't need to pirate an expensive IDE to write code...
[+] [-] drcube|13 years ago|reply
GNU.
I have no problem with pirating (except for the word). But why illegally download an expensive OS when better, free versions abound on the net? Stay legal, and have a more powerful, hackable OS to go with your clean conscience.
[+] [-] cotsuka|13 years ago|reply
In short, I think Vlad is trying to explain that piracy was only a last resort for him. And it should only be a last resort.
[+] [-] qu4z-2|13 years ago|reply
Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post) but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.
[+] [-] skwosh|13 years ago|reply
Adobe and Microsoft can sustain their products being pirated wholesale partly because it undermines their smaller competitors.
It's easy to justify downloading episodes of syndicated television shows, platinum albums, or computer games from 1992, but as a startup-centric site, it seems more relevant to question the impact of piracy on small independent businesses/artists/producers.
Maybe they should be "grateful for the publicity", or "flattered" that their product has been downloaded thousands of times on thepiratebay.org. Maybe the losses incurred are made up for by a wider audience and more sales once the user has reached maturity...
[+] [-] Xcelerate|13 years ago|reply
The point is that someone has invested a lot of time and money into creating something and they are offering the usage of that software for a price. If you use it without paying that price, then you are disrespecting the person that created it because you are ignoring their wishes for the thing that they have invested a lot of time into. It just feels very wrong to me.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcamillion|13 years ago|reply
If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered.
The very nature of the action of them trying to get your creation - even though they don't have money - is testament to the value they think you have created.
If they keep pirating your stuff every time you release a new version - you really should re-consider your pricing options or your distribution strategy. It means you are likely leaving money on the table.