Companies Coming Around To Piracy's Upside? 259
traycerb writes "The Economist has an article detailing how numerous companies are finding piracy's silver lining: 'Statistics about the traffic on file-sharing networks can be useful. They can reveal, for example, the countries where a new singer is most popular, even before his album has been released there. Having initially been reluctant to be seen exploiting this information, record companies are now making use of it. This month BigChampagne, the main music-data analyser, is extending its monitoring service to pirated video, too.' The kicker is Microsoft's tacit endorsement of Windows piracy in developing markets, namely China. The big man himself, Bill Gates, says it best in an interview with Fortune last year: 'It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not.'"
I'd be happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
This part is old old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep telling people that when they pirate Windows or Office they're not taking a poke at Microsoft, they're taking a poke at potential competitors for Microsoft. This isn't news, this is not something Bill Gates just realized, Microsoft USED this when Office was getting established, in all kinds of ways, even allowing business users to use the same licensed software at home, rather than using something else because they couldn't get a second license through their office.
Linux users: don't support proprietary software! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is happy to let the Chinese pirate everything, because it locks them in and increases their user base. Without it, alternatives like Red Flag Linux might actually have a few users.
Software Is NOT A Religion... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I'll help people with whatever they have and want to run. Linux, Windows, whatever, so long as they are willing to pay the service rate.
The one thing I will NOT do is install or provide any assistance or other service with pirated software or any illegal activities. Non-negotiable, it ain't happening.
Re:Linux users: don't support proprietary software (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the reason that Slashdotters who support Linux shouldn't be fixing every Windows PC around and giving others pirated software. So many people think they're sticking it to the man by using pirated proprietary software, but it only increases the user base of it. Microsoft is happy to let the Chinese pirate everything, because it locks them in and increases their user base. Without it, alternatives like Red Flag Linux might actually have a few users.
The majority of people donâ(TM)t care whether a program is proprietary or open source because the majority of people will never modify their operating system. A free launch is a free launch regardless of packaging and I have no doubt that most of the people who have Linux computers use it because it is free, just as most of the people who use Windows use it because it came with their system. The only difference between the two people is that one person knew how to install an operating system and/or build a computer and the other guy didnâ(TM)t.
Re:This part is old old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. They didn't start offering low cost MS Office editions (Home and Student, 3 licenses for 150$ as long as you're not using it commercially) until people started looking at alternatives (Linux, Mac OSX, etc), -not- when people started pirating (since years and years before that).
I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:1, Insightful)
...that every single time they use the argument that a pirated* copy does not equate a lost sale because they wouldn't have purchased it anyway - that they are primarily defending cheap fuck douchebags who simply want the game without having to pay for it**.
* piss off with your definition of 'pirates' being yo-ho-ho bottle of rum-on-a-ship -only. If you don't like that definition, timetravel to the past and prevent it from being added to the dictionaries. http://www.answers.com/pirates&r=67 [answers.com]
** unless they're pirating the game for purposes of:
- not having to go through insane-o copy protection BS
- wanting to try the game before buying it***, seeing as the developer/distributor decided against releasing a demo
If you are one of the above: congratulations, you are officially part of a minority.
*** 'try before you buy' does not mean 'play the entire game through, play multiplayer online for several months, then decide you didn't like it that much and therefore won't be buying it, not even from the bargain bin where it's available for $9.99 now.'
If you already know you would never pay for the game anyway, then don't be an ass in downloading it anyway. Go find a game that you do like enough to pay for. Or, you know, pick up a free**** game. TAGAP is pretty good fun for a platformer, and it's free!
**** as in beer. Though what beer is free?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone avoids downloading software if he won't pay for it anyway, then the productivity he could gain from that software is lost.
If he does download it without paying for it, he gains productivity, while the author of the software loses nothing.
Why is it that you prefer that he loses the productivity, all other considerations being equal?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because software isn't food or clothing. You're not entitled to it. If you can't afford it, use a free alternative, or nothing at all. You'll still be alive tomorrow even if you don't get to use the latest and greatest software.
So let me reverse the question with the above: Why is it that you feel people are entitled to luxury?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it plainly: go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut*.
I, personally, pay for all the software I use, music I listen to, and movies I watch; despite the fact that I have the technical chops to crack whatever I'd want.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I make my money in software; and, by extension, "IP". Ergo, I want to be paid for my work and I think others should be too.
However.
And, that's a big "HOWEVER", I do not accept the rhetoric, propaganda, and evil litigiousness of the software lobby. The idea that everyone who illegally uses a copy of some software product is either: a danger to society, an irretrievable thief, a tax cheat, or a supporter of terrorism is obscene.
The most disgusting part of this, to get back to the point of my original point, is that all the aspersions cast upon those who engage in such piracy notwithstanding, they still wouldn't have paid for "it" anyway.
So, in the end, draconian laws and mindsets are being fostered for no morally, or fiscally, sound reason.
*Thanks to Kurt Vonnegut for that vignette.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft software is luxurious? Hang on a sec... where'd I put my dictionary?...
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're profiting from piracy? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Linux users: don't support proprietary software (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't install Windows products and especially not pirated software because of how much of a pain it is to support, not because I want to push a certain agenda.
For pirated software you would have to make sure any update mechanism is shut off, and that causes security headaches if the updates patch holes. The user will also want to install a new version if they come across it and notice they have an older version, which will probably not work with the crack used to cause the program to activate/validate/whatever. Who knows if the program will expire at a later date and maybe the crack doesn't know about it. Windows/Office activation is another annoyance. Maybe not for a Windows user, but primarily as a Linux user I don't need to keep up with that because I'm not bothered by the issues caused by activation. I don't really need the hassle of keeping up with the latest news on cracks.
As for just Windows support in general, that too is a headache. It's easier to figure out how to lock down a desktop on Linux, just my opinion. You have to look in many different places and do a lot of theorizing and testing to set up a good scheme in Windows. It's easier to get a usable desktop in Linux, you just apt-get a bunch of stuff. You can make a script to grab and configure a good usable desktop. In Windows, you have to hunt down driver packages, various codec packages, and find out what programs you need to replace and which ones you have to add to fill in the functionality holes.
Also I don't know if this has changed, but in Windows if you stick a hard drive image on some computer, it's not guaranteed to work well. If you ever replaced a motherboard and you used Windows, you know just how badly Windows is at detecting hardware from scratch on an old install like that. Even silly things like oh, this computer has more hard drives so now the DVD-RW is on F: and now I have to change a bunch of program defaults to reflect that. With Linux, you can configure a great usable image and then slap it on any computer.
If someone has Windows for a good reason, I leave it. But if someone ever asks me to "get software" for them, I will just give them a great open source version suited for them. Since OSS parts can be re-used and since there are multiple programs for any given use, I can find one that's advanced enough or dumbed down enough depending on the target user.
I think not only is the original post a little off topic, but also is a little off target.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion if Person B is using the software commercially to make a profit then they damn well should pay for it.
If person B is using it at home just to mess around with it for personal non commercial projects then there is no harm done, Person B was never going to buy the software in the first place, they arent profiting from it and no harm is done to anyone.
Id say that software should have specific Home Editions which should be alot cheaper, but then Small to Medium business could potentially exploit this system.
Piracy seems to be becoming the new Home Use Only Licence, but only because one isnt provided or is still far too expensive.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, they even had a simple universal key (Score:2, Insightful)
Pre-2000, most MS software could be activated with the universal 1234 1234567 key - I mean, did they have President Skroob on the board or something?
They weren't alone either, Macromedia's entire business model was predicated on piracy. Dreamweaver became the de facto HTML editor, Flash become popular quickly and Fireworks bit out a chunk of Photoshops then-market all because the majority of candidates for web jobs had experience in them, because they were easily to get your mitts on.
Just as home taping never killed music, mass copied Blob CDs filled with software didn't kill software companies, neither will pirating ever kill software companies or music labels. The sooner everyone got around to figuring that out, the quicker everyone can act like adults about it.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you trying to imply that software publishers are stealing from society, by charging for their software?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they can't prove that they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, unless perhaps they are some of the impoverished Chinese that Gates is talking about.
Suppose you did some IT work for a client. Then a month after you were supposed to be paid, you were finally told:
"We've decided not to pay you because presumably you still have copies of the work you did, so you didn't lose anything. It's all digital, right? We don't even think too highly of the work you did, it certainly isn't worth what you are charging. Maybe you should thank us for giving you some experience and exposure. You know what, your business model isn't keeping up with the times. Maybe you ought to sell ads or something!
I don't think you would find this kind of happy Slashtalk one bit clever or amusing.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree. The problem starts with non-corporate software. Devil May Cry 4 just came out for PC a few weeks ago. I don't foresee many corporations buying it... so what exactly do you do? The answer to this so far has either been: A) put some fucking annoying and useless DRM on it, or B) make games that require a corporate server that isn't being distributed to run (WoW).
So now what do you do? Not very many people will lend their time to make something like that...coding a PC game sucks. The drivers are buggy as hell, there's tons of them, you have to support the lowest common denominator, then there's customer support, etc... so while free software isn't completly out, it will be rare in that field. So exactly what is the solution? These things cost millions to develop, and as technology to push games further comes along, it will take more and more artists to make the graphics and sounds in the game, the voice actors, etc.
I also know a LOT of people who pirate photoshop and do a heck of a lot more than just "messing around", and will openly say that its a critical piece of software for them (its a hobby for them...but hey, sports are hobbys too, and the gears are expensive -too-). So what do you do about those?
The home edition is a good idea and it does work (I've witnessed a lot of people buying Office Home and Student... 150$ for 3 licenses, thats not bad at all), but when people start feeling entitled to the top edition, or we're talking about single player games... I don't see an easy solution.
Re:MS only really cares about large scale piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
You're quite correct about Visual Studio. Many aren't aware of that, but technically speaking, Microsoft -wants- to give all editions of Visual Studio away. They're not really profit makers to begin with, but only an indirect feature of Windows. But if they don't charge for VS, then all of the third party tools will die out (there already aren't that many for Windows development, compared to Java or Linux development), and that would hurt em in the end.
The worse bit of piracy is when people print a shiny windows CD (one that looks legit, hologram and all), and then sell it to some poor soul for 50$+, even though its not legit... then its really a user that would have paid for it (so the "they wouldn't have paid for it, so its not a lost sale!!" bit doesn't hold: they WANTED to pay for it, but got cheated out of it), but the money got channeled elsewhere. Those are incredibly common (my parents got caught more than once), and its the one MS wants to deal with first.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
The consumer looks at a product and says "hey, i like that, but i can't afford to spend $20 on it. so i will not buy it." but now all of a sudden there is a way for that person to get it for free so they obtain it that way.
Why, then, should anyone pay for the software? There are an almost unlimited number of things to spend money on. I am guessing that most "pirated" copies are not a matter of either I eat or I pay for the software -- it's a matter of either I go-to-the-movies or buy-a-new-TV or I pay for the software. At what point does "I can't afford it" justify the piracy in your mind?
The software clearly has some value to the "pirate". It has filled some useful purpose, and the creator's efforts are going unrewarded (that is, the creator didn't intend to give it away -- he or she wanted to be paid for it). Is the creator who wants to be paid for his or her software simply inherently wrong?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevant. If it is absolutely true that the person would not have bought a product he pirated (e.g., a college student pirating Photoshop CS3--I don't know a single college student who can afford that program), then from a utilitarian perspective, it is illogical and detrimental to society for him to NOT pirate it (assuming he will actually use it). Of course, if he will use it once he gets a job and can afford it, then the logic breaks down. In this case, he should make the purchase.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not wrong, but maybe unrealistic. Technology has brought us to the point where bits can be duplicated to any new format or context for basically no cost. The old business model of selling "copies" of information, depended entirely on the fact that that was hard to do.
So the question is: Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I learned 3D animation on a pirated copy of 3d Studio Max. On my own, I could never justify the purchase of this piece of software, as at the time it was just a hobby.
Down the road, when I got a job at a university doing environment design, my boss had a quite understandable interest in not having pirated software installed on school computers. A copy was subsequently bought for me, and discreet inc. has warez to thank for that sale.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
I don't think those are our only two choices. Firearms are legal despite the fact that they can be (and are) used to kill other people. Cars kill an unbelievable amount of people every year, yet we don't think of outlawing them. The copy machine has been around for decades, and somehow the printing industry hasn't gone out of business. There is a middle ground, admittedly difficult to enforce, where copying has legal restrictions while general computers are free. I think that there can be behavior that's looked down upon by the community and still be illegal, despite the fact that it's easy to get away with the crime.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer to this so far has either been: A) put some fucking annoying and useless DRM on it, or B) make games that require a corporate server that isn't being distributed to run (WoW).
A somewhat rarer solution is C) Use either light enough DRM that people don't care, or no DRM at all.
See, if you use no DRM at all, there are still going to be a fair number of people buying the game -- people who are honest, people who don't yet know about BitTorrent, etc.
If, however, you use DRM so aggressive it can make their computer unusable -- or which limits the number of times you can install the game -- or requires you to be online 100% of the time -- or requires a CD to always be present -- in short, if you use DRM which actually interferes with ways a legitimate customer might want to use your game...
Then they will go looking for cracks.
And they will discover how easy it is to find a decent crack. Or a pre-cracked torrent.
I don't remember the original comment which illustrated it this way, but here you go:
1) Buy game
2) Try to install game
3) Get pissed off
4) Download cracked version
If that's your typical process, it won't be too long till you eliminate steps 2 and 3, and at that point, step 1 becomes "Buy game, to put on shelf." How long before you eliminate step 1?
Too much DRM causes more piracy than it prevents. If you believe that too little DRM lets piracy run rampant, you still have to try to strike a balance -- one most games, in particular, don't get. Or you could err on the side of caution and use no DRM.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but I think that compatiblist responses like this only serve to procrastinate the answer to this question.
Right now, the sanctity of bits is protected by lots of social mores and traditions. Copyright law is one of them. Another is the practice of including album art and liner notes in albums. The way we trade information in the commercial world still seems to ascribe value to owning the authentic recorded media, rather than just having access to the bits contained therein. This is the way we have learned to think, growing up buying albums and games and so on.
The 4-year-olds growing up with YouTube are not going to think about data the same way. They are going to feel a deep, bellyfeel inconsistency between the notions that data has value, and that copies of data have value. Cars and books and guns all have a physical component which, consistent with the laws of matter, must carry an element of scarcity. but they're going to balk at the notion that scarcity in the world of bits should be created where it doesn't occur naturally.
The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is many an ambiguity here. Because it doesn't answer the giants paradox: If I've seen farther than others, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants. No creation of any Work of Art was possible without the million Works of Art that were already out there as part of us being humans in a human society. Every Work of Art is leeching (or stealing) from the richness of the culture it was growing one. 95% of each Work of Art is not original, but copied from someone else.
So why are 100% of the Work protected?
If I buy a real estate, I can build a fence around it without infringing on anyones real estate. But where is the fence that separates the original part of a Work of Art from the part, that is just a partial copy of our all culture?
If I mention "42" on Slashdot, most people immediately recognize my reference to Douglas Adams. In a certain way 42 no longer belongs to the society as a whole. But which part of 42 contains the pure number, and which part of 42 is original to the Hitchhikers Guide?
Re:I'd be happy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy will however cause lost profit compared to if piracy was impossible. However, just as you said not at a 1:1 ratio, and most likely far far far from it, as any extra money would mean less money spent on other goods. Also this doesn't imply that having strict copyright just to increase profits is a good thing.
In fact, copyright reminds me somewhat about russian plan economy. Just like we could point and laugh at the inefficencies of plan economy, Non-capitalists can point and laugh at the inefficencies of the whole IP system. OK, maybe not so much laughing considering that most live in capitalistic systems that implement copyright.
The ability to share information without restrictions is incredibly powerful. Having people who willingly share information is even more powerful. How much does society lose daily because of not only copyright and patents, but also trade secrets, secret company and goverment dealings, deceptive marketing and more. I wouldn't even dare to guess a number.
Re:The PC Software Industry has known this for yea (Score:3, Insightful)
For example MS, note that it was only with XP that they even tried to introduce some anti-piracy, and it is decidedly half-assed and low priority.
I don't know about 3.1, but 98 at least did include anti-piracy. It was called a Product Key.
In fact, the new anti-piracy features in XP caused a bit of a shitstorm (read: storm in a teacup), wherein many people refused to upgrade. Things like having to call Microsoft just because you bought a new hard drive -- that's ludicrous, when you really think about it. It's just that copy protection has gotten so bad that we accept these things as a matter of course, now.
Re:I'd be happy... (Score:3, Insightful)
I, most emphatically, disagree. Let's take the classic example: Photoshop.
I'd wager that nearly everyone who's above the age of 25 and has a computer has had a pirated copy of some version. Mainly, because they thought:
"COOL! I want photoshop."
They then launched it once, couldn't figure out what to use it for, and then forgot about it.
In my opinion, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for the case that the above situation cost Adobe any money whatsoever.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
#1) Photoshop CS3 as an educational license is much cheaper, and many, many colleges have deals with Adobe where students can get licenses even cheaper, or even free.
#2) As long as people pirate Photoshop, a cheaper alternative will never be created. Gimp anyone? Do you think that thing would suck balls so much after so many years if it was impossible to get Photoshop for free? Oh no, it probably would be a full fledged alternative by now.
Our economy works from a supply and demand perspective... the "infinite" supply logic only works in term of quantity of a single product... but there's a potential demand for a larger amount of -distinct- product. That demand is killed by piracy. The barrier for entry for a photoshop clone is exponentially higher: No only you need to make a clone for free to compete with pirated photoshop, it needs to be as good, and if you manage to get people to pay for it, you're competing with a product made free even though it wouldn't be otherwise, so potential jobs cannot be created, additional companies cannot survive, and the Gimp sucks ass.
Oh yes, society wins so much!
(Note: I know its not as clear cut... but there IS another side to the coin.)
Re:Well, no, piracy is MUCH more common today (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Not wrong, but maybe unrealistic. Technology has brought us to the point where bits can be duplicated to any new format or context for basically no cost. The old business model of selling "copies" of information, depended entirely on the fact that that was hard to do."
Currency, such as the US dollar can also be copied pretty easily due to technology (and technology will only get better). Should we allow this too?
"So the question is: Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?"
It can sometimes takes thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to create a particular piece of software. The reason something like Adobe Photoshop doesn't cost a million or more dollars for a copy is because it is essentially subsidized by the many people that purchase it for a couple of hundred.
We will give up on that idea of selling on a per-copy basis when:
1) people are willing to accept that there will be almost no commercial software for the masses (because it will be so expensive) or
2) all software is service based.
#2 seems more likely. As more and more people get high-speed internet and piracy increases, more companies are going to be forced to go to service based software.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The 4-year-olds growing up with YouTube are not going to think about data the same way. They are going to feel a deep, bellyfeel inconsistency between the notions that data has value, and that copies of data have value."
And you actually think that when the 4-year-olds are old enough that youtube will still be around in its current form? Youtube sill has yet to turn a profit and the only reason it's still around is because google can take the loss. This won't last forever.
Why is is such a stretch that something that has value costs money? Even if it is a copy, each individual person will get value from it.
"Cars and books and guns all have a physical component which, consistent with the laws of matter, must carry an element of scarcity. but they're going to balk at the notion that scarcity in the world of bits should be created where it doesn't occur naturally."
The bits aren't the scarcity with software, movies, or anything digital. The scarcity is the talent that it takes to put the bits in that order (the developers, artists, and producers create this order), which can't be replicated easily.
"The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is."
The bits-for-money industries are the sole reason why they are available for you to download and enjoy. Without any kind of commercial industry, all of the content will be gone.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I said nothing of the sort. All I claim is that today's kids are going to understand data differently from us. I'm sure the businesses catering to them will change names and owners and business models many times along the way.
Poppycock. Music and art existed before they could be monetized for mass-production, and they will continue to exist after they can't be monetized in this way anymore.
You're right that the big-money industry might collapse. Maybe it will be impossible to recoup an $80M film budget in the future, and so $80M films won't get made anymore. Maybe A-list celebrities will cease to exist.
I can't wait.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Barring asteroid mining and recycling unlike anything we've ever seen, we're going to eventually run out of things. Guns, cars, and books need metal, more metal, and trees to be constantly created, used, dumped, and replenished.
Bits cost naught but the pittance of electricity required to turn them on or off and to read 'em. They won't run out until we run out of electricity (at which point we'll have other problems).
That's why the 4yos and Youtube and so-called piracy will "win" and an archaic business model will be forced to change - you can't do business the same way with material and immaterial.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I'd rather buy media produced on small scales, by people who produce for the love of it. They do a better job for less money, and there's more of them to choose from.
Tom Cruise, for instance, is worth something close a quarter billion dollars. Would you say he has produced more cultural value than 500 actors would, if in their careers they made half a mill each?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is.
First, do you really think the average consumer takes an ontological approach toward information and then decides not buy things based on that? Second, do you even listen to what you're saying? You're arguing that because something can be reproduced flawlessly, that the creator of that information should be fine with not being compensated when it is shared with everyone. What if they want to be compensated for each person that decides to partake of their digital good?
What we have now is people rationalizing their blatant disrespect for this wish by arguing that because it is easy to do, it should be legalized. That is what this argument is all about: using products that other people have created AGAINST the terms of use the creators released them under. It is disrespect, plain and simple. Quit hiding behind all your bullshit excuses about the nature of information, the exact definition of the word 'steal,' the fact that the RIAA makes sure the artist gets nothing, or how Microsoft is morally wrong in your little world view. This is entirely about you disrespecting other people because you feel entitled to things.
So, please, defend the fact that you're insulting the creator by taking what they spent hundreds or thousands of hours on for free.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because i say i am. You don't have to like it or even agree. But screw you. I want sex. And if I can't get it legally, I'll get it illegally (rape).
Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean we as a society should tolerate people doing it.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is is such a stretch that something that has value costs money?
This nasty sumbitch called the supply-demand curve. Value is subjective.
The last decade has made it brutally obvious that volume is king. Among industries that whine about piracy hurting theoretical profits, how many have tried *gasp* lowering prices? Should a song really cost more than a hamburger?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I did lose something - my time.
This is different then if I write something on my own time and then expect people to retro-actively pay for my time. And this is exactly the difference between selling copies of software and selling my time to do work on some software. And this is exactly the model where open-source developers get paid.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Currency, such as the US dollar can also be copied pretty easily due to technology (and technology will only get better). Should we allow this too?
Yes we should! Why should the Central Bank be the only one to counterfeit dollars? If anybody and everybody could copy as many dollars as they wanted to whenever they wanted, this inherently unstable volatile fiat currency would quickly disappear as worthless in the market, and real money would evolve to take its place.
The artificial scarcity forced existence of fiat currency is causing serious economic distortions throughout the world. It's how wars are financed, it's how governments spend beyond their means, it's how debt contracts trap billions of people. The sooner the criminal counterfeiting Federal Reserve and fiat currency is killed, the better.