3 ms·
For all of you that answered "Yes", please don't pirate software. When you create anything, no one has a proper right to it except on your terms. Without you, t
by maxharris 16y ago
For all of you that answered "Yes", please don't pirate software. When you create anything, no one has a proper right to it except on your terms. Without you, that thing you've created would not exist. You should be concerned about proper rights because your life, along with everyone else's, depends on individual rights (this has always been true, but it should be quite obvious to us because our technologically advanced civilization - through which literally billions of us are supported artificially - is the product of man's mind, left free to act). No one could live without the right to their person and property. Without those rights, they would not have space to exist in, a body, food to eat, etc. In this way, respect for someone's intellectual property is just as important as respect for their physical property. As more people fail to respect the creator's terms, they will increasingly have less motivation^ (and resources, if that's the gating factor) with which to pursue and share ideas. A result of this is that pirates hurt themselves long-term: they are depriving themselves of future material and intellectual advances that their honest patronage would make possible. For example, a single $100 payment for a company that has millions of customers has an exceedingly small impact, but that is not the same thing as $0, and all those payments together result in wonderful products (or not, in which case the company stops getting so much money). A well-managed company with a bigger product development budget can pursue more ideas and build better products than they could with a smaller one.
The consequences of piracy for the pirate are arguably more severe than for the company getting ripped off. For example, take the case of a aspiring person trying to improve their vector illustration skills with the eventual goal of becoming a paid designer. Stealing a copy of Illustrator won't give them the same result as someone who pays for it. Someone who saved hundreds of dollars working at a low-paying job will be more motivated to put their investment to productive use than a pirate that just rips it off a torrent site, all else being equal. The trader who traded value for value (money for software) will do better work, and more of it. A pirate will be more likely to employ the same "creative method" that they used to get their ill-gotten software: "I'll just download the ideas, too. Why not?" Instead of just second-handedly copying designs from others, our honest artist will be more likely to actually learn their tool more fully and look to novel sources for inspiration: "I worked an entire summer to get Illustrator. I'm going to skip going to that party, fun as it may be in the short-term, because it means more to me to make that summer of hard work amount to something more than a shiny package on my shelf." Furthermore, by behaving ethically, they'll be able to more easily advocate for the kind of society that rewards people for using their minds, which is precisely what they need to survive as designers. (Our fledgling designer could not exist as a designer in a world where all people pirated their work; they would have to devote more of their time to supporting themselves some other way.)
To express this as a general principle: anything that you take by force of theft or fraud is against your long-term self-interest. It's like cheating on an exam - you might get a better grade short-term, but in the long-term, you are more likely to end up with a job you are unqualified for, with all of the ramifications that entails (performing badly [the cheater has not acquired the same depth of knowledge that an honest student has], getting fired, decreased self-esteem [as the cheater is left in doubt about whether they could have passed without cheating], decreased income, etc.)
^Motivation doesn't have to be financial. People who violate the terms of an open source license can drain the motivation out of a programmer that might otherwise be perfectly happy, stalling or even halting future work. Open source license violators violate exactly the same principle that software pirates do: that the creator of a work has a right to dictate the terms of its use.
- rwhitman 16y agoI'm sorry but your argument that someone who buys legitimate software will produce better work is just ridiculous. Mastery comes from practice, not sheer will - someone who has to work all summer to acquire Illustrator is going to be far less skilled than someone who spent the entire summer learning Illustrator on a pirated copy. Almost every talented designer I know acquired their skills this way. I went to an art school and you could literally see the difference in skill level between students who had pirated & mastered software vs students that waited until college to get the educational license. I ran circles around those people and ended up making money tutoring them. I got a head start on my career by freelancing during college because I learned the software before I attended school. I took jobs away from those people and left them in the dirt because of instead of waiting & saving for the upgrades I could master new features as they were released. I honestly attribute most of my success in life to pirating software as a student. Oh and the best artists routinely steal each other's work and have their work stolen. They just call it "inspiration".
- maxharris 16y agoHow do you know you wouldn't be better in some other way if you had not pirated the software? Perhaps you'd be great in another field, and stealing kept you from finding that out. I think that it is as possible to escape the negative consequences of bad behavior as it is to escape the laws of thermodynamics.
- rwhitman 16y agoIs this honestly what you believe? That a poor student learning on pirated software can condemn themselves - by sheer act of moral fate - to a negative path in life? Who determines "bad behavior" exactly? You know, in my world view, publicly casting your own subjective moral judgment on someone else is considered "bad behavior".
- maxharris 16y agoPut another way: change "a negative path in life" to "a path in life lower by some amount (however small) than what it could have been otherwise", and you'll have an accurate rendition of what I think. Yes, I honestly believe what I said, and I don't think that what I've written below invalidates it (but if it does, please tell me - I'd love to know!) I didn't mean that someone that pirates software as a student is necessarily fated to outright doom, which is implied by "a negative path in life". We all have free will, and can choose to do better (or worse) every time we make a decision. I contend that the consequences of piracy are indeed negative, overall, for that person's selfish interests, long-term. However, the magnitude of that consequence depends on the context. While nothing can make a bad action good (remember that good and bad imply a context), many people are good enough that a few small bad decisions won't destroy them completely. Consider the case of a person that's excellent in all aspects of their life except for one: on Sundays, they travel to a nearby store and write obscene messages on the mirror in the bathroom with a bar of soap. They're still very awesome, happy and successful, but they could be just a little bit better (richer, happier, more well rested, whatever) if they chose to do something else.