4 ms·

> it's like saying to someone who just got their bike stolen while they were trying to sell it "the thief would have probably never bought it" No it's not. If

> it's like saying to someone who just got their bike stolen while they were trying to sell it "the thief would have probably never bought it" No it's not. If a thief takes your bike, you no longer have it, you can't sell it.

alin23 5y ago
Indeed, the problem in the analogy seems to be that software is infinitely able to duplicate. But what’s overlooked is that software also needs maintenance, lots of it. Tomorrow will be an Apple Event and I’m already expecting some new hardware I’ll have to support or some breaking change to an internal API (because controlling monitors isn’t possible with public APIs). When a bike is bought, the owner is done with it. While the software developer is bound to keep the software running and compatible with new technologies. Of course, I could just forget about it and leave the users that bought it with an unusable app when the next MacBook comes out. If piracy is accepted, why wouldn’t this be accepted too.
- mnsc 5y ago
  The problem with the analogy is that it doesn't work. Never has and never will. And you started it with comparing piracy to a bike theft. If someone without money came and stole my bike but I still had a copy of my bike. I wouldn't mind.
  - alin23 5y ago
    Ok maybe not a bike. Maybe a jar of strawberry jam filled from a large pot :) You won’t care as much about the theft since you still have an almost full pot of strawberry jam, but you care a little since that pot will eventually end. Analogs in the order of appearance: - jar of jam: copy of Lunar - large pot of jam: my willingness to keep updating the app in a world where everyone sees theft as “meh whatever, I wouldn’t have paid anyway”
    - iso1210 5y ago
      A better analogy would be if I were to give a walking tour to people who pay me $50 to do said tour, but someone uses a parabolic microphone to unknowingly listen in to the tour
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Whether someone steals your zero marginal cost good has no effect on whether you will update your software. If the thief would have paid it might, but if they wouldn't buy your product anyway you're no worse off.
- iso1210 5y ago
  If you sell a program which works now, you're not making any claims it will continue to work in the future, that's the model software sales ran for years. There's no reason, legal or ethical, for you to continue to give free updates to people that bought something from you in the past, just like if you sell a bike to someone you don't need to continue to maintain it. For your software you could sell a support contract with it, you could even bundle it in up front, and then sure you are expected to provide that support. None of this is of any relevance to someone . If I copy your software it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't cost you, it doesn't deny you the use of that software. It's wrong, sure, but not because of theft, just like it's wrong to sneak into an empty cinema, or download something from the internet. If I steal your computer, it does hurt you, it denies you the use of that computer. That is theft, that is wrong, and I'd argue more wrong than copying your software.
  - alin23 5y ago
    About 700 people received a free Pro license for Lunar for donating in the past (a much smaller amount than the current price, usually $3). After their free update period ended, some of those people began using the cracked version. I know that because they reported issues without knowing that the tnt@team.ru email would show up on the report. I don’t know how many people are doing that, but I can say for sure that there are people that could pay for the software, but don’t because using the crack is easier for them. Paddle also offers a dashboard and I can clearly see the monthly revenue dropping by $500-$1k on months when a crack is released for the latest version. When I launch an update with a new anti-piracy measure that stalls the crackers for another month or two, the monthly revenue goes back up. “It doesn’t hurt the dev, I wouldn’t have paid anyway” is just something people tell themselves to justify their action.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      > but don’t because using the crack is easier for them. That's a whole separate problem. In my experience 'anti piracy' measures cause problems for people who pay for the software, it's just another reason not to pay. If it's easier to use a cracked product, you are doing something wrong. > “It doesn’t hurt the dev, I wouldn’t have paid anyway” is just something people tell themselves to justify their action. Nobody is trying to justify people not respecting your intellectual property rights, just call it what it is - copyright infringement. It is not theft, just like someone using an ad blocker isn't theft, or someone ripping a DVD they bought so they can watch it on their phone isn't theft.
some_random 5y ago
It's infuriating that this argument is still around, and actually taken seriously.

alin23 5y ago

Indeed, the problem in the analogy seems to be that software is infinitely able to duplicate. But what’s overlooked is that software also needs maintenance, lots of it. Tomorrow will be an Apple Event and I’m already expecting some new hardware I’ll have to support or some breaking change to an internal API (because controlling monitors isn’t possible with public APIs). When a bike is bought, the owner is done with it. While the software developer is bound to keep the software running and compatible with new technologies. Of course, I could just forget about it and leave the users that bought it with an unusable app when the next MacBook comes out. If piracy is accepted, why wouldn’t this be accepted too.

mnsc 5y ago
The problem with the analogy is that it doesn't work. Never has and never will. And you started it with comparing piracy to a bike theft. If someone without money came and stole my bike but I still had a copy of my bike. I wouldn't mind.
- alin23 5y ago
  Ok maybe not a bike. Maybe a jar of strawberry jam filled from a large pot :) You won’t care as much about the theft since you still have an almost full pot of strawberry jam, but you care a little since that pot will eventually end. Analogs in the order of appearance: - jar of jam: copy of Lunar - large pot of jam: my willingness to keep updating the app in a world where everyone sees theft as “meh whatever, I wouldn’t have paid anyway”
  - iso1210 5y ago
    A better analogy would be if I were to give a walking tour to people who pay me $50 to do said tour, but someone uses a parabolic microphone to unknowingly listen in to the tour
colinmhayes 5y ago
Whether someone steals your zero marginal cost good has no effect on whether you will update your software. If the thief would have paid it might, but if they wouldn't buy your product anyway you're no worse off.
iso1210 5y ago
If you sell a program which works now, you're not making any claims it will continue to work in the future, that's the model software sales ran for years. There's no reason, legal or ethical, for you to continue to give free updates to people that bought something from you in the past, just like if you sell a bike to someone you don't need to continue to maintain it. For your software you could sell a support contract with it, you could even bundle it in up front, and then sure you are expected to provide that support. None of this is of any relevance to someone . If I copy your software it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't cost you, it doesn't deny you the use of that software. It's wrong, sure, but not because of theft, just like it's wrong to sneak into an empty cinema, or download something from the internet. If I steal your computer, it does hurt you, it denies you the use of that computer. That is theft, that is wrong, and I'd argue more wrong than copying your software.
- alin23 5y ago
  About 700 people received a free Pro license for Lunar for donating in the past (a much smaller amount than the current price, usually $3). After their free update period ended, some of those people began using the cracked version. I know that because they reported issues without knowing that the tnt@team.ru email would show up on the report. I don’t know how many people are doing that, but I can say for sure that there are people that could pay for the software, but don’t because using the crack is easier for them. Paddle also offers a dashboard and I can clearly see the monthly revenue dropping by $500-$1k on months when a crack is released for the latest version. When I launch an update with a new anti-piracy measure that stalls the crackers for another month or two, the monthly revenue goes back up. “It doesn’t hurt the dev, I wouldn’t have paid anyway” is just something people tell themselves to justify their action.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    > but don’t because using the crack is easier for them. That's a whole separate problem. In my experience 'anti piracy' measures cause problems for people who pay for the software, it's just another reason not to pay. If it's easier to use a cracked product, you are doing something wrong. > “It doesn’t hurt the dev, I wouldn’t have paid anyway” is just something people tell themselves to justify their action. Nobody is trying to justify people not respecting your intellectual property rights, just call it what it is - copyright infringement. It is not theft, just like someone using an ad blocker isn't theft, or someone ripping a DVD they bought so they can watch it on their phone isn't theft.

some_random 5y ago

It's infuriating that this argument is still around, and actually taken seriously.