4 ms·

The technology makes it a bit more complicated, by enabling almost zero-cost copying. This is very very new and when a lot of rules and laws were created nobody

The technology makes it a bit more complicated, by enabling almost zero-cost copying. This is very very new and when a lot of rules and laws were created nobody could foresee this case. I don't advocate piracy, but there is a stupid notion of "lost profit" when every pirated copy is assumed the copy not purchased. Sorry, but it does not work this way. If someone thinks that the price is to high or simply does not have the money then in the piracy-free world that person would simply not purchase the product. So, does this kind of person really harm the producer when he pirates in real world? What if he shows the pirated movie to his friends and they like it so much that they go and buy a copy for themselves? Then there is the whole "piracy as convenience" thing. The whole picture is very complicated and will take a long time to sort out.

earbitscom 15y ago
Just because it only costs $0.00 to make a copy, doesn't mean that's what it costs to make the product. And just because people talk about lost sales doesn't mean they assume every stolen copy is $.99 out of their pocket. It means that some people who take copies would buy them if they couldn't pirate them. Whether one wants to justify piracy by saying they wouldn't pay for the product anyway, or they end up buying a lot of products they pirate first, or they help "spread the word" to others who pay, at the end of the day they're all self-serving justifications for engaging in an involuntary exchange of disparate value with the creator.
rrreese 15y ago
There seem too be two flawed mindsets. On one hand you have people claiming that every pirated copy is lost revenue and that there are no positive benefits. Pirates are thieves destroying the lively hoods of hard working creators. On the other you have people claiming that piracy doesn't harm the industry (where music, film, software and books are interchangeable), and that piracy actually helps authors by increasing the publicity for their work. Both these stand points seem way to extreme. If a kid pirates Photoshop rather than drop a grand for it I don't really think Adobe has been harmed. On the other hand if the same guy grabs a movie of a torrent rather then dropping a few dollars (which they can afford) on a rental then that is lost money. Maybe for some artists of developers that loss will be offset by increased recognition or maybe it won't. It's a shame that so many people take such hard and fast stands for or against piracy, and we lack the more nuanced opinions that reflect the situation as it actually is. I guess "Pirates are thieves" or "Unknown band becomes smash hit due to torrenting" make more effective headlines then "Piracy is really complicated and effects different stake holders in different ways".
- earbitscom 15y ago
  I think you're right about the points being extreme, but who's to decide that a broke kid taking Photoshop is better than a broke adult? And why is it not the fairest proposition to say that neither is entitled to this luxury product?
  - rrreese 15y ago
    Sorry to be clear I mean that ignoring moral or ethical implications, some one who is broke and pirates something they can not afford is not harming that rights holder. Regardless of their age. Not harming in a financial sense anyway, you could argue that there is one sort of moral harm maybe.
    - bmelton 15y ago
      is not necessarily harming that rights holder. If my neighbor comes by and borrows the ladder from my garage, it probably isn't hurting me. Probably. There are a number of scenarios I can think of in which it does in fact harm me, some morally, some financially. That doesn't change the fact that it's my ladder, and my neighbor has no right to take it without my permission.
      - rrreese 15y ago
        Absolutely agree with you. I would object though, if after your neighbour took your ladder you claimed financial loss despite not being hurt. I would also object if your neighbour claimed they have the moral right to take it since "you weren't using it any way". Or even worse that since you don't offer ladder rentals it's your fault they took it without permission. Both those extremes are, well extreme.

earbitscom 15y ago

Just because it only costs $0.00 to make a copy, doesn't mean that's what it costs to make the product. And just because people talk about lost sales doesn't mean they assume every stolen copy is $.99 out of their pocket. It means that some people who take copies would buy them if they couldn't pirate them. Whether one wants to justify piracy by saying they wouldn't pay for the product anyway, or they end up buying a lot of products they pirate first, or they help "spread the word" to others who pay, at the end of the day they're all self-serving justifications for engaging in an involuntary exchange of disparate value with the creator.

rrreese 15y ago

There seem too be two flawed mindsets. On one hand you have people claiming that every pirated copy is lost revenue and that there are no positive benefits. Pirates are thieves destroying the lively hoods of hard working creators. On the other you have people claiming that piracy doesn't harm the industry (where music, film, software and books are interchangeable), and that piracy actually helps authors by increasing the publicity for their work. Both these stand points seem way to extreme. If a kid pirates Photoshop rather than drop a grand for it I don't really think Adobe has been harmed. On the other hand if the same guy grabs a movie of a torrent rather then dropping a few dollars (which they can afford) on a rental then that is lost money. Maybe for some artists of developers that loss will be offset by increased recognition or maybe it won't. It's a shame that so many people take such hard and fast stands for or against piracy, and we lack the more nuanced opinions that reflect the situation as it actually is. I guess "Pirates are thieves" or "Unknown band becomes smash hit due to torrenting" make more effective headlines then "Piracy is really complicated and effects different stake holders in different ways".

earbitscom 15y ago
I think you're right about the points being extreme, but who's to decide that a broke kid taking Photoshop is better than a broke adult? And why is it not the fairest proposition to say that neither is entitled to this luxury product?
- rrreese 15y ago
  Sorry to be clear I mean that ignoring moral or ethical implications, some one who is broke and pirates something they can not afford is not harming that rights holder. Regardless of their age. Not harming in a financial sense anyway, you could argue that there is one sort of moral harm maybe.
  - bmelton 15y ago
    is not necessarily harming that rights holder. If my neighbor comes by and borrows the ladder from my garage, it probably isn't hurting me. Probably. There are a number of scenarios I can think of in which it does in fact harm me, some morally, some financially. That doesn't change the fact that it's my ladder, and my neighbor has no right to take it without my permission.
    - rrreese 15y ago
      Absolutely agree with you. I would object though, if after your neighbour took your ladder you claimed financial loss despite not being hurt. I would also object if your neighbour claimed they have the moral right to take it since "you weren't using it any way". Or even worse that since you don't offer ladder rentals it's your fault they took it without permission. Both those extremes are, well extreme.