8 ms·

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 t

by chasing 14y ago

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?

fossuser 14y ago
There are much better arguments for justifying piracy, notably the original intent/purpose of copyright. http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...
Devilboy 14y ago
Stealing a car deprives someone of a car. Copying a car does not.
- chasing 14y ago
  I think you understand my point. In a general sense, is doing something criminal okay if it's for self-betterment? Pirating Windows does rob Microsoft of some small portion of their rights as a creator.
  - Devilboy 14y ago
    Piracy for personal use is a 'victimless' (don't bite my head off please) crime, that's why it's OK here. Stealing is not.
    - chasing 14y ago
      Piracy is different from stealing, yeah. But I find it kind of short-sighted this notion that it's "victimless." Not intending to bite your head off. :-)
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Regardless of you thinking the view is short-sighted, without a counterargument it will remain victimless.
      - angersock 14y ago
        A very simple thought experiment: A rap artist is hired by a label to create an album. Said artist later dies. The label goes bankrupt soon thereafter, or perhaps simply folds up shop and leaves the business without auctioning off its assets. I have produced a copy of the album, which I host at my own cost from my server, once these events have transpired. There is no reasonable "victim" left for this crime of infringement, and indeed I'm helping to reduce the scarcity of this product in the world. While somewhat contrived, this thought experiment is not particularly far off from reality.
        chasing 14y ago
        No, it's pretty far off from reality. It's an extreme edge case that doesn't at all justify pirating Photoshop.
fox91 14y ago
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
- shocks 14y ago
  Open source is not an option in this instance. The point Vlad is trying to make is that when he was 15 he pirated Photoshop, learnt to use it, and got a job using it. He might have learnt some ideas and methods had he downloaded GIMP and used that instead, but ultimately he would have nothing on someone with years of Photoshop experience. The UI and many ideas are completely different.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lucian1900 14y ago
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.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  > "Many (if not most) of the people that do it would pay a reasonable price if it was possible for them to do so." And the fact that they can't afford it gives them justification for stealing it? Would it not make more sense, that if you can't afford something you aren't entitled to it? If a poor or homeless person were to steal food from a shop they wouldn't be allowed to do it because, although they would like to pay, it isn't possible for them to do so.
  - anonymous 14y ago
    The difference with your homeless person is that these people are stealing education. You're committing an act of classism. Please check your rich whiteboy privilege.
  - learc83 14y ago
    If the homeless person was taking food from the infinite food replicator, then yes it would be fine.
    - joesb 14y ago
      Why does it have to be infinite? Every restaurant has left over at the end of the day. Is it wrong for the homeless to pick up food from those shop during the day without paying? Is it wrong for the homeless to sleep in your house in the room no one is currently using?
      - qu4z-2 14y ago
        It has to be infinite for the analogy to work. The restaurants have to pay to replace food the homeless would pick up during the day (or even put in work to prepare it for a restaurant). Food that's leftover at the end of the day and can't be sold the next day could certainly be given to the homeless for free (and I know of at least a few restaurants in my city that do this). The homeless person sleeping in the spare room creates cleanup work, and prevents you from using that room at a moment's notice. If a homeless person could sleep in my spare room without using the shared spaces and leaving the room instantly, in perfect order, the moment I wanted to use the room, I don't think I can morally justify not letting them. So while the situations you mention may or may not be moral, it's shifting the debate back into a worldview centred around scarcity.
eshvk 14y ago
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?
- westicle 14y ago
  If people weren't eating up your "stealing a car" example, I doubt the "violently kidnapping and holding for ransom" example will fare any better. How about this: a young woman has a sick child in a jurisdiction without universal health care. Her income is insufficient to pay for his treatment, so she has sex with some rich men in exchange for money. Sadly, prostitution is illegal. Is it ever right to break the law in order to improve your prospects (or those of your family)? Some would say it is a moral imperative.
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  > 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. Well.... If the easy availability of the torrent led to more sales than it diminished, then the crime is still victimless regardless of your datapoint, since the supposed victim actually received a benefit. This may seem far fetched, but I understand that for all but the largest block busters, there is some evidence that this is true for films: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246 If you're a film maker, making non-blockbuster films, you should probably be supporting piracy from a purely financial point of view. I fully expect that the same is true in music as well. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/48001/pirates-more-music-online-non-file-sharers http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/48001/pirates-more-music-onl...
autarch 14y ago
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.
cabalamat 14y ago
> What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? 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.
gwern 14y ago
He is illustrating the deadweight loss of a successful copyright system.
majorlazer 14y ago
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.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  " 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" There's a whole mess of us "working in the web" who never pirated software for web development. This may be more a 'kid/adult' thing - I went through about 3 years of pirating games for my C128 back in the 80s, then pretty much just stopped pirating. So, I can't say I've never pirated. I did. I bought many games too, but copied/traded with friends at school. There was an element of social currency when trading (who had skyfox? who had bard's tale? etc). But by 12th grade, there was no attraction for me anymore. As an adult, I've paid for almost all my software, but have primarily used open source software (desktop linux for years), learning the LAMP stack from the ground up - absolutely 0 need for piracy of any sort, and it's provided a great foundation for working in the web field. Perhaps with fewer people justifying the means with the ends, we'd have more users/contributors on open source projects and tools, continuing to make that ecosystem even better, vs propping up the dominance of some established commercial vendors with legions of essentially free training and advertising by continued acceptance of pirated software use.
winfred 14y ago
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.

by chasing 14y ago

fossuser 14y ago

There are much better arguments for justifying piracy, notably the original intent/purpose of copyright. http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...

Devilboy 14y ago

Stealing a car deprives someone of a car. Copying a car does not.

chasing 14y ago
I think you understand my point. In a general sense, is doing something criminal okay if it's for self-betterment? Pirating Windows does rob Microsoft of some small portion of their rights as a creator.
- Devilboy 14y ago
  Piracy for personal use is a 'victimless' (don't bite my head off please) crime, that's why it's OK here. Stealing is not.
  - chasing 14y ago
    Piracy is different from stealing, yeah. But I find it kind of short-sighted this notion that it's "victimless." Not intending to bite your head off. :-)
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Regardless of you thinking the view is short-sighted, without a counterargument it will remain victimless.
    - angersock 14y ago
      A very simple thought experiment: A rap artist is hired by a label to create an album. Said artist later dies. The label goes bankrupt soon thereafter, or perhaps simply folds up shop and leaves the business without auctioning off its assets. I have produced a copy of the album, which I host at my own cost from my server, once these events have transpired. There is no reasonable "victim" left for this crime of infringement, and indeed I'm helping to reduce the scarcity of this product in the world. While somewhat contrived, this thought experiment is not particularly far off from reality.
      - chasing 14y ago
        No, it's pretty far off from reality. It's an extreme edge case that doesn't at all justify pirating Photoshop.

fox91 14y ago

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

shocks 14y ago
Open source is not an option in this instance. The point Vlad is trying to make is that when he was 15 he pirated Photoshop, learnt to use it, and got a job using it. He might have learnt some ideas and methods had he downloaded GIMP and used that instead, but ultimately he would have nothing on someone with years of Photoshop experience. The UI and many ideas are completely different.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

lucian1900 14y ago

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.

k-mcgrady 14y ago
> "Many (if not most) of the people that do it would pay a reasonable price if it was possible for them to do so." And the fact that they can't afford it gives them justification for stealing it? Would it not make more sense, that if you can't afford something you aren't entitled to it? If a poor or homeless person were to steal food from a shop they wouldn't be allowed to do it because, although they would like to pay, it isn't possible for them to do so.
- anonymous 14y ago
  The difference with your homeless person is that these people are stealing education. You're committing an act of classism. Please check your rich whiteboy privilege.
- learc83 14y ago
  If the homeless person was taking food from the infinite food replicator, then yes it would be fine.
  - joesb 14y ago
    Why does it have to be infinite? Every restaurant has left over at the end of the day. Is it wrong for the homeless to pick up food from those shop during the day without paying? Is it wrong for the homeless to sleep in your house in the room no one is currently using?
    - qu4z-2 14y ago
      It has to be infinite for the analogy to work. The restaurants have to pay to replace food the homeless would pick up during the day (or even put in work to prepare it for a restaurant). Food that's leftover at the end of the day and can't be sold the next day could certainly be given to the homeless for free (and I know of at least a few restaurants in my city that do this). The homeless person sleeping in the spare room creates cleanup work, and prevents you from using that room at a moment's notice. If a homeless person could sleep in my spare room without using the shared spaces and leaving the room instantly, in perfect order, the moment I wanted to use the room, I don't think I can morally justify not letting them. So while the situations you mention may or may not be moral, it's shifting the debate back into a worldview centred around scarcity.

eshvk 14y ago

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?

westicle 14y ago
If people weren't eating up your "stealing a car" example, I doubt the "violently kidnapping and holding for ransom" example will fare any better. How about this: a young woman has a sick child in a jurisdiction without universal health care. Her income is insufficient to pay for his treatment, so she has sex with some rich men in exchange for money. Sadly, prostitution is illegal. Is it ever right to break the law in order to improve your prospects (or those of your family)? Some would say it is a moral imperative.
kybernetikos 14y ago
> 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. Well.... If the easy availability of the torrent led to more sales than it diminished, then the crime is still victimless regardless of your datapoint, since the supposed victim actually received a benefit. This may seem far fetched, but I understand that for all but the largest block busters, there is some evidence that this is true for films: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246 If you're a film maker, making non-blockbuster films, you should probably be supporting piracy from a purely financial point of view. I fully expect that the same is true in music as well. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/48001/pirates-more-music-online-non-file-sharers http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/48001/pirates-more-music-onl...

autarch 14y ago

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.

cabalamat 14y ago

> What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? 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.

gwern 14y ago

He is illustrating the deadweight loss of a successful copyright system.

majorlazer 14y ago

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.

mgkimsal 14y ago
" 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" There's a whole mess of us "working in the web" who never pirated software for web development. This may be more a 'kid/adult' thing - I went through about 3 years of pirating games for my C128 back in the 80s, then pretty much just stopped pirating. So, I can't say I've never pirated. I did. I bought many games too, but copied/traded with friends at school. There was an element of social currency when trading (who had skyfox? who had bard's tale? etc). But by 12th grade, there was no attraction for me anymore. As an adult, I've paid for almost all my software, but have primarily used open source software (desktop linux for years), learning the LAMP stack from the ground up - absolutely 0 need for piracy of any sort, and it's provided a great foundation for working in the web field. Perhaps with fewer people justifying the means with the ends, we'd have more users/contributors on open source projects and tools, continuing to make that ecosystem even better, vs propping up the dominance of some established commercial vendors with legions of essentially free training and advertising by continued acceptance of pirated software use.

winfred 14y ago

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.