Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

PvK · #1 July 15th, 2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing. If you want to argue it isn't stealing the software itself because it's not physical property and you aren't denying the owner the use of said property, then it is stealing the money the software would generate in sale if you purchased it legally. There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. But you are depriving the owner of something that is rightfully theirs. In plain speak that is considered stealing is it not?

Geoschmo

I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.

A few counter-examples:
Software industry likes to claim that they lose billions of dollars they otherwise would have had, because kids and foreigners didn't pay prices they could never afford. They also increase their theoretical losses for people check out a copy of software before buying, find out what crap it is, and so don't buy it. "Hey, if they couldn't get a copy of it, they would've had to pay $300 to find out that our software is worse than shareware! We lost millions of profits we should have had!"

PvK

geoschmo · #2 July 15th, 2003, 09:32 PM

So I am curious. Don't take this as sarcastic cause I am honestly asking to know. What is a fair method for a person who makes software to make sure he is properly compensated for his time and effort? It's not like all of us could go write our own game. Or even if we could we don't. So what should be the process involved so the developer can make a living producing software that we use and enjoy?

Geoschmo

rdouglass · #3 July 15th, 2003, 09:33 PM

I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?

geoschmo · #4 July 15th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:
I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.

Well let's use an anology. It's not a perfect one, but it's pretty close. Say I own a movie threater. I sell tickets to people who pay to see the movie. Most shows don't fill up completely, but I make enough money to make a living and stay in business.

Now you think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. And you were careful and didn't break the lock on teh door or anything like that. And maybe you will like the movie enough to come back the next night and pay to see it. Probably not, but you tell yourself that anyway and it makes you feel better.

So is that ok?

Geoschmo

geoschmo · #5 July 15th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdouglass:
I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?

I have a suspicion that saying a EULA is not legally enforceable is about like saying we aren't required by the constitution to pay income taxes. You might be able to make it sound all good and proper talking about it here in the forum but it's not going to fly in a real court.

Companies are all the time being hit with license fees for improperly copying software on different workstations. I have never heard of one of those being thrown out of court because the EULA wasn't legally binding. The reason the software compnies don't come after individual Users more is the cost of taking them to court is more then they will recover, and the bad press that it will generate.

Geoschmo

PvK · #6 July 15th, 2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by PvK:
I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.

Well let's use an anology. It's not a perfect one, but it's pretty close. Say I own a movie threater. I sell tickets to people who pay to see the movie. Most shows don't fill up completely, but I make enough money to make a living and stay in business.

Now you think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. And you were careful and didn't break the lock on teh door or anything like that. And maybe you will like the movie enough to come back the next night and pay to see it. Probably not, but you tell yourself that anyway and it makes you feel better.

So is that ok?

Geoschmo

No it's not ok. However the reason it's not ok is not that the theatre owner would have made money from him. I think there are several arguments why it wouldn't be right, which aren't really on topic, though.

Similarly, I think there are also some other issues to consider with intellectual property violations.

However, for the single issue of whether the theatre owner deserves the claim a right to theoretical sales, I don't think he does.

I do think he has the right to prevent tresspass, throw the fellow out, have him cited from breaking in, etc. I just don't think he has the right to claim money based on the idea that the sneak would have paid him for the ticket.

Here's a variation. Suppose the "thief" has a device which picks up radio signals that drift out of the theatre from the projection, and let's him see the movie on a screen in his own home. Does he have the right to view the film this way? I say yes - he should be able to decode any signals passing through his own house.

Legally, maybe not. In the UK, they have receiver detection trucks like you see the Nazis using in war movies about the underground resistance. The UK authorities use this to "catch" people watching TV in their homes without having paid the "TV tax." I think that's pretty outrageous, personally. If your business involves beaming signals into my property, I say I have every right to decode them however I want to, regardless of how much theoretical money you might have made if I would submit to your contracts and subscription rates.

PvK

PvK · #7 July 15th, 2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdouglass:
I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. I think you're probably right, unless you have a really good legal team to argue the case and carry it up to the Supreme Court.

I just think it's wrong, by my own standards.

PvK