Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[geoschmo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[PvK]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
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

Lots of possible answers to this. I gave one of my "pie in the sky" ones Last week on this thread (ideally, change the laws and the economy so all media is free, and creators are given enough to live on, plus bonuses based on recomendations from consumers).

In the existing ecomony, there are many people making livings making games, but mainly megacorporations are slurping up as much of the cash as they can, and producing a lot of crap.

In the current ecomony outside the megacorporate monsters, make games people like a lot, and enough people may pay for them rather than looting them - apparently working fairly well for people publishing under independent labels like Shrapnel, HPS, Battlefront, and Matrix.

...

PvK

[Erax]

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.

It's a close enough analogy, and it reminds me of something that happened to my dad once (a story for another occasion, perhaps). I obviously haven't deprived you of anything (real or potential). So the only issue is, will I feel guilty about it afterwards or not ? Probably. But I wouldn't say I'd stolen something from you.

I just want to make one thing clear : when I said copying was different from stealing, I didn't mean one was OK and the other wasn't. They're just different enough to deserve different names. Like greed and avarice (from the copyright thread) : both are flaws, both are about money, but they're different.

[tesco samoa]

PVK theoretical sales

That is what I feel as well....

Take Bell Canada and this concept of the theroretical sale

Now 100000 people subscrible to Dish network in the states.

They do not wish to Subscribe to Bell Sat. Tv.

Why because they wish to watch American TV.

According to Bell Canada these people are breaking the law and costing Bell Canada billions of dollars. Why theroretical sale.

Music and games are the same

Its these theroretical sales that their after. Like all of asudden people will buy the stuff if they cannot copy it. I do not think so. The only difference is that they would not have a crack / copy. That is it.
Example
I have a copy of the song 'boys are back in town'.

But I was never ever going to buy a thin lizzy cd.

Did they lose money from me. No. I was never ever going to spend money on that item.

Did they lose theroretical money on me. Yes. Depending on the year they peg me at it could be up to 9 dollars.

P.S. if i was to buy it i would by it used...

If i could not get this song then i would tape it off the radio or just listen to it when it comes on the radio. ( As I have a ok system the sound quality is the same as a 128k mp3 file as far as my ears can tell)
Here as well they lost a theroretical sale.

thanks pvk...

Personally i perfer open source software anyways....

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing.
...
There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. Geoschmo

I believe it's called Copyright Infringement...