Ethics of piracy page 4

85 posts

Flag Post

AaronB -

well, the person has to show or explain just enough of their idea to convince a company to use it or convince a bank to give him credit. Anyway, supposing such a person with no access to capital or credit patents an invention. He’ll still lack the means to implement it. People who have more money do have advantages, but it’s not productive to simply oppose things on the basis of that fact.

There can be a middle ground; a patent can just as easily serve as a record (for claims about origin or whatever) and a notarized agreement between the one who came up with the idea and the producer.

Your point about the variables affecting piracy are true, but it doesn’t change the point. People prefer original products to pirated ones (except in cases where the original includes drawbacks such as annoying anti-piracy features).

I’d have to disagree there. This is evidenced in several cases where products were offered free or near free and without DRM, yet people still pirated it.

Lying to a customer about the product in order to get him to buy it is fraud. Claiming “this is an original, and I am the inventor” when it isn’t, constitutes fraud. The supposed rights of the inventor to his IP aren’t relevant; the sanction against defrauding customers is what’s violated.

If you don’t somehow legally recognize that someone invented it, then there is no basis for the claim of fraud in the first place. You would have to legally recognize someone as inventing it, and I think that leads us right back to having patents.

 
Flag Post

I would have no problem with some kind of registry where people wish to confirm that they are the original inventor of something. This would basically be like a notary service. It’s when other people are prohibited from imitating or improving those ideas that problems arise.

Simply being the first to develop something, even without IP laws, still has advantages. You are (generally) the first to bring the product to the market, you gain reputation as an innovator, some people are willing to make voluntary donations or to pay more for original products. Not everyone, but many do – as can be seen in that many people still buy originals when pirated things are available. Pirating, without IP laws, wouldn’t be very profitable. Anyone could pirate (generally downloading for free off the internet), so there wouldn’t be much money in it. I doubt many people would pay pirates the same premium they are willing to pay to support the inventor of something they enjoy.

Lack of IP wouldn’t stop progress. Look at open-source and other kinds of free projects like wikipedia, Linux, Open Office, and so on.

 
Flag Post

I would have no problem with some kind of registry where people wish to confirm that they are the original inventor of something. This would basically be like a notary service. It’s when other people are prohibited from imitating or improving those ideas that problems arise.

This is essentially my main concern. If you have no problems with such a thing, then I guess we can agree on that.

 
Flag Post

I didn’t feel like making a new topic for this, but A new Swiss study returned some interesting results. Essentially, they found that with or without piracy, people reserve a rather constant budget for entertainment, which means piracy is just complementary, with the extra funds being spent on concerts, merchandise, etc.. They concluded that the existing law (Piracy for personal consumption being legal) should remain unchanged.
Here is the study (in german)[pdf]

 
Flag Post

That is actually a problem I pointed out, perhaps here or in another topic. When people pirate, they have more spendable income overall than I do. That is, unless I pirate too. That would seem like it’s no longer a question of morals, but a question of spendable income.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

That is actually a problem I pointed out, perhaps here or in another topic. When people pirate, they have more spendable income overall than I do. That is, unless I pirate too. That would seem like it’s no longer a question of morals, but a question of spendable income.

i think the real question is did they buy the software or not? Beacouse if they don t buy.. no1 gives a shit if they pirate or not.

 
Flag Post

i think the real question is did they buy the software or not? Beacouse if they don t buy.. no1 gives a shit if they pirate or not.

I personally don’t care about piracy regarding my spendable income if it’s with software I wasn’t planning to buy, no. Neither with software that I pirated myself. But if I buy something and others pirate it, their spendable income does not decrease while mine does. That is unfair.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

i think the real question is did they buy the software or not? Beacouse if they don t buy.. no1 gives a shit if they pirate or not.

I personally don’t care about piracy regarding my spendable income if it’s with software I wasn’t planning to buy, no. Neither with software that I pirated myself. But if I buy something and others pirate it, their spendable income does not decrease while mine does. That is unfair.

Its like you use the forest while planting back, while your competition just chop down trees, burned them without investing in planting them back.

Originally posted by AaronB:

My favorite webite, mises.org, gives away as much as they can; putting entire books and seminars on free downloads;

Thank you for this one, favorited

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I’d have to disagree there. This is evidenced in several cases where products were offered free or near free and without DRM, yet people still pirated it.

Is the problem piracy itself, or piracy cutting into the bottom line?

Because while those cases don’t do anything to deter piracy, most of them (especially when it comes to software) show massive increases in sales and net profits due to lower price points. Lack of DRM is kind of a hit or miss thing, because it’s still the quality of the game being judged.

 
Flag Post

Its like you use the forest while planting back, while your competition just chop down trees, burned them without investing in planting them back.

Yes. It’s easier to not plant back. You have your profits, and it costs you less, while you have no worries about the future since you’ll be dead. But the people who do plant only lose in costs, and profits, and see no immediate benefits. This promotes not planting any additional trees, just like piracy would be promoted if it isn’t illegal.