They did not make an ethical mistake. Instead, they merely show what is inevitable.
There are holes in the maps of hollywood that people ignored to their own perils. They could have launch business model experiment that doesn't risk much of anything. They could have adapted. They could find the truth as to what allow them to thrive.
Even as a libertarian, I saw no wrong-doing in what pirates did. They copied, but did not steal. Even if they deprived somebody of their income, it is not sufficient to be a ethical violation of some sort. If it was, than whole disruptive business would be unethical. Chinese workers would be condemned for taking somebody's job.
That's a ridiculous comparison. If the pirates were building the software instead of cracking it and selling it for cheaper that would be comparable. Pirates depend on a honest person doing the hard work for them. Chinese workers do not.
Just because work you do benefits another does not entitle you to that value. Yes pirates cannot pirate what does not exist. That just means the market needs to find a way to pay content creation, instead of content copying.
If I create software I am entitled to sell it. People are not entitled to get it for free if I want them to pay me for it. Yes, it costs me nothing if they pirate it. But can I steal a car from a factory if I pay them the marginal cost of producing it? Of course not.
Paying for content creation is a fantasy in software. Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide).
>People are not entitled to get it for free if I want them to pay me for it.
People are entitled, no, people have a right to reproduce information they have. You do not own it.
If you think commercial programmers are getting paid for the value they provide, you don't understand the market or economics. (Hint: if software cost that much, no one would buy it.)
I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law.
> If you think commercial programmers are getting paid for the value they provide, you don't understand the market or economics. (Hint: if software cost that much, no one would buy it.)
So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it.
>I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law.
This discussion is on whether deprivation of income is sufficient to qualify as an ethical violation. You claimed that people are not entitled to get something for free "if I want them to pay me for it". (Really?) I asserted a general right to copy information. This right does not need to come from law, though law ought to recognize it.
I understand the law, what is the justification of the law?
>So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it.
No, you said:
>Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide).
Virtually nothing is sold at the price of the value it provides. It it were, the buyer would get no gains from trade.
In truth, commercial software is frequently sold way below the price of the value it provides. This is why people buy it. (though the provided value will vary from buyer to buyer.)
Some will make their whole income with visual studio or photo shop, but only pay a tiny fraction of that.
I realize you see an injustice in rampant copying, but I don't think you're thinking through your arguments, or not wording them well. Because these are coming out very obviously flawed.
> But can I steal a car from a factory if I pay them the marginal cost of producing it?
If you can find a way to do so without entering the factory, or removing any of the factory's contents, then sure. The traditional law of theft is a purely negative right to not have your property removed from your possession, not any sort of positive right.
1. The law-technical issue. I suppose we agree that piracy is illegal. That there are different laws for the two things is not very interesting in my opinion.
2. The ethical issue. Do you agree that the end results for the factory and for the developer, namely reduced income, are the same?
On the 2nd one, reduced income isn't very interesting to me, since I don't believe there's any ethical right to make income from things in the first place. Traditional views on theft I think are justified by a negative right to not have the security of one's person and possessions violated, e.g. to be free from assault, burglary, etc. So with traditional theft, I don't see the wrong being that the thief got something for free, but that the thief removed from me something that I rightfully ought to still have.
That doesn't necessarily mean copyright isn't justified: one can argue for a positive right to control distribution and reproductions of one's intellectual productions. But I think it has to be argued for on completely different ethical grounds from the traditional ones used to justify theft being banned, because someone copying a book in their own home, on their own photocopier, isn't a violation of security of one's person/property in the same sense that assault or theft are.
The main reasonable grounds I can think of are a good-of-society kind of argument: that the government creating a new positive right, the "copy right", is good for society, because it encourages the production of things that society wishes to encourage the production of, by providing a mechanism to reward creators with income.
I agree, but I don't see as big of a difference between theft and piracy. As a software developer people pirating it sure does feel like theft. It evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as when somebody stole something physical from me. And the actual results for me are the same too: it costs me time and money. Moreover, the grounds for making theft illegal are good-of-society arguments too. Of course there are some differences too.
Positive vs negative rights is just an artificial distinction. It doesn't make a difference to me as a software developer. About as interesting would be classifying things according to the letter they start with (T for theft and P for piracy). You can phrase copyright as a positive or a negative right, it's just a difference in the wording not an actual difference:
"Copyright is the right to stop other people copying your work."
"Copyright is that you're not allowed to copy the work of people who don't want that."
Note how this is exactly the same as with property rights.
The positive v. negative rights distinction to me is that it involves trying to control how people behave in their own homes, versus how people interact with you. Theft fundamentally is bad because it is an unwanted intrusion: you're on that person's land, or in their house, or rummaging around their shed. But I can copy something without ever intruding anywhere.
If I buy a Honda, and then carefully build a replica in my shed, with my own tools and materials, this isn't a violation of Honda's property in the same way that breaking into their factory and taking one of their cars would be. It isn't even a violation in the same way that breaking into their factory at night and building my own car using their assembly line would be--- I'm building it 100% with my own materials, on my own assembly line. It is still a violation of their design copyright, but that seems much different to me.
That's not what positive/negative right means, but OK. I doubt that many people would agree that theft is bad because someone is on your land. Theft is bad because someone is taking something away from you, and you'd otherwise be able to use the thing, and now you have to buy or make a new one. If I dropped my bag on the street and somebody takes it that's still theft, and the reason why it's bad is because I want to have that bag, not because I don't like it when somebody touches my bag.
If you put a crack of my software online I effectively don't own that software anymore, because I can't use it anymore in the way I was (selling it). So perhaps it's more similar to destruction of property. You could say that I shouldn't have expected to be able to sell the software in the first place, but that's not true because copyright law gives me that right. Whether you think that copyright law should be removed/changed or not, while the law is still in place making a crack is effectively the same as destroying my property.
I don't follow the last part of your post. Rights granted by the government are not automatically all property rights. This is infringing on copyright, an artificial monopoly granted by the government to encourage social progress. I agree that's illegal, but it's not removing any items from your possession; it's circumventing the government's attempt to give you a monopoly in duplication, which harms your business prospects, but does not damage any items in your possession. For example, you can still use any software you have.
I mean, if reducing something's value by making it harder to sell is equivalent to destruction of property, then any competition is destruction of property. If I open a bakery next to yours, I'm damaging your bakery. But I think calling it theft or destruction of property would be absurd, even if I broke the law in opening my bakery. If my bakery failed to get the proper permits, or violated zoning laws, I'm competing with you illegally, and might be guilty of some sort of illegal business practices. But I'm not guilty of robbing your bakery in the same way I would be if I smashed in your front window and stole your oven. That's something rather different.
I did not say that it is the same as destruction of property. I said that it is an illegal activity that has the same effect on my life as destruction of property. I'm saying this because some people seem to think that it is ethical to pirate software, or at least nowhere near as bad as destroying property.
There is also a difference in degree in opening a bakery without permits. This doesn't nearly give you as much of an "advantage" as a pirate giving it away for free. I can't think of anything that would give you a comparable advantage with physical goods.
Your copies of said software aren't destroyed. Your "property right" is more akin to owning all copies of software.
Instead, piracy protect your marketshare against people who offer their "property" for free.
GIMP can't effectively win against photoshop + pirated photoshop. They will have an easier time to win if people actually respect copyright.
To the extent that it is my interest to encourage other people to go after pirates, that is in my interest. However, it is not in my interest to develop methods to prevent people from copying my software, nor is it in my interest to use the court to go after these pirates. What I would do is annihilate the possibility of pirates existing by not making my goods artificially scarce and work on the problem space of making money in the assumption of infinitely copied software.
I also win by making it easier for me to compete with similar products because their marketing capacity is reduced through the reduction and destruction of illegal distribution channel for their products.
No, my property right is not like owning all copies of the software. It's like owning the exclusive right to give a copy of it to someone else.
Saying that piracy protects me against open source software is silly. Suppose that X people are buying my software, Y are pirating it and Z are using an open source alternative. Now magically all Y people decide they don't want to pirate anymore. That probably means that some of them are going to go with the open source software and some of them are going to pay. Yes, fewer people are using my software, but I'm getting more money so who cares?
Pirating software is very similar to not respecting open source licenses, for example closing down a modification of GPL'ed code. Why?
Because when you put a GPL license on software you are saying "you can have this software but you have to do something I want in return: if you make a modification you have to make that open source so I and others can use it (among other things)". When I charge for software I'm saying "you can have this software but you have to do something I want in return: pay me $x money". In the first case you are asking people to `pay you back` in work, in the second case you are asking people to `pay you back` with money.
> work on the problem space of making money in the assumption of infinitely copied software
Yeah, I'd like to work on solving nuclear fission too. This is just not feasible with certain kinds of software.
That probably means that some of them are going to go with the open source software and some of them are going to pay. Yes, fewer people are using my software, but I'm getting more money so who cares?
Network effects, more code contribution, and the like. That's important for open source software. For me, it's opportunities to get paid more. If I can expand my market, than I could raise my price or get money somewhere else.
Beside, it does not mean that some customers will buy your software. The advertising effect of piracy may increase sales. The only way to find out is that if people magically respect copyright.
Pirating software is very similar to not respecting open source licenses, for example closing down a modification of GPL'ed code. Why?
I was referring to less restrictive alternatives not whether or not if somebody broke the law.
> work on the problem space of making money in the assumption of infinitely copied software
Yeah, I'd like to work on solving nuclear fission too. This is just not feasible with certain kinds of software.
It is certainly feasible to run small experiments on a small portion of your business. You do not have to risk your entire business operation to learn the truth about what work or not.
An accurate belief is more important in business than who win debates in hypothetical business models on Hacker News, no?
> Network effects, more code contribution, and the like. That's important for open source software. For me, it's opportunities to get paid more. If I can expand my market, than I could raise my price or get money somewhere else.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
> The advertising effect of piracy may increase sales.
This I consider highly unlikely to weigh against the lost sales, but unfortunately it is pretty much impossible to find out.
> I was referring to less restrictive alternatives not whether or not if somebody broke the law.
I don't understand this either...
> It is certainly feasible to run small experiments on a small portion of your business. You do not have to risk your entire business operation to learn the truth about what work or not.
What kind of experiment do you suggest? Giving away the software for free. Something is telling me that that would not increase income ;) So what king of experiment do you mean exactly?
There are holes in the maps of hollywood that people ignored to their own perils. They could have launch business model experiment that doesn't risk much of anything. They could have adapted. They could find the truth as to what allow them to thrive.
Even as a libertarian, I saw no wrong-doing in what pirates did. They copied, but did not steal. Even if they deprived somebody of their income, it is not sufficient to be a ethical violation of some sort. If it was, than whole disruptive business would be unethical. Chinese workers would be condemned for taking somebody's job.