Does the term 'stealing' relate to cracked software?

[WeAreSuperhero]

Thanks to a brief argument i had with a friend, who has cracked both Photoshop and RPG Maker XP but shall remain nameless for friends sake, says that as neither programs are physical objects they cannot be 'stolen' as such. He has just created serial codes to use them without paying for them. I do not agree with this, and think that stealing refers to this as well. What are your thoughts?

 

[Elijah von Bose]

It's getting something for free that someone has worked hard on.

It's like, if you worked for 100 hours, on a project, only to recieve a 55, and to find out a friend had gotten a 98, after swapping your and his project. How pissed off would you be?

 

[Wings]

That is one of the worst excuses fabricated to justify pirating software. The definition of "steal" or "to steal" is rather broad (rightfully so), and blankets the act of taking something that does not belong to you. In this case, "your friend" did not purchase the legal license to the software, therefore it isn't his.

 

[Jstreet]

He's not stealing the program's physical being, but he is stealing data, which is STEALING non-the-less. I don't care too much for the principal. Material things are material things.

 

[Anonymous]

Programs do physically exist - they take up physical space on various storage media. But since you don't buy the program itself, you buy the license to use them, that's irrelevent in this case. Every year, hundreds of people buy licenses to do various things. Licenses to hunt, licenses to fish, licenses to carry concealed weapons, licenses to practice medicine, licenses to operate a vehicle, the list goes on and on. Would someone practicing medicine without a license not be legally culpible for not buying that license because it isn't a physical object?

You're buying a contract to use a product. A product that represents a significant investment in time and money for many people.

 

[Opt7ons]

Regardless of what your friend says, it illegal. I don't see how you can justify taking software because you don't consider it stealing.

 

[macchia]

The price of manufactoring is meaningless. I mean, if I steal a DVD from the store, the worth isnt dictated by the dvd itself or the cover or really any of the manufactoring costs. I mean, you get AOL discs for free all the time. The physical disc alone is essentially worthless. Its worth is determined by the amount of work that went into what was put on a disc. Thus, what your freind is doing is just as bad as stealing physically any software. Since, again, the cost of software is relative not to manufactoring costs, but the usefulness of the programs therein. Physical product is a small part of the whole. The effort is what you're paying for, and pirating like this depraved the people who made the product on benifiting financially for their effort.
His rationale might be he wouldnt of purchased either program if internet piracey didnt exist regaurdless, therefore no sales were lost. Its simply not true.

 

[CountVlad]

If somone has Copyright over anything then if you use it without their expressed permission then technically it is stealing. If the thing is a retail item (i.e. you have to buy it) then the copyright holder has given you permission to use it so long as you pay them a certain fee.
This applys to software whether it is on a disk or as a download.
If the sodftware is cracked, it is stealing because you are using it without paying.

 

[Minkoff]

Piracy is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Stealing by definition includes depriving somebody of something. You are not depriving someone of profits by pirating unless you would have bought their product in the first place, and that isn't just an excuse.

Look at the music world - people are pirating more music than ever, but sales are actually going up. Why? Piracy gets bands more mindshare, and people like physical CDs, album art, etc. The RIAA is making a big fuss and suing lots of people, but it's all a load of bull. Piracy makes them tons of money.

This isn't exclusive to music. If Adobe lost money for every copy pirated, do you think they would still be in business? It's fairly common for amateur graphic designers to pirate Photoshop, make money, then buy the real thing with the profits, and piracy completely enforces its position as "the" standard for graphic design. Or do you think it would be better for them if everybody was using GIMP instead? Microsoft benefits largely in the same way. Can you imagine if all of China was using some other operating system, like Linux? Bye bye monopoly.

Yes, alot of time piracy is a bad thing. You could even say that's the default, at least when it comes to software. However, the world is not nearly as black and white as you guys are making it out to be, and you really should stop making such blanket statements. Copying without permission is not the same as stealing. It denies the owner of potential profits, but stealing does both that AND takes away something they had previously had. They are by definition completely different things. It's so easy to call piracy stealing and say it's the end of the discussion but it's also completely fallacious. Look at the big picture.

Disclaimer: I use legal Windows and the GIMP.

 

[Roman Candle]

Piracy is very much stealing. However, in some cases, the system is designed to accomodate this: For instance, the two biggest and most popular professional music studio programs, Cuebase and Protools, are laughably easy to copy. But if everyone had to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds for interface hardware and the software, then no one except big recording studios would buy it. Established studios have to buy it regardless, because they can't run the risk of being discovered and sued into the ground. It just means that general circulation increases and they become better known.

The same is kind of true for top-level art programs. Unfortunately not for music. People who download vast amounts of music aren't the problem - they're also the most likely to buy a lot of music. Labels only really make money from the poppy singles that people buy because they hear it on the radio or on MTV. They don't rely on people buying albums. But what Limewire and other similar programs are really good at is getting singles - not albums. So music theft definitely is theft. The same goes for amature programs like RMXP.

 

[Lene]

This isn't exclusive to music. If Adobe lost money for every copy pirated, do you think they would still be in business? It's fairly common for amateur graphic designers to pirate Photoshop, make money, then buy the real thing with the profits, and piracy completely enforces its position as "the" standard for graphic design. Or do you think it would be better for them if everybody was using GIMP instead? Microsoft benefits largely in the same way. Can you imagine if all of China was using some other operating system, like Linux? Bye bye monopoly.

Adobe products are dirt cheap when you're a student, so I think more people as students probably buy than not. Same with quite a lot of the popular programs out there. Also there's the issue that college students are prime targets for the companies looking for piracy, so why risk the drama. Go work a part time job and in 2 weeks you'll have enough to buy Photoshop. Same with microsoft (and MS is usually even more cheaper).

Honestly, for programs I don't see how piracy benefits anyone. Music, well I do see the benefit of the exposure, but there are other ways you can listen to good music these days and still be legal, and I think with sites like myspace, downloading won't be the first and only option anymore. It's a big deal to the music industry because the music execs don't get their money. Most artist don't care because they don't make so much of the profit regardless, but they're not condoning it. I remember reading an essay by Courtney Love talking about if there was a easier, better and faster way to get music out ot people, then people would pay for it.

Which is true, and that's why iTunes, Rhaspody all of those programs haven't gone under. People are using them. It's a fast, easy, and safe way to download, which is a lot more than can be said from your average p2p program. I know, I download all my music, on iTunes and paying a dollar per song is not a big deal.

 

[Anonymous]

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stEl
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto·len /'stO-l&n/; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election> b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"

It doesn't say anything about physical property or the original owner losing anything. Although you can certainly argue they have lost something - they've lost the money from the sale.

 

[Minkoff]

It's a semantic (read: pointless) argument whether or not the actual word stealing works, so it might be a good idea to drop that, but no I don't think you can argue that they've had anything taken away in a way that constitutes stealing. If losing potential profits equates to having something stolen, then wouldn't that make using or making competition stealing too? Hasn't Adobe lost money from the sale that they would have made if I wasn't using the GIMP?

Note that I'm not saying copyright infringement is right, just that it's different from taking something away from somebody.

 

[Anonymous]

My point was this definition of stealing - "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" - definately applies to piracy. Thus, by that definition, it is stealing.

 

[Ceroscuro]

I say:

It doesn't matter what you call it, let's not get caught up in semantics. Piracy, plagiarism, stealing, theft, whatever, they're both ILLEGAL.

 

[Lene]

The same is kind of true for top-level art programs. Unfortunately not for music. People who download vast amounts of music aren't the problem - they're also the most likely to buy a lot of music. Labels only really make money from the poppy singles that people buy because they hear it on the radio or on MTV. They don't rely on people buying albums.

That's untrue. Single sales have been declining as of late. Single buying was the 90s. Now, not so much. Labels still rely on people buying albums, and if artists don't sell the units, they'll get booted. They invest too much money not to make it back somehow.

I bought Joanna Newsom's YS, which is only 5 tracks. I thought I was going to get a good deal on iTunes, but it turns out they forced people to buy by making 2 of the tracks "Album Only". Ridiculous, but I bought it anyways. She's worth the 3 extra dollars.

 

[Minkoff]

My point was this definition of stealing - "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" - definately applies to piracy. Thus, by that definition, it is stealing.

"Take" isn't the same as "copy." Again it is fairly semantic, even if they have the same dictionary definition they're two different concepts, often very similar morally, but sometimes not so similar.

Also, Dark Zero, they are both illegal, but everything illegal is not the same morally, and illegal does not automatically mean immoral. It's illegal, for instance, to smoke a joint in the comfort of your own home.

 

[Prexus]

The dictionary definition really doesn't hold a candle here, anyway. Considering that legal action versus software piracy is a relatively new thing (within 20 years).

What does hold a candle is the fact that, according to North American law, at least, piracy is illegal (Whether or not it is stealing.). Whether or not you justify it by any means.

 

[Minkoff]

Smoking a joint is obviously not on the same moral level as pirating several thousand dollars worth of software.

Of course it isn't which is what I was trying to say: he grouped a bunch of crimes in the same category just because they're illegal without much regard as to what effect they actually have!

 

[lunarhiro2002]

stealing is stealing no matter what the object/item/idea is...