Does the term 'stealing' relate to cracked software?

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I
However, I feel that if you have already paid for content, then you are morally (not necessarily legally) entitled to pirate it if you somehow lose access to it. For example, several months ago I lent a copy of F.E.A.R. to a graduating senior at my high school who merely wanted to play it through single player once, but he broke the DVD before he could even get it home. I could morally, in my opinion, just download an iso of the DVD. If I still had the original CD key for the game itself, then it wouldn't be a legal issue either. However, as I have lost the original CD key I'm opting to rebuy another copy of the game because I want to play multiplayer without getting banned by the servers.

I can't speak for everywhere, but under Canadian law, buying an MP3, or CD or DVD etc.. is buying the license to use that piece of art/program for your personal use.

If you buy a CD of a song, you have everyright to go out and download mp3s .wav's etc.. to lsiten to it however you like.

For a program, you are under not obliged to install the copy of the program you bought, you can jsut buy the box, then download (and crack) the program onto your computer... (maybe because your CD drive is broken, or jsut because you feel like it)

Also, you have everyright to make your program compatible with your system, (So you can buy a windows program, than go out and download the equivalent for the Macintosh)

For cartridge it might be in a grey area, because they might not technically be "software". However if you in good faith believe them to be software, you have the right to play them on your computer as such. (Until a definite ruling comes claiming that they are hardware instead)

Though a CD based game should be considered software.

----

From a legal perspective, "steal" usually refers to "to commit theft," so fraud, piracy, plagiarism, trade mark infringement are techinically not "stealing" in the legal sense of the word.

 

[Ceroscuro]

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!

No, I'm just curious as to why it matters what you feel morally. Whether you agree with it morally or not, it is still illegal... and generally one should not do illegal things, correct?

 

[King Moogle]

No, I'm just curious as to why it matters what you feel morally. Whether you agree with it morally or not, it is still illegal... and generally one should not do illegal things, correct?

Depends on whether you acknowledge the Social Contract, or what you believe the role of government to be. I'm afraid that there is no consensus on this, regardless of who you ask.

 

[FlippyD]

'Aint "stealing*", still wrong.

And to answer an earlier point, you can kind of get art programs for cheap if you are a student (it's still $200-$500) but it's usually a gimped program or you cannot make money off of the product you create (I believe if you read the terms of service for Photoshop Educational edition the work you create cannot be used commercially. Otherwise companies could just use interns to order software :P.)

* Most basic use of the word.

 

[Lene]

Ixis, I think that's highschool. IIRC the copies of Photoshop and things like that at my college bookstores are the full versions. They don't say educational on it. Same with the Microsoft products.

Although maybe I should check, ^_^ .

 

[FlippyD]

I know the copies of Photoshop we can buy here at my college bookstore come with the warnings, they just aren't "highly advertised."

If you go to Adobe's site and then the Photoshop section, then choose "buy online" then click the link at the bottom of the page for educational stores in the US and Canada you'll be taken to a page which states:

What are the restrictions in using education versions of Adobe products?
A customer may only purchase one copy of any product. Education versions of Former Macromedia products only (Studio 8, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.) are intended for instructional and administrative purposes only and may not be used for any commercial purpose.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Stealing involves a theft of goods and/or services. Pirating is stealing goods AND services. How is this possible to argue? Semantics only go so far, and over literalism will get you nowhere.

I got Photoshop for $80 at my campus bookstore, and it's NOT any sort of educational version...

One thing to think of is this though - I bought a $3000+ 3D Modelling bundle from my school for a class I was taking. Limited supply and all that - the school actually footed part of the cost, and I paid $400. For the record, this was Maxon's Cinema 4D Studio R7.

Cinema 4D is now at R10, and still costs just as much, if not more.

If I wanted to have the up-to-date software, we're looking at me paying more than TEN THOUSAND dollars over four years for a single program since I can no longer get the school price.

My question is this - is it "moral" to pirate upgrades to software you already bought? How is it moral for the companies to charge $3000 for an upgrade? Sure, some of these upgrades are significant, but $3000?

 

[Minkoff]

Stealing involves a theft of goods and/or services. Pirating is stealing goods AND services. How is this possible to argue?

That right there's some circular reasoning. "Of course piracy is stealing! Because it's stealing!"

Anyway, you pose an interesting question, but it's not a question of if it is moral so much as when it's moral. How much of this software is sold? And how much does it cost to develop? Also, how major is this upgrade? When prices are so unreasonable that they are practically impossible to afford, I don't think it's your duty to pay them. If you would never buy it at the higher price, they aren't losing anything anyway. It's an easy excuse to make, but it does apply in certain cases.

So yeah, I was going to end this post with a rant about how much I hate cell phone downloads, but I couldn't find a way to tie it in in a meaningful way.

 

[macchia]

Its not food, its a novelty. Its something you're choosing to want. You can't justify stealing it because something you want but dont need can't be unreasonable. The reasonable thing is not to get it. I want a Lamborgini. It costs too much. However, Im not justified, then, to steal it because it costs too much. Everything 'costs too much ' to a robber, that's why they're robbers.

 

[arcthemonkey]

That right there's some circular reasoning. "Of course piracy is stealing! Because it's stealing!"

I made a typo. I meant to say that piracy was THEFT of goods and services.

 

[Roman Candle]

Whether or not you want to spend thousands of dollars per upgrade depends entirely on how close you need to be to the most recent version. I know that with things like Photoshop, some people say that it does so many things already that even if you buy a version several years late, you would never miss the interesting little gizzmos that come with the freshest one. If you are a super-professional studio, then you need a high version. That's why these kinds of products generally come out at such high prices when they're new, (I'm totally guessing that this applies to you).

 

[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.

I think this just about summed up this debate. Did anyone even read it?

 

[Minkoff]

Its not food, its a novelty. Its something you're choosing to want. You can't justify stealing it because something you want but dont need can't be unreasonable. The reasonable thing is not to get it. I want a Lamborgini. It costs too much. However, Im not justified, then, to steal it because it costs too much. Everything 'costs too much ' to a robber, that's why they're robbers.

That's a straw man argument. Of course you're not justified in stealing it, but that's entirely irrelevant because the question isn't whether or not stealing is wrong. It's whether or not piracy is actually stealing.

A better analogy would be if you had a car factory capable of making all the parts to a Lamborghini, then buying a copy of the blueprint on the black market and making your own for a tiny fraction of the price (which is good because you're also too poor to afford a Lamborghini). You still end up with a Lamborghini you didn't pay full price for, and it was still wrong, but both the victim of your crime (copyright infringement) and you face completely different consequences than if you drove off with someone else's Lamborghini.

(edited multiple times for coherency because I'm tired today)

 

[macchia]

Stealing a blueprint would actually be far more catastrophic than stealing an individual item. But this is your example. So look into how much profit the European Cooper lost when black market chop shops got their hands on the basic blueprints and started selling their shoddy immitation Coopers. Not only do they lose money, but their reputation takes a huge hit because of the poor quality of the immitations.

 

[Minkoff]

I don't really have much to say to that. You kind of missed the point completely.

 

[macchia]

Your example wasnt really apt. I thought I'd point that out and give you an opportunity to try and seperate piracey and robbery again with an example that works.
Here's one to help you out, you take food and food grows back. In a feild of corn the farmer wont notice 10 or so missing cus they'll referbish instantly. Its still stealing, stealing is what it is and it is illegal. Moral justification and the effect or lack thereof it has on the manufactorer of the product is irrelevent. Its still illegal, maybe its not wrong(to you) but its illegal. There's no subjectivity to bold print, nothing to read into. Steal=illegal, and this is stealing even if the farmer doesnt notice. Its fine if you're okay with that but to try and bend the law just because you want to continue stealing but also feel like you're not doing anything illegal ("wrongness" of course always a matter of opinion), essentially re-defining the word, is pathetic. Bush tried it with torture, now he's a joke. It is what it is. If you're going to steal, justify stealing-- dont redefine the word for the sake of a clean concience and legal record.

 

[Minkoff]

Your example does work (I was trying to make mine similar to your original one, but the one you've made here is alot simpler), but even so, what both examples have in common is that neither of them happen. Piracy as we know it is a fairly new concept.

The rest of your post is completely wrong though. Legally, there is a clear difference between piracy and stealing. Saying they're the same thing because they're both illegal is like saying that piracy is the same thing as murder.