• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Have/Would you use pirated software?

Have/Would you use pirated software

  • Yes, all the time

    Votes: 26 37.1%

  • Yes, only if necessary (No money, unsure of program)

    Votes: 29 41.4%

  • No, I'm a good samaritan 0:)

    Votes: 15 21.4%
  • Total voters
    70
Jammy said:
Yup.

Then someone remastered it and released it as FLAC.

I didn't realise it was such a good album until I heard the GH3 version..
Click to expand...

neat - guess i should give the album a second chance after dismissing it as boring the first time through...
 
I still pirate music and stuff just very infrequently. when I was younger id download stuff just because I could. now its mainly downloading the latest episodes of a show or an album before I buy it.
 
lesliegodwin said:
If you were in a store, would you steal something you wanted if it were hard to get? Or if you didn't have enough money to buy it?

If your best friend was a developer, and you saw how hard (s)he worked on projects and how little money he earned, would you pay for his/her software or buy a pirated copy (for the same reason you buy others' pirated stuff)?

If your job was writing music, books, software, or anything else that requires creativity and pays only when you sell it, would you understand the "reasons" given above for why someone wouldn't pay a fair price for what you've produced?

I don't believe any of you who buy pirated stuff are horrible people.
I do believe that you aren't thinking through your decision to buy pirated apps or software, and that you don't equate it with stealing or with cheating the person/company who developed it.

Sorry to go Dr. Laura on you, but it occurred to me as I read these posts that maybe you haven't really thought about this.

LG
Click to expand...


The problem comes in when there is a disconnect between the price and the value. If you price it to high, then people who can't pay, but need it, are going to pirate it.

At that point, what's right and wrong no longer matter.



For instance, if I needed food for my kids, and didn't have any... I would certainly steal it.

If I needed it to keep my job, and I couldn't legally obtain it... then absolutely, I would pirate it.

The majority of people don't pirate out of choice.
 
byteware said:
The problem comes in when there is a disconnect between the price and the value. If you price it to high, then people who can't pay, but need it, are going to pirate it.

At that point, what's right and wrong no longer matter.



For instance, if I needed food for my kids, and didn't have any... I would certainly steal it.

If I needed it to keep my job, and I couldn't legally obtain it... then absolutely, I would pirate it.

The majority of people don't pirate out of choice.
Click to expand...

i agree with the principle you're proposing, but to suggest the majority of people pirate to keep their jobs or feed their children is a bit brash ;)
 
byteware said:
The problem comes in when there is a disconnect between the price and the value. If you price it to high, then people who can't pay, but need it, are going to pirate it.

At that point, what's right and wrong no longer matter.



For instance, if I needed food for my kids, and didn't have any... I would certainly steal it.

If I needed it to keep my job, and I couldn't legally obtain it... then absolutely, I would pirate it.

The majority of people don't pirate out of choice.
Click to expand...
If your job requires you to have a program they should provide that for you.. Most if not all pirating is by choice cause what is pirated is for mainly for entertainment purposes or luxuries... I really could not think of a situation that would be remotely comparable to stealing food to live..
 
Frisco said:
It's just that we can change the product to cars, medicine, art works or anything and the stealing aspect of it becomes more real to us.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can't change the product to any of those without changing the process.

You cannot steal a car without taking something from someone else.

You cannot steal medicine, or art works without taking it from someone else.

And piracy isn't actually stealing either, not by the normal or legal definitions of the word.

It's copyright infringement.


And just so we're clear, if you pirate something you would never pay money for (even if you couldn't pirate it), than the developer hasn't lost a dime. The only way the developer loses an money at all, is if you would have bought it, if you didn't pirate it. At which point, I agree, it's wrong.
 
mrqs said:
i agree with the principle you're proposing, but to suggest the majority of people pirate to keep their jobs or feed their children is a bit brash ;)
Click to expand...

It is, I actually intended to go into the supply and demand, but I had to cut it short.
 
Xoom said:
This is probably the funniest thing I've ever read. Like there's some magically difference in software creation in Android and iPhone that warrants Android app makers more money.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, and a lot of them are also developing Android apps, it's just more that the extra work I had to do to jailbreak my iPhone 3Gs just to make me do what I wanted made me crabby enough that I guess I just take it out on the devs. It's not right and doesn't make any sense, but there it is!
 
I don't and haven't ever violated copyrights with illicit copying.

(I prefer to save the term pirating for where bad guys carry guns on the high seas. The term that applies to both - profiteering.)

There's no need to violate music. Free music by alternative artists of every stripe is available from http://jamendo.com - all under the Creative Commons license.

There's no need to violate books. Free reading to last a lifetime at Project Gutenberg - free ebooks online download for iPad, Kindle, Nook, Android, iPhone, iPod Touch, Sony Reader - available in forms for your Android phone or tablet or e-reader or desktop.

There are plenty of free alternatives to software - go Linux, use GIMP, and kiss Photoshop goodbye as but one example.

Movies are cheap to rent, and a decent DVR can get you a long way with cable or satellite channels.

Regardless of the arguments for entitlements - that's all it comes down to, arguing for entitlements.

There's a simple concept and it especially applies to games and music you can't afford and it's worked well and has provided a moral compass for generations: when you cannot afford something, you do without.

Most especially and certainly when it's a luxury item. But - these are just my opinions.
 
EarlyMon said:
There's a simple concept and it especially applies to games and music you can't afford and it's worked well and has provided a moral compass for generations: when you cannot afford something, you do without.

Most especially and certainly when it's a luxury item. But - these are just my opinions.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. I wish more people would follow this instead of resorting to "violating property rights"... at least I believe that's the same thing as "copyright infringement".

Too many people have the mentality that if you can't afford it, then find a way to get it for free illegally.
 
While I agree pretty much with the principle that piracy is theft and is therefore wrong, as with most things theres always a grey area! For example, having never seen Firefly on TV I watched a pirated copy. I loved it so much I went out and bought the DVDs, went to see Serenity at the cinema, and bought the Serenity DVD. In an effort to convince people at work how good it was I lent the pirated Firefly to a few people who also went out and bought copies. Win win for all involved I reckon.

Plus, I think that the penalties being reported for people convicted of copyright theft are just ludicrous, at one point the damages against Jammie Thomas-Rasset stood at 1.5 million dollars! Contrast that with this case here, where a major label is apparently still selling this guys music despite no longer owning the copyright and haven't been fined a penny, and it all seems a bit one sided.
 
OK, I'm ready to agree immediately on a very important thing - you can be law-abiding and completely disgusted with the RIAA and labels' strongarm tactics at the same time.

Words fail me for those guys - despicable? Reprehensible? Here's the site for the one lawyer that continues to bring it to the forefront - one great guy, imo.

Recording Industry vs. The People

The gray area you mention isn't gray - it's a mess. If we think in terms of revenue protection for intellectual property (IP), then your example shows that bending/breaking the letter of the law led to revenue enhancement for that same IP and therefore ought be of higher value because your actions led to keeping the spirit of the law.

The issue here is really deeper than the law as a snapshot. Here we have lawyers and lobbyists going full tilt until our laws get tangled and then we have crowded court dockets - where the court is even further behind in a basis for fitting our digital lives into its present understanding than the RIAA/MPAA is.

To that, I can only say, there it is - a mess.

Otherwise, we're reduced to hyperbole and utopian principles with what could and should happen and I prefer to avoid those discussions at present.

TV and radio used to be good ways to find out about new stuff - uh - not anymore.

A total mess.
 
"A total mess."

It appears to be that. And, like most messes involving legalities, etc, it seems to be born of greed from many opposing entities.
 
I certainly have, but it depends on what you consider "use". The vast majority of stuff that I have pirated turned out to be worthless to me and got a quick uninstall. I literally felt like I should have been compensated for my time. There are also other "productivity" type suites that I have dabbled with (ie photoshop). While technically wrong/immoral/illegal/etc., I didn't profit off of it, I didn't sell my "product" and I certainly didn't produce anything worth the $600 for the suite. The way they have priced that bit of software is clearly to make money off of those that actually use it to produce art (pictures, movies, etc.) that is then sold for far more.

Probably the biggest thing I used to pirate was music. Now I am pretty content with streaming it all. If android gets something that lets you stream any song you want and keep a couple songs for a monthly fee (a la Zune pass), I think I would pay for that too. I do pay for netflix and I find it to be my greatest investment for entertainment that I have ever made.

I am certain that many disagree with my viewpoint, but I strongly believe that most of this media should be free (maybe not things like photoshop, but individual songs). There are plenty of other, better ways music companies can (and do) profit off of their precious songs. Perhaps "just taking it" isn't necessarily the best way to get the point across, but sitting there and complaining, in my eyes, achieves far less.

All that said, I do realize why the law is the way it is. Say I wanted a ferrari. If I had the means and tools tp make a replica, I would be free to do so, so long as I wasn't selling and profiting off of it. No problem, right? The difference here is that it is literally within nearly every person's capability to reproduce this software and media. They make a carbon copy, and just enjoy that carbon copy forever. They are not (presumably) profiting off of it, yet it is still against the law. Why? I believe that this is simply because of the ease at which this pirated work is attainable. I am sure we would have more stringent laws written if the reproduction of actual tangible goods was as easy as it is with digital goods.
 
EarlyMon said:
A total mess.
Click to expand...

Indeed ... but one that would be a lot less messy with a little application of common sense (IMO).

lordofthereef said:
I certainly didn't produce anything worth the $600 for the suite. .
Click to expand...

You also have to keep in mind that a lot of people invest a lot of time and effort in making photoshop as slick as it is and really its up to them to decide how much their effort is worth.
 
lordofthereef said:
Probably the biggest thing I used to pirate was music. Now I am pretty content with streaming it all. If android gets something that lets you stream any song you want and keep a couple songs for a monthly fee (a la Zune pass), I think I would pay for that too. I do pay for netflix and I find it to be my greatest investment for entertainment that I have ever made.

I am certain that many disagree with my viewpoint, but I strongly believe that most of this media should be free (maybe not things like photoshop, but individual songs). There are plenty of other, better ways music companies can (and do) profit off of their precious songs. Perhaps "just taking it" isn't necessarily the best way to get the point across, but sitting there and complaining, in my eyes, achieves far less.
Click to expand...

You have access to Rhapsody. It's $9.99/month and you have streaming access to your Android device for over 10 million songs.

I'm not sure how individual songs should be free and how they would be able to make a profit off it them if they were all free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom