Bloody would if I could!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o

Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given.

Now when you copy someone else's code, at the end of the process this person still owns this code. He still has it on his disk, and he still can use it. He is in the exact same situation as he was before you copied it.

Time spent in developpment has value, but since the product has zero marginal cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost), then this timework loses its value as soon as only one item is sold.

It is just the same for a poet who writes a master-piece. His work may have great artistic value, but since it can be learned by heart by anyone, it has no commercial value.

The functionality provided by the code is not any good reason for value. Again, this value might exist, but it doen't mean that it is a commercial value. The air I breathe has much value for me, but it's free. We use the internet protocol every day, but it's free. You developp using a programming language that has been designed by someone else, but it's free. And yet, you want to charge people for a few lines of code that you wrote using these free tools. Shame on you.

Software is information. Information is knowledge. Knowledge should be shared.

"This video contains content from Fremantle International, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

"...You wouldn't download a video..."

count me in!


the big question is: does piracy make a difference?

most people would buy a specific software in the first place, so they download it.

if something is so semi-interesting to someone that he wouldnt buy it anyway, does it make a difference if he downloads it to try it out?
i think most people download things they dont know if they are going to like or use them.
so if they wouldnt be downloading it, they wouldnt be buying them as well.

when i download a song by lady gaga, have i stolen something from her? i wouldnt buy her cd's anyway.

i dont know if thats the right way of looking onto that topic, but thats just what came to my mind right now.

As long as there is tangible difference between the (virtual) products of commercial endeavors versus the libre counterpart, then the commercial offerings will have value to a segment of society that are willing to pay for it.

I don't understand the argument of people who say "I wouldn't buy it anyway" so I'll pirate it; so don't download it if you don't want it.

If you take the effort to click and download it, or even listen/play/view the media; then you have a certain desire to own/consume it. I don't think the failure (of the distributor) of not providing enough marketing material (samples, demo, whatnot) does not justify your action of taking the FULL material for free to sample it.

Oh yes, I would if it was possible.

hossie is correct, there is example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orEhUEcxHeY

It is also kinda funny how when you buy a car you can actually return it if it is not working as expected, but try reading any software agreement - you are using it on your own bloody risk even if you pay a pile of money for it. How come?

Nowadays it is a good move in IP world to release a crap soft/movie, spend 90% of budget on advertising and even if you are unsatisfied you can't return it. Usually you can't test it either. I'd want to get my money back for over 80% of movies I actually saw in last year if I would in fact bought them.

As soon as software will be sold as service, I will consider paying for it.
If angrybirds (as an example) was subscription based paying per time I played it, let's say 10c per hour I would really consider that - if game is crap you don't pay much, if it is great you pay for the fun you had. New level pack released - more time played. That is somehow fair at least, just doesn't work that great for movies

p.s. debs are there on rapidshare for example, so I wouldn't claim you can't find it on interwebz.

@Elhana: Did they obscure the term that the purchase was non refundable before you spent your money?

I think most people will be better off paying the perpetual license cost of Angry Bird than 10c per hour, at least their iPhone version. I don't know what's their deal with the Ovi/N900 version; it seems like a crude market test at $2.99 from a broken online store.

More like, Rovio thinks their work is worth more and with less competition placing downward pressure and a far smaller customer base they need to (and can) charge more.

Now if Nokia would fix their billing systems such that my cards weren't perpetually blacklisted, I'd have the level packs on my phone by now...

Usually they did not, but reason for me to simply download stuff is not because I don't want to pay, but rather because I want to get quality content for my money. It is a failure on a law and business model side.
Whenever movie was actually worth watching I'd likely to call my friends and go to a cinema (Not always, but sometimes. I wouldn't mind other ways to show my liking too)