Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

A word about analogies.

Analogies are good. Don't despise them.

Human mind works with associations of ideas. They are obviously not sufficient, but they are very useful.

They are not perfect, but it's precisely when trying to see their limits that you can have a better understanding of a concept.

Such as a blind person who wants to get the idea of what a square is. He must grope around, reach the edges, and it's only when he feel the corners that he will really get the difference with a circle.

Analogies are good. Use some.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

And that is why people should read the small print. What is the saying of the legal system in the US? "Ignorance is not an excuse"?

Mortal! I come offering a deal...

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

The EULA for most of my android software (apart from the paid one) always contains some statement at the end such as "No one reads this anyway - I could say anything here I liked. BIG DOGS DANCING ON MY FACE". Guess how many people caught that particular gem? That however does not negate the fact that they agreed to it - so technically I could have put something in it like - "Anything you post/read using my craigslist software will be sent back to a central server to be perused at my leisure and laughed about" and would have been well within my rights to do so if they hit accept.

Its a buyer beware world with EULA and I for one read them pretty carefully.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

I know this thread is on 'Off Topic' but what?

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

Well it's just something I wanted to write since several persons on this thread discouraged the use of analogies.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

IANAL and all that... but I'm quite certain that the behavior would not be held up in a US court.

Even in my example.. (and @Fargus).. the EULA could be written specifically to state that you turn over all your money from any banks you visit while using my browser.. etc.

However, should I actually take your money - I am certain I will lose in court.

I work in the government... every computer we use has a big *** banner on it that says "Guess what, num nuts - WE ARE WATCHING YOU" (not really.. I'm paraphrasing :p)... But guess what?

We still cannot single out or pinpoint individuals to scan or look through their information or data. It's an invasion of privacy.. EVEN THOUGH we tell them they are being monitored.

There is an assumed level of privacy that the courts will hold up... how much and how far and what the specifics are I have no idea... but No - you cannot write whatever you want into a EULA and expect to get away with it.

There is certain freedoms and rights that do come into play when dealing with everything in technology.. including your phones and phone calls.

My argument was people claiming their freedoms and rights to do XYZ even though this says ABC may actually be valid... they just happen to be fighting a battle that has already been determined "No, you don't." in the US and I believe the UK.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

You guys you think :

« I've worked hard to create this piece of software. So it has some value and it would be unfair if some people could benefit from it for free. »

I understand your frustration but the truth is that things don't work like this in economics. I believe this is something that has be deeply analyzed in theoretical branches such as ''marginalism''.

A very typical example is a bridge. Let's say you're a farmer and there is a little river between your house and your field. Every day you have to do quite a walk to use a bridge a few miles away. One day, you decide that you would like to have your own bridge and you start building one. You make it quite robust so that not only you, but also your cattle can walk through it.

Your bridge is done and you are quite happy with your work.

But soon, you realize that your neighbors are quite happy with that too. Every morning they use it as well. Most of the time it's ok and it doesn't prevent you to use it, but for some reasons, this annoys you.

You might decide to place a gate, and to charge people who want to pass through. But this imply costs, such as hiring a guardian, buying a gate and so on. Then you might finally give up and accept the idea that everyone will benefit from your hard work.

Some goods are, by nature, just difficult to monopolize. A bridge is quite a large and immutable structure where you don't live, contrary to your house. For this reason, it is difficult for you to control access to it. So for this kind of objects, the concept of property is not clear, because you can not physically control the thing you are supposed to own. According to me, it is quite the same for intellectual products. You can define intellectual paternity very well, but as far as property is concerned, it is more difficult. Because after all, data is just a bunch of numbers, and you can not own numbers.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

Feeling lonely Azorni? (:

seriously though, that analogy doesn't work.

And... if you build the bridge on your own land then you can enforce security to prevent others that want to make use of it. Even the gov't will stand behind you to enforce this.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

I didn't invent that. This is quite a famous thema in economics.

And when you say "if you build the bridge on your own land", you had an hypothesis. So you try to escape the idea, but still, the idea does exist. Some goods, by nature, are quite incompatible with the concept of ownership.

An other well known example is a street lamp. Most street lamps, just as most bridges, are state property for some reason. If you have no lamp in front of your house (for instance if you live in a small village), then you might consider buying one. But as soon as you do that, your direct neighbors will more or less benefit from it, for free.

Re: What is "piracy" and is it ever justified
 

Whether or not the government can do something, doesn't tell you whether or not it should do it.

Law is the result of discussion and democratic process. It is not dogma. Its legitimacy can always be debated.

And anyway, government is nothing more than public force organized and financed by community. It is the expression of its will and desires. So in this example, using government to protect and restrict access to the bridge, would mean engage public force to protect rights of one person, against the will of many. This does place public force in a paradoxical, incoherent position.