Originally Posted by redi (Post 556602)

And yes, I reckon it's a form of theft, even thought you do not physicallly take anything, you are still, in a way, taking money out of someones wallet.

Originally Posted by mmurfin87 (Post 556411)

I'm gonna way in on this conversation, after now having read the first 15 pages, browsed the next 5 pages, and skimmed the rest.

I think I understand where azorni is going, and I can see clearly that none of you are grasping the concept he's trying to put forward.

What is a program? Its just one giant number thats n bits long in base 2 (n being the total number of bits that represents the program in question). Theres no cost at all except a negligible electricity cost in duplicating this long number. That cost isn't even necessarily passed along to the original developer!

So what gives this really long number value? Well, in certain contexts, the program it represents may offer some functionality that is desirable. The other contexts being on unsupported platforms. On those platforms, that long number doesn't mean ****.

Bridges provide a desirable function that reduces time or effort in crossing a natural obstacle.

Cars are tangible products that reduce time and effort in transporting things. If you sell a car, you deprive its previous user of the use of that functionality.

Certainly a developer's time and knowledge is worth good money. Also, the fruits of his labor is worth money. However, the real question is whether the fruit of his labor is the code, or the functionality. Granted they are inseparably tied together. That doesn't satisfy the philospher in me though. Maybe somebody can build off this.

By the way, the problem isn't necessarily limited to Software. Consider this post, and the future of recipe makers. With the ability to arbitrarily create any food we want, where will that leave professional chefs and their creations?

Originally Posted by CrashandDie (Post 556576)

Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of, azorni.

The fundamental issue at hand here is that it may be your opinion that piracy isn't piracy, that commercial software and digital copies are inherently worthless, but it's nothing more than just that: your opinion. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to anything.

The laws are there, and there's more than one reason to have them. I support copyright, and I support the artists and products I like. However, I also strongly support Free Software; but neither are mutually exclusive.

Our current economical system is based on money. Sad, but true. People need money to survive. Worse yet, people need money to live. It's not a basic requirement, it's not a detail, it's the basis of western civilisation. It may sound materialistic, but guess what, so is 99% of our much beloved western society (... which by the way, is the only one thriving currently).

A bridge is indeed a a construction which "provide a desirable function that reduces time or effort in crossing a natural obstacle", but it can also be seen as a work of art, some bridges are mind boggling, masterpieces. And guess what? You have to pay a toll for a lot of bridges in order to cross them; especially when the convenience factor (also called luxury) is its main advantage.

However, I feel we're drifting very far away from the initial subject (and on a sidenote, man, dude, you have waaaayyy too much time on your hands to be guarding a thread this much). I would have liked to see this thread move in a positive manner, but as usual it's the same story, one guy versus the rest of the world, recycling the same arguments over and over, and bringing really, nothing, utterly nothing new to the table.

The point I wanted to bring across in my first few paragraphs was that people need money to live, but not everyone can be doing the same thing. Some people get next to nothing to be working in a factory day in, day out. Some people get paid massive amounts of money to wiggle their *** and pretend to be singing in front of a massive audience.

And guess what? The latter are there *because* of the former. Not thanks to, because of. This is something that is very, very important to grasp. Celebrities are celebrities because people pay attention to them. If they didn't, they'd just be another person on Earth. Whether you feel uncomfortable about that is not the issue, and you shouldn't deflect on piracy and copyright because you feel there is an issue with society (because that's what this is starting to sound like).

I did quite like the turn when mmurfin87 started to think in terms of functional value rather than exact value. If you look at the exact value of a painting, its pure worth in terms of materials, sure, it's not much. But value is made of so much more than the basic building blocks -- this is the foundation of our whole world; I just can't fathom you don't realise this.

If you buy a brick, it's not worth a whole lot. Hell, if you gather a million bricks, it's still not worth much. You can start stacking them, and maybe throw some mortar, and you'll end up with a basic structure that has a lot more value than the bricks alone, but still not worth that much. Throw in an architect, who will design things in a way that makes efficient use of the space, makes the whole structure appealing to the eye... And the value of the structure just soared compared to anything one could have built on his own (and this is without counting in the added value of the workers who'd actually build the thing).

The same thing applies to code. Instead of using the same old car metaphor that never works, I'll keep going with the house metaphor.

A program is exactly like a building. Some have the ability to house your family (software you use to make a living), others can be no more impressive than your shed (catorise would be a very good example of a "shed"-like application).

The building blocks that compose an application is code, or lines of code to be precise. A line of code, on its own, is usually quite useless, however if you have a few hundred thousands lines of code, and have a few architects that make it efficient, and designers who make it appealing to the eye, you suddenly obtain something which has a huge amount of value. How it is stored doesn't matter. How much the developers get paid doesn't really matter either. It's the whole package which holds the value, and it is only that package you pay for.

I'd also like to point out that you are oversimplifying things, and not setting up a disclaimer for it. Some applications cost $1, others cost a few thousand. I am a consultant for an application for which the contracts rarely have less than a million written on them. Is each developer entitled to a straight cut of that? Of course not. Because developers are far from the only ones that help build an application.

In the same way that a house requires people doing very different things in order to get a house stamped out of the ground, building an application requires people with very different skills. You need a finance division, who will run the numbers of the company, and make sure that we don't spend too much compared to what we sell. We need sales, because the product isn't going to fly off the shelves on its own. We need marketing, so that the packaging looks appealing. We need IT to make sure everyone has a system that allows them to work efficiently. We have assistants, who help very busy people not forget their heads. If your product is in a specific segment, you also need pre-sales, because well, you need to be able to show proofs-of-concept to your customers, you need to demonstrate that what you're promising is possible. You need a technical office, who will research what the next technologies could be, what directions the company should aim itself at.

And not a single person in all of those I have listed will ever touch a line of code; but they still need to be paid. For most companies, the Engineering team will represent tops 1/3 of the headcount.

Selling a product over and over keeps a company in business. The price point at which they sell the product is usually way below anything that it has actually cost to produce. A product like Photoshop or Lightroom requires investments in the order of millions. Yet you can buy it for a fraction of that. How come? Because they sell it multiple times.

Well, obviously, at some point they make a profit, and in some cases they even make a massive profit, but so what? Where's the problem with that? What alternatives would we have?

Everyone paying a fair share of what the product actually cost to produce, plus a little rounding up so everyone feels ok? Yeah, why not. But the product would never sell.

If you told people: "If everyone buys this product, right now, at this very instant, it will cost you $1. If you don't, this company and the 300 workers are without a job.". Nobody would buy.

Edit: Damn that was long just for a "quick reply".

Originally Posted by redi (Post 556602)

For me "piracy" means try before buy. IF the code / media / whatnot is in my eyes worthy, I will gladly dip in. If not, I most likely stop using the product and as such have no point in spending money in it. I am fine with this being done to me as an artist (yes, I'm a composer), and it's a good motivator to make a quality track (or a product). :)

And yes, I reckon it's a form of theft, even thought you do not physicallly take anything, you are still, in a way, taking money out of someones wallet.

/this comment supplied by a member of Pirate Party of Finland.

Originally Posted by Rob1n (Post 556619)

The difference between theft and copyright violation is that in the first case you're removing something of value, and in the second you're removing something of potential value. How much of that potential would be be realised is very much unknown (there's been numerous studies on this, with widely varying results). What's also unknown is how much this unwanted "advertising" drives eventual sales (again, results of studies vary).

This shouldn't be used as justification for copyright violation though - whether or not to use this model should be up to the copyright owner (some do - see Baen books for example - you can freely download a good number of eBooks, which they're hoping will drive sales of their others).

Originally Posted by redi (Post 556659)

...
Fargus: Trial versions are usually a nuisance, with restricted access and usually just driving the users insane before actually getting a good picture of the software in question. Emphasizis on the word usually. Testing with a trial version or a pirated full version brings exactly as much money to a company, so I do not really see a big difference.
...

Originally Posted by HumanPenguin (Post 556667)

The simple answer to this is that when it comes to the work and design of an individual.

Your opinion only has any value if it is your work.

If you feel your work should be free. Good for you, everyone here will support and help you achiver your goals.

If you feel people should pay for the right to use your work then also good for you. If I agree Ill give you money when I find your software of value. If not I will not use your software.

Same goes for music films etc.

If you have sold the rights to your work in exchange for a salary. That is also your choice and good on you.

If you feel you have the right to force your opinion on anyone else by using their work against their will.

You are forcing your religion upon someone else against their will.

What you believe never gives you the right to enforce it on others. So just **** of and leave them alone.

If their business model is invalid they will go bankrupt. If not you will just keep whining. At no point is using their software against their will some fight for good over evil.