Preface: I got tired of the ranting that was going on in another thread, and wanted to continue the talks with a more refined and enlightened focus, as it's one of the best discussions I've ever had in person, and now it's been the best discussion I've seen in this forum.
Regulations: But you can't get preachy and try to convert people to your side. It's actually a very complex issue based on paradigm shifts, and the fundamentals of society. Open your ears (eyes) and your mind, think before you speak (type), and if something has been said, don't repeat it if you can help it. If this thread goes beyond 12 pages, someone should fork off a new thread like I did. (pun intended)
Background: Piracy is not theft in the traditional sense of the word. To say it is, is failing to see the depth and pervasiveness of this topic. Theft is originally placed in a society with needs, and to steal something is to keep someone else who needs it from having it. Theft was not originally about compensation for the maker. This is a capitalist construct. Theft is about a society trying to accomplish what it needs to survive, and making sure those goods get to where they're most needed. Software Piracy(tm) has no cost in that it does not affect availability of the product. By making a copy you are not removing the original. It's this quality of software that threatens to obsolete much of our capitalist construct. (patents and copyright being parts)
Lofty Goals: This is not all about things that already exist. There are variants of distribution models that do exist that may be great, and simply need to be promoted. So this thread might let those of us in decision making positions find out what the needs are. The best solution almost certainly does not yet exist, so think about all of the benefits and limitations of what one's views on piracy could mean to a society.
- Arguing is about winning. Debating is about learning other points of view. Let this be a debate.
First Post: I hope someone responds to this. I know I'm asking a lot. But here goes.
We all know what the law thinks about piracy. On the other hand, RMS believes that since there's no distribution cost in software, that it should be free. It's just thoughts. Thinking is free. To make someone pay for your thoughts when you can give them away for free is criminal. It's an artificial scarcity. It makes people pay money, that could have gone toward better food, instead go to you for giving only them your thoughts. If everyone had this information, the world would be a better place. So making people pay for free thoughts by artificially withholding them from people who don't sacrifice something to you (pay you money) is detrimental to the world at large. It's the same argument as the anti AIDS drugs for poverty stricken Africa argument, except that production costs are even less (negligible) for software.
What frickin' right do we have to ask for money for our thoughts when people are out there literally dying because we are artifically withholding information so that we can make more money and be more important? The Africa point is a little more severe than the software point. But it's the same thought. Capitalism in its old sense is potentially harming the world by applying scarcity rules to infinitely available items. This is not just a question of what's legal, but where should capitalism, economy, and international law be going to make things better for the future?
Someone in the other thread asked to see an example of someone saying they wanted you to pirate their software. My answer, BSD. Even more so than Linux, and GNU, the BSD license doesn't even ask that you buy into their ideas, the thoughts have been had, and now everyone should benefit. But still, anything GPL'd is a good example too. (linux, apache, GiMP etc.) Use for free, but you have to allow others to use it too. You can't start privatizing what has been established free-to-all.
Now I ask again.
Is pirating software wrong? - and if so, under what circumstances?
Is selling software wrong? - and if so, under what circumstances?
Regulations: But you can't get preachy and try to convert people to your side. It's actually a very complex issue based on paradigm shifts, and the fundamentals of society. Open your ears (eyes) and your mind, think before you speak (type), and if something has been said, don't repeat it if you can help it. If this thread goes beyond 12 pages, someone should fork off a new thread like I did. (pun intended)
Background: Piracy is not theft in the traditional sense of the word. To say it is, is failing to see the depth and pervasiveness of this topic. Theft is originally placed in a society with needs, and to steal something is to keep someone else who needs it from having it. Theft was not originally about compensation for the maker. This is a capitalist construct. Theft is about a society trying to accomplish what it needs to survive, and making sure those goods get to where they're most needed. Software Piracy(tm) has no cost in that it does not affect availability of the product. By making a copy you are not removing the original. It's this quality of software that threatens to obsolete much of our capitalist construct. (patents and copyright being parts)
Lofty Goals: This is not all about things that already exist. There are variants of distribution models that do exist that may be great, and simply need to be promoted. So this thread might let those of us in decision making positions find out what the needs are. The best solution almost certainly does not yet exist, so think about all of the benefits and limitations of what one's views on piracy could mean to a society.
- Arguing is about winning. Debating is about learning other points of view. Let this be a debate.
First Post: I hope someone responds to this. I know I'm asking a lot. But here goes.
We all know what the law thinks about piracy. On the other hand, RMS believes that since there's no distribution cost in software, that it should be free. It's just thoughts. Thinking is free. To make someone pay for your thoughts when you can give them away for free is criminal. It's an artificial scarcity. It makes people pay money, that could have gone toward better food, instead go to you for giving only them your thoughts. If everyone had this information, the world would be a better place. So making people pay for free thoughts by artificially withholding them from people who don't sacrifice something to you (pay you money) is detrimental to the world at large. It's the same argument as the anti AIDS drugs for poverty stricken Africa argument, except that production costs are even less (negligible) for software.
What frickin' right do we have to ask for money for our thoughts when people are out there literally dying because we are artifically withholding information so that we can make more money and be more important? The Africa point is a little more severe than the software point. But it's the same thought. Capitalism in its old sense is potentially harming the world by applying scarcity rules to infinitely available items. This is not just a question of what's legal, but where should capitalism, economy, and international law be going to make things better for the future?
Someone in the other thread asked to see an example of someone saying they wanted you to pirate their software. My answer, BSD. Even more so than Linux, and GNU, the BSD license doesn't even ask that you buy into their ideas, the thoughts have been had, and now everyone should benefit. But still, anything GPL'd is a good example too. (linux, apache, GiMP etc.) Use for free, but you have to allow others to use it too. You can't start privatizing what has been established free-to-all.
Now I ask again.
Is pirating software wrong? - and if so, under what circumstances?
Is selling software wrong? - and if so, under what circumstances?