Are 'warez' really theft?

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 11:54

Following on from the scanning banknotes thread, I want to know what people's opinion on software theft is.

If you (for example) download mp3's, are you stealing? Are you able to purchase the tracks either on CD or online without resorting to P2P?

If you download games and or applications that cost a lot of money, is it ok because you can't afford it? Or is it still theft?

My personal opinion is that it's technically all theft but I have no objection to it, no-one is stealing from me, I guess if I'd have written the software or composed the track my opinion would be a little more harsh ..

(and can we try and keep this civil please)

danielf · 11-01-2004, 11:57

I'd have a hard time arguing it isn't theft. That doesn't mean I don't download the occasional mp3, but I still buy a fair amount of cds.

Russ · 11-01-2004, 11:57

If I'd gone to the trouble of writing a programme or song or anything which involved a lot of effort on my part for the purpose of distributing it for reward, I certainly would view as theft any circumstance where someone obtained my work without paying for it and without my permission.

Sociable · 11-01-2004, 11:58

Short answer is a resounding "YES" it is theft plain and simple whatever excuse is used.

The reality is it will always happen, but maybe an acceptable compromise is that advocated by many warez groups, which is that if you use a warez version and like it support the company that produced it by buying their products.

downquark1 · 11-01-2004, 11:58

Being Philosophical you could argue that all you are stealing are ones and zeros that happen (when processed) to resemble the sound someone famous once made in a recording studio. If you add a slight interference you could argue it's not the same song.

However, this trend of thought would send capitalist software/music companies into disarray. So I think current society probably should consider it a minor form of stealing.

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Being Philosophical you could argue that all you are stealing are ones and zeros that happen to resemble the sound someone famous once made in a recording studio. If you at a slight interference you could argue it's not the same song.

However, this trend of thought would send capitalist software/music companies into disarray. So I think current society probably should consider it a minor form of stealing.

You could argue that yes, then you could argue that the CD someone shoplifted is just a bit of plastic with 1's and 0's on it, or the book is just a bit of paper with some ink on it, time and effort still went in to the original work regardless of which format it ends up in.

downquark1 · 11-01-2004, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

You could argue that yes, then you could argue that the CD someone shoplifted is just a bit of plastic with 1's and 0's on it, or the book is just a bit of paper with some ink on it, time and effort still went in to the original work regardless of which format it ends up in.

Yes, your right, and in our society time and effort are worth money, but only if people are willing to pay for the result.

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 12:05

Eventually I can see (certainly with games), 'scene' releases becoming a thing of the past, while they like to claim they can crack any copy protection, the methods are long becoming a pain, take Starforce 3 and Tages, two new methods of copy protecting software, warez groups have to not only filter out the copy protection throughout the game, they then have to play it all the way through (sometimes more than once to get every permutation of gameplay) to check their cracks have worked they also at times have to release an entire new cd's worth of cracked content just so people can play it, it's no longer a matter of just releasing a cracked executable. Also, with more and more people going on to broadband, I'd say in five years most software will 'phone home' and check the software serial numbers on the companies servers and will probably have much more online content, making a crack to block accessing the internet worthless.

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes, your right, and in our society time and effort are worth money, but only if people are willing to pay for the result.

The same goes for any buyable object, the difference is, most people won't thieve it if they can't pay for it. The problem is, theft over the internet has been made far too easy it's only recently that they've started clamping down on it .. and look at the complaining the people who actually steal the stuff are doing. I've lost count of the times I've seen "**** the DMCA" in people's signatures (elsewhere of course)

Xaccers · 11-01-2004, 12:07

Copyright infringement: yes
Theft: mumble mumble grey area mumble

I know it is probably just a case of symantics, but personally I don't feel it is theft.
If someone goes into PC World and runs off with a copy of Photoshop that's theft. Not because they've got someting physical in their grubby little mitts, but because it was something which had they not stolen, would have been bought by someone who could afford it.

However, if someone gets hold of a copy through warez because they cannot afford to buy it (there's a difference between cannot afford and cannot be bother to buy) then adobe would never make any money from them, so they have not reduced adobe's profits. They have broken the law because of copyright infringement, but they haven't stolen.

If you photo copy a page from a book, have you stolen that page? No, but you may have commited copyright infringement.

downquark1 · 11-01-2004, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

The same goes for any buyable object, the difference is, most people won't thieve it if they can't pay for it. The problem is, theft over the internet has been made far too easy it's only recently that they've started clamping down on it .. and look at the complaining the people who actually steal the stuff are doing. I've lost count of the times I've seen "**** the DMCA" in people's signatures (elsewhere of course)

Yes, but you can't run a diamond through a photocopier and get the equivalent. [bear in mind I am being philosophical] it isn't an object you are stealing. But you are getting the benefit of someone else's work without paying but you have not relieved them of that work. So I think I agree with Xaccers, copyright infringement is a more accurate description.

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Copyright infringement: yes
Theft: mumble mumble grey area mumble

I know it is probably just a case of symantics, but personally I don't feel it is theft.
If someone goes into PC World and runs off with a copy of Photoshop that's theft. Not because they've got someting physical in their grubby little mitts, but because it was something which had they not stolen, would have been bought by someone who could afford it.

However, if someone gets hold of a copy through warez because they cannot afford to buy it (there's a difference between cannot afford and cannot be bother to buy) then adobe would never make any money from them, so they have not reduced adobe's profits. They have broken the law because of copyright infringement, but they haven't stolen.

If you photo copy a page from a book, have you stolen that page? No, but you may have commited copyright infringement.

But then there are people who might have thought "ok, so it's 600 quid, I'll save up for it .. oh wait, no, there's a copy on Kazaa ... I'll spend my money on fag's and jam!" ... If you can't afford .. do without or find a cheaper alternative (basically)

Xaccers · 11-01-2004, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

But then there are people who might have thought "ok, so it's 600 quid, I'll save up for it .. oh wait, no, there's a copy on Kazaa ... I'll spend my money on fag's and jam!" ... If you can't afford .. do without or find a cheaper alternative (basically)

Or break the law and face the consequences if caught (no people shouldn't do that)

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes, but you can't run a diamond through a photocopier and get the equivalent. [bear in mind I am being philosophical] it isn't an object you are stealing. But you are getting the benefit of someone else's work without paying but you have not relieved them of that work. So I think I agree with Xaccers, copyright infringement is a more accurate description.

I'd go with "Electronic Theft" rather than copyright infringement.

Bifta · 11-01-2004, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Or break the law and face the consequences if caught (no people shouldn't do that)

Not sure if that's sarcasm but that does sum up how I feel about it, it's up to the individual what they do, if they get caught and fined then they can't blame anyone but themselves. However, people that moan about new anti-theft measures in software or complain about Palladium or the DMCA saying it's an infringement of civil liberties really need to take a step back and realise why they're introduced.