the moral compass

a few threads we've had recently talking about pirating software and
cracking satellite decoder cards and such like prompts this question:

why is stealing an intangible "OK" yet stealing a motorbike - for the
sake of the argument - is "Bad"?

 

I guess people must measure it against potential for infinite returns vs
limited.
Software is a prime example of infinite return, because you don't need any
outlay to create extra copies electronically, therefore beyond initial
costs - profit just goes up and up, so people seem to think it less 'bad'.

 

this is only true for large software companies - it was Lozzo's
request for a cracked reg. key for Forte Agent that got me thinking -
they're a small outfit, producing a quality product, which doesn't
actually cost very much money, and I don't think they make a lot of
money from it. Why should it be "OK" to steal it?

 

oh, and I should have said, I'm talking about software in particular
here, rather than content - mp3s et al. is another argument again.

 

My guess is it's seen as a "victimless" crime. Much like speeding vs
running someone over.

 

It isn't a victimless crime, but the victim - a mega corporation making
shit loads of money off John Q Public - is no better or worse off
when the "crime" has been perpetrated.

A good approach to software piracy was one I heard from a software
company that I used to work for - "The only people who pirate software
are those who would never have bought your product in the first
place. So what have you lost? Very little. What have you gained? An
increase in the installed base and number of skilled users of your product."
Microsoft did very well with Office because they *didn't* copy protect it.
So many people copied it that everyone was aware of it and everyone
who was in the market to buy a copy of an office package bought
Microsoft Office.

As for CDs. I'm sick of buying a 70 minute CD with 20 minutes of
noteworth stuff and 50 minutes of crap. Why not have a scheme where
I can just pay for the songs that I want with money going directly
to the recording artist instead of Mega Media Corp? Some record
companies in the USA recently applied an across the board cut of
33% in all their CD prices to try to recover the market. It will
be interesting to see if that works out.

Mikey

 

cf. Microplanet Gravity.

Though I agree speeding really is a victimless crime.

 

Stealing an intangible does not in any way deprive the legal owner of
the original item.

 

Because you can do it without leaving your home and its very,very rare to
get done for it. So lots of people do it, leaving very few people to speak
out against it.

 

IMHO It's seen as a victimless crime. If you nick somebody's bike you
deprive them of that bike. If you copy some software/CD the original is
still there and the person you copied it from hasn't lost anything. We all
know that somewhere down the line somebody might have lost a sale but
"they're big business **** em" type attitude seems to prevail.

 

Well I've always earned my living developing or supporting software,
so, for personal use, I use free software when I can and cheapish
shareware otherwise[1].

[1] SWMBO has a legit copy of Photoshop.

The man on the Claham Omnibus probably thinks that nicking software
from big companies is not equivalent to stealing a motorbike. Even
so, I reckon software would be cheaper if everone bought legit copies.

 

it deprives the originator of their revenue stream.

 

People have different sets of morals - for many, 'stealing' from the
gubmint is seen as acceptable, although others recognise it as
stealing from themselves. Similarly, insurance companies are often
seen as an acceptable target - all so -called 'victimless' crimes.

 

Steady on - you might force people to think..

Phil

 

On this point since the advent of MP3 I actually buy more music,
generally because of the improved sound quality, plus I like the
convenience of being able to grab a handful of CD's and drive off in the
car.

Sadly I only discovered it after Microplanet's collapse, otherwise I'd
have bought it.

That said (and going off at a tangent) I'm starting to run Linux for a
few things now, the fact there's pretty much always something out there
to do any job, often for free and only a download away. Now that does
make it difficult to justify going out and buying a product instead.

And yet using Linux isn't criminal. [1]

[1] Unless you're SCO.

 

Vicious circle.... if software was more reasonably priced, then more
people would buy it, further driving down the price.

Some software blatantly isn't worth the price-tag (how can Adobe justify
several hundred pounds for a full release of Photoshop, but only £50 for
the 'light' version, for example). It's this kind of thing that I'd tend
to download. For the number of times I'd use something like Photoshop,
it wouldn't be worth buying it.

Admittedly, for smaller operations I will purchase the license - eg.
ISTR it was about 20USD for a license for MacSoup, since I use it every
day and it's the best Newsreader for Macs out there, I was happy to pay
the price.

 

The conclusion that I came to is that nothing can hold a candle to it.
It's a professionals tool really -- and Adobe know it. It's the same
with enterprise development tools.

 

People have different sets of morals - for many, 'stealing' from the
gubmint is seen as acceptable, although others recognise it as
stealing from themselves. Similarly, insurance companies are often
seen as an acceptable target - all so -called 'victimless' crimes.

Software theft is seen by many in the same category, especially when
it's a large corporation like Microsoft or IBM that's the target.
Illegal music downloads are also deemed to be acceptable, as the
thieving bastards of record companies make far too much profit
already...

Actually, I think this may be a large part of it - it's OK to steal
from someone who's making a profit, because by definition any
profit-making enterprise is a bad thing to the lowly pikey git
somewhere below the bottom rung.

Then, of course, there's stuff like hacking satellite encryption,
which I was asking Cab about earlier. The same sorts of arguments
apply, namely that it's not taking money away from the supplier,
merely neglecting to pay them.

All the above apply to most people to a greater or lesser extent, but
there's also a much deeper rationale, which I think would apply to
many, including myself.

"It's OK to commit 'victimless' crimes, as long as you don't get
caught."

 

Hence Discreet releasing GMax for making models that can be imported into
games etc. because most of the people nicking Max tend to want to use it
for game development at home. Making something suited to the job for free
hopefully draws away from that.

 

Same here. I never keep mp3's of stuff that I don't intend to buy. I
download a single from somewhere and then am usually tempted to buy the
album. If I don't like it enough to buy the album, then I don't usually
keep it.

Mind you, most of the stuff I listen to is really obscure anyway.