OK, this is an interesting topic, and I think we may get a lively debate going here…
Piracy, where do you stand on it?Please note that this applies equally to games, movies, music, etc. so if you say "Pirating games is wrong!" because you're a game developer, but then download music, you're a big fat hypocrite.My stance is that it is freedom of information. I believe that you have a right to access information without having to pay some sort of fee, and this includes forms of entertainment.But how then, do the producers of information make money?Simple. Movies make money by showing in theaters. Music artists make money by performing live. Both will also profit by selling merchandise. These are extremely profitable ventures, and indeed, music artists for instance rarely make a dime off of record sales anyway, all of that money goes to the RIAA, unless you're huge like Metallica or something.Furthermore, some individuals who are not past pirating will buy legitimate copies anyway, because they simply want to have an 'official' copy. I download games, but I buy legitimate copies of Pokemon games because that's my thing. I just want a legit copy for no other reason than wanting a legit copy.Piracy is not some huge threat to the industries. There will ALWAYS be people available to purchase official copies or merchandise, or go to live viewings and performances. And in the case of small game developers or independent music artists, people are much more likely to shell out the cash as a sign of support for such groups.Piracy stops with accessing information, however. The freedom to access information does not and should not allow you to profit off of other people's ideas by selling their information as your own. The producers of information still 'own' that information and they own the right to make money off of it.
I pirate everything, and don't care if people pirate my work; as long as I receive complete credit and own the rights to it.
I believe piracy is okay as long as nobody gets paid for anything they didn't create.
I use piracy as more of a trial than anything else. If I like it a lot, when I get the money, I'll buy it. Why should I pay for something I don't like/won't use?I read an article about piracy not long ago, it was sort of interesting. Imagine a man who wants to get a CD of [insert artist here]. He does'nt got the money for it so he downloads it instead. Now is that illegal? The man is very poor so he could never buy it irl. The companies could'nt make any money from him in any case.
I think I actually agree with most of what you've said, Hero.
I guess I have one exception, though (that I can think of now): You mentioned companies like Microsoft have been properly compensated for the product. Fair enough. But how do you decide when a company or person has reached that point of "proper compensation?" Who makes that decision? I guess you could say the consumer- but there will undoubtedly be disparity in what the consumer believes is "proper compensation" and what the creator believes is "proper compensation."That's why it's a moral judgment that the consumer has to make, why it's something that cannot be codified into some sort of law. It's impossible to define the line, but there are many instances which are clearly on one side or the other.
yeah pretty much what Hero says, since internet removes the need to distribute music via physical means, the concept of paying for music is really just an artifact that the music artists themselves are (understandably) unwilling to evolve from.
as for software+games, while they often take a lot more work and of course would want more compensation, putting a price on your software is still basically crippling your chances of ever catching on.so it's kind of a, like one of those finger torture puzzle things, for lack of a better metaphor. but it applies to both software and music.I remember reading somewhere that the EULA for a piece of software has never held up in a court of law.
You can only agree to an EULA after you have purchased a product, and therefore it is classified as a "Shrink wrap contract", which are shaky in court at best. The problem is that you already bought the product, so disagreeing to the terms would be idiotic, and it essentially forces the consumer to agree to them without previously being able to review the terms before buying the product.
The entire problem with music is that if people want musical artists to continue making music they need to be fed somehow. You can't just say "Well people should only make music for free" because that doesn't make any sense. How can someone make a living off that? If they can't make a living off of it, why would any of your favorite artists dedicate their lives to making high quality music? Without any sort of compensation you'll end up with music that continues to degrade in quality. There needs to be an alternative payment system - it may not involve listeners, it may be based on ads, I have no idea, but somehow there must be monetary compensation or musical artists won't be able to put food on the table.Remember that making music isn't free (and is, in fact, very expensive) unless the music artists have to pirate stuff themselves, and when you use a pirated piece of software for monetary gain… things get ugly.