Does printscreen bypass software info?

[Snarky]

Vince Twelve made this argument quite well in another thread.

The difference is that in one case you're illegally making a copy, while in the other you're taking an item away from its owner. The very fact that in many cases there's no way for the copyright holder to even know that you infringed their copyright illustrates this fundamental distinction.

So it's not like going into a bookstore and stealing a book, it's like going into a bookstore and taking pictures of all the pages in the book without buying it.

[Matti]

Yeah, I wanted to add that. Adobe wouldn't get money from me either way, cause I can't afford PS. So there's no harm at all for them if I download a copy of PS without paying for it.

[Andail]

Adobe makes its money on companies, schools and other institutions that pay license money for its software.
Adobe probably doesn't care whether individuals come across pirated versions on the Internet, since a) it's very likely that said individuals would not purchase the software legally even without the piracy-option and b) Adobe doesn't physically lose money from having files copied.

I've never paid for any of my tool-software, but if I ever start a company I'll naturally purchase a license.

[Pumaman]

So it's not like going into a bookstore and stealing a book, it's like going into a bookstore and taking pictures of all the pages in the book without buying it.

That's a good analogy, actually. And if you knew that the shopkeeper wasn't watching at the time, would that make you more likely to do it?

Adobe wouldn't get money from me either way, cause I can't afford PS. So there's no harm at all for them if I download a copy of PS without paying for it.

But look at it this way: you are into photography, and you really want a gorgeous $1000 camera. But you can't afford it. Do you:
(a) steal one from the shop
(b) save up your money each week until you can afford the expensive camera, and just use a cheap crappy one in the meantime

Surely if you decided that Photoshop was what you really wanted, you could save up some money each week until you could afford it - and you could use MS Paint for your drawing in the meantime.

Surely it's just that because software is easy to steal, the decision of "do I steal it or save up for a year to buy it" becomes much more of a no-brainer.

[Andail]

CJ, the issue isn't whether something is easy to steal, it's whether you physically deprive someone of something.

I wouldn't take an expensive camera even if I found it on the street; I would leave it at the local police and their lost and found department.

[Mr Flibble]

I know a pirated copy does NOT equal a lost sale. I know this.

However, piracy (or photographing the pages of a book in a shop, to keep with the analogy) is supported by the logic "It's okay if I'm the only one doing it."

"It's okay because it's me doing it."

One pirated copy doesn't equal a lot sale. 100% pirated copies equals no sales. And nothing for you to pirate any more.

[SpacePaw]

One pirated copy doesn't equal a lot sale. 100% pirated copies equals no sales. And nothing for you to pirate any more.

Yea.. Torrents made game developers/publishers loose 80% of profit worldwide...

[Phemar]

For every commercial piece of software out there, there's a freeware slightly more complicated and not as flashy or annoying equivalent.

If you can't afford commercial, go freeware. All my software is freeware, (Gimp, Buzzmachine, audacity, deepburner, bonkenc, audacity and just about every other freeware audio or other program available).

The only reason to use commercial software is if you own a company and want to get taken seriously.

[Pumaman]

CJ, the issue isn't whether something is easy to steal, it's whether you physically deprive someone of something.

But should this be the issue?

If I steal a camera from a shop, then I physically deprive the shop of the camera. This means the shop loses the camera, and will hit that shop's profits. The manufacturer still gets paid by the shop since they bought it, so the only party to lose out is the shop itself.

Therefore if I steal the camera, the manufacturer and creator of the camera still gets paid for it, and the shop ends up getting hit with the loss.

If I download pirated software, then nobody in the chain (retailer, manufacturer or creator) gets paid. In a sense you could argue this is worse, because at least by stealing the camera from the shop I have shown my support for the camera manufacturer by ensuring they get paid; whereas in the piracy scenario the actual creators of the product get nothing at all.

[Snarky]

Saying that it's not stealing, not theft, isn't the same as saying it's OK.

And yes, piracy only does not destroy the system as long as a significant number of people/companies actually buy the product. Fortunately, in well-regulated, prosperous economies, there are usually a lot of people who do.

If someone pirates everything they want (games, software, movies, music, TV shows, books...) and never or rarely buys anything, then yeah, they're being a parasite. That may be excusable for kids and students who have no income, but once you grow up and start earning money and managing your own economy, you really should be doing your part to support the people who create the things you like, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean that occasionally downloading something for free instead of buying it automatically makes you a bad person. Let's say you're making an AGS game and you want to try creating some music, so you get yourself a tracker. Should you shell out hundreds of dollars for an app you're gonna use occasionally for a part-time hobby you're never going to make a dime from? Unless you're rolling in cash, insisting on such strict adherence seems a bit puritan to me. (I get an MSDN developers' license and licenses for most Adobe products through work, which provides most of the software I might need, so I rarely have to worry about this situation. Besides, I usually look for open-source options.)

Similarly, I go to the movies, I have a Netflix account, I have cable TV and a TiVo, and I buy DVDs, so I don't feel too guilty about occasionally downloading a film or TV show I missed. And with all the money I blow on CDs, books and comics, I feel I'm doing enough to support those industries, too. If I sample something electronically and really like it, I'll usually buy it sooner or later anyway (whether it's freely available, like Dr. Horrible or the latest Radiohead album, or not, like Pimsleur language courses or Astro City).

[LimpingFish]

If I download pirated software, then nobody in the chain (retailer, manufacturer or creator) gets paid.

But you could argue that they weren't going to get paid anyway, because the pirate had no intention of buying the software. They're only using it because it was available for free. If it wasn't available illegally, they'd either go without or use a freeware alternative.

If you argue that getting commercial software for free is theft (in the same way as stealing a car/stereo/tv is), you could also argue that freeware harms the profits of smaller independent software companies:

A company develops a low cost alternative to Photoshop. But they enjoy less than profitable sales because everybody is using Gimp or some such, and nobody can be bothered to fork out cash (price is irrelevant) because there is a freely available alternative. An absurd argument*, but things get absurd when we start discussing imaginary monetary gains based not on how many people have bought your product, but on how many people are using your product without license.

This is why I never trust anybody who tries to put a fiscal amount on piracy; they work on the assumption that one pirate negates one paying customer.

It's like believing that for every pirate who uses your product illegally, a paying customer was mugged and their money was stolen before it could get to you.

*Actually, now that I think of it, hasn't there always been resentment among the larger software companies (the American ones, anyway) towards freeware, open-source, and the like, with regards to scoring large multi-licensing deals? Microsoft vs Open Office for example? Wouldn't we then be safe in assuming that any free software is bad if it deprives these companies of sales?

[Snarky]

But should this be the issue?

If I steal a camera from a shop, then I physically deprive the shop of the camera. This means the shop loses the camera, and will hit that shop's profits. The manufacturer still gets paid by the shop since they bought it, so the only party to lose out is the shop itself.

Therefore if I steal the camera, the manufacturer and creator of the camera still gets paid for it, and the shop ends up getting hit with the loss.

If I download pirated software, then nobody in the chain (retailer, manufacturer or creator) gets paid. In a sense you could argue this is worse, because at least by stealing the camera from the shop I have shown my support for the camera manufacturer by ensuring they get paid; whereas in the piracy scenario the actual creators of the product get nothing at all.

But in the first case, someone (the shop) has actually lost money compared to if you had done nothing. Your theft has taken money directly out of their pocket. When they draw up their accounts, they'll have to subtract the camera you took from their assets.

In the second case, it has no impact on anyone's assets; it's a non-transaction, as if you didn't exist. They've only lost money compared to the hypothetical scenario where you actually buy the software. (And even that "loss" is assuming you don't buy it later. I would speculate that a lot of the people who would actually have paid for the software if they couldn't pirate it eventually do end up purchasing a license.)

This is the fundamental difference between physical objects (like cameras) and digital artifacts (like software and media files): one has a finite supply, and each copy has a cost of production associated with it, while the other can be duplicated infinitely at essentially zero cost. And that's why "intellectual property" should not be thought of in terms of actual property, but as a (limited) privilege, and why copyright infringement is not theft, but a kind of trespass.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

[zabnat]

And I kind of agree

And this comes to the ease of downloading illegal software off the internet. If you'd see a car in the street with the keys in it, would you steal it? What about if you'd see say a pack of beer somewhere you're just passing by and nobodys around, surely you wouldn't get gought? What if you could just get a "serial generator" and replace the serial on the chassis of that car, motor and just put some new plates on it? I mean maybe opportunity makes a thief?

It's funny how usually the people on the software industry are more against software piract than your "normal" person. They understand the effort to make a piece of software. It's really hard to explain and there are people on the industry that have open source mentality. Anybody with a writers block can relate to how hard it really is to create intellectual property.

As for the freeware alternatives: I think it's great that we have lots of great software out there. It's great that some group of computer enthusiasts (or propellerheads, I don't know if this term works in english) have decided to create a program that could replace some high price programs that professionals use (like Photoshop). Although many times these programs just feel too much like hey are develeloped by some propellerheads (not referring to that swedish company). And I bet some of you prefer Photoshop over Gimp just for this.

Actually I would really like to see more of educational and personal licences of those expensive software packages out there. Like if the software would be $5000 to use commercially, you could get a educational version for $100 and a personal edition for maybe $300. And with educational version you have the same requirements as you do now (really beign enrolled on some university or something) and with personal edition you couldn't do any commercial work. Maybe even have an invisible watermark to enforce this or something. I would really like to see more of this business model. Some software companies have implemented something similiar and I really respect them for this.

I have used illegal software myself and I really do understand the point of beign a kid or a student, but nowadays since I (used to) have a job and I have some income, I can just skip that one or two weekends in a bar and save up the money for the software that like to use, even when I'm not using it commercially.
It's really hard to say where I stand in this issue, maybe I'm in there on the gray zone I guess.

ps. I'm sorry if I just threw a provocation for this kind of conversation in my last message. This is pretty much out of topic already and I'm sure this kind of thing has been discussed before in this forum and it will become a long topic if conversations on other forums are of any indication.

[Galen]

Propellorheads? I resent that. A hat would obsure my lovely spock haircut.