I don't sell a service. I sell a product. Copying my product is easier than some other products (like maybe a car), but copyright law exists so I'll have an incentive to produce products, which is good for the growth of our economy.
I'd suggest that you read up on economics. Not to be condescending, but if you understood economics you probably wouldn't ask that question.
Good for you. Well, actually I don't believe you because of your
But how do you stay in business then? Would you rather just go work for a big company with big legal departments that can protect their assets? That's something I chose against.
Or maybe you would prefer to live in a world where there's no incentive to create innovative works.
Giving away your creations to increase the value in people's lives is more spiritually rewarding than trying make a buck off each person who views or uses your work. If your concern is about survival, then perhaps you should change your lifestyle and methods for surviving.
You rock, dude. While we may not be able to totally live in the environment you describe, it is helpful to keep it in mind. Thank you.
Ironically, what you describe is why I left my secure (and more lucrative) corporate job to go work for a friend's 4-person company. I work at home 100% of the time. Put my kids on the bus and am there when they get home. I love my job.
So in some ways my initial reaction to people pirating our company's work was related to my desire to protect this lifestyle.
FWIW, I make about 75% of what I made at my previous job and it's totally worth it because of the other flexibilities it affords.
From the phrasing of your question however, I think you're lying about being interested in the "ethical side of things" It's like asking "Why don't you stop beating your wife and children?"
I actually am interested in the ethical side from an intellectual standpoint. I'm trying to keep my mind open on this. I mean I have my own opinions, but am open to the opinions of others. I've read every single response to my question. Some responses I think are good/interesting and have shaped my thoughts in some ways, some are crap.
Please don't project your closed mind onto others.
If you're really a software developer, quit. Do something else.
Not sure why I'd do that since I enjoy it so much. I assure you, I'm not doing it to get rich. I made a lot more money working in the corporate world, but it was life sucking.
Question -
If somebody tries you application, and determines it is crap or they simply don't like it, do you offer a money-back guarantee in the form of a refund or store credit? If the answer is "no" (like virtually all software providers), then I don't really care about your feelings, because you don't respect my right-of-return. You are more interested in money than customer satisfaction, and I will download the product FIRST to try it before I but it.
That's an excellent point...You're totally right. We do offer a 15-day money-back guarantee. We also offer a slightly crippled free trial (we have to pay patent royalties on the full version so can't offer it for free). Truth is that we'd probably do it even absent piracy because it's the right and most effective (profitable) way to do things.
I guess this "copyrights are bad" argument is the only one I can see that has any merit from an ethics standpoint. But I don't think it helps from an economics perspective. That is, it does not facilitate innovation and long-term economic growth.
Anyway, thanks for the links...pretty interesting.
Not what I intended to mean, so perhaps you've misinterpreted or I wasn't clear. So let me put it in the terms of your argument. If a gun store or manufacturer exists for the sole purpose of selling to people that are breaking the law, then it is obviously unethical. Or, maybe a better example..if a gun seller is listening to the radio and hears that there's a police chase in his area. Then someone comes into the store with a mask on and a bag full of money asking to buy a gun. Now, is it ethical for the store to sell the gun? Obviously not.
Sorry to create such an outlandish situation as an example, but hopefully it helps get my point across.
So obviously copyright infringement is not the same severity as this made up situation, but if we assume that knowingly aiding copyright infringement is wrong then I think the same ethics apply (with obviously less severe consequences).
Firstly a nitpick, copyright infringement is not stealing in a legal sense, "stealing" is theft, copyright infringement is just that.
I take your point, although I'm concerned with the implication that copyright infringement is OK. You probably didn't mean that, but I'm just trying to clarify.
There are lots of examples in law where providers of a service arent held responsible for how their customers us that service.
But isn't it different if the service exists for the (almost sole) purpose of making copyrighted works available?
Also, we should be a little bit object and consider that "everyone is doin it, so it cant be that bad".
Hmm, sorry to take an extreme example, but if everyone were killing innocent people, that would be bad.
International law is out of sync with societies views on copyright protection, something has to give, and it wont be the masses.
You're very right, but I'm not sure that a better copyright law would mean no copyright law.
My own view is that as a society we should be encouraging people "to work", rather than "have worked", copyright protections encourages people to stop working and live of their past actions. Look at some of the old rock bands going around, they make money of "Performance" (the present) rather than "recordings" (the past)
However, there has to be some incentive for people (and companies) to invest in R&D. If everything they build is just going to be given away for free then they won't innovate and they'll focus on services. Maybe that's what some people want to see, but without real investment there will be less innovation. It's kind of a fundamental thing about capitalism.
I'm not sure the economics of the situation would support that argument, but that would be a very lengthy debate better taken on by economists.
But my question is more around ethics. I mean, free software is great. It has pushed innovation. I mean, we use a fair amount of open source code in our software. But if someone holds a copyright (or a patent) on a piece of software and chooses to make it available for sale, why is it ethical for someone to help someone steal it?
It's very possible that this is just a "I don't believe in copyrights" argument. Those people will believe that pretty much anything is OK in order to bypass the copyright restriction, I guess.
But I'm talking about the ethics of intentionally helping the person who made it available. I mean, TPB obviously knows the site facilitates the copying of copyrighted materials. It is called The PIRATE Bay.
It seems like that argument is ducking the ethical question.
The response to TPB here on Slashdot seems overwhelmingly positive, so maybe I've been missing something. I'm honestly curious. As a commercial software developer who works very hard and doesn't want to see my work made available for free, why would I approve of what TPB are doing? I mean, if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat (well, or I have to go find something else to do that I'd probably enjoy less).
I remember the first time I saw one of my apps made available on a pirate site. It was a horrible feeling. I wanted to find and beat the crap out of the guy who made it available.
I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.
I mean, a lot of justifications I've seen for what they're doing are based around legal arguments (some would say loopholes). I'm actually more interested in the ethical side of things. Why is making it easy for people to steal ethical?
To do nothing is to be nothing.
