Is downloaded software unethical? (2 Viewers)

[Isaac]

Isaac, did you read the post before the one you quoted?
There is nothing wrong going to wallmart and buying software that is on sale. And if there is an official reseller online that is putting the software up for a cheap price that is fine too.

The problem arises with online stores, that allow everyone to resell a copy of the software. Because if you find such software in an online store for a cheaper price than usual, you can almost be certain that these copies of the software are bought by credit card frauds or similar.

Take factorio for an example. It is a game, and it was never on sale ever. I am in contact with the developer and he never sold the game cheaper than 20€. Still these online shops sell the game for 15€. That is impossible without fraud.

But people still buy it because it is cheap!

You're the one who said this was, and I quote, "bad"

Buying a key from a cheap reseller while potential harming the developer

 

[Saphirah]

You're the one who said this was, and I quote, "bad"

Buying a key from a cheap reseller while potential harming the developer

Yeah but you can not take one sentence out of context I said much more, and in the context of harmfull practices my sentence had a different meaning.

Just as Pat said. If a price is too good to be true, you should watch out.

 

[Grumm]

I am just SO confused by the, (now 2) people on this thread who have suggested there is something "wrong" with "cheap resellers", who are selling licenses, totally legally and with permission.

Do you also tell people it is unethical to shop at Walmart just because they have the best prices? I mean, what is this?

It's illegal to buy a license key from a guy off Craigslist or Offer Up. It's not illegal to go to one of the numerous, public, not at all secret, legal, websites that resell MS product licenses.

Is this part of the younger generation who is just generally confused on what ethical means - and now worries that their newborn baby isn't fleeced with Responsibly Grown Cotton or something??

Comparing software with 'Walmart' products is not possible.
When you buy software, you will not get a 'cheap' made version of it... Or has more bugs or something else.
With food, or tools someone can always make a cheaper version. More plastic, less graded metals, more fats and sugars in food to replace expensive ingredients.

With an office software, the retail at 100$ is the same as that reseller online website selling it for 1,5$.
Same code, same version. So how can we judge what is 'legal' and what not ?

 

[Isaac]

Comparing software with 'Walmart' products is not possible.
When you buy software, you will not get a 'cheap' made version of it... Or has more bugs or something else.
With food, or tools someone can always make a cheaper version. More plastic, less graded metals, more fats and sugars in food to replace expensive ingredients.

With an office software, the retail at 100$ is the same as that reseller online website selling it for 1,5$.
Same code, same version. So how can we judge what is 'legal' and what not ?

For whatever reason, Microsoft sells resellable licenses out too many resellers of Office programs that are many years old in the version such as 2007. I don't argue with them, I just appreciate that it's easy to find at a cheap price on many long-standing websites that are obviously not scams because they've been there for 10 years.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

One issue that makes vendors reluctant to allow sales of older licenses is product liability. Now, a mom-and-pop store that buys an old copy of Office is small potatoes to Micro$oft, but a bulk sale to a larger customer would involve maintenance and support issues. For instance, it would be totally illegal for a U.S. Navy office to buy "used" software that had no service agreement with it. Government regulations absolutely require that if you by a product that you have a convenient set of feet to hold over the fire if something breaks. You have an incredibly difficult time of getting a waiver on out-of-date products. In essence, you can't do it even though it HAS happened under extreme circumstances.

My only regret is that they never let me tend any of those fires that are involved in foot-warming.

 

[Isaac]

Yeah but you can not take one sentence out of context I said much more, and in the context of harmfull practices my sentence had a different meaning.

Just as Pat said. If a price is too good to be true, you should watch out.

I apologize for jumping on you about this.
I guess I got too excited, maybe because frugality in tech usage is one of the odd eccentricities I'm proud of.

We were just talking about two different things I suppose.

 

[Saphirah]

I apologize for jumping on you about this.
I guess I got too excited, maybe because frugality in tech usage is one of the odd eccentricities I'm proud of.

We were just talking about two different things I suppose.

All good

 

[AccessBlaster]

Slightly off-topic but this shows how Sony was combating piracy in 2000

 

[oleronesoftwares]

Its unethical to buy pirated copies of any product, software, music,film etc. Intellectual property must be protected, those who buy such products are as guilty as those selling it.

 

[Steve R.]

There is no such thing as "intellectual property". What you have is a limited (temporary) privilege to exclusive control over your creation (copyright, patent). Over the years we have had copyright/patent law "expanded" to grant the creator ever more exclusive and onerous control over their creation. The Sony Rootkit scandal is an example where the "creator" of the content unilaterally believed they could "trespass" on your computer to make unauthorized changes to the operating system that could potentially brick your computer. That is unethical behavior. So the issue of "unethical behavior" is not simply limited to the person downloading, but must also incorporate the onerous actions of content creators when they abuse their limited privilege to exclusive control over a product.

In-case, you want to explore some: Against Monopoly
This is a good read: AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

 

[Isaac]

There is no such thing as "intellectual property"

Well my old law prof julie cromer would disagree with you but I know what you mean

 

[Isaac]

Plus, why risk being a software pirate when you can just walk into CVS or Home Depot and take whatever you need for the week.

 

[Steve R.]

Well my old law prof julie cromer would disagree with you but I know what you mean

Dueling lawyers. Plenty of lawyers would say that your old law professor is incorrect, one of them being Stephan Kinsella.

 

[oleronesoftwares]

Overview of Intellectual Property Laws

A wide body of federal and state laws protects creative property such as writing, music, drawings, paintings, photography, and films. Collectively, this body of law is called “intellectual ...

fairuse.stanford.edu

Here is an article explaining intellectual property laws it was published by stanford.

Copyright

Find out more about copyright including international copyright issues, WIPO services for creators and registering copyright, and collective management.

www.wipo.int

This was published by World intellectual property organization

 

[Steve R.]

Dueling legal theories. The very name "World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO) speaks to it be being a biased organization where the "articles" are contorted to promote the bogus claim that "intellectual property exists". Unfortunately, as one can see in the graphic above the concepts of copyright and the public domain are being squeezed out-of-existence. The progressive erosion of copyright beguiles the claim that the WIPO is actually concerned with: "By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish." If that were true, why not restore the 1790 Copyright Act? The interest of the WIPO (as a biased agency) is actually to continue to tilt the "right balance" for the sole benefit of the content creators to the exclusion of the public domain (interest).

 

[oleronesoftwares]

If we are to see more innovations in the world, we have to give special rights to people who create inventions, or demonstrate ingenuity by coming out with products that defy the norm.

 

[Steve R.]

If we are to see more innovations in the world, we have to give special rights to people who create inventions, or demonstrate ingenuity by coming out with products that defy the norm.

A false theory since innovation has been occurring. Moreover, as the graphic demonstrates, the hysterical incessant demand for evermore "special rights" never ceases. More "special rights" are always needed, a logical dead-end.

 

[oleronesoftwares]

A false theory since innovation has been occurring. Moreover, as the graphic demonstrates, the hysterical incessant demand for evermore "special rights" never ceases. More "special rights" are always need, a logical dead-end.

Lets take Covid as example, with all the knowledge available science has not come up with a single cure to tackle the variants, there still remains some diseases without a cure, a granting of such rights will help make the world a better place to live in and encourage any group of person's to come up with cures.

Take the Guinness book of records, some people push themselves to the limit just to be on the record, same should be encouraged especially in fields like healthcare.

 

[Steve R.]

Playing the Covid "card" is a distraction. It does not address the issue: "By striking the right balance between the interests of innovators and the wider public interest, the IP system aims to foster an environment in which creativity and innovation can flourish." Playing the Covid "card' is simply a manipulative tool to open door for evermore undefined expansive onerous "special rights" that suppress the public interest in the name of some abstract, picked at random, humanitarian "good". When is enough, enough? The "World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO), will never admit to it. They will always want more "special rights".

PS: I just remembered that several private companies have obtained patents funded by government research grants. This is wrong. If a company has received public tax dollars to develop a product, they should not be entitled to patent protection. This reflects back to your Covid "card" where the government has funded Covid research. (Not to also mention that the funding of "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan lab was funded by the NIH a US government agency. Seems that the US government is behind both the virus and the cure!)

The Government's Patent Policy: The Bayh-Dole Act and "Authorization and Consent" | Morrison Foerster

www.mofo.com

The main intent of the Bayh-Dole Act is to give the private party title to the invention in the hopes that a patent will result and the private party will commercialize the result to benefit the public.

The implications of the Bayh-Dole Act are very complex. But on the surface, it appears to legitimize private companies obtaining patents on products even though the company received federal tax dollars. This is not protecting the public interest.

 

[Isaac]

Playing advocate for a moment in support of Steve's theory, I will say one observation I've made to myself personally after many years of working for companies in corporate environments.

While much is made about protecting creators ability to monetize proprietary things as a way of encouraging innovation, let's face the facts. Given the fact that most people work for corporations and a relative miniscule percentage works for themselves, the vast majority of every creative thing made will never give any benefit to its creator nor do they appear to require it in order to create it. They do so simply in exchange for a yearly salary and some opportunity for eventual advancement to a limited degree.

Finally I thought of something humorous. Imagine if music creators could no longer retain rights to their work. And 90% of the most popular music today disappeared. Wouldn't that be wonderful!