|
Summary: Commercial software can be expensive. Does not being able to afford it justify stealing? You can guess my answer, but better: theft isn't necessary.
A reader posed this question some time ago. As you know I do take a fairly hard line against piracy and theft, but this reader wants to know if poverty might qualify for an "exemption" of sorts. His note continues... •
I have two reactions to this scenario:
• It's the "Robin Hood" argument that says it's ok to steal from the rich and give to the poor. I suppose there's a line somewhere where that becomes true - food, perhaps - but computer software isn't it, in my opinion. It's still theft, no matter how much the recipients "deserve" it. And that's part of the argument: that somehow because they are impoverished they are entitled to cheap or free copies of software that others pay dearly for. I don't agree. The argument is also much like the argument against the record companies ... "they'll never notice" or "they're not losing any money because they wouldn't have gotten any anyway". That's not the point. Theft is still theft. Wrong is still wrong. Stealing is still stealing. It's not your choice to do, or justify doing, what you want with something that belongs to someone else. You wouldn't apply your logic to, for example, automobiles would you? Software is no different. OK, there's one difference: it's not that easy to copy a car. • My question back to you is simply this: why bother? The scenario you raise is an incredibly important one. Worldwide there are millions of people who's quality of life could be improved by better access to information and education that these technologies enable. Not only do I believe that theft is not the answer, I also believe that it's not even necessary. There are plenty of totally free alternatives that will enable the same level of education and opportunities that more expensive commercial software would. Heck, assuming they're running on less-than-current hardware, it seems like many of the free alternatives would be a much better fit, given their typically lower hardware requirements. For anyone in this situation, be it here in the U.S. or elsewhere on the planet, there are so many serviceable free alternatives that I can't see needing to resort to piracy as a way to provide the education that would benefit those many folks so inclined. • I'm not going to accuse your friend of anything, because I simply don't know, but in the majority of situations such as you describe, the individual doing the copying and distribution is actually making a profit. For example "hundreds of copies which were sold for no more than $5" can quickly add up. A one time purchase of a package such as Office for, say, $400 in the U.S., illegally selling 200 copies at $5 each doubles the investment. All of a sudden the effort doesn't look as altruistic as we think. In fact, I would go so far as to consider whether someone doing this when there are totally free alternatives might not actually be taking advantage of the very people he claims to be helping. Again, I'm not accusing, but I am saying that the reasons to resort to piracy have diminished so greatly that I'd definitely question carefully the motives of those who persist. For those who believe that the pricing model of commercial software vendors is somehow "unfair", using the free alternatives instead is a great way to make a statement as well. Related:
• Recent Comments
Leo, I have to disagree with one of your premises, because I don't believe it is stealing unless BOTH of the following are true: If I "pirate" when I would otherwise have purchased, then I stole. However, if I wouldn't have purchased anyway, then my "pirating" is NOT a theft, because nobody lost anything (because either way, the "owner" gets $0.00). This may not (yet) be a point of law, but I strongly believe it to be consistent with logic and morality. For this reason, I scoff at the quoted figures of "losses" from illegal downloading: the vast amount of these "losses" would not have been gained anyway, even if the downloading were somehow made impossible.
I m an Indian and I do beleive that a theft is a theft. No matter how poor you are. I m not here to justify that poors have right to pirate but I want to draw your attention why people in this country or rather in South Asia use pirated software: But at the end of the day I beleive piracy is bad for this software industry. There is so much pain and money invested in developing a software. But if Government, Private Institutes, Microsoft and Other Leading Vendors, Companies using these products....etc join their hands there will be some solution. Posted by: Binay at April 5, 2008 01:07 PM"No Internet Service Provider in many part of this subcontinent. Forget ISP many regions don't have electricity." This is where the One Computer Per Child effort is dumb. In places where there is no electricity, telephone, water, sanitation, and limited food, even talking about computers is ridiculous. The government and people of these poor countries should put their limited monies and effort in providing the basics of life first. Posted by: Ken Crook at April 5, 2008 10:15 PMAll crime !!I dont care where it takes place, will set higher limits, constraint's, security,, and the list go's on. Theft is still theft, in this case, is not apples to apples. Material theft (taking someone's car purse or food!) is not the same as copying music or software from a corporate giant. I too, feel for musicians and software developers who get ripped off, but that is an industry fault. It doesn't make sense to blame people that use pirated software, rather we should figure out how to harness the fact that they want to!!! Yes, there are lots FREE of alternatives to pirated software that can achieve the same end. People should do whats within the reach of their pockets. I dont mean to be mean but why should i want a bently if my pocket cannot afford? Better yet, why should want a bentley when 1. I cant afford it and 2. There are free cars by the car dump? Wrong is wrong. Stealing is stealing and they should be punished. Posted by: Munyaradzi at April 6, 2008 11:50 PMHi! I agree with Leo. Theft is theft. Always. And there is no reason anymore to pirate software. There are free alternatives to almost everything. I should know. I migrated to Linux last Christmas. I'm happy with the migration, and I will not go back to Microsoft's faulty products. Posted by: Ingmar Forne at April 7, 2008 03:43 AMPiracy is theft just like house breaking pick pocketing. The owner of the software loses so much in just few minutes for the work that he/she has done in months. I think the poor who cannot afford to buy must be helped in the same way that the welfare helps those who cannot feed themselves and those who pirate must be arrested cause piracy is a euphemism for theft. Posted by: Martin Nyama at April 11, 2008 05:26 AMIf you agree that piracy is theft and that poor people shoud be helped through wellfare then I don´t get it. Because the only difference is legality. Law is not the same as morale. Wellfare is often finaced by taxes. Taxation is in effect the government stealing money from people and corporations. Piracy or wellfare, it´s all just techincalities really. Posted by: Magnus at April 14, 2008 12:42 PMIf you agree that piracy is theft. you or very wrong. It's nothing like stealing a car. It's like like killing anyone also. The fact is this stealing is wrong define Stealing. Well If i would go to some ones house and steal there cat yea thats stealing. Due to the reson it's a real item. Software that someone downloaded is not. Someone paid for that software you download. So if you think of it like letting others use your item. if thats sealing then only you you paid for a can never let your frends use that car or that car lot could sue you for a lost sell. Posted by: lightningz at April 27, 2008 10:42 PMPost a comment on "Why can't the poor just pirate software?":
|
Archives Advertisers |
||