China Not Happy About MS anti-piracy tactics

[zedman3d]

Yes, people are forced to pay for it, but no one forces them to pirate it. I am forced to pay for my house, my car, everything I own; I didn't go out and steal it.

Yeah thats true, but then again, if you steal a dudes car, even if its a rich dudes, its usually tough on their pocket.

Everyone pirates Windows and such because M$ makes money either way.
Snippet i found from Jan08: " Revenue rose 31% to $16.37 billion."

 

[Trotter]

Because "everyone pirates Windows" does not excuse anyone from it. Nor does the fact that MS is making money.

People pirating their stuff is why MS makes things so complicated on everyone. Copy protection just delays the piracy, but it punishes the honest users.

 

[Apokalipse]

Of course you don't understand it or you would not be arguing for it.

that's begging the question (the assumption being that there is a valid argument to be had).

Until you have had something valuable stolen from you

I wouldn't be missing anything if it was software.
But if I did make a good piece of software, I'd release it under the GNU public license. I would perhaps ask for optional donations, but I definitely do not want to control copyrights or Intellectual Property such that it would infringe on others creative or competitive ability.

Just because you don't take anything physically does not mitigate the theft. Espionage steals information that is considered valuable, but the information is not physical... yet it is still stealing.

Only if you arbitrarily redefine the word 'steal' such that it wasn't required for the person to actually be missing something. But that is not the dictionary definition of stealing.
And even if it was classified as stealing, the label does not change the argument. They're still not missing anything.

So what if it is a "monopolistic entity" that owns the intellectual property?

So, it stifles creativity and competition, and doesn't allow for products compatible and/or with the same functionality from alternate sources that may be willing to sell for a much lower price, or even distribute it freely.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The idea of Intellectual Property is designed to protect ideas from monopolistic entities, so that creativity and competition is promoted.

Does that make the act of piracy any different?

Yes, for the above reason.

Nothing is stopping anyone from making a comparable or compatible product.

Intellectual Property and copyright is.

Linux is comparable but it is too splittered into a bluee million different distrobutions for regular people to make sense of it. MacOS is comparable, too.

There are programs and proprietry technologies and software that won't work on Linux, because companies that have majority market share are holding the intellectual property and/or copyrights to such technologies.

Yes, people are forced to pay for it, but no one forces them to pirate it.

Well sure, we could sit back while monopolistic entities copyright and claim IP on just about everything and anything, so that we have to pay for everything up to and including the air that we breathe.

But for the healthy and continued use of creativity and competition to progress technologically and intellectually, monopolistic entities should be restricted in their abuse of the Intellectual Property and copyright systems, so that others have a chance to produce a competitive, compatible product, and continue to provide innovations for everybody without having it brushed aside because the rest of the software isn't meeting the standards that are impossible to meet due to the copyrights and IP held by monopolistic entities.

I am forced to pay for my house, my car, everything I own

Physical property which can't actually be copied in the way software is, such that nothing will go missing from somebody else.

I also pay my taxes, my drivers' license fees, and insurance (all required by law), but they have nothing tangible about them.

I pay my taxes here too. However these are also concepts which can't be replicated in the way that software can, such that nothing will go missing from somebody else.
I don't know why people continue to use analogies of items which don't have that ability.

Intellectual property and its protection is there for everyone, including the big companies.

Legally speaking, that's true.
But its intent is to prevent monopolistic entities from stifling competition and creativity.
In the real world, it's abused by the monopolistic entities it was designed to protect consumers and small businesses from to begin with.

what is good for one is good for all.

That's not necessarily true, due to the fact that everybody is not equal, and there are different circumstances which can greatly affect results.

The only thing "the people" are taking is what does not belong to them and what they have not paid to have the rights to use.

The monopolistic entities have taken the power from others to produce a compatible or comparable product due to the copyright laws and IP in place.
In that case, if somebody wants to run those programs which use the standards arbitrarily imposed by the monopolies, and are unusable by others due to the IP and copyright laws in place, they are forced to use only the specific product that is made by the monopolistic entity, rather than having the ability to choose freely from a competitive and creative market in which standards are open, and in which products would undoubtedly be costing a lot less, or even nothing to use.

In short, the IP and copyrights in the hands of monopolistic entities have actually regressed creative and intellectual progress, and forced consumers into much more limited and expensive options.

 

[Trotter]

In short, the IP and copyrights in the hands of monopolistic entities have actually regressed creative and intellectual progress, and forced consumers into much more limited and expensive options.

And none of that changes the fact that piracy is wrong and illegal. You can beat around the bush all you want and try to redefine the words to your own liking, but you cannot change those basic facts. Yes, I know... it is only wrong if you define it as wrong. Whatever. I don't subscribe to relativism and neither does the law and the courts.

It sounds more like you want to "stick it to the Man" more than anything else. And that's fine... as long as it is done in a legal manner. Pirating copyrighted software is not legal, period. Copyrights are not made to let big companies run roughshod over everyone... they exist to protect everyone. Bellyaching about "monopolistic entities" and "stifling creativity and compitition" does not help the fact that you are just trying to play against the rules.

Obviously we do not see this in the same way. I despise monopolies and the way they do business, and this has always been my main gripe about Microsoft. Even so, they do own the intellectual property we call Windows, and this includes the right to limit who can use it. Every installation of a valid copy of Windows includes an EULA that states this. The price we pay is for a license to use Windows, not to own it and distribute it as we see fit.

You may release your work under the GNU, but many do not. If I develop a piece of software, I may or may not do so. If it has the capacity to make money, I would copyright it and sell it. If it was something that probably would not make money, I would release it to the public. Any work that is copyrighted belongs to the writer/creator of that work, no matter how any argue against it, and copying/pirating said work is both illegal and wrong.

 

[Apokalipse]

And none of that changes the fact that piracy is wrong and illegal.

illegal, yes (but that's because lawmakers have made that so). But I still don't agree that it's wrong for consumers to want more options than the monopolistic entities are allowing to be possible (pay X dollars for Y product, or not have the functionality and/or compatibility at all).

You can beat around the bush all you want and try to redefine the words to your own liking

I'm not trying to redefine words to suit the argument. I'm trying to form the argument while making it clear exactly what I mean by using words in their correct context, and explaining why they are in their correct context.

but you cannot change those basic facts. Yes, I know... it is only wrong if you define it as wrong. Whatever. I don't subscribe to relativism and neither does the law and the courts.

If you're going by a static definition of 'wrong', then what is that definition? and does piracy really fit that definition?
If the consumers are doing it because of the reasons I have given, then I'd say no.

It sounds more like you want to "stick it to the Man" more than anything else.

It's more than that. It's about wanting more choices.

And that's fine... as long as it is done in a legal manner. Pirating copyrighted software is not legal, period.

Because the law makers have made it so.
What if they made it illegal for people to breathe tomorrow?

Copyrights are not made to let big companies run roughshod over everyone...

It's not their intent. But it's what often happens.

they exist to protect everyone.

They're not made to protect monopolies. They're made to protect people from monopolies.

Bellyaching about "monopolistic entities" and "stifling creativity and compitition" does not help the fact that you are just trying to play against the rules.

Rules which only exist because lawmakers have put them there, for the original purpose of protecting people from monopolies.

Obviously we do not see this in the same way. I despise monopolies and the way they do business, and this has always been my main gripe about Microsoft. Even so, they do own the intellectual property we call Windows, and this includes the right to limit who can use it. Every installation of a valid copy of Windows includes an EULA that states this.

Ah, the EULA. A contract which we can technically disagree to, but which companies try and force us to agree to anyway.

The price we pay is for a license to use Windows, not to own it and distribute it as we see fit.

The price Microsoft has arbitrarily imposed for their OS, while holding back standards for DirectX, and the executable format so that no other compatible product can exist.

You may release your work under the GNU, but many do not. If I develop a piece of software, I may or may not do so. If it has the capacity to make money, I would copyright it and sell it.

This in itself is not what I'm against.
It's using the copyright system and IP system to control standards that disallow competitive and/or compatible products.

Any work that is copyrighted belongs to the writer/creator of that work, no matter how any argue against it

legally speaking. But that doesn't make it right to hold a monopoly on standards that it uses, such that others are no-longer capable of making their own competitive products.

and copying/pirating said work is both illegal and wrong.

I still don't agree in it being wrong for people to want more choices.

 

[Nagasama]

i just want free stuff

 

[Trotter]

I look at things in a black and white manner for the most part. There is right, that which aligns with the law of the land and society (within moral reason), and wrong, which falls outside of this area. I don't do a lot of gray. While I am all for more choices, if those choices violate that which is right by the law and society, they are wrong.

Piracy falls outside of right. While you do not define piracy as stealing since it is copying the software, I most definitely see it as stealing, as does the laws of the land. If it were people in the US raising the clamor about their pirated copies giving them black desktops Microsoft could prosecute them for receiving stolen property (as the pirated copies are stolen copies).

I still don't agree in it being wrong for people to want more choices.

Nor do I... as long as they are legal. There are many laws I disagree with, such as speed limits. I chafe at them, especially where they make no sense. I sometimes break them, both intentionally and unintentionally. If I am caught speeding I am just as guilty either way.

The same goes for copyright and IP laws. We may not like them, and we may break them, but we would be guilty if we were caught doing so. As my mom has told me many times over the years, "Just because you can doesn't mean that you should." Wise words that continue to take on new meanings as the years go by.

 

[Apokalipse]

The way I see it, if a law doesn't make sense, why just accept it?
We are, apparently, living in free countries.

While I'm not going to resort to violence to solve problems, I'm also not going to sit back while others arbitrarily impose their version of morality onto everybody.

 

[Trotter]

Fair enough.

 

[Apokalipse]

Metal Chaos, did you read my posts?