advocating warez

[David Ferstat]

Warez is not stealing. If you steal something, you take it away and make it inaccessible for the rightful owner. If you warez something, it remains unchanged and accessible for the owner, and gives you the benefit of using it too.

Wrong, I'm afraid.

Warez means taking something, in this case, permission to use a copy of software, without paying the lawful owner recompense for the considerable time and money expended in producing it.

Haven't you heard of stealing someone's ideas? For example, "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation."

Fact: Commercial software is written with the express intent of making money out of it, so that the people that write it can eat.

Conclusion: If you don't pay for it, why the hell should you be allowed to use it?

[Nanami]

Fredrik didn't say it wasn't wrong, he said it wasn't stealing. =P

[boris]

WTF are you guys talking about? It's hard to get warez? Haha. It's not like it's 5 years ago where you had to be 31337 to get new warez.

[bimshwel]

But we'll always have our memories!

[David Ferstat]

Fredrik didn't say it wasn't wrong, he said it wasn't stealing. =P

Umm ... sorry, Nanami, but I don't THINK that I said "Fredrik says that warez isn't wrong".

Fredrik said, quite explicitly, that warez isn't STEALING.

My intent was to demonstrate that his definition of stealing was incorrect, and that stealing was an appropriate term to use to describe warez.

[GooberMan]

steal
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.

The other definitions listed at dictionary.com are not meaningful for this discussion (look at them yourself if you don't believe me). Fredrik's definition of steal is indeed correct. For each definition I quoted, you aren't taking it away but are making a copy. I'm not denying the illegality of it, but theft isn't what it is. It is a breach of contract/agreement that the user agrees to either explicitly or implicitly upon installing and running the software. If copying software was illegal and considered setaling, then things like freeware wouldn't exist. It's up to the license holder to determine what is and what isn't legal with the software, and duplication without purchasing of a license is a breach of contract/agreement for quite a few commercial applications.

[Biff]

Common sense says that warez is taking the property owner's/developer's expected income away. I have downloaded a few things I should have bought and I'll admit it, it's easy to do with a diluted sense of responsiblity, but I won't kid myself that I have a right not to pay for xxx.

Maybe the original purchaser can say "I paid, therefore I can give 'gifts' to others". Recipients should admit that they are willing to cheat, if not "steal" from, the rightful property owners. Wordsmithing the issue doesn't cut it, it's cheating and stealing, but we figure it's just one more, certainly enough others will pay, so no big deal.

[Cyb]

I don't think standard definitions of 'theft' and 'stealing' apply here. I mean, saying that warez isn't stealing because you aren't actually taking property from the author is fine, since you aren't, but look at it this way, when the author sells a copy of his software he still has just as many copies as he started with (one) and can make more easily, so he doesn't actually 'lose' any property even when he sells something. (CDs cost around a penny or so to press and the packaging is around 15 cents more (if even that, add a little more if there's a manual or something, but it's still gonna be way less than the asking price) so the price of him putting something on a CD is hardly taken into consideration for sale prices)

however I will say current copyright laws are a fair bit insane and need to be reworked at least a little. in the US it's not legal to make a copy of something you own and install it on a second computer that you also own, even if nobody else uses it. it's actually worse in other places, I know someone who lives in australia and he said only very recently was it made legal for software to be copied from HARD DISK TO MEMORY (if you're not well versed in computers, that happens for every single piece of software you run). How's that for strict?

[Enjay]

steal
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.

The other definitions listed at dictionary.com are not meaningful for this discussion (look at them yourself if you don't believe me). Fredrik's definition of steal is indeed correct. For each definition I quoted, you aren't taking it away but are making a copy. I'm not denying the illegality of it, but theft isn't what it is.

We all know the intent of optaining warez is to get something you are supposed to, but haven't paid for, but seeing as how we are debating whether it fits within our own definitions of theft or not, lets look at another relevant definition to expand upon your own. (I'm sure - legally it is considered a theft, regardless of what any of us think).

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

From the same place as that came from...

property

Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

So, whilst I conceed that by obtaining warez, you have not robbed the legal copyright owner of their copy, you have still obtained (taken?) a copy of the owners intangible property without paying and without permission.


The whole problem with this is intellectual property is intangible. If I tell you an idea and you go away and make a million with it, I still have my idea (no theft as per above suggested definitions), but I think most people would be happy with the term "he stole my idea".

[Hirogen2]

The whole problem with this is intellectual property is intangible. If I tell you an idea and you go away and make a million with it, I still have my idea (no theft as per above suggested definitions), but I think most people would be happy with the term "he stole my idea".

And the problem is, some stupid politicans think about "software patents", which exactly addresses that scenario. At least, in some way

[randomlag]

As with just about anything, nothing is perfect, however, software patents are a perfectly good method to protect intellectual property - same applies to a copyright, but a patent is much stronger since it provided better enforcement of a concept not just the method used.

Since it's somewhat natural to want something for nothing, there is a huge amount of fake reasoning used in these kind of justifications. Not understanding something is no excuse if you get caught.

It's amusing and amazing to see the attempts here to redefine the most simple of obvious facts. ALL works are automatically protected by COPYRIGHT law - which covers material in electronic form (not just physical form). So whether any of you think that there is moral wiggle room in your arguments, I'd love to see any of them presented as an argument in a court of law.

It's real simple: if you receive in electronic form copyrighted music, programs, you name it, (without buying it - there's an obvious red flag, why do you have to "buy" it in the first place) you are a THIEF and in violation of the law (in fact it's called theft - so attempting to argue it's not theft is pretty silly - see case law, see RIAA). The dictionary is a poor choice for arguing this subject - I suggest legal research in the real world as is true for most real life issues.

That it's easy or hard to do has nothing to do with it. All that demonstrates is that this "soft" concept has not been taught well by the parents or the schools. And that people will try anything to justify behavior they feel is shared by their peers. Sort of like the gangs that go around shooting people because it's what you do - think about it.

Btw, many licenses let you install programs on more than 1 computer - Borland for one - just can't use them simultaneously. IOW, it's up to the owner of the program (and any intellectual property) to decide what you can do.

[Hirogen2]

I am more worried about what will happen to the Opensource scene

[Fredrik]

software patents are a perfectly good method to protect intellectual property

Software patents are totally fucking evil, and it doesn't take a brain to realize that.

Here, have a look: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html

[Ultraviolet]

Fuck tha RIAA, outta Arizona, SV
A young nuggah get arrested stealin PSP
Fuck that, cuz I know I ain't the one
For some fuckah and tha company he runs
To be fuckin' wit
And maybe stealin' all mah cash
For some shrink-wrapped shoddy piece of ass
Hey fuck you, and your member corps all tha same
You know that all this shit be über-lame

Peace out, ZDoom forums. Reprasent. Fight da powah.

[randomlag]

Software patents are totally fucking evil, and it doesn't take a brain to realize that.

You need to look up the word "sophister". "It doesn't take a brain" to realize that warez is stealing. It also doesn't "take a brain" to realize that if patent and copyright law did not exist (why do you think they were created?), capitalism as we know it would not exist. [I hope you can see by the "echo" I gave that this kind of language is immature and unproductive]

That's not to say that there are problems - the main one getting the patent office educated a bit more (with more qualified examiners - everyone knows that). However, just because there are problems is not a good reason to dump it all. If you ever publish something or have some cool concept, the very things you call "evil" will be there to protect you.

The underlying principle that any brain should be able to grasp is simple: If a company invests a huge amount of time/money on developing a concept or product and there is nothing to keep someone else from stealing it, why should a company invest same? All those arguments are from people who do not grasp the simplest of business concepts. Before you argue that software is "cheap" (as one of those articles wanted to claim), think about this - I'm working on an embedded system that has 1/2 million dollars invested in software implementing an IDEA/CONCEPT. And this is not a large company. Whether the end product is expressed via software or hardware is not relevant - it still costs a lot of money to bring to market - that's the obvious issue.

Btw, finding links to support ANYONE's POV is pretty damn easy and proves very little except a desire to find links. If you like I can show you links showing that the universe is only 5000 years old It's best to be creative and explain exactly why it's "fucking evil".