Copyright © Infringement

[SuperSheep]

I couldn't help but wonder what exactly are the legalities with copying and how the original creator has been harmed sinced reading Mobius's comments in Isaac's thread.

First, my background....

I created a program many years ago called the Holographic Screen Saver. Originally, I wrote it for myself but after the advice from friends and family, I decided to sell it. The license was shareware and I'd give people a 7 day trial period, afterwards which they would need to purchase it for a price.

While I never really made a lot of money, I did make over a few thousand dollars. Over the 2 years I had the website up, I actually spent around a few thousand dollars as well. Merchant fees, website hosting costs, domain name registration, bank fees, reversal fees, etc.,.

So basically, I wound up really making nothing.

Well, about a year into my 'software biz', I found that many sites had a crack to bypass the registration process. At first I was angry but then I thought about it a little more and realized that my real customers would never have thought about doing that. One customer actually paid me twice purposely because he thought my customer service was the best he ever had.

I guess my view is that I created the software once and getting paid eternally for my single creation (man hours, money spent) seemed strange to me. I kept thinking how it would be strange if I made a million dollars off a program I only spent a year making and a few thousand dollars on, talk about a markup!!

I am now getting into a manufacturing biz and my feeling is kinda like this...

Selling software and selling products are not equivalent.

Having software copied illegally and having products stolen are not equivalent.

If someone wants to steal your software they...

a. Probably would never have purchased it in the first place.
b. Won't harm me in any way.

If someone wants to steal my product they...

a. Probably would never have purchased it in the first place.
b. Would harm me financially and possibly physically.

I don't think Copyright infringement is the same as stealing and quite frankly, I could care less how many people copy my screen saver without permission. I made money, more than I think I should have and had a great time doing it.

[Samuel Dravis]

http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=353

[Repo Man]

SuperSheep,

I could not disagree with you more. Here is a little of my background…

I have been a full-time software engineer since 1985.

My first job was with a company called FTL Games. We developed Sundog, the first game released for the old Atari ST computer. It took four developers, working 50+ hour weeks for a year to create that title. Our simple copy protection scheme for Sundog was cracked within two weeks of its release. Almost immediately, our sales went from the best-selling title on the Atari ST to literally zero. Cracked copies of Sundog were available for download from ARPANET. A years worth of hard work went down the drain within two weeks. It almost bankrupted the company. Fortunately, we had an update in the works for Sundog. We released it with a much stronger copy-protection method, so we were able to at least make back our development costs before it was cracked again.

Live and learn.

Our next title was a game called Dungeon Master. It was developed for the Atari ST, Apple IIgs, IBM PC and Commodore Amiga at the same time. At one point, Dungeon Master was the number-one selling game on all four of those platforms. We put so much twisted copy-protection into that game that is was two-years after its initial release before it was finally cracked. By that time, FTL Games had made back its development costs and a tidy profit. As a matter of fact, all of the old-time crackers consider Dungeon Master to be the most difficult copy-protected title they ever tackled…heh, heh.

I hate copy-protection because it interferes with the fair use rights of consumers by preventing them from making backup copies of their software. Unfortunately, too many clowns in this world assume that fair use gives them the right to distribute copies of everything all over the Internet.

My point is this: The only reason you can consider that copyright infringement is not stealing is because 1) your livelihood never depended on it and 2) you never put the kind of time and money into your screensaver to make it worth enforcing a copyright.

Without getting into all of the abuses of copyright law (Disney Corporation comes to mind here), copyright was never intended for anyone “getting paid eternally,” but it allows the original creators of a work to enjoy the fruits of their labor for a time.

Copyright infringement is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

[Kilarin]

Copyright infringement is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Amen and Amen!

Lets take some other examples. Is it wrong for someone who wrote a book to get paid for it? Are you "stealing" if you just wire up a connection to cable so you don't have to pay? What if you sneak into the circus without buying a ticket, did you really "steal" anything?

Now please note, I am ALL FOR distributing things free. BAEN books offers all kinds of books for free download on his website. Why? Because he thinks letting people download the books for free will actually encourage more people to purchase books. And I agree with him.

BUT!!!! Notice the all important issue here, Baen (and the authors) have given PERMISSION for this. If they had not, downloading those books would be illegal and theft.

It's about the right to control what you create. An artist or author or engineer has the RIGHT to get paid for the product they produced. It's THEIR book, THEIR program, THEIR song.

And I really just do NOT understand this idea that you should be able to copy something someone else created without their permission or paying for it. If you like the product enough to copy it, it seems to me that you would WANT to support the author. If you don't like it enough to pay for it, at least be a decent enough human not to steal it.

[Shadowfury333]

I agree with the idea of stealing, at least on a larger scale. In other words, I don't consider it a bad thing if someone put a program on all of their computers if they paid once, mostly because that is a slippery slope that would probably lead to forcing the customer to pay for every use. However, mass advertising of a free download location for the software, thus causing everyone to download it, is bad for the company. However, there are people who download programs that are discontinued, aka abandonware, thus the company can't make money off of them anyway. Of course, this is less of an occurence nowadays, with online ordering possibilities for many companies, but it does raise the fact that online distribution should be made more popular.

[ccb056]

theft and copyright infringement are not the same, ask any lawyer or consult any law book

[SuperSheep]

RepoMan - I think it's a shame that a program that you and so many developers put so much time into wound up not making money, but the point I was trying to make is that people stealing your \"material things\" is taking away from you something tangible that you have, and now do not have. Copying software leaves you in the same exact spot you were before, you gained nothing, you lost nothing.

In fact, copying anything whether it be a book, a song, a computer game does not in fact \"lose\" money for anyone in the same way that buying clothes on \"sale\" doesn't \"save\" you money.

I am not arguing whether copying software, music, etc is wrong or right, just that it is not the same as stealing someones property (i.e., car, wallet, etc.,.)

What I would love to know is what penalties if any should be leveled against these copright infringers? If you think it is the same as stealing, should the person also be charged the same as property worth the same \"price\" on the software?

So, let's say someone copies a movie selling for $20. That would be a misdemeanor and if they steal a 3D graphics program (not named), worth $1000's of dollars, that should be a felony? Or perhaps some penalty that is independent of price?

[Repo Man]

SuperSheep,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Copying software leaves you in the same exact spot you were before, you gained nothing, you lost nothing.

I must disagree with your line of reasoning because, in order for your proposition to be true, one must first make the assumption that intellectual property either does not exist or has no value. Yet, the assumed value of intellectual property is the basis for all copyrights and patents. Furthermore, your reasoning is self-contradictory: if nothing was to be gained by making a copy, then why was a copy made in the first place?

For example, when you make a duplicate of something that is copyrighted, be it software, a book or a music CD and then give that copy to someone who would have normally purchased a copy for themselves, the recipient has gained a copy of that work for their use. However, the copyright holder lost a sale of their work since the copy was not purchased from them. To say that the recipient would have never bought a legitimate copy in the first place is just a rationalization since that could be applied to everything.

The enforcement of copyrights and patents generally fall on the one who owns the rights. The United States copyright law has stiff penalties for copyright infringement, as can be seen in the message that appears at beginning of most DVDs, but the feds are generally not going to bother with a criminal case against an infringer unless the copyright holder makes a stink about it. For the copyright holder, the decision is usually an economic one whether or not to go after an infringer. The copyright holder has to ask himself if the harm being done to him by an infringer is worth the expense and hassle of enforcing the copyright.

In your case, you were justifiably angry when you discovered someone distributing cracked copies of your screensaver because what they were doing was morally wrong. But since your program was more of a hobby than a livelihood, you didn’t think the infringers were hurting you economically, so you decided to blow it off. However, you would have been within your legal and moral rights to go after them if you so chose.

Sundog itself was making money and it was heading towards profitability, until some unscrupulous individuals started distributing cracked copies of it. In those days (1986) it was easy to nail the infringers since the pirate servers were accessed by direct dial-up modems—at 300 to 1200 baud. A nasty letter from an attorney was enough to get them to cease and desist. Unfortunately, the genie was out of the bottle. The cracked copies were in the wild. The Atari ST users were a relatively small community, so a friend would make a copy for a friend who would make a copy for a friend until nobody was left to purchase a legitimate copy from the people who did all the work that gave them all their entertainment in the first place.

[DCrazy]

I follow SuperSheep's argument. The initial development cost for software is incredibly high. Once you've produced one copy of the software, however, the cost of producing all the additional copies is near zero, and assuming you sell enough to make back your development costs, you really don't lose much if someone pirates your software, as they probably weren't going to pirate it anyway. Physical things are another matter, as there's a point where if you start producing too many of product X it actually begins to cost more to produce each individual X (the law of diminishing marginal productivity and all that other good stuff).

The thing with software/music/other-IP piracy though is that essentially someone is flooding the market with an exact duplicate of your product but offering an infinity-percent lower price. You can't possibly compete with that. And rational behavior dictates that when you can have X for $25 or X for $0, you take X for $0. Morals (and the fact that many people don't know about the piracy scene) are the only things holding people back.

It's still wrong and it's still harmful to the producer (because the cost of the production of that item can never really be an exact zero) to pirate anything, but not nearly as much as stealing a physical product. And that's where I think you're wrong, Repo Man, because when dealing with intellectual property a copy does not necessarily translate 1-for-1 to a lost sale.

[Kilarin]

and assuming you sell enough to make back your development costs, you really don't lose much if someone pirates your software, as they probably weren't going to pirate it anyway.
...with intellectual property a copy does not necessarily translate 1-for-1 to a lost sale.

If someone takes YOUR work without paying for it, and they get the benefit of your work, without paying for it, and you didn't give them permission to use your work, without paying for it, it's theft.

Lets go back to my previous moving company example. Some guy spends all day moving your furniture. At the end of the day you laugh and tell him you won't pay because he's not actually out any physical property. Do you really feel that stealing that poor guys labor doesn't count as theft? That the gentleman hasn't actually "LOST" anything when you took his work and gave him nothing in return?

Now then, what is the difference between that and software, art, or music. The workman is worthy of his hire, and if you take his labor without paying for it, you are a thief.

So what if you "wouldn't have paid for it anyway", if you sneak into the circus isn't that stealing, even if you wouldn't have gone if you had to pay? You still benefited from their labor without paying for it, you STOLE, you are a THIEF.

If you aren't willing to pay, don't use the product. If you think the product is worth using, then it's worth paying for.

I know I'm repeating the same points, but I think they deserve repeating. We treat intellectual property as if it were something different, something "less important" than other forms of labor. But its NOT. I'd like to try out Stronghold II, but after reading about all the bugs and problems, I decided it was NOT worth the price. That decision does NOT give me the right to go out and steal a copy of their program anyway. If it's worth playing, it's worth paying, otherwise I should do without.

[DCrazy]

I never said it was excusable. I never condoned the practice. I just said I could follow SuperSheep's logic and I think that Repo Man is wrong for claiming that pirating software is equivalent to a lost sale.

[SuperSheep]

Your moving man example is not the same thing.

The moving man/woman has to spend X hours for each time he/she is paid.

Someone copying 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies does not mean I have to spend 1 hour, 10 hours, or 100 hours to not get paid.

Repoman- Did you ever consider that I might have actually wanted to make a living selling software? I poured hundreds of man hours into the screen saver and did actually think I could make money, good money from doing software development.

I do not think that just because I was not making a living, or because I decided not to pursue changes the nature of what people did, copy something without permission, but my argument stands.

I have written numerous programs(for free) including OOF Editor, D3 Image Tool, OOF2ORF, as well as Anti-Cheat. I was even planning on doing an online gaming all in one site using a software program I've already put 100's of hours into that would rely solely on advertising dollars.

I program because I enjoy programming and I would and have done it for free.

But, what I am talking about is a bit broader than the arguments that are being raised, let me give you an example.

I need a microcontroller for a project I'm working on. I decide to check it's price. It's $20. I don't feel like spending $20 on a project that I'm only going to make once so I call the manufacturer. Manufacturer says, \"We'll send you a sample.\" I get sample, keep my $20, and finish my project for little or no charge to me.

Now, you can say this is like shareware and I'd be almost tempted to agree but it's not. Most shareware is crippled or has a timeout period that's too quick to make a decision. Now way I really want to make a model for D3 but I'm only making one, I'm not making money, you think Discreet will send me a free copy? No, but they'll gladly send a crippled time limited version that I may or may not have the ability or time to make my one model.

While this isn't the greatest example, what I'm really saying is that those \"free\" samples from manufacturers cost \"real\" money to manufacturer, and \"real\" man hours for each and every one. So they are \"losing\" money. The only way they'll gain it back is if I start a business, get big and order huge quantities from them.

Software relies on one sale, not repeat business. I fully understand how much work goes into that first version, and the updates, bugfixes and such, but the business model relies on that one sale, and that's the problem. If perhaps software relied more on repeat business the issue wouldn't be so bad, but sadly game developers like yourself only can rely on one sale vs repeat buyers.

I want to close by saying I am not arguing the morality of copyright infringement nor condoning it, rather that it is not in the same category.

Perhaps those that do software should look into the freeware licensing schemes and realize that you can make money, not glorious sums of money, but money nonetheless without charging a penny. Maybe just maybe, realize that you should do a thing cause you enjoy doing it, not because of the money it brings you.

[Kilarin]

The moving man/woman has to spend X hours for each time he/she is paid.
Someone copying 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies does not mean I have to spend 1 hour, 10 hours, or 100 hours to not get paid.

It still means you did the work, and someone else took it without paying you.

Software relies on one sale, not repeat business.

I have to disagree with you there. Good software encourages users to purchase the next version, or the next product by the same person. If the software stinks, they user will think twice before buying again. This is especially true in the gaming industry. One bad title can scare away a LOT of customers for the next version.

those "free" samples from manufacturers cost "real" money to manufacturer, and "real" man hours for each and every one. So they are "losing" money.

Perhaps those that do software should look into the freeware licensing schemes and realize that you can make money, not glorious sums of money, but money nonetheless without charging a penny.

Just so happens I agree with you. As I said before, I think giving away product for free is a great way to bring in customers, and I'm happy to take those free products whenever they are offered. BUT, the difference is that it is not immoral to take a free or discounted product WHEN IT IS OFFERED.

I wanted some improved photo manipulation software. When looking around, I found out that Serif was offering an old version of their Photo Plus for free! So I downloaded it and worked my way through the learning curve. Eventually I considered upgrading. Since I already knew how to use Serif, purchasing the newest version of their product seemed like a good idea. BUT, the full product price ended up being a bit steeper than I wanted to pay. However, I then got an offer to purchase an upgraded (but not newest) version for only $10. Ok, that was a good deal, I spent the money, got the product, was happy. Shortly thereafter the company offered me the brandest newest version for a steep discount as an upgrade. The price was just low enough that I decided to fork over the cash. The company ended up getting my money, NOT as much as if I had gone out and purchased the product off the shelf, but then, if I had gone out and purchased off the shelf, I might have bought something else. So, this was a VERY good strategy for them, and I approve of it entirely. Just so long as they are offering the deal, not me taking it without permission.

Maybe just maybe, realize that you should do a thing cause you enjoy doing it, not because of the money it brings you

You can do both. Gotta eat. But I have also written software that I distributed freely. I wrote it for the fun of it, and to help me learn. Since I was offering it freely, everyone is free to copy it all they want. I also program for a living, and I would be VERY annoyed if I found someone stealing code I had written and NOT released as freeware.

[Samuel Dravis]

The moving man/woman has to spend X hours for each time he/she is paid.
Someone copying 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies does not mean I have to spend 1 hour, 10 hours, or 100 hours to not get paid.

It still means you did the work, and someone else took it without paying you.

I think he's saying that since you get your money off of legitimate purchases, the people who are inclined to pirate software would not have purchased it anyway. Does it matter how many people pirate your software if it does not cost you anything for them to do so, as long as the customers that would buy it in the first place do pay? You don't lose money off of people that wouldn't buy your product regardless of cost.

[Kilarin]

the people who are inclined to pirate software would not have purchased it anyway.

Look at Repo Man's story above, when the copy protection gets cracked, sales go down.

And even if it WERE true, yes, I think it still matters. Just like the Circus example. Sneaking under the tent and watching the show without paying is theft, whether you would have purchased a ticket or not.

[Lothar]

Whether or not you personally would have bought the product... some (perhaps small) percentage of those who pirated the product would have otherwise paid money for it. Pirating, then, is at least stealing fractional sales.

And, simply put, the fact that you're using the product and went to the trouble to crack / hack / download cracks for it means you think it's of somewhat more than zero value. Again, that means you're stealing at least a fractional sale.

Stealing \"just a little bit\" is still stealing.

I work at a museum. If you come in to my museum without paying (except on free Thursday nights), you are stealing. If you personally think my museum is worth a few hours of your time, then you should be willing to pay the price our staff has set in order to visit it. If it's not worth that price to you, take your dollars to some other museum, or to some other form of entertainment, or to the bank, or whatever. Don't steal from us by using our museum without paying for it.

[Samuel Dravis]

the people who are inclined to pirate software would not have purchased it anyway.

Look at Repo Man's story above, when the copy protection gets cracked, sales go down.

And even if it WERE true, yes, I think it still matters. Just like the Circus example. Sneaking under the tent and watching the show without paying is theft, whether you would have purchased a ticket or not.

I didn't say it's not wrong. I just said it doesn't matter to you, seeing as how you only get cash from honest customers anyway. Don't get me wrong; I don't pirate anything. I just think that the restrictions on something that I've paid for are rediculous; people go too far in their persuit of every single damn penny. As an honest consumer, I *REALLY HATE IT* when I run up against something like Sony's XCP or have one of my optical drives failing because of someone's overzealous copy protection. It makes me very angry at those who do it. I haven't bought a single thing from Sony since their DRM debacle, and I don't intend to go back. I actively avoid all games with Starforce on them. These kind of companies just use the 'piracy' catchword simply as a price gouging weapon against their paying consumer. It doesn't touch the actual pirate at all.

[Kilarin]

I just think that the restrictions on something that I've paid for are rediculous;

there we are in complete agreement. If I buy something, be it music or software, I should be able to make a backup copy, and I should be able to convert it to any formant I wish. I PAID for it.

[Shadowfury333]

I just think that the restrictions on something that I've paid for are rediculous;

there we are in complete agreement. If I buy something, be it music or software, I should be able to make a backup copy, and I should be able to convert it to any formant I wish. I PAID for it.

Thirded it. Thankfully we got to the bottom of this rant, and can finally agree on something.

[Sllik]

Repo Man, you're my hero.

Not only do I remember FTL, but I also remember Dungeon Master... intimately. It's probably one of the more memorable games I played when I was younger, eclipsed only in my memory by the Descent Series, Ultima IV, Ultima Underworld, Elite, and Way of the Exploding Fist in sheer number of hours enjoyed. No matter what anyone else says or how much (or how little) money was gained as a result of the fruits of your labors, know that a great many people loved Dungeon Master for what it was - a revolutionary and innovative masterpiece.

Having said that, I have a confession. I never actually purchased the game. In fact, the majority of the C-64 and Amiga games I played, I never payed for. Would I have been able to pay for them? Definitely not. Did they bring me endless hours of enjoyment? Without question.

Here's the conundrum. You can break it down to short, medium, and long-term effects. Short-term, I ended up being one of the many priveledged to enjoy the end result of your efforts and appreciate them. Medium-term, you didn't ever know how much I loved the game and didn't have an influx of $ from my pocket to spur FTL to greater heights. Long-term, Dungeon Master as a game is just one of thousands of examples where software piracy destroyed not only what could have been a thriving market, but it almost certainly had a heavy hand in the demise of the C-64 and Amiga franchise as a whole.

These days, I pay for my games without fail. Every time I do so, I feel a little better about the damage that I and so many others caused 15 years ago. I understand perfectly what price we (and everyone) really pays when we don't pay for our games. Would I have payed for all those games I played if I could have, back when I was 14 years old? Sure, if I'd had the money. Sadly, I didn't, and my parents had already tapped themselves somewhat getting me a computer in the first place. If I had to do it over again, would I have done anything differently? I doubt it, because my only recourse would have been getting a job and that route was already denied to me until I graduated. Do I regret it? 100% yes.

So for what it's worth, I can only say I'm sorry and tell you in words how much Dungoen Master meant to me when I played it. The fact that I remember it so clearly now, so many years later, is a testament to its fun factor. But I can also present the facts and hindsight associated with that situation and how it had an affect on the industry in the hopes that those who think it's possible to rationalize their way into stealing the intellectual property of others without sanction will realize the flaws in their line of reasoning.

[Richard Cranium]

Thank God all (well 99%, the other 1% is most likely shareware I don't use) of the software I use is legit. I really hate to get involved is trying to justify stuff I have but don't use. If I use the software I've paid for it, except SS Anti Cheat for D3, I just use that software

[The Lion]

Here's an article regarding these issues that you may find interesting:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterp ... right.html

[Top Gun]

Here's an article regarding these issues that you may find interesting:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterp ... right.html

That's a really great read. (Certainly a lot better than whatever that thing was that Sky posted in another thread. )