Catholic Church In 3rd World Uses Pirated Software .

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349906660' post='2492080']
You sell your painting that you worked on. Someone sees that painting and paints a new painting that looks like yours. It's his effort, his materials. He sells it. You have no rights to his property.
[/quote]

That's different than stealing a movie, music, programs, websites, or other computer media. Seeing someones creation and creating one like it isn't the same. That's actually using ones own talent and skill to create something. Stealing computer media is more like if I went into arfink's gallery with a camera or even better a laptop and a scanner, took one of his works off the wall and scanned into my computer then mass produced it by sharing it with millions of people. If IP doesn't exist, if our society did not accept the existence of IP, then no one would have to buy his work, they could just steal it by making a ditigal copy without using any of their own skill and talent.

To be continued...

[arfink]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349918081' post='2492137']

That's different than stealing a movie, music, programs, websites, or other computer media. Seeing someones creation and creating one like it isn't the same. That's actually using ones own talent and skill to create something. Stealing computer media is more like if I went into arfink's gallery with a camera or even better a laptop and a scanner, took one of his works off the wall and scanned into my computer then mass produced it by sharing it with millions of people. If IP doesn't exist, if our society did not accept the existence of IP, then no one would have to buy his work, they could just steal it by making a ditigal copy without using any of their own skill and talent.

To be continued...
[/quote]

I don't have any problem with asserting that that digital media is property, or that copying it is against the will of the owner, and so would fit a very basic definition of theft in that regard. What I take issue with is that the demands of the property owner in regards to software are [b]very often not reasonable[/b].

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1349919009' post='2492142']


I don't have any problem with asserting that that digital media is property, or that copying it is against the will of the owner, and so would fit a very basic definition of theft in that regard. What I take issue with is that the demands of the property owner in regards to software are [b]very often not reasonable[/b].
[/quote]

I agree. Once I buy a copy of Photoshop for example that copy belongs to me. But that doesn't mean I can share it with millions of people and that not be immoral.

[Groo the Wanderer]

when you buy a PC, you pay for windows as part of that purchase. if you donate said computer and someone has to reformat it all to get it ready for a non-profit after-school tutoring program, they are stuck. they would have to pay for a copy of new install media + license to do it all per the EULA since the new owner never paid for it. in essence micro$osft then gets paid twice for the OS installed on a single PC.

reasonable? no frikking way. they already got their cut. why should the poor non-profit then have to pony up again? hence the use of pirated software. M$ doesn't lose anything since it is not being installed on a new PC and the non-profit doesn't have to get shafted to use the donation they were given.

to add another angle: what if the pirated OS was Windows XP? Not only is it 10 yrs old, but M$ neither supports it nor sells licenses for it anyway. You couldn't pay micro$oft for XP if you wanted to. not that same as spreading millions of copies of win7 around

Edited October 11, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I believe it is ok for the poor to use pirated software since they have not the finances to purchase the copywritten version. Untill everything is made cheaper and accesible to all and greed is stomped out this practise to me is acceptable, well not acceptable it is still wrong but they have no other choice. Or at least alternative software that is affordable to the poor, just as the irish had no choice but to steal at times when britain was starving her half to death, they had no other choice, they had to feed there families.

<edit> though you may argue with me that software is neither food nore clothing, hence there i may be wrong. But i think the poor need more than just food and clothing, they need fresh water,housing,electiricity and tele communications. electricity and telecmmunications allow them to search the internet for answers as to how they can address poverty in there own nations and also 'yes' beg. Have you heard of kiva.org , how can that operate if the poor of the 3rd world don't have access to the internet? I may be wrong, and all the poor truely need is food,clothing and christ, i'm just not going to give a poor man a blanket that my dog who recently had fleas used. Nore am i going to say if he asks me for a computer and a generator for electricity, that these are only a delight for the rich.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i tried to delete half of what i said previously, but i still make the stand that the poor should have access to these other things to, and if this means bootlegged copies so be it. There governments are corrupt and they have a very small ultra rich pocket that starves the poor from possible freedom. Now if the government or rich pocket is selling the boot legged products to the poor that may be wrong. I give copied music cd's to the poor, i purchase the original though, but i don't sell the copies, and i write the name of the artist and album on the cd and tell them to purchase it if they get the chance, to support the artist. Is kind of like the black pearl being captained by jack sparrow or the crew of the damned. I met this dude that works full time and he said he downlaods heaps of movies pirated, but will pay for the ones he enjoys and delete the rest. To me thats kind of the difference between the black pearl being crewed by jack sparrow and not the damned. Surely it would be better with know black pearl but also surely the black pearl is better captained by jack sparrow. I don't 100% agree with somone that works full time watching any pirated movies for free because the artist may be on the bread line and his or her sales keep them on that bread line if there not popular artists or producers etc. But still it is better the black pearly with a grey crew than the black pearl with a crew that not only steals but rapes and pillages.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1349918081' post='2492137']

That's different than stealing a movie, music, programs, websites, or other computer media. Seeing someones creation and creating one like it isn't the same. That's actually using ones own talent and skill to create something.[/quote]
Your objection is the amount of effort put into copying, then?

The tools used represent a lot of effort. Probably not by the person using, say, their digital camera, but the effort used to invent, then build that camera (not to mention the work traded for money used to purchase the camera) is all effort. How much personal effort do you feel must be used?

The item itself is not stolen. The item itself retains all its inherent properties. It is not diminished materially. If copying did indeed damage the item, it would still not be theft of the item, but instead vandalism. You are not stealing the movie you copy. You cannot be stealing profit, either, since the profit was only potential (however likely it would be). You're interfering with profit, perhaps. There are two ways I can think of to interfere with this profit. Either by making a copy for personal use, thus avoiding purchase of the item, or making a copy or copies in order to resell them.

We obviously agree that there is no obligation to purchase items from someone, so my not purchasing the item cannot be the problem. Seems obvious. Suppose a song is playing on the radio, and I record it. I did this a lot, before the internet. Is that wrong? What if I check out a CD from the library and make a copy? What if I make multiple copies, and then sell them?

If copying is inherently immoral, then I cannot record even a song from the radio. There are all sorts of implications, for that. I suppose we could simply have everything physical stamped, and verbal warnings on audio performances that were played in public.

You've indicated, however, that copying isn't inherently immoral. If I paint a copy of your painting, you claim that the use of my skill and talent makes it different from activating a program. I've pointed out the difference is that the skill and talent are already spent in the process of making that program. I think you're talking about the problems arising from easy reproduction. I think you're talking about the [i]effects[/i] of streamlined copying. Copying itself is not inherently immoral, but there are problems with the effect on someone's livelihood.

IP doesn't protect the material object itself. It protects against the arrangement of the material others possess. It protects an idea. Ideas are not rivalrous. You and I can have the same idea at the same time. I cannot have the same painting at the same time. I may possess the original, and others may possess prints. We cannot have the same painting hanging in two different places. But we can have the same idea at the same time. We can employ the same methods of construction at the same time, swing a hammer in the same way, train horses in the same way, etc.

[Seven77]

Shouldn't creators of copyrighted intellectual property be free to decide on what's allowed and what isn't allowed to be done with their work?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1349991188' post='2492428']
Shouldn't creators of copyrighted intellectual property be free to decide on what's allowed and what isn't allowed to be done with their work?
[/quote]
Your framing of the question has already decided the answer for you. Until you recognize that it is a difficult question to discuss.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1349991188' post='2492428']
Shouldn't creators of copyrighted intellectual property be free to decide on what's allowed and what isn't allowed to be done with their work?
[/quote]
The question would be can I say to MS the world is supporting your software. You owe it to the world to provide free copies to poor countries as an obligation to social justice.

An interesting occurrence was that one PC after 'illegal' installation said "hey I'm a Dell laptop. I have a license to win XP" and automatically went to MS site and updated itself to the latest service pack. Whereas other brands had been wiped of their original OP sys by the donor schools. Is it really illegal to reinstall them?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349961730' post='2492279']
Your objection is the amount of effort put into copying, then?

The tools used represent a lot of effort. Probably not by the person using, say, their digital camera, but the effort used to invent, then build that camera (not to mention the work traded for money used to purchase the camera) is all effort. How much personal effort do you feel must be used?

The item itself is not stolen. The item itself retains all its inherent properties. It is not diminished materially. If copying did indeed damage the item, it would still not be theft of the item, but instead vandalism. You are not stealing the movie you copy. You cannot be stealing profit, either, since the profit was only potential (however likely it would be). You're interfering with profit, perhaps. There are two ways I can think of to interfere with this profit. Either by making a copy for personal use, thus avoiding purchase of the item, or making a copy or copies in order to resell them.

We obviously agree that there is no obligation to purchase items from someone, so my not purchasing the item cannot be the problem. Seems obvious. Suppose a song is playing on the radio, and I record it. I did this a lot, before the internet. Is that wrong? What if I check out a CD from the library and make a copy? What if I make multiple copies, and then sell them?

If copying is inherently immoral, then I cannot record even a song from the radio. There are all sorts of implications, for that. I suppose we could simply have everything physical stamped, and verbal warnings on audio performances that were played in public.

You've indicated, however, that copying isn't inherently immoral. If I paint a copy of your painting, you claim that the use of my skill and talent makes it different from activating a program. I've pointed out the difference is that the skill and talent are already spent in the process of making that program. I think you're talking about the problems arising from easy reproduction. I think you're talking about the [i]effects[/i] of streamlined copying. Copying itself is not inherently immoral, but there are problems with the effect on someone's livelihood.

IP doesn't protect the material object itself. It protects against the arrangement of the material others possess. It protects an idea. Ideas are not rivalrous. You and I can have the same idea at the same time. I cannot have the same painting at the same time. I may possess the original, and others may possess prints. We cannot have the same painting hanging in two different places. But we can have the same idea at the same time. We can employ the same methods of construction at the same time, swing a hammer in the same way, train horses in the same way, etc.
[/quote]