Linked by David Adams on Tue 26th Oct 2004 16:30 UTC
Editorial The software industry is undergoing a gradual transformation, and consumer fatigue is at its root. The licensing model that has formed the basis for the modern software industry is facing challenges on many fronts, and the industry is scrambling to keep its footing. Where this period of change may lead software producers and consumers isn't quite clear, but some trends are emerging. Since the proliferation of the internet, unauthorized redistribution of digital goods has become rampant. But although software sharing probably won't kill the software industry, the reasoning behind it shares some pedigree with the customer revolt that promises to transform the way software is sold.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: Thom Holwerda (IP: ---.cable.quicknet.nl)
by drsmithy on Wed 27th Oct 2004 09:56 UTC

Indeed, the phenomenon is called cognitive dissonance-- it's what happens when observed/expressed behaviour does not fit among the observer's set of attitudes. Like, when John Smith, a law-abiding citizen downloads and album from the web, the fact that he steals does not fit his "abide-the-law" attitude-- therefore he will indeed try to justify his actions, so that his behaviour will match his attitudes and the state of cognitive consistency is reached again.

Yeah, I like my university study of Psychology ;)


Maybe you should recall your "correlation != causation" principle. Just because someone "obeys the law" except for a single incident does not mean their behaviour is *dictated* by the law - so "breaking" a law may not necessarily be against that person's morals.

In my opinion, downloading illegal music/software is stealing, no matter how you look at it.

It's not stealing, it's copying. There is a _vast_ gulf between the two in both practice and principle.

I tend to disagree. Of course you take something away from someone! By downloading an song, you won't buy it, so, you are depriving the owner of the song from income.

No. You've only "deprived" the "owner" of the song of income IFF you would have otherwise bought the song.

Would you take an Aston Martin from that parking lot? I hope you won't, because it's stealing.

Of course not. However, if I could whip out my Star Trek replicator and make a complete and perfect *copy* of one of those Aston Martins, I would.

The difference between "copying" and "stealing" is that in the case of the latter a direct and tangible loss is suffered. In the case of the former there is only the intangible possibility of not gaining something to lose.

Erm, do you know that performing and recording is work? How much time do you think it takes a band like Radiohead (just an example), to create and write the lyrics, the music, then go into the studio, record it, record it again, and again, and again, untill it's perfect? A 4 minute song does not take 4 minutes to make, you know.

The real question is why do you think Radiohead should be paid over and over and over again for that one bit of work, including their descendants for 3 or 4 generations ? Most of the working world only gets paid *when they actually do the work* - why should "artists" be any different ?