Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd May 2012 09:51 UTC
In the News "Over half of PC users worldwide have admitted to using pirate software last year, according to a study by the trade group Business Software Alliance. BSA's ninth annual Global Software Piracy Study has shown a sharp increase in software piracy, especially among emerging economies. In the UK, more than one in four programs users installed in 2011 were unlicensed." If people decide en masse not to adhere to a law, said law is worth about as much as the paper it's written on. Laws become functional not because of the Queen's signature, but because the people decide to adhere to it. It's becoming ever clearer that as far as digital goods go, the law is not functional - for better or worse.
Thread beginning with comment 518972
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 22nd May 2012 10:45 UTC
Member since:

The market is not functional, the law is fine;
just because people feel more self-entitled to things they don’t own now than they did before does not mean that the law is lacking. Copyright has not ceased being copyright, but the market has failed to sell to people effectively.

Taking something that — let’s face it — is not necessary for survival, because you object to how the owner chooses to sell it to you is childish and immature. That behaviour being common is not justification neither. If people in general lack any fortitude these days (myself included of course) that’s not a legal matter, it’s a moral one.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by CapEnt on Tue 22nd May 2012 11:36 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
CapEnt Member since:

What's ownership anyway?

The real problem is how to explain for people that they should pay for something that could be replicated infinitely for almost free.

Common people doesn't care for development cost or production cost, they only cares for the final product. They are used to pay for physical things. I really doubt that someone commonly ask themselves how much money was toasted in developing their car or their TV set, they pay for the final product, and usually they can't copy that product with a mouse click. But intellectual products like music, movies and software has a final product that is free to make copies.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by ndrw on Tue 22nd May 2012 14:22 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
ndrw Member since:

Yup, there is only one kind of ideas that can be owned - secrets. The term Intellectual Property is one big misnomer.

You can own the carrier of the idea (e.g. a CD), or a copyright (another misnomer: it should be called "copy-monopoly", as without it everyone has a right to copy). The first is a physical object, which can be damaged or stolen, the latter is a privilege granted by the government, which can be infringed upon. But, ideas don't have to be bound to physical carriers, and the copyright is just another legal trick we chose(?) to have.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Comment by Kroc
by cpuobsessed on Tue 22nd May 2012 13:20 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
cpuobsessed Member since:

Think about the bargain bin at Wal-mart, if current releases only had that movie on a single sided DVD (4.7Gb) and was priced at $4.99(insert your currency here) I would buy more movies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Fergy on Tue 22nd May 2012 20:15 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Fergy Member since:

If people in general lack any fortitude these days (myself included of course) that’s not a legal matter, it’s a moral one.

I wouldn't call it immoral if you download a movie. I would compare it to walking on the grass instead of the stone path. If you would make a stone path on the exact same place as the dirt path you would solve the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 3