Podcast Episode 004: Pirated Software; Pontius Pilate; Transfiguration & Mt. Tabor; Baptism by Sprinkling

7 thoughts on “Podcast Episode 004: Pirated Software; Pontius Pilate; Transfiguration & Mt. Tabor; Baptism by Sprinkling”

1. Yes! Someone besides me thinks the copyright in this country is too freakin’ long! The only reason Congress keeps extending it (and enacting super-restrictive stuff like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is to please big corporations like Disney, Time-Warner, and all the other big media companies. The “Happy Birthday” song is even still under copyright! (Although I don’t that one would hold up if challenged in court, for several reasons.) I think the length of a copyright for music, movies, and books should be between 15 years and 50 years (although 50 is probably a little long) and considerably shorter for software, maybe even like 5 or 10 years (they come out with new versions all the time anyway). Yeah! Power to the people!
   OK, I can calm down now that I’ve got that rant out of my system.

2. These are just great. Thanks for your continued careful and thoughtful analysis of moral questions.

3. Depending on the software, it’s most likely that the software the person is referring to likely requires a license.
   In other words, sometimes the software can be bought and freely lent to someone by the owner. The owner has no right to make copies and keep selling it, but the owner may share it. However, this is only as far as using the software for educational pruposes or personal interests in concerned. If one is using the software to make money/run a business/ or other tasks where the products made from it are used for financial gain, then one requires a license to use the software whcih is very costly, but I believe allow this person to only pay once and use as often as they like freely.
   So educational versions of software do exist that don’t require a full fee for a license. Student have access to these. And there is nothing there saying you can’t install that software on multiple computers, except when in some cases some companies put a restriction on how many times you can share it or require some licensing renewals… which can be cumbersome and sometimes even unnecessary as they aren’t required by law nor unlawful but companies try to get away with it to try and control piracy as much as possible.
   Even professional studios who have proper licenses must often resort to cracking the software they have rightfully licensed due to such cumbersome restrictions that limit what they have rightfully licensed for use and the companies that make this software know that it is an open and done thing.
   So likely in the case of the person on your podcast, there is nothing wrong if she borrowed a legitimate copy of software from someone who rightfully bought it (or perhaps themselves borrowed it, a grey area) to learn it. If she began to use what she made to make money through her own personal business without licensing it, it would be illegal, though companies are unlikely to come after small businesses because it’s not worth it for them though they could issue a cease and desist order. However if she began working for another company/business/someone else, then it’s her employer’s responsibility to license the software for their business and not hers.
   There are a lot of complications with this sort of thing. But by and large there are legal ways of doing things and even free/cost friendly alternatives. But it is true that at the sme time large companies and the government might be making decisions that are unfair and there are things in the system that abuse the consumer. I paid a good deal of money for educational versions of software in college to use legitimately. However during the course we had to move on to the newest version. Unfortunately there was no support or easy ability to upgrade to the next version, I would’ve even been fine paying a small fee to upgrade what they’d initially sold to me, but there was no alternative except to pay a new large amount for new support. I had no alternative but to get a cracked copy of the next version…
   The nice thing is that some companies are starting to see these frustrations and change their models to help customers and thigns are changing. This is not only for software, but also seen in highly pirated regions such as movies and music. ITunes and fair prices for example have been resonable for MP3s, and so have services like Netflixx where cheap subscriptions for access to unlimited selections of movies are great! You might expect to see these services extending to things like software as well in the future where resonable fees get you access to all kinds of software. That’s providing thigns work out for the best. However there’s always that good vs evil struggle where greedy corporations want to restrict such moves in order to maximize money and control, and likewise will blame consumers and pirates who often do go above and beyond resonable copying and distribution of software and digital content to justify more draconian practices. So it’s a vicious cycle…
   Anyway that’s my couple of cents worth…
   There’s a joke where people consider Jesus the first ‘pirate’ with the multiplying of the fishes and loaves… But considering God is the creator and original copyright holder, He’s free to offer such promotions every now and then. 😛

4. Johnno:
   But there’s a problem with saying that borrowing software or cracking it for legitimate reasons is allowed under the license: most times, it’s not. Most licenses explicitly forbid reverse engineering and attempts to circumvent stuff, as well as transfer of the license to someone else (and the license agreement says you need a license to use the software at all). The DMCA also has its non-circumvention clause. And the vast majority of people don’t have educational licenses. So… I don’t see how you could lend the software under the terms of the license. But…
   I don’t see how these license agreements (which come with virtually all software) and even key parts of the DMCA will hold up in court if challenged. Courts have previously defined the doctrine of fair use under the First Amendment, and that doctrine says that you can basically do whatever you want with a piece of intellectual property as long as it’s for your own personal use (not for someone else or for commercial stuff)–you can even make copies, and there’s a special case for “educational use”. And it’s kind of ridiculous to be told that you have to agree to this “binding legal agreement” just by using a piece of software that you bought before you even knew the agreement existed in the first place. I don’t have sign to agree how to use a product when I buy, say, a new car–I can disassemble it, see how it works, and modify it without any agreement from the manufacturer–but software licenses try to prohibit you from modifying or reverse engineering their software. These kinds of restrictions don’t even apply to other forms of intellectual property–I can give a book to a friend or resell a DVD legally. So, even though a lot of stuff isn’t allowed under licenses, I think it would still be upheld as legal in a court case by the fair use doctrine.
   </harangue of software developers>

5. LOVED the ending music in this episode!

6. What about over-compensation?
   Artists who make music (who also profit (mainly I dare say) from concerts or who make movies are oftren well overly comepensated for their efforts.
   If the movie truly is good (and often if if it is s***) director and producers get millions of dollars in profits, even after paying the expensive actors and the staff who worked on the movie.
   Now I am not saying it is just to rip-off music or movies, since alse music stores and movie rentals/stores make money out of it but is it exactly stealing?
   Many people buy DVDs these days not so much for the movie itself, but for all the ‘extras’.
   The point is: is it always wrong, or is it wrong only when you really are hurting somebody.
   Sometimes I feel the otherway around: sometimes I go to the movies and I feel *I* was robbed, since I paid 10 bucks for a movie that was horrible (and that goes for most movies these days, alas) or if I buy the CD the only good song is the song that they showed on MTV and the rest are awful.
   The same goes for video-games: you pay 50 bucks for a VG and then it’s sub-standard as an ‘enterataining tool’
   Sincerely I feel that people who make bad movies, music or video games, should NOT be compensated, but punished or at least either stop making them or start making products that are worth the consumer’s hard-earned money.
   As a Movie and Video-Game lover, I really feel beteayed when I go to the movies and have to see a ‘Micheal Bay movie’ (well fool me once shame on Micheal, fool me twice shame on me of course)
   CONCLUSION, after all this is: intellectual property should be rewarded, but not overly rewarded, and should be rewarded according to its quality, which often does not happen.

7. Jimmy,
   I’m a little behind on the podcasts, so excuse me for the late comment. I note you referred to intellectual property as “copywritten,” and I hear that fairly often, but that was a slip of the tongue. The root is “copyright,” i.e., the right to copy, not “copywrite.” Hope you don’t mind my pointing this out.

Comments are closed.