Your knowledge of the licensing system is letting you down miserably. You keep banging on how you are a future dev, then you should already know about creative commons licenses, and how these can be applied to software by devs, so that people are able to legally download your software EDIT: I did mention this oh so many pages ago, but you clearly missed that part of my post (or the whole post). And Krazeh et. al. the fact still remains, even after this much discussion, that pirating is illegal and selling used software is not. You can argue the benefits and pitfalls of the two platforms as long as you like, but it will not change this fact.
I don't think anyone has said it will and that isn't what we're trying to discuss. The whole point of the discussion about secondhand sales is to demonstrate that there is a certain level of hypocrisy and contradictory statements when it comes to why it is piracy is "bad". In your case it's the fact that you claim that piracy is bad because, amongst other things, it leads to a financial loss for the developer/publisher and damages their profit margin, while at the same time you seemingly have no issue with the secondhand market despite it equally causing financial loss to developer/publishers and damaging their profit margin.
I acknowledge that there are financial implications due to second hand sales. In an ideal world for car manufacturers, every person would buy new cars and scrap their old ones. But we are on Planet Earth, and not Planet Fluffy Pillow. The law states that an owner is entitled to resell their purchased product as and when they like. The law states that piracy is copyright infringement, so therefore carries penalties to those who choose to ignore this. I also take exception to the statements here in this thread that piracy isn't really hurting anyone. I have seen sales of some software fall dramatically through my business, which affects my bottom line. I also did a little amateur research, and the titles that were selling the worst, were the ones which were proving popular on the torrent sites. I do have some experience of what piracy is doing to companies, it isn't just the publisher who feels the brunt of these effects either. It's a domino effect from retailer right back to the publisher.
Secondhand sales of cars is not the same thing as the secondhand sale of software and you can't compare the two. Software doesn't suffer from wear and tear for a start, what you buy secondhand is identical to what the original purchaser bought, the same can't be said for a secondhand sale of a car. Anyway as I said before it's not a matter of what the law says, piracy and secondhand sales both cause financial loss and damage profit margins. If you consider piracy to be morally wrong because of the monetary implications then you should also consider secondhand sales morally wrong, regardless of the legality.
As for the analogy, I wasn't comparing cars to software. I was implying that any producer of any product would love us to buy all their products new, and never buy second hand. I feel you missed my point there, perhaps I should have made it more clear? EDIT: And yet both products depriciate in value! There is more in common with cars and software in the second hand sector than you would like to admit or realise, clearly. No, that's your opinion, which you are entitled to have. You are now trying to force your opinion on to me. I like to base my morals on the law of the land. If I am legally entitled to do something, then it's OK in my books, even if I don't actually use whatever the law says I am entitled to do.
No, I saw your point. I just didn't agree with the analogy and don't think it was particularly useful for making the point you were trying to make. Pointing out the contradictory nature of your statements isn't forcing my opinion onto you. So your morals are governed by what the Government say is and isn't acceptable? There are no laws you disagree with or think are a bit stupid and should be scrapped? Or there's nothing that you think should be made unlawful/illegal? What are you views on making a personal copy of music, a movie or a game you own? Is that morally wrong?
They are contradictions only in your opinion. I have stated why I disagree with your opinion, and why I have formed my own opinions. Regards my morals and the government, I like to stay inside of the law. It's really that simple. I use the law to form the basis of what I will and will not do. So if that makes me a sheep because I conciously choose to act within the law, then so be it. I'm a family man, with two young kids to feed, water and bring up. Is the cost of unlawful or illegal activity worth it for me if I get caught acting outside the law - no it isn't. Losing my broadband for the sake of not paying a poxy £30 for the latest game, or not paying £15 for a CD just is a stoopid thing for me to do However, if I see said game or CD going cheap second hand, then I am going to snap it up, and with my halo still intact EDIT: So you are disagreeing that any manufacturer would prefer us to buy new every time, instead of using the used market? Could you tell me why this is then?
Thinking one thing is wrong because it causes a company financial loss but thinking another thing is ok when it does exactly the same thing is contradictory. I fail to see how you can possibly argue that it isn't. Well you've answered the first question I asked. How about answering the others now?
I already have, in the load of pages previously to this. Can you not accept that not everyone is going to agree with you?
If you've answered the following in a previous post then I apologise but I must have missed it. Perhaps you could point out where you answered them?
Copying one's one software etc. is a grey area for my higher morals I don't myself personally, as I am too lazy to do so. But I think that the law should allow copies to be made as long as they stay with the legal owner, and should not be passed to third parties. It would be relatively easy to prove legal ownership to Mr. Plod, a quick flash of the original should suffice. I am talking, and have been all along, about people who have NO legal ownership of the original product. I thought that much was explicitly clear?
Now, as I said x amount of pages ago, we will not see eye to eye, and we are just going round in circles. I am bored now, as I have made my opinions quite clear, and have also taken great efforts to explain myself. If anyone else jumps onboard here, please DO take the time to read the thread in full before commenting, as I am also bored of repeating myself to late-comers to the party (not aimed at you Krazeh btw). One final answer for you Krazeh, there are laws that I think need revision, or even scrapping. But do I flout these laws, to make some sort of stand against them? No I don't. I wouldn't and couldn't be arsed with the repurcussions. Ask me 20 yrs ago, and the answer would have been different I suspect. I'm not a rebel, and could be arsed trying either. I tried bucking the system in my youth, and suffered for it, so why would I try now I am 20 yrs older and have family and professional responsibilities?
i think making a copy for your own use is perfectly acceptable, so long as it stays with you, if you the no longer have the original, then the copy should be destroyed, and not passed on.
Sorry to say this, but... WTF are you talking about? How does your message even apply to what I said? We're a commercial undertaking, we aren't going to give away software for free or anything. We also don't need to add a CC license just to get the desired effect from piracy. I really don't get your reasoning on that point.
So, piracy... one good analogy is books. How many people lend books in the world? While in a strict sense of the word, it is then 'stealing' as it could be considered a lost sale. Yet everyone I know considers lending books as a perfectly legal right to do. It's the same story with games/software: I think it's fair to say that most people don't consider lending a game to a mate an illegal thing. Are those two cases both a lost sale? Definitely not, therefore no potential loss of revenue. However, to ask it from a different angle: are those cases a potential lost sale? Yes, in theory. But lets try to look at it this way: what would it do to the industry, if there was not a single option of pirating anything? Some ideas come to mind that might change: - hardware sales fall (perhaps substantially) - word-of-mouth will be a lot less important factor (when looking at the number of copies sold) - the prices on software might fall - the idiocy that is DRM disappears (as basically DRM only hurts the buying custoemrs). It's a witch'es circle in my opinion. For a fact, there is so much rubbish being made, and most of games are not worth the 50$ asking price. It's not me saying that piracy is totally okay, it's more about me saying that it's a totally gray area. Considering the long term effects: without piracy, i would not be a gamer today, therefore the industry has gained a lot from me. Also, I would never buy all the games I play as they are simply not worth the money. Being, I either download the game, play it for some time and forget it, or i buy it later if it's good enough. case in point: MW2, a game that for me sucked donkey balls, I would never buy it no matter the price So in a way, the big picture might seem as to the 'initial' lost sales might come back tenfold as a person gets older and has money of their own.
So you are a commercial company who is going to encourage the pirating of your products You're going to apply copyright to your products, but not worry about pirating Good luck with that
Why fix what isn't broken? I find the statements of Elledan incredibly funny and also incredibly naive, both in a commercial and personal sense
