That doesn't make any sense. You can't deprive someone of revenue, because (at least given a few assumptions of non-totalitarianism) nothing guarantees that a thing will produce revenue. Owners don't have a "right" to revenue, especially in a capitalist economy.
> ...just as much as deciding to occupy a seat on a train without paying is depriving the train operator of revenue and is theft, claiming that the seat is unused or that you doing marketing is bogus
No, the problem with taking an unused seat on a train is not that you are "depriving the train operator of revenue." The problem is that the seat is a physical good, and once you take it, the train operator no longer has it. You have taken the seat from them (not the "potential revenue") -- and thus prevented them from selling it to a paying customer, or doing whatever else they wanted to do with it.
To see this more clearly, note that it would be wrong for you to take a physical good from someone regardless of whether they planned to sell it or not. The moral problem with theft does not lie in depriving someone of revenue.
Software isn't like that. By obtaining a copy of a program, you're not taking anything from anyone in a way that prevents them from using it. In particular, if the software has an "owner," you're not preventing them from selling it.
"Software isn't like that. By obtaining a copy of a program, you're not taking anything from anyone in a way that prevents them from using it. In particular, if the software has an "owner," you're not preventing them from selling it."
Piracy isn't theft. It's counterfeiting, which us much worse for the product creator. As an example, theft may deprive LG of a physical television, which isn't that bad. Counterfeiting can destroy the actual value of the product being passed out for free. Software, like any digital good for sale, is almost like proprietary currency. It's value is only in the minds of the consumers, because there isn't any physical cost involved. If it gets shared and anyone can get access to it through Google, torrent sites, etc, this value approaches $0 (and will eventually be $0).
We probably shouldn't be using terms like theft anymore, but counterfeiting. However, I have a feeling that those words will still be used because many people still want to justify piracy and want to make it seem like it's not really a bad thing.
Identity theft is not "theft" and we still call it that. A person's data is merely copied (the original is still there).
Counterfeiting is the wrong word, too, because the illegally copied good is (usually) just as good as a real one. Counterfeit physical goods are usually lower quality than the genuine article, and can damage its reputation.
Well, I guess we could call it copyright infringement, but most people will come up with their own terms for it.
I feel that the only reason you don't like any of these words is because you don't want copyright infringement painted in a bad light. It's a bad thing and it does cause software developers to eventually lose business, the words we use to describe it aren't going to change that.
Even excellent counterfeit money is still called counterfeit. Also, the majority of pirated apps tend to not support auto-updating, as you need to go and get a new hack and you can't get support or advice from the application's author. I would say that is an obvious way in which they are inferior.
I think the difference with "counterfeiting" is that it suggests that you're intentionally misrepresenting the good as something it isn't. The underlying crime is when you trade such a good in bad faith (you sell a handbag to someone whom you allow to think it's from a famous designer, or you buy something in exchange for green pieces of paper which you pretend were issued by the US Mint).
By this definition, "brand-name" shrinkwrap software that you bought cheaply in SE Asia that has suspiciously poorly-reproduced covers and instructions might be counterfeit (because the purchaser might be misled into thinking they're getting an official edition), but most p2p piracy is not (because there's no discrepancy between what the recipient gets and what they think they're getting).
That doesn't make any sense. You can't deprive someone of revenue, because (at least given a few assumptions of non-totalitarianism) nothing guarantees that a thing will produce revenue. Owners don't have a "right" to revenue, especially in a capitalist economy.
> ...just as much as deciding to occupy a seat on a train without paying is depriving the train operator of revenue and is theft, claiming that the seat is unused or that you doing marketing is bogus
No, the problem with taking an unused seat on a train is not that you are "depriving the train operator of revenue." The problem is that the seat is a physical good, and once you take it, the train operator no longer has it. You have taken the seat from them (not the "potential revenue") -- and thus prevented them from selling it to a paying customer, or doing whatever else they wanted to do with it.
To see this more clearly, note that it would be wrong for you to take a physical good from someone regardless of whether they planned to sell it or not. The moral problem with theft does not lie in depriving someone of revenue.
Software isn't like that. By obtaining a copy of a program, you're not taking anything from anyone in a way that prevents them from using it. In particular, if the software has an "owner," you're not preventing them from selling it.