Post

Is it wrong to pirate software? Or is it a victimless crime? In the absence of context, pirating is theft, and theft is wrong. But, with context -- and in the real world there is always context -- theft is not always wrong, or at least one can make that case. (1/16)

The British were intentionally starving the Irish people to death in the mid 1850s. During the “Great Famine,” the Irish were in fact growing more than enough food to feed themselves, but the British exported most of it for the usual reason -- profit. (2/16)

The classic song Fields of Athenry tells the apocryphal-but-directionally-accurate story of a father being sent to permanent prison (Australia), “for you stole [Lord] Trevelyan's corn, so the young might see the morn.” Was he wrong for this theft? (3/16)

Absent context, stealing food is unethical, but given context, it is at minimum understandable, and one could even argue that it is ethical. (4/16)

So, is it wrong to steal software? Unlike physical goods, the penalty on the software maker is largely in the “loss of revenue” rather than the actual cost, which might be essentially zero. Is that a real penalty? (5/16)

But my experience is that pirates often would 𝘯𝘰𝘵 have paid for the software. They would have gone without, or used something else. (7/16)

Neil Gaiman supposedly had an interesting view on his books being pirated: www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/com...

If that’s so, it’s not a “loss of revenue,” because that revenue won’t happen either way. And if there no other appreciable cost, is it approaching a victimless crime? (8/16)

(Even if you agree it’s victimless for that vendor, perhaps it is not victimless for their competitors. After all, if the point is that product A is expensive, and product B is better-priced, then if a customer steals A rather than buying B, then vendor B is a victim.) (9/16)