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)

If the thief would normally have paid for the software, then not-paying definitely creates that loss, and in that case I would say it’s unethical. If you have the means to pay for something, and don’t, that’s wrong. (6/16)

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)

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)

I have also seen people who previously could not afford software, steal it, and then later buy it when they could afford it. Indeed, this post was inspired by people on Reddit talking about doing exactly that with a game they loved, saying they’re so happy that now they’re in a life-… (10/16)

…position that they can finally pay the creators. This is definitely true of traditional software like Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop, whether it is finally purchased personally or through work. (11/16)

In today’s world, software isn’t as necessary to survival as is food, but it’s pretty darn necessary. Certain software is necessary in certain industries or markets. The ethical excuse is still not as clear as it is for a starving family, but if we were to grant that the penalty on the… (12/16)

…software vendor is 𝘥𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘴, does that mean it’s a net-positive for the world if people without means can nevertheless use software to try to create a career and life in which they have means? (13/16)

I think “yes.” I know -- not all pirates intend to buy later, and not all who intend to, do. And not all software theft has zero cost. For all those reasons, and the general mechanism of capitalism, I agree that piracy == theft and the law should reflect that. (14/16)

But practically speaking, I like it. I don’t think any large company has had their growth or profitability significantly hampered by pirates, but many 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 had their brand and reputation and loyalty 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 by people having pirated, and thus becoming users of the software. (15/16)

And it creates access and opportunities for people around the world, especially people with little means who want to build a life where they have means. Is that still unethical? I still think it’s gray, but personally, I’m glad it happens. (16/16)

Instead of getting into legal arguments, vendors can prevent the dilemma by offering different licenses: - Free or low cost for casual private or non-profit use - Full price for heavy or commercial use