I don’t expect to convince anybody who has already made up their mind, but the fact is that this is not a simple issue. There is a great deal of ambiguity, and degrees of righteousness on both sides.
It is a valid argument, as CrankyAsAnOldMan recognizes, that a person who wouldn’t have a piece of software if it wasn’t free isn’t going to reward the developer’s hard work whether pirates it or just does without.
It is also the case that buying a used copy, off of eBay, for example, does not profit the developer. So if the profit of the developer is the issue that determines the morality of piracy, selling your legally purchased software is just as deep a sin.
As to whether it’s theft, legally it is definitely theft. Whether it’s morally theft is a very different issue. It’s a tricky issue, which CrankyAsAnOldMan recognizes, but I’m afraid that some others here don’t. Spiritus Mundi seems to think it’s a simple issue. Callina thinks you can replace the word pirate' with the word
steal’ and the difference is merely rhetorical. Lynn Bodoni believes that piracy puts an undue expense on companies to develop security measures, which I don’t belive is a significant portion of development cost, since there are only a few copy protection schemes out there, which are already known and implemented. Furthermore, these don’t drive up the cost of software in most cases because the company is already charging what it can get away with charging.
I’m a computer gamer, but I haven’t played a pirated game in years. Most of my piracy dates back to the days of the Commodore 64 and the Amiga, when I could barely even afford the disks. I certainly couldn’t afford the actual games. It was a struggle for my parents to get me any computer at all, and I did get a great deal of mileage out of writing my own programs. But should I have kept only to what I could write myself if I couldn’t afford to buy a program that cost a fair portion of what the computer itself cost? Is that a privelege only for the kids whose parents didn’t work at a factory? Drive a hack? Legally, yes. Morally, are you that sure? Spiritus Mundi is awfully damn sure. “Piracy is theft.” But I’m not.
These days, I buy more games than anybody else I know. I’m not rich, but I’ve got enough money to afford the luxury of the slim, and I mean very slim, moral righteousness of owning legal copies of every game I play. Often, I take a certain delight in knowing that the people who developed software I like are being rewarded for it. Yet, often my legitimate copies of games are bought second hand, or bought cheaply after the program is no long a best seller. Have I taken food out of children’s mouth by waiting until Lands of Lore II dropped to $30 rather than buying it at $50?? If benefiting the producer is the only reason to pay for software, I sure as hell didn’t do Looking Glass Studios any favors by buying System Shock 2 off of eBay. Now they’re out of business. I gave them just as much money as a pirate would have, i.e., none, for those of you slow on the draw. So, is it my fault? Should I feel guilty? Legally, no. Morally, that’s a different story. But does it fall under what Spiritus Mundi tarrs as theft with such a splayed brush? It’s legal, after all. Here’s another concept that people find hard to internalize, Spiritus Mundi – ambiguity.
I don’t mean to pick on Spiritus Mundi in particular. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a poster act like morality breaks down into bumper sticker slogans. This attitude arises every time the subject of Napster comes up. Somebody always prefers to be righteous over being circumspect, but I understand that I am of a very queer breed that prefers the latter. Please forgive my forgiveness.