Piracy and abandonware

[theoneandonlypencil]

Hey everyone,

So I'll try to sum this up real quick; basically, I've been feeling pretty convicted aboutdigital piracy as of late. I agree that it's a pretty gray area morally since it's making 'copies' and not stealing anything tangible, and most of my conviction comes from the fact that it's considered illegal to pirate software in my country; even if I disagree with the ethics behind copyright laws.

I've made the decision to slowly start purchasing the e-books, video tutorials and handful of softwares that I pirated until I eventually own them all. Today specifically, I decided to check on the price for a vocal synthesizer I really enjoy using for music production, Vocaloid4.

And here's the problem...it's been totally discontinued by the company, and no more copies are being made/sold by Yamaha.

There's a few sources on ebay and amazon from 3rd parties selling copies for 500-700 USD which is absurd considering the original retail price was only around 100 something. The copies online selling now won't last forever, and the old version I legally own(vocaloid3)is completely unavailable online, but my issue is that is it morally wrong to pirate it since it's considered abandonware/discontinued? Even if i buy these ridiculously priced 2nd hand copies, the original creators won't see a cent of it and I really did want to purchase it straight from the company since it's not the kind of software that sells via third parties unless it's a used copy.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hey everyone,

So I'll try to sum this up real quick; basically, I've been feeling pretty convicted aboutdigital piracy as of late. I agree that it's a pretty gray area morally since it's making 'copies' and not stealing anything tangible, and most of my conviction comes from the fact that it's considered illegal to pirate software in my country; even if I disagree with the ethics behind copyright laws.

I've made the decision to slowly start purchasing the e-books, video tutorials and handful of softwares that I pirated until I eventually own them all. Today specifically, I decided to check on the price for a vocal synthesizer I really enjoy using for music production, Vocaloid4.

And here's the problem...it's been totally discontinued by the company, and no more copies are being made/sold by Yamaha.

There's a few sources on ebay and amazon from 3rd parties selling copies for 500-700 USD which is absurd considering the original retail price was only around 100 something. The copies online selling now won't last forever, and the old version I legally own(vocaloid3)is completely unavailable online, but my issue is that is it morally wrong to pirate it since it's considered abandonware/discontinued? Even if i buy these ridiculously priced 2nd hand copies, the original creators won't see a cent of it and I really did want to purchase it straight from the company since it's not the kind of software that sells via third parties unless it's a used copy.

Why not buy the latest and most up to date replacement?

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Why not buy the latest and most up to date replacement?

I plan on buying Vocaloid5, but for different reasons; 4 and 5 have different functionalities, and vocaloid5 doesn't support a lot of older voicebanks, plugins, AND it's lacking the XSY feature from 4. I like 5 for the updated sounds for newer voicebanks and easier tuning methods, but not as a total replacement for 4.

 

[disciple Clint]

I plan on buying Vocaloid5, but for different reasons; 4 and 5 have different functionalities, and vocaloid5 doesn't support a lot of older voicebanks, plugins, AND it's lacking the XSY feature from 4. I like 5 for the updated sounds for newer voicebanks and easier tuning methods, but not as a total replacement for 4.

OK how about an email requesting a license from the software company, they might even send it to you for nothing, maybe you will catch them on a good day and they will reward you with a discount coupon on the new version you want.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

OK how about an email requesting a license from the software company, they might even send it to you for nothing, maybe you will catch them on a good day and they will reward you with a discount coupon on the new version you want.

I don't think Yamaha does that, as production of the product would probably also include production of activation keys and software licenses--but I can try. might be difficult since the english speaking branch has no authority to do that sort of thing, so I'll have to find a way to effectively contact the branch in Japan where the company is based.

What do I do if they deny me, though? I'll be happy to purchase a license if they allow me, but I am doubtful whether it will work.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don't think Yamaha does that, as production of the product would probably also include production of activation keys and software licenses--but I can try. might be difficult since the english speaking branch has no authority to do that sort of thing, so I'll have to find a way to effectively contact the branch in Japan where the company is based.

What do I do if they deny me, though? I'll be happy to purchase a license if they allow me, but I am doubtful whether it will work.

Well if you tried to buy it then you have done what any reasonable person would do and all that you can do. I do not decide what is sin and what is not but I think God expects us to do what we can to avoid sin and you will have done that.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hey everyone,

So I'll try to sum this up real quick; basically, I've been feeling pretty convicted aboutdigital piracy as of late. I agree that it's a pretty gray area morally since it's making 'copies' and not stealing anything tangible, and most of my conviction comes from the fact that it's considered illegal to pirate software in my country; even if I disagree with the ethics behind copyright laws.

I've made the decision to slowly start purchasing the e-books, video tutorials and handful of softwares that I pirated until I eventually own them all. Today specifically, I decided to check on the price for a vocal synthesizer I really enjoy using for music production, Vocaloid4.

And here's the problem...it's been totally discontinued by the company, and no more copies are being made/sold by Yamaha.

There's a few sources on ebay and amazon from 3rd parties selling copies for 500-700 USD which is absurd considering the original retail price was only around 100 something. The copies online selling now won't last forever, and the old version I legally own(vocaloid3)is completely unavailable online, but my issue is that is it morally wrong to pirate it since it's considered abandonware/discontinued? Even if i buy these ridiculously priced 2nd hand copies, the original creators won't see a cent of it and I really did want to purchase it straight from the company since it's not the kind of software that sells via third parties unless it's a used copy.

Good question. In Australia, something abandoned and then taken is not theft. We leave stuff we no longer want on the nature strip. Someone will take it (we hope) and find a use.

The difference is that software is a licence. You never actually own it. The other problem I see is that pirate sites are often a hotbed of trojans, nasty viruses and ransomware. I lost the key to some software and I needed to reinstall. I decided to look for a crack. I ended up being locked out of my computer. I was able to recover, but I lost some data and it took days to fix.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Hey everyone,

So I'll try to sum this up real quick; basically, I've been feeling pretty convicted aboutdigital piracy as of late. I agree that it's a pretty gray area morally since it's making 'copies' and not stealing anything tangible, and most of my conviction comes from the fact that it's considered illegal to pirate software in my country; even if I disagree with the ethics behind copyright laws.

I've made the decision to slowly start purchasing the e-books, video tutorials and handful of softwares that I pirated until I eventually own them all. Today specifically, I decided to check on the price for a vocal synthesizer I really enjoy using for music production, Vocaloid4.

And here's the problem...it's been totally discontinued by the company, and no more copies are being made/sold by Yamaha.

There's a few sources on ebay and amazon from 3rd parties selling copies for 500-700 USD which is absurd considering the original retail price was only around 100 something. The copies online selling now won't last forever, and the old version I legally own(vocaloid3)is completely unavailable online, but my issue is that is it morally wrong to pirate it since it's considered abandonware/discontinued? Even if i buy these ridiculously priced 2nd hand copies, the original creators won't see a cent of it and I really did want to purchase it straight from the company since it's not the kind of software that sells via third parties unless it's a used copy.

It's not a gray area morally to me. Piracy means taking what you have no right to and treating it as if it yours in contradiction to the facts. It is the irrational desire for the unearned. It is immoral as all irrationality is immoral. Intellectual property whether it is tangible or not is still property. Because reason, the faculty which identifies and integrates the material of the senses into a coherent grasp of reality, is man's means of survival. Anything which irrational is anti-life for man.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

It's not a gray area morally to me. Piracy means taking what you have no right to and treating it as if it yours in contradiction to the facts. It is the irrational desire for the unearned. It is immoral as all irrationality is immoral. Intellectual property whether it is tangible or not is still property. Because reason, the faculty which identifies and integrates the material of the senses into a coherent grasp of reality, is man's means of survival. Anything which irrational is anti-life for man.

Well, no--that's actually far from accurate.

Nevermind the fact that intellectual property rights are a very recent invention(only in the past few hundred years, I suppose)and are equally morally dubious in how they're enforced. Piracy is more accurate to this; imagine if you had a cloning device, and you went to a friend's house and cloned his car so that you could also have one. Your friend doesn't lose his car, so you aren't 'stealing' it from him because his car is the original; yours is a copy. The manufacturer also isn't losing anything, because not only were you not going to pay for their car in the first place, but they also are not losing the car that they paid to have parts made for, assembled and sold.

This at least the case for digital piracy. There are ethical problems with, for example, stealing/cracking software or ripping music and then selling it claiming you created it. Not if you're simply using it at home, however(the exception being as long as it's for personal and not commercial purposes).

Copyright infringement is a complicated issue and I am not doing it full justice since I don't have the time to write out all of the complexities, but as I said before; I do not agree with the system, and I definitely wish for it to change. I don't see a moral issue with piracy as it pertains to the concept known as 'intellectual property', only that it is against the law in the US, and that is why I am convicted. It's not actually illegal in all countries, either--and they're doing fine. The sooner industries learn to work around piracy instead of trying to get rid of it(which they never will), the better.


EDIT: Actually, to add on to my pont--

Another way to look at it. A man is certainly entitled to his wages if he is working for someone, yes; but you're not entitled to make money off of any concept you come up with. Let's say, before copyright law existed, someone made a useful invention. Perhaps...cuckoo clocks, made in 1663 before copyright laws ever existed(which might I add was also only intended to cover books, and only to a certain extent). Franz Anton Ketterer may have made the first cuckoo clock, and so he owned the 'intellectual property' being the design and schemata for them, but what if someone saw it and decided to make one of their own instead of buying one from Franz? Is that morally unethical? Many clock-making shops in the region by the 1800s were producing cuckoo-clocks, and as I am aware, Franz did not make any money off of his concept being created and sold. And I do not think Franz was paying royalties to the creator of the clock.

Back then, you were paid to produce ideas and to create things, not paid for the right to use those ideas. Copyright laws have only created harmful monopolies that seek to fulfill those who feel entitled to money, and not just a little bit of it; a lifetime of wealth so long as people use their designs. This greedy love of wealth and fueling of hyper-consumerism, I think we can agree, is irrational and therefore as you said, anti-man. Did you know someone got sued by the music label Katy Parry works with for having used a short set of notes, in a completely different song with an entirely different melody apart from those notes, just because she had used those same few notes in her famous 'black horse' song?

This is why I do not agree with copyright laws, and that nobody is morally entitled to creating monopolies on concepts and inventions that should be available to everyone. There are plenty of ways to still make a VERY good living creating things without doing this.

 

[bèlla]

If I steal an item from the store and decide to purchase it at a later date and I’m unable to do so. Does its unavailability minimize the theft? No. Its stolen. That hasn’t changed.

The higher cost isn’t a loophole. If you purchased it outright you’d have the tools you need without gouging. The steeper rate is the price of your piracy. Eat it or use something else.

But don’t posit stolen goods are no longer stolen because they’re no longer produced.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. —Galatians 5:9

A little theft. A little lie. And so on.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, no--that's actually far from accurate.

Nevermind the fact that intellectual property rights are a very recent invention(only in the past few hundred years, I suppose)and are equally morally dubious in how they're enforced. Piracy is more accurate to this; imagine if you had a cloning device, and you went to a friend's house and cloned his car so that you could also have one. Your friend doesn't lose his car, so you aren't 'stealing' it from him because his car is the original; yours is a copy. The manufacturer also isn't losing anything, because not only were you not going to pay for their car in the first place, but they also are not losing the car that they paid to have parts made for, assembled and sold.

This at least the case for digital piracy. There are ethical problems with, for example, stealing/cracking software or ripping music and then selling it claiming you created it. Not if you're simply using it at home, however(the exception being as long as it's for personal and not commercial purposes).

Copyright infringement is a complicated issue and I am not doing it full justice since I don't have the time to write out all of the complexities, but as I said before; I do not agree with the system, and I definitely wish for it to change. I don't see a moral issue with piracy as it pertains to the concept known as 'intellectual property', only that it is against the law in the US, and that is why I am convicted. It's not actually illegal in all countries, either--and they're doing fine. The sooner industries learn to work around piracy instead of trying to get rid of it(which they never will), the better.

I have to disagree with you. All property is ultimately a product of the mind, of someone's thinking. It is the right of the creator of the property to decide how it is disposed of. We have Copywrite laws because of this fact. The right existed long before it was identified, so it doesn't matter how recent the laws are.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I have to disagree with you. All property is ultimately a product of the mind, of someone's thinking. It is the right of the creator of the property to decide how it is disposed of. We have Copywrite laws because of this fact. The right existed long before it was identified, so it doesn't matter how recent the laws are.

I added an edit to my previous post that addresses this.

If I steal an item from the store and decide to purchase it at a later date and I’m unable to do so. Does its unavailability minimize the theft? No. Its stolen. That hasn’t changed.

The higher cost isn’t a loophole. If you purchased it outright you’d have the tools you need without gouging. The steeper rate is the price of your piracy. Eat it or use something else.

But don’t posit stolen goods are no longer stolen because they’re no longer produced.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. —Galatians 5:9

A little theft. A little lie. And so on.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

I do respect you immensely Bella, and I love seeing your take on topics here on CF--but in this area, I have to disagree. I've already explained why digital piracy is not theft in the sense that something is not being physically stolen; rather copied, and not even costing the manufacturer a cent if the person had no intention of buying in the first place. In fact, it's not even legally charged as theft--it's charged as copyright infringement.

As I also stated, it's not just the absurdly higher cost I have an issue with; the money is going to 3rd party sellers not authorized by the original owner, Yamaha. In fact, I'm not even sure by copyright law standards if someone should even be legally making that much money off of a product they did not produce if none of it is going to the people who made the software itself, and most software like VOCALOID has stuff in their ToS against passing on the license to other people. Furthermore, I only used a pirated version VERY recently(which, actually, was because none of the softwares mentioned had a demo--and I did not want to spend several hundred dollars on software that I didn't know if I would enjoy using)--which happened to be after it was already discontinued without my knowledge, so there's no need for the sharpness in your reply. I was perfectly willing to go check where to buy it after I decided that I did in fact like the software and wanted to use it for music production.

Speaking of verses and scripture...I wonder what Jesus would think of an entire system that exists to create multi-million dollar monopolies to satisfy the greed for money, and to theoretically withhold old products sitting around that aren't even being produced anymore and don't require any additional cost to distribute, all out of pure selfishness?

More on this in my other reply. Either way, again, I find conviction from disobeying the law, not because I agree with the law.

 

[Sketcher]

To clarify: You own the hardware, and are looking for the drivers and the documentation, correct?

 

[zippy2006]

First, I want to commend you for buying your pirated items outright.

Second, I want to disagree with you:

EDIT: Actually, to add on to my pont--

Another way to look at it. A man is certainly entitled to his wages if he is working for someone, yes; but you're not entitled to make money off of any concept you come up with. Let's say, before copyright law existed, someone made a useful invention. Perhaps...cuckoo clocks, made in 1663 before copyright laws ever existed(which might I add was also only intended to cover books, and only to a certain extent). Franz Anton Ketterer may have made the first cuckoo clock, and so he owned the 'intellectual property' being the design and schemata for them, but what if someone saw it and decided to make one of their own instead of buying one from Franz? Is that morally unethical? Many clock-making shops in the region by the 1800s were producing cuckoo-clocks, and as I am aware, Franz did not make any money off of his concept being created and sold. And I do not think Franz was paying royalties to the creator of the clock.

This is actually parallel to John Locke's idea that the cultivation of land incorporates a certain level of ownership. For example, if you clear a field, till the soil, plant corn, water and tend the crop, and then someone comes along and takes all of the mature ears of corn, they are stealing from you.

If Ketterer spends hundreds of hours working out the mechanics and schemata of a cuckoo clock, then his labor entitles him to a form of ownership with regard to those schemata. For someone to make a copy of the schemata against Ketterer's will, and to produce and sell the clocks, would be a form of theft. It is the same with piracy.

Back then, you were paid to produce ideas and to create things, not paid for the right to use those ideas.

So the people who lived in that time accepted a different form of compensation for the intellectual labor. It doesn't follow that intellectual labor deserves no compensation.

The main difference is that in the past there were physical impediments to copying. If you wanted to reproduce the food of a good restaurant you would have to steal or learn the recipes, and it was for this reason that the recipes were carefully guarded. Reproducing complex machinery like a special clock would require a great deal of skill, time, or else an apprenticeship from someone who already knew how. "Guild secrets" were just a different form of copyright protection.

Copyright laws have only created harmful monopolies that seek to fulfill those who feel entitled to money, and not just a little bit of it; a lifetime of wealth so long as people use their designs. This greedy love of wealth and fueling of hyper-consumerism, I think we can agree, is irrational and therefore as you said, anti-man. Did you know someone got sued by the music label Katy Parry works with for having used a short set of notes, in a completely different song with an entirely different melody apart from those notes, just because she had used those same few notes in her famous 'black horse' song?

Just because something is abused does not mean that it is inherently evil. If you ran Yamaha wouldn't you want people to pay for your products?

This is why I do not agree with copyright laws, and that nobody is morally entitled to creating monopolies on concepts and inventions that should be available to everyone. There are plenty of ways to still make a VERY good living creating things without doing this.

Intellectual labor costs money, and if the products of intellectual labor are not paid for then the intellectual labor would have no value.

 

[zippy2006]

And here's the problem...it's been totally discontinued by the company, and no more copies are being made/sold by Yamaha.

If you want legal software then you will have to either buy it second-hand at the higher price or else delete the copy you have.

but my issue is that is it morally wrong to pirate it since it's considered abandonware/discontinued? Even if i buy these ridiculously priced 2nd hand copies, the original creators won't see a cent of it and I really did want to purchase it straight from the company since it's not the kind of software that sells via third parties unless it's a used copy.

You might send the company a donation for the product in the amount that they sold it for. Make a copy of your donation for future reference. This would cover you morally, and it might even cover you legally.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hey everyone,So I'll try to sum this up real quick; basically, I've been feeling pretty convicted about digital piracy as of late.

It's a sin to ask others to judge your sins. Nobody else is qualified.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hey everyone,

So I'll try to sum this up real quick; basically, I've been feeling pretty convicted aboutdigital piracy as of late. I agree that it's a pretty gray area morally since it's making 'copies' and not stealing anything tangible, and most of my conviction comes from the fact that it's considered illegal to pirate software in my country; even if I disagree with the ethics behind copyright laws.

I've made the decision to slowly start purchasing the e-books, video tutorials and handful of softwares that I pirated until I eventually own them all. Today specifically, I decided to check on the price for a vocal synthesizer I really enjoy using for music production, Vocaloid4.

And here's the problem...it's been totally discontinued by the company, and no more copies are being made/sold by Yamaha.

There's a few sources on ebay and amazon from 3rd parties selling copies for 500-700 USD which is absurd considering the original retail price was only around 100 something. The copies online selling now won't last forever, and the old version I legally own(vocaloid3)is completely unavailable online, but my issue is that is it morally wrong to pirate it since it's considered abandonware/discontinued? Even if i buy these ridiculously priced 2nd hand copies, the original creators won't see a cent of it and I really did want to purchase it straight from the company since it's not the kind of software that sells via third parties unless it's a used copy.

A crime is a crime.

 

[Moral Orel]

A crime is a crime.

It is what it is and whatever happens happens.