Talk:Copyright infringement of software

I commented out "Open Source Software and its Effects on Piracy" since the current version wasn't written in a neutral way. For example last sentence was: "If the Bazaar model can be implemented successfully it is truly the best solution for solving software piracy." (I mostly agree with that, but this is clearly an opinion, not an objective fact). I think Open Source Software should be mentioned in this article, but someone rewrite that paragraph from a NPOV, please. Michał Kosmulski 19:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the text below for various reasons:

• it would be better located in the copyright or islam articles.
• it appears to be just one Islamic scholar's opinion, not a generally accepted view in Islam
• Islamic countries typically sign up to the same international treaties as other countries, e.g., some are members of the World Trade Organisation, others have signed the Universal Copyright Convention or Berne Convention.

---

In Islam, copyrighting of ideas and the concept of intellectual property is Haram or forbidden, since: "Knowledge is the ownership of whoever possesses it and not the ownership of the one who taught it only. Thus, as long as a person has the knowledge, it is his/her property, but once it is revealed to others, by any means, it becomes allowed for everyone to use it with or without the permission of the original owner.

Therefore, no one has the right to copyright because whatever is written in that book, for example, is knowledge. As long as that person possesses that knowledge, it is his/hers, but once he/she gives it to people verbally, in writing, or in any means, it becomes allowed for all people. Teaching that knowledge, by these people, to anybody is also allowed. Then, making copyrights on any kind of knowledge is a prohibition to what is already allowed by Allah. Making copyrights is making teaching knowledge, acquiring knowledge haram. Therefore, it is not allowed for anyone to have copyrights. This, however, should not give the impression that one can buy a book or a computer program, for example, and claim that he/she is the author of that material. Claiming such thing is considered a lie in Islam (not stealing) and it is haram."

See also:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:www.ummah.com/islam/taqwapalace/copyrights1.pdf

( PDF converted to text on Google)

---

In the article, "Also software piracy is sometimes misapplied to the distribution of software at little or no cost even when the software license permits such distribution, as in the case of free software."

Is this true? I have never heard of it. If so, we would better put it to freesoftware article too -- Taku 16:13 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

No, free software is not software "piracy". There is some misunderstanding here. Copying is not "piracy". UNAUTHORIZED copying MAY be considered illegal. And that's what people call "piracy". However, some consider "piracy" a not adequate word, and some take any way of copying as illegal. We must make the right distinction. Tcascardo

No no I meant who is there such a misunderstanding. I know exactly the difference. But I don't agree that the sentence, that is "Also software piracy is sometimes misapplied to the distribution of software at little or no cost even when the software license permits such distribution, as in the case of free software." Do you agree with this sentence or not? If no, I will delete it or you can do it too as always. Taku 03:54 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I do not agree it should be misapplied, certainly not. But if that's a fact, it should be noticed, should not? TCascardo

---

About the exchange from "free" to "not-for-profit"... Although free copying should not be misunderstood as free software would, I agree that the correct distinction should be made. Great job for doing it elegantly. TCascardo

---

"The term software piracy refers to copyright violation for profit, i.e., the unauthorised selling of counterfeit computer software, music, movies etc."

Are music and movies considered software? I think there are differences between software and digital media, software usually has some "licensing terms", defined by the authors, yet digital media is usually solely protected by intellctual property law.

Yes, you are of course right, this is something that needs to be pointed out. --snoyes 04:16 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

My first reading of this page is it is blatently not NPOV

I agree. The term "Software Piracy" is not NPOV. The fact that people have been using the term for a long time is irrelevant, and is a frankly wrong argument (it's the same as saying that "vile" isn't a pejorative term, because people have been using the term for some centuries). This article needs to be renamed under a heading such as "Unauthorised copying" (and all the POV stuff reworded), and the heading "software piracy" needs a short note to the effect that it is a non-NPOV term for unauthorised copying and a pointer to the main article. -- Cabalamat.

The term software piracy is not NPOV per definition. Might it be better to empty this page and redirect to copyright violation? 80.126.238.189 20:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Me too (three, four?). But the text does belong somewhere. Not sure it should be its own article. Hmmmmm. - David Gerard 23:48, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not for us to be judges of how to uselanguage. If this is the phrase that is used to describe unauthorised copying of software, then this is the phrased that is used. If X is vile according to the dictionary definition of vile, then they are vile. No matter how bad it makes them look. Re the redirect to copyright violation page idea - this has been done once and makes that page look silly - 95% about computers and 5% about copyright. I really strongly disagree with that. And finally to David G. why does it not deserve its own article? Illegal software copying is a hugely legitimate topic - look how much material there is! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It struck me as a sub-discussion of another topic, rather than a natural article in itself. - David Gerard 12:35, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Software Piracy is perjorative, it implies that it is a Bad Thing. There is quite some controversy weather this is actually the case! See how many people actually commit copyright violations every day. It's rather unlikely that you won't know people who do it, or maybe you even do it yourself. Now, do all those people call their actions Software Piracy? Hmm probably it's a specific "propaganda" term, likely introduced by the BSA. Rather unlikely to be neutral eh? I really don't think it's NPOV. How about "Copyright Violations in software?" 80.126.238.189 13:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"It implies that it is a Bad Thing"... well isn't ripping-off other people's software and using it without permission a Bad Thing? To be slightly hyperbolic about it : why not rename Murder to Unrequested end of life by another party, as murder is perjorative, it implies that it is a Bad Thing? Or to pick an example that is more appropiate, in the sense that it is widespread like copying software apparently is, what would be the better name for an article: Speeding or Driving faster than the speed limit? Surely the former? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:55, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the people who do it don't think it's a bad thing. Anyone opposed to the concept of copyright isn't going to care.

(more analogy stretching) Well obvious murderers don't think murder is a bad thing, then. So to avoid offending them, we really should rename the page? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:21, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. "murder" is a normal legal term. So is "piracy": it implies robbery with violence, and what does murder and piracy have to do with copying information? ( 14:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Piracy" has been the standard term for unathorized reproduction of literary works (even when such acts were not illegal due to limited intternational copyright protection) since at least the 1880s when the term was used for unauthorized performaces of Gilbert and Sullivan works, and for unauthorized copied of books by Mark Twain. I suspect that it is older than that in this usage. Obviouly this term is from the POV of thsoe who deplore or want to forbid such copying. But this term is widely used, and the acts it descrbies do exist, adn are deplored by many. Those are facts.

But why do you think there is a need for a separate article about copyright infringement of software, as opposed to any other type of material? There doesn't seem to be much difference ( 13:58, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We have plenty of material on software - indeed specific only to software like the study I referred to about software piracy being a competitive advantage in a competitve market. We have little general material, the article was lop-sided at copyright infringement and not so here. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:21, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If there is enough such material that really can't be applied to infringement of CDs, DVDs etc., then fine, use a neutral term such as "copyright infringement of software". ( 14:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ripping-off other people's software and using it without permission is a Good Thing. Quite frankly, I believe society would be better without Copyright law. I think there's a sizable minority of people who agree with me, so just write it NPOV, for NPOV's sake. Connelly 09:17, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Do you have any specific suggestions about changes? In regards to previous comments about whether we should use the word "piracy", many pirates happily use the word. There is also no replacement for some related terms - how do you say "pirated software", for instance? I think we should use neutral terms like copyright infrigement, unauthorised copying, etc. to replace "piracy" whenether possible, but in some cases using the words "pirated", "pirate", etc. is OK.Paranoid 09:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We also need some comments on the economic effect of CIoS. There are some positive and some negative effects, both should be covered NPOVly. Paranoid 09:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The difficult part will be getting hard numbers. The BSA will have numbers aplenty, but we would have to note they're pretty soft - David Gerard 11:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

HEY! In reverting you removed all the completely valid, completely sourced material that I added to the article. This is completely unacceptable. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:24, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was the easiest way to repair such damage. I didn't examine your new material, by all means add it back ( 14:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You mean you hadn't read the updated article? But you decided to call it damage anyway? Please read it and add it back yourself. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I call your reverting the article to an old title "damage". The new material may be fine. It would be fine to take your last version and move it to copyright infringement of software, but this leaves the copyright infringement article looking a bit redundant. ( 14:39, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Sorry I lost my cool a little before. I know the current situation is not perfect, and maybe some more of CIiS could be in CI but this a better situation then a week ago I think. Sorry again. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:15, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

It might be a good idea to explain why sometimes copyright infringement might be The Right Thing To Do.

Hmm, actually there are entire groups of people who argue that copyright law as currently written is *broken*. Especially the way that (in the USA) Congress keeps extending the duration of copyright. It's getting so bad that sometimes materials simply vanish or are destroyed before copyright on them ends (if at all). So sometimes people like librarians and archivarians and people in similar jobs must break the law on purpose, just to preserve what is there!

A different but common example is computer programmers taking source code home with them. This is technically against the law, and yet it would be stupid not to do so (The programmers' copy is sometimes the only off-site backup available in small companies) . If you were to ask around very carefully perhaps you'd find examples of how often companies have been saved by this practice. 80.126.238.189 00:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 1 Feb 2004 edits 2 Malum prohibitum or malum in se 3 Cocoa Puffs 4 Pardon my French...

1 Feb 2004 edits

I made a variety of edits to the introductory sentences and list of possible infringing situations. Some notes:

• I generally replaced illegal with copyright infringement, since illegal is often thought to mean criminal and most infrngement is not criminal (though it can be in large volumes).
• I mentioned some US decisions. I'll add links to them when I get around to writing the articles on them (and after I look them up again!)
• I changed license restriction descriptions to say "try to" or similar because the legality of such clauses is not certain, as the US case on purchases with hardware illustrates.
• The copyright infringement article is small now but there is quite a lot to write on that and enough material about infringement of software to merit an article of its own, IMO. Both will probably grow over time, so I'm inclined to let the wiki do its job and take care of things. Jamesday 04:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the following text:

In some developing countries, software piracy is not considered illegal. In Russia, which is not a signatory to the Berne Convention it is legal to copy any software as long as it is not in the Russian language.

This is simply not true. USSR signed the convention, albeit without retroactive protection (so everything before 1970 is in the public domain, icluding all books, music, films, etc.). Russia is the successor of the USSR, so it is a signatory (even though it didn't actually sign it, don't know how to call it then). You can't copy the software in English, but (may be it should be included, but may be not):

• only the copyright holder can complain, so it's ok to copy stuff if you know the author will not have time to file the lawsuit in Russia
• the buyer is not liable. He can usually claim that he believed the software is ok, he has a receipt that it's bought in a normal store, all taxes are paid, etc. This is especially true since pirated discs usually have same packaging, say "all rights reserved" on them and you can buy licensed software right next to pirated in many (most?) places. Most specialised CD/DVD/video shops (even large chains) sell pirated software, even large chains.

Paranoid 10:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

There is a crucial part missing from the introduction (and the article in general). We have to determine whether downloading software from P2P (FTP, IRC, etc.) is piracy/copyright infridgement. Do you have any ideas? Is it often (ever) referred to as piracy? If yes, it must be added in the intro (with the comment on its legality in many/most places). If it isn't, we must explicitly say that downloading is not usually considered piracy (but it may or may not be infridgement). Paranoid 12:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Formally, piracy refers only to sea robbery, not copyright infringement. So downloading is never piracy. It may or may not be copyright infringment, depending on local laws. Sometimes copying for personal purposes such as education or research is permitted. Sometimes copying is legalized by a blank media tax system. Generally it is the person downloading who is creating a new copy, but this is done using the equipment and original copy provided by an uploader. Goatherd 21:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The use of the term "Piracy" as an informal term for unauthorized copying has a long history, and indeed goes back to teh time when there was little or no effective international copyright protection. Given this history, the use of the term is IMO legit, as long as it is recognized that the term is inherently POV. It is not a legal term, but an informal term for an act that may or may not be illegal, and that some consider immoral.

The software market is significantly different to the entertainment market which has specific implications regarding software piracy. The software market is characterised by positive network externalities, which is an economic term for value created in a transaction that is not accounted for in the transaction. Similar to telecommunications, software's utility to an individual rises as the number of individuals use it. When this is considered within the context of a market entry strategy, gaining the largest initial group of users becomes essential for a business to thrive since that business will have the most value added to its software. Software piracy increases the rate at which a package is adopted. Thus, piracy of a particular package in the early stages of a new software market segment results in that package gaining more rapid diffusion and almost irreversable control of the market. The fundemental question regarding the economic effects of CIoS boils down to the trade-off between the loss of potential sales with the value that the increased number of users (both legal and illegal) add to the software package. In the case of Microsoft, the piracy of early Windows editions aided the company in gaining control over a market. Subsequently, this dominant market position has not been challenged due to the abuse of setting the industry standard. The only competition that Microsoft realistically has is from open source software.

Malum prohibitum or malum in se

I found that certain copyright infringement of software is a malum prohibitum offense. Copyright infringement of abandonware may be a malum prohibitum offense. Malum prohibitum copyright infringement may not cause financial harm to the copyright owner, but it is illegal only based on historical writing. Plus, the copyright system is far from synch with socioeconomic reality. Tedius Zanarukando 28 Jan 0:15 2005 (EST).

Cocoa Puffs

"This is comparable to the monopoly of individual breakfast cereals -- Kellogg's Cocoa Puffs is like a monopoly because you wouldn't want a breakfast cereal that is roughly like Cocoa Puffs, you would want actual Cocoa Puffs."

BS. Malt-O-Meal bagged cereals are more than acceptable facsimiles of G and K brand cereals. (In fact, a taste test showed a preference for Scooters cereal over G's Cheerios cereal.) Besides, Cocoa Puffs is a G cereal, not a K cereal. --Damian Yerrick 02:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my French...

...but this entire article smells of bias and wishful thinking--no, scratch that. It smells of shit and demonstrates better than any logical argument why Wikipedia will remain forever the laughingstock of all intelligent life on Earth. 69.203.80.227 11:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• So edit it. Deh 21:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first poster was right -- this entry is nothing close to neutral or unbiased. As it stands, it's essentially a treatise on the "copywrong" philosophy. And it DOES make Wikipedia look goofy. And "so edit it" isn't the appropriate answer to the implicit question: What writer thought this was an acceptable entry, and why?

• If you want to research who wrote what, you can find out who made various edits to the article via the "history" tab. You could certainly ask any non-anonymous authors why they wrote what they did via their Talk page. And then you could try to convince them to modify their remarks to remove the bias. However, I suspect you'd typically find it more fruitful to edit the article directly. Deh 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)