Industry must take steps to protect themselves.But Government must establish an environment that safeguards Industry.Industry and individuals pay taxes with the expectation of the rule of law.When a software company pays taxes they can expect the same protections.Government can

Change the laws.

Why should I change the laws - you haven't?I don't have much time for politicians but they do have a wider perspective and a more balanced view than add-on developers. They are not going to pass impractical and unenforceable laws.

I don't have much time for politicians but they do have a wider perspective and a more balanced view than add-on developers. They are not going to pass impractical and unenforceable laws.

Let

Why should I change the laws - you haven't?I don't have much time for politicians but they do have a wider perspective and a more balanced view than add-on developers. They are not going to pass impractical and unenforceable laws.

This is the part where I fall down laughing! Politicians passing 'impractical and unenforceable laws' - ? Hah! Of course they do. This whole issue is not so much a problem of law, but of ethics. Since ethics are a function of culture, the whole discussion is moot.DJ

This is the part where I fall down laughing! Politicians passing 'impractical and unenforceable laws' - ? Hah! Of course they do. This whole issue is not so much a problem of law, but of ethics. Since ethics are a function of culture, the whole discussion is moot.DJ

I should have said they eill not pass obviously impractical and unenforceable laws. But my point is still valid. Do you mean by ethics are a function of culture that in some cultures software piracy is ethical?

I should have said they eill not pass obviously impractical and unenforceable laws. But my point is still valid. Do you mean by ethics are a function of culture that in some cultures software piracy is ethical?

You haven't had much experience with the US legislature have you? It regularly passes impractical and unenforceable laws; witness most of the laws regulating 'illegal' drugs (or even legal drugs obtained from other than US channels) as examples. The main effect has been to start a war in Mexico and put a lot of folks in jail that probably shouldn't be there, as well as to deprive US consumers of less expensive medicines. Foolish laws make clever criminals.Yes, I do mean that in some cultures the acquisition of goods (including software) by any means (perhaps short of murder) is ethical. Most of Asia doesn't have the same system of ethics that we in the west have. Note that I make no value judgements here; just an observation based on experience in areas that don't have a western ethical system and a rather more limited number of calories per consumer.This all, of course, has nothing to do with software theft - as a westerner, I consider theft for any reason other than the sheer neccessity of survival to be unethical and inexcusable within the context of my own culture. Survival has its own set of rules...DJ

Do you mean by ethics are a function of culture that in some cultures software piracy is ethical?

DJ, Iran comes to mind too.AFAIK, US software is freely and legally circulated there.But any culture that aims to produce software or otherwise exchange with cultures that do

DJ, Iran comes to mind too.AFAIK, US software is freely and legally circulated there.But any culture that aims to produce software or otherwise exchange with cultures that do

Not an ethic - a law that actually works. What we have today is a set of laws that were bought and paid for by the major manufactures of the software industry. No one else in the world could get away with the average EULA that comes in the sealed package - with the possible exception of the insurance industry.DJ

We need both...don't we?

Belga1, mgh and dmaher, great series of posts. Glad to see this thread back on track again and trying to address what the OP was originally trying to address.The internet and the associated digital revolution has exposed a weakness in the developers distributions methods. Basically they can't secure their IP against clever and determined crackers. Yet, they continue to put their wares out in the carpark, unguarded 24/7 and are relying upon the good offices of the police and courts to resolve a problem of their own making. File sharing is not the problem. It is the essence of the information superhighway. It brings the free flow of information, the exchange of ideas,culture and knowledge while bringing immediacy and transparency to the actions of those who would rather we didn't see or know what they have been doing. You can't stop it. Overseas internet identification of individuals protected under name supression court orders in New Zealand is a case in point.I stand resolutely against any government or person that attempts to limit our access to file sharing on the basis that some members of society misuse this capability for their own ends. If we are not careful, the Interent will be managed by Government and big business. It will simply become a means to control their citizens. Some might say that has already happened in some countries. The interests of society with regard to internet access far outweighs the interests of a few who attempt to use it as their distribution means even if this results in real or intellectual property loss, no matter how bad that may be for those individuals. They have a choice to stop using the internet as their distribution means but I suggest they continue because the global market they now have access to is lucrative enough even taking into account losses to piracy. Alternatively, they are resigned to the fact that they will lose against the pirates but continue because they are happy to simply showcase their talents to others regardless of how much they make from it. Then there are those that are happy to share their considerable talents entirely for free. Why they do that is intriguing.No one denies the developer/musician has a right to a reasonable return on his/her investment. No one sensibly agrees or can argue that the crackers are doing anything but picking someones lock when clearly they don't have a right to. But, for those who don't want to share their considerable talents for free, it is up to them and their distributers, not the police, courts and lawmakers to resolve the piracy issue. In just about every post on this matter I raise the point that it is insufficient to just keep repeating the mantra that piracy is wrong and that somehow we are all at fault without coming up with a solution. There are a couple of things that developers, musicians and distributers should learn in the fight against piracy and file sharing sites:1. Cracking software is wrong but file sharing of all sorts is not the problem and is here to stay. It is a revolution and those of us who value its contribution to our lives will not allow it to be controlled for someone else's financial benefit because the crackers happen to use file sharing sites to distribute the fruits of their misguided efforts. 2. It is time to relearn that old business adage...."go where your customers are".So, here's my suggestion for this post. How about swamping TPB with legitimate software and music for sale. There are many reasons why this will work in the developer/artists favour (but that's another lengthy post).

Change the laws.

There are more important laws to change first...

We need both...don't we?

An interesting take and, I think, fundamental to the discussion. IMHO, an ethic is part of the social contract rather than the legal contract and in that context we need ethics to have effective laws since most folks are more swayed by the concept of doing right rather than the fear of consequence of doing wrong. I would say that the loss of the concept of right and wrong is a fundamental flaw in our current 'civilization' (some sarcasm is intended here), but that might be the result of having grown up in a very different time than today. People and cultures have generally done rather well by exercising the notion of enlightened self interest and that notion might substitute for a more explicit ethic.If you examine this whole thread the arguments are pretty basic. On one side we have folks who essentially believe that 'Thou shalt not steal' (or else) and on the other side we have a group that rejects that concept and excuses that rejection with a lot of fairly specious (IMHO) arguments based on some pretty fluid notions of 'theft' and the inherent perceived immorality of law.Arguments of right and wrong aside, I propose that theft of software is an exercise in the failure of enlightened self interest - when losses reach a certain level there is no point in continuing to produce the product (good devs are in demand in many areas that don't suffer from theft) and we all lose.DJ

An interesting take and, I think, fundamental to the discussion. IMHO, an ethic is part of the social contract rather than the legal contract and in that context we need ethics to have effective laws since most folks are more swayed by the concept of doing right rather than the fear of consequence of doing wrong. I would say that the loss of the concept of right and wrong is a fundamental flaw in our current 'civilization' (some sarcasm is intended here),

I don't believe for a moment that anyone ( except someone with mental problems)has "lost the concept of right and wrong." Thieves of all types know what they do is wrong, they don't care.Bob

If you examine this whole thread the arguments are pretty basic. On one side we have folks who essentially believe that 'Thou shalt not steal' (or else) and on the other side we have a group that rejects that concept and excuses that rejection with a lot of fairly specious (IMHO) arguments based on some pretty fluid notions of 'theft' and the inherent perceived immorality of law.DJ

Wow, you don't pull any punches do you DJ? We either take your position that rests firmly on the proposition that file sharing is theft and if we don't, then we are simply labelled a bunch of thieves making excuses and 'specious arguments' to justify our inappropriate behaviour. That's a pretty sweeping statement DJ and since I don't agree with your position it follows that you have labelled me a thief. Now I know you didn't really mean to accuse in such a way, but there are many people on this thread who have a contrary view to you and who have never downloaded illegal software or music, myself included. Therein lies the reason I don't agree with sweeping law changes that allow ISP businesses to decide whether 'serial downloaders' will be removed from access to the worldwide web, especially if you or those who think like you, happen to be running one of those ISP's. Dj, please understand, I am not having any personal go at you, only the argument you present. That argument is a 'default' one that doesn't require you to come up with any solutions to piracy other than to say it is someone else's problem. For those of us contributing to this thread or viewing this thread who have a contrary position I humbly offer this quote from Martin Luther King Jr.... "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Gosh, everytime I respond I have to come up with another solution. How about increasing copyright protection, even perhaps requiring a hardware dongle that is periodically checked on-line for authenticity. That's extra cost to everyone but no one said piracy could be fought for nothing. My earlier suggestion that we all pay a little extra on our internet to cover the cost of piracy was rejected very quickly but someone has to pay and it is always going to be the the end user, doesn't matter which way you cut it. Terry

I don't believe for a moment that anyone ( except someone with mental problems)has "lost the concept of right and wrong." Thieves of all types know what they do is wrong, they don't care.Bob

Bob- it has been professionally estimated that 1% of the general population would fit the medical definition of Psychopath. That is, they have no concern for others. Not necessarily criminals, it might simply be your boss firing you because he doesn't like you - and having no concern for having done so.Right or wrong isn't a consideration for these people.(I lock my doors when I go out.)Alex Reid