When you download software that isn’t supposed to be fully free to use – or even demo – should it be considered stealing? There is a TON of debate on this. In fact you can enter “Is software piracy stealing” into google and get back a lot of blog posts, news articles, and forum discussions on this same exact thing.
So why am I writing about it? I recently commented on an article by ars technica with the following comment:
Or he could have gone with Linux and used Open Source projects for his software instead of breaking the law.
Stealing is stealing is stealing… There are alternatives to everything in this world. Yes, the alternative MIGHT not be as good as the original (sometimes it’s better).
And yes, your friend stole software. I am saying that. Just to clarify.
I was commenting on someone who’s friend had built a top of the line computer system and wouldn’t have been able to afford the hardware if he had to pay for the software. To me, that is stealing. He made a concious choice to purchase better parts in leau of purchasing the software to run it. He had three choices:
- Purchase software wanted
- Use unauthorized software
- Use open source software
He had the money, he had the want, he made the choice to use the money for something else. He stole. Period.
But is the use of unauthorized software always stealing?
[smartads]
I received a few replies back. The first one told me that I was using my words wrong. That it was infringement, not stealing.
Yes it is!!!!
Except when it’s piracy, then it’s not, it’s infringement
How’s that Kool Aid you’re drinking?
By the definition of each word:
Stealing: 1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Infringement: 1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Both of these definitions accurately reflect the nature of the action that my target in my original comment was doing when he choose to not pay for software.
Another commenter was much more detailed in his response to me.
I disagree that the issue of software piracy can be reduced down to cute truisms like “stealing is stealing is stealing”. Consider the following two scenarios:
1) A person steals a boxed copy of Microsoft Office from a retail store
2) A person downloads a cracked copy of Microsoft Office fromThe first scenario is clearly stealing. It also clearly causes economic harm, since the retail store is now unable to sell the boxed copy of MS Office that it has already paid for. Assuming that the retail store would have otherwise sold that copy of MS Office, it is reasonable to state that a financial loss has occured.
Now you, iamdez, would also claim that the second scenario is clearly stealing. However, the economic harm caused by this situation is not at all clear. Since you yourself noted that there are alternatives to everything in this world, you cannot simply assume that the person would have purchased a legal copy of MS Office if he had been unable to obtain a pirated copy. In fact, I would argue that the second scenario might not produce any economic harm, since the person would have downloaded OpenOffice if he had not founded a cracked copy of MS Office.
After considering those two scenarios, we are left with the following conclusions:
1) Stealing occurs in both scenarios. Since one results in inarguable economic loss, and the other may not result in any economic losses, the offenses are clearly not equivalent. Therefore, stealing is not always stealing.
2) Stealing occurs in the first scenario, but not in the second. Your truism that “stealing is stealing is stealing” still holds, because it only applies to piracy that results in economic harm.
This is where the question about whether software piracy is technically stealing. I agree with his argument in some respects, but at the same time I don’t. The usual definition of stealing is not applicable since the person didn’t go into a store and walk out with an already paid for copy of the software. Instead he downloaded an ‘unlocked’ (aka cracked) version of the software and ran it in a way that contradicted the end-user license agreement (EULA).
The second point regarding economic loss. Is it only stealing when it definitely causes economic loss? Does the economic loss need to be proven in order for the act of using the software is considered stealing?
I posed the question last night. What if I didn’t intend to steal. I walk into a store and in the process of shopping accidentally put something in my pocket and forget to take it out at the register (yeah, it’s happened, but I went back in and paid for it). Since I didn’t intend to take it out of the store without paying for it, is it stealing. Yes, it is. Could I have gotten in trouble for coming back into the store to pay for the item? Yes. Is it likely that it would have happened? No.
The original article posted a dollar figure for the economic loss suffered because of piracy, but even the agency putting out the report put a big disclaimer on that one. How do you put a dollar figure on something that obviously wasn’t a 1-1 conversion rate? You can’t very well take a survey of the pirates to see if they would have purchased the software. There are enough that would be paranoid over their discovery. Maybe you take assumptions from tracked statistics. Take into account each of the visitors to a specific online product page and then the number of purchases for that product.
But the original question remains: Is software piracy stealing?
To me, yes.
–dez