List of pro and anti-warez arguments

This is a list of pro and anti-warez arguments. For those unfamiliar with the topic, warez encompasses the illegal distribution of cracked or full versions of software or copyrighted content conducted entirely underground. The arguments below merely highlight why warez groups are motivated in doing the things they do while arguments against warez are typically advocated by legitimate entities or those who respect the law.

:"Parent article": Warez.

Pro-warez Arguments

The morality of copyright infringement is also disputed, with members of warez groups often viewing their actions as "socially positive". Proponents of warez software might argue the following:
# Difficulty of implementing copyright enforcement – Warez groups believe that they are allowed to continue their activities due to the nature of Internet globalization, inconsistent worldwide laws and technical difficulties in tracking warez groups.
# Difference between copyright infringement and conventional property theft – Cracking software is different from theft or stealing other people's property, namely, it does not deprive the use of the software from the original owner. For example, if Alice steals Bob's car, Bob will no longer be able to use that car; but if Alice copies Bob's software, Bob can still use that software with no trouble.
# Difference between legally wrong and morally wrong – Although copyright laws state that it is illegal to crack people's software, there is a difference between "legally wrong" and "morally wrong". To them, it is indeed morally right to do so. It is beneficial, at least to the users of warez.
# Criticism of copyright laws – Some warez groups may regard copyright as harmful to society. For example, it hinders creation and over-protects the rights of copyright holders. Sometimes the protection is even ridiculous or unnecessary. For instance, it is ridiculous to regard "a legitimate backup copy of a purchased CD" or "a format transfer of music (eg. from * .wav to * .mp3)" as illegal in some countries. Also, current copyright law can extend copyright for centuries, and many feel that older works should have entered public domain.
# Criticism of copyright holders – There are various reasons, including: some warez groups may hate copyright holders or their companies. They distribute software as a form of revenge possibly because they have had bad experiences with the software company(s). The copyright holder is unjust or greedy in that it exploits its own staff.
# Philosophy of freebies – All software should be distributed free of charge. Reasons include: the effect/cost of creating software is just one-off. It is wrong to charge every copy of the software.
# High price – Since copyright holders sell their products and services at an unacceptably high prices, users should not pay for these companies or holders.
# Perceived injustice of the poor – This point is similar to the above reasons. Warez groups feel it is bad not to share products and services with those who could not afford to obtain it otherwise. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100715.html] These groups compare themselves to Robin Hood.
# Full trial before buy – Some software owners only give function-limited demo or do not give demo at all. Users need to fully trial them before deciding whether to buy it or not.
# Deprivation of individual rights – Laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may also contribute to the motivations of those involved in warez, as user rights are increasingly threatened in the United States and rights holders attempt to lock out consumers.
# Increase market share – Companies such as Adobe, Borland, and Microsoft have gained big market shares due to vast numbers of warez users, such as college students and working people who adopted applications as they were readily available. Later when they find out that the software is useful, these people purchase legitimate licenses for future uses. This helps companies with software familiarity and dominancy. (Some, such as supporters of the Open Source movement, consider this a negative.)Fact|date=February 2007
# Victimless crime – Many "warez" users only ever obtain what they can get for free in the first place. For example, a person who is interested in accessing a song they once heard may not be prepared to buy the entire CD to get it, or may only be interested in a program for a trivial matter that would not justify spending large amounts of money on it. If the warez user truly never would have purchased the product, it is argued that the copyright holder does not incur a loss. Generally, a "warez" user would not have purchased the product, or a similar product in the absence of the "warez" option, and would have opted for a freeware or open-source product, or simply have gone without.
# Monopoly and cartel strategies – Many companies use their position in the market to ensure that they have full control over it, making it impossible for other companies to provide alternatives. That privileged position is then used to inflate the prices. Fact|date=February 2007 Some consider this itself as a result of piracy (See "increase market share" above).
# Lack of production – Particularly in the piracy of older video games, often people will pirate games or TV shows that are no longer in production but have not become public domain. While illegal, not even the company that made the product is losing money directly.
# Superior Product – Warez is often perceived as superior in quality to legally licensed software. In the process of software cracking, the cracker often will remove restrictive or other undesirable features, such as Digital Rights Management, product activation, resource limits, hardware limits, nag screens, reporting back to the manufacturer, or time-limited features. By adding copy protection to software, a manufacturer may actually create a perverse incentive to pirate the product, as the pirate product contains fewer limitations or annoyances than the genuine product.
# Regional Issues – Consumers often cannot purchase the software they want at any price due to regional lockout, or simple lack of availability in their specific geographical region. Furthermore, authorities in certain jurisdictions have ruled that regional restrictions violate principles of free trade and fair use. In these jurisdictions, the use of warez or bypass devices, such as modchips, may result from a citizen's desire to reclaim consumer rights under applicable laws or administrative regulations.
# Privacy – As Internet availability becomes more widespread, a greater number of software titles are relaying information back to the manufacturer. Due to the complex legal and technical jargon present in End-User License Agreements, many users are unable to properly give informed consent to such disclosure. In addition, some users feel that modern corporate privacy practices facilitate privacy invasions, aggressive marketing, telemarketing, and spam. The incentive to pirate such software arises out of the fact that pirate software is almost always devoid of features which relay personally identifiable information to third parties, or serve interests other than that of the user.
# Rejection of Capitalist/Consumer Society – A smaller number of warez advocates base their behavior upon a fundamental rejection of the nature of the Capitalist system that creates (and creates the perceived need for) and sells the products in question. While the knee-jerk reaction to this argument is that such users shouldn't thus be using the software at all, these politically-minded users often cite reasons of protest and/or the fallacy of anyone being able to realistically walk away from life and society regulated by the companies and governments that enforce the systems being opposed herein.

Anti-warez Arguments

People opposed to warez typically argue that the motivating factors given by cracking groups are not authentic:
# High price is not an excuse to copyright infringement – The argument of "unreasonable price" or "could not afford the price" is not an excuse to ignore the law. The analogy is of taking goods away from a shop if the prices are too high. For that argument, if one believes that the prices are too high, the person is advised to visit other shops or to not buy the goods in question. This raises the most important implication; cheaper alternatives, especially to software, usually exist to cater to those who can't afford the more expensive software. By pirating the more expensive software you may not be hurting the maker of the software which got pirated, but you may well be hurting the makers of less expensive software.
# Harm is larger than benefits – Although they may agree that there are some positive effects of warez on the world, they argue that its benefits cannot offset its harms. For example, copyright holders need to use their market advantage to earn a living. The warez community is competing with the revenues of the original publishers. When the industry becomes less profitable, less software, games, or music are produced. Consequently, the public will suffer.
# Illegality – They claim the morality of copyright infringement is not disputed in the legal community or mainstream society. As long as cracking groups are citizens of a society, it is not for them to violate laws at will. They would further argue that cracking and warez have no relation to civil disobedience, which is often considered legitimate. They typically justify enforcing copyright for the same reasons that laws against burglary are enforced.
# Morality – There is a wide range of alternative software available for free. Many people find that it is better to use the legal alternatives instead of using illegal copies.
# Professional pride – Taking the work of others without compensation may be morally inappropriate.
# Similarity between copyright infringement and digital property theft – Pirating software without permission is similar to copying someone's personal information without permission, such as credit card numbers, personal password or someone's DNA information.
# Logical fallacy of the victimless crime argument – The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument, the truthfulness of the sentence itself presumes a situation where it is taken for granted that the knowledge itself, about the chance of acquiring an illegal copy of the product in question, doesn't in any way change the potential interest of buying it. However, if one already knows beforehand that it is possible to obtain a copy illegally, and decides to do so, there is afterwards no way of really knowing whether or not the person in question would have bought it. This is because the knowledge about the possibility of obtaining an illegal copy for free might turn down the person's interest to buy it, so the potential chance for using warez in the first place might actually effectively sometimes become the reason for not obtaining the legal version.
# Perpetuation of Overpriced Software – Any use of a software title promotes the data formats, user interfaces, and feature lists of software titles among the community of computer users as a whole. A pirate who refuses to purchase a software title on the grounds that it is of excessive price or inferior quality still contributes to the overall acceptance and use of that software, and therefore usurps the power of the free market to eliminate a product whose price does not accurately reflect its utility. In the absence of piracy, freeware or open source software would gain a much greater acceptance against those who do not feel the perceived benefits of commercial software justify its price.
# Security – Software update functionality may be missing or unavailable to unlicensed users of software. The inability to routinely apply software updates increases the number of systems with active security vulnerabilities, and can facilitate hacking, or the distribution of spam or malicious software.
# False Reputations – An inferior crack which results in the game crashing at certain points may leave the game with an undeserved reputation as unstable. This is particularly the case where copy protection software causes a crash to desktop without any message when a security check fails. This can lead to a self-fulfiling prophecy, when warez users refuse to buy a legitimate copy because of the "bugs", when in fact such bugs are limited to the warez version. [ [http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42663 Venting my frustrations with PC game-dev - Quarter To Three Forums ] ]

References