Theft and how I feel - Design Piracy Series

In this whole series I'm not sure I've ever stopped to actually articulate my views on theft. I'd like to do that now to make my position clear.

Note: This is not an attempt to define theft in any absolute sense. I have included examples, but no definition. This is just me sharing my views regarding theft and stealing as it relates to issues we've been discussing and according to my own internal moral compass.

I think stealing is wrong. Taking a physical object that is the property of someone else and calling it your own is "bad" and usually illegal. I think this holds true even when that property is digital; like a piece of software, or a digital copy of a song. It's still stealing in my mind. If I'm going to listen to a song I'll pay Amazon or iTunes the $.99 to own a legal copy of that song.

I don't steal music or pirate software.

And I don't just think these things are wrong solely because it's the "law". I have no problem breaking the speed limit every day. I guess it comes down to money. If I illegally download an MP3 I am denying one of the companies that sells musically legally that $0.99. In my head it's like I just bought the song from them and then stole the $0.99 back. Not to mention I deny the artists their royalties. I know not everyone sees it that way, but that is how I view it.

When I speed I don't steal (directly or indirectly) from anyone... in fact several time's I've actually contributed to the local economy by paying not only speeding tickets but also lawyers fees so that those speeding tickets don't infringe on my ability to continue to drive fast in the future. :-)

Now lets look at four scenarios quickly and I'll tell you how I feel about each...

I feel cloning an app shows bad taste

I think cloning an app tit for tat, pixel for pixel, word for word, feature for feature, design for design, tab for tab, button for button is just bad taste. It shows no originality, no vision, no insight. I can't think of any reason not to use the original if it was reasonably priced... but wait, a reason cometh...

Basecamp has evidentially had some exact clones; just localized to other languages... I can understand how 37s not localizing leads to that happening. Unless the clones were using Basecamp's HTML, CSS, or JS though I'm still not sure you'd have a case of copyright infringement... it would come down to the copyright-ability of the body content ("word for word") I think.

Copyright violation or not I still think this shows bad taste. It's not a project I would start or get behind.

I feel cloning and then expanding an app is definitely "less bad"

So... no gantt charts in Basecamp? What if a company makes an exact Basecamp clone and then starts to add complex features 37signals has said "no" to? If no code is stolen... isn't this just good business? Like building a bigger or faster hard drive than the competition? Or the first hard drive with a built in memory cache... This still feels a bit shady to me though. Mostly I think it's the implied "intent to clone completely" that rubs me the wrong way.

I feel writing a similar app from scratch is FINE

So lets say I need a simple address book app and I just don't care for Highrise or it doesn't have all the features I need... I use sheet of paper design... I use design concepts and methodologies that 37signals and Apple have popularized. In the end it does a lot of the same stuff as Highrise and Address Book... adding a contact feels similar in all 3 of our programs...

But it isn't a clone... I didn't set out to clone 37signals or Apple... just to build a simple and clean address book using popular design concepts and methodologies. The screens are all a little different (or a lot)... there may even be features that 37signals and Apple never dreamed of or simply chose not to add.

I don't see how this is wrong.

I feel writing an app for an entirely different market is FINE

So lets say I need an app to manage my zoo... keep track of feeding animals, arrival and departure of animals, baby animal births, visitor tracking, habitat environments, etc... I use sheet of paper design... I use design concepts and methodologies that 37signals (and others) have popularized. My app has zero potential to take any customers or business from any 37signals product. In no way does it break the law, infringe their copyrights, or hurt their business.

Why should they be pissed off about it?

Ethics

The above are simply my personal beliefs on right and wrong in the context of this discussion. Now, what about ethics as a topic?

So I try and have a dialog with some friends about ethics and get hung up on stuff like this:

i mean there are still tribes of cannibals... is it ethical for them to eat people? are our ethics superior? because we are in the "majority"?

If that stumps you too then you see why I'm not ready to discuss ethics yet. And if you think that makes no sense... or you think "wtf does that have to do with ethics" then you also see why I'm not ready to discuss ethics yet. :-)

I know some of you are patiently waiting. You haven't been forgotten. It's still on the agenda to wrap this whole discussion up.

Comments

[Phil]

> Taking a physical object that is the property of someone else and calling it your own is "bad" and usually illegal. I think this holds true even when the property is digital.

Ugh. Please don't call copyright or patent infringement "theft". Theft involves actual (not just potential) deprivation of the original owner, which does not happen with copyright infringement.

These are totally separate concepts; using one word for them really just muddies the issue. I'm so tired of this, and I really expect better from someone who has done so much research on the topic.

(Apart from that point I agree with the post.)

[Josh Goebel]

I think this post is directed more towards copyright (I specifically refer to stealing music and pirating software in bold)... and I think that in so far as copyright deals with "copy"... that taking someone else's copy and calling it my own is theft of that copy... or the credit due them because of their work.

It's not the same as stealing their bike, or their wallet, true... but I still think of it as stealing in the sense of taking something that the law has assigned to someone else exclusively. From wikiPedia:

In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

If you think as copyrights or patents as intellectual property then it would be theft in this sense of the word to infringe on either.

In any case I think it's splitting hairs.

[Josh Goebel]

The only reason I can think to try and separate the meaning is if you do not believe that copyright or patent infringement is actually wrong in any moral sense. Then of course you wouldn't want the labels of "theft" or "thief" to be associated with infringement...

But really your beef then really isn't with whether it should be labeled "theft" or not but whether such things are entitled to legal protection in the first place. Because as soon as they are defined as property, then taking them without consent is defined as theft as I see it.

[Phil]

> that taking someone else's copy and calling it my own is theft of that copy...

So you're taking something away from them that you created yourself in the first place? The point is that you didn't have the legal right to create that new copy. *Nothing* has been taken away from the copyright holder. If you hadn't made the copy that you took, it would never have existed at all.

> If you think as copyrights or patents as intellectual property then it would be theft in this sense of the word to infringe on either.

Yes, but if you really understand the laws behind this, you would realize that the term "Intellectual Property" is at best a metaphor, and at worst horribly confusing. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html)

> The only reason I can think to try and separate the meaning is if you do not believe that copyright or patent infringement is actually wrong in any moral sense.

So logically it follows that since I believe vandalism and murder are separate things then I don't believe vandalism is immoral, right?

Not at all. I believe copyright infringement is wrong. I just believe it should be treated differently from theft since its effects on the victim are vastly different. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/) To equate the two is really just to play into the hands of the MPAA/RIAA--they want the same protection on their so-called goods that real physical goods have, even though they are affected by lawbreakers in a totally different way.

I think you're right that it's serious and that it needs to stop. You're just not doing anyone favours by using incorrect and confusing terminology.

[Kevin Milden]

"Good artist copy, great artists steal." — Pablo Picasso . Couldn't be more right. I have spent a long part of my career in and around action sports, software and fashion industry. These are more evolved industries. If you don't borrow from the right people at the right moment you're dead. Plain and simple. Does Google Docs not work like Microsoft Word? You bet you ass it does. Does Apple Keynote not have similar features to Powerpoint. Absolutely.

Web apps industry reminds me of when I was just a little boy hanging out with my Dad at his cool software start-up. For him everything was going to be reinvented on the computer — design, accounting, inventory, everything... They too were idealistic fools. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs included. Then it happened. Bill decided that everyone was acting like hippies and he was gonna get rich on all this non-sense. One after another companies fell or bent to Microsoft's will. I don't know if this player in web apps has risen. It looks to be maybe facebook, possibly Google.

The point is, that in their ever quest to capture our attention at both work and play the little guys will be bought, sold, killed off or turned into mega-brands. That is it. It is next to impossible for any of us to compete at a certain point. So have fun while you still can, make sure you enjoy the people you work with and try to forget about getting rich. Throw caution to the wind, borrow from whatever the hell gets you excited and see what happens. I guarantee it won't be a lawsuit over design.

One day you might wake up as the market leader because you were so busy just making the stuff you thought was cool you really didn't care where it originated from. Neither do other people.

[moose]

Most downloaders are like kids watching a ballgame through a hole in the fence. They don't get to sit and the view is obstructed, but they couldn't afford to pay to get in.

That is why the old ballfields didn't patch those holes. It's better to have kids thrilled to get a glimpse of a ballgame and ready to pay to get in when they get the money then to have to have those kids feel excluded and dismissed by heavy handed fat cats.

Copyright is about distributing and selling copies. Those guys on the street selling bootleg discs are crooks because they are taking money for someone else's work. But there is no reason to think a downloader would pay for something they could not download.

I always tell my customers not to worry about copy protection. It is better to have someone use and enjoy your product than not. Someday when they are ready to buy they will remember the product they enjoyed and they you get paid.

Ideas, jokes, slang, song, and other elements of culture have, until recent history, always flowed freely among people. Owning an thought is unnatural, and impossible to enforce without unacceptably intrusive and tyrannical measures.