You should generally not pirate, because, to the extent that you (and thus similar beings) would regard it as optimal to pirate, potential creators would not regard it as optimal to locate narrow targets in designspace (whose value comes mostly from its incorporeal component), including those cases where the value of locating these targets exceeds the value forgone in finding them (e.g. labor and other resources expended to find the target).
This conclusion holds even and especially for the case where high-value targets have already been located and became public knowledge (via piracy), and thus your current decision of whether to pirate (to assimilate the target’s location) no longer has causal influence on whether the target will be discovered.
The reasoning behind the above conclusion is isomorphic to that of why one should “one-box” in Newcomblike problems, where the decision of whether to provide the (additional) utility has already been made, and any individual’s decision to refrain from utility extraction cannot causally influence the decision to provide the utility.
To highly compress and simplify the above reasoning into a human-appealing slogan: “Too much piracy means too little Microsoft Word.”
Note: the above reasoning does not mean that all measures to stop piracy, nor any particular one, are optimal, for much the same reason that the general optimality of punishing defectors does not imply the superiority of all possible punishments over non-punishment.
Free software can do things that non-free software cannot. For example it can be copied and run by people who do not have money to spare for software. The practice of licensing software in a way that restricts copying is isomorphic to defection in the prisoner’s dilemma: it benefits the individual at net cost to other similar agents.
If I expected all (or almost all) other agents in the marketplace to be similar enough to behave exactly like me, I would pirate software to punish them. That would cause all proprietary software businesses to fail, and only free software to be developed. Unfortunately, if only some people pirate, it represents a form of advertising which causes other slightly dissimilar agents to purchase it. So I am best off not pirating.
The optimal solution seems to be to use exclusively free software, and to consistently donate money to the development of free software, so that they will be able to reach difficult design spaces. There are probably enough similar agents for this to work.
On the other hand, it may make sense to encourage an agent to pirate software if I know they would otherwise be likely to purchase proprietary software, as the advertising properties of a free copy probably do not exceed those of a purchased copy.
Free software can do things that non-free software cannot.
I didn’t claim otherwise. I said that intellectual-property-respecting societies can have both “free” software and proprietary software, while those that don’t respect intellectual property can only use the free (or “trade secret”/Omerta) model.
They (the IP-non-respecting society) would certainly come up with a Microsoft Word-equivalent, but do so later and with less refinement on difficult features. As time has value, the later arrival of word processing software comes at a cost.
The optimal solution seems to be to use exclusively free software,
No, it doesn’t, for much the same reason that exclusively-communal production methods are suboptimal: non-monetary mechanisms can motivate some kinds of production but not others, while “private property” societies still provide a meta-context in which communal production models can be used.
I said that intellectual-property-respecting societies can have both “free” software and proprietary software, while those that don’t respect intellectual property can only use the free (or “trade secret”/Omerta) model.
In a society employing both mechanisms, the free/open model must compete against the closed/proprietary model. The latter has better prospects of reward, so it seems probable that this results in much less free/open software being produced than would otherwise be the case, since capital is diverted to the pursuit which has the strongest reward possibilities.
They (the IP-non-respecting society) would certainly come up with a Microsoft Word-equivalent, but do so later and with less refinement on difficult features. As time has value, the later arrival of word processing software comes at a cost.
The question that follows is whether the cost of not being able to use the software without paying for it (and other costs such as the security holes and asymmetry of information caused by lack of access to source code) outweighs the cost of having to wait longer for the end-user-optimal tool to be produced.
Personally I am more concerned about the entrenchment of bad (e.g. restrictively licensed or poorly designed) technology than slowness of the addition of new features.
The basic problem is that the fact that something is proprietary and closed source means that its net value to the society is lower (due to providing a route to entrenchment of bad technology, restrictions on redistribution, etc.), despite the individual value to the customer (the end-user experience, available features, etc.) being approximately the same or better.
No, it doesn’t, for much the same reason that exclusively-communal production methods are suboptimal: non-monetary mechanisms can motivate some kinds of production but not others, while “private property” societies still provide a meta-context in which communal production models can be used.
Exclusive use of free software does not entirely exclude the use of monetary incentives; as I have said, one can donate money to the creation of free software. You may be confused by the use of the term “free” which in english can refer to lack of restrictions or lack of monetary compensation. Software that is not protected by IP laws/norms can still trigger compensation, provided enough recipients are willing to cooperate.
Also note that providing support and customized upgrades for software is a successful business model for many companies who otherwise do not restrict the redistribution of their software.
You should generally not pirate, because, to the extent that you (and thus similar beings) would regard it as optimal to pirate, potential creators would not regard it as optimal to locate narrow targets in designspace (whose value comes mostly from its incorporeal component), including those cases where the value of locating these targets exceeds the value forgone in finding them (e.g. labor and other resources expended to find the target).
This conclusion holds even and especially for the case where high-value targets have already been located and became public knowledge (via piracy), and thus your current decision of whether to pirate (to assimilate the target’s location) no longer has causal influence on whether the target will be discovered.
The reasoning behind the above conclusion is isomorphic to that of why one should “one-box” in Newcomblike problems, where the decision of whether to provide the (additional) utility has already been made, and any individual’s decision to refrain from utility extraction cannot causally influence the decision to provide the utility.
To highly compress and simplify the above reasoning into a human-appealing slogan: “Too much piracy means too little Microsoft Word.”
Note: the above reasoning does not mean that all measures to stop piracy, nor any particular one, are optimal, for much the same reason that the general optimality of punishing defectors does not imply the superiority of all possible punishments over non-punishment.
Oh, Clippy, we’ve missed you.
Error: undefined pointer “we”.
I simultaneously want to upvote this for being funny and downvote this for making a valid point in the most confusing language possible...
It is not intended to be funny. Please tell me what part is in confusing language and I will try to clarify.
Free software can do things that non-free software cannot. For example it can be copied and run by people who do not have money to spare for software. The practice of licensing software in a way that restricts copying is isomorphic to defection in the prisoner’s dilemma: it benefits the individual at net cost to other similar agents.
If I expected all (or almost all) other agents in the marketplace to be similar enough to behave exactly like me, I would pirate software to punish them. That would cause all proprietary software businesses to fail, and only free software to be developed. Unfortunately, if only some people pirate, it represents a form of advertising which causes other slightly dissimilar agents to purchase it. So I am best off not pirating.
The optimal solution seems to be to use exclusively free software, and to consistently donate money to the development of free software, so that they will be able to reach difficult design spaces. There are probably enough similar agents for this to work.
On the other hand, it may make sense to encourage an agent to pirate software if I know they would otherwise be likely to purchase proprietary software, as the advertising properties of a free copy probably do not exceed those of a purchased copy.
I didn’t claim otherwise. I said that intellectual-property-respecting societies can have both “free” software and proprietary software, while those that don’t respect intellectual property can only use the free (or “trade secret”/Omerta) model.
They (the IP-non-respecting society) would certainly come up with a Microsoft Word-equivalent, but do so later and with less refinement on difficult features. As time has value, the later arrival of word processing software comes at a cost.
No, it doesn’t, for much the same reason that exclusively-communal production methods are suboptimal: non-monetary mechanisms can motivate some kinds of production but not others, while “private property” societies still provide a meta-context in which communal production models can be used.
In a society employing both mechanisms, the free/open model must compete against the closed/proprietary model. The latter has better prospects of reward, so it seems probable that this results in much less free/open software being produced than would otherwise be the case, since capital is diverted to the pursuit which has the strongest reward possibilities.
The question that follows is whether the cost of not being able to use the software without paying for it (and other costs such as the security holes and asymmetry of information caused by lack of access to source code) outweighs the cost of having to wait longer for the end-user-optimal tool to be produced.
Personally I am more concerned about the entrenchment of bad (e.g. restrictively licensed or poorly designed) technology than slowness of the addition of new features.
The basic problem is that the fact that something is proprietary and closed source means that its net value to the society is lower (due to providing a route to entrenchment of bad technology, restrictions on redistribution, etc.), despite the individual value to the customer (the end-user experience, available features, etc.) being approximately the same or better.
Exclusive use of free software does not entirely exclude the use of monetary incentives; as I have said, one can donate money to the creation of free software. You may be confused by the use of the term “free” which in english can refer to lack of restrictions or lack of monetary compensation. Software that is not protected by IP laws/norms can still trigger compensation, provided enough recipients are willing to cooperate.
Also note that providing support and customized upgrades for software is a successful business model for many companies who otherwise do not restrict the redistribution of their software.