Should software piracy be illegal?

You should be free to do whatever you want to with your copy of the software. That means if you bought it from someone else, you should have the right to redistribute commercially or non commercially as you see fit. Saying otherwise goes directly against my property rights.

No.

Should software licensing be illegal?

No, if I don't want to share I shouldn't be forced to by leftists cucks.

Catholic priests aren't allowed to have sex, Orthodox priests are

Proprietary software should be illegal.
Patents and copyright should expire quickly.
ISPs should be a local utility.

WRONG
WRONG
Maybe
more like:
>don't force me to make open source software
>patents and copyright goes against my property rights, fuck off if you think you can think you can tell me that I cannot possess ones and zeroes on my own personal hard drive, or that I can't reproduce a chemical compound with my own property because some fuckwad thinks his right to "profit" is greater than the worlds right to property
>ok maybe

Orthodoxian pfanatos in Greek.

Precisely this.

orthodoxy =/= strict

strictness =/= good

Attached: apu_examining.jpg (1356x854, 78K)

Calling it Orthodox Church is a bit of misnomer, while it does follows Bible in deeper sense than the others it's also branched off early medieval Christianity with some paganist tangent. In Russian it reads as "rightoslav church" do there's that.

You can't be forced to make free/open source software when software is naturally free. Making and spreading proprietary software is unnatural and a form of coercion.

To fuck with neets.

piracy isnt an issue for either music or movie industry, it's a service issue as proven over and over by their own and others' stats with itunes, spotify and cinema sales only being "hurt" by piracy in countries where they have to wait several weeks after the initial release in the US.

give people an affordable and convenient legal option without delays and the vast majority of people will use it.

Nicaea permits priests to have sex.

You didn't create *thing* so it's not your intellectual property. You own a disk or an internet cable, not what you obtain using it.

Nope. Orthodoxy is predenominational.

What should be illegal:
Buy software under a purchase agreement with shitty “you can only sue us someplace far away” clause.
Software “updates” to become a service.
Software “updates” to become paid subscription.

What the hell did I pay all that money for when I “bought” it?!?

No.
Software creators should protect themselves from it.
Or even better - don't protects, since niggers gonna nigg, but white people don't like DRM and sheit

Nothing is naturally free. I also don't think we share the same definition of coercion. I'm a libertarian so I believe you should be able to do what you wish to with your property, that applies both to my reasoning against copyright/patent laws as well as your right to distribute your own proprietary software.
If you don't think proprietary software should be legal then you are also saying you don't believe that encryption should be legal, meaning you don't believe in privacy.

A chair is tangible good. Because it's tangible, the cost to reproduce is not much lower if not the same as producing one. With software, that's not the case. Say you were selling fish, you would sell fish and get money for the fish. No one could take that dead fish and create a bunch of it at 0 cost and distribute fish. But software is more like "instructions to fish". If you gave everybody in your town the ability to fish, you would soon run out of a job, and your creative insight of fishing would be basically distributed for free when you taught one guy to do it.

Attached: suarez_its_all_so_tiresome.jpg (1242x1924, 1.03M)

Open source software should grant tax breaks.
Software patents are valid for maximum of 5 years and only for specific source code; once updated the previous version is not patent protected.
ISP should do what they want except form monopolies.

Russian Orthodox Church was copied and localized from European countries, it's by definition not the same as the original.

>piracy
Please say "unauthorized sharing" instead.
Anyway, no. Sharing something is not bad.
Is going to jail over giving someone in need food bad?

Linux

You need to learn your church history. ROC Is one aspect of the Orthodox church. There is no separation between Orthodoxy and the particular ROC.
>wuz localised
Nope
>wuz copied
Nope

Intellectual property does not exist. You are basically saying that I cannot build a house with a patented architectural design *with my own materials* just because someone "patented the design". Fuck off with your authoritarian bullshit. Don't tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property that isn't coercing anyone else.
For your first point, taxation should be avoided as much as possible in the first place, a country needs only an internal and an external judicial and enforcement entity: that would be the police, the justice system, the military, and a military justice system. This means that the only taxation necessary would be by mail in, also meaning that tax breaks are no longer a thing anymore. Second point: as I said to the other user, patents are a violation of my property rights. The last point is debatable and I don't know an answer to it myself, as I've said earlier.

>ooga booga me no understand intellectual property, only comprehend physical goods, apply physical goods rules to intangible goods

It's not my responsibility to come up with a working business model for you. I just know that I value freedom and that also applies to property rights.

What even "is" the original? What does it mean to "be" the original? The way the apostles taught is so varied and diverse that there is no singular "original" version. It really comes down to "authority" of the bishops who got their authority from other bishops -> ... -> apostles -> Jesus. That's the claim of the "orthodox" church of it's "orthodoxy". It's not that "oh yeah we're exactly the same as the first christians", it's that all changes in the church were executed by apostolic authority of the bishops and councils.

Does any of you actually write software for a living?
Some people will pirate anyway, but I am happy that the casuals will be afraid and not pirate my software.

Software piracy is impossible.
All software is simply a subset of the natural numbers. You can't own a number.

A service is an intangible good. A software is not (unless it has a service component). A software has no scarcity. I hope you realize you're basically giving away your property rights for someone else's profit. If it's my hard drive, I should be able to decide what to do with the electrons stored in it.
This.
Not my job to figure out an ethical business model that doesn't violate my rights for you.

Being original means maintaining the same doctrine and apostolic succession - which the orthodox church does, exclusively.

>freedom
honestly source code should come with the software. Redistributing the source code should be a criminal offense, but at least you get to create plugins and modifications to said source code and share that. That way you have full control of your software and you are protecting intellectual rights of the software creator.

>be good citizen inventor
>spend your time and money inventing something
>spend investor money designing and refining it
>some kike takes your design for free because intellectual property doesn't exist :^)
>outsources manufacturing to China so you can't compete with his prices
>be broke and owe millions
>nobody wants to be inventor because of crap like this
>nobody wants to invest into new technologies because of crap like this
You'd think the situation is bad enough as it is, but there are always retards like you thinking they could do better by abolishing the system completely.

Why is it unethical? I tell my customers what they get. You pay x amount of money and you can use this software on 1 pc at a time. The customers agree to that and they seem happy as they think the value my software provides is worth it.

Why should 2 adults be prohibited from entering a legally binding contract? I never trick anyone, I never use any personal data, I only use anonymous data for copy protection.

Here's a counterexample. The Nicene Creed was finalized in 400's AD. The Justinian Hymn was composed by Emperor Justinian in ~550 AD. Yes every liturgy has these two (except St James that only has the Nicene Creed). Clearly early Christians didn't have both of these.

Look, i'm orthodox as well, but stop deluding yourself about how cool and hip this religion is. It's very practical and rests on the principle of authority like every other successful, more or less sustainable institution in human history.

Attached: putin_glasses.png (991x679, 196K)

Introduction of hymns is not a counterexample.
Nicaea was not a change in doctrine, it was an affirmation of doctrine. You did not do your research.

Yeah you're a moron that doesn't understand the difference between owning something as a user or owning something as a creator, we get it.

You are bunching the worst of both worlds (software freedom and intellectual property laws). Not only would that not work in practice, but it would also violate my property rights and make it even easier to pirate software (which you are against).
Work smart, not hard. I've heard this argument so many times about how someone else's R&D costs should somehow force me into giving up my property rights. Again, not my job to figure out an ethical business model for you.
Contracts are fine. This is your liberty. But if there is no contract, I should be able to redistribute as I see fit. I am all for your personal right to form contracts, what I am against is intellectual property.
Not an argument. I'm open to discussion though. Come back with an actual point if you wish to.

>being this hipsterdox
evolution of dogma is a condemned heresy. you aren't orthodox.

>honestly source code should come with the software
Fuck that, have you ever worked on software for years, or so you have idea how much work goes into it? I'm not letting people fuck around with it if I don't want to.

Orthodox people don't pray the same way that they used to. That's definitely true.

I never claimed dogma didn't change. Church traditions do. The original post I was responding to claimed that the Russian church today looks nothing like the original.

>Contracts are fine. This is your liberty. But if there is no contract, I should be able to redistribute as I see fit.

Well ok, but most TOS will tell you you may not redistribute it.
I have no problem with people writing a similar software, I only have a problem with people cracking my software and selling it.

Not the same user but this is your right, not to distribute source code. It is also my right to redistribute it, de-compile, modify, or do anything else to it, if there is no legally binding contract between you and me preventing me to doing otherwise, and I obtained the software without use of coercion.

>just use the invisible pink unicorn business model bro :^)
>what do you mean it doesn't exist?
>no I don't know if any good business models in that environment
>look it's not my job to find it for you
Heard that one a million times too. When you can actually name a strategy that would work on scenario like this then you'll have a point, until then it's just Marxist baseless drivel.

>There are new prayers, there are new Saints
Not a change in doctrine, dogma, etc. Any Kievan Rus' could walk into an Orthodox liturgy today and understand what is going on. He might not recognize the new Apolytikions or Kontakions for new martyrs or Saints. That does not mean the church has ever changed - it hasn't. That simply means more saints are commemorated. You are the one deluding yourself.

you are putting words into my mouth, I never said the doctrine or dogma changed and was only responding to

There is such contract, by default, and it forbids you from doing literally everything with it. EULA grants you some permissions they otherwise are completely banned, you acquire it by purchasing it.

You being a retard thinks that the adoption of newer saints, prayers, and church councils voids originality. It doesn't, retard, originality is solely about doctrine and apostolic succession. Don't pretend to be Orthodox.

then you either get windows shit (no source code for me to fix all of the shit with it) or freetarded, NEET-tier loonix shit (literally the most innovation happens when a corporation invests money into the project to work on it's own needs, not the community's). By having the source code come with the software, but it's locked up (like UNIX originally was), you could actually fix windows, and make cool add-ons and apps that rely on knowledge obtained from source.

Cracking the software in it of itself is not the problem. Look at it this way: How did someone obtain the software in the first place? Was it through coercion, or not? If it was through some form of force (unauthorized access for example), then there lies the issue.
Not my job to figure it out for you. Let human innovation do it's thing. Also, how is protecting property rights "Marxist baseless drivel"? I thought Marx was against property rights. Even though it's not my job, I'll name a couple of examples of how not to violate my rights while also making a profit. Crowdfunding for software releases. Adding a service component to software. You can still hire people to code for you. There are plenty of business models out there.

I don't have to agree to such a contract though.

>Was it through coercion, or not? If it was through some form of force (unauthorized access for example), then there lies the issue.

He bought it legally. I am not sure if I understand your point. He still doesn't have the right to copy and redistribute it. My license allows him to sell his copy if he wants, as long as it will only be used on 1 computer at a time.

True but then you can't interact with the object of the contract.

This, it's pretty simple actually. Or is the point that everything should be explicit? Not a big problem, but it won't change much.

Dismantling patent institution is protecting property rights. The absolute state of your fucking retardation.

>property belongs to the people!
>not Marxist

Then he violated your contract. We are in agreement here, I just added a bit of extra info for you to think about.
Usually downloading a software has no legally binding contract associated with it.
>I can't build this house with this design, with my own materials, on my own land, because someone three states away patented the design
You have presented no argument so I took the liberty with presenting an example of how patents violate my property rights.
No. When have I said that? Patents prevent you from enacting your full freedoms of your property. Patents thus violate your property rights.

>he answered your questions but you only know how to respond with insults
the absolute state of patentfags

His answer is asinine and self contradictory, what you think I was going to reply with? Polite deconstruction and explanation? On Jow Forums?

whats self contradictory? and sure why not have a polite deconstruction on Jow Forums, or do you prefer the shill threads and the bait threads?

Because the one place where any intelligent discussion is always casting pearls before swine is Jow Forums. With his moronic current beliefs I don't doubt for a second that he wouldn't have the capacity to understand it if I were to explain everything in detail, much less to have enough self security to admit being wrong in public.

I have been wrong before. I probably am wrong on some issues right now as well. I've been open to discussion though, meaning I care about being right much more than to appear to be wrong on the internet. Literally look at all my previous posts and tell me I'm some sort of closed minded asshole... All I've done is engage in discussion.
Shill and bait threads are Jow Forums now.

This is 4channel not Jow Forums.

Proprietary software should be illegal

>orthodoxy is strict
Lmao
Also they have a load of non-Christian nonsense
Catholic Church is the most strict and most pure

Yes
Piracy faggots are why everthing is DRM'd subscription models now without local/physical copies

Never.

No that's kikes. Piracy is a natural emergent phenomenon, when people take something for free but wouldn't buy it at intended prices. Regional pricing proved to work wonders, if only people were sensible enough to apply this logic to everything, not just average wallet thickness in target country.

Blaming the victim. You can't afford it? Don't buy it.
Why should people be free to steal my software because they claim they can't afford it?
I am not even that far on the right, people should have food, but most software is a luxury not a right.

>be thief
>call the person you steal from like
Let me guess you are a """privacy""" pedophile as well

Piracy is the basis of an ethical economy.