Why is Software Piracy Considered Theft? I know the question sounds mundane and perhaps even silly at first glance, but, consider it for a moment. Our qualm with piracy seems to be premised with some notion of loss at the owners/business' expense. Every study I've read calculating loss by software piracy presupposes that, without piracy, every transgressor would have bought the software (particularly the BSA). Additionally, we cannot deny businesses have all the litigious incentive in the world to pursue the highest estimates of damages Now, by definition piracy is generally The illegal duplication and distribution of copyrighted files (US Legal, Inc)... By definition of loss/theft, how is one deprived of their software if the "crime" is only the duplication of said software? How is there loss when the owner(s) not only still own the original piece of the software, but only dealt with general expenses of management, coding, advertisement, et cetera, and not any expenses of the duplication? There is some exception when it comes to physical copies such as video games at stores, for example, in my opinion, because there are direct expenses keeping those games on shelves, producing cases and discs, et cetera. If we consider even a copy of software [without consent] a form of theft and therefore loss, then would it not be theft for me to legally license software and then duplicate another file of it? After all, even though I licensed the software I still made a duplicate without consent, yes?
It isn’t theft Theft requires depriving the legal owner of possession permanently. In concept it’s closer to fraud than theft, however, copyright violation is its own crime - neither theft nor fraud. In casual usage, you can call it theft if you like - or pomegranate, or Howard. Whatever gets your point across.
You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) ...(not very helpful)...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The law is usually used to justify copies of the installation media, but it would be unconscionable to cut your rights off there and make backups illegal for machines containing copyrighted software. After all, with such an interpretation, no Windows machine could be backed up since Windows is copyrighted.
To answer the last part of the question: Jurisdiction would be where the copied media is being producted and where it is being consumed/sold. Moving media from one jurisdiction with ineffectual protections to another jurisdiction is part of product piracy. The scheme you suggest might shield the company producing the counterfeit goods, leaving the importers holding the bag. If the importers and manufacturers are controlled by the same person, courts in jurisdictions with strong protection might hold that person liable for the whole criminal enterprise. There is a widespread assumption that the internet is 'beyond national laws.' That is wrong. Enforcement may be difficult in some cases, but the laws apply. If you try to make profits by skirting the edges of law, you need really good, really professional legal advice.
Laws against such actions are not stated in terms of popular and fluid concepts like "computer virus", they are stated in terms of clear concepts like "unauthorized access". There are federal and state laws against this. This web site lists and links to all of the state laws on the matter. There is also a federal law: a detailed legal analysis by DOJ is given here. There are some limits to federal jurisdiction, for example "protected computers" include "computers used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication". The term "affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication" is widely used in federal law, and can be used to prohibit growing feed for your own animals. Anything that you "send" clearly affects interstate commerce (the internet is internationally connected). 18 USC 1030(a) says Whoever ... (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains...(C) information from any protected computer Essentially, a computer connected to the outside world is protected. The key here is "without authorization". If you authorize MS to report back stuff about your computer, that is not unauthorized. It may not be possible to use their product without giving such authorization, in which case you can use a different product that doesn't require that you grant authorization. There is also the possibility that some software producer has technically violates the law because they think that it's okay for them to access the computer as long as they do no harm. Typically, people are not aware that they have granted software publishers access to their computer. The concept of "harm" is pretty much irrelevant to computer-crime criminal law. It would be relevant, though, if a plaintiff were to sue someone for sniffing around their computer: then you'd have to show that you were damaged.
No, it does not. There is indeed a 2-year guarantee for all goods, but "goods" is defined to be a "tangible movable item" according to Directive 1999/44/EC Article 1, subsection 2(b). In less legalese, a physical item; software doesn't count. While there has been discussion about extending this protection to software, I'm not aware of this having been done yet. Even if it were, determining whether goods are "faulty" ultimately comes down to whether it conforms to the contract of sale (Article 2). I think it's likely that vendors in this area would put a disclaimer for unforeseen security vulnerabilities, or something to that effect.
I think Dale M is essentially correct. Let me give more detail by quoting the Theft Act 1968: 1 Basic definition of theft (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. 3 “Appropriates”. (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property. You assume the rights of an owner by placing a notice offering it to other people. Therefore it is theft. I presume similar laws exist in other juristictions.
Under US copyright law, all works are protected by copyright except for US Government works. The concept of "public domain" is not legally well-defined, and is used colloquially to refer to government works, works whose protection has expired, works available to all, and works not copyrightable (such as scientific laws or old software). Under older copyright law, releasing a work without the copyright symbol effectively put the work in the public domain. One can simply say "I dedicate this work to the public domain", and that is typically taken to be enough. CC0 purports to do this (using more words). However, as far as I can tell, author rights under European law are so strong that it is simply impossible. Releasing works into the public law has to be consistent with other aspects of the law. If you grant an perpetual exclusive right to copy and distribute to a publisher, their right does not go away on your death (a right which they would not have with a real public domain work). A problem is that an author who makes such a dedication (a bare license) could revoke the license and reassert their copyright. They could be estopped from making that argument. As property, your heirs would inherit the copyright and could (try to) revoke the license. Presumably the courts would not allow them to pursue ostensive infringers. Nevertheless, your plan is neither trivial nor bullet-proof.
You may be allowed to make a single backup copy, pursuant to 17 USC 117 it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:... (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful Congress defined "computer program" as a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. At most, you could make one copy of a given CD, as long as you don't use it except to restore the original if it is damaged. Although data is not typically thought of as a "computer program", the definition of "computer program" given by congress is compatible with the nature of music CDs. It's a somewhat open question whether the courts would decide that the insides of a CD player is a "computer" (it is, with extremely limited abilities), and Congress did not define "computer" for purposes of copyright. There does not appear to be any clear case law testing whether it is legal to make a single backup copy of a music CD, so it is possible that a music CD does not meet the conditions of a "computer program". The RIAA position on the matter about 10 years ago, based on the statement of the RIAA president, was It’s OK to copy music onto an analog cassette (not for commercial purposes), it’s OK to copy music onto special audio CD-Rs, minidisks and digital tapes (but again not for commercial purposes). Beyond that there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R, but burning a copy onto a CD-R or transferring a copy onto a computer hard drive or portable music player won’t usually raise concerns so long as the copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own and the copy is just for your personal use. However, this does not constitute giving permission by the copyright holder, even if the company distributing the work in question is a member of RIAA. Along these lines, in a document filed with the copyright office on behalf of the industry, pertaining to DMCA rule-making, it is maintained (p. 39) that "The making of back up copies for personal use has never been held to be a per se noninfringing use", and "As the Register made clear in her 2003 Recommendation, “it is not permissible to classify a work by reference to the type of user or use.”" (you can't just say "backup" and gain a fair-use defense). In other words, it's not clearly legal, and it's not clearly illegal. Clarity would come if a person was sued for making a backup copy of music CDs (with no muddying of the issue, such as "and then selling it"). For non-legal reasons, it is unlikely that a case law test will emerge.