So many times on this forum, people have danced around this subject. Orpheus was often quite cavalier about his 'taboo' versions of this and that. More recently there was a brush with the subject on another thread in which I posted. My question is this.
Without incriminating yourself, and if possible, remaining as honest as you can, please explain why at any time you've felt that pirated or cracked versions of software/music/movies of any kind are justified.
Is it simply a money issue?
Are there deeper motivations?
At what point do you consider a program or file of any kind not worth paying for?
Software which has been distributed freely by it's creator does not qualify for this thread.
I'd really be interested to know how you feel about this subject.

I want to point out that there is a new wave of commerce getting started; one that is separate from capitalism, socialism, communism, and totally dependant on today?s modern technology by mainly but not limited by the internet. Wouldn't it make sense to start thinking about how the next form of commerce and economy will emerge? It is through what is called the "collective action" theory (-Google it). Today's technology has increased our evolution of commerce. When the alphabet was invented, new forms of records were then able to be kept of the trades that occurred each and everyday for a tribe or civilization. Then we had the printing press which was able to help such visionaries as Newton, Luther and Jefferson realize and spread their vision. Beyond that we had broadcasting stations that then allowed us to spread a message for miles apart for other people to hear, and so now, with computers and internet, every computer is now a printing press, every computer is now a broadcasting station; and it is from these forms of communication that we keep advancing our technology basing the next form off the last. This is why we are able to advance even more rapidly than before. Eventually, we will be able to carry/wear technologies that will communicate at faster speeds greater than through what we consider broadband today.

Where am I going with this? Let's investigate further:
Why do people steal software and other forms of digital goods for no good reason? They try to form rational self-interest. In many tests over the world, people play what is called the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (-Google it). Basically, imagine two people sitting in separate rooms. One is offered $100 but is told to split his $100 with the other person for however much they want to (fair or not). The first person chooses and the remaining decided amount is offered to the second person, who then has the choice to accept it or reject it. What the two people are not told is that if the second person rejects the amount (if he thinks it is unfair), neither of them are paid, and the game is over. What has been discovered all over the world is that somehow, there is an innate understanding of the game's result. That is, the first person realizes within themselves that they should make a fair offer for the sake of it. And unbelievably, the end result of the game has been that most people settle on the amount. What does this prove? That rational self-interest is not always the dominating factor in market deals. Yes, there will always be stealing for whatever reason, but there should probably always be a majority that refuses to.

So, where am I now? I'm now going to explain how what we consider "altruistic punishment" is what keeps stealing in check. It has been suggested that "altruistic punishment" may be the glue that holds societies together. It is the joy people in business and on the market get when they punish people doing bad things (such as stealing or cheating in general). This ranges everywhere from suing someone, to posting a negative comment on their site for treating you unfairly. People will act to punish cheaters even at a cost to themselves.

Now, here's my "tie-in" statement: referring to my first paragraph, new forms of cooperation through communication in the past have helped create new forms of wealth. This is true today through the internet. Look at open source production and peer-to-peer production. If in the past new forms of cooperation create new forms of production and wealth, then it may not be so farfetched to imagine that we may be moving into yet another economic form that may be considerably different from the others.

There is a certain kind of sharing that is evident in modern corporation's self interest. Outsourcing has proven that world class software such as Linux and Mozilla can be produced without the Socratic structure of the firm. Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through "AddSense." Amazon has opened its API to 60,000 developers enabling countless Amazon shops. But this is not out of altruism, but simply as a way of enriching themselves. E-bay solved the Prisoner's dilemma! They created a market where none would have existed by creating a feedback system that changes what the buyer and seller think of one another. It has become a situation where the buyer proves to the seller that he is trustworthy enough to buy from. Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in 200 languages in just a couple of years. BitTorrent turns every downloader into an uploader making the system more efficient the more it is used. Millions of users have dedicated their computers when they're not using them to link together through the internet to create super computers that crack algorithmic codes, search for life in space and find cures of diseases. Companies are outsourcing because it enriches themselves; people are banning together out of self-interest. It is an economy with both equally involved: self interest AND all-inclusive enrichment. All over the world people are banning together through cell-phones and IM to warn one another about a problem in the city, or to remind each other to go vote, or rally at an event.

Now, I'm not saying that understanding cooperation is going to cause us to be better people, in fact, sometimes, people cooperate to do bad things, I'm just saying that having a better understanding will allow us to progress even faster into the next generation of commerce which is probably a good thing. People are now setting their own prices for how much they think an item is worth. And that trend is trickling down to the everyday seller. Not just retail and auctions. Stealing is just a way people try to get what they want because they either don't like the system in place to legally get what they want, or they believe the amount of this item is not fair for whatever reason.

With that being said, I cannot take credit for this entire post, as most of my words have been either paraphrased or quoted directly from this man: Howard Rheingold I had watched his TED conference talk not long ago and this post by wil5son reminded me of it, so I decided to pass on his words in the context of this topic. I think it has some relevance .

Why do you think that Fishy?

I see no reason to delete an ongoing intelligent discussion due to content. The fact of the matter is that there is no black and white yet with reguard to this subject. Almost every aspect of this particular topic is open, as you can see, to interpretation. No one here is pandering freeware, flaming, or linking to any warez. It's a discussion.

So in essence, you feel that it's up to you to determine when profit should cease for a product?.

They have more than enough money, so I should get it for free?.

What about format crossovers?. You don't get a free DVD player just because they put the movie on DVD. You go out and buy the DVD player. Then, when they release it on Blu-ray, you go and buy that player. Every time a manufacturer updates it's format, it's at an expense. If they have previously sold ten million units on VHS, should they be obligated to offer you a no cost upgrade?