Questions & Answers

Pirates justify piracy. Naturally. But which of those justifications are valid? And which ones are „false justifications„? Learn powerful ways to overcome thinking errors and bad objections. This Q&A shall help you to rethink arguments and reframe false justifications.

I just like to get stuff for free

There is a reason why people LOVE things that are for FREE. It’s called Zero-Price Effect, after Dan Ariely, the author of the book “Predictably irrational”.

We think that there’s no downside to “free.”

Free money! Free standards! Free downloads!

However, it also reveals why we love free so much. Not because it is a rational choice, but rather because it is an irrational delusion.

Free seems so attractive, because we overlook the downsides.

Yes, free means that there is no visible upfront cost to it. After all, the price is zero. So no need to pull out the wallet and make a payment to get access to whatever we want to have.

But the invoice comes later. The wake-up call comes with a delay. The invisible cost appear after the first rush of excitement has subsided.

Ariely claims, „Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is FREE! we forget the downside. FREE! gives us such an emotional charge that we perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is.“

Pirates are especially prone to falling for the Zero-Price Effect.

Now, being a pirate or not, what can we do to avoid falling victim to the Zero-Price Effect? After all, we are better off if we are not affected by delusions, right?

One answer would be to keep in mind what the dowsides are.

Hidden cost
Hidden risk
Opportunity cost

What exactly are hidden cost, hidden risk and opportunity cost of piracy?

Read this post to learn more about hidden cost.

Click here to explore the hidden risk of piracy.

Check out this post to learn more about opportunity cost that pirates pay, even if they get things „for free“.

Please don’t get me wrong.

When you are reading this post, chances are you are human. And being a human means to have flaws and imperfections. Those make you relatable. They make you… well… human. So don’t be discouraged to learn that you have been falling for some psychological effect that some famous guy has written a book about. This is not to make you feel bad about yourself.

The point of this post is to make you aware and to invite you to reflect on something that affects you, triggers you and manipulates you. Even if you have fallen for it in the past, so what. It’s not your fault.

But use it as an opportunity to improve yourself.

Do it when it is the right time for you. Do it when you are ready for it. Good luck!

I just like to get stuff for free

Free money! Free standards! Free downloads!

Free sounds exciting. Who does not love things for free? I do. You probably do as well. Let me guess, you are probably especially attracted to free standards.

However, there is a catch.

It makes me sad that so few people realize that there is something wrong with „Free“. If something sounds too god to be true, maybe it IS too good to be true?

We need to be free from delusions in order to make good decisions.

However, smart people have discovered that many things can delude our thinking. One of those influences is called „Zero-Price Effect“. It was named by Dan Ariely, the author of the book “Predictably irrational”.

He discovered the reason why we love free so much. Not because it is a rational choice, but rather because it is an irrational delusion.

How does it work?

Ariely claims that „Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is FREE! we forget the downside. FREE! gives us such an emotional charge that we perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is.“

He also wrote that:

We think that there’s no downside to “free.”

In other words, whenever we hear „free“ this or „free“ that, our minds tend to overlook the downsides. Free means that there is no visible upfront cost to it. After all, the price is zero. So no need to pull out the wallet and make a payment to get access to whatever we want to have.

But the invoice comes later. The wake-up call comes with a delay. The invisible cost appear after the first rush of excitement has subsided.

Pirates are especially prone to falling for the Zero-Price Effect.

Now, being a pirate or not, what can we do to avoid falling victim to the Zero-Price Effect? After all, we are better off if we are not affected by delusions, right?

One answer would be to keep in mind what the dowsides of piracy are.

Hidden cost
Hidden risk
Opportunity cost

What exactly are hidden cost, hidden risk and opportunity cost of piracy?

Read this post to learn more about hidden cost.

Click here to explore the hidden risk of piracy.

Check out this post to learn more about opportunity cost that pirates pay, even if they get things „for free“.

Please don’t get me wrong.

But use it as an opportunity to improve yourself.

Do it when it is the right time for you. Do it when you are ready for it. Good luck!

Why Ratzfatz likes stuff for free Free money! Free standards! Free downloads!
This is what I see when I look on the internet.

Does it make you excited when you see free things on the internet? Guess what, you are not alone. Our inner pirates LOVE FREE stuff. They get a rush of adrenaline, the feel like being in heaven, they are stoked.

What about you? Does your inner pirate love FREE as well? I bet he does. Inner pirates love free more than anything else. You can probably feel his excitement just by thinking about FREE stuff. Its human nature. We all need more resources and FREE removes barriers between us and the things we need.

But be careful. There is a catch.

I remember a conversation I had with my inner pirate. What happens when you see FREE on the internet, I asked Ratzfatz.
„I love it“, Ratzfatz said. „Free sounds exciting, doesn’t it?“ he says, „Who does not love things for free? I do.“
I can literally see how he does. He can barely restrain himself form clicking on every single link that claims to give him things for free.

But be careful. Ratzfatz said. There is a catch.

What catch, I was wondering. But I knew Schatzfatz had the solution for this problem.

What is the catch, Schatzfatz? Can you explain it? Tess asked.

Schatzfatz eyes are shining. He stands straight and waves with a book he olds in his hand. He looks eager to share his wisdom. „Yes!“ he says. „Ratzfatz is falling prey to a psychological effect that is called „Zero-Price Effect“.

„What a strange name“, Tess says. „It must have been a scientist who calls something this way.“

Absolutely. Schatzfatz nods in agreement. „In fact, this effect was named by Dan Ariely, the author of this book.“ He turns the book so that we can read the cover. The title is „Predictably irrational”. Ariely, the author, discovered the reason why inner Pirates loves FREE so much.

Hm. So what is the answer? Why do Pirates love FREE so much, Tess asks.
Because they are free? Ratzfatz says.
Very funny, Schatzfatz says with a dry face. No, because perceiving something being FREE does not trigger a rational choice, but an irrational delusion.

Wait a second, Tess says, Are you sure? How exactly does this work?

Schatzfatz goes into professor mode. „Ariely claims that „Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is FREE! we forget the downside.

So you are saying that when our brains see something that is FREE then our brains remember the upside, but cover up the downside? It’s a strange thing that our brains would do this.

Yeah, I agree, Schatzfatz says. But that’s exactly what happens according to the psychologists.

Thats pretty Fucked up, Ratzfatz says. Both have a disturbed look on their faces.

Schatzfatz feels worried, because he wants to be understood and appreciated for his knowledge. Hey, he says, waiving his hands up defensivly. „I know it sounds threatening that our brains would create delusions and trick us, but I did not make this up myself. I just wanted to help you understand how our brains work.“

I know, I know, Tess says, you don’t need to defend yourself. „Are you saying that FREE gives Ratzfatz such an emotional charge that he perceives what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is?“

Exactly, you summed it up perfectly well, Schatzfatz says.

I dont like the zero-price effect, Ratzfatz says. It makes me sad that my passion that I feel when I see things for FREE is called a delusion by you guys.

I know, Tess says, whenever you hear „free“ this or „free“ that, your brain overlooks the downsides. This is not your fault. It happens to all pirates.

The parrot starts to burn. I see smoke, he dies and turns into ashes. This always happens when Ratzfatz old beliefs die. But I am not worried, because I know what is happening next. The ashes start to move, I can see something grow and Phee arises from the ashes. His feathers look especially long and colorful. We can all feel releived, especially Ratzfatz.

„When I saw FREE I felt joyful, because I thought that I don’t need to pull out the wallet and make a payment to get access to the standards I need to have! But I made a decition. From now on I will no longer be fooled by the zero-price effect. I understand that my brain covers the downsides. But I also understand that the bill for piracy arrives later. The invisible cost would appear after the first rush of excitement has subsided.

Tess smiles. She is happy, because she needs to be supported by Ratzfatz. And she can see now that he is willing to avoid falling for the zero-price-effect.

We are better off when I am no longer affected by this delusions right? Ratzfatz says.

Yes. Tess says. nodding her head.

Schatzfatz says. Here is what else you can do. When you observe something for free next time, just remind your brain of the downsides of piracy. Here they are:

Hidden cost
Hidden risk
Opportunity cost

I am not afraid of a challenge, Ratzfatz says.

I am proud of you, Tess says, just because you fell for a zero-price delusion in the past does not mean you cannot detect and void it in future, right?

Yes, watch me, Ratzfatz says. I will bust the zero-price delusion before it has a chance to get me again.

Since we had this discussion Ratzfatz has warned me many times and I avoided to pay for hidden cost, risk and opportunity cost. You can experience the same when you teach your inner pirate. This is how you can become successful. Make your inner pirate detect the zero-price effect whenever you perceive something for free.

If your inner pirate has seduced you into piracy because of free offers, dont be mad at him. Don’t try to punish your inner pirate because this will only make him resist you. But you need his help to be successful. So encourage your inner pirate to learn and once he has understood the zero-price effect he will warn you of the Zero Price effect in future.

Remember its hidden cost, hidden risk and opportunity cost that dont go away, just because you can obtain a document for free. Your inner pirate will be happy to help you once he has understood the zero-price effect.

To summarize, when you observe standards for FREE, check hidden cost, risk and opportunity cost. Then skip free piracy, because it has too many downsides.

Pirating a standard is potentially good for standard publishers…

…because when I publish a pirated standard illegally, some of my readers, who might have never discovered the standard through official channels, might find the pirated copies so valuable that they go and buy them afterwards.

Answer: This is deciding how to do marketing on behalf of standard organizations.

Deciding and acting “on their behalf”, claiming that you “know what is best for them” is a dangerous path.

Yes, you can claim and believe and have an opinion, but that does not entitle you to act on it.

Standard publishers most likely did not ask you to do their marketing. They did not elect you to do marketing for them. Doing otherwise violates their freedom to decide on their own how they do marketing, their decision what is best for them and whom they want to entrust with doing their marketing.

When you claim to know what is best for them (despite their declared statement opposing your claim) this is not just violating their freedom, but it’s also a projection. Just because you think you know what is best for them, does not prove that it is really best for them (have you thought about all the second order consequences?) and does not entitle you to act accordingly.

And even if you were right and standard organizations were wrong, and piracy would help standard publishers sell standards, it is up to them to make their own mistakes and to possibly change their action, on their own terms and when it is right for them.

Thinking otherwise is an entitlement attitude.

Follow-up question: Will readers of pirated standards find them valuable and buy them?

Answer:

Some will.
But some will also do it after consulting a free preview.
And some will after reading an article about it.
And some will do it in another way, in their own time.

You will probably never know which factor contributes most to a purchasing decision.

Pretending you knew does not justify pirating.

Imagine you were a car salesman and I would enter your property and “borrow” your private car to take my friend for a ride, with the argument that my friend might buy the car from you afterwards. Would I be justified to borrow also your bike, your PC, your TV and your phone, with the argument that my friend may likely buy those things after having tried them? You would probably value your right to use your own assets higher than my right to use your assets – and rightfully so.

If the dealer decides to take you for a test ride, for marketing purposes, that fine. You can share your opinion and suggestions, but it is up to the dealer to decide if he wants to use this marketing tactic or not. But to make the decision for someone else, violating their choice, their strategy … is presumptuous.

Proportionality: Everything we do has both good and bad consequences. But just because we can find the possibility of one good consequence of an action, this does not automatically justify the action.

It is conceivable that even rape may have some good side-effects for someone, somewhere, at some point in time… but just because there is a conceivable upside for an action, this does not automatically justify to take that action. The end does not justify all means.

When Ratzfatz claims that Piracy is good for standard publishers…

Have you ever seen your inner Pirate acting on behalf of a standard organization? Ratzfatz is probably very convinced that he knows what is best for standard organizations.

Be careful. Just because Ratzfatz has a strong opinion does not mean that you should act on it.

For example, he may tell you, „I do standard organizations a favor when I pirate a standard and publish it illegally online.“ He will continue to explain: „Because some of my followers might find the pirated copies so valuable that they go and buy the standard afterwards. So the organization wins! If not for me, they might have never discovered the standard through an official channel! The org should thank me for helping them out!“

If you find this argument convincing, it’s not your fault. Ratzfatz just twisted your mind like a mind wizard. Inner pirates are amazing at making up great arguments.

But there is a caveat when your inner pirate acts “on their behalf” or if he claiming that he “knows what is best for them”. Dont be fooled. Its a dangerous path.

Why?

Because standard publishers most likely did not ask you Ratzfatz to do their marketing. They did not elect him to do marketing for them. By doing so anyway Ratzfatz violates their freedom to decide on their own how they do marketing. He violates their decision what is best for them and whom they want to entrust with doing their marketing.

When he claims to know what is best for someone else (despite their declared statement opposing his claim) he is not just violating their freedom, but he is also projecting. Just because he thinks he knows what is best for them, does not prove that it really IS best for them (do you really think Ratzfatz has thought about all the second order consequences? Of course not.) Therefore Ratzfatz does not deserve to act the way he wants.

And even if he was right and standard organizations were wrong, and piracy would help standard publishers sell standards, it is up to them to make their own mistakes and to possibly change their action, on their own terms and when it is right for them.

Whenever Ratzfatz thinks otherwise, he has an entitlement attitude.

Follow-up question: Will readers of pirated standards find them valuable and buy them?

Answer:

Some will.
But some will also do it after consulting a free preview.
And some will after reading an article about it.
And some will do it in another way, in their own time.

You will probably never know which factor contributes most to a purchasing decision.

Pretending to know does not justify piracy.

To benefit the community, standards need to be available widely. Pirating makes standards available widely, so pirating is good.

This is like saying, to benefit the community, money should be made available widely. Stealing money from my neighbor and spreading the money on the street makes money widely available, so stealing from my neighbor is good.

Of course this would be absurd. Everything has upsides and downsides. If we only judge something by looking at the upside, but ignore the downside (cost and harm), our argument must be flawed.

Ratzfatz claims that Piracy was good because it makes standards widely available

Ratzfatz has is own logic. Do you want to hear one of his favorites?

„To benefit the community, standards need to be available widely. Pirating makes standards available widely, so pirating is good.“ he says.

If this sounds compelling, think again.

This is like saying, to benefit the community, money needs to be available widely. Stealing money from my neighbor and spreading the money on the streets makes money available widely, so stealing from my neighbor is good.

But of course this would be absurd.

What is wrong with Ratzfatz argument?

Let me tell you why Ratzfatz argument is flawed!“ Schatzfatz says.

Tess is afraid, because its easy for Schatzfatz to understand and articulate solutions. But it is important that Ratzfatz and Schatzfatz work together, not against each other. She embraces Ratzfatz to calm him down. His angry face softens instantly. All right, let’s hear him, she says.

„Everything has upsides and downsides. If we only judge something by looking at the upside, but ignore the downside (cost and harm), our argument must be flawed.“

What do you mean by that, Ratzfatz inquires. What is the downside of piracy?
Hidden cost for the pirate and harm for the standardization organization. Both is bad.

Aha! Now I understand, Ratzfatz says. just because piracy has one benefit, I must not ignore the cost and harm it also creates. And when I compare both, I see that the cost and harm outweight the benefit. I wish it would have been that easy as I had initially hoped, but now that I know better let me help you to recognize whenever someone else falls for the one-benefit trap.

Great, Ratzfatz, this will be super-helpful. I’m so glad you have the courage to admit your mistake and learn and use your experience to recognize similar situations so that we can avoid them in future.

You can count on me, Ratzfatz says, proudly.

Ratzfatz may have a history of falling for short-term traps easily, but be assured, once he understands which traps don’t work, his ability to detect similar situations in the future is priceless. He can be your immune system that, once infected and cured, has a long memory and detects similar traps for a long time. Be proud of him and cherish him, because having him in your team is very valuable for your success.

Piracy does not harm the standardization community

Standard organizations that create standards for the community are part of the standardization community. They are harmed when they are no longer paid in exchange for their service.

Without financing, organizations cannot maintain the standard creation process and the industry loses standards. Without standards, product creation becomes more difficult and trading products internationally is restricted severely.

Pirated copies don’t diminish the original, so piracy is OK.

Piracy has a similar effect as money printing: Even though printing of a lot of new money does not physically diminish the individual money bills, at one point inflation kicks in and reduces the value of money. Price goes up, value of money goes down. In other words, inflation does not harm the individual dollar bill, but it harms the value of money.

Just like money is being devalued through excess supply (inflation), widely available free copies of standards can diminish the price value of the standard.

Inflating money harms those that hold money. Inflating standards harms those that create and sell standards. Therefore piracy is not OK, even if it does not diminish the original standard document.

Piracy creates no harm.

Harm: The definition of harm is

1. Physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted
2. material damage.
3. actual or potential ill effects or danger.

Does this definition apply to piracy?

Point 1: It does not apply to piracy, because creating a copy does not harm the original file or hard copy.

Point 2: It does not apply directly, because the original standard is not physically damaged, but indirectly, because piracy causes financial harm to the standard organization due to loss of income to cover the cost of producing standards. This can have material consequences – job loss, office closure, trade reduction…

Point 3: This applies, because piracy ”effects ill” to the standard organization.

Piracy is my personal choice.

Personal vs. third party: It cannot be called a personal choice when it involves harming a third party for a trivial reason.

But this is what you do when you desire to use the work of creators of standards in exchange for nothing in return (or actually in exchange for violating their legitimate request to be paid and have their licence and copyrights respected).

Ratzfatz says „Piracy is my personal choice“.

Ratzfatz says „Piracy is my personal choice“. But is it true?

What makes a choice personal? That its a person that makes the choice? This is what Ratzfatz wants you to believe. But if this was true any choice someone makes would be a personal choice. Then the term personal choice would be meaningless.

Or does it mean that the effects of a personal choice remain limited to the person that makes the choice? That’s what personal choice really means.

Personal vs. third party: It cannot be called a personal choice when it involves harming a third party for a trivial reason.

„Are you saying that piracy is harming a third party and therefore it is no longer a personal choice?“
Yes, Ratzfatz, I see that you understood.
„I no longer want to call piracy a personal choice then.“ he says. „But I can warn you when others make this mistake in future!“
Well done, Ratzfatz. I would have never bought the standard anyway, so me using pirated standards does not lead to a loss of sale.

Have you never bought a standard but you continue pirating? Then you are probably fooling yourself.

Free benefits vs. paid engagements: Think about it. We have a tendency to devalue and discount the benefits we get for free. When we don’t pay for something we tend to engage less with it – and thus may miss value that we would not miss, would we put our skin into the game.

While it is possible that you may not have bought a pirated standard anyway, it is also possible that you may be deluding yourself, and you would have very well bought it, if you had not had the chance to consume it illegally beforehand.

Mind vs. heart: Another aspect is the division between mind and heart. With our minds, we may resist to buy something, but being creatures driven by emotions, we often end up buying things anyway.
Sometimes we think one way with our minds, but feel and act another way with our heart and wallet. So even though you may think that you would have never bought a standard with your mind, you might have in fact bought it, because your heart may have acted differently, had you not already obtained it illegally before. By the way, the opposite may also be true. People may not want something (with their hearts and wallet), but after some rational reflection they might realize that it would be smarter to acquire it, even if there is a cost to it, especially if the benefits outweight the cost.
Therefore, if you claim that you would not have bought a standard anyway, this is likely a justification of either your mind or your heart, but not a fact.

Prediction: Furthermore, it is a prediction. And how often does reality turn out differently to our plans?

Next step: Either way, if you have already consumed the value without paying, it would be the right thing to buy the copy afterwards.

False justification? However, if you use this argument as a justification to get the benefits without the cost, you are lying to yourself.

Content preview: If you think you must pirate a standard to learn about its content, this is likely no true, because you can assess free previews on the Webstore which contain a scope, table of contents, and references – and will likely teach you enough about the content to make a buying decision.

Ratzfatz says: I would have never bought the standard anyway, so me using pirated standards does not lead to a loss of sale.

Many pirates claim that standards with a valid licence are not worth buying. Schatzfatz even claims that he would never buy a standard with a valid licence. Yet some pirates like him continue pirating standards frequently. Are they trying to fool you? Or are they fooling themselves? Is their judgement flawed?

Researchers found that it is indeed a human oddity that we tend to value things more and engage in them more if we buy them compared to things we get for free. For example, many people start free courses without finishing them. But those that pay four a course tend to engage longer and complete more modules than those who do not pay. Thus many people tend to miss value in a free course. In other words, we have a tendency to devalue and discount the benefits we get for free.

The same might to be true for pirates. Some collect pirated contents without really using them. And because they have not paid for standards, they might not able to see the true value in them (even if they think they do). So consuming pirated content may make them blind for the true value. And as long as they can find pirated standards they may never question their assessment.

Then they say, I would have never bought the standard anyway, so there is no loss of sale for standard organizations even if I keep pirating them.

It’s often a cop-out. If the illegal supply would stop, many would go and buy standards. But fooling themselves is the easy way to get benefits without the cost, as long as they can get away with it.

People may not want something (with their hearts and wallet), but after some rational reflection they might realize that it would be smarter to acquire it, even if there is a cost to it, especially if the benefits outweight the cost.
Therefore, when Ratzfatz claims that he would never buy a standard anyway, this is likely a justification, but not a fact.

Prediction: Furthermore, it claim is a prediction. And how often does reality turn out differently to our plans?

Next step: Don’t fall for Ratzfatz justifications. If you have already consumed the value without paying, go buy the copy afterwards. It’s the right thing to do. The creators deserve to be rewarded for their work.

Content preview: If you think you must pirate a standard to learn about its content, this is likely no true, because you can easily assess the content throgh free previews on the Webstore which contain a scope, table of contents, and references – they will likely teach you enough about the content to make a buying decision.

Piracy is not theft, because it simply creates an additional copy.

True, piracy is not theft.

Nor is Fraud or robbery.

But that does not mean that any of them are ok, they just are different types of offense. They are equally illegal.

There are many ways to harm, theft is only one of many ways.

Ratzfatz says Piracy is not theft, because it simply creates an additional copy.

Most people don’t want to violate the law. Does piracy violate the law?

Of course not, Ratzfatz says quickly. Piracy is not theft. Theft requires that you take something from another person so that the other person no longer has possession of it. But if you pirate another persons document the other person is still in possession of the original. Therefore piracy is not theft and piracy is ok.“

True, piracy is not theft.

But just because something is not theft does not automatically mean it is ok and legal.

For example, fraud or robbery are not theft either, yet both are against the law. Both of them are bad, they are just different types of offense. They are equally illegal.

Even though piracy is not theft, piracy violates copyright and licence agreements. There are many ways to harm, theft is only one of many ways. Piracy is a different way to harm but equally illegal.

I did not know copyright restrictions apply

Answer 1

I cannot afford to buy standards, because I don’t have the money.

This is like saying, I cannot afford to board a plane and fly to Hawaii, because I don’t have the money. Therefore it is OK to hijack the plane and force the pilot to fly me to Hawaii for free.

Resource vs. value: Not being able to afford something indicates that we perceive a lack of resources. But maybe the problem is not our lack of resources, but the lack of value that we create with standards. If we use standards to create more value we can generate more money, which in turn makes us more resourceful, so that standards become affordable.

Reducing cost: One way to make investments affordable is to reduce their cost. IEC offers discounts, corporate accounts and subscription that reduce cost under certain conditions.

Can you afford to pirate? Note that piracy has a number of hidden cost and risks, that can be even more expensive to bear than the purchase price of a standard. Can you afford to take those hidden cost and risks? Can you afford to miss out on the benefits of a purchase which are entirely unavailable to pirates?

Hidden cost: Many buyers have learned that is is less expensive to buy standards than to pay the hidden cost and risk of piracy as well as to pay the opportunity cost of piracy. They can afford to buy a standard, because buying a standard is an investment that creates more value and pays off.

Ratzfatz says you cannot afford to buy standards, because you does not have the money. „You cannot afford to buy standards, because you don’t have the money. Therefore you have only once choice, you must pirate standards.“
Have you ever heard Ratzfatz talking to yo like that?

Be careful, Ratzfatz wants to make you believe that there is only one solution for your lack of money. Letting other people pay for your need. But that’s bad advice.

What would you say if he would tell you that it was ok to hijack a plane and force the pilot to fly you to Hawaii for free, because you could not afford to book a ticket? Pretty ridiculous, isnt it? But that would be the same logic.

I forcing someone else to pay for your lack of money is bad advice, what would be good advice? What other option is there to fix your lack of money?

Making money by creating value: Maybe you lack money because you did not create enough value? Money follows money creation. So you could invest in standards so that you can use them to create more value which will generate money. Then you could invest into more standards and so on. Its a virtuous cycle.

Saving Money by Reducing cost: Another way to fix a lack of money is to to save money. One way to make investments affordable is to reduce the purchasing cost, but without violating the producers rights. The IEC does not provide standards for free, but offers discounts, corporate accounts and subscription that reduce cost under certain conditions.

Saving Money by Avoiding Piracy CostMaybe you think you cannot afford to buy standards. But can you affort piracy? Because even if piracy pretends to be free, it comes with a number of hidden cost and risks, that can be even more expensive to bear than the purchase price of a standard. Can you afford to pay hidden piracy cost and risks? Can you afford to miss out on benefits of a purchase which are entirely unavailable to pirates (like customer service, valid licence, reputation)?

„OMG. Are you saying that it can cost me more money to pirate than to purchase a standard?“ Ratzfatz asks. Yes, Ratzfatz, now you get it. „From now on I must avoid piracy in order to make more money“ he declares. Well done, Ratzfatz.

The licence agreement ist too complicated to be understood. „I wanted to pay for standards, but then I had to read the licence agreement and was confusing.“ Then Ratzfatz said, „its too complicated, you better give up, its not worth it.“
Typcial Ratzfatz. As soon as there is the slightest difficulty he wants you to give up. But you dont have to.

Don’t worry. It’s not your fault if you don’t understand the licence agreement right away. Because a license agreement contains legalese. This means that you must read every word carefully to understand it. But you don’t have to do it alone.

If you need help, consult the FAQ for a summary or contact the customer service center. They will be glad to help you if you have any doubts.

Pirates pirates have a huge ego with stops them from asking for help or trust others. You can do better and once you accepted help Ratzfatz will become less negative.

Piracy is natural. We do it naturally with music on youtube or on the radio.

How something feels is not a valid justification for piracy. Even if it feels natural, it may still violate copyrights.

You might argue that anything is natural which humans are capable of. But if you argue that, then the justification „it’s natural“ would apply to literally any human behavior, and as such is ridiculous, since you would not say that any human behavior is justified just because a human did it.

Ratzfatz claims Piracy is natural. We do it naturally with music on youtube or on the radio.

Many things we do come naturally to us. Some feel that drawing comes naturally to them. Others feel that playing ball is like second nature to them. And some pirates feel that piracy is natural. „We pirate stuff. We do it naturally with music on youtube or standards on the web.“

Some people have been trained to do harmful things at an early age and they get used to it. But is it a justification if something feels natural? Of course not.

How something feels is not a valid justification for piracy. Even if it feels natural, it may still violate copyrights.

Ratzfatz might argue that anything is natural which humans are capable of. But come one – if you argue like ratzfatz then the justification „it’s natural“ would apply to literally any human behavior, and as such is ridiculous, since you would not say that any human behavior is justified just because a human did it.

Avoid illegal activities like piracy and create a habit of respecting the rights of others and paying for a valid licence. Even if it feels unnatural when you do it for the first time, soon it will become second nature to you.

Piracy is just a matter of culture.

Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, women having the vote, or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification.

If you think that culture is a justification, then if you look at other cultures, you must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. That’s not a rational point of view. You should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens.

So if you say that stopping a pirate is unacceptable, but harming the seller is OK, because your culture says so, then you must also accept that other cultures find the opposite to be OK and adapt accordingly.

Consider the following: If I were to stop you, would you really say „Excuse me, can we please cross the border to that other culture where purchasing is the norm? Then I will give up piracy“.

This is about the victim, it doesn’t matter where it happens.

Schatzfatz claims, Piracy is just a matter of culture.

Your inner pirate is proud of being a pirate. He says that pirates like him form a certain culture, the culture of piracy. Their piracy rules and social norms developed over time, he says, thus they are justified. Different groups have developed different cultures and each culture deserves respect. Piracy must be respected too, Ratzfatz claims, and he doubles down: You have no right to interfere with the piracy culture!

But wait a second, is culture really a valid argument? Let’s think it through. One could say that slavery is part of a certain culture, or woman having to vote. But the fact that slavery, woman having to vote, piracy or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification. Just because something is part of a culture does not automatically make it good or ethical.

If Ratzfatz believes that culture is a justification that others must respect, then he must respect other norms and behaviors too, even if they are different from his own culture. If he thinks that culture is a justification, then if he looks at other cultures, he must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. But that’s not a rational point of view. We should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens.

So if he says that stopping piracy is unacceptable, and that harming the seller was OK, because the piracy culture says so, then he must also accept that other cultures find the opposite to be OK and he must adapt accordingly. For example, the culture that considers buying a valid licence a necessity.

Consider the following: If I were to stop your inner pirate from engaging in piracy, would he really say „Excuse me, can we please cross the border to that other culture where purchasing is the norm? Then I will give up piracy“. Of course not.

Culture is a fake argument. What we must care about is if there is a possible victim, and to avoid behaviors that justifies creating victims. It does not matter where it happens.

It just shared a standard publicly, it’s not my fault if others use it and violate a license agreement.

You are not responsible for violations that other people commit, but you are responsible not to share a standard publicly or internally in any way that would violate the contractual terms or licence terms.

Standard Organizations are overcharging. Definition: to overcharge: “charge (someone) too high a price for goods or a service”.
Similar: swindle, cheat, defraud, gazump, fleece.

Overcharge is an economic term that refers to the difference between an observed market price and a price that would have been observed in the absence of collusion.

Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy. A secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage is an example of collusion.

The IEC does not limit competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal rights. It invites NCs, sales outlets and resellers to sell standards. If anything, some of other parties may overcharge, because they are free to set a higher price if they wish.

Ironically, it is pirates that can be accused of limiting open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others (standardization organizations) of their legal rights (to be paid in exchange for the value delivered).

Wikipedia explains: Overcharge: “The word is also used (as verb and noun) to describe cases where more than an agreed or standard price is charged for goods or services in a transaction, as when a lawyer bills for more hours than actually worked, a restaurant bill includes items not ordered or is added incorrectly, a builder charges an unreasonable amount for repair work, and so on. Overcharging in this sense may in some cases be a criminal offence (charging for work not done), in others not (a high charge when a price was not agreed).“

None of this applies to the IEC.

The IEC does not charge more than the agreed standard price. It does not bill more hours than worked, it does not add items to a bill that were never ordered and so on.
The IEC always communicates the price in advance, either on the Webstore or on manual pro formas.

Ironically, there are some malicious pirates that fit the definition. When they sell pirated standards, they overcharge when they promise a valid licence, without actually being able to deliver a valid license. Some people also pose as pirates, selling standards cheaper, without ever delivering them.

This pirated copy is cheaper than that standard for sale, therefore piracy is better. Your argument is that a standard has some value for you (otherwise you would not bother pirating it), but less value than the price of the standard.
But comparing a pirated standard and an officially bought standard with a valid licence is like comparing apples to oranges. Because the value of both standards is very different.

The value of a pirated standard (the benefit to read and use its content) is diminished by hidden piracy cost that most pirates are not aware of. For example, hassle, risk, exposure, incongruence, misalignment with core values… Considering the hidden cost and risks, the true value of a pirated standard may actually be negative.

If you have not calculated those expenses, you cannot possibly compare the price of a pirated standard with the price a licenced standard.

Furthermore, the purchase of a licensed standard is more valuable, because it contains benefits that pirated copies can never deliver.
For example,
– customer service
– complete offering
– you support the standardization community financially
– You support the creators
– Status,
– Reliablitiy
– Congruence

All those valuable aspects are delivered to buyers. But none of these benefits are delivered to pirates.

So, the reason why a licensed standard is more expensive than a pirated copy is because it delivers more value and less hidden cost and risk.

Ratzfatz says, This pirated copy is cheaper than that standard for sale, therefore piracy is better.

Ratzfatz likes cheap solutions. When he sees a pirated copy he gets watery eyes, because he compares it to a purchased copy and thinks, one is free, the other is not free, so piracy must be better. But he makes a dangerous mistake, because his only criteria is price.

But should price be the only factor? Or are there other factors that are even more costly to you than the purchase price? And are you missing out on benefits that only buyers receive?

You bet. But you may wonder, which ones?

Comparing a pirated standard and an officially bought standard with a valid licence is like comparing apples to oranges. Because the value of both standards is very different. The value of a pirated pirated is diminished by hidden cost. And the value of a purchased copy is increased by hidden benefits that pirates never receive.

There is value in reading and using a pirated standard. (Otherwise nobody would engage in piracy.) But this value is compensated with hidden piracy cost that most pirates are not aware of. For example,
– hassle,
– risk,
– exposure,
– incongruence,
– misalignment with core values…
If Ratzfatz would consider not only the price, but also hidden cost and risks, the true value of a pirated standard may actually be negative. Furthermore, a licensed standard is more valuable than a pirated copy, because it contains benefits that pirated copies can never deliver.
For example,
– security
– complete offering
– you support the standardization community financially
– You support the creators
– Status,
– Reliablitiy
– Congruence
– customer service
If Ratzfatz would consider hidden benefits of a valid licence, he would want to become a buyer too.

Comparing a pirated copy with a purchased copy without considering hidden cost and hidden benefits is like comparing apples with oranges, pretending both were the same.

My advice to you: Next time Ratzfatz wants you to pirate a standard, stop him from comparing apples with oranges. And remind him to fear hidden cost. Then tell him about the benefits and he will want to have the benefits that are only delivered to buyers too.

So, the reason why a licensed standard is more expensive than a pirated copy is because it delivers more value, less hidden cost and none of the risks.

Youtube does it, so I am allowed to do it too.

„Youtube publishes lot’s of copyrighted videos publicly without consequences, so I thought I am allowed to publish copyrighted standards on other social media too.“

According to Youtube: “Just because you purchased content doesn’t mean that you own the rights to upload it to YouTube. Even if you give the copyright owner credit, posting videos that include content you purchased may still violate copyright law. (…) YouTube takes action to address cases of abuse and misuse in our copyright takedown processes.”

When you assume that everything you see on youtube was justified (not violating copyright law), this assumption is wrong. Accordingly, your conclusion, that publishing on other social media was justified, is equally false.

I believe that buying a standard is too expensive, even though I would have the money to buy it.

Other objection? “Too expensive” is often a quick and easy excuse for other objections that are either unconscious or not discussed yet. Deeper objections could be a lack of trust in the seller or lack of awareness of benefits provided by the seller.

Timing: Sometimes it is not a matter of what, but of when. The timing might not be right. Sometimes we are not ready to make a purchase, for example when we want to compare the price with prices offered by a competing seller first.

Benefits and Value: Buyers that learn more about benefits and delivered value and trustworthiness of the seller can have a more productive discussion that addresses the underlying real issues.

Morality is subjective, you can’t prove piracy is wrong for me.

Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple – do you have any consideration for the creator of standards and their right to choose how to price, share and distribute standards – or not?

Most pirates would say that they care about creators, or at the very least, would not like to needlessly harm them.

Violating copyright and obtaining or sharing standards illegally is unnecessary, and so all harm visited upon standardization organizations, is unnecessary also.

So your own subjective view should be to avoid harming them – if you have any consideration for them whatsoever.

Question 1

Answer 1

This is a rather long statement to show you what happens when it is longer than expected. Get it? And now it is even longer than before to see what happens.

This is the answer sldjkflasdjk

Piracy is a matter of opinion

Answer 1

Piracy is a victimless crime, so it’s OK.

Answer 1

Standards are too expensive

Answer 1

I am a modern Robin Hood.

Answer 1

Piracy is a gift

Answer 1

I did not know the copyright.

“Ignorance of law excuses no one” is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

Likewise, ignorance is not a valid justification for piracy.

It is also difficult to overlook the IEC copyright, because the IEC puts copyright notes and licence conditions into each standard, as well as links to the IEC website where everyone can read up on the licence agreement.

A lack of knowledge can easily be healed.

Information wants to be free

Answer 1

A copy is as good as its original

Answer 1

I’m just borrowing.

Answer 1

I don’t pirate for the money (so it’s OK).

Answer 1

Standard organizations don’t deserve to be paid.

Answer 1

Stop judging me!

Answer 1