DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: P2P

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music Business: P2P - Peer To Peer

Stealing Software

DigWeed	Date: June 8, 2005 @ 4:53 AM It just pisses me off when I find people doing that... They steal the software, and raise the price for others...
jordanthegreat	Date: June 8, 2005 @ 7:23 AM I constantly steal everything, especially software. The end user does not raise the price, i do believe it's the company who sells the product. Fuck them.
BlackMage	Date: June 8, 2005 @ 12:32 PM That doesn't make any sense. At all. I do have FL downloaded, but I don't think you can buy the version from their site (3.56 which one is the best in my opinion or to say... suits my interests). I have no interest in ordering software abroad. Just too much of a hassle and takes about 3 months. On the other hand, stealing software is bullshit and you shouldn't be doing that, but yeah... If the software is like 6 years old and you can't get it from anywhere then I think it's acceptable to download it via p2p or something else, but otherwise... I don't endorse it." id="137594">"The end user does not raise the price, i do believe it's the company who sells the product. Fuck them." That doesn't make any sense. At all. I do have FL downloaded, but I don't think you can buy the version from their site (3.56 which one is the best in my opinion or to say... suits my interests). I have no interest in ordering software abroad. Just too much of a hassle and takes about 3 months. On the other hand, stealing software is bullshit and you shouldn't be doing that, but yeah... If the software is like 6 years old and you can't get it from anywhere then I think it's acceptable to download it via p2p or something else, but otherwise... I don't endorse it.
jordanthegreat	Date: June 8, 2005 @ 2:02 PM piracy has taught me many things. I'm not about to forget any of them. Like i would really pay for any of the software i have. I'd be fucking ashamed to have paid for microsoft windows xp. and uh.... "They steal the software, and raise the price for others..." i'm sure. "That doesn't make any sense. At all." People who steal software, do not raise prices for non-stealing users. Software is already over-priced in most cases and the companies profiting off of poor coding, should be slaughtered and in no-way supported. I've pirated everything i've used for years now, i wouldn't have learned a single thing about music if it weren't for piracy in the first place.
Svensta	Date: June 8, 2005 @ 2:15 PM What you DO with your pirated things does not justify your stealing them. You are incorrect in your assertions that "People who steal software, do not raise prices for non-stealing users". You use as your argument the concept that software is "already over-priced in most cases". Fundamentally unsound. Every user who pirates a copy of the software is a customer who will NOT be buying the product. There is a defense along the lines of 'yeah well I wasn't gonna buy it ANYWAY' Illogical. If you are using it without paying for it, you are a lost customer. They have lost their chance to offer you their product and whats worse, not to a competitor but to their own product! Some firms overcharge, true. Some firms produce buggy code, true. No firm survives doing either to the extent that they poison their marketbase. You do that, and you die. You know what happens if Adobe raises the price of Photoshop to 5k per license? Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY switches to GIMP and PaintShopPro and a million others. No company can price gouge with impunity. If the market will bear PS CS costing 800 bucks for a full license, why shouldn't they charge it? Why sell you a Benz for 20k, when you would pay 50k for it? What.. you think Lexus' are that much better than Toyota's? You know the same firm makes both right? In the same factories? The price is ultimately decided by the people who pay. You, Jordan, are a leech of the first order. Who gives a DAMN what you have to say about product quality when you attest that you swipe everything you use off the back of a truck?
jordanthegreat	Date: June 8, 2005 @ 2:25 PM well apparently no one. I'll just keep quiet next time.
sarahmicol	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 5:55 AM jordan was sincere. I download software sometimes because the price is often too high and I can't afford it. I also buy products but it's true they cost tooooo much. There's a clear speculation and it's not only due to piracy!
Svensta	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 8:57 AM Jordan, you are completely free and even invited to rebut. If I had a problem with you or this thread I could have deleted it, I was merely offering a counterpoint to your position. No reason to sulk, this is how people debate ideas. Sarah, you say you pirate because the price is too high. You WANT the application, but you can't afford it. I want a Bentley, but I can't afford it, should I steal it? Just because you have the ability to anonymously steal a product, doesn't give you the inalienable right to have it for free. Just because it doesn't come in a shrink-wrapped box with an RFID tag on it, doesn't mean its not a product. I have a problem with people who p2p and steal music for this very reason. I boycott the Association, and I buy and swap used discs constantly because I want to shaft them for their unsavory practices, but just stealing product so I can have it is not a justifable reason on its own. Again, the price speculation is always vulnerable to a market correction, meaning that they will charge the absolute most they can per license and still maintain a high enough sale volume to stay in business. Simple economics. You want to fight prices, then evangelize and teach people to use freeware or shareware alternatives and drive DOWN the demand for the pricey option. You will see the prices fall like rain if they lose enough market share. Just look at how the Linux flavors are slowly bringing MS to heel.
Veracohr	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 10:05 AM Svensta, I'm glad someone else here shares my opinion of stealing software. I talk to so many people who simply don't understand why it's not good; or worse, faced with the argument that it hurts the company, they say they don't care. Unfortunately, I'm so flabbergasted by that kind of thinking I can rarely come up with anything worthwhile to say. I think a lot of people don't see it the same because it's so much easier to steal software than, say, a car, and you don't actually acquire something physical. There's lots of programs I wish I had, and I'm sure I could download them if I wanted to, but I don't because I just don't think it's fair. Like everyone else in the world, I am not entitled to anything.
imemine	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 11:36 AM Here’s a little balance. I have a lot of software that I have purchased thinking it was exactly what I needed but much to my dismay, it really sucked. Now I own it because after you open software, you can’t return it. Free trials are seldom functional enough to truly evaluate software in a real world application. The time period is too short, it cuts in and out, it’s low fi, you can’t save or a multitude of other complications that get in the way of really being able to run it through the tests. I’m not advocating stealing, I’m simply stating that there is someone out there picking up the tab.
jordanthegreat	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 3:03 PM LOL who gives a fuck about the company? Are you actually serious? I'm going to become a fanboy for bill gates.
Svensta	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 4:24 PM I'm with you, 'Cohr. And I share your belief that, like music, software needs newer and more intelligent methods of distribution and billing, as well as pricing. Microsoft is actually working on a licensing concept where you essentially LEASE your software from them, which is very interesting to the end-user. You download and update so long as you pay your quarterly/annual fee. No you don't OWN it, but in a vacuum, owning software is a dubious process ANYWAY. Software has zero intrinsic value, it is what you can DO with it that makes it worth something. Jordan, you've just managed to reduce your opinion to banal stupidity. That reads like you are 11 years old. Imemine, tell me, do you ever legally register applications like WinZip that you download use for a trial period and then keep and use regularly?
imemine	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 5:47 PM Sure, I've done that but I do own winRAR now----It was only $30. My statement was not meant to be a “holier than thou” remark but rather to simply to make the point that “buying” software has its downside to consumers too. I’ve spent WAY too much money buying stuff that I wont ever use so these days, I’ll find some way to find out if it does what I want it to do before I ever make the fool mistake of wasting my money again. If I purchased a real keyboard verses a virtual synth, I’d be able to return it if I didn’t like it. You can’t do that with software. If software developers would allow returns in good faith, I would feel better about taking chances. I know, it’s already installed on your machine at that point but it’s also available all over the web for free too if you choose to go that route. I feel like I got screwed with some of these programs. That’s all. “who gives a fuck about the company?” Well, I’d kind of like to have these folks around tomorrow to keep making better sounding products. So I give a Mr. Thegreat. I don’t mind supporting a business if it’s something that I think is a good product and if I’m actually going to use the product.
unsterblich	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 8:16 PM “who gives a fuck about the company?” "Well, I’d kind of like to have these folks around tomorrow to keep making better sounding products." Spoken like a true consumer. Do you "give a damn" most of these poor, ripped off little companies outsource in order to avoid paying a citizen of the country in which they thrive a real wage? Simply blurting out that "stealing" from the thieves is perfectly alright because they are thieves may be a misinformed view, but the other end of the argument where you whine and moan over the multimillion-dollar crooks is equally inane. Since I rarely need some bloated expensive piece of garbage that I'd never buy anyway, I try to support smaller companies or individual programmers themselves (such as Magnus Brading who wrote Mp3/Tag Studio). Even then, I'd never buy software whose full version I've never used, nor would I ever buy an album which I have not heard in full. Jordan may not have the knowledge to support his actions, but the arguments are very much there. Simply 'cause someone beat him over the head with Economics 101 does not make his, uh... his "non-argument" moot.
sinai	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 9:00 PM if its there, and i can get it for free... i will. every time
imemine	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 9:04 PM Holy mother of the bless-ed virgin cucumber salad topped with a delicious strawberry vinaigrette. WHAT? I’m very happy for that you support----whatever it is that you support. * pat on the back * Is the topic NOT-- Stealing Software? sorry that I “blurted” that out like that there. Wait-----Ooops, just experiences a minor blackout from the vinaigrette. “Spoken like a true consumer.” How is it that you actually sustain life without “consuming”? Give me a freaking break! I’m out! Here have one of these! …..or one of these.
imemine	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 9:08 PM Sorry sinai, that's not directed at you---and we know you can 'cause ------you da man! You just out posted me.
sinai	Date: June 9, 2005 @ 9:19 PM no problem ime you just can't beat free. if theres a 20 on the sidewalk, you don't worry about harming the overhead of whoever dropped it. you take it. hands down. every time. btw, doesn't downloading music, movies, and games, also cause all the damage you're pissing and moaning about here? strange code of ethics you script kiddies have it's the nature of business, companies try to get as much money as they competitively can, while the consumer tries to find the cheapest possible price. and free is as low as you can go. on a totally unrelated note, do you think those 25,000 employees that GM layed off this week are psyched they still get the employee discount from the new promotion?
RobertMcDade	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 2:09 AM They should call me Captain Long Beard the way I stuff. I love 'ing things. Sometimes I stuff I don't even need. But I don't ever make personal profit off the stuff I . So it's all good. Plus, I think people should be free to things as they wish. It's not like we do it without ANY consequence. I have Spyware, Adware, and Viruses out the ying-yang. So I say long live 'ing!
swoppy	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 2:59 AM I personaly make a difference between stealing software for personal use or for commercial purposes. I wouldn't want to steal it, to sell it again from the back of my car (even if I had a car and a drivers-licence), to make money without any costs. I do think that a lot of every day people lost their jobs, or maybee even their dreams to have their own little record- or software-shop. However, the big compagnies DO overcharge a lot, most records or software that I got illegal via the net, I would NOT have bought for that reason. The agrp, has its roots in a fileshare program(slsk), since about a year I only share files that have been made by roomies of the "acoustic guitar" room. Many roomies had never even thought about recording their own music, or didn't even know they could, before I challenged them to do so. For them I share Cool Edit 2.0 Pro, so all they need is a mic. that fits their soundcard and they are ready to roll (I have been trying to work with Audacity (which is freeware), but I couldn't get the tracks to play synchronized there (might be my own being inexperienced when it comes to understanding software). That room is very international & multi-langual, however, together we choose the room-language to be english. To make that all go a bit more smooth, I share Babylon plus (a great word translator) I have 4 programs on share. Both products together help us create a very special chatroom, where people are communicating and creative. I know, it is weird to be an idealist, who builds communities that have their foundations in stolen software, but I am convinced that people who found ways to express are better to have around then people who didn't. We all inhale life, those of us, who found ways to express, exhale again, That makes them (in my view) less explosive then others
Woof	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 4:22 AM While it's true that a lot of the good programs are really (and I mean REALLY) expensive, funding a company that provides the best programs is the only way to assure that they'll continue to update, and improve their product. We'd all still be using Photoshop 4 if so many consumers hadn't kept Adobe going all these years... I hated... absolutely hated... seeing Sonic Foundry get bought out by Sony (who is notorious for their infamous line of total crap software). I guess Sound Forge, Acid, and Vegas will eventually be turned into crap, too. Whereas Sonic Foundry did everything they could, to insure that their products improved in a big way, with every release. Fact is, stealing is stealing, no matter how you cut it. Some folks are alright with that, and some aren't. I'm still trying to figure out what philosophy is behind hacking... I guess there is one, but I have no idea what it would be. Anyhow, I'm not writing this to embarass or shame anybody... we are each the keepers of our own souls, and we each have to deal with our own conscience. Since the topic is up here, though, I just thought I'd share what I think about it. For what it's worth...
Svensta	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 8:58 AM Did you just call me a script kiddie, Si? I don't understand at all how you equate picking a 20 dollar bill up off the ground from pirating software. One is random chance, the other is a deliberate action taken, unless your p2p program auto-populates your search criteria psychically. For the record, I've downloaded a single movie as a technical exercise (thasp was showing me some new software about 18 months ago)which failed, and I ended up deleting it. I boycott which means I don't bother with such, not that I listen without paying. I even buy the 2-3 games a year I play, so I am not being hypocritical. Your initial theory of economics is correct, the provider should charge as much as he can, and the buyer should pay as little as he can. Theft, however, has NEVER been a facet of any working economic model ever in existence. It's NOT free. It's illicit.
Thaspian	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 9:58 PM are way too overpriced. Nero's downloadable serial number is $80, and the product is in store $100. For a person who burns the occasional MP3 CD or audio CD, that price is insane. There are programs I find very well coded where I'd have no problem contributing to development. Programs such as foobar2000 which decode every audio codec out there, with gapless playback, 18 band EQ, command line encoders and taggers, built in replaygain, all without taking more than 15 MB of RAM, these I'd pay for. You don't see most pay software targeting the users who are savvy enough past kazaa and bittorrent to get anything and everything for free nowadays, though. " id="137937">I think it has to do with people's feelings of entitlement. People pay about $800 for a new computer, and $40/month for the net. They don't want to pay for software here and movies there, they feel they've already paid enough. Heck, so would I, as that's what I make in two months minus the internet part. I don't feel like paying for a program like tag&rename to rename and tag thousands of MP3s(this would take hours doing manually), with software that freezes randomly, so I pirate it. Building on my theory of entitlement: when people see the amount of free programs in a program genre, they feel like they're getting ripped off by paying for it. For example, if one were to pay for flashfxp, an FTP client, then saw that there are over 200 other FTP clients that work as well or better for free(that are merely less advertized and less used) they'd feel ripped off. They may even feel that the programmer is arrogant for forcing people to pay for what's available freely from so many other sources. They might get an attitude such as that fuck has the gall* to charge $50 for something with one tiny extra feature over all those other free programs? well, fuck him, I'm getting it for free. Once someone feels that the person asking them to pay is money hungry, arrogant, and trying to rip them off, they have no problem doing the "wrong" thing towards that person/programmer. There is no remorse for who someone sees as a con artist. This is all just theory on the psychology of warezfiends. I've never had to come to terms with the issue since I've rarely used "pirated" software. I've found that, freeware and open source software, 99% of the time is superior to the software asking for my money. It's easier to download filezilla than to get a serial for flashfxp, and it's easier to get feurio than to get a serial to nero. Also, IMO, some programs are* way too overpriced. Nero's downloadable serial number is $80, and the product is in store $100. For a person who burns the occasional MP3 CD or audio CD, that price is insane. There are programs I find very well coded where I'd have no problem contributing to development. Programs such as foobar2000 which decode every audio codec out there, with gapless playback, 18 band EQ, command line encoders and taggers, built in replaygain, all without taking more than 15 MB of RAM, these I'd pay for. You don't see most pay software targeting the users who are savvy enough past kazaa and bittorrent to get anything and everything for free nowadays, though.
Travelsonic	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 10:19 PM I don't want to start any war... Certainly though, this is worth mentioning. When I first saw the topic title, I didn't think about shoplifting or burgularly, because mainly that is never what topics with this title are about. Copying, mainly the act being labled as stealing and/or theft, and in my opinion, it is annoying. Why? Because first of all, none of you defined the word before usage, so the context that the term stealing was used wasn't exactly clear. Next, copying, as wrong as it is in certain instances, like certain forms of piracy, it is legally not theft, it is logically questionable as well. Theft and stealing imply loss of something they have had in their posession. Moral opinions I left out because they are a person-to-person basis, but if you want to talk fact, the crime involves copying, if you talk morally, it is whatever you want to call it, but fact and moral are not one. Do I pirate? Once in a great while, sometimes to regain access to software that I had but didn't keep the key to/had the key on my computer and lost it and the software due to a hard drive crash.
Travelsonic	Date: June 10, 2005 @ 10:22 PM Oh, and this arguemnt bugs the living shit out of me: "Fact is, stealing is stealing, no matter how you cut it." puts on George Carlin mask "stealing is stealing" "stealing is stealing" No shit shirlock! Stealing is stealing, but there is the concepts of copying and copyright laws for a reason. If it doesn't look like a duck, quack like a duck, or shit like a duck, there is no way an over-used phrase liek that will make it any more like a duck.
sinai	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 5:07 AM the comment was meant as a joke sven, not a jab. free or illicit? semantics really, either way, i can live with it
Travelsonic	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 10:01 AM "It's not free, it's illicit!" Wouldn't it be both?
DigWeed	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 12:37 PM http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stealing
Travelsonic	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 3:31 PM Resorting to the dictionaryu are we? 1. Dictionaries are NOT GOD, people have their own definitions, most however are very similar. 2. When it coems to facts some dictionary definition means shit. It's what the law says that is what happens when you download that tune or software illegally. Logic also comes from fact, from properly reccording things that happen when it somes to making a dicision, something undisputed. So far, what you gave me is disputable to some extent. Not alot, but to some extent. While we are on the topic of dictionary definitions however, let me post another definition of stealing, or theft. Pronunciation: 'theft Function: noun Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property Apparently here, something must be lost that the person being stoeln from HAD.
imemine	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 4:45 PM Thems rites amd gramner ain’t sposed to bees yoused 2. Causm wes al gots difrent idears ofem hows em sposed tos bees. Dickemaries ain’ts werth netfems 4 u’s bout wees gottems oens werds fer em werds! C? Aints Speekem dem samems languageses causems ittts aints nesassarries causem its al a ways em toem justemifies are owens existence sosem wees cans sleeps at nites. Thatem ways wees canem doos anythingems wees wants amd feels goods bouts it!
Travelsonic	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 5:56 PM "Thatem ways wees canem doos anythingems wees wants amd feels goods bouts it! " Try again. Words have meaning, but they are not all the same, some are very specific in one way, others are more popular however when used in another way, like my definition I listed, which is also used in the law principal of theft. What I posted has absolutely nothing with feeling good or justifying anything. I can't stand when people jump to that conclusion at all.
DigWeed	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 6:48 PM U steal the software and say "Dictionaries are NOT GOD" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony
imemine	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 6:48 PM I have to stay out of here. This is equivalent to discussing religion (anyone?) “Dictionaries are NOT GOD” is GOD ----GOD? We all have our beliefs and we all have to live with the decisions that we make. This discussion is bound to get into intellectual property soon and there are plenty of discussions on the front page and on the sister site about that. Anyone else hungry? I could use a big fat cheeseburger! Ooops, just offended a vegetarian.
Travelsonic	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 7:34 PM Imemine, "Anyone else hungry? I could use a big fat cheeseburger! Ooops, just offended a vegetarian." I'm going for a pizza with sausage, pepperoni, anchovies, and ham myself... That's nothing however, I dropped a big load of offensive jokes on PETA fanatics during a stand up comedy routine. Lucky good thing nobody from PETA was there. DigWeed, Your post is too stupid for a proper response.
Travelsonic	Date: June 11, 2005 @ 7:36 PM What I mean by it being too stupid is, you accuse me of a crime unrelated to the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted materials even after stating the reason being that it was only software I had legally obtained before but lost it due to computer problems, and you are calling my posts ironic?
DigWeed	Date: June 12, 2005 @ 5:44 AM Travelsonic, my mistake.. i got mixed up with the nicks on who posted what.. for some reason i thought u were jordanthegreat..
Travelsonic	Date: June 12, 2005 @ 1:39 PM Shit happens man.
pog	Date: June 12, 2005 @ 11:25 PM 'Tis true that piracy isn't theft. As stated in all of the dictionary definitions that theft is the "removal" of something, not the duplication of something. That doesn't mean it's right... to break into a software companies premises, and take a bunch of harddrives with the software on it... then that would be stealing or theft, but to duplicate a product without authorization, means you're committing a copyright infringement. Which is a very different thing. Incidentally, I purchased 1 cd last year and purchased a license for 2 programs and 1 game... all the rest I have seen has been pretty ordinary, and I do personally hope the authors go out of business and/or make better software in future. I can see how software companies can put big prices on products because they invested a lot of money in the protection of the software, however I don't believe that that's the only approach for that company to be successful. If they invested the money on making the program better, and had free versions, with functions like extra skins removed, then I think this would be a far superior marketing approach. It means that people would be able to get used to your software for free, and figure out that they can't live without a full licensed version for themselves. Not being forced into it... protools have the right idea with a free 8-track version.
Svensta	Date: June 13, 2005 @ 3:17 PM I just wanted to point out that the Thaspian's argument above doesn't hold water. His argument, I say, because he's speaking for someone else, not his own feelings. Example: You get broadcast teevee for 'free'. BUT you must pay HBO for their shows. Is HBO arrogrant? No, it's just what you have been taught to accept. And while the debate on theft vs. infringment/copying is nice, it doesn't change the fact that EITHER is ILLICIT. All due respect, Poggerino, but I wonder if that business model is even an OPTION for a great bulk of small-shop application houses. The very ambiguous and intangible nature of computer software and music is why people feel its okay to obtain them illegally. It's not a car, I didn't pickpocket anyone. This is called SEMANTICS.
Travelsonic	Date: June 13, 2005 @ 3:27 PM "This is called SEMANTICS. " And unless that you think for some strange reason that the concept of defining crimes correctly, or arguing the meaning of anything for that matter for whatever reason it is, to make a debate more truthful, then I don't know why the hell people make such a big fuss, especially in this case, where it isn't as simple as "it's semantics", it isn't. In the caseof what I have posted, it is a legally established fact (copying VS theft argument) and IMO a well supported philosophical concept that theft requires loss, and in my own opinion the cry of semantics comes from those who have trouble accepting these concepts. "And while the debate on theft vs. infringment/copying is nice, it doesn't change the fact that EITHER is ILLICIT. " And unless you have been a blind bad, nowhere did the guy who started this debate, mainly myself, believe this. This statement is really stupid though, since for the copying VS theft argument brought fourth by me didn't question this at all.
pog	Date: June 13, 2005 @ 9:04 PM I agree that it's not right to commit copyright infringement. I'm not debating that for one second. However, I am also trying to interject that when humans are involved in the equation, then vary rarely is it a case of black and white. If you look at it simply as "breaking the rules" then yes it is only a case of semantics, and yes it is doing the wrong thing. If you are looking at it as what is in fact happening here, then that's where we need to be pedantic with each aspect of the debate. When we refer to how fair or unfair it is to utilize another person's work, then isn't that exactly what the riaa has been doing by being allowed to "stealth" into a person's pc to check for copywritten works? I can't help wondering how many hackers are out there that developed the code that they are using in this way without royalties. And what about the small business's that wouldn't do very well with the model that I suggested earlier? Isn't it more accurate to say that they are still small business's because they have been squeezed out by the competition, not because the competition necessarily has a better product. Such is the nature of business, and the human element being a part of it all. And what about the poor soul who lives in an isolated community and relies on their dial up connection to see if they wish to buy the latest deicide cd the next time they are in town, NOT what the radio stations ram down their throats. Once again the free product distribution argument is waved aside and ignored by the capitalist fat-cats. Is it just coincidence that if an artist wishes to learn more about and refine their skills, 10-20% of the scholastic system is aimed towards business and marketing? It's a side effect of the system that the bigger business's have imposed upon us? Having laws passed that say one person can backdoor into your system is just wrong... If you had that kind of power, as a human would you not abuse the system to stay ahead of the competition and/or steal another artist's ideas? There are many grey areas.
Travelsonic	Date: June 14, 2005 @ 2:02 PM "...or steal another artist's ideas? " And exactly how do you do that?
Svensta	Date: June 14, 2005 @ 2:30 PM I don't understand your argument, Pog. Why compare stealing software with RIAA snooping? What does one unethical and illicit tactic have to do with another? As to the poor soul, I have to stand by my concept that the CREATOR of the content gets to decide whether or not he wants to expose his work to the masses, and HOW it gets exposed, not me, and not you. I agree that the system of exposure and distrubtion needs to be corrected, and I am doing my part with my evangelizing and boycott. You ask the question of business management for the artist. Well, if you wish to PROFIT from your content, then guess what? You are a BUSINESSMAN. Yes, yes you are still a cretive artist, but once you take on the chores of running a profit from the fruits of your creativity you better damn well be a businessman and a DECENT one, or you are going to starve. Artists who funneled this business aspect off to others are who created the Big Business of Music as we know it. The new frontier would perhaps be better served if all new musicians were business minors and could analyze the contracts they are signing, no?
Svensta	Date: June 14, 2005 @ 2:37 PM ain't buying it now. You just caused a loss of revenue for a product that was designed and marketed to be sold. Just because a product isn't physical, doesn't mean there is no loss. Cutting a hole into the fence around Disneyworld amounts to the same. You just cost someone the opporunity to profit from their work, even though they are only selling an experience, and NOT a tactile product. You are arguing semantics. This is illicit and unethical." id="138280">"IMO a well supported philosophical concept that theft requires loss, and in my own opinion...blahblahblah" You decided to comment on people, not the issue, so I tuned you out after this point. Just to debunk this though, read my post (June 8, 2005 @ 2:15 PM). There has CERTAINLY been a loss. You downloaded the application, you sure as hell ain't buying it now. You just caused a loss of revenue for a product that was designed and marketed to be sold. Just because a product isn't physical, doesn't mean there is no loss. Cutting a hole into the fence around Disneyworld amounts to the same. You just cost someone the opporunity to profit from their work, even though they are only selling an experience, and NOT a tactile product. You are arguing semantics. This is illicit and unethical.
Travelsonic	Date: June 14, 2005 @ 3:57 PM "There has CERTAINLY been a loss. You downloaded the application, you sure as hell ain't buying it now. " This arguemnt is refutable easily: 1. Whether somebody will buy said product after downloading it, for whatever reasons to/not do it, are not nessecarily known. Maybe for this person, but not everybody. 2. You have lost them the chance to gain revenue, not the revenue itself. Yes things odn't work like that per-se in economics, but in philosophy, logic can disallow the point you have made. Making a profit is not an absolute right, they should have a fair and equal chance to make money, but making any form of speculation based on asumtions is flawed at best. "You are arguing semantics. This is illicit and unethical." Wow, you went from illicit, to illicit and unethical to argue a point! I guess that proves that these topics are not without the heat. Pointing out a fact is not unethical, having an opinion is not unethical, on the other hand trying to shoot somebody's point down through the moralist's cut - that is certainly unethical. As I pointed out before, there has not been a loss of something they have, tangible like a box or milk, or intangible like electronic money, but instead something they feel entitled to, but didn't get despite the feeling of entitlement, which I do not see as loss, I see as bitching and moaning.
Travelsonic	Date: June 14, 2005 @ 4:01 PM And while on the topic, it is very ironic that you would choose Disney - a company that took from the public domain, made tons of money off of it - then extended copyrights in a way that prevented others from doing the same - as your example.
pog	Date: June 14, 2005 @ 10:30 PM "What does one unethical and illicit tactic have to do with another?" That's exactly my point.... in the eyes of the law, ignorance is nothing. And Copyright infringement is not the same offence as theft. That's all I was trying to point out. My argument is that if you were a big company that was allowed to backdoor into another person's pc to look for infringing copies, would you not look at the artist's work to stay ahead of the game?? That's a natural human element in play here. It's also wrong to record songs off the radio, and peeps have been doing that for years. I would go so far as to say that if people couldn't download songs for free off the net then they would still record the songs off the radio before they pay for an album they are not happy with. They wouldn't have purchased the song anyways, therefore, the sale of a cd is a hypothetical thing in the imagination of the businessman that's simply trying to make more money.
Woof	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 5:04 AM Fascinating discussion, folks... a couple of points I'd still like to make, if I could be allowed. Perhaps pirating software does not equal theft of software (true, stealing physical media from a local merchant would be a more explicit example of that), piracy of software in the sense we're used to using the term, is effectively described as the unauthorized copying or use of it. So, while the actual files aren't, in one sense, stolen, something is indeed taken from the software vendor: their authority over who is, or isn't, licensed to use their product. Does that amount to "theft of authority"? Probably. Maybe there's a more appropriate term for that activity. I'm reluctant to tag it as "undermining their authority", because the act of piracy amounts to more of a power struggle, than an exercise in passive resistence. Piracy is not boycott, and it isn't the manufacture of similar alternatives to a given company's product. It's individuals deciding amongst themselves, that the vendor has no right to excercise their licensing controls over them. On yet another level, groups or individuals who make said software available to the masses, without being given the right to do so by the manufacturer, are indeed stealing from the manufacturer. They're stealing paying customers. Not 100% of a company's business, to be sure... and maybe not even 10%. True, some folks would never buy the programs if they weren't available for free. Regardless, if even 2% of the consumer market would have given compensation to the manufacturer, in exchange for use of the product, that's 2% of a company's revenue that they were cheated out of. Hope This Helps...
Woof	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 6:17 AM On second thought, "undermining" isn't such an inaccurate term, after all... it seems logical, that pirates are practicing a resistence or rebellion of sorts, towards the software manufacturers... to impede what they feel is some sort of corporate tyranny... in that context, it'd make sense.
Svensta	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 10:36 AM I never said arguing a point was unethical. I said stealing software is unethical. Debate is how things get settled, I never curtail debate, see my initial and second replies to Jordan above to see my stance on arguing a point. When we shift to discussing philosophy and cease discussing economics, you will have a point. As we are discussing the incontrovertible impact of theft on economics, the assumption that a product can be sold for profit is NOT an assumption in the dangerous sense. It is the basic assumption on which the entire natures of commerce and economics is based. If someone downloads and then uses the application, they have caused a decrease in available market share. Philiosophically, what's your stance on getting something for nothing? Why should your effort be rewarded when coders efforts are not? now let's get onto Woof. Again I concede that stealing sofware might not constitute some high-minded concept of 'theft', at the very least we agree that it IS unethical and abberant behavior. It is unjust, to what degree or such is not important. That being the case, how many people hack applications and create cracks and keygens for political statements and organized resistance? There are obviously no hard numbers, but I would say there is a body of such, definitely . Specifically Anti-MS privateers. That being said, how many of the people who download and use the applications are part of some organized movement? Hardly any at all. If you really hated and protested MS, would you still run a Windows box with MS Office? Hardly. You'd be a *nix'ian or a Mac guy and that would be that. Most of the dedicated MS haters I know do exactly that, their own flavor of boycott. If you use the application regularly, you AINT rebelling, you are just looking for a free lunch.
imemine	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 12:25 PM Someone stole my user page this morning.......then put it back!
Travelsonic	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 3:34 PM "Philiosophically, what's your stance on getting something for nothing?" Ask yourself, you like billions of humans trying to survive on this earth do it all the time. Some cases it isn't good, but to say it is ALL outright bad is hypocritical, since in some way we do it all the time. "Why should your effort be rewarded when coders efforts are not? ' Do you sperak for all coders out there?