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

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? What about those open source and free software coders who want nothing else but to have others download it and use it? If they want money out of it, they should somehow prove to the user, or user-to-be that they deserve the money based on the program (performance, usability, ect) I am aware that is not your intention, but c'mon, you should be more specific. Woof, "They're stealing paying customers. " When you legally compete you also make them have less customers, but I think this usage is nothing more than an euphamism for failure to attract customers. Selling soembody else's software without permission IMO is wrong (unless you are within the "first sale doctrine" and selling one copy of something you own + box and all, then they should not be able to do shit), but this is also assuming to some degree that the customers would have gone to that one person in the first place if I look back on the legal competition viewpoint.
pog	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 5:08 PM ... so if anyone saw a potential free lunch, would they not take it, along with a slight risk of being caught? Some wouldn't, some would... life goes on. Again, I say that it is wrong, but it still happens. And every time they think of a new way to stop it, others will always come up with a new counter-method. I don't believe piracy is ever going to stop because there will always be another new method to distribute it. At the same time, I doubt that large companies will ever stop closing down innovative new file sharing systems. Is that not a form of repression, or more specifically a hinderance to technology? It's like watching a couple of gulls fighting over a french fry.
johnnygnote	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 6:55 PM I have bought software and I have downloaded it and cracked it, I also have been given wares while I was a sound engineer by grateful musicians who wanted to tip me for a good job. Now I have always been a fair person but I think the real person who loses in the end by stealing software is the Author, most times the Author is on the short end of the stick because it's the publisher who makes the most of the money while the author makes a small portion. This is a very complex issue and it all boils down to copyright laws.
kyodylee	Date: June 15, 2005 @ 11:24 PM While not really jumping into this entire discussion, I do have a comment. "Philiosophically [sic], what's your stance on getting something for nothing?" I think that is a very broad oversimplified generalization. The question also implies that receiving something for nothing is innately wrong. Personally, I venture into my public library quite frequently and get something for nothing. I don't lose any sleep at night over it at all. Also, where would that philosophy leave all the people who are the beneficiaries of a charitable act or kindness? The giver gives to the recipient without expectation of anything in return. The recipient receives something for nothing. Nobody losing any sleep here either. And lastly, what to do about all those freebie samples corporate marketing departments giveaway. Hmmm, maybe this philosophy isn't so bad after all ... less junk mail and no more damn AOL Cd's!
Svensta	Date: June 16, 2005 @ 8:54 AM I'm through with Travel, who is intent on sentence dissection and little else. Kyo, perhaps I was broad, but you have to take the thread in context. OBVIOUSLY, we aren't discussing charitable works here. If you want me to respond to you specifically, the library is invalid as you use it because you do (hopefully) pay taxes on purchases and income, both at the state and federal level, monies which are funneled back into social programs like libraries. Ta-da! You paid for it. Really though, this is about economics, not charities. Remember the point of the thread here: stealing software that is marketed and sold, not debating the philosophy of charity. I second Poggy's belief that piracy isn't going anywhere. Especially since the technology used for such is being attacked, making it attractive to popular activist attentions. I fully support p2p and think it should be used as the new way of distribution. Unfortunately, new things have to destroy the old things they supplant in situations like this, and the old guard is not happy with this evolution.
Travelsonic	Date: June 16, 2005 @ 11:09 AM "I second Poggy's belief that piracy isn't going anywhere. Especially since the technology used for such is being attacked, making it attractive to popular activist attentions. I fully support p2p and think it should be used as the new way of distribution. Unfortunately, new things have to destroy the old things they supplant in situations like this, and the old guard is not happy with this evolution." This I 100% agree with.
Jazzmary2U	Date: June 16, 2005 @ 9:07 PM I can see why folks would take what is ther just for the of it, but everyone is not Bill Gates, and if I use the programs for my personal profit, I pay for it, period. Sorta like if I use one of your songs, I would arrange to pay you for it.. Golden Rule, guys.. ever heard of it?!! It applies to software, P2P, yo' mamma, everywhere...
Jazzmary2U	Date: June 16, 2005 @ 9:09 PM ... and for all you guys that scream, "Fuck 'em," there is someone on the other side gettin' FUCKED!!
2step-4eva	Date: June 17, 2005 @ 2:27 PM apparently this is about economics. economics is the study of how the earth's scarce resources should be allocated. money isn't a scarce resource as it can be printed quite easily. so actually no resources have been transfered from the software company to whoever is "stealing" the software, which isnt really stealing. if software can be distributed to everyone at no cost to anyone, then why shouldn't it be? i see the point about the work the developers have put in to make the software. but i cant afford to buy it. so why shouldn't i have it for free. maybe the solution could be that software development is government funded, like libraries. then when software is made, it could be distributed to everyone who wants it, rather than those who can afford it. if anyone knows anything about economics then i have another point. since the rise of filesharing, software is a public good. it is not seen as one, but when you think about it that is exactly what it is. because as soon as software is developed, theoretically you cant stop anyone getting it for free through filesharing, and one more person downloading it doesnt stop anyone else from using it. its a public good, like street lights or the army. read an economics textbook and you will see what i mean.
DigWeed	Date: June 19, 2005 @ 7:17 AM "money isn't a scarce resource as it can be printed quite easily. " Money cannot be printed quite easily as it resembles a standard resource. Money in the old days resembled cattle and evolved to resemble resources such as gold. If money could be printed easily why cant a government print enough money to make everyone rich! "if software can be distributed to everyone at no cost to anyone, then why shouldn't it be?" Because whoever developed that software did it to sell it to anyone who wants to use it. Its a product that gets marketed just like anything else. Same goes for cable or satellite TV. If u are not paying for it, then u are stealing it. If u download a cracked a copy of a software, then u are stealing it..
freddemillio	Date: June 19, 2005 @ 8:17 AM I see "piracy" of software as part of the workings of determining the value of the software in a capitalistic market place. The software itself does not have much material value in the way that something solid, like a car or one ton of wheat, for instance, does. The software represents the end result of a lot of thinking and keystrokes and the discussion about "piracy" of software is just like that of "piracy" of music files. Certainly producing software (or music) is work, but the value added by that work is more difficult to measure than the value added by taking a bunch of metal, plastic and other commodities and turning them into a car. The role that "piracy" (or free distribution) plays in setting the price of a piece of software or piece of music is this: The fact that free or nearly-free distribution is possible puts another factor into the equation for determining the price that a software-seller can charge for their work. The higher the price, the more tempting it will be to get the software via a free-distribution method. The software seller has to balance the potential sales with the potential missed-sales. They need to consider scenarios like this (all numbers are just for the sake of argument, I do not mean to imply that ratios between price and sales / free distribution / apathy are related to any factual data or market studies): Let's say the market for a piece of software is 100 people (there are 100 people who are potentially going to buy this type of software). CASE A1: If the software costs 500 USD/piece, then maybe 30 people will buy it, 35 people will get it for free and 35 people will just be put off completely and will not bother to obtain it by any distribution method. In this case the software-seller will have sales of 15000 USD. CASE B1: Instead, what if the software were to have a selling price of 200 USD/piece? Then, maybe the sales distribution would be 80 sales, 15 freely obtained versions, 5 not-bothered to get it by any means. This would yield 16000 USD in sales. CASE C1: If the software costs 50 USD/piece, then maybe the sales distribution would be 95 sales, 3 freely obtained versions , 2 not-bothered to get it by any means. This would yield 4750 USD of sales for the software-seller. So with this kind of market information, the software-seller would be maximizing their sales value by going with B1, they would maximize their market penetration by going with C1 and they would maximize their Unit Selling Price (and possibly Unit Gross Profit) by going with A1. Which should they chose? Not necessarily CASE B1. They should chose the one that goes with the overall strategy of their business model. If they want to have a very high USP because this idea of high value-add supports the overall marketing strategy of their full product range maybe they chose CASE A1 and live with the fact that there will be a rather high distribution of their software via free-channels. If they want to maximize their sales value for the software, then perhaps CASE B1 will be the best choice. If they want to maximize the number of people paying for their software (because they will build a loyal, paying clientele who over the long term will buy many things from them) maybe they will take CASE C1. However, my guess is that the majority of software-sellers are interested in maximizing sales value and so they will go with B1 (a selling price of 200 USD/piece). In all three cases, the free-distribution channel makes the discussion more complex and maybe makes the market place more responsive to the consumer/buyer’s needs. Yes, the price of software is some what inflated by the fact that the software-seller might be missing sales opportunities due to the presence of free-distribution channel, but what would be the effect on pricing if the free-distribution channel were to disappear? Lets take the cases A1, B1 and C1 and reconsider them in a scenario where the free-distribution channel has been abolished. Let’s assume (again, just for the sake of argumentation and not because I have any data ) that the people who bought via the free-distribution channel in the A1/B1/C1 cases are split about evenly between the buying population (they really needed the software to do their work and so they forced themselves to buy it even though they did not like the price) and the apathetic, non-buying population (they just can’t afford it). The ones who were apathetic before (A1/B1/C1 cases) will remain apathetic in the new cases. How do the sales figures work out? CASE A2: 48 sales, 52 no-sales. Sales value generated = 48 x 500 = 24000 USD. CASE B2: 88 sales, 12 no-sales. Sales value generated = 88 x 200 = 17600 USD. CASE C2: 97 sales, 3 no-sales. Sales value generated = 97 x 50 = 4850 USD. So in the 2-series of cases, the selling price that maximizes the sales value for the software-seller is the highest one (CASE A2). In this case the absence of a free-distribution channel (or no piracy) actually has worked against the consumer to result in an increased selling price. I freely admit that the numbers given above are not based on any market studies and that I have constructed my examples to support my argumentation. This is not a proof that piracy or the existence of free-distribution channels results in lower pricing for consumers. But it is an example that illustrates that it is conceivable (mathematically possible) that the existence of a free-distribution channel actually helps to lower the price of software rather than raise the price (as initially hypothesized in other posts in this thread). I don’t pretend to have any secret insights into software marketing or economics. I just thought that it was fun to pass some time thinking about this subject and playing some number games. I hope one or two others also find it stimulating.
Travelsonic	Date: June 19, 2005 @ 9:48 AM per-se, like using somebody's tap water when you are visiting, or even breathing oxygen you repay the plants with carbon dioxide, but that most likely is not the kind of "payment" you mean, right? It can be wrong in terms of software, but not always, like open-source and freeware software, but to say something along the lines of "taking something without paying for it is stealing" is illogical, and even dangerous if it is deeply believed in and spread around. Just think about it.... " id="138615">DigWeed (if it wasn't you, then sorry), you said were through with me, but fuck it, you keep saying things I want to reply to: "If u are not paying for it, then u are stealing it." I don't know where to begin with this, where did this shit come up? If you don't pay you are stealing it? Are you aware of all the acts that are legal, moral, and nessecary that you do in life that requires you not paying for things that YOU would make stealing based on this flawed logic? This is total logical blastphemy. Taking something without paying isn't bad per-se, like using somebody's tap water when you are visiting, or even breathing oxygen you repay the plants with carbon dioxide, but that most likely is not the kind of "payment" you mean, right? It can be wrong in terms of software, but not always, like open-source and freeware software, but to say something along the lines of "taking something without paying for it is stealing" is illogical, and even dangerous if it is deeply believed in and spread around. Just think about it....
Travelsonic	Date: June 19, 2005 @ 9:50 AM The reason it is illogical is because of the legal, moral, and nessecary that you do in life that requires you not paying for things that you would wrongly make wrong and/or illegal if this ideal is really and deeply believed in.
Travelsonic	Date: June 19, 2005 @ 10:06 AM Your argument (sorry for the triple post) is a very extreme straw man argument, DigWeed.
DigWeed	Date: June 20, 2005 @ 4:52 AM Travelsonic....I am not talking about free ware or tap water mate... I am talking about CRACKED software..If u dont pay for it, u are stealing it
Travelsonic	Date: June 20, 2005 @ 11:08 AM It doesn't matter what the fuck you are talking about, your argument is still illogical and dangerous because YOU assume an extreme psition that goes BEYOND specifics that can/might be applied to things it shouldn't
Travelsonic	Date: June 20, 2005 @ 11:12 AM It is just a dangerous proposition, pure and simple. (another cliché'd phrase I absolutely hate myself!)
imemine	Date: June 20, 2005 @ 11:14 AM Damn Fred, economics 101. You should get paid for that.
DigWeed	Date: June 20, 2005 @ 7:29 PM Travelsonic, what the fuck mate.. what can't u understand about the word cracked software... what other thing can it be applied to beside that.. U are just arguing for the sake of it...and u are not proving anything.,.. "can/might be applied to things it shouldn't"... why dont u give me an example..
2step-4eva	Date: June 21, 2005 @ 2:28 PM i see what travelsonic means about u have a bad ideal...digweed, u are too closely stuck to the idea that anything that is created should be marketed and sold at whatever price the developer wants. ok this seems reasonable, but in fact it only benefits the developers, and also people with so much money that they can buy anything. I dont see, these people as the victims, i see myself as the victim. i want to produce music, but i dont have enough money to buy any decent equipment, so im pretty screwed. the ironic thing is that the software is out there and would cost no one anything just to make it available to download for free. but the people who want software cant have it because companies need to maintain their profits. u have to understand that this is a different situation from any physical goods because software can be replicated infinately at virtually no cost. so maybe there needs to be a completely new way to fund software development other than by private firms for profit. oh btw i don't know why you're saying that money cant be printed...the government could print as much money as it wanted, but it wouldn't make everyone rich, because money itself has no real value, which is the point im trying to make here. economics is about resources, not money, so if i cant get software which should be free (because it costs no one when i download it), because of money problems, then there is something going wrong somewhere.
Travelsonic	Date: June 21, 2005 @ 8:27 PM "what can't u understand about the word cracked software... " It's the cracked software that I understand, it's the "If u dont pay for it, u are stealing it" bullshkite that I am having trouble accepting.
DigWeed	Date: June 22, 2005 @ 6:07 AM The developer sells it at the price that would give him maximum profit, 2step. If u cant afford it, there are others who can and ARE willing to pay that amount to get the software. If u cant afford it, there are many other ways to still work on your music. Like using other cheaper software (fruityloops can start from $150), or use an older version,(sold all the time on eBay, very cheap). As Svensta put it in an earlier post.. "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." And btw 2step, government CAN NOT print money as it pleases, Because money DOES have value. Third-world countries owe money to other countries.. (with your argument, why cant they simply print the money and pay off their debt??) .. They simply cant, cause the more they print, the less is the value of the money unit cause the WHOLE value of the resources is constant. Thats what makes rich and poor countries. Travelsonic, u are having trouble accepting it and u are also having trouble giving me an example of a non-"extreme" position where this statement is not applied.. sorry mate, but u need to sort your shit out before just arguing against the "bullshkite"
sinai	Date: June 22, 2005 @ 8:24 AM if i could download a bentley, i would
2step-4eva	Date: June 23, 2005 @ 1:26 PM yes exactly if bentleys could be downloaded then i very much doubt they would cost £100,000. they could be distributed to everyone in the world, then we would all be rich. all i am saying is that if everyone can have something, then why not? everyone in the world could be given a car, but it would cost huge amounts to produce them, so we produce other things like food instead, because they are more important. with software it is another matter because everyone could be given all the software they want via downloads and we would not have to cut back on food production or car production or in fact anything at all. i know im starting to sound like a communist here but im just trying to explain that its not me thats fucking the software companies, or paying customers, its the system thats fucking everyone. i dont have a problem with "stealing" software. i had my general studies A-level this morning and pretty much this exact question came up. all the time i wasted reading this thread has paid off!
pog	Date: June 23, 2005 @ 9:08 PM Firstly, with freddemillio's hypothesis, both of the Cx arrangements would prolly generate 200+ potential sales, not the original 90 or so stated because people who would not normally buy the product may invest in it, simply because it is more accessible... just a thought. As for the bentley argument... patiently I would like to point out yet again that there is a difference between stealing (or taking) the bentley, and copying it. ...but stealing of bentey's does happen... and as a direct result, insurance premiums go up..... the world keeps spinning. If it wern't for the people stealing the bentley, then insturance salesmen would be out of a job, and forced to become something else, thus making less jobs for everyone.
victorsskull	Date: June 24, 2005 @ 1:50 AM
JennisEvil	Date: August 23, 2005 @ 3:41 PM lol plain and simple ... the whole cpyrighting business is just a farse ... just because it is hight tech now does not mean less albums /CD's are being sold ... ppl just like to get a general idea of what i certain song or group is about OR just simply want a few songs to make their own collaboration of different styles ... NOW tell me how back in the day of VCRS and or Cassett tapes is different then todays simple share progs ... Someone plz tell me how it is perfectly LEGAL to arrest someone downloading a song from a P2P prog ...but back when we had ppl Taping shit onto tapes and trading them off or giving them to friends did not get arrested ???? Some where in here our civil liberties are being walked all the fuck over and doesnt that bother anyone ....YEA ok i can understand bands wanting to get paid for their hard work and talents .... but seriously do u think they are really suffering .... i do not see sales depleating ..... and if they are its not because of the shareware progs ... the economy SUCKS ASS these days ... and that is Government not Joe Blow from down the street ... ahhhh said my peace u can agree or not ... i personaly dont give a rats ass if anyone agrees with me ... just my meek opinion on this subject ... ok now it is open season
hantu	Date: September 1, 2005 @ 12:03 AM hmm im just thinking... how much some artists get, they get alot of money, i mean alot, they prolly do get paid less, but do you think they should really be getting paid soo much money? i dunno yet, its just running through my head rite now, but im begining to think its just wrong to get paid so much for singing and performing or whatever. people out there have such hard jobs, and get paid peanuts. i guess it would be the same for most celebs actors/actresses: Should they be getting paid so much? should the industry be such a big money thing? something to think about, damn this is buggin me now, i don't know
hantu	Date: September 1, 2005 @ 12:06 AM and i mean i know its talent and its rare, but its not that rare, bless this world, one good thing about it is that we have hundreds, hell prolly even millions of people with great incredible talents in these celeb type categories.
mattbanx	Date: September 1, 2005 @ 12:14 AM Although there is a lot of freeware and second hand software on the net, purchased software is best if you don't want a virus in your computer.
hantu	Date: September 1, 2005 @ 12:51 AM yeh... wooops did i drag a tad off the subject
psypig	Date: September 1, 2005 @ 5:01 AM Jesus. Most of the arguments (although not all) in this thread look like they were written by 12 year old kids. If they won't accept that software piracy is wrong there's no point trying to reason with them. Incidently, I have quite a collection of software that i have paid for. If any of you piracy advocates want to come and see it feel free. Then we can debate why you think you should get it for free. It might get quite heated.
hantu	Date: September 1, 2005 @ 10:33 AM ^^ oo oo i'll pay to see that debate
Travelsonic	Date: September 2, 2005 @ 12:20 PM "If they won't accept that software piracy is wrong..." That is the point, piracy being wrong is a matter of opinion. It is a fact that it is illegal, but who are you, or me, or anybody else to think that everybody should think it is wrong? I do to some extent, except in the case of replacing lost software, and I bet there are many people that wil think that exception reasonable, and many that don't. It is just not as strait foward, blackand white, etc/whatever as it directly seems.
Travelsonic	Date: September 2, 2005 @ 12:21 PM "Although there is a lot of freeware and second hand software on the net, purchased software is best if you don't want a virus in your computer." What freeware software have you been downloading, may I ask?
JennisEvil	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 4:26 AM hmm ok im back to throw in some more of my opinions .. on the piracy note ... i do think it is wrong and should be penalized ... but most of the downloaders of today are not selling them for profit (IE "Free") definition of piracy is as in to be resold for profit of stolen goods. That i do not believe in at all ... BUT someone sharing what music files they have on their OWN pc .. with others as they do in return i see nothing wrong with that. I to have millions upon millions of PAID music , movies , and various other programs on my pc and or in my home. and ill admit i have downloaded music and misc. others things from P2P's but im not taking a whole album ... someone tells me about a new hit that comes out ... i download it .. if i like it ... i simply take my happy ass down to the store and BUY that CD , and /or Movie. Which most if not all my friends do. Off the personal note now onto the problem ... if it is such a huge problem and they wanted it to stop .... simple .. take out the programs that supply the free downloads ( NOT ) the ppl who download . If their are no programs to download from for free then there would be no problem. Now that is just one solution to this issue. I personly think it is just another way to keep the poor man poorer and the rich man richer ... blah moving on now agh!
psypig	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 5:55 AM Hot Damn i love these arguments!! Travelsonic - People who carry out suicide bombings don't think what they're doing is wrong. Think about that. I have not seen or heard a single argument for piracy that actually stands up to scrutiny. I'm open to having my opinion changed but only if someone can prove to me that I am wrong. OK. Here's a question: I have a copy of cubase SE. I've paid for it (full retail price). So, if you agree with pirating software, tell me why you should get for free what i have paid for. Someone give me a serious reason.
Travelsonic	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 2:47 PM " it is such a huge problem and they wanted it to stop .... simple .. take out the programs that supply the free downloads ( NOT ) the ppl who download . If their are no programs to download from for free then there would be no problem. " I disagree, since there is still IRC, FTP, websites with free file hosting, etc, and what about the albiet uncommon usage of P2P servers for the sharing of legal independent music? Should they essentially punished for those who commit copyright infringement? It wouldn't work either way, since either more p2p networks will pop up, or outlawing them will esentially threaten the workings of the internet.
psypig	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 2:50 PM I see i've been ignored.
psypig	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 3:02 PM Well I'm going out now. probably wont be back on here for over 12 hours. I challenge anyone to answer my last question. I'm talking serious answers - something that will change my opinion. See y'all later.
Travelsonic	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 3:47 PM "I see i've been ignored." Anybody who compares piracy to murder deserves to be, IMO
Travelsonic	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 3:50 PM Of course that is RE "People who carry out suicide bombings don't think what they're doing is wrong. Think about that. " There is an obvious difference legally, morally, factually to piracy of software and murder, and hou you can see these two different acts as comparable is beyond me.
JennisEvil	Date: September 4, 2005 @ 2:38 AM "OK. Here's a question: I have a copy of cubase SE. I've paid for it (full retail price). So, if you agree with pirating software, tell me why you should get for free what i have paid for. Someone give me a serious reason." Ok ill bite since no one else is answering this question. If this question was somehow directed toward me you have me seriously wrong .. i do buy most of the programs i own... only some songs will i download and that is to see if the group is any good or my style .. if so they ill go out and buy their CD's like a good little bitch but anywho Piracy.... pi·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-s) n. pl. pi·ra·cies 1)Robbery committed at sea. A.A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane. 2)The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy. 3)The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN NOR WILL I... It is wrong for any person to do so . But i do freely admit that i have and do on occasion use P2P programs but again ... reminder what i do download i go out and buy after i hear sample songs of certain interest groups so i do not just welch off of others for my own personal gain ... that would be pointless
2step-4eva	Date: September 4, 2005 @ 8:57 PM "I have a copy of cubase SE. I've paid for it (full retail price). So, if you agree with pirating software, tell me why you should get for free what i have paid for. Someone give me a serious reason." i think you are being too self centered here. since u have a lot of software that u have paid for then u think that it should be this way for everyone. if they want this software, then they should pay for it like you did. but in absoloute truth what is wrong with somebody who cant afford something, downloading it? who is the victim here? regardless of whether you paid for your software or not my actions do not affect you, so how is it wrong? i appreciate the fact that software piracy could potentially harm the industry. to me this is part of a bigger issue. the way the economy is structured means that piracy harms it, and makes it impossible for people with low income like me to legally get hold of most software. so should people like me just be sacrificed? that is the way it has turned out, until filesharing came along. although the economic structure is not perfect, the government and riaa, etc. dont want to change it, because they are in control. so if they manipulate the system constantly to keep themselves in power, and they dont care about me, then i dont see it as wrong if i dont conform to that system.
2step-4eva	Date: September 4, 2005 @ 9:02 PM oh btw jennis i thing u are missing the point a little bit as this discussion is more about software than music, which i personally think is a big difference because while making music is mainly about talent and inspiration, and not about money, making software requires hard work and often a lot of money so it is important for software companies to be economically viable, and so copyright is more important
hantu	Date: September 4, 2005 @ 9:19 PM o me goodness, some people trying to justify their pirating ways, its pretty entertaining the stories you come up with.. Bottom line piracy is wrong, people are poor so do it anyway, although some wait save up or whatever and buy it. I don't buy software, im against piracy, i mean i know the shit they have to go through to make this software, and i was doing a programming course, and im gonna be doing a games tech course this month which as u can imagine will involve alot of programming aka headache. i don't want people pirating anythink i make if i ever do, yet i still do it.. y? you ask, coz i can't afford it and can't be bothered to save up for a single piece of software. im a greedy bastard and want it all, so i don't get my money out... Oh and it makes you feel better knowing that your whole town does it, yes i know its terrible.. but what can i say .. we're all a bunch of stingy shmugs. I like to make myself feel better by telling myself its not the worst thing in the world.. you could be a physical theif, or a murderer, makes me feel super Although i must say if i had a comfortable income, not super rich.. just comfortable i would love to buy software.. but thats not gonna happen any time soon, so i will continue to be the cheap bastard i am im tired so some of that may have not made sense
JennisEvil	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 1:07 AM lol well i dont talk about the software part simply cause i dont download it .. only one song if someone recommends it then i go buy the CD if i am interested in that said group lol and i do not resell anything i download so for me it just hits on a different side of the arguement i guess.. just throwing in my opinion on the subject ...
hueseph	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 4:29 AM Don't know if this has ben covered. If it has, it's good to repeat. Prices are high because companies have to pay people to find ways to prevent pirates from cracking their software. If the companies didn't have to spend so much on research to hack proof their software, not only would the prices drop but the software would be less buggy. It's common sense. So, yes pirates do raise the price of software. Absolutely they do.
psypig	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 4:47 AM 2step - Fair play to you - You've tried to answer my question. I think maybe i didn't word it right the first time round so here it is again. Call it Question V1.1 I have a copy of cubase SE. I've paid for it (full retail price). So, if you agree with pirating software, tell me why YOU (as in you personally) should get for free what I (as in me personally, someone who works for a living but still manages to save up for software he wants) have paid for. I'm looking for something that is gonna make me hang my head in shame and say "oh.... right.... I see....." and never again talk about piracy in a negative way.
AdamsGod	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 8:33 AM sorry man, i dont intend on buying reason for $300-$400, its too expensive for me at the moment, so i have to get a cracked. dont get me wrong, once that money would be available to me for that software, you can be sure i'll buy it.. but you know, rent and bills need to be paid too, and today.. all these software are just so expensive, its hard to afford them.
2step-4eva	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 9:06 AM i dont think u will hang ur head in shame, but hopefully u can understand my point of view if u forget all the preconceptions u have... ok first of all we trade goods and services in a capitalist economy which for the most part works. the market system means that consumers generally pay the cost to society of producing the things they want. with physical goods, say a printer or something, the cost to society if i want one is a few grams of plastic and a bit of diesel to run the truck that delivers it to my house. with software, the internet and p2p eliminates these costs. software can be replicated infinately without using any grams of plastic, and distributed all over the world without using any diesel. this p2p software doesnt do bad things that harm anyone, it only helps people have free software. so why is it that people like u psypig seek to stop it, like it is a criminal. the reason is because if everyone were allowed to use p2p, the developers would not get their money. so this is purely a money issue. p2p harms nobody and helps many, but it screws up the flow of money in the capitalist economy. the only problem here is the money. instead of trying to help it fit into our economy the government is more interested in outlawing it, because lets face it its change, nobody likes change, all they care about is asylum seekers and state pensions. i dont think that you should pay for software while i get it for free. i think everyone should get it for free and the development should be funded in some way by public money now i know nothing about your social background but i am a student and therefore i have very little money. however i can still make use of cubase, i just cant afford to buy it. so if there were no piracy i wouldnt have it, while you would. that means that the system hasnt worked for me, even though i could have the software for free. now with piracy i have the software. therefore it is a political victory for me. my welfare has increased, and not at the cost of anyone elses. psy i dont think u should pay for software while i get it free but thats the way things work, and i think the government is responsible for doing something about it. however the government has more important things to worry about like killing innocent people and obtaining more oil, etc etc. since this is the case i have no problem committing a so called crime, as long as i am not personally harming anyone.
2step-4eva	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 9:14 AM oh and can i also point out that as soon as i do have enough money i will start buying software, because it is a hell of a lot easier and more reliable, although some is at a rip off price, but seriously if any software i use was at a price that i would definately buy it for if i couldnt pirate it, then i wouldnt hesitate to buy it. if i am using pirated software its because i think "this is good software but the price is so high i would be very reluctant to pay it if i had to" anything thats reasonably priced within my price range i will buy and if everyone is like this then i dont think that software companies lose many sales to pirates.

~~Previous 100~~

Page: [ 1 2 ]

Next 100

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: