Jump to content
Swad

Software Piracy

287 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

It is not theft as theft is stealing a physical object. And no piracy is nothing like theft, if I were to make an exact copy of your car and drive away in it, would you call that theft? It is a much smaller crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
It is not theft as theft is stealing a physical object. And no piracy is nothing like theft, if I were to make an exact copy of your car and drive away in it, would you call that theft? It is a much smaller crime.

 

No, it's not. It's just harder to catch.

 

If you were building cars, and a rogue dealer was buying one car and magically cloning it and giving it away for free you'd sell drastically less cars and it would hurt your business. Software isn't expensive when you nonchalantly compare it to a new car, but if you could not copy software you can bet people would get used to paying for it. And if they sold more it might be cheaper.

 

That also doesn't stop people from making free or cheap alternatives, but as the Gimp and PaintShop Pro have proven, free often sucks noodles - and spending business time improving your product raises it's cost. Piracy steals away sales, even unlikely ones, and hurts software companies.

 

Not everyone is Adobe. Some companies live or die by how much work they put in preventing piracy. Consumers who actually buy the software hate it, and people like you are the cause.

 

So there's your moment in the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not. It's just harder to catch.

 

If you were building cars, and a rogue dealer was buying one car and magically cloning it and giving it away for free you'd sell drastically less cars and it would hurt your business. Software isn't expensive when you nonchalantly compare it to a new car, but if you could not copy software you can bet people would get used to paying for it. And if they sold more it might be cheaper.

 

That also doesn't stop people from making free or cheap alternatives, but as the Gimp and PaintShop Pro have proven, free often sucks noodles - and spending business time improving your product raises it's cost. Piracy steals away sales, even unlikely ones, and hurts software companies.

 

Not everyone is Adobe. Some companies live or die by how much work they put in preventing piracy. Consumers who actually buy the software hate it, and people like you are the cause.

 

So there's your moment in the sun.

I do not disagree with what you are saying, piracy hurts everyone (http://www.adobe.com/uk/aboutadobe/antipiracy/hurt.html). But I believe theft and piracy are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get your terminology straight folks. "Piracy" is term invented by zealots with a conservative extremist ideology - designed to demonize their opposition by presenting community sharing as being on par with those who would rape, pillage, lute, kidnap, and demand randsom. If you're aligned with neocons on this issue, sure, call it piracy to serve your agenda. But the rest of you should be rejecting such perversions of your position by not using the term.

 

Copyright has been grossly distorted to the point of countering its original purpose, and it's been going on so long that laypeople have lost touch with its goal. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to what Bill Gates would tell you), copyright was *not* introduced for the purpose of rewarding creators. The real purpose of copyright was to establish a vehicle to saturate society with more creative works. "Society" was the true intended beneficiary of copyright, not the copyright holders. Sure, the creators were rewarded with a temporary monopoly as a means to achieve an end result. It has since been distorted. The "means" has become the end result, and without sight of the original purpose, copyright is now used to actually prevent the spread of creative works, thus countering its original purpose. It's no longer a short-term temporary monopoly, but something that can be renewed for over 75 years - even well beyond the death of the creator (eg. Mickey Mouse). It's being abused by big business to exploit profits -- not promote the spread of culture. And the situation is exploited to the point where the original creators are poorly rewarded (ref Don Henley - who told his fans once: go ahead and copy my album, I would rather be ripped off by my fans than the record label).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not theft. A store isn't losing money. We would never have bought OSX anyway.

 

It is theft. You have taken Apple's Intellectual Property and used it without paying for a license. That is denying Apple their rightful fee.

 

And FYI copyright laws were ALWAYS about the IP owners. Unfortunately for most musicians, that is the record label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is theft. You have taken Apple's Intellectual Property

Use of the term "intellectual property" is yet another right wing perversion of the issue, invented well after copyright, precisely to further distort the original purpose of copyright -- by way of claiming ideas as "property". This term did not exist 200 years ago.

And FYI copyright laws were ALWAYS about the IP owners.

{censored}. Time for a history lesson. Your use of the term "IP owners" in this context is the first indicator that your claim is false. Moreover, the original purpose of copyright was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The intent 200 years ago was clearly to wholly benefit society, not just a select few "IP owners".

 

You're ultimately confusing the means with the ends -- and we see here that unchallenged acceptance of the term "intellectual property" is what mislead you.

 

Once corporate pressure groups get you to accept the term intellectual property, it's easy for them to redefine the purpose of copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use of the term "intellectual property" is yet another right wing perversion of the issue, invented well after copyright, precisely to further distort the original purpose of copyright -- by way of claiming ideas as "property". This term did not exist 200 years ago.

 

{censored}. Time for a history lesson. Your use of the term "IP owners" in this context is the first indicator that your claim is false. Moreover, the original purpose of copyright was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The intent 200 years ago was clearly to wholly benefit society, not just a select few "IP owners".

 

You're ultimately confusing the means with the ends -- and we see here that unchallenged acceptance of the term "intellectual property" is what mislead you.

 

Once corporate pressure groups get you to accept the term intellectual property, it's easy for them to redefine the purpose of copyright.

 

Please get your facts right. The US did NOT invent copyright (in fact the Ancient Greeks and Romans were also interested in protecting the rights of authors in a non economic way) and modern style copyright was in fact first introduced in the UK in 1709 with the Statute of Anne. NB The act came into effect the following year (as is normally the case with British Law.)

 

This Act brought in the following

 

An author being the owner of copyright (intellectual property)

 

The principle of a fixed term of protection for published works. (Long term ownership.)

 

So in fact 300 years ago, intellectual property DID exist!

 

Here ends YOUR history lesson!

 

So please don't say {censored} and refer to an act that happened AFTER some modern copyright laws were introduced in western society.

 

Remember the US is not the whole world.

 

I therefore maintain that Piracy is theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please get your facts right. The US did NOT invent copyright (in fact the Ancient Greeks and Romans were also interested in protecting the rights of authors in a non economic way)

This is a red herring. I did not have to mention the earlier period of time where kings would grant authors a copyright as an act of favoratism with an end goal of rewarding the creator of a work that the king personally enjoys -- because it's not relevant here. Your original claim remains false. Copyright laws were NOT always "about the IP owners" - and my link proves there was a higher purpose at one point in time, with rewards to creators being simply a means to achieve that purpose. You've confused the means with the ends, and deliberately or not, you have lost sight of that higher purpose. I only needed to show where your claim doesn't apply in one point in time in order for it to fall apart.

and modern style copyright was in fact first introduced in the UK in 1709 with the Statute of Anne. NB The act came into effect the following year (as is normally the case with British Law.)

 

 

This Act brought in the following

 

An author being the owner of copyright (intellectual property)

So in fact 300 years ago, intellectual property DID exist!

You're confusing the difference between ownership of an idea as property, and freedom to excercise a right. Again, you're taking modern terminology and superimposing it on a time period where it did not exist -- and where its use as a manipulation tool was not yet devised.

The principle of a fixed term of protection for published works. (Long term ownership.)

This is a contradiction. Short-term ownership is indeed fixed. Long-term ownership is dynamic, with repeated renewals and extensions.

So please don't say {censored} and refer to an act that happened AFTER some modern copyright laws were introduced in western society.

The legislation doesn't have to be on one particular side of your arbitrary point in time you're calling "modern" -- my case is made by the mere fact that society was the intended beneficiary at one point in time, as opposed to creators.

 

Moreover, it wouldn't matter if (for the sake of argument) we decided to deem your statement correct and ignore the past 200 years of copyright, because your whole thesis hinges on a conventional wisdom fallacy anyway. The past purposes and implementations are not necessarily appropriate today. Prior to the modern computer and xerox machines, it was perfectly reasonable for consumers to sacrifice their right to copy a work because they didn't have a practical means to exercise that right anyway. Trading a right that consumers did not intend to exercise in return for more creative works was a good trade for consumers at a time when there were only 4 printing presses worldwide. The law was not intended to be used as a weapon against the consumers themselves, but rather the few owners of printing presses. Now that a very high number of consumers have a means to duplicate works, the loss of consumer rights is now significant, undermining the liberties of the majority as opposed to limiting a few. At a minimum, that deal needs to be renegotiated with clear knowledge of what all parties are giving up if it is to be appropriately effective for the times.

Remember the US is not the whole world.

And? This is a red herring.

I therefore maintain that Piracy is theft.

Know your audience. This weasel wording resembles the same propaganda in statements like 'abortion is murder'. Your audience here is more sophisticated than a 4th grader. If you were speaking of piracy in the sense of stealing ships, then sure, piracy is theft. But by using the term 'piracy' to characterize the exchange of ideas, your premise is so flawed you might as well forget about the conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion most of the big Software Companies like Microsoft, Apple and Adobe make the big money with Companies.

 

Private use isn`t the real deal, because the most licences are sold with computers. They can`t calculate how many people would go in the shop and buy MacOSX or Vista or XP or whatelse, but they can calculate how many computers DELL or Apple will sell in a month, or how many Computers Coca Cola Company or Bertelsmann Verlag will need.

 

So i think almost every woman or man in the world has at least 1 license of Windows 3.11, 95, 98, NT, ... or MacOS 9, MacOSX or whatever at home (I have OS/2 here, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows XP and a §$%&§ repair DVD of Vista).

 

But i would never buy for private fun use (not making money or business) Fotoshöp, Zinema 5D, Illostratur, Darkroom or Cubeise. I can learn these programs at home for fun, and tell the chief in my work that Photoshop is the best program for imagemanipulation for example, and i can handle it!

 

Thats my opinion with Software piracy - Software piracy is when you steal a program, print it on an original lookalike CD or DVD in a good looking like the original Cover and sell it over Ebay or on the street! Thats piracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anti-piracy organizations would be far better off Somali pirates than after people installing multiple copies of software they purchased.

i mean, cmon, surely people stealing 35 battle tanks & ammo from a ship on the high seas should be more of a priority!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm poor and just can't afford to spend thousands of millions of dollars on software, but I always pay for software thats either made by a company I love (i.e. Apple) or that's indie (little games I like made by small developpers who actually need my money. No giving money to M$ for me, and, no, no one can afford Photoshop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see paying a huge amount for some software to sit around and never get used, or get used just a couple of times. If it's something I plan to use commercially or on a real serious basis and it's actually capable of doing all I need it to do, then I have no problem paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not a direct comparison and right way to put it.. but here goes my weird comment:

 

Think of current situation in US Economy that is causing global crisis!

 

US companies developed tech at home, and produced at home... Allowed the company hence the country got bigger in Economic scale...

 

What came later is the disturbing one (which everyone can have different opinion, due to global market situation and competition)... Companies got bigger, and greedy, now forgot about all those people who helped them grow up, skip everything, and go to Asia...

 

You may say this is not piracy... Right they pay for everyhing...

 

Produce everything for the friction of a cost in Asia than at home... It was just hardware, and now software too... what else left?

 

US companies well aware of all the thing behind the curtain of low-cost production... How is it really different than buying a 300$ copy of your windows, and 150 copy of your MAC OS ABC... and send it to Asia for cheaper copies?

 

You would argue that well those are legit, how about the people who helped developed all those legit things that are being kicked off from the company at home for cheaper production in Asia...

 

Now look at the results in US now...

 

Productions = Zero to non by humans (automation at home or production in Asia)

Middle class who helped developed all those stuff = Unemployed

Bills = Unpaid

Companies = Go bust (I still find it funny, everything done outside the country, and u have the maximum level of profitability, and yet still going bust, where is the money gone? ABC island middle of nowhere... :( oh forgot also who is gonna buy all those things if they dont have any job to earn money?)

==============================

 

 

Those companies, that you say you should not pirate their softs/hards, are the ones who are pirating labor, human rights, and all sort of other unfair practises...

 

Now I call this, what goes around, comes around... :)

 

Weird... I know... But my 2cents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People often confuse any breach of a SLA as "piracy." That's not true.

 

Piracy is, at its foundation, the act of illegally copying software. However, in modern usage, it carries the connotation of distributing that copy in some manner. Most people who merely make two copies for storage at home would never be called a pirate by anyone, though technically he copied one more time than is legal.

 

Additionally, it's important to remember that SLAs are not gods. A contract of any kind, including an SLA, is only as legal as the courts uphold it to be. I once breached a tenant contract by failing to turn in a 30-day notice of leave, and they tried to bill me for another month. Needless to say, we took it to the lawyers and I won. Lawyer stated that in my home state in the US, it's illegal to have that kind of clause in a tenant contract. WIN ;).

 

As for an SLA, they are rarely ever challenged in courts because most people chicken out of whatever they are doing as soon as they get a letter to quit, and most offenses are never prosecuted. However, it'd be nice to see more cases pop up and see how the SLA holds up in a court of law, especially in light of international laws that can complicate matters.

 

One fact is clear I believe: illegally copying licensed software and then selling it against the terms of the license is DEFINITELY both illegal and just plain wrong. You are actually earning a profit by robbing a company of its own product's sales. No way not to see that as criminal behavior, IMO.

 

As for the "I wouldn't buy it anyway so I just downloaded it for myself" argument, that's hard to evaluate. I think most everyone we know has used it, and most of the time it's probably true, since most "pirates" download software, try it out, don't like and/or need it and that's that. However, downloading Photoshop and using it day after day as your hobby or for your job definitely doesn't qualify as "wouldn't have bought it anyway." Yes, you would have. You are robbing the company of a genuine sale.

 

Let's note, however, that pirating software is not "stealing as if you're taking a DVD from the store." Why? Because you're not taking any DVD from a store. You're not taking any physical property, you're not removing a genuine item that could be sold from someone else's reach. By downloading, you create a new copy, and therefore have not "taken" anything in the traditional sense. Let's not use terms inappropriately just because we think it strengthens one argument.

 

However, no matter how we dock it up, it's still theft. If you obtain and make use of software without paying for it, it's theft by modern law according to pretty much all countries that recognize intellectual property law. In fact, there are even some international laws concerning that kind of theft.

 

Now granted, it's a bit hypocritical for us to breathe down someone's neck about it when we're installing OS X (any copy, legal or not) on non-Apple hardware, technically against the license agreement. But then again, that really couldn't be called theft.. could it? Has ANYONE ever been prosecuted for a breach of the SLA such as that? I'm using a legally purchased retail Leopard DVD, but apparently breaking the SLA by installing it on non-Apple hardware... what kind of crime does that constitute? If not a crime, is it merely a breach of contract? What is the listed penalty for this breach? If there is no penalty listed, which I couldn't find in the SLA, then how would any charges of any kind be levied?

 

Oh, and BTW, for those who are curious, the SLA says that it cannot be installed unless on "Apple-labeled" hardware. Well, here's my "Apple-labeled" hardware below:

 

post-365835-1233650859_thumb.jpg

 

 

BTW, here's a very interesting and short read PROVING that when SLA meets the courts, sometimes the SLA loses. Companies tried to screw customers over by using language like "you don't buy the software, you buy a license to use it." By wording it in such manners, it prevents you from being able to "sell" your copy because you don't own a copy, just a valid use-license which cannot be sold. This was deemed a violation of consumer rights and struck down, despite being part of numerous SLAs. Sticking it to the man in a good way!

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Buying the original software. Licenses say that the buyer does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the software. In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [3] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition. The reasoning in Softman v. Adobe suggests that resale of student licensed versions, provided they are accurately described as such, is also not infringing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always regarded piracy as an unofficial "try before you buy" none of the big packages would have their marketshare & reputation today without it. Just think: how many home users would have & know photoshop without an illicit copy?..

 

exactly! I learned using a "borrowed" copy of Photoshop, took a few classes, and because I was able to display proficiency to my employer in PS, they bought me a copy of CS2. After a few more classes I was able to show them I could use Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash, Premiere and After Effects, and then they shelled out another $2000 to upgrade me to CS3 Master Suite. Since then I've trained a few other employees on Dreamweaver, and we've bought 5 more copies, and also upgraded several users to newer versions of Acrobat (v7+) so they could use the LiveCycle dynamic forms I've created.

 

All in all my "piracy" has given them over $4000+ in sales they never would have gotten... and if ever I branch out on my own and start doing freelance jobs, I'll use that initial money from the first few jobs to get my own legit copy of CS3/4 Master Suite.

 

As for windows, I refuse to pay for a 2nd copy of software that came with my machine just because the PC manf. decided a recovery partition was an acceptable alternative to an actual recovery disk!

 

I would gladly buy a legal copy of OSX if Apple would revise their EULA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would gladly buy a legal copy of OSX if Apple would revise their EULA...

That's an absolutely hidious statement, and you know that don't you? Apple's EULA only states that you should not install it on non-Apple hardware, not that you shouldn't buy a license when you install it! Is that what you use to lie to yourself, to save some bucks?

 

Would you work for an employer who only pays you when they like your work.. at a time when it suites them best? I guess not.

 

I'm so glad that my children know right from wrong, so that they don't become another loser. What BEEP is wrong with people these days?

 

Notes: The Apple EULA is void in many countries, including most of Europe, but this should never be a reason to not buy their software/OS. Period. And if you can't afford it, stop smoking, doing illegal drugs and drinking tons of alcohol... or better get a real job (this in general, not tailored to this specific poster).

 

For me was having a hackintosh a necessity (for my editorial work) but it became another hacking hobby, and yes I even bought a separate license for my hack. Get a grip people, piracy is an economical crime and is usually punished even harder than the usual ordinary theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an absolutely hidious statement, and you know that don't you? Apple's EULA only states that you should not install it on non-Apple hardware, not that you shouldn't buy a license when you install it! Is that what you use to lie to yourself, to save some bucks?

No, I haven't yet bought a copy because: (pick one)

a.) I've only had my hackintosh running for about a week, not even sure if I'll keep OSX or if I'll get bored of it.

b.) I'd rather save my money to donate to sites like Insanelymac ; )

c.) I'd be stupid to run out and buy a copy of 10.5 now when Snow Leopard is about to drop any day now.

d.) I have a hard time giving my money to a company that would call me a criminal for not buying additional products.

e.) all of the above

 

Would you work for an employer who only pays you when they like your work.. at a time when it suites them best? I guess not.

Except for in your scenario, it would be like I was telling my employer they could only use my work in a specific manor that I pre-approve or forbid them from using it in combination with another employee's work.

 

I think a more appropriate analogy would be not paying vehicle registration while driving a car without a license. I'm already breaking the law by driving in the first place, so making sure my fees are paid won't help me in court. Sure I'll be in more trouble for 2 violations, but then maybe I'd rather save my money for a good defense lawyer should I get pulled over :D

 

I'm so glad that my children know right from wrong, so that they don't become another loser.

Let's just hope you also teach your children to be tolerant of differing opinions, instead of labeling people "losers" because you don't agree with their point of view.

 

For me was having a hackintosh a necessity (for my editorial work) but it became another hacking hobby, and yes I even bought a separate license for my hack.

So because you needed to run Mac editing software and didn't want to spend $3000, paying $129 makes it all good? Is that the lie you tell yourself, to save some bucks in not buying a Genuine Mac? :)

 

Don't kid yourself, if you wound up in court for violating their EULA, Apple isn't going to take it easy on you because you bought OSX, because after all it's not a retail license, its an upgrade, an upgrade which you have no way of legally obtaining for use with your Hackintosh.

 

And that's all I'm saying, is give me the option to legally outright purchase the OS separately and you'll get money from me you otherwise never would have received in the form of a Mac purchase. But don't expect me feel guilty for having a "pirated" evaluation copy of something you say I'm not allowed to use anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just hope you also teach your children to be tolerant of differing opinions, instead of labeling people "losers" because you don't agree with their point of view.

Did I say that you are a loser? Let me re-read my writing. Yeah, that didn't came out right. I'm sorry for that slip. It wasn't meant to be that personal, not at all.

 

So because you needed to run Mac editing software and didn't want to spend $3000, paying $129 makes it all good? Is that the lie you tell yourself, to save some bucks in not buying a Genuine Mac? :)

Eh no. I did pay a lot more for my MacPro (see sig) and still bought the retail pack for my editorial work. And two more Mac's have been ordered already. We're pretty happy Apple campers so to speak (getting ready to leave the Navy in a couple of months).

 

Don't kid yourself, if you wound up in court for violating their EULA, Apple isn't going to take it easy on you because you bought OSX, because after all it's not a retail license, its an upgrade, an upgrade which you have no way of legally obtaining for use with your Hackintosh.

I'm fully in the clear, but I am not going into detail here (signed the publishers NDA).

 

And that's all I'm saying, is give me the option to legally outright purchase the OS separately and you'll get money from me you otherwise never would have received in the form of a Mac purchase. But don't expect me feel guilty for having a "pirated" evaluation copy of something you say I'm not allowed to use anyways...

This is not about making you feel guilty, and it should have been a friendly reminder to do the right thing, but I failed because I was in too much of a hurry. Sorry for that.

 

Please note that I am not an administrator here, nor anywhere else for that matter. And maybe that's just a good thing, and it was probably just my job life that spoke up again (do a search on Master Chief, it's a Navy thing).

 

In fact I go out in 29 minutes to drill people again (it's 4:31am here already).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I say that you are a loser? Let me re-read my writing. Yeah, that didn't came out right. I'm sorry for that slip. It wasn't meant to be that personal, not at all.

 

no worries man, I'm not the type to take forum posts all personal - and I have seen you posting in several other spots, so I got respect for you as an actively contributing member

 

maybe once I can get a retail install working, then I might just buy a copy even if just not to have the same serial number as 50,000 other people lol

 

But of course in order to really test drive OS X, you need software - which is kinda hard to do without pirating, at least initially, since you're not going to spend $600 on Final Cut if you don't even know if you're machine will run it properly :D

 

although I suppose you could always just buy the software first and if you can't get it working, the store can't refuse a refund for open software since you have the right to disagree with Apple's EULA for a full refund :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some don't even think about it any more. For them, piracy is the only way to get software.
That is completely untrue; I'm writing this using Firefox (free) running on Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic (also free), which in turn depends upon a whole bunch of software including GNU, Linux and the FVWM window manager, all of which are ... free.

 

Now, I'm probably biased, given that I'm invested in anti-piracy software (the company I co-founded produces a software licensing solution for .NET) but I don't think "it's the only way" is a valid excuse for the unauthorized copying of software.

 

If you want free software there is plenty of it around ... if not, then pay for it. Can't afford Photoshop? Use Gimp. Can't afford Microsoft Office? Use OpenOffice. Etc. etc. etc. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is completely untrue; I'm writing this using Firefox (free) running on Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic (also free), which in turn depends upon a whole bunch of software including GNU, Linux and the FVWM window manager, all of which are ... free.

 

Now, I'm probably biased, given that I'm invested in anti-piracy software (the company I co-founded produces a software licensing solution for .NET) but I don't think "it's the only way" is a valid excuse for the unauthorized copying of software.

 

If you want free software there is plenty of it around ... if not, then pay for it. Can't afford Photoshop? Use Gimp. Can't afford Microsoft Office? Use OpenOffice. Etc. etc. etc. ...

 

I absolutely agree!

 

This is the right way.

 

Giorgio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it started as a kid, in the mid 90s, I would go to the store and buy a computer game,

and later that night I try to install only to find out that it would not work or it sucked, even

though I had a system that was better than the clearly listed "recommended hardware and

software" and the images on the box were also misleading

 

Same thing with CDs, listen to a cool song on the radio, go and buy that CD only to find

that's the only good song

 

I started downloading everything, and only if I liked it, would I go and buy it,

over half my Anime collection is that way, I downloaded and watched it before

I got it on DVD, I hate sad endings :)

 

But even when I do buy games I often have to download a crack or patch, and because of

that, it makes it easier to just use the pirated copy in the first place, and when you beat

the game in 3 days or less and it has no re-play value, its most likely not going to get paid for

 

As far as Photoshop, I have "downloaded" it over the years and every time there was something

ether free or cheap that was easier and faster for me to use, I had a chance to get a educational

discount that would have put it way under $200, I did not think it was worth the money

 

BTW I love Gimp, Inkscape, and Paint.net

 

I did buy Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Windows 7, in fact I own at least 1 copy of every

Windows back to 3.1 except NT and ME, gave ME away LOL, and I even own a retail

PPC version of Mac OS X Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im too young to buy a lot of the software i want so i have to pirate it, however i do know several

people who own photoshop legit. I do not believe in Stealing physical products as right, but something

virtual that you would not be able to get anyway, if you steal it then surely that is no loss to the maker of

that product? Even if i can buy the product from a shop sometimes its to much hassle to do so.

for example i walked into a shop to buy Assasins Creed , I am old enough to buy it and had the correct amount of

money, I tried to buy it and the person at the till asked for my passport! i said sorry so my friend had his ID card

(he was old enough as well) and they said sorry we need your passport! sometimes its a lot easier to get things

through piracy

 

 

I also own legit Snow Leopard on a Legit Macbook Pro.(i do get stuff sometimes i just cant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I illegally download software like Photoshop, it's not because I don't want to pay for it, it's simply I don't have £569.99 with my being in school and all that. Now, I don't see this as theft as I define theft as taking the property of someone, and they no longer have it. Considering Adobe still have Photoshop, and Adobe have not missed out on a sale as I plain and simply can't afford it, I don't see it as a heinous crime.

 

Likewise, if I download a PS1 game that I could pick up for £.99 in town, I feel that's fine, as I'm quite sure CEX can afford to miss out on a quid.

 

While pirating is illegal, it's a means to an end for some, just a cheap way out for others, or it's something to avoid, have fun working out where you stand on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×