Jump to content
40 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piracy is fine, somebody needs to take a stab at the big, greedy, companies.

 

Why do I have this view?

 

For example, copyright law is so {censored}ed up that when a pharmaceutical company discovers a new gene, they own all the rights to it in the future (manipulate it, etc.). IT IS A {censored}.ING GENE INSIDE YOUR BODY! What pharmaceutical company has a right to own your genes? Thats how you KNOW copyright law is messed up.

 

Record companies for a second example: They sell a CD for 15 bucks, the artist may get a little less than a buck, IF THEY'RE LUCKY. I'd rather buy the CD from the artist directly, take the fat white guy out of the equation.

 

Also, why buy music that has rootkits and DRM protection when I could download the pirated version with more features and higher quality at zero cost.

 

I mean, come on, its their own faults, if they wanted us to actually buy their {censored} they should get out of the middle ages, come up with a new business model, and compete, offer something pirates cant! But NO, they use the government as their personal body guard, and the government plays right along because the pharmaceutical company, record company, etc are crapping more money than you might think.

 

When they say they are losing money, thats a load of {censored}, they are losing "POTENTIAL PROFIT". Profit that hasnt been proven yet, that they dont have yet, buying something on a credit card thinking your gambling is going to pay off at the casino tomorrow when you bet on red 32 (same thing on a larger scale).

 

Copyright law is messed up wickedly, its time we did something about it.

 

 

This view also stems from how I see the world:

 

Money is great, BUT life is not ALL ABOUT MONEY. When you form a business, you SHOULDN'T say to yourself "I am starting this business to make a bunch of rich stockholders happy and to make a quick buck any way possible!" you should be investing in your company's long term success, this often involves NOT pleasing the stockholders, it also includes being loyal to your employees, if you are loyal to them, and pick the right people to work under you, and you make a quality product, and you have pride in it, and are passionate about it, the money will follow, no worries there.

 

All I'm saying in a few short words is that "money is great, but when your life becomes purely devoted by money (or your company is ONLY about the money), thats when life starts to get {censored}ed up"

Yes and no.

 

As a TECHNICALLITY, I don't think we should HAVE to practice piracy. Companies would charge proper prices, and I think people should be compensated for their work. After all, everyone in this community donates to JaS, Semthex, etc.

 

However, I think that the way that the current laws are, and the current practices of big companies, I think that piracy can be legitimized.

 

For example, let's look at history. When the radio first came out and started playing music over the air, the record companies went crazy. "How will we sell records with free music on the air?" Well, as we all now know, radio made sales explode. The music industry just wasn't up with the times, and were using their old business model from a previous generation.

 

The current state of affairs is identical. The music industry doesn't want people downloading free music, but they are living in the stone age. They have an old, outdated business model for a new world with new technology. And if someone were to harness this properly, they would make BILLIONS.

 

Someone already has harnessed this new age- Apple with iTunes. And they are making so much money it is crazy. But they have reasonable prices, so it makes even music pirates happy to just buy songs on iTunes.

 

-3nigma

Taking another's work and reselling that for profit without proper compensation to the copyright holder is obviously wrong. (Try to ignore the fact that the likes of Microsoft, and most other large corporations, do this all the time).

 

The copying of another's work for personal enjoyment and/or education I don't find so bad. Yes, it could take a small amount from the pockets of the copyright holder, but in most cases it's minuscule.

 

It's a fine line -- one that's often crossed -- but it's not as black and white as some try to make it out to be.

 

The worst effect I see on piracy, say for example "Photoshop" (a very commonly pirated title), is that it can take momentum away from alternative products, such as the Gimp, keeping them from reaching their full potential. So, as you can see, the ones that are actually "hurt" by piracy aren't always the ones screaming bloody murder... instead it just helps their work saturate more markets at the expense of the competition.

Think about this facet of the equation: Microsoft would rather have people pirate Windows and install it on their computers, than have people using Linux or buying Apple computers.

 

Even piracy is in the owner's favor.

 

-3nigma

Think about this facet of the equation: Microsoft would rather have people pirate Windows and install it on their computers, than have people using Linux or buying Apple computers.

 

Even piracy is in the owner's favor.

 

-3nigma

 

While that may be true, neither is a desirable outcome for M$. That's more of a case of them wanting the lesser of two evils. It's like you or I saying that we'd rather die from a bullet in the head than from a chainsaw up the ass, when we really just don't want to die at all.

 

PS...I wouldn't say that I "agree" with piracy. I do it because I can't afford everything that I have but I still don't think it's the right thing to do. OTOH I have made an effort to buy the titles that I use the most. I definitely don't make any money from the stuff I've downloaded. To sum it up, do it if you think you must but don't try and say it's the right thing to do, because it's not

While that may be true, neither is a desirable outcome for M$. That's more of a case of them wanting the lesser of two evils. It's like you or I saying that we'd rather die from a bullet in the head than from a chainsaw up the ass, when we really just don't want to die at all.

 

 

But this isnt dying, it is advertising.

 

Do you think that Photoshop would be as big as it is without people illegally downloading it instead of only having the option to pay 600 dollars for it at the store? I don't think so.

 

Piracy isnt a problem, if you are the big company and you make sure that as many people are using your product as possible then you ensure your survival because when those people that pirated your software become executives, they will buy IT instead of your competition for their 1000 computers at their company (businesses is where the real money is at when it comes to software).

 

Worrying about a few 12 year olds downloading music is a waste of time and counterproductive to making money

 

You make sure that an artist is known by getting as much of them out there as possible, not hiding them behind a "lockbox" as Al Gore would put it.

But this isnt dying, it is advertising.

 

Do you think that Photoshop would be as big as it is without people illegally downloading it instead of only having the option to pay 600 dollars for it at the store? I don't think so.

 

Piracy isnt a problem, if you are the big company and you make sure that as many people are using your product as possible then you ensure your survival because when those people that pirated your software become executives, they will buy IT instead of your competition for their 1000 computers at their company (businesses is where the real money is at when it comes to software).

 

Worrying about a few 12 year olds downloading music is a waste of time and counterproductive to making money

 

You make sure that an artist is known by getting as much of them out there as possible, not hiding them behind a "lockbox" as Al Gore would put it.

 

You can try and justify it as much as you want. Photoshop is not owned by you and the people that took the time to code it put a price tag on it. If you did not pay their price then you are in the wrong plain and simple. I'm not saying you should cry yourself to sleep over it or anything but at least recognize this. I use Photoshop too for my own personal use but I don't try and say that I'm doing adobe a favour by using it without paying for it.

Right and wrong are subjective.

 

If possessing something that someone else produced and you did not pay for is a universal wrong, then receiving gifts is wrong. So is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. While obviously neither of these is downloading software so that you can use it, the rightness or wrongness of software piracy is up to the individual to decide. Illegal and wrong are not the same thing. And, if you have a problem with someone else's crimes, call the police.

You can try and justify it as much as you want. Photoshop is not owned by you and the people that took the time to code it put a price tag on it. If you did not pay their price then you are in the wrong plain and simple. I'm not saying you should cry yourself to sleep over it or anything but at least recognize this. I use Photoshop too for my own personal use but I don't try and say that I'm doing adobe a favour by using it without paying for it.

I also agree that in PURE TECHNICALITY, it is wrong and illegal.

 

However, I think that it is the laws and the practices that are the root-cause of the problem. It's the laws and practices that need to be changed, to get users to bend and cooperate.

 

Music piracy is technically wrong, but if that is the case, then 200 million Americans are all guilty of felonies. What makes more sense- penalties on 2/3 of America, or the laws that need to change to the people and the next generation and age of technology?

 

-3nigma

I dont really think it's wrong. Reason being that the price of the software in many cases is quite overblown.

 

Take microsoft office for example, $400 dollar pricetag reasonable? I think not

 

music cd's 15.99 for less than an hour of sound? I dont think so

 

Seriously, I dont mind buying things, if people make something they should be supported, but theres a difference between support and being ripped off.

 

I buy more than my fair share of software, DVD's and music CD's. I am on paper, the kind of guy that music companies and movie companies like...but seriously, its not wrong to download something, use it, and if you REALLY REALLY like it, buy it, if the price is a reasonable one. If not, then piracy induces a fair price, whether they like it or not...

I'll say again that there is no such thing as "technically wrong". Right and Wrong are determined by you, unless you allow someone else to determine what is right and what is wrong for you. This is the trap of the moralists, that right and wrong are somehow absolute concepts. Except even those who agree that right and wrong are absolute have differing opinions on what IS right and what IS wrong. When two people come together, both believing that right and wrong are absolute, but differing on what is right and what is wrong, then wars and fighting commence.

 

Instead of trying to view something as absolutely wrong or absolutely right, then wondering why people are so incorrect in their views, acknowledge that right and wrong are dependant on perspective.

 

Killbott, you make a good point. If music cds cost $16 a pop (due to deliberate anticompetitive collusion among music producers), how does one encourage them to price their music more accordingly, or more fairly? If people use your product but are unwilling to pay your prices, then it's clear that your prices are unreasonable (to at least some people).

I'll say again that there is no such thing as "technically wrong". Right and Wrong are determined by you, unless you allow someone else to determine what is right and what is wrong for you.

Actually, science is proving that this may or may not be the case:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DAA0894DF404482

 

Morality behavior may be hardwired into us due to evolution, much like other instincts, such as baby's suckling for milk, baby does learning to walk, etc.

 

The only problem with the line of thinking "there is no right and wrong" is that opens anarchy. I can kill you and that's okay, you can rape my 4 year old daughter and that's okay, etc. Society can't function.

 

There are four main theories of government, and democracy is based on the "social contract" theory. I give up the right to kill people, in order to have the right to not be killed, etc. But read that article, it has interesting finds from studying chimpanzees and such, etc.

I use Photoshop too for my own personal use but I don't try and say that I'm doing adobe a favor by using it without paying for it.

 

"Favor" is a strong word for the situation, but you certainly aren't doing them any real harm. You are, however, indirectly harming smaller competitors, and free software projects like Gimp, by using Photoshop without paying for it instead of choosing a lower priced or even free competitor.

Yeah, that's true, I'd agree with that.

 

When I think of piracy, I think of Robin Hood. It's not a case of black and white, there's a big grey area. If you live in a black and white world, then Robin Hood is the bad guy, because he is a thief, and should be punished. But in reality (fictional reality, mind you), Robin Hood was a hero. He stole from those who were greedy and had loads of money and hoarded it and suppressed the poor with it. He then gave away the stolen goods to the needy, who could actually use it to better their circumstances in life, and get out of the rut that society had forced them into.

 

I use that metaphor for piracy. The law considers it wrong in black and white, but look at the circumstances. Big corporations overcharge for products, and treat PAYING customers with horrible service, the same customers that got the company so big to begin with.

 

Everybody is willing to compensate someone for their hard work on a project, just don't go price gauging and getting fat off of people's misery.

"Favor" is a strong word for the situation, but you certainly aren't doing them any real harm. You are, however, indirectly harming smaller competitors, and free software projects like Gimp, by using Photoshop without paying for it instead of choosing a lower priced or even free competitor.

 

Don't forget the graphic artist I might have hired to use Photoshop for me. Anyways, I don't want to argue about this, I'll concede to gwprod12, three cheers to not paying for people's hard work!

 

PS...The Robin Hood comparison doesn't really work btw. The Sheriff was taking all the people's money Robin Hood gave it back to the people. Adobe didn't take anything from us but we took something from Adobe.

Do you agree with piracy?

I don't.

 

So you aren't going to get a hackintosh and you pay for every single OS you use (except of course for open source ones), every software, every movie, every music...

 

If you do all the above either you are very rich or your life must be very boring.

PS...The Robin Hood comparison doesn't really work btw. The Sheriff was taking all the people's money Robin Hood gave it back to the people. Adobe didn't take anything from us but we took something from Adobe.

 

but no...we didn't take anything away from adobe. Odds are that the person downloading photoshop wasn't going to buy it anyway. Really really think about it ("DAMN! Adobe put new DRM in their photoshop so I cant download it anymore...well...I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and go out and get it for 600 dollars"). Could you honestly see that happening? No, of course not.

 

I will go even further and say that we ARE doing adobe a favor by pirating their software. Reason being that usually for the most part when businesses use programs (business is where the real money is at by the way) they use them legitimately. If you have more graphic artists out there who know how to use photoshop, the demand for that program skyrockets throughout the industry (since everybody is using it illegally or not). So when all these graphic artists enter the workforce they've influenced these companies to continue to buy photoshop, thus increasing the TOTAL amount of sales that adobe does.

 

These companies (adobe, etc.) know this all too well, why do you think there aren't more stringent copy protections on discs for software? Why do you think software companies arent making a big fuss like the music industry? It's for this reason and they know it.

 

The music industry on the other hand is the same way, but they have no choice in the matter (except to change their business model which they refuse to do), they are required to have no protection on their format since it has to play on older players that dont support DRM and the like, this is why they {censored} and moan at every person who downloads their stuff and tries to push the courts to prosecute these average citizens for downloading some Coldplay every now and then.

 

If the record companies don't change their business model for the new market then they deserve to go under, plain and simple

Don't forget the graphic artist I might have hired to use Photoshop for me. Anyways, I don't want to argue about this, I'll concede to gwprod12, three cheers to not paying for people's hard work!

 

PS...The Robin Hood comparison doesn't really work btw. The Sheriff was taking all the people's money Robin Hood gave it back to the people. Adobe didn't take anything from us but we took something from Adobe.

 

You are probably too young to remember how everything started.

For decades software was a free add-on to computers. It was the norm for developers to share their software, and almost every computer user developed some software.

 

By the eighties things began to change, and "our beloved Bill Gates" played a major role into making software proprietary.

 

However Richard Stallman tried to stop this new trend by founding the Free Software Foundation (1985)

 

The rest is recent history. Nowadays free software is very successful again and supported by large corporations like IBM or Sun.

 

EDIT: I have just found out that Dell is going to preinstall Linux on Desktops and Laptops:

 

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry335418

These companies (adobe, etc.) know this all too well, why do you think there aren't more stringent copy protections on discs for software? Why do you think software companies arent making a big fuss like the music industry? It's for this reason and they know it.

There are facts to back up this statement. Adobe knows this SO much, that in the new Creative Suite 3 that is being launched, they are working up a FREE edition, that is WEB-BASED (like Google Documents, Spreadsheets, etc.).

http://news.com.com/2100-7345_3-6163015.html

 

For decades software was a free add-on to computers. It was the norm for developers to share their software, and almost every computer user developed some software.

 

However Richard Stallman tried to stop this new trend by founding the Free Software Foundation (1985)

 

The rest is recent history. Nowadays free software is very successful again and supported by large corporations like IBM or Sun.

Absolutely. See the article from a couple days ago:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showAr...Section=Columns

 

The Robin Hood example is not meant for specific, nitpicky details- it's a metaphor for the big picture. Re-read the metaphor and look at the overarching scope, not the minute details like "Little John is such-and-such, Maid Marian represents so-and-so, etc."

 

-3nigma

Think about this facet of the equation: Microsoft would rather have people pirate Windows and install it on their computers, than have people using Linux or buying Apple computers.

 

Even piracy is in the owner's favor.

 

-3nigma

4th that.

 

why would i pay $2000 for a 3d program that i barely use?

×
×
  • Create New...