# What's your opinion about Macwarez?!



## AppleWatcher (Feb 9, 2002)

What do you think about Macwarez? 


AppleWatcher


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 9, 2002)

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL 
This topic hasnt been brought up in ages 
Is that why you brought it up ? 



Admiral


----------



## sithious (Feb 9, 2002)

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 9, 2002)

sithious you really should see a doctor about that


----------



## ulrik (Feb 9, 2002)

double-wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## serpicolugnut (Feb 9, 2002)

Well, first off all - it's illegal...

That said, I've been known to scour Carracho and download stuff from time to time.

BUT - 

If I download something that I find useful, I buy it. In the last year, I've probably paid more for software than I did for hardware (look at tagline, it's quite a bit). Software developers deserve to be paid for their efforts. It's as simple as that. Pirating software hurts everybody responsible for producing the product, and in the end, usually results in the product disappearing.

I'm happy to see Adobe adopting the

 30 day trial download that Macromedia has employed. It really is the best way for developers to get their products in peoples hands legally, and usually results in people actually buying the product.

As for using beta software (like Adobe's Photoshop and GoLive), I'm in a bit of quandry. I grabbed PS7 when I first saw it up on Carracho, and have been using it DAILY for the last two months. This is obviously in violation of Adobe's NDA (which I never signed). Personally, I don't care. I've stated publicly for the last year that I would have paid for the privlege to use a beta of Photoshop 7. It's my main tool, and without it, I was held back to using OS 9. 

That said, I own PS6, and the minute PS7 is available for preorder, my order will be placed. Same goes for Flash and Dreamweaver. 

Both Adobe and Macromedia have got my money - they just need to produce the products.


----------



## ulrik (Feb 9, 2002)

Well, I am running pirated software. I am running PS 7 sometimes, but I own a PS 6 license and I can't use PS 7 to it's full extent anyway since it doesn't support the preasure feature of my wacom tablet yet. I will buy it as soon as it is available.

I am running some expensive 3D software because I love to play with it. It's not OK, I know, but I do it. The only 3D software I use for business anyway (since it's the only one I know good enough to be productive in it) is Cinema4D, for which I have a license.

I think everybody in the business sometimes uses warez, what I don't like are people who get angry because their PIRATED beta version does no longer work etc. etc. 

My philosophie - as a programmer anyway - is, that if any application is good enough so that I use it for business, I will buy it. If it is good enough that I think the programmer or the company deserves the money, I will buy it.
If it is not good, I won't buy it and won't use it.

I have no problem with using a warez version for "evaluation" and if I need it, I'll buy it. I know this is what everybody says, but I am sticking to that philosophy.


----------



## fryke (Feb 9, 2002)

Let's repeat the (in)famous Kai Krause story. Standing before a crowd at a Macintosh event, he asked the people how many of them were using PowerGOO (a then famous lil software). Almost all hands were up. Then he asked how many had actually bought the software. The crowd laughed and many hands went down. Smiling Kai Krause said, that he thought this was fine with him. He loved that his software was so popular, he was glad that he sold enough copies of it and said: "However, if you actually *use* the software and don't just play with it for a while, even more so if you even make *money* with the creative software you are using: Please pay the developers."

So I'm a graphics designer, and I think I'm in the group Kai Krause directed that speech to. And I think he's right. Adobe is a very profitable company. And the best reason why I started paying for Adobe's software is that I pirated it when I was a teen. I was using Photoshop at that time merely for my own desktop pictures. Of *COURSE* a fifteen year old kid like I was at the time doesn't spend hundreds of dollars (or in my case Swiss Francs) for a software he uses for desktop pictures. But he learns the software while at it. He learns to appreciate the feature set and the development. He chooses a profession where he can use the knowledge he learned easily by playing around with the tool (at least I did). And finally, when making money with the tools he once pirated, he actually starts buying the software and upgrades.

This is how Adobe, Macromedia and even (gasp!) Microsoft make their money.

I think the state as it is, is perfect. Developers try to track down pirating and preventing it by inventing new copy protection schemes. Teens try to prevent being tracked down and cracking copy protection. And at the end of the day everyone's quite happy because everyone is having fun and makes a profit. Which means: Teens should *not* stop to pirate, but should start to pay when they start to earn money with the software. Companies should *not* stop tracking down software piracy but should mainly go for companies and people who actually *sell* pirated copies of wanted software titles, which I think is where piracy is *really* bad and *really* harming developers' profits.

Now that I explained it all, can we please close the topic? Btw. I need more serials for Marathon Infinity, we want to do nostalgic carnage-parties.


----------



## Lessthanmighty (Feb 9, 2002)

Well if anyone pirates software its me.  I have copied versions of Adobe: Livemotion, Photoshop, Illustrator, Image Ready, and Flash 5.  I guess I am just too poor to buy any of these things at regular price.  I should be locked away forever.  
I dont really use them for anything REAL serious.  Mostly for my entertainment.  I still am a horrible person.


----------



## vanguard (Feb 9, 2002)

None of my software is stolen.  It's been so long since I've stolen software I don't think I'd even be able to find it.  I even pay for free software (trillian for my pc) and I would pay for shareware if I used any.

It feels good to be clean.  Having said that, I'll admit that it's a little easier to be that way when you make a decent salary.  There was a day when I stole software (Visual C++) because even the academic prices would have created a real hardship.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 9, 2002)

now that pirated betas were mentioned I have a philosophical debate 


Assume some company gives our free betas or trial betas of trier software.  Would it be pirating if you download the package, install, once it expires clean uninstall and reinstall again ?  -- it's been an idea I have been toying around in my head and cant find an answer.

Furthermore, another question, lets assume that beta never expires and you keep using it, is it still piracy ? 



Admiral


----------



## mindbend (Feb 9, 2002)

I got off the ground by convincing my bank that they needed an in-house design department. I got them to buy Quark/Photoshop/Illustrator/After Effects. I then left the bank and started my own business taking those licenses with me.

I then spent two years using almost all pirated software whenever I could get my hands on it. In the last six months, now that my business has grown enough (thanks to this pirated software) I have gone 100% legit with the only exception being Microsoft software, which I will never pay for. I figure it's only fair since they stole their software, teehee.

Technically it is wrong, I can't argue that. But put it this way. If I had not pirated it. I would certainly never have bought it anyway cuz I couldn't afford it. So the company doesn't get its money either way. Now that I can afford it, they got their money, just a little late. I can live with that.

I have no problem downloading "Betas", which I do NOT use in production just in case there's a critical bug or something. I also have no problems downloading software like Bryce, which I use once just to goof around with and never launch again.


----------



## MacLegacy (Feb 9, 2002)

"What do you think of mac warez? If you have a positive opinion about it, please include your address, phone number, city/country, zip or postal code"

 
lmao


----------



## edX (Feb 9, 2002)

don't forget your social security number!!!


----------



## MacLegacy (Feb 9, 2002)

yup, that too =P

hehehe


----------



## sebastiant (Feb 10, 2002)

If you look at it this way:
I dont have any cash. I cant buy software. The software company dont loose anything if i get warez, because i wouldnt buy the software anyway. But they do get a new user of their software, who can spread the word about it.


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

Yeah, I think people who actually can afford the software, or use it for earning money, should pay for it. People like me, who can't even afford a new mac to run the new software on (  ) , simply can't pay. In other words, I have a lot of pirated software, but I have licencses for all the software I use for serious stuff (like graphics, design etc). E.g, if I'm going to make something I'll take paid for, I'll use ColorIt (a cheap photoshop clone), if I'm just going to play or make stuff for my own use, I'll use Photoshop.

My idea (to developers like adobe etc) is to charge ten times more for businesses than private people. Then, home users would start using the software legally, but won't be allowed to sell/make money out of anything they make with it. Then everyone would be happy, and probably no one would be pirating the software. And I think the developers would earn more money, too, actually. I think it'd be way more attractive to pay e.g. 39.90 $ for Photoshop for home users than 399...


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)




----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)




----------



## Aqualung (Feb 10, 2002)

Mac users don't pirate software.  

Next topic please.


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Aqualung _
> *Mac users don't pirate software.
> 
> Next topic please. *



OK.
"What do you think about peezee users who pirate software?"


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

They will be activated.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 10, 2002)

First: Aqualung I think you're very, very wrong (as you can read).

Second: What about MacStudents? I know that many companies have lower prices for students, but then, the prices are still very high!

I mean, almost everbody uses Microsoft Office. You can say this isn't true but it IS  

As a modern Macuser, you should run Mac OS X 10.1.2 and Microsoft Office v. X, if you want to read Word-files, etc.

Oh, you want to draw some things? Photoshop and Illustrator would be nice?

Oh, you want to make some nice pics for your website? After Effects, Fireworks, Flash, would be nice  

So if you are a student (like me), you simply CAN'T afford all these expensive programs! 

What do you think?

AppleWatcher


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

Applewatcher I am defending here the European post counts. Now I own the  third place in post counts. Ed Spruiel has taken the second place from me. I have also something to do with the "Open Universiteit Nederland".


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

Exactly, AppleWatcher.



> _Originally posted by Hervé Hinnekens _
> *Applewatcher I am defending here the European post counts. Now I own the  third place in post counts. Ed Spruiel has taken the second place from me. I have also something to do with the "Open Universiteit Nederland". *



What place am I on?


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

You have a great place in the heart of macusers.


----------



## edX (Feb 10, 2002)

i think the big question here Applewatcher, is do you feel justified yet? have you gotten enough other people to admit to your 'crime' to make it right in your own eyes? or is your conscience still poking around in there?

would you feel any different if a bunch of people jumped on here and said you were scum of the earth? or that you should all go to prison?

my point is - what do other people's opinions have to do with whether anybody engages in this sort of activity?

i don't by the way. i am tempted at times but i don't download illegal software even when it's just sitting right there in front of me.

btw - did anybody see a few weeks ago where about 50 people all got raided for use and distribution of pirated software?  The feds are not exactly going door to door, but they are out to get the flagrant ones.


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

Maybe Ed Spruiell we are both runnerups. Applewatcher is a great Macfan.


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

Heh, yeh, but they're only putting the distributors in prison, I think, they don't care about the downloaders, so for now I'm safe (I think I'll avoid putting my full name here, though  )


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

www.macfan.nl
http://www.geocities.com/applewatcher/


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 10, 2002)

> i think the big question here Applewatcher, is do you feel justified yet? have you gotten enough other people to admit to your 'crime' to make it right in your own eyes? or is your conscience still poking around in there?



Ed I really don't like this kind of talking! 
Do you think you know I am using illegal software or not?
I'm just asking people for their opinion, you understand  

Maybe YOU are using Gigabytes of illegal software; we don't know. That's not the point. 

AppleWatcher


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

I have never asked money for software.


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hervé Hinnekens _
> *I have never asked money for software. *



And that's how the world should've been.


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

Don't be afraid of him he is a psychiater. Don't go to him. He's not the guy from the BSA(business software alliance). It's Patrick Vijverman. He came from WordPerfect and has worked for Oracle.


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

Can someone fill me in on macwarez. I dont have a clue what you guys are talking about and would love to learn. Where do i go to macwarez?


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

www.macwarehouse.com


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

You guys or girls talk about stilling software but i dont see no were were u can do that. I just saw to buy software?


----------



## Jeffrey (Feb 10, 2002)

Ithink if you use it private its oke to use warez ... But if you have a bussiness,
you never ever may use warez !!

I download a lot of stuff from hotline movies, software, games , but i only use it for private !


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

ShareWare is GoodWare 

I've used ColorIt for years, (legally!  ), and it works perfectly... too bad the developer haven't released an update for two years or something...  but it still works perfectly in Classic


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 10, 2002)

Hey Hervé, maybe there IS a BSA guy around here 
( Ed?  )
LOL 

AppleWatcher


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

If we must screwed all children here then we don't have pointers.


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

can send one send me exactly a link where i can dl stuff. i dont see what u guys r talking about?????????


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

Yeah, check out http://www.thehungersite.com/ !!! FULL of slick mac warez, appz, serialz and moviez!!!!!


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

na 4 real i wanna dl some apps. and movies


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

Why not ask Apple? I've heard they have great support


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

can u be more annoying. instead of trying to be funny just give me  link. your so lame.


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

www.macdownload.com


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

i need to dl some apps like photoshop give me a link to macwarez. dont give me links to crap like that. I have been happy with this web sites help until now. whats up with ya?


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/ has more warez than _any_ other mac site


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

thanks for every 1's help. Hope ya get caught. o wait i found the web site.    www.dumbass.com


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 10, 2002)

Haha this is hilarious 

AppleWatcher


----------



## MacLegacy (Feb 10, 2002)

I think Eric doesn't understand we don't give out Warez sites


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 10, 2002)

LOL applewatcher I gotta hand it to you
You posted something to be funny and it turned out to be a serious thread 



Admiral


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

What do they deliver to your door? a copyied version of any software u want?


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ERICBRIAN2002 _
> *What do they deliver to your door? a copyied version of any software u want? *



YES! YES! That's what we try to explain! No, they are sending the ORIGINALS to your door! ORIGINAL federal agents


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

(Sorry, I couldn't resist  )


----------



## ksuther (Feb 10, 2002)

Whatever you want, problem is, it's FBI agents handing it to you


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Feb 10, 2002)

you guys are funny idiots muahahah. i'll use the great app limewire. wow u guys are idiots lol lol lol. macwarez lol. asssssssssssesssssssssss. thanks for ur help.


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

No problem. Go to http://www.tracker-tracker.com and donate some food.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 10, 2002)

Hmmmm thankx Admiral 

Now where's Ed? I want his reaction! 

AppleWatcher


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 10, 2002)

Dactylo's don't think about there posts. It is an art to post so much.


----------



## RyanLang (Feb 10, 2002)

Its the fact that people like EricBrian there even exist that scares the shit out of me...


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RyanLang _
> *Its the fact that people like EricBrian there even exist that scares the shit out of me... *



Ooh, don't go too far, you know what happened to ManicDVLN?...


----------



## RyanLang (Feb 10, 2002)

nope, fill me in


----------



## ksv (Feb 10, 2002)

Oh, forget it


----------



## edX (Feb 10, 2002)

ed's been sleeping in this morning.    wow, did this thread ever take off!!

i'm not sure, but i think ericbrian finally figured part of it out. 

I guess i'm mostly with testuser on this one. I am impressed that my opinion means so much that my reaction is awaited with anticipation 

Applewatcher - your post titled "what about students" seemed to imply to me that you were supportive of the "i'm too poor to buy it" rationale. you certainly seem to know some of the more popular pirated software. I am a student. so i either take advantage of student prices or do without. for a good online student discount vendor goto  www.creationengine.com

and as far as m$ software - it's not even worth stealing 


so applewatcher - what is your point?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 11, 2002)

> Applewatcher - your post titled "what about students" seemed to imply to me that you were supportive of the "i'm too poor to buy it" rationale. you certainly seem to know some of the more popular pirated software. I am a student. so i either take advantage of student prices or do without. for a good online student discount vendor goto www.creationengine.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you've interpreted my post wrong. Let it rest now. 



> you certainly seem to know some of the more popular pirated software



YES! Of course I do! Everyone does! 



> I am a student. so i either take advantage of student prices or do without.



That's nice. But, I think there are students who don't... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 11, 2002)

yea, duuuuh!! 

so you responded to all my points and i accept your answers at face value. i have nothing to gain by doubting you. so how about answering my question  - what was your point in posting this? was it just a joke as Admiral claims?

i'm also still a bit perplexed - first you want my reaction, and then your reaction to my reaction is to "let it rest now". odd


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 11, 2002)

You see Ed,

We had/have some guys around here that ask for links to warez blabla... 

Now I thought: What's the opinion of the Macusers around here?

You get it? 

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 11, 2002)

yea i get it. thanks for answering. i apologize for any misreading of your posts and the implications i made.  it has been interesting.  of course it's the same old arguments that still don't hold water and only amount to a lot of rationalization for doing something one knows one shouldn't.  i think kids are going to do that with a lot of things, not just this issue. Seems like most of the adults, or at least professionals, on the site realize that it only hurts them in the long run. 

so AdmiralAk had a good question back there about betas which i think is also relevant to this discussion. I can remember when shareware was distributed on the honor system.  There was no expiration date. i admot i was guilty of using some of those programs without ever paying . Too lazy to even send  postcard for some of them. I am sure i hurt some developers by not supporting them. It was before i, like some people here, really figured out the implications of it. 
but now beta's are released all the time, many with the expectation that you pay for it right away. but often that beta version you try isn't worth buying. so you just leave that app on your HD or trash it. then a while later, a new versioon comes out. you want to reevaluate it. only it tells you that your trial has expired.  is it right of you to hunt down those info files and trash them so yoou can start again, or is it wrong of the developer to have put them there without making them version specific? or at all?
Once i wrote to a dev. about this very issue. i was a bit cranky at the time and it wasn't the nicest of emails. but while he jumped me for being accusing of him, he also gave me the name of every file to get rid of and start again. i ended up buying the app the version after that one. but should i have had to go thru this in the 1st place?


----------



## fryke (Feb 11, 2002)

The BSA tends to count every copied version of an application as a loss in money, as if every user running a copied version of a particular application would have bought it if he hadn't copied it. This is - of course - wrong, and thus the numbers the BSA gives out are in fact wrong.

But it's not that difficult, really. It's plainly forbidden to copy copyrighted software. It's forbidden to run software that you need a license for if you don't have one.

Also the reasoning that 'if you use software and make a profit with it' of course can't apply to games at all (or other entertainment software titles). Also the statement that 'I use Photoshop now for free and will buy it when I'm a graphics professional' can't be applied to games.

Another philosophical problem is that 'times have changed'. I remember the times when I had my Atari ST and the internet was not part of my life at all. (The 80s.) I only had two friends who also possessed an Atari ST, my other friends either did not have computers or used Macs or Amigas. So getting your hands on software titles for free (by warezing) was a completely different thing then. One of three would buy the software, two copies were made. Like that the software developer still made money, albeit less than if every one of us would have bought a copy.

Nowadays a kid connects to Hotline or Carracho servers and finds - with a bit of sweet talking and trading - archives with the newest titles. And oh so many of them. In the 80s I needed like 5 software titles plus maybe a game or 20. If I didn't find a title that did what I needed, I used GFA Basic to write it myself, if it wasn't too big a task.

So while back in the 80s software wasn't just available some klicks away and sharing software was mostly a private thing with (small) group dynamics and basically a positive feeling towards the developers, this has changed. People just grab everything they can. I know people who have every Photoshop and After Effects plugin ever made. Just to have them. They don't use it. But it's always a good trading argument for them. Actually, they don't really do anything productive on their computers. They're traders. They're addicted.

Sounds dumb? I remember myself. The summer of love, when Mac OS 8.0 Betas were the big hit on early Hotline servers. I would stay up half the night just to make sure that the 30 or so MB would dribble in through my 28.8Kbps leased line. In the morning I would - again - destroy the System of my PowerBook with it. And in the evening I would find a newer build on some or other Hotline server. Addiction? Yes, of course. I would have had a better time if I only downloaded one build per week or month, I could have done a lot more work on my computer (and gotten some sleep, too), but I was addicted to it. What excitement it was to test the themes 'Gizmo' and 'HiTech' with early builds of 8.0. How loud was the scream of everyone when they were removed before the final candidate stage. Hilarious, how the 'Special' menu in the Finder changed its name with every build ('Sunrise', 'Steve', 'S...'). It was a great time - and I was addicted to it.

My reasoning goes like this: Addicted traders don't really harm developers directly. They wouldn't buy the software titles. But they do indirectly by making the titles more widely available to users who *could* pay for the software but *don't*.

Kids who *need* expensive software for fun don't harm developers, because they could never afford to buy a license. But what they don't see is that there are alternatives. Do kids really *need* Microsoft Office v. X? They could use AppleWorks which is much less expensive. And they could buy the software or let their parents buy it for christmas. Photoshop? The 'Elements' version would be enough for most of the tasks. Use Graphics Converter for most of the missing features. But I didn't go that way myself when I was a teen, so I understand why people don't.

The people who *really* harm software development companies are the ones who sell copied titles. I know that in the late 80s a couple of friends of mine bought 150 games on about 200 floppy disks for their Amigas. An italian BBS sold such packages at a price we would pay for the empty disks. Many of the games sucked, but among them were at least ten titles they would else have bought themselves or gotten for christmas/birthdays, so actually there was money lost. And there are people selling copies of Adobe or Microsoft titles. Big time. Those are the criminals. And the buyers of course are the dumbasses, because they pay for something without earning the right to use the software.

I'm a bit sorry for the long post, but I think it's important to say in a thread like this what's really happening. Posts like 'where do I find macwarez' should not be in such a thread. Posts like 'I do warez but I don't worry' should not be here, either.

What could 'the industry' *really* do to make it better? I have a suggestion. As an example I'll use Photoshop, for it is about the most traded title in the WarezWorld:

Photoshop Elements (with even less features): Free.
Photoshop Basic (with a bit more features than Elements today, perfect for Webdesign but not Print): 90$.
Photoshop Full (like today's version): 299$.

Everyone would download the Elements version. Because it'd be free. It would be enough to learn how Photoshop works. If you'd really like what Elements would do, chances are high you'd spend the 90$ for the Basic version some day. And the lower price for the Full version would make professionals buy the licenses earlier in their cycle.

Similar models could be made for almost all graphics professional software titles like Illustrator, FreeHand, Flash (!), GoLive etc.


----------



## ksv (Feb 11, 2002)

Good words, fryke 
As a "kid" myself (as I'm tired of being classified as), I have to correct you a little. "Kids" (at least us with macs  ) also use software for creative stuff. Already when I was 7 or something, I started messing around with the system, apps etc with ResEdit. I've also made graphics to Escape Velocity plug-ins (Battle of Valhalla), and made my own. Back when I was 11, I had my own local newspaper (which I sold hundreds of copies of in total), and made some money on designing/printing business cards, CD covers etc. All that with _legal_ software 
What would I have done if I had a PC, and never touched a mac? Oh, I don't even want to think about it...  

Oh, and I remember the 10.1 summer


----------



## bubbajim (Feb 11, 2002)

Pirated software distribution is bad.

People who download software can do so because of the pirated distribution.  From a developer's point of view, it must be gut-wrenching to see their hard work up on a warez site and someone is taking food out of their family's mouth.  Some people work very hard to earn their money.  These people deserve money for their efforts.  These developers are people who make 
Shareware a good business.

Now on the other side of the playing field are monopolies like Microshaft that bloat their applications with some much useless functions and then charge you insane amounts of money for it, deserve their software to be pirated fully (Yes it's appearant that I don't like Microsoft.) Because of companies that shaft the average consumer, I download pirated software for the pure fact that it can be done.  I don't distribute the software to others, I don't have a webpage to give links to pirate sites, nor do I even use the software.  I just like searching the internet and finding the software, it's like finding buried treasure to me, or better yet like valuable baseball cards.  I would never trade them to someone, but I just like to collect and see if I can get the whole set.

Some examples of this would be back when Nintendo64 came out I didn't have a lot of money and I was quite aggitated of the price of the console and their games, so I started my quest to download every game for the Nintendo64.  I ended up with over 280+ titles that I can play via emulation or via my CD64 unit which plays the games from a CD.  Now out of the 280+ games, I have only play about 5 minutes worth of each game, just to see if they worked.  I played games like their Zelda series, which I liked so much I bought those cartridges.  I wasted so much time in getting these games, that the fun was for the hunt of these games and not to actually play them.  So I guess piracy can mean different things to everyone.  To me piracy is bad in business, but piracy is just a way to do things on the internet for others.  If I didn't spend so much time looking for software and games on the internet, I probably would not be on the internet much at all.

Does this make me a pirate... YES.
Am I proud of it...NO.
Am I ashamed of it..NO.

To each his own and what is justified and proper to me, may not be the same for you.

Just remember that it's doesn't make you better/worse than anyone else.  I just make you human for thinking for yourself and not conform with the masses.


----------



## edX (Feb 11, 2002)

so would it be safe to interpret that there are many of us here on this site who want no connection with warez? We do not want information about it's availability distributed here nor do we want to hear about people having troubles with their illegal copies of software.  We can't stop it, but we don't have to be associated with it.


----------



## ksv (Feb 11, 2002)

As I said earlier, I think it'd be cool if e.g. photoshop had two kinds of licences, one non-profit/non-business/home-user licence (e.g. 29.90 $) and one licence for businesses or people who make money directly out of using the software (299 $, maybe more). Of course no one could control the use of the "cheap" licences, but using them for business would be just as illegal as having no licence.
You know, getting a pirated copy of Photoshop 6 isn't harder than getting a legal licence, and actually I think adobe would sell more and perform better if they released a licencing method like this.
Maybe my idea will come through if I write a 4 page letter to Adobe?


----------



## MacLegacy (Feb 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *Good words, fryke
> 
> Already when I was 7 or something, I started messing around with the system, apps etc with ResEdit.  *



 OMG, you must have screwed the system a lot!!!


----------



## fryke (Feb 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *so would it be safe to interpret that there are many of us here on this site who want no connection with warez?*



I'd say we wouldn't really care. I'm for example interested in other users' experience with betas of upcoming titles. If someone loses his OS X partition while updating to 10.1.3 5Qsomething - not so interesting. Maybe helpful to others who tried it, but not to me. But if they're talking about a newer build of 10.2 than 6B11: I'm definitely interested. They should put it to the 'Rumours' category, but yeah, I'm interested.


----------



## edX (Feb 11, 2002)

but Fryke, are betas really warez? i would say not unless they have somehow been hacked to provide a life longer than the developer intended. which brings us back to questions that Admiral and i asked about expiring betas.


----------



## fryke (Feb 11, 2002)

well. i was talking about builds of Mac OS X for example. ADC members who get their hands on new builds officially are asked not to talk about them in public. and of course they should not spread the builds via warez sites. so basically the latest Mac OS X 10.2 build floating around must be considered 'warez'. That doesn't stop me from wanna-know.

similar with Photoshop 7 builds. they're not public betas, so must be considered warez.

now. i'd say talking about this is nothing that rumour sites don't.

if one 'prolongs the life' of a beta (be it public or not) is changing the way the software is intended to be used. that's why most of the little helpers for this are named cracks (or krackz).

if you never bought a license for photoshop, the same reasoning must be applied to photoshop 7 betas like for photoshop 6, i guess.

if you are an owner of a photoshop 6 license, using a ps 7 beta without being part of the beta program is of course illegal, but it's philosophically a different matter, as you are likely (and entitled) to buy the final version at an upgrade price.

back to your and Admiral AKs question, Ed. if you're able to completely deinstall an expiring demoversion and reinstall it and use it for another 30 days, i guess the company could not do anything about it legally. it depends on the small print of the demo license, i believe, though. the greatest thing about those demo versions is education. you can offer a course in golive and use the 30 day trial for yourself and all of your students. that's what i did last summer. at the end of the course, one student informed me that he found such a life prolonging device. he called it a patch. i smiled and told him the same thing i said before: "buddy, that's fine with me, as long as you're not making a profit out of the software and as long as you know you're not a legitimate user of the software anymore. buy the stuff if you start to sell webpage design."


----------



## edX (Feb 11, 2002)

I guess my perspective is pretty close to you guys on this one. I see nothing wrong with people who have paid for the last (or any previous ) version as being entitled to play with betas, publically issued or not. After all they are the target market and should get some say as to how the program is shaping up if they want. the idea that any beta should be withheld, assuming it is really a beta and not a glorified alpha, is absurd to me. 
On the other hand i have no interest in certain kinds of betas - like norton products and osx. I have enough little quirks to work out with 'fully functional' system software to want to go there. and i don't really care about hearing about them because i like surprizes. knowing just makes the wait seem that much longer sometimes. 
as far as the disabling of shareware expiration, i wish they would all just make it an annoyance to continue using it - like graphic converter. I continue to use it and put up with the 30 sec wait each time i launch it. Only recently have i started to feel like i occasionally use it enough that i should pay the price. to put it another way, it was only after my original expiration date had passed that i began to see a reason to buy it.
and every developer should make the expiration version specific. period. i should be able to evaluate each and every improvement before a product reaches a point that it is worth being paid for.
i am also ok with this idea that the shareware version is missing a few nice features as long as those features actually fuction once you buy. I hate Adobe's policy of keeping you from saving and printing right from the start. I rarely work on anything all in one sitting, so i am denied the opportunity to really test it the way i would use it.
i do believe things are far better than back in those days we traded disks and called and connected to a bbs just to find any software, but there is still room for improvement in the system.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 12, 2002)

I think beta programs are not warez because you may not use them for distribution blabla.... 

No, serious. If you're using beta programs then you're a tester?

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 12, 2002)

not clear who you are talking to AW. as for me, i have never had anything but public betas distributed thru versiontracker and macupdate. technically speaking, i am typing to you on a beta browser - icab. Omniweb is the same way. and i am definitly going to pay one of these two companies some money eventually when it becomes neccesary. Maybe before if one of them would just become a complete browser for my wants and needs. icab has the advantage in speed and omniweb in looks and rendering.

i know there are some beta testers around here somewhere. and some pirates. and some apple employees. and...

(once more you are being confusing. how about your perspective on these questions that you raised to start with? eh?)


----------



## Click (Feb 12, 2002)

I downloaded photoshop 1.0 from a warez site. Fun but still illeagal. 
All you "clean" designers out there. How many warez fonts do you have on your computer?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 12, 2002)

Photoshop 1.0  

Do you mean Photoshop 7 1.0? 

AppleWacther


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 12, 2002)

Whatever you guys have to tell yourself to sleep at night...

Basically, piracy is stealing.  You'd never use it if you'd have to pay for it?  Fine, then don't use it.  It's still illegal even if you don't plan on buying it.  Try finding free alternatives (such as the Gimp for Photoshop, and many Office alternatives for Office v.X).  

As for beta's, they're the same way.  You're using software that you didn't pay for.  However you want to call it, it's piracy.  But you're just testing the software, right?  Try sending in a bug report.  Chances are you wont send in a report (for fear of being caught), and if you do send one in you're an idiot.  Most beta's (non public) are given to developers so they can help get rid of bugs; you don't help the cause at all by downloading it and using it.  

Who does it hurt?  That's not the point.  Who gets hurt from me speeding?  Who gets hurt from me smoking crack?  You may not agree with the laws, but they are still laws.  It is wrong to break them, no matter how you slice it.


Ok, I'll get off my soap box now.


----------



## edX (Feb 13, 2002)

> You may not agree with the laws, but they are still laws. It is wrong to break them, no matter how you slice it.



you had me right with you up till this part. that is absolutely the worse reason for not using warez. that is the worst reason for obeying any law that i have ever heard. when we blindly follow rules, just because they are rules, we allow ourselves to be controlled and manipulated by others without an understanding of the reasoning behind those rules.

this is the kind of mentality that allows facist and nazis and others who who oppress to come to power and wield it in dangerous ways. When you cease to question authority, you are destined to suffer at its hands.

that being said, there are good reasons behind most 'rules' and 'laws'. But not always. and we need to underwstaned what the reasons are and how they effect us when we allow laws to remain.  Sometimes we don't agree with a law that a majority of others believe is good. Often it is because we don't understand what protections they hope to gain. and sometimes they don't realize the foolishness of their fears. 

"Just Say No" has never worked.  Understanding why one should say no is a far better solution.  (and this is another one of those soapboxes,  i will not step down from. )


----------



## Click (Feb 13, 2002)

No I mean Photoshop 1.0  
I also have Photoshop 6.0 but I have paid for that one.
Photoshop 1.0 is amizingly usable. Okay no layers but all the basic adjustment that you need is there.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 13, 2002)

Haha what kind of filters are there for Photoshop 1.0?
Export to Photoshop 0.2?  

I think it's good you've paid for that one!

AppleWatcher


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> 
> you had me right with you up till this part. that is absolutely the worse reason for not using warez. that is the worst reason for obeying any law that i have ever heard. when we blindly follow rules, just because they are rules, we allow ourselves to be controlled and manipulated by others without an understanding of the reasoning behind those rules.
> ...



It didn't really come out the way I meant for it to come out.  I didn't necessarily mean that breaking the law was wrong, as some laws may be unjust, but it is still ILLEGAL, and you can be punished for it.  If someone thinks a law is unjust, there are many ways to go about getting it changed.  However, most people will agree that stealing software is wrong, and that will never change.


----------



## alexachucarro (Feb 13, 2002)

Here in the UK a lot of software pircay goes on too. I am still a student ay Uni (BSc Special Effects) and there are little communities of people who GIVE software to other students.

For example someone asks for PhotoShop, then one CD will be passed around on the proviso that NOONE makes money out of it.

If you get caught distributing nicked software here you'll get into trouble. If you get caugt making money out of it, they'll f*£k you right up, take your back teeth out and every thing like that.

But heres something for you to get your teeth into. Alias|Wavefront makers of Maya 3.5 for OS X are about to release a free copy of the software that costs about £6'000 ($9'000). The catch is that it prints a watermark over your renders and industry plug-ins dont work. Other than that it's all there, 100%. But a friend who is in the shady world of stolen software found out that Alias themselves were the ones who released the original crack so that people could use a copied CD version.

Basically this means that they WANT some proportion of people to know their program through and through but they know not many students can afford it. But they expect if you get into the industry that you eventually pay for your own copy.

My friend is about to start up his own compnay and has had to pay for every bit of software he already owns!!! He's doing this becuase he's going to be making money out of it. Before he was just a student.

I knwo that what I'm doing is wrong, but it's the way the software world works. It's like pacifism. Nice idea, but the world doesn't work like that. And Mexican immigrants into the US. It's illegal but if the US Stopped all of them working, you'd suddenlyt have a fucked economy.

My advice is, if your big (ie a company, free lancer) then buy your software, if not have fun, but NO NOT MAKE MONEY OUT OF IT. Just for personal interest.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by alexachucarro _
> *Here in the UK a lot of software pircay goes on too. I am still a student ay Uni (BSc Special Effects) and there are little communities of people who GIVE software to other students.
> 
> For example someone asks for PhotoShop, then one CD will be passed around on the proviso that NOONE makes money out of it.
> ...



Like I said, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night  

Making money off software is not the reason people buy it.  It is bought so they can use it.  Alias|Wavefront has a great idea, and I think that most companies should follow their lead.  However, just because software is expensive and you don't have the cash does not allow you to steal it.  So you don't have the money to buy Photoshop?  Get Photoshop Elements (LE on the windows side) or use the Gimp.  There are many cheap/free alternatives to the very expensive programs.

I just think that people are very lucky that most companies don't go after the end user for pirating.  I don't think the industry realizes how much money they could make on fines with very little effort, especially if they can find a way to do it over the internet.

BTW, I highly doubt that Alias|Wavefront put out the crack to Maya.  That would just be damn stupid.


----------



## fryke (Feb 13, 2002)

Ed Spiruell said: "I only found a reason to buy Graphics Converter after the demo-use license." (or something like that.)

That's exactly what the developer intended. That's why the software still runs after a 30s wait. And if you now buy a license or continue to use the software for free: That's all he wanted.

OmniWeb/iCab: I bought a license to OmniWeb, mostly because they have been entertaining me so well in past and present. OmniWeb 2.x/3.x was the only browser available back when I was using Rhapsody on my PC and Mac OS X Server 1.x on my PowerMac 9500/200. And when Mac OS X 10.0 (4K78) came out, IE sucked so much that OW was still the only way to go. I'm supporting them because they're a poster child of a software development company. What happens if you don't pay for OW? You are not disturbed while surfing the web. Nice one. I even sometimes remove my license which I paid for just to see the funny comments. And then I reenter it because I remember that I paid for it. 

Non-public Betas: They're warez. Definitely. Yes, I have a license for Photoshop 6.0, I don't have one for 7.0 because there aren't yet any to buy. It's illegal to use the 7 beta, I shouldn't even be able to find a copy. But I guess noone will hunt down a user who paid licenses so far, would they?

Pirated Fonts: Yes, that's a big problem for many companies. It's such a big problem that I mainly switched to using specialty fonts only for customers willing to pay for the fonts, too. It's a drag, because even more people don't look at good fonts as something to pay for. For those willing not to pay for the fonts: There are *a lot* of good copies around the net that are freeware. They might look a little bit different than the originals, but it's the way to go if you want to be free.

jokell82 said: "and that will never change."

This one makes me angry. Really. I guess that phrase oughta be punished with a lot of soft pats with a hard stick. Remember Bill Gates saying a PC will never need more RAM than 640KB? That was similar.

It's especially strange to say such a thing in the face of so many good open source developments. This is about to change. It's already changing. It might take years for OpenOffice.org to complete an office solution that can grab customers from Microsoft, but when it's ready and *does* start to do just that, it will take off. If you really *have* an opportunity to switch to a totally free and open source office solution that can really compete with a solution that costs a hell of a lot of money and comes from a company that has an image like that: You will. 'Do you want this for free or do you want to pay 300 bucks?' You'll pick the free one. The Gimp may not really be a competitor to Photoshop right now, but it *is* really a competitor in some areas. Those areas maybe where people rather 'steal' Photoshop than buy it. The Gimp has been improved over the years and will go on to be improved. It has and will have its share of the cake in graphics design.

Apache. It's the world's web server. You surfing the net? Most probably you're getting pages from a server platform that is open source and completely free. 'Course there's Microsoft IIS, but it sucks big time (both your money and your brain) as soon as you have to maintain more than one virtual webservers.

Perl. MySQL. It's ruling the web, basically.

So why does this not apply to the Print industry? Because it hasn't yet really been tried. I'm sure, if one day someone starts to make an effort, a really interesting solution will spring out of it. And where Quark XPress document solutions cost thousands of dollars plus the multiple client software for a layout/print office, this solution will be free. And of course it won't provide the exact same things from the beginning. But the price alone (free as in beer) will make it attract young/small/poor offices and let them provide good work where before they would've be dead or illegal.

The industry is always changing, albeit slowly. Who would've thought that IBM would promote Linux 7 years ago? Everyone was either laughing about such a thought or they would've asked what Linux was. And today MS is talking about 'the biggest threat' when they talk about Linux. They scream 'communism!', which is a terribly wrong comment to make if you want to attack Linux, because Linux has all the BEST of communism without the drags, where MS is all the WORST of capitalism WITH all the drags.

In five years, the web will be different. Media production will be different. (I still believe that Adobe will lead there, though.) In five years, our computers will be quite different. (1992 there was the Quadra 950 [ http://www.apple-history.com/quickgallery.html?where=950 ] with a 33 MHz 68040 processor. 1997 there was the PowerMacintosh 9600 with a 350 MHz 604p Mach 5 processor. Quite a difference indeed. We're now at Dual 1 GHz G4s with AltiVec. We're on Mac OS X. Times do change. So do business models and software licenses.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *jokell82 said: "and that will never change."
> 
> This one makes me angry. Really. I guess that phrase oughta be punished with a lot of soft pats with a hard stick. Remember Bill Gates saying a PC will never need more RAM than 640KB? That was similar.
> ...



You make a very good argument, however you took my quote out of context.  I said "stealing software is wrong, and that will never change."  I also promoted the use of free/cheap software.  I doubt anyone will agree that stealing software being wrong will eventually change.  Using free alternatives is not stealing, using unlicensed copies of commercial software is.


----------



## fryke (Feb 13, 2002)

Yup, but I *did* mean that it will/might change. But in the same sense, somehow. I think 'will never change' just sets me into some kind of fast-typing mode. I should tell myself I'll never change when I want to write a new story. (I'm a writer of shortstories, maybe I could write novels better like that.)


----------



## Click (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *Haha what kind of filters are there for Photoshop 1.0?
> Export to Photoshop 0.2?
> *



No kidding. Photoshop 1.0 is usable. It got levels, curves, image size, dust&scratches,histogram, and the basic selection tools (+ some more that I can´t remeber) if I remeber correctly.  So basicly all you need. 
A lot better than paint for windoze.
Would probably be impossibly to find ps 1.0 without warez.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by sebastiant _
> *If you look at it this way:
> I dont have any cash. I cant buy software. The software company dont loose anything if i get warez, because i wouldnt buy the software anyway. But they do get a new user of their software, who can spread the word about it. *



Is that similar to saying that you can't afford a Porche, so it'd be ok to steal one and ride around in it to spread the word about Porche?

Poor people (yes, I am one of them, too -- a po' college student) can't afford the higher-priced luxuries in life, so we make do with less.  That's how America was built, that's how America is.  That's how much of the world is.

Poor people drive Geos or ride bikes.  Rich people drive Porches or ride around in limousines.

In that same sense, poor people use Gimp.  Rich people use PhotoShop.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *
> 
> Is that similar to saying that you can't afford a Porche, so it'd be ok to steal one and ride around in it to spread the word about Porche?
> ...



Excellent way to phrase it.    Although, I use Gimp, not because I'm poor (which I am), but because I like it.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *It's not like these people are going out to a CompUSA, and walking out with boxes under their shirts.  They are duplicating the software.  It would be more similar to a car factory owner making his own Porsche, and thereby depriving Porsce of a sale.  It is worse if he makes his own Porsches and hands them out to his friends also.
> 
> This whole thing is much more closely related to VHS tapes, and music CD's.  Sure it's OK to make copies for yourself, but if you borrow them from friends to make a copy it is ethically wrong.  The internet now makes it possible for people to borrow a copy from total strangers.
> ...



In 20 years, if you want to use Photoshop 6 for nostalgic reasons, I doubt anyone will come after you for pirating software.  

The situation you laid forth is precisely why warez is so rampant.  No one feels what they are doing is *actually* stealing, since nothing concrete is exchanging hands.  Lets put it this way:  someone (actually probably a bunch of people) spent many hours creating that code that forms the program you are stealing.  That person may have a family they need to house, and feed.  By you not paying for the software, and giving it to other people, you are taking his work without his permission.  You are cheating that person out of all the time he spent coding that software.  

I used to have the same view you had.  Then I went to college and started my degree in computer science.  I realized that one day I was going to create a program, and I wouldn't want to lose money because some warez kiddies didn't want to pay for my hard work.  Granted, I quickly changed my major to English as CS completely sucks, but I understood the side of the developers.  Once you can see it from their side, you get a better understanding of how wrong it is.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

Oh, and by the way, by running out of CompUSA with a box under your arm would be much better than downloading the software.  You see, the developers were already paid for the piece of software sitting on the CompUSA shelf.  Stealing that box takes money out of CompUSA's pocket, not the software developer's.


----------



## edX (Feb 13, 2002)

well, while i don't MAME, i certainly feel i should have a right to given the situation as testuser describes it. i have little doubt that i fed enough quarters into some of these arcade games to have paid my share of the fees long ago. and the people who developed them have long since been paid what they bargained for. They most likely dumped the product because they believed it was no longer profitable. 

there are certainly times when it is right to 'steal back' what you once had. especially if they won't sell it to you. 

story - my father was an extremely honest man from all i knew of him. but i will never forget one incident many many years ago. We were visiting SF for the 1st time. We went to "Dimaggio's" restaraunt. They had the coolest water glasses with pictures of Joltin' Joe printed on them. I wanted one. My dad offered to buy one. they refused. he talked to the manager and still no go. they weren't willing to let anybody have one. My dad eventually had my mom take and slip one into her purse. I still love that little glass to this day. I am sure my dad paid for that glass many times over with the profit from 4 meals. He would have paid more. 

who would have benefitted the most by selling that glass? the restaurant of course. who lost the most by refusing to see the value in doing so? again the restaurant. I won't even go into Dimaggio's own notorious life as some sort of extra justification. but i will have to admit, i lost some respect for a hero that day. not all of it, just some. And even though i am back in SF to live now, i haven't bothered to even see if it still exists. that one glass incident kept me from having an experience i would like to repeat.

so were we wrong? we certainly did something illegal. I would like to hope that eventually the restaraunt figured out it was better (and more profitable) to sell them than have customers turn into theives. Much as it would be better for software companies to sell reduced versions at reduced prices that really are affordable than to perpetuate an environment that stimulates piracy. After all, locks are only for keeping honest people out.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jokell82 _
> *In 20 years, if you want to use Photoshop 6 for nostalgic reasons, I doubt anyone will come after you for pirating software.
> *



I really have no problems with people playing MAME, in fact, I play many games on my SNES emulator.  Granted, I own all the games I have an emulator for, but I've played a few that I haven't owned.  

Ed has a good point.  It *technically* is still stealing, although no one really cares.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 14, 2002)

> Would probably be impossibly to find ps 1.0 without warez.



Hey, maybe warez are good for something after all 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *This whole thing is much more closely related to VHS tapes, and music CD's.  Sure it's OK to make copies for yourself, but if you borrow them from friends to make a copy it is ethically wrong.  The internet now makes it possible for people to borrow a copy from total strangers.*



I think whether it is an ethical dilemma is completely subjective... it is a matter of one's opinion.  Plenty of people are doing it with no second thought about it with software, music and other various forms of media, and I doubt they're questioning their ethics.

Whether pirating software poses an ethical dilemma or not is a debateable opinion.  What is NOT in question is whether it is lawful or not.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 14, 2002)

Hmmmmm, maybe you have a good point there, ElDiabloConCaca.

But I think people are very stupid if they're copying Photoshop 6 (for example) for friends and they think it's legal (or they don't think about that it could be illegal)... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *But I think people are very stupid if they're copying Photoshop 6 (for example) for friends and they think it's legal (or they don't think about that it could be illegal)... *



...or just don't CARE that it's illegal.  I can be safelypositive in making the statement that just about 95% of the people who are responding to this thread have participated in some sort of illegal software pirating, willing or unwilling, at some time or another.

Sometimes you think you're doing something perfectly legal with a piece of software when in actuality you're breaking the software license in some sort or another.  This software licensing, even though it's been around for quite a few years, is still in its infancy.  The computer era is still in its infancy.  Take a look around -- the .NET initiative?   Hell, we don't even have a standard MEDIA that software can be delivered on.

We'll see some stable ground here concerning exact software licensing here in about 20 years.  Until then, loopholes and gray-areas will abound.


----------



## Click (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *
> Take a look around -- the .NET initiative?
> *



Just wondering. What is the .Net initiative?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

.NET is Microsoft's attempt at delivering cross-platform applications through the internet -- something along the lines of abandoning the practice of purchasing a boxed version of a piece of software in a store, taking it home and installing it.

When you purchase a piece of software, all you've purchased is a license to use that software -- you don't OWN the piece of software, which is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, since they're sitting there staring at a CD with the software on it in their hands.  Adobe can, under its licensing terms, come to your house for various reasons and demand that you relinquish or destroy all your CDs and copies of PhotoShop, and you must do it by law -- because they OWN the software.  If they did that, they've effectively taken back your license to use the software.

Microsoft came up with this (stupid) idea that instead of distributing software solely on CDs, they could deliver the software through the internet, through something they call ".NET."  Essentially, your computer is hooked into their .NET network, and you buy annual (yup, yearly!) licenses to use, let's say, Office, through their .NET program.  Your Office application would reside on their .NET server, and you'd use it that way -- kinda like a HUGE local-area network through the internet where the applications sit on the server and the client machines connect to the server to use the application.

I think it'll work, since Microsoft will be pushing billions of dollars toward this, but I think it stinks.  If it does succeed, they'd damn well better figure out how to let me use Office on a 56k dialup connection and have it launch in under 3 hours.  Bastards.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *Ethics is the study of what is morally right and wrong.  If you are a moral person, you behave in a way that most people will consider correct and honest.  Most people will consider music or software piracy to be wrong, and hence unethical.  Your assertion is amoral (or at best moral relativism to an extreme).
> 
> Someone who is introspective, and examines ones actions with respect to its outcome or consequences is engaging in an ethical contemplation.  People who pirate "with no second thought" are unethical and immoral, as well as criminal.
> ...



...but the notions of "right" and "wrong" are debateable, from person to person.  Just because "most" people do it doesn't automatically make it "right."  Most people thinking a certain way about a certain thing makes it a "popular opinion," nothing more.  Most people use Microsoft -- need I say more?

For example, and I know I'm walking right into a minefield here, but I'd venture to say that being a Christian is along the lines of "morally right."  However, Christianity is a MINORITY belief, in comparison to world religions and the number of people who "belong" to a certain belief.  Does that mean that because it's a minority belief that makes it morally wrong?  Nope.  Right and wrong are completely subjective, too, as well as ethics.

I firmly believe that just because something is popular does NOT make it "right" or "justifiable."  Sometimes one person is "right" and a billion others are "wrong."  It's all debateable.

...and, are we talking about people who engage in a dilemma about whether pirating a piece of software is going to piss OTHER people off -OR- make themselves feel bad?


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *.NET is Microsoft's attempt at delivering cross-platform applications through the internet -- something along the lines of abandoning the practice of purchasing a boxed version of a piece of software in a store, taking it home and installing it.
> 
> When you purchase a piece of software, all you've purchased is a license to use that software -- you don't OWN the piece of software, which is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, since they're sitting there staring at a CD with the software on it in their hands.  Adobe can, under its licensing terms, come to your house for various reasons and demand that you relinquish or destroy all your CDs and copies of PhotoShop, and you must do it by law -- because they OWN the software.  If they did that, they've effectively taken back your license to use the software.
> ...



I really hope this thing stays on the windows side.  I plan to never use .NET, even if that means using the Unix version (I think it's called Ximian, don't quote me on that).  I think it's ludicrous to buy the use of software for a year.  And if M$ does go through with this, it better be $50 or less per year.  Why would anyone pay $400+ PER YEAR to use office is beyond me.  I know plenty of companies that haven't switched to Office XP just because of the product activation, what would make these companies license software for a year at a time????


----------



## ulrik (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *.NET is Microsoft's attempt at delivering cross-platform applications through the internet -- something along the lines of abandoning the practice of purchasing a boxed version of a piece of software in a store, taking it home and installing it.
> 
> When you purchase a piece of software, all you've purchased is a license to use that software -- you don't OWN the piece of software, which is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, since they're sitting there staring at a CD with the software on it in their hands.  Adobe can, under its licensing terms, come to your house for various reasons and demand that you relinquish or destroy all your CDs and copies of PhotoShop, and you must do it by law -- because they OWN the software.  If they did that, they've effectively taken back your license to use the software.
> ...



Uhm...this is NOT the .Net-initiative! This is 0.001% percent of it, and in no way does it come close to the idea behind .Net. It's a result of .Net.
The idea itself is great! Really great! I can only suggest that you all head over to slashdot.org and read the various explenations of the .Net-technology over there.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *Point 1
> "right" and "wrong" are debatable only in certain specific issues (hence my question about MacMame).  Pircacy on the whole is wrong.  You cannot say piracy is right to some people and wrong to others.  You are being amoral in such a case. *



Very true, very true.  I don't disagree that piracy on the whole is a wrong action.  But there is still a problem posed -- not everyone agrees with us, and are using lame excuses like, "It's too expensive," or "They already have a zillion dollars -- what's my $499 gonna matter?"  I guess my only point is that the extent of wrongness that piracy "is" and how exactly to deal with it are still just coming about, and, until some many years down the road, we come to a "standardized" plan of dealing with it (like the steering wheel goes on the LEFT) it will continue to happen, and people will still exist that think they're doing nothing wrong (or not realize they're doing something wrong).

*



			Point 2
Christianity is the majority religion in the world.  Look it up.  There are more practicing Christians than Muslims (the second largest religion).  Also, Muslims believe theft is wrong.  Pirate software in Saudi Arabia and they will cut off your hand in punishment.  (Theft is considered wrong by all world religions).
		
Click to expand...

*
Dammit.  I knew someone would catch me on that one...   (Note to self: check facts, idiot!)  But, I could say in response, does that mean that being a Muslim is ethically wrong?  Or even participating in one of the lesser-known religions?  I guess my point here is that, just like "right" and "wrong" are debateable only in certain situations, so is the notion that the majority is "right" simply for being the majority.

*



			Point 3
"Sometimes one person is 'right' and a billion others are 'wrong.'"
Funny.  This is what Charles Manson believes.  This is the most lame argument I have heard anyone put forth.  Ever.  Perhaps we ought to re-evaluate laws against murder?  After all, some people might view it as being morally "right".

One day you will have to face up to the fact that there are absolutes.
		
Click to expand...

*
Ouch.  Time to make that appointment and take my forehead to my local tattoo parlor!  Hehe... only kidding...   But don't get me started on murder -- that's just as gray an area as software piracy.  Don't misinterpret that -- I'm not saying it's right at all -- but the US is still split pretty much down the middle on capital punishment, a DEBATEABLE form of murder within itself.

Good discussion.  I'll quit with my unfactual claims, and just stick to expressing my opinion.  Not everyone thinks software piracy is wrong -- not everyone stops to think about whether it's right or wrong.  The jury is still ultimately out on my decision -- I know it's wrong, I accept that it's wrong, I don't practice it, but I'm not giving in to the notion that everything is black and white and just because one-half is wrong makes the other half right.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *
> 
> Uhm...this is NOT the .Net-initiative! This is 0.001% percent of it, and in no way does it come close to the idea behind .Net. It's a result of .Net.
> The idea itself is great! Really great! I can only suggest that you all head over to slashdot.org and read the various explenations of the .Net-technology over there. *



Well, it's a part I'm not too particularly fond of adopting.  I guess I might add that I'm not a Microsoft-basher, for one -- I LIKE Office X.  I like Windows PCs.  I just prefer my Macintosh anyday, with my OS X and my freedom within the OS.

I realize that I only hit on a small fraction of what the .NET initiative is -- but I might add that I'm skeptical sometimes and a slow adopter of new technologies othertimes.  It took me a while -- a LONG while -- to realize that the future of my beloved single-user, dial-up bulletin board systems was giving way to this big collaboration called the "internet."  I knew it one day when my favorite bulletin-board system went away, and when I inquired about it, they said they were completely "internet-based" and had a web page now.  "Web page?" "Internet?"  "What the %^#@?"

I like the way things work now... I'm not dragging my feet -- I jumped on OS X as soon as it came out.  This whole CD-based software thing is just working for me.  I like my 16,000 different IM applications.  I like having my computer operate without having to be connected to the internet.  I'm not looking forward to the day that it's all one unified thing-a-ma-bob, under the title of ".NET."  I'm sure that I'll be one of the people singing praises about .NET when I finally get around to completely adopting it and start seeing the benefits of it.


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *
> Piracy as a concept is wrong, but the devil is in the deails:
> * I already own a copy, and want to put it on my second Mac
> *



Check your licenses, you do not OWN a copy of any of the software you have.  What you own is permission to use the software.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *ElDiablo,
> 
> You have surprised me!
> ...



Hehe... surprised you?  Well, it's nice to know that we can see eye-to-eye!  I guess this is the same problem me and my girlfriend run into time and time again -- I'm a firm believer (yup, I like using that phrase a lot!) in the belief that there isn't one best way to do anything (or rather, many unique different ways for many, unique different people), and that there is more than one path one can take to reach a common goal.

At any rate, I think I'm interjecting too much damn philosophy into this thread.  I'll keep it simple from now on, promise!

Ok -- here we go:



> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *ElDiablo,
> 
> You have surprised me!
> ...



Hmmm... a definite gray-area.  Most licenses nowadays provide for installing a single purchased copy of a piece of software on more than one home machine, granted that only one copy is in use at any particular time.  Similarly for workgroups.  Other software companies are explicit in saying that it can only be installed at one place at one time.  This is example number one.



> _Originally posted by testuser _
> ** I want to try a friends version of X for 1 week to decide if I want to buy it*



Hmmm... software companies would say, "Invite the friend over for a week."  Yet another gray area, involving our friend ethics, because if this were the case, the friend would borrow the copy, install it, like it, delete the copy and buy the software.  Software company gains customer, but might have not had the licensing terms been strictly abided by.  Ethics portion: can you live with the fact that you broke the law by lending your copy of the software out?  You broke the law in FAVOR of the software company.  Ouch.  That's a tough one.



> _Originally posted by testuser _
> ** They are no longer selling X, and I can't find another way to buy it*



Easy one.  Wait until the software company releases said outdated software to the general public, like Apple did with System 7.  However, what if said company goes out of business, and all the copies they released are all that exist, and said company no longer supports said software?  So you download it from a warez site: would the now-defunct company be able to sue you, even though the company no longer exists?  Does thier software licensing exist even though their software and company no longer exists?  Where am I?  What's going on?  My head is spinning!



> _Originally posted by testuser _
> ** Is it fair for companies to inflate the price that honest users pay, to recoup the losses to piracy? *



Yup.  Plain and simple.  Capitalism at its worst.  Is it fair for the customers to take advantage of a downturn in the computer market and buy RAM dirt cheap when, just a year ago, RAM was almost 10x its cost today?  Yup.  Most definitely, coming from someone who did just that.  If the customers feel ok in taking advantage of certain situations where the company is taking a loss and the customers are the ones gaining, then the other side to that is that the companies can raise prices due to the dishonesty of some of their customers (er, I guess they really wouldn't be customers, but "potential" customers) to recoup losses incurred by their customer base.

These are all the grey-area thingies that need to be sorted out.  Case-in-point was the licensing for multiple copies of software where one is in use at one time, or a single copy residing on a single machine.  Are customers expected to read through that 2 pt., 10,000,000 word fine print in the licensing agreement in order to find out whether they're complying completely with the terms?  At the moment, yes, they are... but the fine print varies so greatly from one software package to the next that some sort of "base" model needs to be established -- software, no matter what it is, CAN or CANNOT be installed on multiple machines.  You CAN or CANNOT sell the box and CDs and keep a copy on your drive.  You CAN or CANNOT use outdated or out-of-production software.  This should be common among all packages, not as greatly varied as it is today.


----------



## themacko (Feb 14, 2002)

Well yeah.  But lets say I have a family with a wife in business and two kids in high-school.  Through the grace of God each of us has our own computer (it goes without saying that they're all Macs).  Am I going to drop over $1500 just so we can all use MS Word/Office on our computers?  You're sadly mistaken if you think I am _that_ law-abiding.

If you do drop that kind of money on software you are not being a good consumer, you're being economically retarded.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

True -- and I reiterate, this is where BETTER SOFTWARE LICENSING TERMS need to be established, and they need to be agreed upon.  Under this circumstance, in order to NOT fork out $1500 so everyone could use Office AND be in compliance with their licensing terms, you'd have to sit on the phone for 6 days straight with some retarded, high-school dropout Microsoft representative trying to get two educational discounts and a mobile home-to-office family pack deal.

I think this is one of the problems .NET is trying to tackle.

Oh, and Office is $499, isn't it?  Straight-up without upgrade discounts or anything?  Damn... a family of 6 would pay more for the software than for a high-end Macintosh!  (Maybe it's $399... I dunno... Got mine through school, so it was HEAVILY discounted!)


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *Well yeah.  But lets say I have a family with a wife in business and two kids in high-school.  Through the grace of God each of us has our own computer (it goes without saying that they're all Macs).  Am I going to drop over $1500 just so we can all use MS Word/Office on our computers?  You're sadly mistaken if you think I am that law-abiding.
> 
> If you do drop that kind of money on software you are not being a good consumer, you're being economically retarded. *



This is what Microsoft calls "casual piracy," and is what they are out to stop right now.  But they are going about it the wrong way.  If they want you to buy 4 copies for 4 machines, they need to sell it to you cheaper than $400-$500 a piece.  Say you buy the first copy for $400, then each additional licenses are $50 (this is still way too high for an office suite IMO).  I would think that less people (although still some) would "casually pirate" software , due to the extra LEGAL copies being not so expensive.  

I'm just glad I'm a student and can get software relatively cheap.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jokell82 _
> *I'm just glad I'm a student and can get software relatively cheap. *



RELATIVELY cheap?  What school do you go to?  UTSA down here in Texas sells copies of Office 2001 for $12!  Visual Studio, all 3 disks, for $8!  Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional for $40!  My head was spinning when I saw these prices.   Needless to say I bought them all...


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *
> 
> RELATIVELY cheap?  What school do you go to?  UTSA down here in Texas sells copies of Office 2001 for $12!  Visual Studio, all 3 disks, for $8!  Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional for $40!  My head was spinning when I saw these prices.   Needless to say I bought them all... *



Yeh, my school doesn't have a very big mac selection, but what they do have is dirt cheap (I think I've seen a total of 5 macs at a school of 26,000).  I got Office v.X for $129, and some vampire game for free (apparently they just couldn't sell it).  Too bad the game only runs on 9, which I don't have installed.


----------



## themacko (Feb 14, 2002)

Holy crap man .. I bought all my software (and my iBook for that matter) from my school and Office cost me $299!  I thought I was getting a deal at $150 off but I guess not...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 14, 2002)

I hadn't the time to read all the points, but I think the student-software should and could be a lot cheaper.

Here in Europe, Microsoft has increased the software-prices for Universities with 30%!!!!!!  
It's rediculous! 

I'm glad there's Apple... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 14, 2002)

> One day you will have to face up to the fact that there are absolutes.



or maybe one day you will have to face the fact that there aren't absolutes.

don't get me wrong testuser. i am pretty much on the same side of you in this one, but this is another case of right idea, wrong argument. the idea that the world can be viewed in terms of absolutes is at best a mathmatical one. at worst it is a psychopathology known as borderline personality disorder. In terms of moral reasoning, the idea is considered to be near the very beginning of moral development.

it is generally excepted that there are no moral absolutes.


----------



## edX (Feb 14, 2002)

1st, for legal reasons i need to clarify that i am not a psychologist (yet) and do not represent myself to be one. i am a grad student in psychology or a 'psychologist-in-training' 

he he - i'm not labeling you anything (yet ). i think you did a pretty good job of presenting what would have been my next set of points. And that would be the idea that absolutes as we know them are somewhat arbitrary - they exist thru agreement. They are prone to change. Even in the scientific world, things occur from time to time that defy the 'laws'.  yes we must set parameters for our understanding, but we must also be ready to expand those parameters rather than being confined between any two existing points of reference.

your points about the development of reasoning are entirely correct. i especially agree with the point that moral reasoning develops outside of religious enforcement. For an interesting read sometime, try "Beyond Morality" by Richard Garner. He is an extreme athiest and looks at this issue in detail. 

i also agree with your conclusion about the typical warez rationalizations as well. but given your examples, would an exception be for someone who needs to complete some project with a particular app to keep himself and his family from starving? and if so, at what point is he expected to stop living project to project? is it when he uses some of the money for rent or for clothes? or for that porsche?


----------



## jokell82 (Feb 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *i also agree with your conclusion about the typical warez rationalizations as well. but given your examples, would an exception be for someone who needs to complete some project with a particular app to keep himself and his family from starving? and if so, at what point is he expected to stop living project to project? is it when he uses some of the money for rent or for clothes? or for that porsche?
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, i know a lot of graphic designers that are going to die if they don't get their next project done.    Remember, there's always a job waiting for you at McDonalds.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 14, 2002)

Yeah, it has something to do with Mac 

MacDonalds 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 15, 2002)

But... what about betasoftware really...
If you get some, then you are a tester, aren't you? 

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 15, 2002)

applewatcher - you're confusing me again. the question sounds serious and the smilies say you are bored and think this has reached absurdity.

which is it?


----------



## ulrik (Feb 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *But... what about betasoftware really...
> If you get some, then you are a tester, aren't you?
> 
> AppleWatcher *



What makes you think that?

If you get beta software as , for example, an Apple seeding member, then you are a tester. If you are not such a person, and it is not a public beta, you're a regular thief.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 15, 2002)

I see. 
You are a tester of course when you use betasoftware, but not official 

So betasoftware is legal when you are a official tester?

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 15, 2002)

Have you ever used (big) warez?

AppleWather


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 15, 2002)

IS THIS THE END OF THE THREAD?!?!?! 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 15, 2002)

Nope, this is.


----------



## edX (Feb 15, 2002)

I think your 1st question has been already answered throughout this thread AppleWatcher. so now it just sounds more like the police gathering evidence. 

and i still say m$ software isn't worth stealing. those who do so are only helping to perpetuate the myth that you MUST have their stuff in order to survive in the real world. they certainly don't need anyone to learn and spread the word about their products. so for those of you using that rationalization, at least steal from the little guys and tell everybody how great they are.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 16, 2002)

> and i still say m$ software isn't worth stealing. those who do so are only helping to perpetuate the myth that you MUST have their stuff in order to survive in the real world. they certainly don't need anyone to learn and spread the word about their products. so for those of you using that rationalization, at least steal from the little guys and tell everybody how great they are.



Hey Ed, I don't fully agree with you...
I don't know if you use Microsoft Office v. X, but it eh... kinda rocks!

It's really nice, AppleWorks really isn't that much! What would you use (or what are you using) instead of Microsoft products?

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 16, 2002)

Appleworks does everything i could ever imagine needing out of a word processor. i can remember paying for the original version of Quark which didn't do as much as AW does now. I also use it for graphics (as well as several other programs). and i will probably be using it for spreadsheets if I ever need them in the future. I use mail.app for my mail.  I browse with icab and lately am giving opera a second look with their new release. (would really just like to see OmniWeb get their shit together but it ain't happening). I keep ie and netrape just for those few absurd sites that i need them for - like itools (this one really irritates me). and of course i have media player because there is no substitute - m$ dictates and the sheep follow.

i don't follow m$ software particularly, is there something else i am missing?

AW was really cheap - free on my imac!!

confession - i do own and use a copy of excell that i bought back in the early 90's at educational price. In fact i did all my statistics for my undergrad honors thesis on it. My prof was amazed. He even doublechecked the results against SPSS and they were perfect. 
(ok, that is the nicest thing i am ever going to say about m$ without a gun being held to my head ) However i plan to buy SPSS before long to do my dissertation with.


----------



## tagliatelle (Feb 16, 2002)

www.Applefun.com


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2002)

(ignoring hervé's hilarious post almost completely.)

Ed, right. AppleWorks rocks. The problem starts if you have to work with people on files and if they're using Office. Office v. X does a fine job if that's what you have to do, and there's no real replacement. I personally only have to open Word docs for inserting text into InDesign or webpages, so I wouldn't really need Word, but I do need Excel (or a perfect clone which is not there yet), so I have Office. I don't need the whole package, but the price isn't an issue here as 'the company bought it'.

But I perfectly agree. If you *can* use AppleWorks, don't pirate MS Office. If you *can* use the GIMP and Graphics Converter or Photoshop Elements, don't pirate Photoshop. IE and WMP are no problem warez-wise, because they're free anyway. They're only an artificial problem, because people do hate Microsoft. OmniWeb will come and lead. We have to believe in them, they're great. Well, I do. (You don't HAVE to, but I beg you to.)



Now on a even happier note, I also believe that Mac OS 10.2 will rock us in July, as well as the 1.5 GHz G4 (PPC 7470) and the new TiBooks.

Is there any way to force Apple to not improve the Dock (it's a Frankenstein already and will be even more so when they 'improve' it) but to start from scratch about 'starting, switching, showing, hiding apps'?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 16, 2002)

> confession - i do own and use a copy of excell



Hey Ed: 'Excell' is written with one 'l'... So Microsoft Excel.
But I think, if you use Mac OS X, Microsoft v. X is very, very nice to have, 'cause it simply rocks. It fits in the Aqua-environment.

Don't forget Microsoft Office v. X is made by Macfreaks as much as we are 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 16, 2002)

Ed are you sleepin' 
Where do you live? 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 17, 2002)

> Is there any way to force Apple to not improve the Dock (it's a Frankenstein already and will be even more so when they 'improve' it) but to start from scratch about 'starting, switching, showing, hiding apps'?



I don't think so. They probably have done very much work to make the Dock and the make it 'licky'...
And if they remove the Dock from 10.2 I think they should have a (better) replacement. 

So maybe, in Mac OS X 10.2, we have an alternative for the Dock... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 17, 2002)

well, i guess you can see how often i use my *excel* 

While i would be ok if the dock was mulitiple and came out of each side and the bottom, i do have a better soluntion to the dock. It is called Launcher!! I miss it. it held as many apps as you could ever want to use. and organized them. and and and...

and no i wasn't sleeping when you wrote that. i just had a slightly different set of priorities today. and i'll probably being doing more yardwork tomorrow if weather allows.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 17, 2002)

Yes Launcher was nice 

But where do you live?

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 17, 2002)

Applewatcher - where does my location under my avatar say I live? 

SF = San Francisco, Calif. USA

to be precise, i live about 25 miles south of SF on the coast, about one mile inland from the beach (7-8 mins to walk), about an hour's drive from apple HQ although i have never been there


----------



## ksv (Feb 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *about an hour's drive from apple HQ although i have never been there
> 
> *



OMG, I live about an 8 hours drive from the nearest Apple retailer where it's possible to try the macs, and I am there almost every summer


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 17, 2002)

> to be precise, i live about 25 miles south of SF on the coast, about one mile inland from the beach (7-8 mins to walk), about an hour's drive from apple HQ although i have never been there



That's what I wanna hear guys 

AppleWatcher


----------



## Bluefusion (Feb 17, 2002)

I have an odd sort of affinity with warez. I mean, I know there are many many reasons why it's not the right thing to do and all, but honestly, there are just as many reasons why, in my mind, it makes sense.

See, there are many companies that I hate far too much to buy software from. For instance, I cannot STAND Microsoft, but because Word is a standard and I really need to use it, I have copies of Microsoft's Office v.X. I would never buy it, so to me it really doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Either way they're not making any money from me. However, I can also say that this same pirating of Microsoft software is really _not_ right because I'm using a program that I should have to pay for in order to use.

This is where it gets a bit sticky.

As far as Microsoft goes, they have far too much money as it is. At least to me, of all the companies in the world, Microsoft is the last one I'd care about stealing from. But this isn't always the case, and so this argument doesn't always work. For example, I respect Adobe tremendously and feel that their products are utterly amazing. I try to support them if I can. I bought LiveMotion for $300 when it came out. But I'm 15 years old and there's no way I'm going to pay again to get an OS X-ready version of LiveMotion. I've spent a HUGE chunk of my money once, and I'm not doing it again. I know this is less of an arguable point, but it's how I feel.

I feel that I would never have been able to create the things that I've been able to create without the programs I've used to create them. I've done amazing work with my collection of programs, work that would have been impossible any other way. I could never have paid for this stuff. I just wouldn't have been able to do much of anything. I wouldn't be able to embrace my creative side, and learn these amazing programs in the process. 

See, by being able to switch my program suite as easily as I can download a program or two, I can decide exactly what I want to do with my life. I'm trying to decide what it is that I want to accomplish in life. If I bought the $600 Photoshop 6, I'd be stuck with that and locked into one "mode", if you will, of creativity. But I'm learning After Effects at the same time, and discovering lots of great things in digital video. It is because of this that I feel that the people who pirate warez are the people most excited about the unique opportunities the software offers. We're the ones fumbling in the dark without a manual, staying up late at night trying to understand these complex beasts--and having a hell of a good time in the process. 

I will pay for what I use, having learned the entire program's feature set. But in the meantime, I'm learning what I'm learning. I couldn't possibly have paid $500 for Cubase VST and discovered I don't like it... I have yet to even find a multitrack music editing program I actually like using, and if I had to pay for them all I'd never be able to get anywhere.

I feel that warez are a good way to learn programs, and a good way to discover what works best for you. I do not support outright stealing, (except from Microsoft), but I do feel that there ISN'T anything inherently wrong with the way that I'm using warez.

What do you guys think?


----------



## edX (Feb 17, 2002)

hmmm, i 'm not sure any new arguments have really been presented here, but they have certainly been presented more articulately and with more thought behind them than i can ever remember seeing. especially from a 15 year old. 

you've _almost_ got me saying you're right. and i can't really think of any new arguments to give you. It sounds like you see both sides, which is more than most pirates are willing to do. I've already made my point about why not to steal from m$ and you still don't get that, but hey, you're young - there's still time.

so maybe it is time that software developers took a different approach and just made software free ot really dirt cheap for high school ages and below. Maybe the day will come when you enter your birthdate on a website and they give you a download version that is set to expire on your 18th bday. the age at which we are generally expected to beccome responsible. I personally think something like that would be more than fair.  I really think it is the only way that small companies that want to really compete could ever sway enough people to create new industry standards.

while your arguments may not be new, i think you have put enough of a new wrinkle into them to deserve a pause to think about them.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 18, 2002)

That's a nice fresh point of view, bluefusion.
I'll have a look at it and post my reply... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 18, 2002)

This is what I meant... 
Maybe you don't want to believe me but I'm also 15 years old and I totally agree with Bluefusion. 

This two alineas are very, very true I think:


> As far as Microsoft goes, they have far too much money as it is. At least to me, of all the companies in the world, Microsoft is the last one I'd care about stealing from. But this isn't always the case, and so this argument doesn't always work. For example, I respect Adobe tremendously and feel that their products are utterly amazing. I try to support them if I can. I bought LiveMotion for $300 when it came out. But I'm 15 years old and there's no way I'm going to pay again to get an OS X-ready version of LiveMotion. I've spent a HUGE chunk of my money once, and I'm not doing it again. I know this is less of an arguable point, but it's how I feel.



Maybe you understand this, Ed! Everybody works with Word, Excel, etc... And if you want to make some nice pictures, Photoshop would be nice because MacPaint doesn't deliver the options Photoshop does....

And then, if you are a student and you've bought some legal software (take Photoshop 6), it's exactly as Bluefusion says:
There's no way I'm gonna pay for Photoshop 7 for Mac OS X.
But you don't wanna start Classic all the time...

Great point, Bluefusion 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 18, 2002)

Workin' in the garden again Ed 

AppleWatcher


----------



## Bluefusion (Feb 18, 2002)

Well, I'm glad some people like my idea, at least


----------



## theed (Feb 18, 2002)

This is my belief.  I don't care what policy a company has about its software, it's shareware to me.  I'll use it first and then decide if I want to pay for it, and sometimes I decide how much I want to pay for it.  I keep writing to M$ and begging for them to write a free .doc viewer app so that I can stop pirating their software just to read incoming messages, but they don't really care.  And so, neither do I.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 19, 2002)

> and then decide if I want to pay for it, and sometimes I decide how much I want to pay for it.



But... what if you don't want to pay for a program you DO like...
Or if you don't wanna pay the price is asked for a program... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *And then, if you are a student and you've bought some legal software (take Photoshop 6), it's exactly as Bluefusion says:
> There's no way I'm gonna pay for Photoshop 7 for Mac OS X.
> But you don't wanna start Classic all the time...
> ...



Hmmm... going back to my "Porche" comment -- In my opinion, this is like saying you bought a Porche 911, but when they came out with the Boxster, you didn't want to pay to "upgrade," so you feel Porche should just GIVE you a Boxster AND let you keep the 911!  Your point (or his, rather) would be taken better by me if he was willing to give up ALL copies of Photoshop 6 in order to obtain 7.

Nope, I don't agree.  Software progresses just like technology progresses.  Does ANYONE here feel that Intel is obligated to GIVE you a 1.8GHz processor when you purchased a 1.6GHz processor just because the 1.8 didn't exists when you bought the 1.6?

I keep hearing the same comments over and over here -- it's like some people expect the software companies to "give" stuff to them.  I steadfastily (is that a word?  I hope so -- sounds cool!) disagree with these kinds of arguments.  Adobe made PhotoShop 6.  It's killer.  You buy it.  That's it.  End of story.  They're already giving you a discount on 7 if you own 6 -- and that's nice of them.  No other industry does this to the magnitude that software companies do.  Try trading in your 2 year old car for a brand-new model and tell the salesperson you'd like to just trade the old car in (except KEEP it) and get the new, updated model for just 25% of the sticker price.  HA!  Tell him you're "upgrading."  Double-HA!  Try that with a computer.  Go to Dell and say, "Hey, I bought your Optiplex 2 years ago, and I want the NEW Optiplex, but I wanna keep my 'copy' of this Optiplex and I want a new one for a fraction of the price."  See how long that phone conversation lasts.

Software companies produce some amazing products that take some amazing talent and amazing amounts of time.  Sure, they may be $50 overpriced, but c'mon!  This is America!  When you were a kid selling lemonade on the street, did you feel justified to cut EVERYONE that came by an amazing deal?  What about the people who wanted refills (read: upgrades)?  Full-price, right?  Or at least HALF-price?  What about the people who just came by and TOOK the lemonade without paying for it?  Did you even want to do business with them?

And about Office -- Office v.X is really quite nice.  If it was branded under the Adobe name instead of Microsoft, people would never stop singing praises about it.  It is an amazing collection of software that is CENTRAL to people's computer work -- as said by Bluefusion -- "...because Word is a standard and I really need to use it..."  Lemme tell ya, it's a standard because there isn't a better, more robust word processor out there.  Sure, people like using alternatives, but only because Word is produced under the Microsoft name -- and I'll stick firmly to that.  $500 with discounted upgrades is a damn good deal when you really think about it and put it in perspective.

Software just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal when it's pirated, because it's SO EASY to do it!  And software really isn't a "tangible" object -- it's difficult to place any kind of value on the software itself because it's sold and prices solely on how robust the application is.  You can't "touch" software -- it's just magnetic blips on some form of media.  It just doesn't seem like "stealing" in the traditional sense.  But it is, and it's probably the most EXPENSIVE form of theft in existance.  It's just all too easy to do it and not look back once you've done it.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 19, 2002)

> Nope, I don't agree. Software progresses just like technology progresses. Does ANYONE here feel that Intel is obligated to GIVE you a 1.8GHz processor when you purchased a 1.6GHz processor just because the 1.8 didn't exists when you bought the 1.6?



You're forgetting one little thing: It's not just an upgrade.
It's an upgrade you're forced to make it (don't watch my english).

It should be that Intel would give you an upgrade to 1.8 (overclocking or something) so that your processor is ready for future upgrades, because the 1.6 wasn't right for the future upgrades... You get my idea?

The thing is, the 'to-Mac-OS-X-upgrades' are very, very necessary when you're using Mac OS X.

And yes, Office v. X is quite nice! Tell Ed!

AppleWatcher


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 19, 2002)

good lord!
you have created a monster applewatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 19, 2002)

How do you figure it's an upgrade you're FORCED to make?  Last time I checked, just about ANY piece of software you buy will run on an 800MHz processor.  Probably even a slower one.

I'm still using the FIRST G4 that came out -- a G4/400 PCI machine.  Got it even before the whole 50MHz speed-bump fiasco.  It's fine.  They sell a machine that runs more than twice as fast, and to top it off, there's TWO processors in it.  In no way at all do I feel that I am FORCED to upgrade yet.

When PhotoShop 7 comes out, you will not be FORCED to upgrade.  You can use PS 6 in Classic mode, which runs quite well on my computer, so I'm not gonna believe that it's a mandatory upgrade.  That's like saying I'm forced to "upgrade" from a Geo to a Lamborghini just because the Geo won't get me from A to B in 6 seconds.  You bought the Geo, you deal with it.

It's almost as if people expect software companies to enable all people to use their software -- which is an unrealistic expectation.  You can't expect people to provide you with stuff.  I'm a college student.  I don't have much money.  I can't afford PhotoShop 7 or a new PowerMac or stuff like that.  There are people my age with infinitely more money than I have, and they have the ability to buy stuff that I can't.  That's how it goes -- you want something that's expensive?  Go get a better job.  That's what everyone has to do.  Can't get a better job?  Get a better education.  Can't get a better education?  Well, can't help ya there -- sometimes you just gotta wait.  Computers aren't for everyone.  They're for people who can afford them.  They're NOT a necessity, just like that cell-phone glued to everyone's ear is NOT a necessity.  They're still a luxury item, but they're coming down in price to the point where more and more people can afford them.  Just because you own a computer does NOT entitle you to use expensive software.  Nor steal it.  Just because you own a car does not entitle you to have an after-market 600W stereo system.  Just because you are able to physically load the software on your machine does not entitle you to the rights to do it.  Just because you can physically operate a car on the wrong side of the road does not entitle you to do it.

There are many, many things in this world that you are physically able to do with ease, but you are not entitled to do.  It takes discipline and self-control sometimes to refrain from committing an illegal act, and if that means pressing "Command-Q" when you see "QuarkXPress 5.0" on a Hotline server instead of double-clicking and downloading it, so be it.  If you think Quark is overpriced, don't use it and find an alternative that fits your budget.  If nothing fits your budget, tough titty.  That's the way it goes.  Adobe/Microsoft/Apple/Quark/Macromedia/Etc. -- they're not obligated to provide you software if you can't afford it, but they try -- in the form of educational discounts and discounted upgrades.  But people still feel justified in "stealing" from these companies, just because they think that the software is overpriced -- who are they to set a fair market value on a piece of software?  Where's their masters in Business?  What credentials do they have to make a judgement call like that?

You're 15, right?  Still in high-school?  You are NOT qualified to make the judgement that Office is overpriced.  The only judgement you can make is that it is too expensive for YOU -- NOT EVERYONE.   I'm 25 and have a degree in computer science and a minor in business, and I'm not qualified to even open my mouth to start a sentence about the pricing of software.

The people at Adobe and the rest of the companies fairly price their software based upon what it does and the demand for it, and they do it at a fair price where the company makes a profit, which is what the company is there to do -- they're not a non-profic organization.  They're out to make money, and they won't make money if all their software is overpriced -- they'd go out of business because people wouldn't buy their software!  But they do make a profit off of people who buy their software, and if those customers feel "violated" or "ripped-off" because someone made a profit off of their dollars spent, then they're in the wrong damn country.  Or the wrong planet.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 19, 2002)

First: Thankx Admiral 
Second:


> How do you figure it's an upgrade you're FORCED to make? Last time I checked, just about ANY piece of software you buy will run on an 800MHz processor. Probably even a slower one.


I was talking about the upgrades for programs to Mac OS X... 

Third:


> You're 15, right? Still in high-school? You are NOT qualified to make the judgement that Office is overpriced. The only judgement you can make is that it is too expensive for YOU -- NOT EVERYONE. I'm 25 and have a degree in computer science and a minor in business, and I'm not qualified to even open my mouth to start a sentence about the pricing of software.


Maybe you're right on this one... But you think that everyone has to pay full prices for software? Even if it's (let's say) 5000$ for Photoshop 9 (for example)?
You say software can't be too expensive because the companies make prices based on demand blabla....  
If you find anything too expensive: Go get a better job. Or else get a better education. 

Yes I'm still 15 and in The Netherlands we have a degree that's called VWO and I think it's higher than highschool in America.
But that's aside, I think 

Applewatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 19, 2002)

No, I didn't say that I think everyone should pay ridiculous prices for software.  I said that companies price their software according to how robust the software is and how much demand there is for it -- I think that Adobe would probably see their PhotoShop user base drop off dramatically if it raised its prices to $5000 per license.  That's what I'm saying -- they're getting their fair share of profit for the software they sell at $500, and you're getting your money's worth in terms of a robust, user-friendly, money-making piece of software -- I am assuming that you agree that people buy PhotoShop to make money, right?  I don't know anyone who would spend $500 on PhotoShop just to dabble in manipulating digital images -- there are much cheaper, equally-good alternatives to PhotoShop for that kind of novice work.  PhotoShop is a fully-featured image-editing and production tool.  It is not a piece of software aimed at people who want to make "cool-looking desktop pictures."  It is aimed at graphic professionals who are graphic professionals for trade, i.e.: they get paid for what they do.  $500 on a piece of software that enables you to make thousands is fair.  I don't care who says it isn't.  It is.

I'm not trying to come down on you for being 15 -- that's not what my remark was aimed to do.  It was simply made to say that there are people much older, much more experienced and much more educated than you or I who have no basis to talk about the complex science of product pricing because they lack the knowledge and experience in the marketplace to make such a decision.  Just because you or I think that something is overpriced doesn't make it so.  We've never toiled for years to duplicate the effect of an airbrush digitally.  We've never toiled for years to bring MANY different useful tools together in a software package that is cross-platform in nature.  We didn't pay royalties or licensing fees to enable our software to read and write just about every kind of digital image file format (ie, TIFF, JPG, PNG, RAW, BMP, EPS.... etc.... etc....) that exists.

I personally think that the people who toiled and worked long and hard at delivering one hell of a digital-image manipulation and production tool like PhotoShop would agree that $500 is a fair price to pay to use their software.  Being a computer-science major, I can appreciate the work that goes into coding software and making sure that customers get what they want at a fair price.

PS -- PhotoShop Elements does a hell of a lot for, what, $100 now?  That's fair.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 19, 2002)

> there are much cheaper, equally-good alternatives to PhotoShop for that kind of novice work.



I don't agree with that. Write some of these alternatives down for me, please 



> It is aimed at graphic professionals who are graphic professionals for trade, i.e.: they get paid for what they do.



That's right, and a very good point. But now the alternatives!



> Just because you or I think that something is overpriced doesn't make it so.



That's the difference between an opinion and a fact 



> I personally think that the people who toiled and worked long and hard at delivering one hell of a digital-image manipulation and production tool like PhotoShop would agree that $500 is a fair price to pay to use their software.



But... Photoshop isn't $500, is it?!



> PS -- PhotoShop Elements does a hell of a lot for, what, $100 now? That's fair.



 Yes, but it isn't ready for Mac OS X. And I don't want to go back to Classic because we have to go to Mac OS X this year!

AppleWatcher


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Feb 19, 2002)

It is ok to steal from Microsoft and Macromedia.  Pay for photoshop please.


----------



## JohnnyV (Feb 19, 2002)

The only software I get a digital five-finger discount for is the very expensive stuff.  I am 16 years old, have a job that pays slightly higher than minium wage, and have to pay for my college education by myself.  Anything over $100 is just too damn expensive for me (and for any software too, but that is a whole other thread ).  I have been considering many different jobs (all of which concern software in some way) and cannot afford to buy a six-hundred dollar copy of photoshop, or 1500 dollars of lightwave (? on the price), just to see if it is something I would like do spend the rest of my life doing. I was very lucky this past summer and got to work with some software in values upward of 10000 dollars (I was an 'engineering aid' for the government) this is some excellent software that I would have never gotten to use before, this has given me a jump start on college, getting to use this software that no one else has used. Big businesses, the software companies, and the government should run more programs like this, to encourage future users, students, and sciencists to use and learn this/their software. Until software companies start offering LARGE discounts to high school students (I know they offer them to college, but I'm not in college am I, plus they aren't very big discounts) or VERY functional demos I will have to continue using 'warez'.  When I land that cushy high-paying job, yes I plan to buy my software, but until that day who knows. 


This is my longest post ever, thanks for hearing me out It felt good to rant


----------



## JohnnyV (Feb 19, 2002)

I fotgot to mention I'm not going to pay 300 dollars for a word processor!! That is stupid! I just get it from my relative Some of those "scaled down" apps like elements don't have enough of the real function of the products for me to determine whither or not it is a good product, and many of them are buggy, POS, underthoughts created by the companies to get the money out of the cheap bastards who want photoshop, but don't want to pay for it or 'steal' it.  Maybe I'll start my own software company, with reasonable prices (nothing over 100 dollars) and high funtionality (kinda like graphic converter, only better).  Thats how I will make my millions....


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 20, 2002)

> I'm not gonna pay for a word processor!



I have to say I agree with that 
(Now you're gonna say we have TextEdit...)

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 20, 2002)

*Great, cheap word-processor: *AppleWorks.  What, $70?  And you get spreadsheet software and the ability to read and write word/excel documents.

*Great, cheap alternative to PhotoShop: *GIMP.  It's free, if you compile it yourself.  No, it's not PhotoShop, but it does what it advertises and it's cheap.  What feature in PhotoShop do you absolutely need that is preventing you from using a cheaper alternative?

PhotoShop is $609.00 new.  $149.00 Upgrade.  If I own PhotoShop 3 or 4, I would have no problem paying $149.00 to get PhotoShop 6 legally.  If I don't own any copy of PhotoShop, I'd go for an "Adobe Collection."

Adobe offers some great package pricing on "Collections" -- for example, PhotoShop, Illustrator, GoLive and LiveMotion can all be had for $1000.  That's a DAMN good deal, which goes back to my point about software companies offering good deals to try and help you out.  I don't know how it is outside the US, but here in the states, any high school student can make $1000 in 4-5 months mowing lawns.  I've done it -- it's beneath flipping burgers, I'll say that, but it's not impossible, plus it gives you a workout and gets your ass outside away from the computer for a while.

I think the resounding cry I keep hearing here is a lot of impatient people who want the best software right now and don't want to have to pay for it -- and I keep hearing, "Hey, I'm just testing it out until I can afford it!"  -- Bullsh**.  I've worked for a few graphic arts companies, and if you've never paid for it or been able to obtain it illegally, you won't pay for it given the chance.  I worked for a place that had nothing but illegally-acquired software.  The company made a LOT of money.  So much they could have bought PhotoShop for each machine there TWICE.  Did they?  No... it was too easy to get it for free -- you could have it in a matter of hours instead of waiting for it to be shipped for a week or more.

To all you who say that you're just testing it until you can afford it, can we all assume here that once you DO have $600 in your pocket that you'll spend it on PhotoShop?  Yeah, right... more like junk food, some Nintendo games and a sack of weed.  Gimme a break!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 20, 2002)

Thank you, testuser.  Theft *IS* a very juvenile act.  Software piracy/theft is no different.  Half of these people who download PhotoShop, Illustrator, InDesign, QuarkXPress, GoLive, LiveMotion, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks, Office X, Cubase, LightWave, Maya, Poser, Painter, PageMaker, unreleased beta versions and anything else don't use them -- it's just the "thrill" factor of downloading the programs.

Here's a challenge to those people who STILL think stealing software is ok because they're learning the software and plan to buy it once they get the money (this means you, AppleWatcher and JohnnyV): Let's see some JPEGs or something you've created since you've downloaded, evaluated and found out how to use PhotoShop, or, for that matter, anything else.  Let's see something to back up the fact that you're actually using the software to produce something worthwhile, and the software isn't just sitting on your hard drive so you can say, "Look at me!  I've got the NEWEST PHOTOSHOP!"  Let's see it.  You've made some (ahem) SOMEWHAT convincing statements in favor of piracy, but you've produced absolutely nothing to back yourselves up when you say you're learning the software.  Anything.  A work-in-progress.  Something you've fiddled with.  ANYTHING.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 20, 2002)

> Great, cheap word-processor: AppleWorks. What, $70? And you get spreadsheet software and the ability to read and write word/excel documents. Great, cheap alternative to PhotoShop: GIMP. It's free, if you compile it yourself. No, it's not PhotoShop, but it does what it advertises and it's cheap. What feature in PhotoShop do you absolutely need that is preventing you from using a cheaper alternative?



I'm sorry ElDiablo but I can't agree with that. AppleWorks simply disappears if you compare it with Microsoft Word, especially v. X, and I think everyone would agree. And about the Gimp: 
It's much, much slower than Photoshop, there are very less filters for the GIMP, and even if you want to print a document you have to download several plugins which is very much work for such a simple thing.

And if you want to know what I've made with Photoshop:

I've made five fullcolour covers for my schoolpaper. 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> * I'm sorry ElDiablo but I can't agree with that. AppleWorks simply disappears if you compare it with Microsoft Word, especially v. X, and I think everyone would agree. And about the Gimp:
> It's much, much slower than Photoshop, there are very less filters for the GIMP, and even if you want to print a document you have to download several plugins which is very much work for such a simple thing.*



What's in Word that's preventing you from using AppleWorks?  You type, you bold-ify some stuff, you italicize some stuff, you underline some stuff... you print.  You import a JPEG graphic and place it.  All possible with AppleWorks.  What exactly does Word do that AppleWorks doesn't?  You're still helping me believe that you're using Word just because it's big and powerful and cool instead of using it to really write a paper or something... show me something you've done in Word that couldn't have been done in AppleWorks.



> *And if you want to know what I've made with Photoshop:
> 
> I've made five fullcolour covers for my schoolpaper. *



...care to provide an example?  Let's see SOMETHING.  Surely as a graphic artist designing stuff with top-dollar software packages you've got some sort of backup or previous version of some artistic thing you've created that'll scream "PhotoShop work!  Amazing use of color and design!  Couldn't have been done with anything less than PhotoShop!" when we see it.


----------



## dlookus (Feb 20, 2002)

> I'm sorry ElDiablo but I can't agree with that. AppleWorks simply disappears if you compare it with Microsoft Word, especially v. X, and I think everyone would agree. And about the Gimp:



I have to disagree with you here.

Appleworks is fine for most people. I don't know about you, but all I need it for is writing letters and resumes and that kind of stuff. It also opens word documents. Office is way more than I need.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating things that have been said already (I've been checking in from time to time), but there is a mentality that you have to have the biggest most powerful apps, no matter what you need them for. this applies to hardware as well. People get talked into buying a machine with all kinds of slots and extra stuff that they don't need, and most of the time they actually shell out big money for it. But, with software it's worse because you can get it without paying for it.

You don't need Maya to make icons. You don't need Word to write a letter.


----------



## Boyko (Feb 20, 2002)

Eesh - the sticky warez situation.

Yes, programmers need to get paid for their work.  Yes, warez is stealing.  

Here is the conundrum - if one wants to be a professional that uses software such as Photoshop (to keep with the example) - one must know how to use it.  It's a requirement - no company is going to care how good you are at GIMP, Paint Shop Pro, or any other software program - they require you be proficient in photoshop.  

It's an ironic situation for many people who need to 'steal' the tools first to learn how to use them in order to make the money needed to buy the tools.  

I'm currently in the same boat with Quark - many of the places I'm applying to for jobs require Quark competency.  Now do I take the risk of buying a $X00 dollar program to *maybe* get a job that might make me back that $X00 dollars in 2 months if I'm lucky?  That's not a rhetorical question - I haven't pirated yet, but I could see how doing so could be almost irresistably tempting.  Is it okay to steal to feed your family?  Especially if you were pretty sure you wouldn't get caught, especially if 'everyone does it', especially if you really do plan to pay for the "bread" once you can afford it... Yeah, it's a crime, and a moral failing and *wrong* but *I* for one will not be the first to throw stones for such an understandable moral failing.

Then there's always "MS has screwed me so now I'm screwing MS" feeling that you get specifically with Big Bill. - which is neither here nor there - the "stealing from a crook" feeling is an entirely different beast and one best left to the Utilitarian vs. Absolutist moral arguments ever since Locke and Kant started duking it out.  I don't want to get into it - I don't think I'll run Office on my Mac even if I *could* get it for free, legally.


----------



## changomarcelo (Feb 20, 2002)

1) Warez is necesary.
2) If you use warez, don´t shout it out loud as if you were proud of it.
3) It´s a good idea that companies had a personal edition of their programs, 10 times cheaper than the comercial version. This edition would be just for personal use.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 20, 2002)

OK, maybe you guys are right, but for me it's the way of working. Word works a lot better for me than AppleWorks.

And about my schoolpaper: I'll show something when it's online.
It'll be online soon (you may download it yourself), they're kinda big!  

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 20, 2002)

I agree with this: 



> 3) It´s a good idea that companies had a personal edition of their programs, 10 times cheaper than the comercial version. This edition would be just for personal use.



AppleWatcher


----------



## dlookus (Feb 20, 2002)

What I would like to see (I know some will hate this.) Is more of subscription based licensing for software. There's has always been the saying "It takes money to make money." This is totally true with computers. The big probem is the initial cost. If you want to start a business in graphics especially, It's not out of the question to need $3000+ worth of software, just to get started. I would love to see that initial cost come down. Wouldn't it be nice to pay $12 a month for Photoshop instead of $600 initially and $140 for each upgrade? It certainly wouldn't be as nice as getting it for free, but better than paying hundreds up front and not using it. I would love to see people paying what the software is worth to them, and I think in the current system that isn't the case. I think all it takes is one underdog company to go to this system. make people say: We can try this product without having to pay a fortune just to see if it's any good.

I know this has gotten shot down in the past, but it seems to me that it should be able to work. Some comapnies already do this, but they still have an insane cost when you first get the software (Maya for one.)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Boyko _
> *Eesh - the sticky warez situation.
> 
> Yes, programmers need to get paid for their work.  Yes, warez is stealing.
> ...



No, you don't steal Quark so you can learn Quark.  Does someone who is clueless about the engine of a car apply for an auto mechanic position?  

The answer is you spend some money on a well-respected learning course.  You don't need to own (own in the sense of having a program at home) Quark in order to work in Quark at work.  You take a course, you learn it, you apply for the job.  Just like any other job in the world -- you take courses to learn what you need to know.  Sure, someone could learn auto mechanics at home -- but do you think they'd even begin to try to justify stealing a car in order to learn on it?

There are PLENTY of ways to become proficient in a program without having to steal or even own a license to the program.  You're just looking at the easy, illegal way out -- much like, "Why should I pay for my education when I could just as easily steal it and teach myself?"  Do you steal gardening books to learn how to garden?  Even those $150 ridiculously-priced, glossy, 4-color gardening dictionaries?  No, you buy the cheaper book.  Or you take a course at your local Home Depot.  Do you steal an ethernet hub and some cabling to learn how to connect the wires of a network?  No, you go to ITT and take a course.  Or buy a book.  Or something.  Anything other than stealing.  

I have no doubt in my mind that once these people, who claim to be stealing only to learn them then will buy the programs, start their own businesses or get into corporate America (or whatever country) where they're working hard for money -- they'll have a MUCH different view on theft and piracy.  Right now it doesn't impact them.  I'm sure the two 15 year olds in favor of piracy here would be VERY pissed off if they worked REALLY, REALLY hard on a paper for class (in a pirated copy of Word, no doubt!) and had the text of their paper stolen by another student and turned in as the other student's own work... now, if the student offered to BUY a copy of the paper, I'm sure they'd be thinking yet a third way... think about it.  These people aren't putting themselves in others' shoes and trying to look at anything from a different perspective -- that's called narrow-mindedness.  Just because you feel one way and agree with a certain set of beliefs doesn't mean you can't see merit in the opposing argument.  People who believe one thing and one thing only and think every other way of thinking is wrong are narrow-minded.  Period.  How can you say piracy is ok when that's all you've known?  Have you ever paid for a piece of software?  Or written some code and had it stolen by someone?  I'll bet the answer is no, and until you experience or at least give the "other side" a try, it's feeble to try and come up with any GOOD arguments in favor of what you believe.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 20, 2002)

You have great ideas, dlookus!
Nice points! $12 for Photoshop!

But what about individuals?

AppleWatcher


----------



## Boyko (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *
> 
> No, you don't steal Quark so you can learn Quark.  Does someone who is clueless about the engine of a car apply for an auto mechanic position?
> ...



Sadly, the problem with that is simple - the issue there is not just money (I'm sure that a well-respected learning course costs *more* than a professional program) it's also time.  My problem is not that theft is justified, but that compared to the alternative, makes a compelling *if immoral* option.  

Furthermore, most "well respected learning courses" come in two flavors: idiot-simple, and impossibly hard.  I majored in Computer Science but left the program after realizing most of the teachers were idiots, and taught myself all I needed to know about programming myself.  



> *
> 
> You don't need to own (own in the sense of having a program at home) Quark in order to work in Quark at work.  You take a course, you learn it, you apply for the job.
> *



Most of the courses, also, are designed for people who already have jobs - and for employers that need to up thier skills - the costs are prohibitive for someone who is trying to *find* a job.  



> *
> Just like any other job in the world -- you take courses to learn what you need to know.  Sure, someone could learn auto mechanics at home -- but do you think they'd even begin to try to justify stealing a car in order to learn on it?
> *



Again, I'm not trying to *justify* piracy, I am trying to *rationalize* it.  Why do people pirate, yes, there's the thrill, there's the fact that you get something for nothing, and there's the people who want to play more games than they can afford - but here's another option that's more morally grey.  There's also the fact that piracy is not zero-sum theft - a pirate "pirates" a program, he doesn't "steal" it.  When a tangible object is stolen, someone is deprived of that posession.  Conversely, when a "pirating" occurs, the origional owner still has possession of the object. - a very convincing argument as to why piracy should be treated in a different moral bracket as regular theft - and why people who wouldn't think of shoplifting pirate.  



> *
> I have no doubt in my mind that once these people, who claim to be stealing only to learn them then will buy the programs, start their own businesses or get into corporate America (or whatever country) where they're working hard for money -- they'll have a MUCH different view on theft and piracy.
> *



From practical experience working in Corporate America, I very much doubt it.   Enron had a rather liberal policy regarding theft, tobacco companies have a rather liberal policy regarding negligent homicide.  



> *How can you say piracy is ok when that's all you've known?  Have you ever paid for a piece of software?  Or written some code and had it stolen by someone?
> I'll bet the answer is no, and until you experience or at least give the "other side" a try, it's feeble to try and come up with any GOOD arguments in favor of what you believe. *



I payed $95 dollars for the Windows98 upgrade when it came out.  It hosed my system.  I payed $25 dollars for Windows98SE to upgrade Windows98 to fix the bugs in W98 that W95 was supposed to fix.  I payed $50 for Visual J++ Academic edition, etc, etc... the prohibitive cost of software is one of the reasons I'm making the switch to Mac 

I've written code for classes - no, it's never been stolen from me.  I do Javascript/HTML coding at work, and although I've never had any code stolen from me yet, I don't think I'd particularly mind (or my employers, for that matter.)  People who actually write computer code and make a profit off of it are a measley, small, insigificant portion of the people on the planet that use computers, and unfortunately, telling people to follow the golden rule "how would you feel if it happened to you" is problomatic seeing as A) many are indifferent, and B) Many more see it as a victimless crime.   C) Many feel (in the case of Microsoft only) that they deserve it somehow.  

Brian.


----------



## rezba (Feb 20, 2002)

well.  It's a long way reading all that posts.
For a long time I've been searching warez, knowing a the end every path to have the right version of the right tool to work with.
Is it bad ? Well, it's illegal, for sure.
I'm not a geek, my  work isn't focused on computers. I don't feel in my flesh the pain of the poor developer. I'am a researcher, kind of "intellectual", as we say in french. I'm never paid for my "intellectual property". I don't cry about it.

I use computers to enhanced my own productivity. example : I need a contact and diary manager. I look for the best I can use. I have to pay for ? No, because I can't. I need Word, because my all working community use it, on both Windows and MacOS. Will I pay for it ? No.
Should I use something else than Illustrator to build my maps ? May be, but it's not good enough.

Office is now a leader because thousands of people used illegal copies of it for years. That's how they (and Adobe, and Macromedia, and others) became leaders : because everyone was using their products.

Of course, my home computer works differently than my office computers. It's because I improved "illegal copies" of software that my office finally bought them. But I have to try and deal with them before I advise for it. My home computer is still free of any paid license, except some shareware I respect a lot. But on the other hand, I spend a lot of my "business training budget" to get software training courses. Finally, the Linux economic model is the closed one to my own ideology. If computers are made to help industry leaders owning such human general goods as the "Vinci codex", for instance, I think I gotta fight it.

Computer industry is a total immature industry. It most of the times sells products that should not even have get out of a garbage. You can't pay for that. I pay for my database developer, but he is right to me when I need him. How can I imagine spending 1000 for a soft just to have the right to call a fucking expensive and unefficient hotline ? No, stop kidding. If your product is good, companies will buy it, and buy training courses to use it.  If they have to buy it only because of a monopolistic position, the product will be pirated. That's life, honey. It's called liberalism ! If you're a small and unknown developer and you're product is really the best, warez will be the best marketing plan you never had to get known. That's capitalism !
And if marginal individuals want to get the most of their computers to be free and fast and good, they will use warez. This is called anarchy ! The magnificent sister of liberalism. That's the way it works.


----------



## vic (Feb 20, 2002)

one day eveybody's child will know how to program and computers will be so advanced that uying software would be out of the question, that day microsoft will die. 


think about it... every new genration knows moe about the computer as the old one, if this goes on , the above statement will hold true for all software coders (for a proffesion)  

P.S. everything will be running linux/posix os aka darwin.


----------



## Valrus (Feb 21, 2002)

I'm a college sophomore who used to pirate software (usually shareware, and that's the worst thing to pirate) fairly frequently with not too many moral objections. But before I went to college, I bought my own iMac with my own money and decided that because of how easy it is to pirate software at college, I would like to keep it 'clean.'

Last semester I bought my first and only shareware program, a $15 music notation program called Melody Assistant. Not only did it enable some features that I wouldn't have had without registering (like, say, the ability to actually print out scores so I could turn in my assignments ), I found that it felt _great_ to pay for software just because I felt I genuinely needed it. That's one of the three pieces of software I've bought since I've been at college. The other two have been Mac OS X and Diablo II. I have no illegal software on my hard drive, and I'm damned proud of it.

Instead I go to VersionTracker almost daily and pick up anything that says "Free" in the License column and looks useful. The thrill of finding a great piece of software that's legitimately free probably just about matches that of finding Photoshop 7 on your Carracho server, or whatever. Try it sometime. I can suggest some of the replacements I've found, under Mac OS X (I recently trashed my Mac OS 9 applications so I'll have even less incentive to boot back into that antiquated OS anymore):

Word Processor: Okito Composer. Nice, Cocoa-fied, does the job. Not compatible with Word, I think. Will you live? Or, if you want to play with the big boys, LaTeX via teTeX and TeXShop. I love LaTeX and use it for any paper I have to write that's longer than a page.

Graphics: I'm not artsy, so the GIMP satisfies all my graphic creation needs. But for the manipulation I do on the pictures for my website, I won't even pay $30 for GraphicConverter when I can instead use ToyViewer and PixelNHance for free. And speaking of web sites...

Web site creation: Straight HTML, in BBEdit Lite. And since I'm hosting using Mac OS X I can even make my own CGI scripts (in Python, also free).

Programming: As above, Python mostly. But if I'm not mistaken, you can do a lot just with Mac OS X... aren't Java and Perl and C already implemented? And those developer tools... whew. Screw CodeWarrior. If I want to do some serious programming I'll reach for Project Builder and learn from there.

Web browsing: IE 5.0. Sigh. OmniWeb is too slow for me, although I use it to access HTML manuals, etc, on my disk. Opera sucks ass on OS X. iCab is a joke. Right now I'm putting my hopes on Chimera... cross yer fingers.

Music: Melody Assistant, as above. Kicks ass, takes names, runs on OS X, cheap as dirt. Also Csound. Wow, I can't wait to learn how to use Csound.

And there you have it, and I've never for a moment missed Office, Photoshop, anything. I even threw away AppleWorks.

The only things of dubious morality on my hard drive are some music videos, some episodes of Sealab 2021 that I can't watch because RealPlayer doesn't exist for OS X, and some songs that (a) aren't available commercially, (b) are on CD's I would never buy, (c) are on albums I would buy if I could find them. Not that I'm looking too hard. Sigh. No one's perfect.

Just wanted to make my absolute first post here a doozy, and hopefully try to convince some people to give up warez. It really is very gratifying.

-The Valrus


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 21, 2002)

Valrus -- I admire your honesty and integrity!

That is pretty much the point I've been trying to make throughout this whole thread.  People feel "justified" in pirating software because they think it's a "message" to the developers that their software is buggy and overpriced.  Well, there's another way (a BETTER and more EFFECTIVE way) to send that same message, and that's exactly what your post embodies.

Adobe will get the clue that PhotoShop is overpriced (a statement I DON'T agree with -- it's an AMAZING program) when people start using shareware or free alternatives to accomplish the same tasks.

I used to pirate software as well -- until I started becoming a Computer Science major.  I saw how tedious and how much work went into making a simple program like a program to roll a pair of dice!  And all I got out of the course was an 'A' printed on a piece of paper and the hopes that one day it'll get me somewhere.  Someone who can make a living doing that on a much more intricate and larger scale has my respect and admiration, and my money if I'm interested in what they write!  I look and will continue to look down upon those who think that piracy is justified or not objectionable in that light -- or those who do pirate and refuse to even look at the situation from a different angle.

Piracy is theft.  Just because you don't swipe a box of software doesn't mean you're doing anything less illegal or less objectionable.  The boxes and manuals and CDs are the LEAST expensive part of the process -- it's the data on the CDs and the ingenuity and thought that went into that program... and whether you steal a box of software or copy it illegally from the internet, it's the priciple that you're getting something for free that you shouldn't.

Again, I respect and admire your honesty and integrity, and it's refreshing to hear from someone who has "seen the light" of piracy and decided against it for themself and what it does to software publishers.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 21, 2002)

Here are some quotes from different people...



> Office is now a leader because thousands of people used illegal copies of it for years. That's how they (and Adobe, and Macromedia, and others) became leaders : because everyone was using their products.



This is a very good point, I think!



> Why did Napster die? Because too many people were pirating music. It's tolerated when you make a copy from a friend who loans you a CD.



But.... It's exactly the same thing: warez 
And I don't think Microsoft is dying because of there warez. 
Nor Adobe is or would.



> We might wind up in a future where no software will work without authenticating over the internet every 30 seconds.






> That is pretty much the point I've been trying to make throughout this whole thread. People feel "justified" in pirating software because they think it's a "message" to the developers that their software is buggy and overpriced. Well, there's another way (a BETTER and more EFFECTIVE way) to send that same message, and that's exactly what your post embodies.



Hmmmmm..... That's a little short 



> Adobe will get the clue that PhotoShop is overpriced (a statement I DON'T agree with -- it's an AMAZING program)



You're right about the Amazing-thing but Photoshop is WAY too expensive for the individual human...



> I used to pirate software as well



WHAT???  



> until I started becoming a Computer Science major



You're proud of that title, aren't you...?



> I saw how tedious and how much work went into making a simple program like a program to roll a pair of dice! And all I got out of the course was an 'A' printed on a piece of paper and the hopes that one day it'll get me somewhere. Someone who can make a living doing that on a much more intricate and larger scale has my respect and admiration, and my money if I'm interested in what they write! I look and will continue to look down upon those who think that piracy is justified or not objectionable in that light -- or those who do pirate and refuse to even look at the situation from a different angle.



But the people at Adobe (for example) are probably well-paid for doing that!

AppleWatcher


----------



## dlookus (Feb 21, 2002)

> ---------------------------------------------
> Support the Admin! Donate money!
> ---------------------------------------------



How about supporting the people who provide all of the services you use?



> But the people at Adobe (for example) are probably well-paid for doing that!



So you are justified in stealing software because these people are making a decent living? have you ever stopped to think that people have lost their jobs because of pirating? Maybe when you have a career you'll understand, but you clearly don't now. And you say "probably"? You mean you don't know, yet you'll keep copying and distributing this software anyway?


----------



## Jadey (Feb 21, 2002)

Question for those of you here who are against piracy under any circumstances: Do you download mp3s?


----------



## roger (Feb 21, 2002)

Not copyrighted music, no. I download free mp3's for up and coming DJs out of interest. All my MP3's are from CDs that I have bought. 

Roger.


----------



## vic (Feb 21, 2002)

"Why did Napster die? Because too many people were pirating music. It's tolerated when you make a copy from a friend who loans you a CD."

that;s not true napster died because it was shut down by law

P.S.

anybody that doesnt pirate software does not need that software. people that piate software need the software but don't have the money to use it. so what's the big deal? when that student that can't pay for photosho get's his/her dream career, they will have enough money to buy adobe photoshop. THat is the only reason why software companies tolerate pyracy, to ensure thy will have future customers.


----------



## Valrus (Feb 21, 2002)

MP3's are where I'm most guilty, I think. I have some MP3's of songs on albums I would never buy, and that's my only rationalization. Perhaps I'll get rid of them soon, so I won't be keeping a double standard.
I also have some live songs and/or covers and/or "team products" that, as far as I know, aren't available anywhere. Technically, these are probably songs that No One should have, because they are from bootlegs or something. But (and I hate to say this when I've been boasting my moral superiority) no one's getting money for them now anyway, and I believe I own virtually all the albums by the bands in question, so I've paid my dues.

Or have I? I buy all my CD's used. The bands aren't getting any money from me anyway. But is there anything immoral about stores that sell used merchandise, really? I'd like to know people's opinions on that.

Anyway, I also have some MP3's that are just plain stealing and that I should dispose of instantly. I think I will get rid of some of them, right now, since they're on albums that I want to get anyway, and if I get rid of the songs I have on them I'll have more incentive to buy them. Used, of course.

Caught me out on that one, but I mentioned it before. Don't try to catch the anti-piracy people doing something illegal to solidify your own stance. It's a classic logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument. 

later.

-the valrus


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *anybody that doesnt pirate software does not need that software. people that piate software need the software but don't have the money to use it. so what's the big deal? when that student that can't pay for photosho get's his/her dream career, they will have enough money to buy adobe photoshop. THat is the only reason why software companies tolerate pyracy, to ensure thy will have future customers. *



I don't know of a single software company that has said that they TOLERATE piracy.  They accept that a certain percentage of their user base is using the software illegally -- like when Microsoft said, "Hey, we know not everyone is licensed.  Here's your chance to buy licenses for your unlicensed use before we take action," -- but that's different from tolerance.  Show me a software company that tolerates piracy (NOT accepts a small percentage of it) and I'll show you a guy who will now download 15 multi-thousand dollar programs in one hour.

Point: Piracy is NOT tolerated.  Piracy is an action with an accepted (accepted meaning that the software companies are AWARE of it -- NOT OK WITH IT) percentage that companies figure into their expenses -- which is one small reason prices of software steadily go up, along with many other factors.


----------



## vic (Feb 21, 2002)

of course they won't tell you they tollerate software piracy, but last i checked humans were still capable of lying, a few months ago words like "ethnic clensing" were used by politicians in order to make racist massacres sound perty. so don't give me that "as said that they TOLERATE piracy" shit. if anybody said that, then it would mean your conscience was allowed to be free of guilt if you did pirate their software.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 21, 2002)

Are you comparing software companies saying they tolerate (or don't tolerate) piracy to politicians' use of "ethnic cleansing" for racial massacres?  Wow... I made a comment in this same thread about one person being right while many others being wrong and was compared to Charles Manson... don't you think those comments are being a bit extreme?  I'm not feeding anyone bullshit -- and even if I was, it doesn't mean I agree or disagree with you one way or the other.  

Hehe... on a lighter note, lemme tell ya a little story to lighten the mood in this thread:

A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold, the bird froze and fell to the ground in a large field. While it was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on it.  As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, it began to realize how warm it was. The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy and soon began to sing
for joy. A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung and promptly dug him out and ate him!

Lessons:

1) Not everyone who drops shit on you is your enemy.
2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend.
3) And when you're in deep shit, keep your mouth shut.

At any rate, on with the rebuttal...

Even though the software companies don't say they tolerate piracy, I think we could all come to a consensus and agree that software companies don't like piracy, nor do they condone it, nor would they support it in any form.  Can we agree on that?  I think they KNOW that it happens, and they use some statistical figures to try and see how much piracy goes on, calculate that into losses on their revenue, and adjust some other figures accordingly.  Just because they do that doesn't mean that they tolerate it -- they are just aware that it happens.


----------



## whitesaint (Feb 21, 2002)

Your posts are so full of detail and make so much sense when reading them!  I've changed all my views on software piracy after reading your posts.  It's wrong, i hope everyone stops it.  Except for Microsoft of course...


----------



## Jadey (Feb 21, 2002)

Personally I don't care if people pirate music or software. That's their business, not mine. However, I think they're both the same. It's interesting that arguments that are made for software piracy are considered not valid, whereas they're supported for music piracy. Example:



> *More arguments can be made against the music industry (RIAA) which holds these extreme positions:*



Yeah, the RIAA has some really terrible positions. So does Microsoft. Especially now.



> ** no readily available internet distribution*



Music are the most often traded files on the net. "mp3" has long surpassed "porn" as the most popular key search on search engines.



> ** does not permit copying music from CDs that you buy; or to rip mp3s for your iPod player (which I believe is in violation of Fair Use exemption to Copyright)*



Yes, this is dumb. Not all software end user license agreements allow you to make backup copies either.



> ** often no means to listen or "demo" an album before you buy it*



Arguably, that's what radio, MuchMusic and MTV are for.

Not picking on you Testuser, in fact I agree most of your points. But why aren't other people's arguments valid when they make the same points about software piracy? Seems we justify our own actions and condemn others.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 21, 2002)

BIG QUOTE:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------- 
Support the Admin! Donate money! 
--------------------------------------------- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about supporting the people who provide all of the services you use? 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the people at Adobe (for example) are probably well-paid for doing that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you are justified in stealing software because these people are making a decent living? have you ever stopped to think that people have lost their jobs because of pirating? Maybe when you have a career you'll understand, but you clearly don't now. And you say "probably"? You mean you don't know, yet you'll keep copying and distributing this software anyway?

Now you are making a big mistake 

If you've read this thread completely, you'll find that I've 
*never* said that I'm using warez!!!  

Maybe it's like I'm using warez, but that's not true...



> You mean you don't know, yet you'll keep copying and distributing this software anyway?



Sorry but this is real B*LLSH*T! 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 21, 2002)

Wheee!

----------
There are exceptions to these generalizations: some software makers probably don't allow you to make a backup copy (although I'm not aware of any), and some bands distribute their music via mp3s on the internet. 

My suggestions are aimed at trying to do what is best for everyone's interest in the long run: 
* piracy doesn't help to spread the word and popularity of a business; it tends to do the opposite and drive them out of business 
* having severe copy restrictions and distribution schemes are bad for business. They also treat each user as if he is a criminal (or potential criminal), even if he uses the product legally. 

I am aware that people pirate and it does not concern me. However, I find it offensive when someone tries to justify one's piracy, or worse yet, explain how one's piracy benefits a company and society as a whole. I think copyright owners deserve protection from having their intellectual property stolen and freely distributed by others. 

On the other hand, society benefits from having exemptions to copyright laws: for purposes of education, having backup copies in case the original fails, and to have open standards (instead of proprietary technology) to facilitate commerce. I believe it is necessary to stand up against companies who try to block "fair use" through technology, or who infringe upon an individual's privacy in order to prevent copyright infringement. 
------

I think this is a very clear point and I believe I agree with it (my English is not that good ).
Maybe it is a little against things I've earlier said, but I agree with the text above.

But... what about Microsoft? That's something else, I think.

I mean, there is a big, big difference between 'stealing' mp3's and copying software from Microsoft. 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *This is the balance that needs to be achieved. *



Yes.  Well-put.  As stated many times before, the computer/computer technology arena is still in its infancy, even though it's decades old.  It is understandable that any new thing such as computer technology will go through a state of flux before the dust settles and we can all agree on a common set of standards concerning copyright policy, licensing terms and fair-use.  Unfortunately, we actually NEED people to pirate software at the moment... and I'm not saying it's right or justified in any way.  We need them because they will ultimately be the ones that will help us shape anti-piracy laws and help protect intellectual property in the future.  Think about it: if no one ever pirated software (whoa, weird thought!) we wouldn't need anti-piracy laws.  But, since people are doing it now, we'll be able to examine their actions and methods and protect against them in the future.

The balance will come -- maybe not in my lifetime, but soon enough.  It will also cause other industries to re-think or re-examine their practices in light of new technology -- just like the RIAA and Napster.  We must trust that in the end the standards that arise will be for the benefit of the masses -- not to give any one area more of an advantage than another.  The software companies will get paid rightly for their software, the user will have paid a fair price for use of the software, and it will all be a relatively painless, capitalistic experience.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by whitesaint _
> *Your posts are so full of detail and make so much sense when reading them!  I've changed all my views on software piracy after reading your posts.  It's wrong, i hope everyone stops it.  Except for Microsoft of course... *



Thank you very much!  I try hard to look at things from an un-biased stance and I hope that shows in my posts.  I try to see the merit in both the "for" and "against" in a particular subject and make my statements accordingly.  Thanks again.

...and don't worry.  Microsoft will get what's coming to them, in due time.  I'm glad the justice they're going to get isn't coming as swifty as some would have hoped -- usually, when people make decisions or punish someone in a hurry, the punishment is not fitting or is irrational.  Microsoft will get what they deserve -- that's what I'm looking forward to... but it's not my position to punish them.  It's not anyone's position except the companies that suffered because of them (GOOD companies, like Be) and then and only then through legal, upstanding ways -- like a good, ol'-fashioned sue-fest!  

I wouldn't feel bad pirating Microsoft software -- although I don't do it.  If I did pirate software, I'd go for the Microsoft stuff first.  However, feeling justified in pirating Microsoft software is a little like looting, isn't it?  Microsoft is under a lot of pressure and stress to change their ways from a lot of different angles, and then along come all these people who, just because of their monopolistic practices, think it's ok to come along and steal while Microsoft is defending themself.  It's looting.  At least that's how I look at it.

...and, yes, Microsoft is big and bad.  They've done wrong.  A lot of wrong.  They've taken to anti-competetive practices to advance ahead of the competition.  BUT -- in this nation, they DO have the right to defend themselves, and that's something that we can't take away from them.  We can't punish them right now -- we don't even know everything they've done yet.  How many people here can name 5 things that Microsoft did that broke the law for certain?  You may say you can or cannot, but that Microsoft was just plain sneaky and dirty -- what say you about your own piracy practices, then?


----------



## dlookus (Feb 21, 2002)

> If you've read this thread completely, you'll find that I've
> never said that I'm using warez!!!



You are still trying to justify it. You can't dismiss that.


----------



## Neozzz (Feb 21, 2002)

I love warez, why pay when you can get it for free?
Besides they are way to expensive. I rather use those money to buy new macs. I will use warez forever until I become millionaire or something. I don't feel ashamed about it at all. Welcome to the real world.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 21, 2002)

I didn't thought we would agree, but:



> I wouldn't feel bad pirating Microsoft software -- although I don't do it. If I did pirate software, I'd go for the Microsoft stuff first. However, feeling justified in pirating Microsoft software is a little like looting, isn't it? Microsoft is under a lot of pressure and stress to change their ways from a lot of different angles, and then along come all these people who, just because of their monopolistic practices, think it's ok to come along and steal while Microsoft is defending themself. It's looting. At least that's how I look at it.



I agree with this, Diablo 

And...



> You are still trying to justify it. You can't dismiss that.



Maybe you're right, but I mean, Photoshop IS really expensive for students... And that's only one point. But let's continue about Microsoft 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Neozzz _
> *I love warez, why pay when you can get it for free?
> Besides they are way to expensive. I rather use those money to buy new macs. I will use warez forever until I become millionaire or something. I don't feel ashamed about it at all. Welcome to the real world. *



Congratulations.  You are now a member of the newest generation of thieves.  No longer will thieves be looked down upon!  No longer will shoplifters be the underdogs of society!  Why shoplift when you can steal sitting on your ass in front of your computer without ever leaving the house?

If this is something to be proud of and gloat about, then I'll give you a round of applause.  Congrats.  Let me know how this works out for you in life.

Yes, welcome to the real world: thieves exist, as well as upstanding citizens who get the respect they deserve and abide by the law -- not because it is simply the law, but because we believe in what the law stands for, and we don't want to see hard-working people miss out on the credit and paycheck they deserve.  I'm happy that you have chosen which of those categories you'd like to be a member of.


----------



## Valrus (Feb 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Neozzz _
> *Welcome to the real world. *



Am I the only one who finds this phrase, coming from this person, funny?

-The Valrus


----------



## Valrus (Feb 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Neozzz _
> *Welcome to the real world. *



Am I the only one who finds this phrase, coming from this person, funny?

-The Valrus


----------



## CloudNine (Feb 21, 2002)

http://jester2988.lagparty.org/warez.html

Heres a cache of a David Pogue opinion article from a '97 MacWorld on software piracy...


----------



## vic (Feb 21, 2002)

http://jester2988.lagparty.org/warez.html 


true true, that is so true! very few pirates actually make use of their software! it's actually like the real medieval pirates! they get a trasure and don't spend it but burry it. and that is their pleasure to know they have something of value. so, let me ask you this WHat is bad? steling software and using it. or stealing software and not using it. ...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 22, 2002)

Maybe that guy is right... But it is also 5 years ago!
Haven't times changed??

AppleWatcher


----------



## genghiscohen (Feb 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *Maybe that guy is right... But it is also 5 years ago!
> Haven't times changed??
> 
> AppleWatcher *



LOL!  I'll say they have!  Here's a quote from the article:
"These kids have *huge 3GB hard drives* full of compressed software ..."
(Bolding by me.)


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 22, 2002)

Haha LOL 

Maybe the guys have now 300 GB?! 

AppleWatcher


----------



## vic (Feb 22, 2002)

people times have not changed, piracy is still here and the drive behind piracy is the same as before, greed. just because the guy's hardware has changed and we got newer technologies that has nothing to do with what i meant! really poeple what is the focus here piracy or the guys hardrive?

anyway. life must go on. this thread is about to die or change it''s topic to something completely new just like the other ultrapopular thread "may i cus"

blah blah...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 23, 2002)

A Day in the Life of... 
Holy smokes! I think MacWarez is the only thing on AppleWatcher's mind. 

7AM - Wake up & get ready for school. What clothes will I WArez? 
12pm - I will sneak out to McDonalds and get a Big MacWArez to eat. 
3pm - now WArez that bus that will take me home?
--------------------------

Haha c'mon this thread is 15 (or after this post maybe 16) pages, and I started this thread because I wanted to know other opinions... And I have to add my opinion, of course 

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 23, 2002)

yea, and if i don't post on schedule, he asks "WArez Ed?"

so Applewatcher, i will be putting together my new wheelbarrow and working in the yard more this weekend if the weather allows. so there is one less Warez you will have to worry about 

btw - theed has started a slightly different slant on this subject in the non tech forum for anybody who is really interested in discussion and not just winning an arguement or rationalizing behaviors 

I may still say more here but this circular arguing is as bad as trying to reason with a troll at times.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 23, 2002)

Sorry guys, sorry, sorry I do apologize 

---------
yea, and if i don't post on schedule, he asks "WArez Ed?" 

so Applewatcher, i will be putting together my new wheelbarrow and working in the yard more this weekend if the weather allows. so there is one less Warez you will have to worry about 

btw - theed has started a slightly different slant on this subject in the non tech forum for anybody who is really interested in discussion and not just winning an arguement or rationalizing behaviors 

I may still say more here but this circular arguing is as bad as trying to reason with a troll at times.
------------


AppleWatcher


----------



## themacko (Feb 23, 2002)

I think we all agree that piracy is morally wrong and you should pay for software.  That said, many of us are students (college or younger) and don't exactly make enough money to drop half-a-grand on apps.  I don't really want to get into it, but I would hope that these forums take the stance where, we don't support warez, but we don't fly off the hook when someone asks about it or eludes to the fact that they use it.

I can't stand reading posts in MacAddict about LimeWire or Morpheus and reading some self-righteous Jhole telling people to 'spend the $15 and buy the CD.'


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 23, 2002)

> I think we all agree that piracy is morally wrong and you should pay for software. That said, many of us are students (college or younger) and don't exactly make enough money to drop half-a-grand on apps. I don't really want to get into it, but I would hope that these forums take the stance where, we don't support warez, but we don't fly off the hook when someone asks about it or eludes to the fact that they use it.



Nice point, themacko 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 23, 2002)

So guys... 

This was the 16-pages-long-"What's your opinion about Macwarez"-thread started by me 

I hope you enjoyed it and thanks for your opinion 

AppleWatcher

PS Was this the longest thread ever 
I don't think so?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *Sorry guys, sorry, sorry I do apologize
> 
> ---------
> ...



Hehe... just for future reference, you can hit the "quote" button below and to the right of the user's post that you wanna quote to make it show up as a "real" quote, nice and easy -- instead of putting some dashes in, copying & pasting and putting some more dashes in to signal the end of the quote.

Not trying to be tacky... just letting you in on that!  It took me a while to see that feature, but it's saved me a ton of misunderstanding on who I'm replying to and a lot of keyboard shortcuts!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 25, 2002)

Whoops!  Sorry, Applewatcher... I saw that you did that on subsequent posts... sorry!  I wish someone would have told me about it at first instead of me fiddling with it and finally finding out how easy it was...

BTW -- I'm still against warez downloading...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 25, 2002)

Yes OK ElDiablo,

But there's a little bug (I assume): If you quote more than one alinea, you only get the first alinea... 

Thanks for bringing up this thread again 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *But there's a little bug (I assume): If you quote more than one alinea, you only get the first alinea... *



What's an alinea?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 25, 2002)

I thought alinea was an English word...
I don't know what it's name in english texts, but I do know what it is called in poems etc:

stanza

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 25, 2002)

Oh, you mean like those posts where the quoted text is broken up into multiple quote "stanzas" or paragraphs, and the quoter responds to individual quotes after each one?  If that's what you mean, mine's always worked for me -- although you have to manually put (B)(QUOTE) and (/B)(/QUOTE) before and after the individual paragraphs manually... (and replace those '(' and ')' symbols with square brackets)


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 26, 2002)

Ah thank you!

AppleWatcher


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Feb 26, 2002)

Okay first off, sorry this is a bit late.. just been away for a while...

First thing I will admit to is pirating software and music. It's something I do.. I use the software I pirate. On the other side of the spectrum, I am an official beta tester (well, I was, since they are done now) for Adobe Photoshop 7, and I am in Apple's seeding program. 'Nuff said about software.. as I ahve something else I would rather you all think about...

First of all, on music, I end up buying the CD's of MP3s I download... example, the Harry Potter soundtrack.. I d/led the whole thing to my hard drive, only to go out and buy it and RIP IT TO MY HARD DRIVE... Why did I do thaT? not becase I felt bad, but because I like the booklets and nice looking CDs 

Anyawy, the thing I want you all to think about:

I collect operating systems.. Its almost an obsession. I have every version of Windows ever shipped, even some that werent (Chicago [win95 beta], and Bob [yes, it did exist.. if you want screenshots, lemme know]), and yes, I have version 1.0.... on the Mac side, I have the first publically available version of System 0.whateveritwas (i have too many things).... all the way up to a couple betas of Mac OS X 10.2. I even have the System 7 ported to x86, and I have Rhapsody DR2 for Intel. Heck, I even have CD's and CD Images of restore CD's and disks from older systems (have some nice Performas).

Anyway, I collect the OSes... with me, it is a "ooh look at me I have this" and I *DONT* use the OSes, I just *HAVE* them. Which brings up the question... since I dont use the OSes myself, and I dont give them to anyone (which then would bring the possiblity of people using it themselves)... is it  really WRONG of me to get CD Images from people who have OSes I dont? for example, I want images of Every CD that comes with a new iMac... since I dont use them, would it really be WRONG of me to just HAVE a copy of the CDs for my own personal collection?

Just something to think about....


----------



## fryke (Feb 26, 2002)

Reference 'alinea'.

When I first used a Macintosh Plus in 1987 I had to learn some Pascal (MacPascal was nice and easy). I didn't have ANY english course before doing Pascal. I naturally assumed that 'writeln' was the verb for 'to write'. I actually asked an English girl the following: "Would you writeln me a letter?"

This got cleared up only about a year later, when my English courses began and I found out that 'writeln' was 'write line' or something like that.

Well, it's easy to mix things up and often hard to unwire. Is this thread long enough now?


----------



## theed (Feb 26, 2002)

I don't think it's an issue to collect software if you don't use it.  You are not the intended demographic that would pay for the software.  You are not keeping the intended demographic from having it.  No harm, no foul.

And to wrap up my "intellectual thread" into here.    I think that commercial organizations are too powerful, and are overcharging (generally) for software.  There should be some sort of governing body looking out for consumers of software, and there isn't.  At least not in the US.  Just think if some government decided to put $50 million on a word processor application that would then be freely available.  A public work like a dam or a bridge.  Wouldn't that be worth something?

Hell, we gave Airlines several billion dollars so that they could continue charging us to fly!  I think this would be way more beneficial.  Too much profiteering, too little social concern.  Pirating is generally wrong, but it's also a symptom of another, possibly larger, problem.  

"Die you stupid horse." (whack whack whack)


----------



## edX (Feb 27, 2002)

Da horse mus not be allowed to die. Et is da only vitness to the prince's murder. if vee do not save it, it vill be da death of us all. Guards!! arrest dis man who es beating da horse


----------



## theed (Feb 27, 2002)

Thanks, Ed.  Wouldn't want it to get all serious around here.    See, it's 2 am here, and that response is really funny about now.  I'm not sure why it'd be funny enough to you to post it since it's only 11 where you are.  All the same.  Highly amused.  And now, I officially that I vill not post any more to dis thread.

Ever seen "Wassup wif da Def Star?" ??? aka
Star Wars Gangsta Rap


----------



## edX (Feb 27, 2002)

No, i've never seen that. i don't do rap. i avoid rap. rap would have to hunt me down and stick a gun in my face to get my attention. but it sounds like this is comedy that pokes fun of rap, so i might enjoy it.

but no, never saw it. 

(and hey, it's been a busy day and my sense of time, and humor, is completely askew )


----------



## ksv (Feb 27, 2002)

Wow, this thread has transformed into a new Hervé's bar


----------



## edX (Feb 27, 2002)

ksv, are you accusing me of drinking and posting? 

you should know i gave the stuff up.


----------



## ksv (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *ksv, are you accusing me of drinking and posting?
> 
> you should know i gave the stuff up. *





No, I just see a very interesting phenomen on these forums.
Here's a good recipe for a thread with over 100 replies:
-One Ed
-An Admiral or two
-1 PC user
-A couple of 30+ lines posts
-A few other well-known macosx.com posters
-1-3 strangers
Mix them all together, and... wheee!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 27, 2002)

There we go again 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *And to wrap up my "intellectual thread" into here.    I think that commercial organizations are too powerful, and are overcharging (generally) for software.  There should be some sort of governing body looking out for consumers of software, and there isn't.  At least not in the US.  Just think if some government decided to put $50 million on a word processor application that would then be freely available.  A public work like a dam or a bridge.  Wouldn't that be worth something?*



I disagree.  Well, let me explain before I get beaten here -- I don't think software companies are too powerful or overcharging for software.  For one, it's a fact of capitalism that there needs to be a balance between supply and demand, and those two factors directly influence the price of the good -- if the price goes too high, demand goes down and the company loses profit.  Conversely: too cheap, demand too high, shortages of product, company loses profit.  Software companies are not free to charge the hell out of us for their product -- no one would buy it!  Sure, they are "free" to do that in the sense that they could if they wanted to commit suicide, just like you're "free" to put a gun to your head (meaning ABLE to do it) but I'll bet that most people would think that that's not an option, therefore they're not "free" to do it.

If a software company doubled the price of their software overnight, they'd be putting the proverbial gun to their collective head.

Fact is, there's ONE software company that's been accused of this, and they're under heavy scrutiny and examination at this point.  As far as the other companies go, they're charging what they and millions of other people consider a fair price for the software.  

I accept that people will have a problem with the price of software -- people have a problem with the price of EVERYTHING.  When was the last time you said to yourself, "Gee, this is too cheap"?


----------



## theed (Feb 27, 2002)

what you're talking about is classic capitalist economics, which assumes minimal barrier to entry into a market or effective competition in that market.  (It also assumes that any theory it ever made up actually holds water, because we don't really know.  Voodoo economics anyone?)  We made a system, and it mostly worked, and we made up stories why.  But the truth is far more complex, and barely manageable.

I'm glad you're in an economic bracket where you find prices reasonable, but I think that the money to be made in software has gone largely from disposable income from rich people and healthy companies willing to take risks on crazy inventions; to companies and individuals struggling through every means they know to meet their bottom line.  The distribution is much different, but I don't think the prices have changed accordingly. 

Software, especially business tools and office suites, have become essential tools, and will be bought for a while at any price.  This roughly defines a monopoly. (or cartel)  ... There are laws against all the grocery stores in an area jacking up prices just for profit while keeping out competition.  Do you really think software companies aren't prone to the same behaviour if given the opportunity?  (And about M$, they were handed new rules in 1995 when they were first deemed problematic, and it didn't do jack.  Laws don't represent software very well.)  

I'm glad you think the system works, people like you give me faith that there won't be a mass mutiny with global anarchy ensuing.  But I will still maintain that there is a growing problem that needs to be addressed.  (And to minimize arguing, I don't think you're wrong, I just think your reality is not fully representative of what many of the rest of us experience.)

CD's are cheaper to produce than tapes. Are CD's cheaper than tapes in the stores?  Good for the consumer / supply and demand economics my ass.


----------



## theed (Feb 27, 2002)

I actually think that much food is too cheap.  Do have any idea how hard it is to be a farmer these days?  I also think gas is too cheap here in the U.S.  And the rest of the world would seem to agree with me.  I think air fares are too cheap.  It seems plainly obvious that airlines were not maintaining proper standards, and passing on the costs of potential risks in their business model as cost to the consumer.  Airlines destroy the environment and endanger lives every day, but when they charge too little to cover their butts, they ask for government help.  Airlines have been government subsidized since day 1.

I think health care is too expensive, and teachers underpaid, and intellectual property overpriced for the common good.  That's what capitalism is after all supposed to be about, the common good.  Not the business good.  Full world economics is going to break a lot of things.  This is the world as I see it.  ... sorry for double posting.  I feel as strongly about these issues as you do on yours.  It's rare that I can't see eye to eye on some level with even the the most staunchly opposed debaters.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2002)

Great points... but I do have one thing to say:

Photoshop costs around $600.  $700 at most.  QuarkXPress costs $1000 (and that's exaggerating).  If you don't have $1,700 with which to purchase software to start a business, then I think you seriously need to consider whether you should be starting a business at all.

These programs that we are calling "overpriced" are high-end, production packages aimed at professionals who will primarily be using the software to produce something that in turn produces an income for them.  $700 to give you a well-written piece of software that will, in turn, enable you to make thousands of dollars with it is NOT out-of-line to be asking.  In fact, it's cheap.

I was making a brochure for an oil-change company today and was looking on the internet at some of their franchise start-up costs.  Estimated funds needed to purchase one franchise, real-estate and all: $500,000 to $900,000.  Estimated cost to start up a graphic-design company, have licensed software and make money: $10,000, at most.  $4000 Mac.  $2000 in software.  $2000 for a high-quality printer.  $1000 for internet access for a month, and that's FAST internet access.  And be profitable in a year and a half if you're decent. 

These packages are business tools -- not home creativity packages like Kai's Power Goo or something like that.  When was the last time you saw a PhotoShop ad aimed at the home user?  Or a QuarkXPress ad?  They are well-built, high-priced, high-performance business software packages that extend above and beyond what you can walk into a Best Buy and purchase off the shelf.

Yes, there is an isolated bracket that can purchase this software.  There is an isolated bracket that purchases Porches.  There is an isolated bracket that starts their own business.  There is an isolated bracket for every commodity and good on the market, well, besides milk.  Adobe is under no obligation to make PhotoShop available to EVERYONE.  Get the LE version if you can't afford PhotoShop.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *I actually think that much food is too cheap.  Do have any idea how hard it is to be a farmer these days?  I also think gas is too cheap here in the U.S.  And the rest of the world would seem to agree with me.  I think air fares are too cheap.  It seems plainly obvious that airlines were not maintaining proper standards, and passing on the costs of potential risks in their business model as cost to the consumer.  Airlines destroy the environment and endanger lives every day, but when they charge too little to cover their butts, they ask for government help.  Airlines have been government subsidized since day 1.*



My point exactly.  Price too high, business fails.  Price too low, business fails.  My point was that people tend to think that the majority of things in this world are too expensive.  Unless you're involved deeply with the crude oil business (ie, you're a consumer), I'll bet that gas prices falling would put a smile on your face.  



> _Originally posted by theed _
> *I think health care is too expensive, and teachers underpaid, and intellectual property overpriced for the common good.  That's what capitalism is after all supposed to be about, the common good.  Not the business good.  Full world economics is going to break a lot of things.  This is the world as I see it.  ... sorry for double posting.  I feel as strongly about these issues as you do on yours.  It's rare that I can't see eye to eye on some level with even the the most staunchly opposed debaters. *



Capitalism is about individual competetive potential in the business world -- Socialism is about the common good.

Hehe... there's no one best way.  Capitalism isn't the BEST way, but it is one way and it's working better than a lot of other ways.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 27, 2002)

> Price too low



?!?!??!?! 

AppleWatcher


----------



## theed (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *Capitalism is about individual competetive potential in the business world -- Socialism is about the common good. *



WHoooooaaaaah.  I think we've found our sticking point in this argument.  I was working under the premise that any government or economic system is supposed to be set up to best meet the needs of the people within it.  This was an attempt to realize that potential.  Truly, if this isn't capitalism's goal, I want out.  Send me on a rocket to Mars to live in a biospheric bubble.

As for your specific points, I think photoshop is properly priced for commercial use.  It's one of the few products that has maintained market share mostly due to its superiority to competing products.  yay adobe.

However, if my Dad wants to crop and brighten photos for personal use, I see no reason that he should have to use crap when a perfectly good product exists.  If he wouldn't buy it anyway, why can't we come up with a licensing scheme that allows him to use it for cheap without hobbling it into uselessness?  It would not hurt adobe if my father used photoshop for $100.  Instead, we're fostering competition in a duplication of effort market for stuff that photoshop did better 6 years ago.  There's no current licensing model which allows this.  To err on the side of the business is to buy him a full version.  To err on the side of the consumer is to pirate software.  It seems lopsided to me that one is so accepted and the other so criminal.

but your point about economics, I'm not sure you heard me right.  Airlines didn't fail, they're still going.  And they have only now started to improve security, for which they will no doubt want more subsidization.  ... and you totally didn't get me on gas prices.  Lower prices stifle competition in much needed areas.  alternative fuel research would have occurred naturally if gas prices reflected their environmental impact a little more closely in the US.  (I am a consumer.  I also read the Tragedy of the Commons)

And your point about starting up a business ... I am the proud owner of an out of pocket startup company much like you describe.  It's not as simple or based on proper economic value as you paint it out to be.  :-(


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *If the OSes were sold would you buy them (similar to what collectors of other items do)?
> 
> For example, say you did not have the Mac OS X Public Beta.  Would you then have been interested in purchasing it off me (I have the Mac OS X PB CD, booklet, packaging, etc)?
> ...



I'll buy them (as I said, I like the boxes and booklets ) off you sure, if I have the amount of money you want for them. I just "pirate' them if I dont find someone with it for sale, or the ones for sale dont have the booklets etc (in which case, I dont care if its a DMG or a CD they gave me


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Am I well known? 

Perhaps If I mentioned what Carracho server I run/ran? 'course, who would admit to visiting it in a thread such as this?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 27, 2002)

No, I just see a very interesting phenomen on these forums. 
Here's a good recipe for a thread with over 100 replies: 
-One Ed 
-An Admiral or two 
-1 PC user 
-A couple of 30+ lines posts 
-A few other well-known macosx.com posters 
-1-3 strangers 
Mix them all together, and... wheee!
-------------

>>>Where's AppleWatcher? 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2002)

Ok, true, out of pocket costs for starting a business aren't as simple as I made them out to be -- it was a severly abbreviated scenario of how one goes about it... I couldn't possibly explain, even in simple terms, how one goes about that and factoring costs and what-not in this forum -- it would simply go on too long.  My point was that a poor college student with less than $10 in his pocket needn't venture into the business world expecting to use the same software that large corporations do.  You have more money, you are able to afford more expensive stuff.  You have less money, you'll have to do with... well, less.

And I think we are stuck on our definitions of a capitalist society.  I don't think the government is there to provide in that sense.  I think the government is there to make sure that Joe Microsoft doesn't pull out the brass knuckless and beat Joe Regular into bankruptcy when Joe regular isn't looking.  The goverment, in my opinion, is there to sit and observe dutifully with arms folded until someone does something wrong.  This is only in a capitalistic sense, though -- let's not get started on welfare, health care, etc... I have different opinions on those.

I think the goverment should provide an ATMOSPHERE that is conducive and hospitable to business.  I don't think the government is under any obligation to help Joe Poor become Joe Rich, or Joe Smallbiz become Joe Bigbiz.  That is up to the respective people and talents and brains to determine how far they wish or can go.  I think the government is there to ensure that Joe Poor can make a living without Joe Rich taking over and putting him out of business.  Likewise and similarly, Joe Smallbiz should be able to do a profitable business at the same time Joe Bigbiz is, in the same area of business (although the profit Smallbiz sees will be smaller than the profit Bigbiz sees -- capitalism!)  The goverment is there to make sure Joe Bigbiz doesn't attain that name by stepping on and squashing Joe Smallbizs along the way.  That's my view.

Maybe we do see this similarly -- and we were just approaching it from VERY different angles.  I just live to believe that people should take care of themselves -- if you can't afford Photoshop, don't pirate it.  Don't whine about it.  Don't pout.  Change something in your life -- do something differently -- work harder -- make more money -- then go out and buy it.  If Adobe wanted EVERYONE to have PhotoShop, or their target market was EVERYONE with a computer, they'd have priced it accordingly (how's a buck sound?).  But, time, effort, and $700 worth of blood, sweat and tears went into developing it, and they're getting their due out of it.

I'm sure we'll all have different opinions about QuarkXPress... hehe... and I'll play the devil's advocate on that one, too -- I like Quark.  I paid for it.  Took me a year to save for it, but I got it and I like it.  I wish it cost less, but it doesn't.  Ho-hum, bummer.  Can't get something for nothing these days.  And I'm not going to enter into the InDesign/Pagemaker vs. Quark debate.  I've got all three and like all three.


----------



## Joseph Spiros (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *Ok, true, out of pocket costs for starting a business aren't as simple as I made them out to be -- it was a severly abbreviated scenario of how one goes about it... I couldn't possibly explain, even in simple terms, how one goes about that and factoring costs and what-not in this forum -- it would simply go on too long.  My point was that a poor college student with less than $10 in his pocket needn't venture into the business world expecting to use the same software that large corporations do.  You have more money, you are able to afford more expensive stuff.  You have less money, you'll have to do with... well, less.
> 
> And I think we are stuck on our definitions of a capitalist society.  I don't think the government is there to provide in that sense.  I think the government is there to make sure that Joe Microsoft doesn't pull out the brass knuckless and beat Joe Regular into bankruptcy when Joe regular isn't looking.  The goverment, in my opinion, is there to sit and observe dutifully with arms folded until someone does something wrong.  This is only in a capitalistic sense, though -- let's not get started on welfare, health care, etc... I have different opinions on those.
> ...



No, the Government SHOULD help Joe Poor (me) become Joe Rich... derr!


----------



## fryke (Feb 27, 2002)

could you please start using the 'reply' button instead of the 'quote' button? or at least delete most of the quoting? it's a bit ugly like that, you're wasting my precious bandwidth.


----------



## genghiscohen (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *
> 
> WHoooooaaaaah.  I think we've found our sticking point in this argument.  I was working under the premise that any government or economic system is supposed to be set up to best meet the needs of the people within it.  This was an attempt to realize that potential.  Truly, if this isn't capitalism's goal, I want out.  Send me on a rocket to Mars to live in a biospheric bubble.
> ...




Better start saving up for your rocket ticket.  The apologists for capitalism claim that the "free market" will magically meet the needs of people within it, but this is *not* how it was "set up."  The *actual* goal of a capitalist enterprise is to increase its profits.  Period.
And tell your Dad to shell out $35 for GraphicConverter.  Best damn shareware graphics program in the history of the Mac.


----------



## edX (Feb 27, 2002)

Well, as long as we are assuming that the simplistic model of economics centered around supply and demand is the guiding principle of capitalism, then i would like to offer a simplistic example of proof that the computer industry in general charges way more than their products are worth. (supply and demand is 1st week material in an economics course - hardly begins to explain how economies work)

Here in the SF Bay Area, home of Silicon Valley and all those big name companies you know and love, as well as tens of thusands of other smaller biz's, the inflation rate is so bad that we have passed NYC as the most expensive place to live. Why is that?

It is because of the ridiculous amount of wealth generated by the computer/software/internet companies. How many of you can imagine spending half a million dollars for a 2-3 bedroom home with barely enough yard to surround the house? Oh, and that house is 30 - 50 years old or older. And to buy that house you have to bid against other buyers and hope yours is the top bid. (no basements) I live in one of the less desirable areas for industry types and our 3 br house is valued at almost $400,000 with a double lot (meaning we have almost as much yard as house). 

now i know there is lots to argue with in this example but it is as valid as saying that supply and demand is the only principle of economic theory. 

and last i checked our constitution or decleration of independence states that the government shall be "by the people, for the people", not by the businesses, for the businesses.


----------



## theed (Feb 27, 2002)

My Dad got suckered into buying a Compaq, the ONLY reason he shelled out for a PC instead of a Mac that I would have been far more supportive of, was that he's addicted to his little Magellan GPS.  Magellan only does PC software.  So my Dad buys a Compaq laptop, not bad for the price ... and 4 months and the purchase of a USB to serial dongle later, his GPS still doesn't work.  He's given up trying an that.  Everyone gave him the runaround.  I can't determine if it's even a hardware or software issue, of if the issue lies in the GPS or the PC!

In short, he got suckered and ripped off.  During that time though he's gotten his machine set up and pretty well moved into, and wouldn't like to move to another after finally getting comfortable on this. If he was on a mac I'd have lots of shareware that would be helpful.  ... Not the case.  If that cheap POS had ethernet I'd connect it to my mom's iMac (rev a running X) and let him do stuff that way.  Again, no such love.

Oh, and Ed, are you a Ralph Nader fan?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *It is because of the ridiculous amount of wealth generated by the computer/software/internet companies. How many of you can imagine spending half a million dollars for a 2-3 bedroom home with barely enough yard to surround the house? Oh, and that house is 30 - 50 years old or older. And to buy that house you have to bid against other buyers and hope yours is the top bid. (no basements) I live in one of the less desirable areas for industry types and our 3 br house is valued at almost $400,000 with a double lot (meaning we have almost as much yard as house).
> 
> now i know there is lots to argue with in this example but it is as valid as saying that supply and demand is the only principle of economic theory.
> ...



Isn't that somewhat intertwined with the supply and demand economic model?  I mean, those houses are in desireable areas -- therefore, more money can be charged for those properties.  People aren't FORCED to live there -- they could move to New Mexico and live for pennies compared to that.

Supply and demand isn't the ONLY pricinple of economic theory, but it is an important one.  It does play a big factor in determining pricing of software.  A company could pour their heart and soul into a piece of software, and if no one wanted it, they wouldn't be able to charge a ridiculous amount of money for it.  They'd have to charge less, since the demand for the product is less...

PhotoShop may be worth $300 in software programming alone.  But the demand for a high-end, graphic production program such as PhotoShop is high -- it stands pretty much alone in its category.  PaintShopPro... Painter... none of them even come close to the robust, powerful PhotoShop.  It is THE only alternative to itself.  Now, charging more because of that principle may seem "monopolistic," but it's not -- monopolies aren't brought about by price-grouging or inflation -- those two things are a side effect of an existing monopoly.  It's why we pay more for name-brand milk than the generic sitting next to it -- quality equals higher price.


----------



## theed (Feb 27, 2002)

Are you f'n serious?  I'm not even sure what name brand milk IS!

Ed's example was within the supply and demand model.  Supply and demand is not driving the price of software down to the point of being beneficial for the consumer.  It's overpriced, and the surplus capital goes to those companies, which goes to those programmers, who now purchase everything at inflated prices, since they have little demand for their own capital, since it is in such great supply.  

If the programmers are not getting paid in line with the rest of people, then something is wrong.  Should we all be programmers since there is such great demand?  (I hope you don't have issues finding a job in technology like many of the rest of us are at this time.)  Despite the few rich people, there isn't actually high demand for tech people right now.  The pay vs. need schism is brought about by monopoly and barrier to entry in the market.  These things directly negate the happiness of supply and demand economics.

I'm waiting for a call to see if I got a job I've interviewed for.  Moderate pay, nice benefits, one job opening in a tiny town, and I was up against 100+ other applicants for the same position.  In normal times there'd be like 20 other people applying for the job.  Not 100.  It's an employers market, there are lots of tech people needing jobs.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2002)

I'm assuming you've got some sort of computer science degree, then... why did you get that degree?  Because you love to program or because when you started on the degree, programmers were in high demand and getting paid ridiculous salaries?  I'm still working on a C.S. degree for reason #2, but seriously thinking about switching to something LESS technical and more applicable in the real world, like a major in business and a minor in C.S.

Don't get me wrong -- supply and demand here -- I love computers/programming/design/etc., but the marketplace is so damn flooded with people like me that it sucks to even stand in line to apply somewhere.  Plus, the salaries are coming down because there are TOO many people out there looking for the same position.

I forsee the entire software purchasing/licensing scheme changing here in the next decade because of this and all the reasons discussed in this thread.  Hehe... no, I don't have a four-year degree in phychic powers, either, but hell... it's gotta change for these reasons.  I see software companies keeping the data files of the actual program on THEIR servers, and customers purchasing licenses to use those programs and using them over the internet.  Of course, digital pirates will find ways to "spoof" their licenses and use the programs illegally, but I think it would SERIOUSLY cut down on software piracy as it exists today -- ie, physically copying a CD and using that.

Kiss CDs and boxes and manuals goodbye.  And we have the pirates to thank for it!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 28, 2002)

> could you please start using the 'reply' button instead of the 'quote' button? or at least delete most of the quoting? it's a bit ugly like that, you're wasting my precious bandwidth.



Hey, we've 18 (or 19 ) pages! Do you think that is possible without quoting?!

AppleWatcher


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2002)

Hmm... This thread started out as a really nice discussion about warez. I think it might even have made some users think about what they're doing. Saying that you *have* to quote whole pages just to add your comment so this thread becomes big enough sounds silly. But if your intention on here is to created big threads, start one about 'Windows is better'. And add some reality to it, you'll have the longest thread in a year, I guess.


----------



## ksv (Feb 28, 2002)

Even on  a 9600 baud modem, a post only takes about a second to load...
(off topic )


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Hmm... This thread started out as a really nice discussion about warez. I think it might even have made some users think about what they're doing. Saying that you *have* to quote whole pages just to add your comment so this thread becomes big enough sounds silly. But if your intention on here is to created big threads, start one about 'Windows is better'. And add some reality to it, you'll have the longest thread in a year, I guess. *



I think you're adding to the length of the post complaining about the length of the post...  

Back ON topic -- where did we leave off?  I was beginning to enjoy this thread!  Never have I made so many enemies in one day!  YEE-HA!

Let's see... who's pirated PhotoShop 7 beta and plans NEVER to pay for it?  Who plans on pirating the final version of 7 when it's available and STILL never plans to pay for it?  Who thinks they're justified in doing this to a great company like Adobe?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 28, 2002)

And I still wanna know if it's legal to use warez from Microsoft 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 28, 2002)

Ooh... you just said a word that chaps my friggin' hide every time I hear someone say it wrong.  Too many times I've heard "warez" pronounced "WAR-ez" (two syllables, like the Hispanic name Juarez!)  Hehe... I refrain from kindly explaining to them that it's an abbreviation for "softwares" and let them continue to humiliate themselves on their own.

At any rate, it's legal to use any "warez" from any "companiez" as long as you own a license!  Now, "warez," as it's become commonly known to refer to pirated software, is not legal to use.  Duh.

And yeah, I don't think your concience should get to you too much over using "warez" from Microsoft.  But please, oh please, support Adobe and the other ass-bustin' companies that produce a quality product at a fair price.

Hehe... AND ALSO... please tell me you pronounce that "warez" with one syllable... please...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 28, 2002)

> And yeah, I don't think your concience should get to you too much over using "warez" from Microsoft. But please, oh please, support Adobe and the other ass-bustin' companies that produce a quality product at a fair price.



Owkay! But I still think Adobe is a little pricy 

Watch my sign 


ApPLeWAtcHeR


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> * Owkay! But I still think Adobe is a little pricy *



Grrr... I see we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this.

_SOFTWARE_ is expensive!  Not just Adobe's software... ALL software is generally expensive!  Don't start me on shareware or anything -- nothing that can compete with PhotoShop is available through shareware -- maybe 2 or 3 programs that, together, can do SOME of the things PhotoShop can, but there is NOT a cheap alternative... why?  Because it's impossible -- find someone who is willing to write a fully-featured alternative to PhotoShop and get paid peanuts for it... you won't.  It's expensive stuff, my friend.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Feb 28, 2002)

> SOFTWARE is expensive! Not just Adobe's software... ALL software is generally expensive! Don't start me on shareware or anything -- nothing that can compete with PhotoShop is available through shareware -- maybe 2 or 3 programs that, together, can do SOME of the things PhotoShop can, but there is NOT a cheap alternative... why? Because it's impossible -- find someone who is willing to write a fully-featured alternative to PhotoShop and get paid peanuts for it... you won't. It's expensive stuff, my friend.



ah.... 

AppleWorks
iMovie
iTunes 
Mac OS X-'plugins'
MacGIMP

FREE 

And that's why people use war-ez, I gues... 
Because software(z ) is expensive?

AppleWatcher


----------



## edX (Feb 28, 2002)

my thanks to El Diablo for setting me straight on pronunciation. I have been saying ware-ez. I know i am naive, but i had never even seen the word before i came to this site. i guess i should get out more. 

of course i am still not sure i should trust anybody from Texas to tell me how to pronounce anything, but that's a different subject 

oh, and thread length is determined by number of posts, not by how long the posts are. so stop quoting entire posts to just add one line. in fact just using the person's name will normally point people to whom you are replying.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Feb 28, 2002)

Not enough time to read the entire thread, but I'd like to state that I think that the Omni Group is an excellent example of hpw a software company should be run. An option to buy all products, but they don't annoy you incessantly, their are limitations, but you can aquire free licenses to make a demo full feautred for one day. You can have as many trial lisences as you wish.

Everything is fair.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 1, 2002)

Hehe... glad to do some service here on these forums, even if it is only correcting pronunciation.  

...and you can trust a Texas boy better than you can trust most others, Ed!    Contrary to popular belief (and much heckling and joking when I lived in New York when I was young) I DON'T live on a ranch, I DON'T own a horse, I DON'T "round-up" cattle for a living, I DO know what tennis shoes are, and I DON'T roll my own cigarettes... well, most of the time I don't...   AND -- I don't have a southern accent.  I live in San Antonio -- we DO have electricity and the internet as of recently... 

At any rate... since this thread has lost its "vivaciousness" and we seem to just be sitting around waiting for another person to interject their opinion on "warez," I can, in the meantime, offer my memory of how "warez" used to be... anyone remember dial-up BBSs?  Man, those were the days... I remember getting my first copy of ProComm Plus off of one of those (The Chess Board BBS, I think -- that sucker was ALWAYS busy!) and not even knowing the difference between shareware/freeware and a copyrighted piece of software.  I also remember the first time I saw and downloaded the PC game "Rampage," and then seeing it in Babbage's the next day -- boy was I excited that I saved $50!  Of course, my view on all this has changed dramatically since then... 

Anyone remember the company Apogee?  I forget the popular game they made back then... I believe it was Duke Nuke'm before he turned into a first-person shooter.  In those days it was ALL side-scrolling.  Remember the game "Rise of the Triad?"  It was one of the first first-person shooters out there -- it came about before first-person shooters were as stupidly popular as they are now...


----------



## dlookus (Mar 1, 2002)

I think people should try to come up with solutions to this problem. it doesn't sound like anyone is particularly happy with the Software Company(Music Industry)/Consumer relationship.

There was an interesting article in Wired magazine a while back. The gist of it was that the average joe would have music, video, or whatever on his machine, available to the public (Just like Carracho.) But, the person would get a commmision every time someone downloaded the stuff from him and purchased it. This gives the person who's putting the stuff online incentive to get the people who are downloading from him to pay up, and it takes the cost of distribution down. It's a little sketchy in my head but it was several months ago that I read the article.

It just seems to me that our entire economic model needs to change because of the fact that you can now make perfect duplicates of copyrighted material. Of course, people have always had the ability to copy books or tape things, but there was always a great deal of work or degradation of quality involved in those processes.

I am of the opinion that any encryption or copy protection can be cracked, so the way that these files are passed around and the way that you pay for them needs to change.

I don't think this thread should die.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 1, 2002)

Well, here's a solution I presented a while back, and I think the software industry is slowly moving towards something similar to this.  We all know that certain programs REQUIRE you to have internet access, or at the very least, a modem intalled in your computer to activate the software... WinXP, for example... it doesn't exactly REQUIRE you to activate over the internet, but the alternative is hellish at best.

Well, I forsee companies no longer having the actual application reside on the consumer's hard drive.  I see a "networked" application scheme coming of age, where the actual companies "serve" the application to the consumer over the internet, and in order for the customer to connect to the server, they must provide a user/pass combo or a license key or something like that... this way, you can't freely pass around a copy of a software program with a license key or serial number and duplicate it infinitely many times...


----------



## dlookus (Mar 1, 2002)

I like that idea, but there are definitely many issueswith it. Personally I don't want to have to depend on comcast to be up for me to work. It would also eat up considerable bandwidth. It would probably also be slow (loading especially.)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 1, 2002)

Well, I doubt we'll be seeing that technology emerge as the dominant method as long as the majority of people out there still are dialing up over 56k modems.  I think WinXP's internet activation scheme is a step in that direction.  It WILL take some adapting, and it will be in baby steps -- perhaps CDs will be sold, but will not run unless you're connected to the internet and have been "licensed" in real-time over the internet to use it at that time.

I'd bet a lot of money that eventually, applications and the internet will be so intertwined that we'll barely be able to see the difference.  Instead of emailing an Excel file to a co-worker, you'll simply choose "Share data with recipient" from Excel, and your Excel programs will hook up to each other real-time over the internet and collaborate that way...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 1, 2002)

Does Apogee still exist, BTW?

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 1, 2002)

I went to Apogee.com, and it seems that Apogee software is now a Java/C++ compiler software company.  I think they were bought out by id Software or someone... dunno.


----------



## fryke (Mar 1, 2002)

Hmm. It took Adobe about 12 months to deliver Photoshop for OS X after OS X was out. Maybe all licenses should use Photoshop 7 without paying the upgrade fee for about, say, a year?

Maybe they'd learn something.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 1, 2002)

*WE'VE REACHED 20 PAGES!!! LET'S GO ON!!!*

Thankx guys 

This is for you guys:





---
AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Hmm. It took Adobe about 12 months to deliver Photoshop for OS X after OS X was out. Maybe all licenses should use Photoshop 7 without paying the upgrade fee for about, say, a year?
> 
> Maybe they'd learn something.  *



Ok -- and I'm not ragging on you or being mean or anything (or at least I'm not trying!) but this is what I disagree with.  I know that OS X has been out for a while -- and it is radically different and therefore was left with little application support in the beginning... but it IS new -- and we're adopting OS X faster than the PC users did when Windows 95 came out.  Remember... it took longer than 2 years for some Windows software makers to write their stuff so that it'd run stably under Win95!  

Adobe made sure PhotoShop would run like an OS X application SHOULD run -- stable and fast.  And if it took them 1 year to do it, kudos to them!  This whole "transition to OS X" thing has been pretty f'ing smooth, wouldn't you think?  Compared to what you COULD have gone through?  Yet people STILL expect softwre companies to get something out the door yesterday... I think we've had it good, people, and I don't think we have ANY right in the world to EXPECT software companies to do any more than they are -- they're doing us right, and instead of pirating their damn software and imitating some stupid PeeCee user, let's all do the right thing and give the Mac, OS X, and the software developers a round of applause and our consideration!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 2, 2002)

When Apple introduced the iPod, the company was aware that people might use it to rip off music from the Net or friends' machines. Each new iPod, in fact, is emblazoned with a sticker that warns, "Don't Steal Music." 


But it is unlikely that Apple imagined people would walk into computer stores, plug their iPod into display computers and use it to copy software off the hard drives. 

This is exactly the scenario recently witnessed by Kevin Webb at a Dallas CompUSA store. 

Webb, a computer consultant from Dallas, was browsing his local CompUSA when he saw a young man walk toward him listening to an iPod. Webb recognized the iPod's distinctive ear buds. 

The teenager stopped at a nearby display Macintosh, pulled the iPod from his pocket and plugged it into the machine with a FireWire cable. Intrigued, Webb peeped over the kid's shoulder to see him copying Microsoft's new Office for OS X suite, which retails for $500. 

When the iPod is plugged into a Macintosh, its icon automatically pops up on the desktop. To copy software, all the kid had to do was drag and drop files onto the iPod's icon. Office for MacOS X is about 200 MB; it copies to the iPod's hard drive in less than a minute. 

"Watching him, it dawned on me that this was something that was very easy to do," Webb said. "In the Mac world it's pretty easy to plug in and copy things. It's a lot easier than stealing the box." 

Webb watched the teenager copy a couple of other applications. He left the kid to find a CompUSA employee. "I went over and told a CompUSA guy, but he looked at me like I was clueless," Webb said. 

Unsure whether the kid was a thief or an out-of-uniform employee, Webb watched as he left the store. "I thought there's no point in getting any more involved in this imbroglio," Webb said. "Besides, this is Texas. You never know what he might have been carrying." 

CompUSA representatives didn't respond to requests for comment. Neither did Apple officials. 

The iPod is perfect for virtual shoplifting. It is designed as a digital music player, but its roomy 5-GB hard drive can be used as portable storage for all kinds of files, even the Macintosh operating system. In fact, it can operate as an external drive, booting up a machine and running applications. 

The iPod's FireWire interface -- one of its most important but undersold features -- allows huge files to be copied in seconds. The iPod doesn't even have to leave the user's pocket. 

And while the iPod has a built-in anti-piracy mechanism that prevents music files from being copied from one computer to another, it has no such protections for software. 

Ironically, Microsoft has pioneered an easy-to-use installation scheme on the Mac that makes its Mac software relatively easy to pilfer. The company is known for its sometimes heavy-handed, anti-piracy mechanisms in such products as Windows XP. 

When installing Office, users simply drag and drop the Office folder to their hard drive. Everything is included, including a self-repair mechanism that replaces critical files in the system folder. 

By contrast, a lot of software on the Windows platform relies on a bunch of system files that are only installed during an installation process. Simply copying an application from one machine to another will not work. 


Plus, getting a copy of the software application is only half the battle: most software won't work without a registration number. Usable serial numbers, however, are readily available on Usenet, IRC, Hotline and applications like Hacks and Cracks. 

"This is the first we have heard of this form of piracy," said Erik Ryan, a Microsoft product manager. "And while this is a possibility, people should be reminded that this is considered theft." 

While the iPod may be ideal for a software-stealing spree, there are a number of other devices on the market that could also be used by virtual shoplifters. As well as any external FireWire drive, there are now a number of tiny key-chain drives that plug into computers' USB ports, like M-Systems' DiskOnKey and Trek2000's ThumbDrive. 

Most key-chain drives work with both Macs and PCs. Some are available with up to one gigabyte of storage space. However, most USB ports are a lot slower than FireWire, requiring the virtual shoplifter to hang around while the ill-gotten gains are transferring. 

CompUSA and other computer stores could take a few simple steps to prevent software from being copied, said Mac expert Dave Horrigan, who writes a syndicated Macintosh column. 

Any Mac can easily be configured to allow changes only by administrators, he said. Also, a system profile tool logs all peripheral equipment, but it must be running to log an iPod. For Macs running OS X, a locked dummy file in an application's package will protect the entire file from being copied without a password. 

But Horrigan didn't think the iPod presents a serious piracy threat to Microsoft, and doubted the company would take special measures to prevent in-store copying. 

"If Microsoft puts in protection it almost always screws up and causes problems for them or their legit users," he said. 

Dennis Lloyd, publisher of iPod fan site iPodlounge, also said this is the first time he'd heard of an iPod put to such use. 

"I can see how easy it would be to do," he said. "It's a shame someone has stooped this low to bring bad press to the insanely great iPod." 
---------

So warez on iPod is an option, too 

AppleWatcher


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 2, 2002)

If there are 1000000 people stealing my music or my software I'm a happy man.


----------



## edX (Mar 2, 2002)

so herve, where is your music and software. you know i'm willing to help make you a happy man


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 2, 2002)

1 the avatar
2 in a removable notebook


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 2, 2002)

public class Imac
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
        System.out.print("Imac\n\n");
        System.out.print("computer: 43490 BEF\n");
        int ic = 43490;
        System.out.print("diskettedrijf: 3999 BEF\n\n");
        int dd = 3999;
        System.out.print("totaal: ");
        System.out.print(ic + dd);
        System.out.print(" BEF\n\n");
        System.out.print("Ericom Pentium4\n\n");
        System.out.print("processor + geheugen: 42000 BEF\n");
        int pg = 42000;
        System.out.print("moederbord: 19600 BEF\n\n");
        int mb = 19600;
        System.out.print("totaal: ");
        System.out.print(pg + mb);
        System.out.print(" BEF");
}
}


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 2, 2002)

herve what do you mean?

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 4, 2002)

just liftin'


----------



## benpoole (Mar 5, 2002)

I don't use much on my iMac. It's running OS 8.6, it's all kind of long in the tooth... All the software I use is either:

Free
Paid-for shareware
Came with the Mac / Printer / Scanner
Demo software

The last apps I bought were:

- NewsHopper (HOW old?!?)
This software cost me £50, and a few months later the author stopped developing due to illness. So I have one useless app dating back from my Mac Classic days. I used to love offline news reading... but I'm wary of paying again for such an application (e.g. Hogwash).

- Anarchie - I paid for this twice with its various upgrades over the years...

... Then I paid for the upgrade to Interarchy...

... Then Stairways Software automatically upgraded me to v5.0 of Interarchy and demanded another fee so that I could use it. This bugs the hell out of me, so I refuse to use it any more. When I asked for version 4.0 back (for which I had a valid licence), Stairways ignored me. So stuff them.

This last episode especially means that I do understand why some people use warez when they get "bitten" like this, but of course I can't condone it 

Moving on, the whole "try before you buy" notion is a good one IMHO.

If more manufacturers made free, fully-functional but time-limited versions of their key applications, then this would be good for everyone: students can learn how to use them; people for whom the £££ outlay is large (e.g. me and Dreamweaver or whatever)can check they could really use the software, and manufacturers widen their potential customer base.

And oh yeah, teeny nerds get to learn to hack


----------



## ksv (Mar 5, 2002)

I bought the Vicomsoft SurfDoubler for OS 9 several months ago, when I didn't have any desktop computers running OS X. It cost me around 50-60 $, I think. Now they are selling the same app for OS X for 150 $, but without the 3-user limit, with no way to upgrade from the OS 9 version, although they said they would make a "lite" version for OS X too. If OS X didn't have built-in routing capabilities, I'd seriously consider stealing that app...
I can't understand how they get customers at all, when a hardware router costs the half, and routing through OS X is free, easier, and much faster...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 5, 2002)

That's another reason to use warez:

You don't have to pay for software which is going to be cheaper than the price you bought it for...

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 5, 2002)

Ok, time for a re-cap and compilation, if you ask me... please fill in any blanks or add to anything you see fit.

*Reasons to pirate software:*
...it's free!
...it saves time and money on the consumer's part!
...it saves me a trip to the store, where I wouldn't have spent the money anyways!  (most of the people in favor of piracy here are under the age of 18, meaning they have little to no money or income anyways... I haven't heard from a rich minor here yet!)
...I can get expensive stuff I normally wouldn't have access to and live outside my income bracket, even if it means sitting my fat, lazy ass in front of a computer all day!
...who needs sunshine, anyways?

*Reasons NOT to pirate software:*
...it's illegal!
...it's debateably immoral!
...it hurts the software companies!  (one small reason prices of software are high is BECAUSE of piracy, morons!)
...it's related to stealing, which brands people "thieves!"
...it promotes laziness by giving people one more reason to sit inside when they could be outside!
...it hurts OTHER consumers by driving prices up!
...it could mean harsher, more ridiculous software activation schemes in the future! (remember when you didn't even NEED a license key or serial number to use a piece of software?  Why do you think we have to now?!)
...it's counter-productive, and used mostly to "show-off," which is a juvenile act in itself!

Anything I left out?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 5, 2002)

> ...it hurts the software companies! (one small reason prices of software are high is BECAUSE of piracy, morons!)



Small question: Does it hurt Microsoft?!

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 5, 2002)

Yup.  Can you provide me one example of a company that DOESN'T hurt when people steal their software or products?  Sure, Microsoft's got billions of dollars, but if we agree that stealing software can drive prices up, then looking at Microsoft, I'd say that piracy gave them a swift kick to the groin area and that's why we now have to pay $500 for their Office suite.  Also probably why Windows XP registration/activation is so ridiculous.

Load up LimeWire or whatever Gnutella program you've got... or search Hotline or Carracho for "Microsoft."  You'll see PAGES and PAGES of Microsoft software, ready to be pirated.  Microsoft software is hands-down, the most commonly pirated software.  Would you disagree?


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 5, 2002)

Mabey Adobe, but thats problably more of the mac scene.

Mabey some versions of spyware benefit by stealing?


----------



## theed (Mar 5, 2002)

*steps up onto soapbox*

one reason you missed, stealing software is about the only way to protect the rights of the consumer against the absurdly pro-industry lines of law (copyright forever, buying a CD to not own it, agreeing to an indecipherable anal raping agreement prior to being allowed to even install software, price gouging ...)

OK, yeah, it's illegal, how often do we repeal laws?  Everything in the US is illegal.  It's illegal to wash a donkey in your bathtub in Iowa if I remember correctly.  

And finally, by stealing M$ office for compatibility with other people who have been effectively brainwashed into thinking that everyone likes wants and uses M$ Office, just so that I can read their documents, yet I never of my own free will use the product for anything, and all the stuff I send back to those people is in rtf, or pdf, or whatnot, then I am protecting myself against M$, and keeping money that I can then spend on legitimate products like AppleWorks, iCab, GraphicConverter, etc.  Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

I am a finite, limited resource; and so is my money.  I'll be damned if I am going to misappropriate my own funds according to law to benefit those who are the greatest burden to society while good, hard working, honest people go unrewarded.  This country was founded by people willing to say "screw you" to a government incapable of addressing the needs of the people in the modern time.  I put 3 years of my life into the Army, so it's not like I don't care, or I don't put my money where my mouth is.  But the consumer is getting screwed over by the law and by big business at this time, and I believe that's one of the major reasons for this whole recession.

Until companies loosen their grip, we don't buy shit.  and now we're at an impasse. but the companies don't budge.  RIAA, MPAA, Disney and all the owners of these extended copyrights want greater protection from the government instead of putting power back in the hands of the people.  Well if tehy can't give me back my own purchasing power, and the government seems not to care about me either, then I will take what I feel is rightfully mine through whatever means I can.  Legal or not.  

I have debated the moral issue for a long time.  I am all about doing good for society and benefiting the world whether I see just compensation or not.  And companies who obviously don't believe in these same things, will need both legal and physical protection from me taking from them what I feel they are unreasonably taking away.

Brand me as a criminal if you must.  But judge me slow, I am not a simple man, and this is not a simple case.  I will copy media which I have bought a license to listen to, to any media I feel fit to use, for my own personal use.  Either you sell me a DVD, or grant me a license to use.  I'll abide by either, but not both.  I'll be copying my DVD's to CD's so my 5 yr old son can watch Cats & Dogs or The Iron Giant on my laptop which lacks DVD.  I'll by copying my tapes ond CD's to mp3 for use in my car via the same laptop, or maybe if I get the cash, and mp3 player.

Consumers will have cash, that cash will be spent on what the consumer feels best benefits him and the people he cares about.  It is unreasonable, and against the very nature of capitalism to rely on government intervention to guarantee a cut of the consumer cash flow.  If all the laws were gone, people would still spend money.  It only has power if you spend it.  Hoarding it has no value.  Competition would continue.  So why are my rights being stripped away?  Why doesn't the US government at least admit to being socialist or something instead of holding a facade of capitalism up while they strip their consumers of their rights because business can afford lobbyists and lawyers?

If I thought I could make a difference as a lawyer or a politician, I'd become one, but the system is too bizarre for me to understand any more.  I fear I'd be sucked in and spit out, all used up, without ever making a difference in the machine.  I understand computers.  So that's where I'll stand by what's right and wrong, in terms I can understand, in a medium that I feel I still have some control over.  I have some good friends in politics and law, and I hope they can make the difference that I can't.  Rest assured they all have good web sites.  And the companies that helped me to produce those quality web sites have been justly compensated.  More so than I have been justly compensated.  

This fight is far from over.  And I don't really care which side you are on in the end, so long as you are there by your own choice, and you realize that there is a battle of rights going on.  And both sides have things to say.  And that laws do not make morality, or right and wrong.  They are lines we agree to, so that we can all live reasonably.  And I don't want consumers to become the slaves of corporations in a less than free country of our own making.

* bows head, and steps off of soapbox *


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *one reason you missed, stealing software is about the only way to protect the rights of the consumer against the absurdly pro-industry lines of law (copyright forever, buying a CD to not own it, agreeing to an indecipherable anal raping agreement prior to being allowed to even install software, price gouging ...)*



Stealing software is NOT just about the only way to protect consumers against pro-industry lines of law -- this country is capitalistic, and its main goal is to make money, plain and simple.  In a socialist-kind of society, or even communist, EVERYONE would be able to afford the same software.  Not here.  The US is set up so that people can go as far as they want to in the direction of wealth and stop where they see fit -- all the tools and materials necessary are there for the taking to go all the way -- and it really peeves me when someone stops halfway then bitches about where they are in life.

*



			OK, yeah, it's illegal, how often do we repeal laws?  Everything in the US is illegal.  It's illegal to wash a donkey in your bathtub in Iowa if I remember correctly.
		
Click to expand...

*
I understand -- there are some silly laws still around.  If I remember correctly, it's illegal to walk backwards eating ice cream outside on a Wednesday in New York...

*



			And finally, by stealing M$ office for compatibility with other people who have been effectively brainwashed into thinking that everyone likes wants and uses M$ Office, just so that I can read their documents, yet I never of my own free will use the product for anything, and all the stuff I send back to those people is in rtf, or pdf, or whatnot, then I am protecting myself against M$, and keeping money that I can then spend on legitimate products like AppleWorks, iCab, GraphicConverter, etc.  Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
		
Click to expand...

*
There are plenty of ways to have compatibility with those "brain-washed" individuals besides stealing the software they're using: AppleWorks, for example.

*



			I am a finite, limited resource; and so is my money.  I'll be damned if I am going to misappropriate my own funds according to law to benefit those who are the greatest burden to society while good, hard working, honest people go unrewarded.  This country was founded by people willing to say "screw you" to a government incapable of addressing the needs of the people in the modern time.  I put 3 years of my life into the Army, so it's not like I don't care, or I don't put my money where my mouth is.  But the consumer is getting screwed over by the law and by big business at this time, and I believe that's one of the major reasons for this whole recession.
		
Click to expand...

*
No, you are not a finite, limited resource -- and if you are at this current point in time, you are by your own free will.  You and everyone else in this country have the ability to go as far as you want to -- YES, it will be hard and a struggle, but you could be rich next year if you really put your mind to it and took risks, which are another thing that this country is all about.  How did we get so damn powerful and big in a little over 200 years?  We took risks and put our full efforts into everything we did.

...and there's a legal, effective way to say "screw you" to the government -- change the laws.  Don't break them -- change them.  YES, it is a long and tedious process to change a law, but the ability to do so is there, and you have to keep in mind that you're not changing the law to benefit yourself -- you're changing the law to benefit EVERYONE -- people YEARS down the road.  Imagine if changing the law was simple and quick -- laws would change so damn quick that one thing you did today would be illegal tomorrow.  Sheer chaos.  It's long and tedious for a reason -- to make damn sure it's the right thing to do.

*



			Until companies loosen their grip, we don't buy shit.  and now we're at an impasse. but the companies don't budge.  RIAA, MPAA, Disney and all the owners of these extended copyrights want greater protection from the government instead of putting power back in the hands of the people.  Well if tehy can't give me back my own purchasing power, and the government seems not to care about me either, then I will take what I feel is rightfully mine through whatever means I can.  Legal or not.  

I have debated the moral issue for a long time.  I am all about doing good for society and benefiting the world whether I see just compensation or not.  And companies who obviously don't believe in these same things, will need both legal and physical protection from me taking from them what I feel they are unreasonably taking away.

Brand me as a criminal if you must.  But judge me slow, I am not a simple man, and this is not a simple case.  I will copy media which I have bought a license to listen to, to any media I feel fit to use, for my own personal use.  Either you sell me a DVD, or grant me a license to use.  I'll abide by either, but not both.  I'll be copying my DVD's to CD's so my 5 yr old son can watch Cats & Dogs or The Iron Giant on my laptop which lacks DVD.  I'll by copying my tapes ond CD's to mp3 for use in my car via the same laptop, or maybe if I get the cash, and mp3 player.

Consumers will have cash, that cash will be spent on what the consumer feels best benefits him and the people he cares about.  It is unreasonable, and against the very nature of capitalism to rely on government intervention to guarantee a cut of the consumer cash flow.  If all the laws were gone, people would still spend money.  It only has power if you spend it.  Hoarding it has no value.  Competition would continue.  So why are my rights being stripped away?  Why doesn't the US government at least admit to being socialist or something instead of holding a facade of capitalism up while they strip their consumers of their rights because business can afford lobbyists and lawyers?

If I thought I could make a difference as a lawyer or a politician, I'd become one, but the system is too bizarre for me to understand any more.  I fear I'd be sucked in and spit out, all used up, without ever making a difference in the machine.  I understand computers.  So that's where I'll stand by what's right and wrong, in terms I can understand, in a medium that I feel I still have some control over.  I have some good friends in politics and law, and I hope they can make the difference that I can't.  Rest assured they all have good web sites.  And the companies that helped me to produce those quality web sites have been justly compensated.  More so than I have been justly compensated.  

This fight is far from over.  And I don't really care which side you are on in the end, so long as you are there by your own choice, and you realize that there is a battle of rights going on.  And both sides have things to say.  And that laws do not make morality, or right and wrong.  They are lines we agree to, so that we can all live reasonably.  And I don't want consumers to become the slaves of corporations in a less than free country of our own making.

* bows head, and steps off of soapbox *
		
Click to expand...

*
Hehe... as much as I disagree with you, I DO thank you for your input -- I really didn't want to see this thread go the way of mindless babble, and you've helped me to engage once again in intelligent conversation instead of one-line quips and what-not.

Let's not confuse our facts here -- I'm against stealing.  I still think stealing bread to feed hungry mouths is wrong, but it's a justifiable wrong.  One time doing that is allowable, but when the mother does nothing to better her situation and resorts to a life of stealing bread, then she has failed, not society or the government.  This government is here to let you become rich beyond your wildest dreams, or to sit on your ass and do nothing and be as poor as you want -- it's completely the individual's decision.  Some people have to fight tooth and nail to get where they want to be; others it comes easy.  That's the way it is, that's the way it's supposed to be.

Stealing software has just opened our eyes to ridiculous licensing schemes and what-not -- it's not the answer to it.


----------



## vic (Mar 6, 2002)

somebody has toom much time on their hands


----------



## benpoole (Mar 6, 2002)

Thanks!



Anyway, re this:


> The US is set up so that people can go as far as they want to in the direction of wealth and stop where they see fit -- all the tools and materials necessary are there for the taking to go all the way -- and it really peeves me when someone stops halfway then bitches about where they are in life.


As a view of life and the world, Isn't that just a _teensy-weensy_ bit simplistic?!?


----------



## fryke (Mar 6, 2002)

ah, yeah. 

"Hmm, I need Microsoft Office v. X in order to view that customer's file. Maybe it's time I went into politics and changed the laws, so I could use Office for free."

Not only that I'm *not* American (so it wouldn't be of much use to go to *your* government), I also believe that your post is a bit too far off for the discussion.

Isn't it really easy? It's illegal to copy software of which you don't own a license. You *can* of course use software illegally, but it won't be illegal whatever *reasons* you provide.

But going into politics or trying to change laws (what good'll that do? do you think it'll help software development to legalise software theft?!) isn't an *option* for someone who needs a particular piece of software he hasn't got the money for. becoming rich might be an option, but not from now to tomorrow.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 6, 2002)

Sure, that view of life and the world *IS* a bit simplistic, but it's not far off... a capitalistic society lets people go as far and as high as they want, within the limits of the laws.  Plain and simple.

...and one needn't become a politician or lawyer to change a law.  A homeless person could have influence in changing a law -- INFLUENCE, mind you.  One person cannot change a law.  If only one person wanted a law changed, then I'd be inclined to say that the law is serving its purpose as it stands and that one person just better find a way to work with it.

I think it's a greedy and immature view to say that one NEEDS a piece of software today.  Sure, you may require a certain software package to be able to "get" or "hold" a certain client, but NEED is a bit extreme... it seems that a lot of people these days have REALLy confused the ideas behind "want" and "need."  You NEED food.  You WANT software.  Comparing someone who steals bread to feed their family and someone who steals software for their own benefit is a good example of the difference between WANT and NEED.

If someone wants Office v.X, they go buy it.  If they don't have the money, they wait and save.  "But Office is the standard, and I NEED it today!"  Would you hear someone saying that Hondas are the standard car onte road, therefore they NEED a Honda?  Would you hear someone saying that tennis shoes are the standard, therefore they NEED to get rid of their boots and buy tennis shoes?  Of course not!  Office is NOT the standard.  Bill Gates does not set the standard.  Microsoft does not set the standard.  Guess what the standard is?  RTF, if I'm not mistaken... if it's not that, then it's plain text format.  Not Microsoft Word format.  Bill Gates and Microsoft have just invented a wildly popular product, which is NOT the standard.  It's just popular.  Does that make it a necessity?  Nope.  I get by day after day without Office, if I want to.

I still believe people nowadays take a look at their government (in the US) and think that they're not a part of it.  This sounds cheezy and stupid like Social Studies from 7th grade, but this country really is "for the people, by the people."  Everyone has the power to influence where this country and government goes and does, but instead, they resort to theft, because it's the easy way out, and they think they have no power.  Get some cajones, straighten that jelly-fish backbone, and get involved.  Don't sit on the sidelines watching this thing unfold in front of you.  Go join a MUG somewhere and get some people organized.  Write a letter.  Do something other than sit on your ass and complain about how things are and be a thief.

To those that think that piracy is the only way out -- what other tactics have you tried besides whining in an on-line forum and theft?


----------



## benpoole (Mar 6, 2002)

> To those that think that piracy is the only way out -- what other tactics have you tried besides whining in an on-line forum and theft?


Well, I don't think piracy is the only way out, nor -- as I have already stated -- do I condone it.

What I _would_ say is that some software houses' actions (or lack of) have led me to move away from their products. Now, I don't use on-line forums to whine about this _per se_, but to warn others. Simple as that.

Re capitalism etc., of course that's the idea. The practice is very different. That sort of argument -- anyone being able to go as high as they want -- holds about as much water as saying that the UK is a true democracy or that the US is a class-less society!

Anyway, with regards the whole M$ Office debate, I too have gotten by without it ever having sullied my various Macs' hard drives. However, I appreciate some people's issues with the popularity of MS Word etc. There are other ways of opening Office documents -- AppleWorks being just one option (and if you can't afford AppleWorks... Jeez!) -- but it seems a shame that the old free "viewer" technology no longer figures in M$'s thinking.

By way of example: before we were issued with M$ Office on our work PCs, we used Lotus SmartSuite. However, a lot of clients used Word & Excel, so we all had the free M$ Word and Excel file viewers on our PCs... kind of like having Acrobat Reader but not the full Acrobat product I guess. I wonder if anything like this ever existed for the Mac?

Also, what about StarOffice? I haven't searched yet, but has anyone ported the Linux version to Mac OS X? I guess that would be kind of a major job...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 6, 2002)

If I'm not mistaken, you can purchase Word separately from the rest of the Office suite for, what, $150?  At least you can for the PC -- I dunno about the Mac.  Some people may say, "Whoa, $150 for a word-processor?!"  However, if their view of Microsoft Word is simply a word-processor, they've been living in a cave for the last 5 or 10 years.  I think $150 is a fair price to ask for Microsoft Word, with all the bells and whistles it comes with.  Then you get people going, "Whoa, I don't need this BLOATware crap!"  Well, go spend $100 on AppleWorks and get all the functionality you'll ever need.  

And yes, Microsoft has taken a very closed-minded, monopolistic approach to their platform and software.  No longer will they open up their proprietary formats so that we can all view their documents -- they WANT us to plop down $500 on their software.  But stealing it isn't the answer -- sure, it's illegal, but by stealing it and using it you just bought your ass a one-way ticket into their monopoly, and you just got brainwashed and suckered into using their software just like the people who actually paid cash for it.

Microsoft will get what they deserve in court.  It's not up to us to decide that it's ok to steal from them.  It's illegal to steal from a criminal, it's illegal to steal from an honest man -- it's just plain illegal to steal, period.  Just because Microsoft has done wrong doesn't justify any of the people's actions on this forum who are stealing their software.  You feel Microsoft is stealing from society?  You are, too, if you're involved in software theft.  So choose a side, but don't keep one foot on one side, saying you're an upstanding citizen fighting for the good of society, and keep one foot on the other side and outright steal.  That's pretty hypocritical and counter-productive to what you claim you're trying to accomplish.

Stealing it is illegal.  You're not hurting Microsoft -- you're helping them if you steal Office.  You're hurting other consumers and yourself by giving software vendors a reason to hike prices.  But as for Microsoft, you're helping them!  Instead of being the rebel that changes the world as we know it by using alternative software packages and resisting the Microsoft-Word-.DOC-becoming-standard, you're adding to Microsoft's user base and making them even more monopolistic and helping expand their empire.

Fine, people, pirate away at Microsoft with that smirk on your face like you're doing some good -- you're just buying into the monopoly through a side-entrance.  Just be aware of what you're really doing and stop fooling yourself.  You're helping Microsoft, not hurting them.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 6, 2002)

Just went to http://www.dabs.com/mac here in the UK

They're selling MS Word 2001 on its own for £276!!

Or MS Word 2001 with Entourage for £140.

Go figure...

As for Office v.X, you only seem to be able to buy the whole suite, not individual applications.

What a bargain.


----------



## QuackingPenguin (Mar 6, 2002)

Ok, woah. How in f***'s name do you get SIXTEEN FREAKIN PAGES?

I got to 8, reading every single f***ing entry, then gave up and clicked last to see where it ended up.

Funny how everyone is obsessed with frickin pirated Photoshop and Office eh?

And now for my two cents:

In april or may of 1999, i bought My first computer. mum and dad had an LCII but i wanted a new imac. so i bought one with money mum had given me a few months before. i got ripped off wildly. but i thought it was cool then. a little while later, after spending countless hours in chatrooms, and not knowing about many mac-alternatives, i went back asking about how to run windows on their as well. $399 australian later, i was the owner of a legal VPC 3.0 licence.

Not including software that is bundled with Macs today, (OS, AppleWorks with iSeries, iMovie with some, etc) i have never bought a piece of software since. 

I have OS X. i didnt pay for it.
i have Office X, 2001, and 98. i didnt pay for any of them.
i have vpc 4. i didnt pay for it.
i have fireworks 3 and 4, dreamweaver 3 and 4, flash 5. a dodgy copy of photoshop...6, and various other adobe apps. i didnt pay for a single one.

the point is, i have no qualms about downloading illegal software. with the bloated prices of ALL software today (wtf is a FREE $20 update?) i must have over $20 000 worth of software, if you include things like reg. codes for QT, codecs, fonts, etc.

I have maybe...4, 5 gig of "pirate" software, now that i have os x. am i bragging? no. do i wish the software was "legal"? sometimes, when i think what a pretty picture all the "aqua" style boxes must look like on a wall together . would i have the software if i HAD to buy it? Nope. i have Word, etc. because it has more features than appleworks, and i now how to use them, and, it is SO much easier for doing work at TAFE (a bit like uni) without having to keep converting shit.

As a guy who works in web-design said to me last year, specifically about cracks/warez for Adobe/Macromedia apps.
They don't care about home users. if you start to make money, you should buy it.
Hell, the comany doesnt even have 100% legit software. they own the stuff that makes them money, but the tech guy there uses some slightly dodgy stuff every now and then. while i was there, he used a dodgy serial number for an app they owned, because he lost the original.

the point is, 
some people say they will pay when they start making money, or can afford to.
i, and many others have said we wouldnt buy the software anyway.

some say that we ae hurting developers, just like stealing a car.
not really.
steal a car, and an actual item is missing, and an actual insurance company has to payout actual money. 
COPY software and all you get is a copy. sure we don't buy it, but i don't think anyone would "steal" a copy just because they can, if they were intending to buy it.

you cant lose out on money someone wasnt going to spend.

thats my twenty two cents.

goodnight.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 6, 2002)

I think another point is this:

Isn't it true that everyone here just wants to pay for Apple's software? I do! I paid for Mac OS X, for Mac OS X 10.1 and if 10.2's out I'm gonna pay for it, too!

Office v. X is quite nice, but I don't want to pay Microsoft as much as I want to pay Apple. 

Simply because I (everyone here, I think ) love(s) Apple...
You like Adobe, don't you ElDiablo 

AppleWatcher


UPDATE: Hey benpool: It's possible to buy only Word & Entourage without Excel & Powerpoint.


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 6, 2002)

What is better having ideas and sharing them than having no ideas at all?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *Simply because I (everyone here, I think ) love(s) Apple...
> You like Adobe, don't you ElDiablo *



Hehe... both Apple and Adobe are high on my "favorites" list.  I think they produce some damn good software.

Macromedia's pretty decent in my opinion, too.

Extensis is another fav., though I won't say their software has worked flawlessly under all conditions all the time, though.

Hervé: I think it's best to have no ideas at all and share them.


----------



## ksv (Mar 6, 2002)

Some are discussing what the universe is, why there is life, why there is anything, others are discussing if we should use warez or not...
Some are killing themselves hoping they'll get into a better world when they're dead, others sit in the front of their computers all day, posting to internet boards


----------



## ksv (Mar 6, 2002)

GAH!
Silence.
Wheeeeeee!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 7, 2002)

No ksv no silence anymore 
I'm back!

Ed has left us, hasn't he?!

AppleWatcher


----------



## theed (Mar 7, 2002)

ElDiablo says : Microsoft will get what they deserve in court...

Another point on which we do not agree.  I don't think the law has kept up with technology.

And you say that one should take risks and become rich... you fail to understand the word risk.  I took risks.  I lost my shirt.  I'll do it again after I buy back my shirt.

You say we should try and make a difference instead of whining in a chat room. ... Bills don't go anywhere without popular support.  Lobbying is in part getting common people to see the problem and to desire change.  A bill (law) supported by only one man always dies.  Only when a lot of people understand a problem will they seek a solution.  This post, this conversation with my peers, is part of my plan to make change.  

My final view is that everything is shareware, whether the company tells me it is or not.  And that's about as on topic as I think I can be.

I'll attempt to not post here again, so that I can change my sig   But one last note to ElDiablo:  I like you, your heart seems to be in the right place, but I think you talk more than you listen.


----------



## fryke (Mar 7, 2002)

Again... What do you want to change with bills or laws? Do you want to make copying copyrighted software legal? Where are you from? What are you thinking? Who in their right mind would develop copyrighted software if everyone was allowed to copy it without paying for it? Photoshop? Gone. Office? Gone. Mac OS X? Gone. Yes, there'd still be Linux. But what would Linux be without the lead of commercial software? Innovation is driven by money in software development.

Okay, maybe the Open Source community really *does* innovate. But it can't replace my Mac OS X desktop now or in a year. Gimp can't replace my Photoshop. OpenOffice can't replace Office for now.

So if anyone anywhere would change 'laws'... What does that have to do with the discussion about warez?


----------



## theed (Mar 7, 2002)

I'm not trying to get rid of copyright, but there's a helluvan article in the IEEE Times or whatever it's called, (an EE friend pointed it out to me, I might just subscribe) about copyright law.  Original copyright was described in less than 10 pages, and protected a work for 28 years after availability.  It was put out to protect the author from getting ripped off, and the customer from getting ripped off by an author (or publisher) who hadn't put out anything new in the last half of a century.

Copyright term has been modified 11 times since then, now is described in ~150 pages, and each time its term was changed to be longer and more restrictive to the customer.  It's now what? 78 years after the death of the author?  Tell me Disney isn't yanking on that one with their lobbyists to keep their exclusive hands on Mickey!?!  He's old, he should be public domain now.  I'd consider it rude to talk about Mickey without mentioning Disney, but I should be doing that at this point out of respect for the author, not out of fear of persecution/prosecution.

You should check out my "intellectual thread" in the non-technical section.  It was short lived, but I'm glad I was there.  Theft vs Piracy I think was the name.

I just think that there should be some incentive for companies to open up their IP as public domain stuff.  Right now, there isn't any such incentive, we have ludicrousness like M$ still charging for DOS licenses, and they aren't even the ones who made it to begin with!  Some of this stuff should be free.  Other stuff should have the price brought down for the common good.  Look at the MPEG-LA stuff going on right now.  I see radio stations killing their internet streaming because the licensing fees are getting outrageous.  We're strangling the internet and freedom of information through litigation and overprotection of the businesses.

I'm not looking for anarchy.  I just think things are a little off center.  I'm not saying it's all wrong, but it's not completely perfect either.  There are improvements that could be made.  I want to figure them out and make them.  And I think consumer power needs to be improved, or software piracy will continue, and get worse.  Piracy isn't right, but ignoring it is ignoring a symptom of something else that's wrong; possibly something far more dire.

Damnit, you made me post again.  ;-)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 8, 2002)

Well, I have to assure you, I'm listening as much as I'm talking.  I've heard all sides of the story here from many different, intellectual people (and some NOT so intellectual or intelligent).  I just try to keep this in mind, as I wish the others posting to this forum would try to keep in mind: as much as I think I'm right, that's as much as you think you're right.  And, vice-versa: as much as you think you're right, that's as much as I think I'm right.  You've got TONS of reasons to believe what you believe, and those are no more correct or incorrect or justified or unjustified or numerous or lacking than the reasons I have for supporting my theory.

We must bear in mind that we all believe different things, and this is a place to voice those opinions and beliefs on this topic, but we are not here to accuse or to put down each other based on what we believe.  The only thing we're qualified to do is to present our evidence and opinions and hope that they're taken to heart by the other readers/posters.  I'm not saying that you're wrong for supporting piracy, but in turn, you can't say I'm wrong for not supporting piracy.   You can't say that your view is more correct or justified, just as much as I can't either -- we just have to argue and debate our cases.  I'm not out to change anyone's mind, although if I do, good for me.  

Let's just all try to see each other's opinions and merit each other for being able to substantially argue our respective cases.

And on copyright law -- yeah, it's been changed a TON in the last few decades -- that's how laws get formed and are subtly modified over time to suit the best needs of the citizens and people that the laws govern.  Laws aren't made and then set in stone -- they're a set of guidelines that are continually changing and morphing as times, technology, lifestyles and everything else changes -- they're not permanent.  And as I said in the beginning, this area of technology is in its infancy.  I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if the laws governing this form of technology and theft and piracy were made today and remained unchange even in the face of evolving technology.  I'm glad the laws are changing, and they WILL CONTINUE to lag behind technology -- why?  Because technology has to evolve FIRST before the laws that govern it are written.  That's how the laws governing ANY area of life go... change first, laws second.  Show me one area of life where the law was written before the event actually happened.  However, it is up to the good citizens of this nation and world to see when something isn't quite right, even though there isn't a law against it.  That, in my opinion, is not being a good citizen.  People looking for loopholes to somehow "get around" doing shady things because there isn't a specific law governing against that is kinda immoral, in my opinion.

Remember OJ?  Anyone here HAPPY about the way things played out there?  Loopholes -- people looking for ways around things.  It's our duty as citizens to refrain from doing something we know is underhanded or may be illegal even if there's no law specifically forbidding us to do it.  To those that do pirate programs: if Adobe walked into your home or office tomorrow and was pissed off that you pirated PhotoShop, would you be shocked and appalled?  Would you retort, "What am I doing wrong?"  Or would you KNOW that Adobe was somehow justified for feeling the way they do about your actions?  Would you KNOW that what you're doing somehow is perfectly legal and ok?  would you try to justify your actions to Adobe?  Do you think they'd be receptive to your reasons?  Would you hope Adobe would walk quietly away mumbling, "Oh, I see the light now -- that person isn't doing anything wrong!"  The point I'm trying to make is that most people pirating programs KNOW that it's looked at as shady, underhanded, and somewhat illegal, but they continue to do it, just because they can.

Another reason laws lag behind in technology is because people need to be damn sure that the law fits whatever it's trying to govern.  As I stated before, this would be a sad state in my opinion if some new technology emerged and a law was hastefully written trying to govern it the very next day.  Chances are that the law would backfire, or loopholes would be found, or it would somehow be damaging instead of helping on the whole.  The process is long and tedious for a reason -- it's gotta go through the "ringer" quite a few times, be examined over and over again, rewritten, changed, modified, etc. before it can be said that, for the moment, "this is how it's gonna be."  It's not slow and tedious because the government is inefficient... the government is MEANT to be slow and tedious to protect how things seem to be working.  When something is thrown up that puts a wrench into those plans, change BEGINS to happen, but doesn't happen overnight.  Piracy, in the scope of the history of technology, isn't even a blip on the radar yet.  How can we expect a good, solid law or laws to be written about that?  It's another form of protecting your intellectual property, and if I were Adobe, I'd rather watch my program get pirated a few times and actually believe that something, someone is thinking hard about how to protect me without rushing into some ill-thought out conclusion within a day.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *Well, I have to assure you, I'm listening as much as I'm talking.  I've heard all sides of the story here from many different, intellectual people (and some NOT so intellectual or intelligent).  I just try to keep this in mind, as I wish the others posting to this forum would try to keep in mind: as much as I think I'm right, that's as much as you think you're right.  And, vice-versa: as much as you think you're right, that's as much as I think I'm right.  You've got TONS of reasons to believe what you believe, and those are no more correct or incorrect or justified or unjustified or numerous or lacking than the reasons I have for supporting my theory.
> 
> We must bear in mind that we all believe different things, and this is a place to voice those opinions and beliefs on this topic, but we are not here to accuse or to put down each other based on what we believe.  The only thing we're qualified to do is to present our evidence and opinions and hope that they're taken to heart by the other readers/posters.  I'm not saying that you're wrong for supporting piracy, but in turn, you can't say I'm wrong for not supporting piracy.   You can't say that your view is more correct or justified, just as much as I can't either -- we just have to argue and debate our cases.  I'm not out to change anyone's mind, although if I do, good for me.
> ...



I have not the time to read all this, but I think you've made a clear point. 

But what do programmers at Adobe earn? Does somebody know that?

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 8, 2002)

Programmers at Adobe, depending on what level of programming they're involved in, make a damn good bit of money -- because they make a damn good bit of programs.

Programmers tend to get paid very well, since they are the life-blood of the computing industry -- without software, what good would hardware be?  Those who fill a necessity for another industry, or a related industry, like the software and hardware industries, tend to get paid very well, as they are filling a need.  Like doctors -- what good would $100,000 dialysis (sp?) machine be without someone who knew what the hell it did?  What about all those shiny knives and scalpels and what not?  What about those mega-million dollar operating rooms?  We need highly-paid individuals who know what to do with all that... similar to computers/software.  We need people who know what all those chips and circuits and 1s and 0s do.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 8, 2002)

> without software, what good would hardware be?


>> You should ask that question 'inverted'... 


And, ElDiablo, do you think that programmers would earn a dollar less if there are some people that are using their program(s) illegal (war-ez ) 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 8, 2002)

Yup, I sure the hell do!

If the company is losing revenue because 25% of its consumer base never paid for the program, then the company is losing money and the programmers will get paid less.  You can't have a company where the programmers get paid more than the company makes.  Programmers get paid well for many hours of hard work -- I don't think anyone would disagree with me.  If we had a bunch of programmers working for minimum wage, what kind of product do you think they'd produce?  Think of all the people working at McDonald's or Whataburger or Burger King... wanna know why they consistently mess up your order?  Because they're getting paid peanuts, and there's no incentive to do anything.  There's no incentive to make a "quality" product or pay attention to detail or be accurate, because the money's not there... they can just go out and get hired by Subway the next day... now imagine a McDonald's where the employees and drive-thru attendants got paid $45,000/year.  Damn, that's some incentive to be accurate, make sure that the order is right, keep the boss happy and keep your position making that much money.  Paying programmers a lot gives them incentive to make a quality product, which is something that is needed on a computer.  Imagine if your computer screwed up as many times as McDonald's did.  You press '3' and it types 'B' three out of five times.  Ouch.

I know, I know -- someone who thinks they've got it all figured out is going to say, "Yeah, but a few people pirating a program doesn't generate a loss for the company."  Bullshit.  It affects the company, no matter how big or how small -- it's the same excuse people use to justify not voting... "But, (sniff, whine) my vote alone can't make a difference!"  BINGO, people!  You, alone, does not comprise this city or state or country or world -- that's the whole idea... duh.  It's for the COMMON good, not the SINGULAR good.

Take this for example.  25% of a product sold is pirated.  The company is doing ok.  Jack that up to 50%.  The company is obviously hurting a little.  75% = hurting more.  100% = company produces product, makes NO money.  It's economies of scale... every little bit counts.  A little pirating, nothing to get your panties in a wad over, but keep increasing that and the problem gets worse and worse.  We're at the "panties in a wad," level right now, which just means that all the companies are doing is jacking up the prices of the software to make up for losses.  It's a circular problem; one feeds off the other.  More pirating, prices go up... prices go up, people feel the need to pirate more.  It never ends, but it is DEFINITELY one side's fault: the piraters.  If the companies didn't jack prices up, they couldn't stay in business making a profit, and if they're not making a profit, they're certainly not going to stay in business, and if they're out of business, they're certainly not making any products for people to pirate.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 8, 2002)

> Take this for example. 25% of a product sold is pirated. The company is doing ok. Jack that up to 50%. The company is obviously hurting a little. 75% = hurting more. 100% = company produces product, makes NO money. It's economies of scale... every little bit counts. A little pirating, nothing to get your panties in a wad over, but keep increasing that and the problem gets worse and worse. We're at the "panties in a wad," level right now, which just means that all the companies are doing is jacking up the prices of the software to make up for losses. It's a circular problem; one feeds off the other. More pirating, prices go up... prices go up, people feel the need to pirate more. It never ends, but it is DEFINITELY one side's fault: the piraters. If the companies didn't jack prices up, they couldn't stay in business making a profit, and if they're not making a profit, they're certainly not going to stay in business, and if they're out of business, they're certainly not making any products for people to pirate.



I'm sorry El but this is not realistic. I was talking about personal use; companies HAVE TO pay for software. I'm convinced that almost every company (especially in America) is using legal software.
Because of that few personal warez-users won't lose the company about 50%!!!!!!

AppleWatcher


----------



## theed (Mar 9, 2002)

Points on which I find ElDiablo and I disagree at a fundamental level, which is why we'll never reconcile our differences about this topic:

El thinks the system is working; I think the system is harming consumers.  We're both kinda right, but I'm feeling the recession more than he is apparently. (or something)

Programmers get paid a lot.  ummm - eat me.  That's like saying actors get paid a lot.  I work hard and I get crap.  It's not all about hard work, or even skill, 'cause I've got all that.  I even took risks, but alas, I'm broke as hell at the moment.  It's going around in the US too, just watch as all the programming in the next 10 years goes to India and China.  "Will Code for Food" here in the US.

My money is infinite:  El thinks I have all the money I want to have if I'm willing to work for it.  I'm not yet working at McDonald's, but it's getting close to that time.  Programmers, Network admins, etc. are not very "in demand" right now.

Me pirating means a company is losing money:  I don't think it's that clear, and this is related to the previous point.  If I have $2000 annual disposable income that I put toward computer stuff, then stuff over $2000 doesn't get paid for.  It doesn't matter how much stuff I use, or what they charge, my budget is limited to $2000 / year. (theoretically that is, right now it's $0 per year)  If it comes down to pirating photoshop or me not eating ... Me not using photoshop doesn't help Adobe get money.  No money out is no money out without regard to my use of the product.

You get what you pay for:  Nope. I've seen many people get paid the same amount, and they did vastly different quantities of work.  Some people work because work needs to be done, others don't because they can get away with not working.  Social workers work their butts off most of the time and get paid squat; and I've seen some real lazy rich bastards at AT&T.  People are inherently lazy and selfish, and I don't think Bill Gates has done the world a large enough service to deserve being the richest man in the world.  That money came from somewhere, perhaps it was price gouging on the part of the software maker?  Oh well, they'll probably get what they deserve in the European courts.  

I hope you don't think I'm ripping on you El, I'm not. I just think it's amazing how two intelligent people in this world can have such completely divergent views of the world.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *Points on which I find ElDiablo and I disagree at a fundamental level, which is why we'll never reconcile our differences about this topic:
> 
> El thinks the system is working; I think the system is harming consumers.  We're both kinda right, but I'm feeling the recession more than he is apparently. (or something)
> ...



Eh... That's what I mean, ElDiablo 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 10, 2002)

Hehe... yes, we have radically different views of how things are... and yes, we're both pretty damn intelligent!  

At any rate, I've gotta say a few things again, of course.  I DO think the system is working -- well, not quite.  I think there's a system, and I know the basic ins and outs of the system, and I'm making it work for me -- I don't think the system is there to help me.  I know it, I work it, and I do what I can to maximize my profits and well-being within reason and within the limits of the system.  Yes, there are ways to accomplish just that working OUTSIDE the system, but for me, the risks of doing that outweigh the benefits.

You can go outside and lift a 300 pound boulder over your head then drop it 500 times and get paid nothing.  Do you deserve anything?  Probably not, you're just doing hard work.  Hard work does not equate to getting paid well, although sometimes they co-exist.  Getting paid well means learning how to maximize your profits while doing little work -- because the less work you are able to do and still make a profit, well, then, you can do a LOT of little things that require less work and get paid a lot.  Sounds dumb, but it's true.  That's why CEOs can play golf 4 days a week -- they know how to make money while they're not even working... although I'll venture to say that most millionaires and billionaires have done their fair share of hard work in their life.  If the road you're on doesn't visibly lead you to riches, why are you on it, if riches are your goal?  

Yes, there are people who don't work much and get paid a lot.  Lucky them!  I'm not one of them.  I don't get paid ridiculous amounts of money.  I don't get paid peanuts on the other hand, either.  I live within my means.  I have an annual budget of $XXX.XX with which to buy food and sustain life.  If I go above that allotment, do I resort to theft of food?  No.  I just make damn sure I don't go above the limit that is set.  I don't get to eat steak every night (ie: use PhotoShop, in a way).  I don't drink the most expensive beer (ie: buy every game I see).  I can't even think about affording caviar (ie: using LightWave or Maya or something that costs thousands of dollars).  Do I resort to stealing those things because I want to live a more comfortable and enjoyable life?  Take a guess.  The answer is no.  I get by with what I have, and aspire to have a little more in the future.

So you've got an allotment of $XXX.XX for software, and when you reach that limit, you steal the rest?  Whether or not it hurts the company or the consumer, you're saying that when you live beyond your means, you resort to stealing whatever falls outside the budget, right?  That is the point i'm having a hard time with.  I don't want to get into the ethics and basics of "stealing" and whether it's right or wrong -- I'm assuming we've all got the basis that theft is wrong, and we're discussing whether or not pirating software is, in essence, a form of theft that is wrong... I think it is.

I get the feeling that I'm discussing this with people who are trying to justify theft, whether the law is just or unjust... but it's still the law, and blantantly breaking it is NOT, in my opinion, the best or most efficient way to go about changing the law.  I would begin to consider it justifiable if someone were to say, "Hey, I've got these people together, and tomorrow we're marching on Washington for better piracy laws," or "I've gotten 5,000 signatures on this petition," or "I've contacted my local state representative concerning this," or something like that AS WELL AS breaking the law until the law is changed... but that's not the case, here -- all I keep getting is, "I'm breaking this law because this law is stupid in my opinion."


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 10, 2002)

www.Macwarehouse.com


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 10, 2002)

> I'm sorry El but this is not realistic. I was talking about personal use; companies HAVE TO pay for software. I'm convinced that almost every company (especially in America) is using legal software.



Sorry, AW, you are wrong on MANY levels. Consider this:

Let's look at Photoshop. On one side, we have a small business with 10-15 people who create web sites. Six of the employees are designers, and as such, need a legitimate copy of Photoshop to do their work. So up front, this company has 6 x $609 in business expenses.

Now we have this companies competition - a few teeneagers who have "acquired" (ie STOLEN) copies of Photoshop. Because these teenage web designers have stolen their software and don't have the overhead of the small business, they can put in lower bids on jobs and undercut the company. 

And not all companies are legit. I've worked for 5 different companies over the last 10 years, and half of them were using pirated software to one degree or another. 

You can rationalize stealing by saying that you would never buy the software in the first place. That's hogwash. If you use it, you should pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't be using it. I don't care if you are a student or not. Students get great educational pricing on software, so that's really a lame excuse.

I'll make one exception here - leaked beta builds. Even though it's against the law, I have absolutely no qualms downloading and using beta builds - as long as you currently own the previous build. And here's my rationalization. Since I've been using leaked builds of Photoshop 7 since mid December, let's analyze this.

First off, I've been a Photoshop owned since version 3. I have paid for every major (4,5,5.5, and 6) upgrade Adobe has produced. The minute Adobe "announced" PS7, I went and preordered it. I make my $$$ from this program, and want the program to get better. I want Adobe to make good money on it, because I want them to pay their software engineers good money, so they will continue to make this product better with each release. And I definitely want Adobe to continue to derrive income from their Mac offerings, because once they don't, those Mac offerings will cease to be available. 

And personally, I think Adobe and Macromedia intentionally leak these builds to widen their beta test audience. If Adobe wanted to stop the flow of leaked betas, the could easily implement a system where any leaked beta's serial number would quickly identify the beta tester who leaked it, and they could prosecute and pull their beta license. 

So, to sum up - if you use it - pay for it. Otherwise, you are stealing.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 11, 2002)

I agree with that... didn't you people expect me to?!  hehe... 

That's a point I never considered -- the fact that the people who ARE pirating a program are not only stealing from the company that made the program, but also the companies that legitimately use the program to make money with.  

And I can also say that for 5 years I worked as a digital pre-press manager, and the company I worked for used pirated software a lot, as well as shared applications between companies and used stolen serial numbers in order to be able to load that software on different machines.

BUT -- don't take our word for it that MOST companies in the United States are using pirated software.  About a year or two ago, there was a HUGE raid on MANY companies in Austin, Texas to prosecute companies that were using pirated software on a widespread basis.  Also, Microsoft realized that its user base was comprised of MANY piraters, who were using thier software illegally.  They chose to offer a deal to the companies -- pay for your licenses at a reduced rate and avoid prosecution.  Most did.  Some didn't.  This was all over Texas as well as MANY other major metropolitan cities.  It wasn't uncommon at the time to drive down popular stretches of highway in Texas and see billboards along the road saying, "If you're using pirated software, you have until (some date), 2000 to get licensed before action is taken against you."

Who knows about the rate of pirated software use in other countries, but serpicolugnut's right.  The amount of pirated software floating around here in the US is staggering.  I'll venture to say that ANY company you walk into will know what pirated software is -- not because they've heard of it somewhere in some coctail conversation, but because they've encountered it, dealt with it, or been a part of it.  It's EXTREMELY common, and THAT'S why it's such a big deal.  Like I said before, if it was some teenage high-schooler sitting in his room with a high-speed connection, big deal... but it's rampant and hurting us and the companies who benefit from the sales of software.


----------



## theed (Mar 11, 2002)

I'm just curious, you staunch anti piracy advocates, why you think theft of software is so rampant, even in companies that know perfectly well what software costs to produce?

Why is theft of oranges and bananas from local grocery stores not this common?  

And furthermore, beyond defining the problem, what is a solution?  Saying "No no, bad kitty" to all of your associates seems minimally effective.  What's your plan?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 11, 2002)

Theft of software is so rampant, in my opinion, because it's so damn easy to do.  Dial up to the internet, download Hotline Client, head on over to tracker-tracker.com and take your pick.  PhotoShop?  No problem.  Illustrator?  Ha!  Dreamweaver/Fireworks Studio?  Gimme a break... it's just too damn easy.

People don't steal bananas and oranges and food in general because there's a LOT of other people looking and watching you at a grocery store.  You don't have privacy.  If a food cart existed that was in a back alley and no one was ever there to supervise it, I'd bet my life that cart would be empty in an hour.  But that's too menial and trivial -- look for the Porche back-alley cart or the Apple Computer back-alley cart.  There's where you can attain something with worth.  No one pirates $5 software, unless they're just killing time.  It's the big packages like Office v.X and image editing software that's appealing.  Software piracy can be done in complete and total privacy, and you don't even have to be dressed to do it... sit your ass in front of a computer and it's there for the taking.  Too easy.

My solution?  Host the application files on a server somewhere belonging to the software vendor/creator, and connect via broadband to use them with validation schemes.  Or require that your serial number be validated over the internet while the application launches.  No serial number?  No launch.  Same serial number used already?  No launch.  Yup, this pretty much sucks big time, but it would be a solution, and companies that can afford $600 - $6,000 programs and broadband I don't think would mind much.  Hell, it wouldn't even take a ton of time on a 56k dialup, either.

I'm interested to see where Microsoft is going to take this whole .NET initiative.  It seems like it might be a solution (although a heavy-handed, iron-curtain kinda solution) to some forms of piracy.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 11, 2002)

> And not all companies are legit. I've worked for 5 different companies over the last 10 years, and half of them were using pirated software to one degree or another.



I can ensure you that is not a fact in the Netherlands...
America is a little different from Europe, eh?

AppleWatcher


----------



## theed (Mar 11, 2002)

you cite ease of theft, privacy of theft, and $ cost motive.

Ease of theft, I agree, it's crazy easy.  That's what makes my view of "everything is shareware" possible.

Privacy of theft, in that you're not going to get caught.  You fail to mention the victimless crime feeling of stealing software.  Stealing food seems to be ... stealing food, as though it were from someone.  Software doesn't feel the same, as it's copied, not traditionally stolen. IP theft. The feeling may or may not be misplaced, which is what makes this discussion interesting.  As for likelihood of being caught, your peers turn you in at a grocery store.  No one turns in their friends for stealing M$ Office.  This is an extension of the general feeling that it's not the same kind of wrong, if wrong at all to copy software.  If everyone cared, no one would pirate.

And the financial incentive.  That's my favorite point.  It's the price itself that makes it such a sweet theft.  I think Porsches are nice, but I'm not about to say that they're reasonably priced.  They are intentionally expensive.  Niche products.  Consuming the highest grade labor and resources in  their making.  ... Software by comparison consumes labor, but not materials.  In fact, after software development, the result is more materials, (code, implemented algorithms) not less.  So the point of price is really curious.

VooDoo Economics revisited.  At this point in the price curve, you make the same profit from your software as from this point, the difference is that in one model, 10% of the users are paying $500, and in the other model, 90% of users paying the $60 that you ask.  Distribution costs of additional units are accounted for.  

There already are fairly solid anti piracy dongles, but the industry, and consumers, hated them with a passion.  They're pretty much gone now, and good riddance.  Adobe has already publicly stated that it will not dongle Photoshop.  The freedom to steal is part of the solution that businesses and consumers have agreed upon.  Dongles are effective in anti-piracy, but they are also effective in burdening the consumer and reducing the usability of a product without adding benefit.

Beyond even this industry admission that  piracy is as good a solution as security, is shareware, which makes it even easier to not pay.  And one step further is freeware and gnu and RMS, putting ideas into the public domain despite personal costs incurred doing so.  There's a feeling among these people that the public domain has been robbed empty, and needs to be refilled.

And at the point of .NET, and activation/monitoring security, I see consumers (if they still believe now as they believed then) running away from the scheme as soon as they get a taste for its pitfalls.  Those of us with a taste are already running.

Well, that's enough for now. (whinneeee ... whack whack whack)


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 11, 2002)

I'm probably going to take some flak for saying this, but I actually admire Microsoft's use of anti piracy mechanisms with regard to Office v. X. 

In case you don't know how it works, Office v. X checks your connected network when it starts (and that includes the internet if you are connected to it), and if it finds another copy of Office running with the same SN#, it shuts down your copy.

Overall, I agree with this form of anti piracy. I do have quibbles over a few details about this, mainly that, if I have Office loaded on two machines (perfectly legal mind you), and I launch Word on one, while another app like Entourage is open on the other, it will shut down the newly opening app. I guess MS believes it's OK since Office is considered one "license", even though it comprises 4 seperate applications. 

I wish Adobe and Macromedia would institute antipiracy mechanisms like this, because it would eliminate a lot of the thievery that goes on. 

Of couse, anybody who is savvy enough can either can a crack, or disable the outbound port that these apps use to check, but the general population would be prevented from pirating these apps, which in turn would help all who are (legally) involved.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 11, 2002)

Whoa... this throws me back to the days of PhotoShop 3.0 and QuarkXPress 3.3... BOTH of those programs do network serial number checks and won't let more than one copy run with the same serial number.

This is why one company I worked for pirated serial numbers for PhotoShop -- so multiple users could use the same copy simultaneously.  It was a little more difficult with QuarkXPress because the serail number was kinda "locked" into the software -- you had to use a floppy disk to install QuarkXPress from a CD, and there was one and only one serial number for each floppy which was installed at the time of installation (whoa, that was long-winded!)... it got easier when 4.04 came out and used an actual user-supplied serial number...

I believe that Macromedia and Adobe's apps still do this... it would be interesting if these programs were able to do it over the internet, or verify the number with Adobe/Macromedia at the time of launch.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 11, 2002)

> I believe that Macromedia and Adobe's apps still do this... it would be interesting if these programs were able to do it over the internet, or verify the number with Adobe/Macromedia at the time of launch.



Yeah, MM and Adobe's apps still do local network checking, but they don't go so far as Microsoft does. Office uses an open port to check the internet for other copies of Office v. X with the same SN#. This eliminates multi copy pirating at offices, but also eliminates (or greatly reduces) the ability for people all over the world to use pirated copies of Office (at least those with active internet connections).


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 11, 2002)

Are you sure it does this?  Is it documented anywhere in Office v.X's docs?  Has anyone ever encountered a situation where their pirated version of Office v.X has shut down due to someone running the same copy somewhere else in the world?


----------



## theed (Mar 11, 2002)

P-Shop created an appletalk server, and announced itself on a LAN.  Office v.X does a similar thing with UDP.  It does not do this over the internet, it's a local broadcast and is limited to LAN.  Lan being a fuzzy term.  More correctly broadcast domain.  VPC does the same.  Yet another "innovation" from m$ :-/  I've not heard anything about actual internet connectivity from Office.

This does not shut down the app on passive failure, essentially, it only shuts down if it finds something, not if it fails to find something.  Big difference in consumer burden.  And even with this lightweight security in place, my laptop and desktop occasionally get into arguments over VPC, which I'm using in a completely legitimate way.  So I circumvented the issue.  You have found the same issue with Office, that although mostly acceptable, it's still a burden on legitimate use of a legitimately owned product.

My University had issues keeping a limited number of legitimate P-Shop licenses on machines because the machines were installed by imaging from a master, and the duplication of serial numbers would halt legitimate use.  Support required a lot more people to deal with this.  At what point does the cost of security outweigh the cost of piracy?  Dollars are hard to count like that aren't they?

In the end, stealing is justified only if the software maker is made up of all thieves, and security is an assumption that users are all thieves, which makes it a similar evil.  I wish we could all trust each other.

(I wrote this an hour ago, but didn't post it because I had a phone interview.  This may answer your question on Office)

Oh, and one more thing, this technical solution to a political problem will not actually stop piracy, it'll just make a lot more people know a lot more about firewalls.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 11, 2002)

> Oh, and one more thing, this technical solution to a political problem will not actually stop piracy, it'll just make a lot more people know a lot more about firewalls.



I agree with that!

AppleWatcher 


```
test
```


----------



## rezba (Mar 11, 2002)

You're right. Since I own OfficeX, I found dozen of sn to make it work elsewhere. This wouldn't stop piracy, just mess up our macs.
As the discussion follows, I'm coming back just to say few things.
- piracy is not robbery. I mean, juridically talking. In most places, for instance, you don't consider the same way the one who pirate for his own use, and the one who pirate to sell copies. And this because you naturally don't spoil people the same way. One of us was saying : "I didn't spoil nobody, because if I had to buy this soft to use it, I wouldn't have bought it." This is fairly true.
- I wrote, twenty pages before, that I don't own most of the soft I use, and spoke of "garbage apps". It has shocked some of you. OK. I'm not a major computer science, just a poweruser. Around me, 25 people are working with macs because I, the admin of the "new technologies functions" in my social sciences laboratory, is the only one who understand a bit how a computer works, and where to find answers to everyday's problems.
And as I refuse to do it with pc's, they all buy macs.
When this people need to do something with their macs (generally simple things, but easy-to-do, "naturally easy and productive"), they ask me for the good app.
If some of them own now professional apps to manage their mail, their agenda, their quoting database, it's because I have been using these professional apps for long before, and that I am sure that their functionalities are really easy and efficient, and that they will work for sure with their OS.
When they ask me for the opportunity to upgrade or not, they do it because they know I have tried a pirated new version. And if the version is good, they will buy it. Nobody as ever used Office2001, for example, but everyone have paid for the eudora5. 
- I wrote that computer industry is still immature because most of the people who use computer are not at all able to decide if something is good to buy before they have bought it. And too many apps don't work well, or don't really do what they were supposed to do, or do it, but the rest doesn't work anymore.
For these kind of people, a computer is something magic. You got a fax app, it works the first time you launch it. Great. Then you put on your Deskjet printer and it is not recognized anymore ? Why, how is it possible, I didn't move it. Rezba, what's happening, my computer doesn't work anymore !!! Please, I had do do it for yesterday, and now, it doesn't work, blablabla.
Do you think it's easy to make a good choice in the software jungle ? I talked about garbage apps not to judge their really skill, but because it's the place most of them go after some few tries, even those who mean to cost many hundreds dollars/euro. Because the are useless for me. But I'm able to say it because I've tried them. And I can't afford to pay for the all I try. That's not my job.
Most of "pirates" are like me, pirating a bit for nothing, just to "stock", a bit to exchange with others, a little to be sure always having the best tool to do the best work without problems and in the fastest way. I would never have own it if I had to pay for. But others around me wouldn't have bought it too.
Did you notice that : the more a company is sure of its dominant position, the less it gives you the right to try its apps. Not to avoid being pirated. To be sure than most people will buy the new version. As some of them are really dominant, there is a kind of gentleman agreement between some of you upon the illegal copies of their apps. But, on the opposite, illegal and free copies of their concurrent is often the only way for them to be first installed on our machines.
warez is a part of the industry, a kind of subsystem who help it turn. It's not a leech, neither an opponent. It belongs to this industry.
In this world we're living in, many people are selling wind. Some others are surfing on. This is a part of why the rest of the customers are still fascinated by "the progress".

See you in twenty pages...


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 12, 2002)

Nice point, rezba, I agree with you 

AppleWatcher


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 13, 2002)

> - piracy is not robbery. I mean, juridically talking. In most places, for instance, you don't consider the same way the one who pirate for his own use, and the one who pirate to sell copies. And this because you naturally don't spoil people the same way. One of us was saying : "I didn't spoil nobody, because if I had to buy this soft to use it, I wouldn't have bought it." This is fairly true.



Actually, you are completely wrong on both points.

1st - Piracy is robbery. It is defined so in American Law. I'm not privy to the Software laws in France, but in America, if you acquire/use software that you didn't pay for, or weren't given a license for, it's piracy. Whether you are a kid downloading warez off the net for your own trading purposes, or some guy in Malaysia making $10 copies of MS Office for sale. Both are viewed as piracy, and both are illegal. Now having said that, the Government obviously can't police the industry to the point where going after the teenager is viable. At least that's been the case for the last 20 years. In the last year, the Gov't has made a point of going after people who run Hotline/Carracho servers and making examples of them.

2nd  - your point about people who pirate and then rationalize it by saying "I would never have bought it in the first place" is completely ridiculous. Granted, there are people who download warez, try it out, decide they don't like it, and then delete it and never use it again. But the vast majority of people are downloading a product, using it everyday, and then saying they can't justify paying for it. 

A very large segment of people feel it is OK to use software that isn't theirs because they don't view it as stealing. It is. Because they aren't actually taking a physical product, they don't see what's wrong with it. But in the eyes of the law, it's the same as physical theft. 

These are the laws people. While I don't agree with the vast majority of software developers, I can't really dispute what the law is. Hopefully, the industry will adopt two policies that should help itself out.

1) Follow the Macromedia example of providing 30 day trials that allow you to FULLY use and evaluate the software. This removes the pirates argument of "I just wanted to try it out".

2) Adopt more stringent SN#loggin, ala MS Office v.X. Don't just check for duplicate SN#'s on local networks, check the 'net for duplicates as well. This will reduce SN# swapping and make piracy harder.


----------



## vic (Mar 13, 2002)

then develop a crack that takes away the 30 day time  limit
and develop a crack that will disable the checking on the net o the ame serial number.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 13, 2002)

Let me get this straight:

Serpicolugnut is proposing that software scans the internet (on whatever port the software uses) for duplicate serial numbers?!?

How unworkable / pointless is this?!?

1) Very few "internet-enabled" users are "always on"
2) This scan would take forever!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 13, 2002)

> Let me get this straight:
> 
> Serpicolugnut is proposing that software scans the internet (on whatever port the software uses) for duplicate serial numbers?!?
> 
> How unworkable / pointless is this?!?



Unworkable? Pointless? It's already here! Microsoft Office v. X does this. When you launch Office, it pings a particular open port with the SN#, and if it finds the same serial#, on the network or on the internet,  it won't allow Office to launch. This is nothing more than a modified version of Network Copy Protection, something that Adobe has been using for over 10 years. 

Is it crackable? Of course it is. Just about any antipiracy device/method is crackable.  Hell, you can cirucmvent it just by disabling your internet connection at the time of launch. But most users will be deterred by this. The hardcore theives will always find a way around it.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 13, 2002)

I know Office does it. It's still pointless for the reasons I outline.

Such protective measures are meanigless if they're not comprehensive (i.e. you can check the current serial number against every other one). I guess MS use it, because this is far more relevant on say, a company intranet, where everyone has Office on their machine. Then again, chances are the company controls software distribution etc., anyway, so the chances / need for a "dodgy" version of Office to be on a machine are somewhat diminished.

Also, as you point out, you don't need to crack the software; just disabling the relevant port (as outlined in this very forum for Office v.X) will stop the check.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 13, 2002)

So if something can be cirumvented then it's useless? Please!

Under that logic, Developers shouldn't require SN#'s from users, since obtaining illegal SN#'s isn't all that hard.

Come on. Just because a deterrent isn't 100% doesn't make it useless.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 13, 2002)

Requiring a SN# from someone is not useless. Scanning a network for others is. One is hard to circumvent, and many users are unaware of crack websites etc. The other is easily circumvented, even unwittingly, if the user is not connected.

BUt enough of this, it's a pointless discussion


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 13, 2002)

> Requiring a SN# from someone is not useless. Scanning a network for others is. One is hard to circumvent, and many users are unaware of crack websites etc. The other is easily circumvented, even unwittingly, if the user is not connected.



Spoken like someone who can't argue the logic of their position.

It is far easier to acquire illegal serial #'s than it is to circumvent network copy protection. All I have to do is a search on Google for "Photoshop Serial Numbers", and bang - I'll get a list of URLs with the SN#. How hard is that?

Now, to circumvent network copy protection you have to know how to disable a port. I'm sorry, but 99.99% of the people out there do not know how to do this, and even when presented with a tutorial of how to do it via the CLI, will not attempt it for fear of messing something up.

MS obviously has an idea how many of their customers are attached to the internet, so I don't think they feel it was a pointless endevour to implement. I think you'd be surprised at how many people are connected to the net via networks or broadband, where shutting down their connection isn't as easy as disconnecting from a dialup account.

I'm sorry Ben, but if you agree that requiring a SN# isn't useless (which you have), then easily implementable copy protection schemes that don't make the end user jump through ridiculous hoops (ala WinXP registration) aren't useless either. 

Expect to see more of it the future.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 13, 2002)

By "unwittingly circumventing", I'm talking about people who aren't connected to the net, nothing about ports necessarily. Sure, you can search for cracks -- I've done it myself -- but how many actually work?

Now, I'm from the UK. Broadband access is NOT widespread, nor is unmetered access, as in the US.

So when I talk about persistent or ubiquitous connectivity, I'm thinking more at the UK / global level, not from the US perspective which is quite different.

I don't have to defend my position, nor am I particularly precious about it. I'm not particularly passionate about the whole piracy issue.

This is just a wee discussion forum, and this is a vaguely interesting topic. That's all. There will always be those more informed than I on just about every topic. I don't spend an age thinking through every ramification of what I say, I have work to do. I happen to think network SN# checking is of limited usefulness. You don't. Fine.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 13, 2002)

Serial number checking is implemented in most high-end graphics applications -- the kind you find residing on networked computers in graphic design/publishing/creative houses.  The network serial number checking serves its purpose wonderfully there and almost single-handedly took care of the BIGGEST piracy problem quite a few years ago -- the creative house would buy one copy of a piece of software and load it on 8 or 10 machines in the graphics department... well, under the terms of the license, ONE copy per computer was allowed, and network serial number checking took care of that problem PDQ.  Quark was heavy-handed in its use of network serial number checking -- the serial number was built-in to the software itself, so when you bought QuarkXPress at that time, you were stuck with THAT serial number -- there wasn't a way to change it without hacking Quark.  That strategy worked.  Not 100%, but nothing is 100%.  It just deterred piracy, and a great deal of it, too.  But times have changed.

Of course, people started sharing serial numbers and giving away copies of programs, effectively circumventing the network serial number check, so now we're here, at this point in time, where we're stuck on where to go next -- how heavy-handed can we be about enforcing software licenses without being ridiculous?  How should our software licenses change?  Allowing people to freely share or distribute software is probably NOT an option.  Only 15-year-old crackers that are still enjoying the life of "something for nothing," and not having to take much financial responsibility for themselves yet are the only ones that would be supportive of a whacked idea like that.  How can we come to a consensus and deter rampant software piracy while not choking the paying-customer-base too much?  How can we treat the thieves like thieves, but trust the customers?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 13, 2002)

> How can we treat the thieves like thieves, but trust the customers?



Well said! 

Unforunately, the best mechanism we have to deter piracy is the hardware lock. Of course, even those can be cracked, and customers hated them with a passion. Very few programs use them now, and they are mostly very expensive applications like Maya, Lightwave, 3DStudioMax etc. Of course, all of these applications are widely available on Carracho/Hotline/Usenet, with full cracks available.

As it stands now, I feel the MS Office v. X method of network/internet copy protection is the most cost effective, customer friendly solution available.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 13, 2002)

> As it stands now, I feel the MS Office v. X method of network/internet copy protection is the most cost effective, customer friendly solution available.



But everything is 'crackable'... 

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 13, 2002)

...and?  What's your point?  If you mean to say that companies should just do away with copy protection because, as you say, any tactic they employ is "crackable," that's utterly ridiculous.  Anti-piracy measures are taken to deter piracy, not completely abolish it.  This ain't smallpox -- you can't get rid of it forever.

We're kicking ideas back and forth about how far a software company goes before they're hurting their paying consumer base with ridiculous copy protection schemes in order to deter piracy of their software.  Face it, the software companies are never going to like the fact that people pirate their programs, and there will most likely always be some funtion or thingy in their software to try and prevent it as much as possible.  Yup, you people will figure out how to crack any kind of protection scheme, I'm sure... that's not the point.


----------



## rezba (Mar 13, 2002)

wowowow ! It started again !
Ok, can I ask few questions to those who fire pro-warez ?

How many mp3 are you having in your HD you don't own the real CD by yourself ?

In my iTunes' library, it's about 50%. I'm getting wise...
Isn't it strange ? I mean, I really love most of the bands I'm pirating, they are part of my life, as I simply can't live without music. What's really strange, is that when I think about it, I have the real feeling that i'm spoiling them. And once again I like them, which is not the case for the authors of the  software I daily use, I don't even know them. But therefore, I'm still ripping and encoding mp3.
And i'm still stealing music.

So, let me change a little about what I said. Instead of reading :

_If I had to pay for, I wouldn't own it_ 

replace it most of the times by:

*If I could, I would have pay for it.* 

But, unfortunately, I can't. I'm poor. Free, but poor.

Sure, I can spend thousands of  to have wonderful hardware. But just imagine : once every ten years, you have 5000 $/ to spend in your computer. You're a poweruser, running quite strong apps, needing a computer at home to work with (60% of time at least), wanting to do many things at the same time. What would you do ? 

1. Buy a dual G4 full of RAM, HD space, a good display for your tired eyes, good devices and peripherals adapted to your skills and needs, etc...

2. Buy an iMac500, and half the apps you're gonna use with ?

This is not hypocrisy, Testuser, this is real choice. I had to say it because god damn I respect you.

Take another, finally most common example, that has been discussed not enough before in this thread. You're starting PAO. You're young. To be admit as a professional, you first have to get skilled in one only app, Xpress. You 're just getting your first 1200 $/ to get your first personal machine to train both XPress and Mac ability. Xpress costs 1200 $/, an iMac also.
What would you do :

1. Wait for the second 1200 $/ coming to buy the  all.

2. Buy the software first, wait for the hardware ?

3. Buy the hardware, and then wait for the next 1200 $/ to buy new components to work faster ang gain time and money.

This said, even if no differences are made in our respective laws between a single user and a "company-user" of warez, maybe we can agree that "personnal warez" (e.g. "home warez"), are first of all a locomotive for the hardware industry, which itself leads software industry.
Companies are a different world. They have to pay.

But stop trying to explain us that M$ or Adobe or MM strategy to fight "corporate piracy" come from the lack of income due to "corporate warez".

To sell software is a little part of these big companies income.
A big part of it comes from capitalization, another comes from selling services  around software, such as hotline and training courses (Did you ever heard about what it cost to be labelized as M$ training center, for instance ?).

If M$ fights piracy so strongly, it's first of all because they want any PeeCee in any company to contain online-registered copies of M$ products (that with a beautiful IntelP4 tatoo). Because this will definitly start what's gonna be the biggest part of their future income : Databasing customers habits.

Fot the other big ones, things are a little different because the don't have their own monopolistic OS. But Adobe, MM, and all the other big ones are leaders because many people used to  work with illegal copies, autoenforcing the fact that "Every professional is working with ..." (fill the blank by yourself).
Why is StarOffice free ? Because it's the only way to fight M$ Office ultra-dominant position.
Of course, this has heavy costs for small software  products. Only few people among the all users have paid for graphic converter, and it's a wonderfull tool, maid by  a single person. I hope he has other income. Why is he doing it ? Love, may be. Or glory, perhaps.
How can a good, but small product, whithout the big marketing taskforce of a "big one", can win its shinny place ? Being duplicated by thousands, and referenced many times as a good tool ? It's the best way, and may be the only one, the "poor but good" guy can bit the "bad but powerfull" one.

Last thing. This is a user' point of vue. People involved in software industry SHOULD have another one. No one of you, guys, are bad. You spend so much time help each other here to be bad guys.
Just a few of us, shortbrained users, are bad. We used to be, as most of you, no? We are not stealing you, you are not swindling us.

Warez is not moral. 
Earning such little money for what I'm doing is not moral either. 
Like many others, I have to deal with that before all. Many  things just start from that point.

Have a nice day.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 13, 2002)

> If I could, I would have pay for it. But, unfortunately, I can't. I'm poor. Free, but poor.



Bull. If you have the money to buy a Mac, you have the money to pay for software.  You may have to purchase a slightly less powerful Mac to get both the Mac and software, buy you have the money. You just elect to spend it on hardware instead of software.

I own all my software, and I am not rich by and stretch of the imagination. In the last couple of months, I've bought After Effects 4.1, GoLive 4, LiveMotion1 - all for under $125. How? On eBay! These applications licenses are fully transferable, and you can get upgrades to the new version for very little money.

You are not entitled to free software. Hell, I wanted to learn 3D, but the serious 3D apps cost about $2500. I settled on Lightwave, but couldn't afford the $2500 for a new copy of (then) version 6.

So, I found a legimate user selling a new, unopened copy on eBay for $800. I saved up and bought it. I'm not a 3D professional, but I respect the talents that produce the software, and want to make sure they get compensated and continue to make great Mac software.

You know, there was a time in the late 90's when I felt that it was more important for Apple to get my money than software developers, because Apple was in trouble. That was foolish on my part. Without really great developers who can make a decent profit by selling Mac apps, Apple wouldn't last a year.

Just remember every time you fire up that pirated copy of Photoshop or Flash, that you are hurting the developer, the platform, and the users who actually obey the laws and pay for software.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 14, 2002)

Well, whatever software developers settle on, let's hope they move AWAY from hardware copy protection, or so-called "dongles." They are painful, and the bane of most computer musicians' lives (this copy protection seems most prevalent in the music software industry).

For example, when ADB got dropped from Apple's hardware, very few music software developers got off their arses and introduced new versions of their dongles that worked with USB or whatever. Even if they did, it meant one more potentially useful hardware port being given over to a bleedin' DONGLE!

Pleading poverty is no defence for having warez. I can't afford anything. I have a 233MHz iMac running OS 8.6. I bought it as part of a bundle after lots of savings (& with a good finance deal) three years ago. It was already out of date when I got it. And that's as far as it's going to go for the forseeable future. I also own no software of any magnitude. Just some free stuff / shareware, and AppleWorks.

Given my Mac's shortcomings, I have to do anything of note (development etc.) on my work machine, which is an IBM ThinkPad running Windoze 2000.

See! You think you've got problems!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

This is the way life goes and how it's supposed to be -- I'm happy you've got your hands on a Mac, albeit a bit dated one, but congrats and welcome to the platform!   

Are we supposed to feel sorry for these people who claim to have no money and pirate warez?  They're making it out to be justified or something, like having the newest PhotoShop is going to help them sustain life for another month or so... WANT and NEED, people.  There's a big difference.

Do you feel sorry for the guy in the Geo or 1978 Honda next to you as you pull up in your Porche?  Are we supposed to feel sorry for the people with less than us?  Sure, if you measure life worth by material goods...

It would be one thing if these people were members of some sort of underground Robin Hood-type gang where they are extremely creative people that really did get crapped on in life and are forced to steal software to make a living -- however, 10 or more pages ago, my challenge went unanswered by the staunch advocates of software piracy.  Show me the money!  Show me something really creative and wonderful that you've produced since you pirated PhotoShop, the most powerful digital photo editing software in the world.  C'mon.  A screen shot.  Please.  I'm begging.  If you think you NEED PhotoShop, prove that you've put it to good use.  Let us have it.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 14, 2002)

Well thanks, but you misunderstand my post -- I bought my Mac Christmas 1998! I'm saying I've had it for over three years now... Mind you, I got it to replace a Mac Classic.

So I'm always well behind the times, me.

I just read this forum as a long-time Mac fan and user, plus some day I'd like to use OS X.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

No, i'm not coming down on you at all!  I'm saying "Yes!  Another Mac user!" and congrats on choosing the best platform on the planet... 

It's nice to know that you DON'T have the money to spend on expensive software and haven't resorted to petty thievery.


----------



## theed (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca _
> *
> It would be one thing if these people were members of some sort of underground Robin Hood-type gang where they are extremely creative people that really did get crapped on in life and are forced to steal software to make a living -- however, 10 or more pages ago, my challenge went unanswered by the staunch advocates of software piracy.  Show me the money!  Show me something really creative and wonderful that you've produced since you pirated PhotoShop, the most powerful digital photo editing software in the world.  C'mon.  A screen shot.  Please.  I'm begging.  If you think you NEED PhotoShop, prove that you've put it to good use.  Let us have it. *



The lack of material produced by pirated versions of Photoshop could be taken as evidence that these people wouldn't have paid for it if they couldn't Warez it.  Almost proof that it's not money lost by Adobe.

As for myself, I am programming a Calculator, not exciting I know, but I'm releasing it as freeware specifically to combat the privitization of the intellectual commons.  Thought is free, and should be shared as such.  I'd like to get paid for that work, it's a decent utility (Calc Thingy) but it's more important to me that people can benefit from what I do than pay me for what I've done.  I may be a phreak, but I believe, and I put my time where my mouth is when I can't put money there, and I hold others to the same standard.

Oh, and I just got a friggin' job.  I start in the beginning of April.  So I'll finally be able to pay for all those shareware games my son plays.  And I might get to play something other than StarCraft myself, which has been Carbonized quite nicely.

Mostly, I think I'm offended by the assumption that I'm not Robin Hood.  You don't know me, you should be a little slower to judge.  If I am Robin Hood, do you approve then?

benpoole:  I bumped my Mom's rev a iMac up to 512M of RAM and put her on X.  It's certainly a viable option.  Her machine used to crash a good bit, now it has uptimes of well over a month.  Surprisingly good compatibility with USB using 9 apps, printer, scanner, etc.  Just to let you know.    Nanosaur doesn't run anymore, but that was the biggest loss on her machine.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 14, 2002)

theed, thanks. I bumped mine to 256MB, but when I figured the machine would run slower than it does now (it's bad enough anyway!), plus I wouldn't be able to use my UMAX scanner, I figured I wouldn't bother.

No point in the eye candy if it runs like treacle!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

Ok, so the Robin Hood thing was misguided... sorry.  I was just trying to make a point -- and the point is that a LOT of people posting to this forum used the excuse, "I'm poor, I need PhotoShop to get work done, I can't afford it," and trying to make it sound like they are in dire NEED of PhotoShop to get their daily computer work done.  Well, I was simply saying that if you need PhotoShop so damn badly, let's see what you've done with it -- otherwise, you're illegally collecting warez for what -- respect of your fellow thieves?  Trophies?  Trying to justify a new hard drive by filling your current one up?

I can see the point in saying, "Hey, I got something worth $600 for $0 illegally that I don't (or can't) use!" but I can't see much beyond that -- what's the reasoning?  Why did you download PhotoShop if you can't even produce something with it?  Or won't?  When prmpted with, "Why'd you do it?" -- "Just because..." or "Because I could..." as an excuse has never and will never cut it with me.  There are a million things that you can do "Just because..." or "Because I could..." that you wouldn't do -- you can drive on the wrong side of the road.  You can spit on people in the street.  You can pick a flower from someone's garden without asking.  But, you don't do these things because why -- they're illegal?  Disrespectful?  Dumb?  Why are those not good enough reasons NOT to pirate software?  Pirating software carries MUCH harsher penalties than those petty things, yet people still come here to try and justify pirating software over more petty things such as those examples.  Hell, another flower will grow... the person can wipe the spit off... people can pull over to the other side and let me go by on the wrong side... the company doesn't need ALL that money... intellectual property?  Hogwash, I say... where's the logic?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 14, 2002)

> Yup, you people will figure out how to crack any kind of protection scheme, I'm sure... that's not the point.



I'm sorry, ElDiablo, but are you talking to me?

AppleWatcher


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

Nope, just making a generalized statement that any kind of protection ALWAYS has a way around it.  Nothing's foolproof.  Nothing's bulletproof.  Nothing's 100%.  It's a matter of achieving functionality and security on a level where functionality is not crippled and security is not ridiculous.


----------



## benpoole (Mar 14, 2002)

... conversely:

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 14, 2002)

> Nope, just making a generalized statement that any kind of protection ALWAYS has a way around it. Nothing's foolproof. Nothing's bulletproof. Nothing's 100%. It's a matter of achieving functionality and security on a level where functionality is not crippled and security is not ridiculous.



OK ElDiablo, then I fully agree with you 

AppleWatcher


----------



## theed (Mar 14, 2002)

from ElDiablo:
If you mean to say that companies should just do away with copy protection because, as you say, any tactic they employ is "crackable," that's utterly ridiculous. Anti-piracy measures are taken to deter piracy, not completely abolish it. This ain't smallpox -- you can't get rid of it forever.

that's some of the best stuff I've seen you write.

your later point about warezing is off though, even though you very accurately describe the people you're talking about.  people stealing flowers remove the flower.  People stealing food remove the food.  ... But, hoarding duplicates of something shouldn't be illegal.  Just like taking pictures of someone else's flowers shouldn't be illegal.

Pirating carries much harsher fines than those sorts of things, you say, which may be true, but the alternate point is - why is it wrong to make a copy of something while leaving the original?  The fact is that someone stealing Photoshop, and not using it, is not a problem to Adobe's revenue stream, which is what the laws were erected to protect.  By telling these 15 yr olds that they can't steal software, even though they wouldn't purchase it or a competing product in the immediate future, is applying a law outside its intended demographic, which does actually mean something in legal circles.  You have to prove harm.

There are cases of harm by piracy, and there are cases of piracy without harm, and what I have seen lightly addressed but certainly not answered here is how to properly distinguish between these.  And furthermore, at what cost is how much error in a scheme justifiable?  If Piracy can be allowed in cases where it does no harm, then all it does is provide information to people, which should be a good thing(tm) ... holding knowledge just because it's yours is either amoral or immoral, forcing ignorance when knowledge is available is one of the most despicable acts I can think of;  I don't care what the laws say.  Hell, the laws used to say you could own slaves!  

Forgive me for thinking outside the box.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

Well, if you take a flower, one will grow back... but it's still illegal.  And let's not get started on copying something while leaving the original intact... cloning, anyone?  Hehe... ok, that was my ridiculously extreme comparison for the day.  

At any rate, how many people do you think are poised and ready to purchase PhotoShop for full price, and then learn they can just pirate it for free and choose the latter route?  Is that revenue lost for Adobe?  I would be tempted to say, "Yes," simply because that is one copy of PhotoShop that Adobe could have gotten the money for.  Taken to an extreme, what if everyone thought like that?  What if the idea of "if you don't want to pay for the software, steal it," caught on?  What if the piraters of the world actually convinced a majority population, and that phenomenon took effect?  Would Adobe lose money then? 

While we're on this, I feel i need to address another aspect of this conversation -- we ARE talking about how piracy can or cannot be justified, correct?  That DOES include companies that pirate software... on a large scale, like a few of my former employers.  Sure, Joe Schmoe sitting at home doesn't make a dent in the company by pirating a program, but it's similar to voting -- every little bit counts.  Home users, just because they're not taking a significant enough chunk of income away from Adobe does NOT give them the "right" to go ahead and pirate.  If pirating is illegal because, on some grander scales, like a business pirating programs, it DOES affect the revenue Adobe sees, then it is illegal for everyone.  You can't say, "Ok," to some and, "No," to others.

It's ok to take pictures of whatever you want.  But you can't take a picture of my garden and show the picture to people claiming it's YOUR garden.  You can't use my garden for your gain without permission.  There's something just wrong with that.  It's like taking advantage of someone or something -- just because it's there and this company somehow offended you with its business practices does not justify a damn thing.  Would you play nicely with a T-Shirt vendor that copied your T-Shirt design then started GIVING them away in the booth next to you?  He's got an endless supply of T-Shirts and printing facilities... and he just takes your idea that you're trying to sell and just gives it away... imagine if you were on the other side of this.  What if you were Adobe?  Would you like what people are saying or doing in this forum?  Or would you suddenly understand what Adobe's point-of-view is?  

And please... don't give me the "If I were Adobe and had all that money, I wouldn't care..." or anything similar to that BS.  Adobe has a ton of money BECAUSE it didn't give anything away, or turn its back when someone tried to give their product away.  They made it up, they sell it, that's it.  It would work the same for you, too.


----------



## edX (Mar 14, 2002)

this might sound a little strange coming from me, but one company already had the solution years ago - Netscape (long before they were bought by aol). They originally charged for their browsers but gave out educational copies for free. If we accept that students are always going to be poorer and in the process of becoming real customers somewhere down the line, then why not let all those people have copies to play with and even make a penny or 2 to help them along the way to becoming the next customer base?

or if giving to students in general seems like too much to give away, then why not just let people under a certain age have it for free? Like say 17 and under. sure, there would still be pirates, but there would be less of them and less rationalization for the software companies to inflate their prices to cover the estimated number of stolen copies. and we wouldn't be making criminals out of our children who often see no other alternatives because their families are not rich enough to run out and buy every new piece of software. While i still do not condone or advocate the pirating of software, i agree with Theed that the companies themselves are the ones promoting it. Especially El Diablo's beloved Adobe and everybodies favorite company - m$.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

Ed, I follow our posts all the time and have a great respect for what you have to say... and I think we generally tend to see eye-to-eye, even if we're looking at the same thing in totally different ways.

But... GIVING SOFTWARE TO THE PEOPLE WHO PIRATE IT THE MOST?!?!  Once that 17-year-old gets ahold of that software, don't you think it would then be installed on his friends' machines, his parents' machines, THEIR co-workers' machines... the only thing that's keeping rampant software piracy to a minimum is the fact that it pretty much has to be downloaded, and even the fastest connections sometimes warrant hours and hours of waiting for that software to download!

I think giving away copies is a bad idea, to any age group, to any educational group, to anyone.  If anyone's gonna get discounted software, make them prove their worth (ie, student ID card) or something... I don't think giving software away is a good idea -- Netscape was forced to, basically, to compete.  They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.


----------



## edX (Mar 14, 2002)

> I don't think giving software away is a good idea -- Netscape was forced to, basically, to compete. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.



this statement seems contradictory to the earlier part of your post - here you say that giving free software to students enhances competition right after you gave all these reasons that it would destroy it. Sure there would be sharing of free software, but then the criminals would be the parents and others using it, not the kids. 

My argument is a bit like the one i have for the legalization of marijuana. Let's stop making criminals out of otherwise productive members of our society who do not really harm others thru their so called crimes. We are never going to rid our society of criminals. The english once tried it and now we have 2 great countries as a result - the USA and Australia.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 14, 2002)

Ed, i won't get into marijuana laws with ya... hehe... I'm sure that we see pretty eye-to-eye on that one... trust me.

BUT -- and I do agree with you that there are some laws that would be better off just done away with and decriminalizing the act.  HOWEVER, I think this kind of thinking is to be taken VERY seriously, and only done under dire necessity.  Sure, smoking a little pot ain't gonna hurt no one.  Software piracy does, debateably, and if there's any smidgeon of a clue that someone will suffer financially, physically, emotionally or mentally because of the decriminalization of the act, then I think it's best left alone.  You can twist all sorts of numbers around to show that Adobe is losing money because of piracy, and then you can take those same numbers and twist them around to show Adobe making a profit because of piracy.  It's not clear yet -- you can't prove one way or another that no one's gonna take a loss, so you can't really say that it should be "ok" at the moment, catch my drift?  We're still unsure whether it's hurting or helping, but one thing is for sure: it's illegal.

...and I meant that Netscape was pretty much forced to give away its product in the face of competition because other browsers were being given away for free (IE, for example).  If Netscape continued to charge for their browser (charge ANY section of their consumer base), they'd be holding the proverbial gun to their collective head.

Piracy is a much more touchy subject because it's like kicking America between the legs -- it's messing with SOMEONE'S money, be it good or bad, and money is what America is about and we tend to fight a little harder and yell a little louder when our money is involved.  It's about the free will to make as much money as you want within the confines of the law (which, comparably, to other countries, aren't really THAT damn restrictive) and produce a product that you can call your own.  I'll say that a monopoly is an extreme.  Microsoft is debateably a monopoly (I think they are, don't come down on me -- but it's being debated in court at the moment.  It's debateably a monopoly right now, soon to be a confirmed monopoly).  They charge too much for their products and are too restrictive and competetive about who and what and how and when with their license.  Why must we go to the far OTHER extreme and GIVE stuff away?  We need to get back to the middle ground, where people pay what is decided as a fair price for goods and start pleasing people AND companies instead of sling-shotting all the way to the OTHER extreme and decriminalizing piracy and basically giving software away.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Mar 14, 2002)

Urgh. Nothing gets me more peeved than students whining about not being able to afford professional software.... 

And here's why. 

If I want a copy of Final Cut Pro, I have to shell out $999. If you are a student, you can get Final Cut Pro for $249. Apple almost gives the application away to students, and yet they still insist on pirating it. So it really negates the argument of students not being able to afford these "expensive" applications. All the major developers (Apple, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel) all make their applications available for very little money through education channels.


----------



## karavite (Mar 14, 2002)

Though it was way back in this thread, I wanted to share my own BSA story. I quit a job in 1993 or so and my former employer was jerking me around for my last paycheck and some commission - about $2000, and I was pissed off.

Since the owner had bragged about how he never paid for any of the software used in the company (about 30 people) I decided to rat on him, and boy was it fun! First, I got a secret code name (that I picked myself) in dealing with the BSA via the phone. I supplied them with all the information on the software (DOS, QuatroPro, WordPerfect... - can you imagine stealing that stuff?), the number and location of the machines and, of course, my bosses name - RICK something.

The BSA machine started to move, though very slowly. They had told me they contacted my former employer and they denied everything. They followed this up with numerous requests to visit the office, but were denied. They finally got a warrant and fined the SOB for all the software at list price x 3! Came out to about $24,000. Before they could collect the dirty rat ba$tard went bankrupt (he did this about once a year with one of his FOUR COMPANIES IN MADISON HEIGHTS MICHIGAN AFTER RAPING ALL HIS VENDORS AND STARTING UP A NEW COMPANY TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN. OF COURSE HE ALMOST CHANGED HIS WAYS AFTER HIS SHIKSA 26 YEAR OLD WIFE HIRED MOVERS AND HAD THE HOUSE CLEANED UP AND CARTED OFF ALONG WITH HER GAUDY DIAMOND RING AND JUST AS TACKY SILCON BOOBS BETWEEN THE TIME HE WENT TO WORK AND BACK!!!) - forgive me, I just had to add that for the 1 in a million chance he ever reads this post, but he always hated Macs.

Any way, the funny thing is, all of this took so long so that when it all started to happen and BSA got on his case, my former employer had just fired their $100,000 a year accountant (believe me this guy had to be a genius with play money - he probably found work at Enron) so they thought the accoutant was the rat!!! Too bad because I had this fantasy of being there for a SWAT team raid busting in the place and finding him flushing disks down the toilet - it was not meant to be I guess.


----------



## edX (Mar 14, 2002)

interesting story karavite.

but El Diablo - i am not talking about when netscape started giving the product away to everyone. i am talking about when they used to sell the browser for $30 or so. but any student could get it for free. Why couldn't other software companies do that? 

Your explanation that people would just give it away is not grounded. Only the same people who accept such things today would still be accepting them then. Once anybody has a copy, they can give it away to whomever they please now. theoretically, only one copy of any software ever needs to be paid for. then that person starts the worldwide free distribution. 

sound ridiculous? that's because it is. the majoity of people are always going to play by the rules. even if for no other reason than that "rules are rules" or"it's illegal".  so if the majority of people pirating today are kids and real theives, then at least tomorrow it will only be real theives. because the kids are still just going to pass them around to each other. People will either be honest or not. no amount of legislating is going to change that.  no amount of encoding is going to change that. and illegally using a free copy will still be a crime. 

If they really wanted to crack down they would install serial number reporters that automatically registered your software and reported when more than one person was using it. it wouldn't shut down the software, but it would alert the authorities. and when the authorities have less reports to have to chase down, they might be able to put their manpower into enforcement. then the only way to avoid reporting would be to avoid using the internet which would make it harder to get more software. or else become  a super geek like theed and learn how to disable it. Despite the appearances of this site, the world is not filled with super geeks yet. 

but let the kids have the software and learn how to use it so they can be the next generation of power users, developers, designers and the lot.


----------



## theed (Mar 15, 2002)

Ed, good to have you back here.  And thanks for pointing out the netscape history, I was about to do that myself.

karavite:  LOL.  You crack me up.  That's a sweeeeeet story.  Totally live by the sword, die by the sword.  Ironic in both the classic and Alanis Morisette definitions!  Wheeeeeee!

And a metaphor:  There was this intersection where I used to live, and one of the ways of coming into the road, you could see perfectly for at least 300 feet before you merged onto it.  The sign there was a stop sign, so not stopping was a crime, yet nobody stopped.

Other people were arguing that they needed to put a guard there to make everyone stop so that they obeyed the sign.  I retorted with what I felt was the obvious solution, make it a yield sign instead of a stop. This situation is brought to mind by this conversation we're having here. ... I also think that if government would enforce fewer laws, we'd see greater adherence to those laws.  "Pick your fights" so to speak.

ElDiablo:  You mentioned corporate vs consumer piracy, and you're not getting much argument on corporate piracy.  This is implicit agreement that that's bad and needs to stop.  And the clarification that we've arrived at in this thread is making me want to put forth a licensing structure, should my software ever move to a shareware fee.  "Current version free for unlimited time to students and anyone under 21, everyone else [X]$ per user".  My enforcement plan would likely be nothing, as I have no way of knowing; and enforcing would cost more than I ever plan on making.  But I really like the student and age thing. ... I'll settle for assuming innocence unless I can prove guilt.

As for being pissed at students for complaining about pricing:  it's true.  They get crazy discounts; but it's also true that they are often spending more money than they have already on education, and taking out loans to eat is bad enough, taking out loans for software stings extra hard, to the point of feeling like it's irresponsible to spend money on such frivolities(tm).   

This has been a wonderful thread.  But I feel I've come to some good conclusions, and that I have offered my piece.  I'm going to try (once again)
to not post any more, though I'll probably still read.  Thanks everyone for the pleasant conversation.


----------



## karavite (Mar 15, 2002)

theed - I'm glad you liked the story. I'm not normally the revenge type, but this guy was so slimy (and so rich due to his slime) that I just couldn't take it.

I'm no innocent angel in the pirated software world, but I do try and support the "little guys" every time. For example, I shelled out the $7 or whatever for Fruitmenus and it is one of my most useful and used apps (for those missing the Apple Menu days of yesterday). I have bought a ton of similar little apps that are mainly system enhancments and it is system enhancements that, IMO, have always made the Mac the best "personal computer." So, if you have to steal, at least give these kind of developers the monetary recognition they deserve.

Forgive me if I haven't read this entire thread, but I haven't run across a discussion of Open Source. It seems that if you are really poor and want to not be poor you could install Linux and a bunch of apps (Star Office if you are on a PC), learn how to use Linux and then go to IBM and get a job as Linux system admin for $90k a year. Then you could buy all the software you wanted. 

Seriously though, I have only been following Linux for a few years, but it is really improving and gives a real taste of what a free software world could be like in the future. After reading the Cathedral and the Bazaar, I thought things would change in a hurry, but I was wrong. However, I'm still confident that in the next few years you can get a free OS, GUI, file manager and suite of business and DTP apps that will do almost everything a person would need to do - and rarely crash!

Duh, just read the end of theed's note!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 15, 2002)

Hey Ed back again!!!!!!! 

AppleWatcher


----------



## AppleWatcher (Mar 18, 2002)

ahem.... liftin' 

AppleWatcher


----------



## Gimpy00Wang (May 13, 2003)

My PC's were always ridden with pirated software. Then, after using FreeBSD and RedHat at work for a couple years, I moved to FreeBSD at home for my primary workstation. One of the really nice things about open source OS's is that you can find pretty much anything you want for free. I started to feel really good ("clean") from not having to pirate software all the time. 

Since moving to OS X (FreeBSD is still, and alwys will be on my fw/ap/nat box), I have purchased a few apps. No big hitters like PS7 or DreamWeaver, but some <$30 titles. If I were to use PS or DW for work, I would purchase it (or have them purchase it  ). Thankfully, the company I work for is a strong advocate of OSS tools/apps so I should be "safe" as long as I work here. 

- G!mpy


----------



## Gimpy00Wang (May 13, 2003)

I'm all for people using/learning open source OS's, but unfortunately, the only way to get one of those nice ~$90K/yr jobs with IBM is to have a degree AND know some *nix...unless you're related to someone high up the food chain that works there.  I lucked out getting into FreeBSD and RedHat out of high school and getting myself into a great job where I could work with both. As a result, I have no college degree. So, even though I have 4+ years of sysadmin experience with a few BSD's and Linux distros, I most likely would not get into IBM.  It's no biggie though...I really love my current employer so I don't see not being able to get into IBM a problem (for now  ).

Just thought I'd add my $.02...

- G!mpy



> _Originally posted by karavite _*Forgive me if I haven't read this entire thread, but I haven't run across a discussion of Open Source. It seems that if you are really poor and want to not be poor you could install Linux and a bunch of apps (Star Office if you are on a PC), learn how to use Linux and then go to IBM and get a job as Linux system admin for $90k a year. Then you could buy all the software you wanted.*


----------



## mapski99 (May 29, 2003)

I don't mind a little software piracy of M$ products and products that are severly flawed. Of course d/l to try out is okay too. 

Strange ethics, but i get by with them.


----------

