What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

...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.
 
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.
 
If I could, I would have pay for it. But, unfortunately, I can't. I'm poor. Free, but poor.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!

:)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

OK ElDiablo, then I fully agree with you :D:D:D;)

AppleWatcher
 
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.
 
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. :p

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.
 
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$.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.;)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top