What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

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

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

AppleWatcher
 
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?)
 
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?
 
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. :D
 
You may not agree with the laws, but they are still laws. It is wrong to break them, no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

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.;) )
 
No I mean Photoshop 1.0 :p
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.
 
Haha what kind of filters are there for Photoshop 1.0?
Export to Photoshop 0.2? :p :p

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

AppleWatcher
 
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.

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 to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.)
 
Originally posted by AppleWatcher
Haha what kind of filters are there for Photoshop 1.0?
Export to Photoshop 0.2? :p :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

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

I was hoping that someone would have brought up MacMAME by now (Click was headed in the right direction). This is the dilemma posed by the early 80's arcade emulater MAME:

* It emulates hundreds of video games that could be found throughout video arcades for much of the '80's
* Almost none of these games can be bought commercially. Furthermore, none of the video game license holders have any plans to make these games available to the public.

So this is warez, in that it deprives the original developers of these games any fair revenue from their products. But were it not for the MAME project, these games would never have seen the light of day again; the intention was to lock them up and throw away the key. (Part of the problem is with licensing; they would probably want $50 for each game, whereas the MAME developer would probably like to sell the whole package of hundreds of games for $50.)

So is it wrong to download these video game ROMs, and enjoy them?? Let me know what you think, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WHY!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top