What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)... :rolleyes::p

AppleWatcher
 
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)... :rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

...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.
 
.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.
 
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.

Period.
Click to expand...

...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?
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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????
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by testuser
ElDiablo,

You have surprised me!

I guess in the end we actually do agree:
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
* I want to try a friends version of X for 1 week to decide if I want to buy it
* They are no longer selling X, and I can't find another way to buy it
* Is it fair for companies to inflate the price that honest users pay, to recoup the losses to piracy?
Click to expand...

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!

I guess in the end we actually do agree:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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!)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by jokell82
I'm just glad I'm a student and can get software relatively cheap.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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...
Click to expand...

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