Computer Software Piracy.

Be honest now...

They rape you on this crap. But you almost must have it to communicate in the world today.
Still, I manage/control software deployments and always fight piracy.

even if you didn't want to. I'll take Linux out of the equation for now.

Office? Screw that, OpenOffice.org does everything unless you do funky financial analysis in Excel.

What other software from Microsoft is REALLY necessary for a home computer and isn't already free?

Edit: "Windoes?" Something Freudian about that typo.

And I like the Open-source AbiWord rather a lot.

:puke: :argh: :banghead:

(a) I don't impinge on their ability to use/sell the product, because I only have a *copy* of the program. (By contrast, when I steal a car from a dealer, I do impinge on the dealer's ability to use/sell the car). So the software mfr hasn't lost any money to be made from OTHER people.

(b) I wasn't going to buy the software product ANYWAY. So the software mfr hasn't lost any money on ME, because they weren't gonna get it in any case.

Adding (a) and (b), the software mfr has lost no money due to my behavior.

That's how it seems to me at any rate. Where have I gone wrong?

As a programmer that makes my living writing software, regardless of weather or not you impinge my ability to use/sell my product, you ARE stealing it. Also, because you were not going to buy it means nothing, you ARE stealing it. It's mine and I deserve to be paid for my work. Please stop stealing my work. Thank you.

... who is gettin hurt?

Or is the issue ONLY "the principle of the thing"?

That person owns it, period. Theft is not a question of what you perceive as 'hurt', it is a question of taking something that does not belong to you. If you feel it is OK to put aside your principals because you do not feel you are hurting someone, thats your business, personally I feel that stealing is stealing is stealing. I have had my software pirated, did I loose money ? Hard to say, many say they would not have purchased it but i'm not sure I always believe that (in fact I rarely do, why take it if they did not intend to use it). Did it hurt my physically ? No but it hurt none the less. I put long hours into my work, I do my best to make a superior product and support it as required and the idea that someone liked it enough to steal it and use it but not pay me because they felt I was not being hurt... well, they were wrong. It was a direct slap in my face.

Where do you work?

But I also work independently and that software I do own. I also was a part owner of a company for about six years before we went under.

Your company compensates you for your time on the supposition that what you create for them will be merchantable, and that they will therefore recoup their investment in keeping you eating.

If the software is not merchantable because everybody in the world pirates it, then they go belly up and your chance to buy groceries ends...

Would someone pirate whiterosesociety? No, its a customized service to a specific customer base. I view the future of software headed in this direction.

But what about the classes of software which ARE pirated?

I think Games will ever be in this category, for example.

... would you mind telling me, then, who is getting hurt? I'm tolly open to correction on the matter...

I've made it as clear as I am able to.

is that you can't use something that belongs to someone else without their permission, or without paying for it.

The software belongs to the software company. If you use it without paying for it, it's theft.

Not one of your excuses will change that.

Redstone

... and i never denied it was theft...

I only pointed out that no one, to the best of my ability to see, was being hurt...

I'm open to correction on that claim...

It is NOT theft. It is the "loss" of profit which, at BEST, is a guess that one would have made. Further, no property is "lost" via unauthorized duplication; the software is still there to be sold.

Maybe I'm thinking this because digital property is in no way the same as physical property, and money you don't have can't be stolen from you.

These are but two reasons I'm uncomfortable with modern copyright law.

Solution: declare everything that is on or appears on the internet to be in the public domain by default. That would make all complaints irrelevant....

Do you?

Redstone

When you say "property", I think in terms of PHYSICAL OBJECTS.

When someone pirates software who never intended to buy it in the first place, you as a developer have lost nothing. You can't claim money you never would have made in the first place.

Nor can you claim a loss of property, since no actual property was lost.

Allow me a what-if scenario:

Suppose we have advanced nanotechnology, to the point we can sprinkle dust onto rubble and "bake up" a new building, or car, or whatever. Now, suppose you are, for example, an auto manufacturer. Advanced nanotechnology (and I'm not even saying it's realistic at the moment) would VERY quickly put you out of business.

Are the people making copies of your cars using nanites "stealing" from you?

Keep in mind, this is purely hypothetical, but my intent here is to propose a situation where it is ACTUAL property being copied- real, physical objects.

I personally do not equate money OR licenses for use with property, and I think it was a very unfortunate SCOTUS decision that made that so. But, then, I hate the very concept of currency, so that much shouldn't surprise anyone.

I wrote a software application for a non-profit company. They paid pennies on the dollar compared to the market value of the product. I have about 2000 hours into the application. I performed the work on the condition (contractually) that I would own the source code and be able to sell it to other clients. The application suite had commercial opportunities beyond being used for non-profit stuff.

I've since found out that several other non-profit groups are using the application without license, or even my permission. They didn't have the money to buy the product outright, so I guess under your theory, my 2000 hours is worth NOTHING, and these non-profits can use my software ILLEGALLY to their hearts content. After all, my work is a PHYSICAL thing, and the source code itself isn't a PHYSICAL thing.

The funny thing is, I would have licensed the software to any and all non-profits, requiring payment only for the deployment. I have an attorney, but haven't yet gotten in to any litigation. I'd look like a prick suing non-profit groups, and my attorney says I'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the application isn't in the public domain. That means that 2000 hours (1 year of my life) is down the shitter.

That's not hypothetical. That's real-life. Do you think it was okay for these people to shit on me the way they did?

I know that work has worth and should be paid for.

Convincing some of the others here, well, that might be a different matter. They seem to think that if they think it's too expensive, it's all right to steal it. Look out, Ferrari dealers!

Redstone

software are two different thing altogether. None comparable!!! You do not steal what is not physically yours, otherwise I must be stealing from journalist and authors who wrote articles on the internet and we on DU use them for research, so we are all stealing from those journalist and authors then.

under the agreement that I would own the rights to resell the application. They paid me about $5K, which was all they had in their budget. The Board of Directors wouldn't approve any more than that (it is a non-profit). That's not a lot of money for a job that took as long as it did. I have resold it a couple times (at about $900), but the point is that someone took MY application and used it without paying me, or even contacting me and asking for permission. Keep in mind that I normally bill between $55 and $85 per hour. Do the math.

What part of that sentence is unintelligible to you?

Redstone

If you simply showed your original contract, and claimed you had all rough copies, etc.

Now, I don't know what you did but if they indeed have the SOURCE code then it's on the table (unlike the SCO thing).

It would seem to me to be on THEM to show what was in the "public domain" (and if you look around there's not a lot of truly PUBLIC DOMAIN software rather than GPL or other copywritten software). I just can't believe that it would be your responsibility to prove a "universal negative".

If you went into a deposition, all you'd have to ask anyone at any of those other non-profits WHERE they got the software. I SERIOUSLY doubt pions /data entry people are willing to lied under oath to save the non-profit a couple of bucks.

PS: I really don't think people would think any less of you if sued them. They would respect you.

At the very least legally, I would offer them to continue using your program for free if 1) they admit that it's your program, 2)they copied it without permission 3) they agree not to distribute it to others and 4) understand that any further infrigement on their part WILL be met with litigation.

IN ANY CASE, I would offer for sale it on a website, publically claim ALL copyrights, posting copywrite restrictions, etc.

edited because I kept thinking of stuff..

I'm hoping it was simply some well-meaning person at the non-profit who assumed that they owned the application. The problem is that the application is not a simple install. It requires knowledge of SQL Server, ASP.NET, and web server technologies.

My attorney sent some sort of cease and desist order, and these groups claim that they are no longer using the application. I've spent about $2K for attorney's fees just trying to get it away from groups that haven't paid for it. The newest version sends me errorlog reports weekly, so I know who has the server engine installed simply by how many errorlogs I get each week.

Suing these non-profits would make me look like an asshole, because they claim that the assumption was that the application was free. The original group I performed the work for is fairly large, but the groups using the application illegally are small non-profits. One thing I definitely did NOT do is allow them use of the source code. It hasn't left my network, EVER. Getting paid peanuts up front, there was no way that I'd let the source code loose. There are, however, thousands of lines of plain text SQL script, but those are pretty much worthless without the application front-end and data tiers that are compiled. The application is mostly a web application (at least on the front end), so technically other non-profit groups could "piggyback" off an existing install.

I would like to find the person who deployed the application, and I have a pretty good idea who that person is, but no proof. That's the person I'm going to sue when or if the time comes. This person (I think) is the one who installed a central database and gave access to all these groups to use the application. Unfortunately, in these litigious times, all the groups are being pretty tight-lipped. I like your idea of suggesting a peace offering (and free use of the application) to those groups that admit their previous wrongs. I might talk to my attorney about doing that.

Thanks for your suggestions! :-)

First, we have only your word for it that you'd never buy.

Picture this for me; Every bit of software you have pirated disappears from your machine, and no more pirated software would ever be available again. Are there things that you would have to obtain eventually through purchase or open source? I find it hard to believe that you'd never be forced to one of those alternatives if there were no software for you to pirate.

If you would be forced to buy; Well, we have just proven who was hurt, both the software author, because he can't pay his heating bill this winter, and the other people who now buy that software because they likely pay more now than they would if sales were more brisk.

If you would be forced to use open source, then it is the open source community who is hurt by you pirating software. The OSS Community needs as many users as it can get. Users are the only way to find bugs. Users are the only way to achieve credibility.

And everybody, including yourself, is hurt by you breaking the social contract by stealing what others own.

... but then if that's the case, u may as well suppose NOTHING I said was true... including that I have pirated software...

Unless I'm mistaken, the only software functionality that couldn't be replaced by legally-free alternatives are games. Can't think of any other exmples at least....

Seems to me some of you all are gettin a bit outta hand with this... You wanted honesty, and now are happily piling on with your righteous holier-than-thou indignation... Call me a sucker I spose - won't happen again - I'll make sure to not be honest in the future - lol

And it hasn't been stolen. The owner still has it. Per my original setup, the owner still has everything they had before I came along, in fact. If you want to claim something has been stolen, I think you have to be rather careful and precise about what it is, especially given my initial setup.

...that the Open Source community is the one suffering because you won't participate.

OSS is also hurt by someone who BUYS commercial software... On your bizarre notion of "hurt", which apparently just means "doesn't use to the maximum amount possible"

Now I've heard it all.

In case that went too fast for ya: To the extent that "the Open Source community is the one suffering because you won't participate", it is NOT because of my "stealing". The suffering would be the same if i BOUGHT the software. Do you criticize software purchasers for contributing to the OSS community's suffering? The Amish also don't "participate" in OSS - do you criticize them?

:rofl:

...which infringes on the copyright granted the IP owner, which is supposed to protect their income from anyone's use of the software. We grant copyrights to creators so that they can afford to keep creating. Piracy costs them sales (though I don't claim a one-to-one relationship there, as not everyone who steals would have ever bought).

Pirate, and the creation of IP becomes less profitable, and creators/owners can afford to hire fewer people, and so fewer people can afford to buy other products. One way or another, we all pay for piracy.

"The owner still has it" is willful ignorance of what IP really is. It may not be tangible, but nations legislate to protect it.

First, the OSS community does not *need* users. No one in OSS cares that I prefer to use CLI versions of archiving utilities rather than the popular GUI front-end ark, except perhaps those who are driven by pride at a large user base.

The OSS community needs developers, and by that I don't mean people sitting in cubicles working for wages, rather people who aren't content at being dumbed down by proprietary software and its inherent tendency to remove choices and add bugs by marketing them as features. Developers don't necessarily write code. Developers are also those who test software, report bugs, try new things and report the results, put together manuals, etc. The OSS community needs people to be involved in the process of helping themselves and by extension helping others help themselves.

Second, although I know I'm tilting at a might windmill with this, please, please, please check your use of context in trying make this point. In your extreme example, software authors might be hurt, but in the real world, typical software authors, i.e. those employed by the software manufacturers most commonly subjected to having their products pirated, are not the entity that have their financial situation dramatically affected by piracy. Corporations, and those who run them, are bother by piracy when, and only when it is piracy of products to which they own the rights. But also remember this, the two largest software developers in the world made their fortunes on the back of software pirates.

Isn't it? They won't work for nothing, but they want you to.

Redstone

that programmer has already been compensated.

But all this is beside the point; NO software is worth thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Not when you can make a copy effortlessly.

PRICING PROMOTES PIRACY. Developers REALLY need to lower their prices if they want to eliminate piracy, because it WILL NOT go away on its own, no matter what laws are passed.

I'm thinking of hundreds for Windows, thousands for 3DS and Maya, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for plugins for the latter two.

And people have the nerve to ask why this happens....

that programmer? From selling software, there's where!

Christ, why is this so hard for people to understand?

Redstone

But then- who would pirate THAT crap? Maybe I'm wrong on that; it was RIGHT when I was first starting to use IBM PCs.

I think you're missing my point, here- developers should expect a certain amount of piracy when they price their software exorbiantly high. Whether or not it's right, or whether or not you'll catch people doing it, is completely beside the point.

My argument isn't that developers shouldn't expect to be paid for their software- my point is, developers are asking to be PAID TOO HIGHLY for their software.

$7K for Maya Unlimited is disgraceful and greedy. There are those who feel developers who price their software in such a way- and some Maya and 3DS plugins run for, again, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS *per copy*- deserve to have their software pirated, usually by those who will NOT use it commercially.

What I would like to see is an open-source version (and Blender does NOT qualify; in fact, Blender sucks donkey dick, actually) of modeling and animation software, operating systems, and so on that are priced REASONABLY.

Reasonable pricing- and $700+ for Photoshop is NOT reasonable- would eliminate piracy. Locks and laws do not.

think it's too expensive.

Redstone

it's true that companies have to pay the programmer.

But software companies have a profit margin right up there with pharmaceuticals.

I don't pirate anything and would certainly look at it differently with small companies...but I don't worry about major CEOs freezing in winter.

Think about this for a minute. How many people in the world would REALLY pay for Maya, even if it was bargain basemented down to $99 a copy? A few thousand, TOPS. There are very few animators in the world who need that kind of power. For the sake of argument, lets say there's 5000 customers at $100 per copy...that's $500,000 in total sales.

How many programmers worked on that application? How many years did it take for them to get it to its current state? What did their facilities cost? How much marketing did they have to do to gain that marketshare? How many phone and email support people do they need to keep on staff to help their customers out?

How many of those expenses would that $500,000 cover?

Now, I happen to agree that Microsoft charging hundreds of dollars for Office is too much, simply because they sell so many copies that their profit is obscene. Very VERY few applications have that kind of market penetration though, which is why their prices are higher. If it takes 40 people 3 years to write a new application and their target market is only 50 people wide, the application HAS to be expensive simply because the entire development cost is being shouldered by relatively few people.

My company sold a custom POS system to a client last year, and we charged them about a million dollars for it. According to your logic it should be OK to pirate that software because it's "unreasonably priced". Of course, that price makes more sense when you realize that it took six programmers two years to write it, that it's one of only two projects they completed last year, and that we only had one customer for it. When we finished paying the bills and taxes, we had just a hair over $50,000 in profit. Would YOU work 12 hours a day, sometimes 6 days a week for $50k a year in California?

Every time you pirate a program, you help send another job to India. Margins are already getting extremely tight in the business, and wages are usually one of the first things to be cut.

software companies invite piracy via exorbiant pricing. In the case of Maya, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the the product has very likely more than paid for its development costs by now, including that of the current version. Additionally, Alias "caved" to the pressure of the users- one could say, responded to piracy by people who wanted to learn- and created the Maya Personal Learning Edition. Still, that's crippled; while I do understand their not wanting it to be used for commercial purposes, there's no real need to limit the software further than a watermark (which is in place in PLE). By crippling it, they're still encouraging people to pirate their software, and in some ways doing so in an even worse way, because now mere mortals "have a taste".

I should also point out that now there are student bundle versions available, but again, those often don't have everything needed, and some of those things are intentionally left out. It's my understanding (and this may have changed) that one of the student bundles (MAX or Maya or another, I can't remember exactly which) actually expires. IT's likt flushing $500 or so into the toilet. That sort of behavior creates an incentive for people to pirate software.

The example of your company doesn't really apply to the point I'm trying to make because it wasn't a popular commercial application. That's the category of piracy that everyone seems to be most concerned with, and I'm only trying to point out why that might happen. There really is fault on both sides in this.

"Would YOU work 12 hours a day, sometimes 6 days a week for $50k a year in California?"

Red herring. I actually do work with people who often work 12 hours a day, six days a week, make about that, and throw their backs out or blow a knee in the process. I refuse overtime for exactly that reason, in fact: I don't want to screw up my body. That's neither here nor there; I maintain that property which can be copied ad infinitum cannot be 'stolen' in the traditional sense.

No. You haven't. What you've "lost" is profits... which you never would have made in the first place.

That's not a loss; it's wishful thinking, at best.

I side with the prof at Purdue who told his modeling/animation student prospects (not yet in a curriculum) to go ahead and use an unlicensed copy of 3DS if they must, to learn the software.

When you price your software at hundreds or thousands of dollars, you should expect a certain amount of unauthorized copies being made. When you cripple your demo versions, you should expect the same thing to happen.

This really doesn't apply to me, though, because I try to use open source software alternatives- like using the GIMP instead of Photoshop, or Blender instead of 3DS (not that it's remotely as powerful, but oh well).

But if you're pricing at thousands of dollars for popular software... expect that software to have unauthorized copies made somewhere, sometime.

The software was on computer disk-packs in a remote transmitter location in the rocky mountains. A former employee hired a contractor, gave him a key to the place and a plane ticket, and sent him off to fetch back that disk, telling him the lie that it was at a site his company was renting. Now, that disk (unwisely) was the only copy of that software. Fortunately for the rightful owners, this deal stank to the contractor and he went to his boss who figured out what was really happening. And the police were then summoned. Had the theft gone on, though, the original owner would have been deprived of his software.

Now, as for the canard that these profits were wishful thinking; I know of a popular and reasonably priced shareware offering that had to be dripped because nobody was paying for it. I knew of nobody who didn't have a copy of this thing, and, except for myself, knew of nobody else who had paid for it. I think these people would have paid the $14.95 for it if it had been a copy-protected retail product, but as it was on the honor system, they didn't see the harm of not paying. Now the product is gone, and the features are frozen. And what applies to shareware must apply doubly to pirated software. If you want worthwhile and reasonably priced software available, don't pirate software.

...because the sort of piracy we're talking about here (apparently) is piracy of popular commercial applications. In your first example, the software was very obviously not a popular, well-known and widely used application.

What you described smells more like corporate espionage to me, and that's a completely different animal.

As for shareware, I don't think I've EVER known anyone who has actually paid for any piece of shareware. I myself use MIRC, and have for years and years, and have no intention of ever paying a dime for it. Period. In spite of this, MIRC keeps getting developed and keeps getting used... usually without payment.

That hasn't stopped MIRC from being the most popular and most widely-used IRC client available.

Name the application you're talking about, and within five minutes I'll probably find either something like it, or a later version of the same thing developed by different people. If the developer didn't release the code when the thing went belly-up, then it wasn't the application that was important to him or her, but the MONEY, which makes me of the opinion that they really really shouldn't have released it as shareware in the first place, ESPECIALLY if they wanted to make money off it.

I paid for my IRC client in 1996 and have been using it ever since. ( ircle on the Mac )

Not for a New York minute.

And... it's been around since the early nineties, it's used by nearly everyone, and it's STILL AROUND, despite the majority of users not paying for it.

Which I wouldn't, ever. Why? It doesn't deserve to be paid for. Not when you're going to continue releasing it, and NOT cripple the software after the "trial" period.

Besides, I've also used XChat, and that's free, and more functional. It's just a little bit more cumbersome to use.

No, I have no guilt at all over that one. Not when there are so damn many chat clients out there imitating it! One's as good as the other, and most are free anyway. MIRC is the exception; I'm certain Khaled knows people aren't paying for each and every copy.

According to the rationale on this thread, he shouldn't be able to continue developing it.... yet he does. Imagine that- someone working for free!

Redstone would be pissed that his/her "working for free" meme is so totally destroyed by that fact, yet it is. Sucks to be WRONG, I guess....

I simply cannot understand an attitude such as yours.

Yes, it's stealing. Stop making excuses.

Redstone

and sell it for big profits?

Apple did that with FreeBSD and then moved to Intel chips (for related reasons, obviously).

Did open source programmers ever envisage affluent corporations taking the work they volunteered to do and in good faith, just to be cheated like this? Those programmers worked their asses off...

Sorry to whiz on Apple as Novell and other big companies are not much different...

If I spend thousands of hours on a product that you ILLEGALLY copy, you are stealing from me and my family, and I will prosecute you and see you in jail. I have no humor for this shit; you are a thief if you steal software.

If your argument had any merit, than I could sneak into movies; after all, the movie makers aren't "losing" money when I wouldn't have paid for it anyway. The same goes for your crazy "car" argument. If you took the car, and used it for a couple days, then returned it in the same shape in which you took it, that must be okay, right? The dealer will still be able to sell it.

It's a perfect foil for those self-centered, greedy, piggish people who think the everyone else but them should have to work for free.

Redstone

..."public broadcast"?

Or is it not public by default?

Do you have a problem with Mac users coming over to my house to use a Windows program I bought because they don't want to pay for it?

How far are you taking the concept of "piracy", anyway? Should music resellers be forced to pay a royalty? Software resellers (used software, used music, etc)?

But it's completely irrelevant to software...

Movie theater: There is a scarce resource being being irretrievably taken: namely a seat.

Your emdentation to the stolen car: the car is no long brand new - this is irrreversible - the car coulda been sold for more, possibly, during the time that it was gone.

Software: On the scenario I originally described, there is no financial harm of ANY sort - no scarce resource being co-opted. Unless I'm mistaken - and I'd be grateful if someone could point this out to me... Just make sure you've read my original setup...

no software. No jobs.

Christ, why is this so hard to understand?

Redstone

I claim that *I*, with the behavior I originally described, am not the cause of the company not being able to make money. As I've said, I could be wrong - no one seems to wanna show me how tho...

Instead people have just been yelling about feeding their families... I agree families need to be fed - just show me how the behavior I originally described impinges on that.

I think I've been pretty consistent with that question. Why no one wants to answer it is beyond me.

Amusing though to see people accuse me of all sortsa things, from sabotaging the opensource community to rape...

instead of bought, is that much less money thay have to pay their employees, develop new versions, and so on.

Simple enough for you?

Stealing is wrong. Using someone else's property without paying for it is wrong. Period.

End of conversation.

Redstone

As I originally said, I wasn't gonna buy it ANYWAY.

So the company hasn't lost any money.

Is that simple enough for you? (I assume not, since that's what I originally said, and you didn't understand it then either, apparently...)


Stealing is most definitely wrong. Tell me what's been stolen here plz? What, SPECIFICALLY, did the company used to have, that they no longer have?

"Never waste your time arguing with someone who has the same answer for every question."

Discussion over.

Redstone

To address what I actually said... Insteada what you wish or think I said... :shrug:

What particular packages do you use?

Now I'm an *uncreative* rapist who sabotages the opensource community!

I can't wait to see what you guys think of next! :rofl:

Packages? What do you mean?

don't they?

Every piece of music I write is free for public use.

It's a great hobby, though. Have fun!

Or as in Application.

A rather wide variety I guess... All the standard stuff - I'm a PC guy... Specialized math/dev stuff... But you have to get fairly specialized before you hit somethin I'm not at all familiar with...

Not sure what you're aimin at - lil help?

EDIT: Right now, for example, I'm playin with c# and a math library called nmath or somethin like that... Does that help?

Someone raping another person who's passed out... If they don't wake up and don't know about it the next day, who really got hurt?

But in a word, no, it isn't like that. Not one lil bit.

I think it's hilarious-in-a-sad-way tho, that you, going the other direction, liken software piracy to raping someone who's drunk...

Right? :shrug:

Not according to me.

I'm sorry you think rape is a victimless crime - that's rather evil.

It's even more evil to try to get other people to think that *I* think that.

to point out that ANY crime can be rationalized into a victimless crime - does that make it less of a crime, though?

I don't agree with your premise - that any crime can bee rationalized into a victimless crime. Nor do I agree that my reasoning lead to that conclusion. And without without your premise, there is no question.

If you wanna disagree with me, that's fine. It might be more helpful in the future tho, if you don't tell me and the rest of the world that I condone the rape of drunk people. (How cool is a person who does that, seriously?)

Sheesh.

You might also take a look at my original claim, and simply tell me specifically where I'm in error. That's all I've been asking for...

If it's so obvious that I'm wrong, it should be easy enough to point out the error *directly*, no? And without saying I condone rape.

and bring it down to your level since you can't seem to find the hypocrisy in your rationalization.

A yes or no question: If a victim of a crime is not aware that they are a victim, does that negate the fact that a crime has been committed? And we're talking any crime here: software piracy, shoplifting, masturbation in public, grand larceny, rape... - you choose. I just want to know where you draw the line.

on edit: Oh, by the way, I've never said that I agreed or disagreed with you. But once your argument and my argument are broken down into a common denominator like this, I can see how one could get defensive.

My point has nothing to do with anyone's awareness of victim-hood or lack thereof - I'm only concerned with whether or not THERE IS a victim.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Do you understand that the following two issues are not the same?

(a) Whether or not there is a victim

(b) Whether or not the victim is aware they were a victim


Do you understand that I've consistently been concerned ONLY with (a)? Not (b). Just (a). Only (a).

Why did you even bring up (b) in the first place? It's completely irrelevant to anything I've said here? Did you even read what I originally said? Is English not your first language perhaps? (Just throwin out possible reasons for your consistent failure to address my original claim...)

So the person that wrote the software you're stealing is not really a victim, because he doesn't know you're stealing it? :shrug: (and that second sentence addressed your claim for about the 4th time in this thread in case you're having trouble finding it...) So tell me, when does a victim become a victim according to your definition of the word?

And, no, I don't really expect you to answer the question at this point. You've gotten really defensive on the subject but it amuses me to argue semantics with you.

Avoiding the question? guffaw. I'm the one who *initiated* the question, genius.

"not really a victim, because he doesn't know you're stealing it?"

No, genius. He's not a victim because he's not harmed by my behavior. Unless I'm wrong, but I've been looking for someone to show me otherwise, and instead they just called me a rapist... :(

Why do you keep harping on peoples' "state of knowledge"? That doesn't have anything to do with anything here.

Question: Is the software writer harmed by my behavior or not?
If not, s/he's not a victim.

It's just that easy - whether that's easy enough for you to understand is another question...

more reasonable, no one would bother to go through the hassle of trying to steal it. They're a great big monopoly, for all intents and purposes, with very little real competition--they know they can charge damn near anything from the average bozo, who isn't adept at all that computerin' stuff!

More real, serious, interchangeable competition would make the costs drop like a stone.

MANY software packages, especially the most expensive and powerful ones (I'll continue to use the examples I've used elsewhere on this thread- 3DS and Maya), utilize internet/telephone authorization/activation, software keys, and (very seldom these days) hardware dongles. Of these techniques, the hardware dongle is the most expensive option, and the hardest to get around; the hardware dongle "unlocks" the software while it is in use, but 1) takes up a port (USB, serial, PS/2, name it) and 2) is annoying as hell to use. And what if the dongle breaks? You can't use the application you paid thousands of dollars for.

So, companies use software locks, but the problem is, there are hackers out there who see such locks as nothing more nor less than a challenge for them to pick. They're NOT interested in seeing to it that as many people as possible can "steal" the software; no- THEY see it as a challenge, and nothing more.

I will restate my position, though: if you price your software in the range of thousands of sollars, expect the hobbyist to say, "What the hell? I'm NOT going to use it for anything I'm going to make money from, and this software is the ONLY way I can realize what I want to create."

If 3DS had a "public version" that was uncrippled (something like GMax, but that ACTUALLY RENDERS IMAGES), Discreet would see a lot less "piracy". They don't, and price their software totally out of range of Joe and Jane Q. Public, and they get their software pirated as a result.

It really IS the developer's fault. Price your software out of range of all comers, and see it get "stolen". It's just that simple.

Hardware DONGLES!!!!!!! What a rich phrase!!! Sounds like a way to insult some of the clowns on the right!!!

Oh, they were fun. Like I said, they're not used very much- if at all- anymore, mostly because of the hassles I described.

What you would do is plug in one end of the dongle into the port, and the OTHER end into something else on your PC. This would provide the PC with a code, internal to the dongle, that would "unlock" the software. Without the dongle, even if you paid for the software, you couldn't use it at all.

TERRIBLE system. And they were usually prone to breaking/failure.

A terrible system, indeed!!!!!!!!!

Where the software has to authenticate as a unique copy with the software company's server before it will consent to run for you.

The question you need to think about is WHY that statement is untrue. Here's a clue: it's why a LOT of people are so pissed off at Valve that they won't buy Half-Life 2.

Oh, it's true developers DO that, but untrue that it's required. Your assignment is to figure out why.

I know why, but I think I'd like to see you reason it out.

Have you never seen a high end CAD package that required Internet authentication? One place I was at had two such packages deployed.

I needed to; I have a 64-bit CPU now.

Windows Vista I will not be using, now or in the future- not until all other software is deprecated via lack of support, like Micro$oft did with Win 3.1 and Win95/98, and I will not much appreciate being forced into it when that happens.

you can mail, fax, or call to authorize, if you don't have an internet connection. My comment about Valve and Half-Life 2 was regarding how a lot of people won't get it (legitimately) because they have to go online to unlock it- and some can't. Therefore, they can't use something they paid for, or can't- legitimately- use the product they want to buy.

I think Valve later addressed that problem, but it was some time after release. In the meantime, pirated copies appeared to 'fill the gap', so to speak; my guess is they're still there.

Simply by including the option to phone or fax or mail to get an authorization number is a point of attack hackers can use to exploit the authorization system in the software and use it's own information to crack the requirement for authorization. If internet authorization were truly a requirement for use, that might happen less, particularly if the software itself is in encrypted form prior to authorization (as Valve did with the preloaded copies of their game, which needed to be unlocked- by Valve- in order to be used).

I'll use Valve's option to illustrate one last point: there were not pirated copies available prior to the initial release. There was one leak of code and a demo (I think), but the full game never showed up online as a torrent or whatnot until after it was unlocked and released by Valve.

If that were to become a trend for all software, piracy of that software would drop, but it depends upon everyone who will potentially use the software being able to get online to authorize. That's not yet the case.

My apologies for being so obtuse.

All I got to say is Autocad :)

First. The software your talking about was not made for the hobbyist to play around with. It was made at great expense, time and effort for professional use, for people and companies to make money with, that is the reason it is top shelf. Because you want to play with the best, does not justify stealing it.

Second. If hackers were not interested in leting people steal software, they would crack the copy protection and be done with it, not release the hacks/keys/whatever where anyone could get them.

Third. Dongles... please.

Fourth. Because something is priced out of your range, does not justify stealing it. It's just THAT simple.

It's the pure hassle, not to mention the invasive legal arrangement to which you are agreeing when you purchase a license.

I'd pay the same price for something like SUSE or Fedora that Microsoft charges for Windoze and do so without any reservation. The reason is simply that I can then install this product as many times as I damn well please on the same computer, even if I change out my CPU or get a new hard drive and happen to want two installations in case one of them gets hosed. And I don't have to call and talk to some random idiot and have him question me like I'm a damn criminal about *why* I'm installing the software. Customer service, even the idea of pleasing a customer, with most large software companies is non-existent.

I mentioned it, but I won't at this time go off on a rant about the typical proprietary software license. I'll just say that I will not agree to most of those, not for any reason. I'll take out a pencil and a pad of paper and go to work or walk outside and enjoy the day rather than play a computer game if I have to agree to many of these terms.

The only software I buy directly any more is gaming software, and I've cut down on that considerably. If I don't agree to the license, I won't buy it, period. It's not something I need, just something I want, and if the corporations that sell licenses to use it can't come up with terms that are friendly to average consumers, they can go screw themselves. I do have a legitimate license for one copy of Windoze from every version up through WinXP Pro. I will not purchase a license for Vista, not if it resembles in any way the hints I've seen about what it will contain.

it's wrong to force me to "activate" it. And then "Activate it again" (read: beg and plead) if I want to re-install it onto a new computer, or the same computer in which I've installed a new hard drive and some additional RAM.

That system is pure bullshit, and feeds the frenzy of those who think stealing outright is OK.

Plus, I never even register software. I'm not going to use their tech support, so why do they need my personal information?

I don't register software. I won't put up with software that requires "activation." But given that I feel that way, I simply won't buy that software; I do not feel that my objections allow me to steal it instead.

Redstone

(Proud throwback user of Mac System 9.2.2, Quark 5, Illustrator 8, Photoshop 7, and Dreamweaver 4.)

but at one point (way back, long past the statute of limitations O8) ) I had approximately 200 titles that were hacked, cracked, and totally free.

Somebody gave me their old copy of Microshaft Weird for Mac and an old copy of Spectre Supreme (which won't even run on my G3 iMac or G4 PB).

And I think there's a 1995 copy of Quark Express on floppy disc lying around somewhere.

I can't even master the stuff that was loaded on my PB without trying to figure out how to use illegal software.

the debate.

Copyleft: all Rights reversed.

;-)

Do you work for nothing? I bet you don't.

Redstone

There are people who write Operating Systems and software packages. This is whats most commonly pirated. MS Windows, Office, Adobe, perhaps some games fall under this category. Most of this software is owned by Huge Corporations who really are not hurt by piracy IMO (Bill Gates is poor? LOL).

There are people who write software on the applications over the Internet and via extranets. Companies offer services to their customers via the Internet such as online banking, yahoo, even DU.
It is impossible to pirate this software. This segment of software is where I believe most software is headed.

There are also consultant firms who mostly write custom appllications for companies which once again are not usually pirated.

And not for nothing. Some projects take donations and PayPal. (Similar to what I do with White Rose.)

Others develop software for their company's use and are paid for their time. Companies use open source because they thereby get the advantage (if the product is worthy) of a community of other users who feed back into the project good ideas, bug fixes, etc. In this case the company's payment comes through those benefits. Often a company can get a working application that does 99% of what they want, and only pay their staff to fill in the missing 1%. This is a big win for any company.

Others sell you their software (even though OSS) on the honor system, and provide paying clients with telephone support and similar services.

And I'm sure there are ways I haven't even thought of.

EDIT: And some are paid in fame, glory, adulation, atta-boys, etc. (Also looks good on the resume.)

doohickey. So, if anyone can copy the code and interface and use it and / or sell it to others, what the fuck do I get for my three years' work? A warm, fuzzy feeling?

My work feeds my family. If people don't pay for it, we don't eat.

Simple enough concept? I think it is.

Redstone

Nobody is arguing that developer X should release software Y that he developed as free.

What benburch said was: it's viable, period. Not necessarily in all situations.

software developers should work for free. Apologies again for making the point in reply to the wrong post.

Redstone

I was not implying at all that you OUGHT to do it. It is perfectly acceptable to make and sell non-open source software.

But you asked how people get paid for it.

who think that everyone but them should work for free.

Redstone

using GPL'ed software. I have a plan to start a new computer vendor business, a small local outfit, starting with me, I'm no programmer, but I can build, setup and troubleshoot computers with ease. Now, I want these computers to turn both a profit for me, but also be able to undercut the big boys and have both quality parts and keeping it less than 300 dollars. The biggest problem I had was software, namely the OS, Windows is a popular OEM software, however, it also costs 120 bucks a pop(less for Dell, Gateway), screw that, if I packaged it in, it would drive my costs to the stratosphere, and selling a computer that is OS-less would be untenable for the market I'm going for, low income families.

So my solution, Use Linux as the pre-installed OS, namely I'm thinking of using Ubuntu Linux, for two reasons, one, is that, for a nominal fee, I can have my customers get software and hardware support from me and second, its easier than Windows to setup, and is a HELL of a lot cheaper(0 bucks can't be laughed at here).

That would the staple of course, I would sell OS-Less PCs for power users if they wish and also for gamers, if they want them. A custom shop, so to speak, we have few in the area, and most sell underpowered computers to begin with. As I said, I would be targeting the PERSONAL computer market, not commercial, until I expand, of course, we have a serious shortage here, and given the quality control problems with Dells and Gateways, I can see myself getting some of their market share, especially in cases of Media PCs. That's another market for another time, building cheap, royalty-free PVRs without the monthly cost, and yet with all the advantages, like pausing live TV.

Of course, right now, this is just an idea I'm kicking around, I'll still need a loan, and while cheap hardware is a given, Canonical has no problem with me distributing Ubuntu Linux, as long as I only charge the cost of it, zero dollars. I'm charging for hardware, that is the model at least.

:)

To recoup his time and effort.

on it unless I can sell specific implementations.

(I own the company, so only my customers pay me to do this stuff. And they only pay for it when it's finished, and works.)

Redstone

Then again, that's how Gallup does it, too....:eyes:

but when it comes to music, my rationale is "If I buy as much music as I would have anyway, who get's hurt?" but it comes undone if you do a few hypothetical situations.

Unless the powers that be are looking at this. In which case I don't and never have....

And back then we had open source... When a guy would write a good program or subroutine, he'd happily make you a copy of the FORTRAN deck for it. I'm told my Print-plotting subroutine was used for years after I left.

Any number of times I've pirated software to try it to see if I like it. If I do I buy it.

Is that piracy? Well according to the software companies it is (and I work for one).

To me, its fair use. If I try it and don't like, I quit using it and delete it off my drive. If I like, I buy it.

Somewhat on topic I've downloaded music that I already own, or own but on a damaged CD. Is that piracy? The RIAA says it is. I disagree.

Overall, I try to be fair and do that right thing, but that doesnt mean Im above bending the rules while trying to stay ethical.

Read some of the posts in this thread. They think that if it isn't something you can pick up and carry, it isn't work, and has no value.

(PS: Isn't that what demo versions of software are for?)

Redstone

With Demo software becoming more and more common, what I describe isnt as necessary as it used to be. In fact its quite rare nowadays. Lately most vendors have gotten the hang of Internet distrubtion of Demo software, but that wasnt always the case.

What you say is very true that many people believe that software is over priced or has no value.

While SOME software is overpriced, the reality is that programmers and engineers are expensive and that development cost must be recouped. If software vendors cannot recoup it, they won't hire engineers and won't sell sofware..or they'll just outsource to India.

FWIW, some of these same concepts applies to prescription drugs as well. The cost isnt in the little pill (or very little is), but the drug is priced high to recoup development cost. Of course piracy isnt much of an issue here, but the pricing of drugs certainly is.

costs are met.

Oh, so sorry- THAT involves revoking corporate personhood. Damn, THAT idea again.

I think I've said that each and every progressive issue- and a lot of things progressive/liberal types dont talk about as much- can be realized/defeated/changed through the revocation of corporate personhood.

For example: Microsoft SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to price their OS "as they see fit". No, Virginia, corporations should not be allowed to "run their business the way they want to."

One way we could fight this would be to eliminate the "right" of corporations to own copyrights or patents.

Revamping 100 years of corporate law, regulating the software industry (ala airlines and utilities), revamping copyright and patent law.

All to save a few bucks on software? (and I do mean a few)


Of course you need to realize that the sofware is priced so that development costs are already amortized into the price of software over the expected market life of the product (plus some profit of course).

In other words, about the time that the cost is recouped, the software is obsolete and the company is now selling new software. In some cases you can still get the old software, but then the support costs are outrageous.

Not to mention that software companies will have to hire a legion of lawyers to comply with software regulation, that'll need to be added into the cost as well.

Because of this, the effect is the prices would only drop by a small amount..or force more outsourcing.

Not even to mention the effect it would have on innovation.

Nah, Id rather pay an extra $2 bucks, keep our software industry alive and competive.

Shit its about the only industry that America still leads in. Lets leave it alone.

A rational company will attempt to maximize their profits, and sometimes that means lowering prices, not raising them. This is especially true as you reach saturation at the current price and know that there is demand for the product at lower prices. Which is not the case when your product has been heavily pirated.

Companies have to make money, or guess what? No new software. No new drug for that diesease that would have killed you if you hadn't had the drug.

Redstone

Your work has value and OF COURSE you deserve to be compensated for it. Your feelings on this matter are right and proper.

But consider this: It wont last forever. We are living in what has to be a very finite state of market flux. The rapid introduction of new technologies in the past ten years has created inevitable loopholes in the market, but I believe that they are TEMPORARY loopholes.

All markets tend to find equilibrium over time, don't they? Even BLACK markets. People will not and CAN not work for free but other people still need software so software developers and record companies and movie companies will all come up with some combination of anti-piracy, marketing and legal strategies that, eventually, will minimize piracy. You can never hope to FULLY stamp it out, I guess but as rampant as piracy seems to be if you spend some time on Usenet you'll see that it may now be peaking or already has peaked. (JMO)

So let those who pirate enjoy this rare bounty while they can. It can't last forever.
In ten years we will look back on this time as a bygone era when one could fill one's HD to the brim with AutoCad, Photoshop, Office, Warcraft and more music than you could hope to listen to as easily as picking grapes off the vine. (never mind WHO'S vine it is or how hard they worked to water it...)

Several very popular programs started out as "buy if you like it" types of situations. The people who owned those programs made enough money to develop them into huge, bloated beasts that are now sold for sometimes hundreds of dollars.

The key is the software has to be valuable enough to people for them to be willing to pay for it. I've seen "buy if you like" software that does absolutely nothing I couldn't do with a simple script. I'm not paying for that. I've seen other software of this variety that is horribly broken, and I won't buy that either, especially if it comes with no hope of technical support or a regular release schedule for updates. And I certainly won't pay hundreds of dollars for a software suite that does one thing I need done maybe once or twice a year. The donation-ware model doesn't work for stuff like this.

I've struggled with this question from time to time.

Let's say you can't find the software in stores, the developers no longer get a cut, and there's maybe one guy on e-bay selling a copy for 10X its original price, but you can download a cracked version for free. Is it legit to download?

ESPECIALLY software the developer publicly states it will no longer support. For example, I'd tell people to go ahead and make as many copies of MS Win98 as they wish. It's no longer sold, no longer supported, and no longer even on the shelves.

If you're going to yank your software off the shelves and stop supporting what people already have, well... you certainly don't deserve to be able to claim "piracy" for a product that you refuse to continue to sell or support.

You can't have it both ways.

There are sites where you can download SOME abandonware legally, either the copyrights are themselves given away, like Rockstar's GTA 1 and 2, or there is no longer a valid holder of said copyright, it technically exists, but no one company or individual can lay claim to it. Also, certain software, such as MAME ROMS(Video Games) aren't really on the market at all outside of a few collectors. MAME's developers don't accept contributions to the software that allows software to be run that is either less than 5 years old or is currently being used in modern arcades, and is popular. This is called the "Gray Area", to be honest, many companies that hold the copyrights for some of these ROMS really don't care, some people have actually e-mailed them asking about it and they simply will do nothing to enforce the copyright.

of exercising.

I personally have no difficulties with someone having- for example- six different emulators, each with hundreds of roms. I would go so far as to say that even N64 emulators/roms should be fair game, given the current console generation we're in.

I iwill publicly state I do use- or try to use- a PS2 emulator I just got to play my PURCHASED discs on my PC while someone else is watching TV. The question is- is simply having the BIOS of the PS2 copyright infringement? Well, I don't know- I have a PS2 sitting not ten feet from me, and I can rip the BIOS off there, onto my hard drive.... is THAT "fair use", since I own the PS2?

Basically, this whole entire thread is a PERFECT example of why we need serious copyright reform- and by "reform", I don't mean a tweak here and there, but a complete chucking of the current system.

Our system of copyright is BROKEN. The DMCA does far more harm than good. Is it even possible that we can factor in the concept of software "piracy" (using quotes because it's not, really) so everyone is happy? I doubt it.

One thing is certain: we need to readdress our idea of copyright, we need to bring content producers to heel, and we need to regulate software pricing. Those things, together, WILL eliminate a lot of the "piracy" that goes on today.

Ripping the bios off of a system you already own is fair use, also, the same could be said for ROMS and ISOs of video games, and MP3s of CDs you own, etc. All of that is fair use and protected under current laws. The DMCA says that if the distributor of said copyrighted material made a good faith effort to encrypt it to prevent even fair use copying, then you violated the law by cracking that encryption, this is anathema to everything geekdom stands for. Hell, I violate US laws by being able to play encrypted(not even copy them) DVDs on my system, its a dumbassed law and shouldn't be around.

there's a haiku describing how to write DeCSS. I'm sure you've heard of it; it's the only illegal haiku in existence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A642999

I especially like the only illegal prime number in existence, its on the site.

a snip:

"Jon Johansen was arrested (in Norway!) at the American film industry's behest, though later released, apologised to, and even presented with an award for his programming skills. Various American groups and individuals however, were not so lucky. The Motion Picture Association of America successfully sued a large number of individual defendants who had published versions of DeCSS on their websites (though another group were saved from the proceeding due to the small matter of foreigners not being under American jurisdiction), and an injunction was upheld against them, preventing their circulation of this code. An injunction was also upheld against online hacker magazine, 2600, who had merely linked to the code."

They've abandoned it as it's not on the shelves and certainly not advertized.

even when the copyright is not being actively exercised, as in the case of abandonware, they'll still come after you with all their dogs- and even when they have no intention of ever selling it again.

If you're not willing to allow your works into the public domain after a certain (LIMITED) time, you shouldn't be complaining when others force it there for all practical purposes. Thankfully, there are companies that release their old software to the public, but they are few and far between.

There's another issue: the advances in computers and operating systems are not only rendering older software obsolete, but actually inoperable. Even in the case of MS WinXP Pro 64-bit edition (what I'm running), there are applications- some of which I paid for- which will not run under this version of the OS. As time passes, this will be the case for everyone reading this thread.

Once that happens, does anyone here actually believe the companies that made that software which will no longer run will release their now-inoperative code to the public? Why, no- because it took a lot of money to develop in the first place. The thing about that argument I don't understand is, if it's already been being sold, made obsolete by newer versions, and eventually abandoned in favor of an entirely new product and/or technology, where is the harm, then?

I don't like seeing old but useful software die of intentional neglect, but that's exactly what happens even to the operating systems that run the machine. Win 3.1 and 3.11 aren't even supported or sold anymore anywhere, yet people will still argue that copying it is "theft" somehow. That, in that case, I simply don't get.

If a user is choosing to run a free crack of obsolete software, then not only are they getting a depreciated-yet-functional product without paying, they're also not using that CPU time to run the current software. In other words, the software companies are being forced into competition with previous versions of their own products, priced at zero.

....one here that would do something everyone knows is wrong. :sarcasm: :toast:

It's just copyright infringement. Unless you're removing the software from somewhere else to put it on your computer, you're making a copy, not stealing the software. Then, unless you are making lots of copies and selling or distributing them, it's not "piracy." We shouldn't lump it all together as people do with drugs (and illegal immigration) because it isn't all the same crime. Someone who copies a friend's game for personal use is no more a criminal than someone who tapes the movies they rent.

If you steal you should at least not try to convince yourself that it's right. Be honest with yourself, man. :eyes:

I said it was copyright infringement. That is against the law, but there are degrees of offense, and most do not qualify as "piracy." Thus, it is intellectually dishonest to lump every instance together into the worst category. But, feel free stay on your horse, if it makes you feel better.

I agree that there should be degrees of punishment for various offenses, but theft is theft is theft. That's what I'm rolling my eyes at. You don't seem to have the moral understanding that copying movies that you rent is wrong in the first place. I'm not saying it's severely wrong, but someone made something to sell commercially, and you have made the decision that it's okay for you to take it for free. Just be honest about it. That's all I'm saying.

My first sentence, for the third time, acknowledges that it is copyright infringement, which is a crime. However, that is not the same as piracy, and not actually theft, either. It's illegal copying, no more.

You have no idea what my moral understanding is, and I don't appreciate your false presumptions. Keep stabbing, though, you might get lucky.

You can play semantics with it all day. Justify it however you like to make yourself feel better. Read my post below. I've made some moral distinctions that I personally am comfortable with. I'm not here to be the police, and I understand that technically someone could arrest me for the decisions I've made. It just disturbs me to see that we are becoming a society that seems to no longer place a value on intellectual property.

I am a musician, and I release my music commercially. I've had to become comfortable with the notion that most people refuse to buy music today. We now have an entire generation of people who have grown up believing that music has no monetary value. The commerce system for music is completely broken, and musicians are having to become comfortable with that and adjust accordingly. The difference is that musicians have something else to sell - live shows. Software is a product that exists singularly - either people buy it or they decide to steal it.

Lash out at me all you like. Perhaps someday you'll end up on the other end of it, having created something that people want enough to steal it from you, leaving you with the time and money defecit from creating it. Maybe then you'll get it.

Above I just admitted to violating US law, by having a program someone else wrote, in Europe, who gave away the source code for free, do you agree with the US law that makes it illegal?

This is the link to my post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=597945&mesg_id=599349

I'm not a programmer, just an end user.

I create music, and I don't have much of a problem with people sharing my music with each other. That's different. If someone likes my music enough to share it with a friend, then they may come to see me play when I come to their town. I still have something to sell them.

As far as your question goes, I don't quite get the specifics, but if a company literally gives away their source code for free I have no problem with the idea of you copying it. Why should that be an issue? I don't quite get it.

A guy in Europe created a program that Cracked the DVD encryption for PCs, using that you can now play encrypted DVDs with little problem, especially on systems that are not Windows or Macintosh, no commercial vendor has made such decryption legally yet for these other systems. Now, technically its illegal for anyone residing in the US to possess this program for ANY purpose, even if its a valid use, like playing movies on your computer. What is you opinion of that?

If you don't come to a full stop at a stop sign you are also technically in violation of the law. You're playing with vagaries and semantics with this sort of issue. If your operating system doesn't have software that allows you to play a commercial dvd legally, then I'm not even sure what to say about that. If you're talking about wanting to copy a commercial dvd onto your hard drive to watch later, then I don't really think you should feel entitled to do that. Eventually there will be no dvds and we'll be purchasing movies digitally a la iTunes, and they will be properly encrypted. That will pretty much solve the issue that you're talking about. You'll be allowed to make a couple of copies for backup that are not copyable from there.

I've seen the way this is going with the way that Digidesign has dealt with ProTools. You used to be able to download each and every plug-in for that program without fail. Now you have to have a software dongle, and it's damn near impossible to get them for free. And good for them. They figured out a way to keep people from stealing their shit - at least for now.

I'm not particularly interested in stealing from the people who are creating my entertainment and the tools that I use to make my living. It's just the moral code that I think is right. You can choose your own.

If you're talking about wanting to copy a commercial dvd onto your hard drive to watch later, then I don't really think you should feel entitled to do that.

If you own the DVD in question, this example falls under fair use, the same way ripping a CD you own to MP3 and moving that to an Ipod is also fair use. So you are wrong, not only do I feel I'm entitled to it, I'm legally entitled to it as well. That's the point, many distributors are actually lobbying to get rid of fair use rights entirely, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act(DMCA) is but one step in this. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, not only would such encryption be able to restrict copying movies and musice to a set number, but also may restrict the amount of views allowed. Imagine downloading a movie that you PAID for, and only able to play it twice, then it quits. The technology is there, just not implemented yet, but it wouldn't be too far off for us to have to pay each time we want to play.

If you have purchased it you can use it in whatever form you wish. When you start copying rented movies that you have not purchased, then I have a problem with that.

I know people who use the library to check out music to copy. They never buy music.

Eventually something has to give with the current model, and it will be a long and painful process. I don't know the answers, but it will be difficult to balance the needs of commerce and the rights of the consumer. Right now both are operating at extremes, and that simply can't last for long. We have corporations who are willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat, and alienated consumers who are so pissed that they feel that they are entitled to get everything for free. Ideally we'll find a decent middle ground, but we'll see.

Soon enough there are going to be contracts with artists that AREN'T going to be renewed, and the independent scene, independent of the RIAA's influence at least, is growing rapidly. With Sony, at its own behest, breaking the law(copyright laws, computer security laws, false licensing), to enforce their own copyrights, and also the RIAA supporting their rootkit fiasco, I really see no way for compromise nowadays. They pissed a lot of people off, and the RIAA isn't helping the situation by supporting illegal activities.

IF and ONLY IF you have access to a cable or airwave broadcaster that has shown the film in question at any time in the past. Then it's considered "time shifting", I believe, which is perfectly legal. IANAL.

Suppose I go rent "Event Horizon", and copy it because it was on the Sci-Fi channel last night. I'm JNOT doing anything wrong in that case; I already paid for the right to a copy of the film, through my Sci-Fi channel subscription.

That may not be how the law sees it, but the law isn't here right now, is it? :)

Now, movies currently on release.... THAT'S a different ball of wax entirely. But, to me, copying a rented film which is/will be/has been broadcast is no sort of wrongdoing.

It's a bit like downloading a copy of, say, a "Stargate SG1" episode, where you missed the broadcast. In fact, the producers of that show made an allusion to exactly that on the gateworld website regarding an upcoming episode; they didn't seem to bat an eye.

For people who would miss a show, I feel it's perfectly acceptable for them to download it, particularly if they're a subscriber to the network airing the show. And broadcast TV- CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC- are fair game across the board as far as I'm concerned.

To me, in the case of movies, while DVD rips are of some quality, Movie Theatre rips are simply horrible. I remember doing this once for the movie Four Brothers, using Bittorrent, I couldn't tell what was happening half the time, and it definately wasn't DVD quality, that would have taken months to download, not worth the effort. Unless everyone has a T3 line or better, I don't see how movie piracy is that much of a problem. BTW: I ended up buying the movie, its good, and MUCH better quality on DVD, plus the extras.

You're not getting a direct digital copy of the master if I understand correctly.

As far as software goes, there is no generational loss. That's exactly where the problem lies and why this is an issue. You can make exact copies of intellectual properties that rightfully belongs to the company created it. They and only they have the right to make those copies and distribute them. Whether you are just taking one copy or sharing your copy with others, the issue is still the same.

I use Open Source software almost exclusively, the only stuff that I have that is proprietary is the Nvidia drivers, Realplayer, and some Codecs, but those are all distributed FREELY by their owners.

Not quite dvd quality, but very close. The typical movie they have is about 1.4gb, rather than full dvd 4-ish. Substantially better than videotape quality tho.

They've just had regular ol dsl or cable... They say it takes a variable amount of time to download - from a couple hours to a week. It's sorta like netflix for them I guess, in practical terms - just check their computer each day to see what's finished downloading - lol

Also, DVDs can be had at less the price for a CD(RIAA blows chunks, BTW), so I really don't see what the excuse is there, unless its some obscure or foriegn film, but that's why you have the internet for ordering and Regionless DVD players.

My friends get movies for the, well, movies. To each his own :)

Just btw - the full 4.3gb dvds, with the "extras" can also be downloaded.

I get DVD images of Linux distributions, 4 gigs plus, because its legal, etc. Its just easier for me to go to the store, spend the 15 bucks, and come home with a movie that I can play on any DVD player. Even ordering movies online, especially foriegn or obscure films(independents) is quicker than downloading them, I can usually get them those movies in 3 days or less.

to consumers. But suppose you went out and bought a DVD at the base price to find it didn't contain, for example, several key scenes required to fully understand the plot?

"Legend" is on Sci-Fi tonight (for example). For whatever reason, I can't get access to a VCR that can record it while I'm there.

As a subscriber to the channel showing the film, am I within my rights to go rent it, make a copy, and take the video back, knowing that the company responsible for the film actually made more money- through my rental- than they otherwise would have had I only taped the broadcast?

Here's another question: as a subscriber to a cable service, why should I have to tolerate an inferior "version" of a product I've already paid for (and which has likely already paid for itself if it's a television 'version' of a theatrical release)?

If advertising pays for the programming, why do I pay for cable- that includes advertising? Oh, they both pay for it. Golly gee, how nice for them: they get to take my money as a subscriber, show me an actually inferior "version" of their "full product", and then, if I give them even more, won't allow me to own my own copy unless I also pay the full price? By my estimation, that means in the end I get to pay more than everyone else, against the person who buys that film without being a subscriber to that channel or renting the film to begin with.

That's yet another incentive for people to just. copy. the tape. Or DVD. Or whatever.

This whole thing seems to be self-perpetuating, which is why I think we all ought to rethink exactly where acceptable use of intellectual property really is. In an age where one can make a flawless, lossless copy of what amounts to a digital machine when executed, our modern definitions are quickly become (if not, have already become) inapplicable.

There have been times when I needed a very expensive piece of software to finish a project, usually involving a version compatability issue. For instance, I've purchased many versions of all of the Adobe products in the past as a graphic designer. With the ebb and flow of work, there have been times when I have been given files in the newest version of Illustrator or Photoshop, and was unable to open or work on those files with the versions I owned. With the rate at which new versions of those software packages are released, sometimes it is unmanageable to keep up to date. So, I've downloaded in order to finish a product.

Did I know it was wrong? Of course I did. My feeling has always been that if I am going to make money off of something, I should buy the tool that allows me to make that money. I wouldn't go and steal someone else's hammer to go do a construction job. I may, however borrow a tool until I could afford to purchase it myself.

I also have some grey moral areas that involve software that I absolutely hate but am forced to use on occasion, such as Quark XPress and Microsoft Office. Office on the Mac is a complete piece of shit, but most people in business environments use it and send me word and excel files. I've purchased mulitple versions in the past, but I refuse to upgrade a software package that is terribly designed and makes me angry when I use it. I feel the same way about Quark, and the fact that their customer support is antagonistic and/or worthless does not help make their case. I have switched completely over to InDesign, which I do own.

I will always buy software from smaller companies if I need to use their product. I believe in supporting people for their technical innovations that help me to do my work. If I can help it I won't support near-monopolist companies that that sell products that are an insult to the end user.

We can and do support the prosecution of software pirates, and my dues help to pay for their stings and investigations. As somebody who makes 100% of his living developing software and teaching others how to do the same, I have little tolerance for people who take our money.

By the way, the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is total bull$#!+ in my opinion. If you really need the program, you will buy it. If you don't really need the program, you're just stealing for the heck of it. When forcibly deprived of programs that they "wouldn't have bought anyway", most pirates either break down and buy the program or switch to a less expensive competitor. That's the way it SHOULD be.

The "i wouldnt have bought it anyway"

Back in old Atari days I was a bigtime software pirate. It was a hobby to see how much software I could collect.

I think I had about 1,000 titles. Now the market cost of that many titles was proably around $75,000. Thats $75k in 1984.

I was a 16 year old kid in High School. Would I have spent $75k on software? Nah, I had $75, I would have bought my parents a nice home (at that time).

Was what I did wrong? Sure it was. Did I care? Nope. Did it cost anybody any money? yes it did. It cost my family what I spend on 5.25 inch floppy disks and some long distance charges to BBS's. Im an quite sure that the software vendors didnt lose a dime on me.

HOWEVER, what you say is true. In MOST cases, that line is BS, especially in business situation.

Businesses and students both profit from their piracy. They're basically saying "It's ok to deprive you of money, because I need to make money instead". It's pure theft of the worst kind.

As to your Atari example, can I ask how many you DID buy? I agree with your basic premise that you wouldn't have every bought $75,000 worth of video games, but how many of those WOULD you have bought if piracy hadn't been available to you? 5? 10? If you downloaded 1000 titles, how many situations were there where you COULD have bought a game you really wanted, but didn't simply because piracy was easier and you were already pirating stuff anyway? How many times did you pirate games with $10 in your pocket after deciding that you'd rather spend the $10 at the arcade or on a date?

But I disagree that its theft of the worst kind. Thats being a bit dramatic.

Look I work for a software vendor...One of the biggest in the world (no not microsoft) in fact. I am INTIMATELY aware of software piracy and security issues, far more than you might imagine.

Im not going to get into the nickle and dimes of piracy that occured 25 years ago. Yes I did buy software, hell I was a computer geek and I put every nickle I had into my computer system. I assure you that the industry extracted every dollar they could out of me :)

What I am saying in my above post, is that there are situations where the software wouldnt have been bought anyway. Is it true that most times its just an excuse, yea it is.

Now was the piracy I did 25 years ago, in a situation where I wouldnt have bought the software anyway morally ok? No it wasnt, it was a minor infraction. Do I care. No I don't. I also broke the speed limit on the way home from work today. Trust me, I'll sleep tonight.

The software industry doesnt care about minor infractions that are revenue neutral. They do care about major ones.

There's theft for things you need...like food and clothing. Those are the most understandable forms of theft.

Then there's theft for things you want. Now we're talking radios and cars. Certainly unacceptable, but still somewhat understandable if the person couldn't afford it and genuinely just wanted to use it.

The next worst is theft by people who could have afforded to buy it. Most pirates fall into this group, since they really could buy the software if they wanted. Having the means to buy something and taking it anyway shows a distinct lack of any kind of ethical fiber.

The absolute worst are the people who steal for their own financial gain. These are the Enron types, and business pirates fall into the group as well. They make money from their theft, and continue stealing simply to further their profits.


As for your Atari example, I can't help but point out that Atari is out of business, primarily because of POOR SOFTWARE SALES. I was a BBS user back then and know how commonly their software was pirated, so I can't help but wonder what role piracy played in their implosion.

combined with a dearth of good titles. The games for the 2600 were most inventive, but I don't remember much about the later iterations of the console, mostly because nobody I knew actually had one. Shortly thereafter, the NES came along, and that, for Atari, was that.

I'll also note that the Atari brand is still very much alive and well- I see the logo every time I play Rollercoaster Tycoon 3.

edit: I and my friends often traded carts around with each other. It was a great way to play new games without paying for them, on a 1-to-1 trade. Is everyone going to argue that that was "illegal" or "immoral" as well?

In the 80s, people would often make copies of hit single cassette tapes without a second thought, and that helped keep up album sales. I think it could be argued that it was only when the RIAA members decieded to kill the single that album sales first started dropping noticably.

Free experience or use prior to purchase, for both music and software, creates familiarity to the user when they go out to try and use legit copies for either commercial purposes (software) or home use of a full, legit album. This is also why personal use versions shouldn't be crippled, only watermarked; it's like getting a single that contains half the song.

... let's talk about downloading music now, m'k?

According to the RIAA, ripping CDs you OWN to your IPOD should be illegal.

You knew about that, right? The difference between an Audio CD-R and a Data CD-R, other than the price, is that Congress directed that a tariff be placed upon the Audio CD-R and paid to the RIAA as a royalty to blunt the effect of recording RIAA member's music onto them!

That's right!

If you bought an Audio CD-R (rather than a Data CD-R) you have PAID for the privilege of copying any commercial music to it that you desire.

But that doesn't mean the RIAA will recognize that you have indeed already paid them.

and CD-RWs? As far as I know, a CD-Recordable can store both Red Book Audio and Data, even at the same time, but CD-RWs while being able to do the same, mostly, are not really readable by most standard CD players. BTW: Yeah, I know about the "RIAA tax" on CD-Rs. Also CD-Rs are more reliable for backups of your computer and store more data, about 50MB more, give or take. Though I wonder if DVD-Rs have an "MPAA tax" on them, anyone know? The differences between labels are just that, differences between labels, I bought a 50 pack of CD-Rs that says "700MB/80min" on it, also CD-Rs are best for bootable CDs for diagnostic purposes.

Audio dubbing CD players will only copy to an Audio disk, as identified by the codes in the timing track that all CD-R and CD-RW disks have. (I believe that there are Audio CD-RWs too.)

Yes, on a Computer, you can usually copy an audio CD to a data disk. And nothing keeps you from copying data to an Audio disk, but why?

But if you always copy your music to an Audio CD-R, on which the tariff has been paid, then you should have done everything you need to, legally.

I mean, like I said, the Fujifilm CD-Rs I bought mention both audio and data uses for burning the CDs. Besides there are also "Mixed CDs" available, like Enhanced CDs, which have redbook audio on several different tracks, and data with extras for computers that are on a "hidden track" though some CD players have problems with them. Hell, I remember back in my Quake days, the original Quake had a NIN soundtrack that was Redbook Audio, you could play it in any CD player by skipping Track 1(Data track), and then you get, I think it was 11 songs on the CD.

It sounds like you are talking about "professional" CD copiers and how a data CD wouldn't be accepted for burning on those. Like I said, my disk are data, and cheap(.50 cents per CD), so no complaints here.

There *are* consumer CD-R audio recorders that will only accept an Audio CD-R. A friend of mine who makes hypnosis disks for his clients has one.

In fact, I think it is impermissible to display the CD logo badge on your product and allow recording to a Data CD-R.

They are licensed,

Most likely explains why my DVD player has a DVD/Video Logo, CD/Audio Logo, MP3 Logo, CD/Video Logo, and a CD/Photo Logo.

Because, just as with software, you don't OWN anything. You paid for a license, and that license can quite legally demand that you not play the music between 4 and 10pm every third Wednesday. Silly I know, but some of the court cases involving things like this are actually starting to get this silly. Before long, you won't even own your computer. You'll just have a right to use it, per terms set by the manufacturers of the proprietary software that runs the basic functions of the machine. This has essentially already happened with printers, for example.

You may own the physical object (the disc), but according to RIAA, the copyright holder maintains total ownership of what's on the disc.

Of course I know you knew that, but I'm on a rant. :-)

:shrug:

$2.3 trillion dollars of TAXPAYER's money over only 5 years - then me downloading a movie or an album every once in a while is just me gettin' back some of my money that "the man" lost.

only reason I have used pirated software is to either:

1)Try a fully working copy before I throw down (majority of the time) $60+ dollars. I have been burnt to o many times by looking at a box, reading reviews of a software product or game and it turing out to be buggy crap that isn't productive, or isn't fun. I prefer to being able to actually USE something instead of seeing a eye candy, locked down demo of software I may buy and use.

2)Strictly learning purposes only for skills I can learn and use at a job or on a resume. Did this a lot while in college.


I like to beta test, but MS for example won't do that normally for free, instead you have to pay hundreds of dollars to get a MSDN subscription which I will not ever do.

Other than that, I use as much OSS stuff as possible.

I reject your terms.

The word "piracy" has been pervasively used improperly throughout this thread with only a few individuals actually seeming to show an understanding of what exactly is involved.

I'll just summarize it this way. I would bet my next paycheck many, if not most, of the people in this thread who have argued so eloquently against piracy are in fact pirates themselves, at least by the terms the large software manufacturers set. For example, have you ever refilled an ink well in a printer? You're a pirate. Have you ever used a legal copy of a program you purchased on more than one computer, or perhaps have you installed that software on a computer you own after changing the CPU or buying a new computer altogether? You're a pirate. Let's see -- pauses while browsing a EULA I have here for a popular graphics program -- have you ever run a spyware scanner and allowed it to remove what the scan deemed a trojan or data miner? If so, did you check to see if another piece of software you installed had required you, by the terms of the EULA, to allow that trojan or data miner to be present on your system? If the scanner did remove it, and if it was required (this happens a lot, btw) you're a pirate. Ever use that "free" version of Nero you got with your shiny new DVD burner on a system that didn't have that burner installed or perhaps used it with the CD burner you already had installed when you got the DVD burner? In some cases, you're a pirate here too. I could list dozens of more examples of things people do on a daily basis that constitute piracy as defined by the software manufacturers association, but I'd be boring everyone to tears who even bothers to get this far. Suffice to say I don't believe anyone has not engaged in any of these clearly illegal practices any more than you seem to believe a person could function and use a computer perfectly well without using licensed software.

In short, a pirate is someone who violates the terms of a user license for a software package. (Yes, even a lot of hardware has a software package in the form of drivers to run it.) Most people have absolutely no idea what a EULA contains, much less do they actually follow it.

So, I say, before we go off condemning people, we need to look in our own systems, read every EULA we have, and then try for just a little while actually to live by the terms of these licenses.

And yeah, I know you're talking about people who don't pay for proprietary software at all or make copies and distribute them far and wide or possibly even just to friends and family members. That's what the software industry wants you to believe. They want you to see it as the guys in the white hats versus the guys in the black. But that's not the real battle they are fighting. They're just trying to squeeze more and more money out of you for less and less while at the same time cutting their work force or offshoring it and using "piracy" as the excuse.

It's worked very well for me ever since. Sorry, Microsoft.

I don't pirate anything. Open source and other sorts of free software work very well for what I do. Occassionally I'll pay for something-- for example I used to pay for Opera before it was free, but it's really no big deal. I don't usually need anything expensive.

I also encourage my clients to use open source software whenever they can. "Keep It Simple Stupid" is usually the best policy. There's no worries about the BSA in an entirely Open Source shop.

as my avitar indicates...Linux is what I can afford, and OpenOffice.org does more than I shall ever need.

Penguin Powered.

Obviously they have never seen Angband or Nethack or Freeciv.

We employees are able to purchase it for our home PC's at a BIG discount.

If I did NOT work in the MS environment--I would use cheaper (& probably better) alternatives. Why would anyone use/steal MS Office if they didn't have to?

And many are no aware of alternatives. I turn people onto AbiWord all the time.

MS Excel is pretty cool. MS Word is not as bad as it once was; thankfully, I don't do much serious WP any more. (WordPerfect was my fave back then.)

MS Access? Gag, choke, puke.

I'm going to plead the 5th here. heh.