P
puppet_sock
[nothing important]
You are a baby, and you cry when people disagree with you.
And you smell bad.
Socks
You are a baby, and you cry when people disagree with you.
And you smell bad.
Socks
J
Jeff Flinn
JKop said:
Aah, that explains why you are so enamored with terms like 'bullshit'.
And by the way MS and others have gone out of there way to provide low cost
Academic versions of their software.
Jeff Flinn
M
majere
Julie said:
An interesting (and common) analogy. Not to encourage software
piracy, but it's clear to me that:
1) by stealing Visual Studio no one has *actually* lost anything
physical. No replacement is required.
2) he would NOT have purchased said software in the first place,
since he cannot afford it.
The numbers often thrown around by how much is "lost" by software
piracy is quite ridiculous to me. I suspect that less than 10%
of these so-called losses were from people who could actually
afford to spend $500 on the software in question.
My recommendation to younger people (and older people for that
matter) who cannot afford expensive software is to go the free
software route -- not only will you be able to learch much more
about the inner workings of computer systems, but you'll also
avoid breaking the law! ;-)
~r
H
Howard
So? Since when is not being able to afford something a justification for
stealing it?
If you can't afford a Mercedes, you buy a Honda. You don't steal a Mercedes
and justify it by saying you couldn't afford it.
That's pure speculation on your part. Software piracy is conducted on a
massive scale, and it rarely has anything to do with inability to afford
something that's needed. What's ridiculous is to think that 90% of the
software piracy is done by people who could afford their computers, but not
the software needed to do anything with them.
Now, you're talking sense!
-Howard
M
Mike Wahler
Tom Seim said:
1) Borland (and virtually every other major software vendor)
has a policy of 'money back guarantee'. Have you approached
them (sans the abusive language), told them you are dissatisfied
and asked for a refund? Somehow I doubt it.
2) Borland offers a full C++ compiler for free on their
web site. I have a copy, and it works very well (however
I did follow their intructions for installation and usage).
3) Many other compilers are also available for free. See the
FAQ.
4) It is a poor workman who blames his tools.
-Mike
J
JKop
Howard posted:
I actually feel quite ambivalent to it.
If I myself had defined the laws, then perhaps shame would be in order...
but that's just a hypothetical situation.
-JKop
I actually feel quite ambivalent to it.
If I myself had defined the laws, then perhaps shame would be in order...
but that's just a hypothetical situation.
-JKop
J
JKop
JKop posted:
Actually, for some reason, a proverb came to mind as I was writing that last
post.
"If a tree falls in the woods, and there's no-one around to hear it, does it
make a sound?"
Consider that you're a programmer. You write programs in return for money.
Let's say that I borrow a copy of your software, copy it, then give it back.
In my analogy here, the "stealing" of the software is analagous to the
falling of the tree. If you as the programmer are oblivious to the
"stealing" of your software, then will there be a sound? No.
Now consider you have a Porsche sitting outside your house. If we associate
the stealing of the Porsche with the falling of the tree, then will there be
a sound? Hell Yes! You will have been *deprived* of a posession and you will
suffer from its loss. This is the true meaning of the word "steal", "thieve,
"rob", "pilfer".
If you're to refer to why I do by a label, then "piracy" would be the more
appropriate term. (Yes I'm aware that that's the term you used, I'm
directing this at others).
-JKop
Actually, for some reason, a proverb came to mind as I was writing that last
post.
"If a tree falls in the woods, and there's no-one around to hear it, does it
make a sound?"
Consider that you're a programmer. You write programs in return for money.
Let's say that I borrow a copy of your software, copy it, then give it back.
In my analogy here, the "stealing" of the software is analagous to the
falling of the tree. If you as the programmer are oblivious to the
"stealing" of your software, then will there be a sound? No.
Now consider you have a Porsche sitting outside your house. If we associate
the stealing of the Porsche with the falling of the tree, then will there be
a sound? Hell Yes! You will have been *deprived* of a posession and you will
suffer from its loss. This is the true meaning of the word "steal", "thieve,
"rob", "pilfer".
If you're to refer to why I do by a label, then "piracy" would be the more
appropriate term. (Yes I'm aware that that's the term you used, I'm
directing this at others).
-JKop
J
JKop
Up until 1990 it was illegal to be homosexual or to practise homosexuality
in Ireland. So hypothetically speaking, if in 1990, I were homosexual and I
practised homosexuality, then I would have been a criminal.
Law...
The only law I pay major heed to is the laws of physics.
-JKop
M
Mike Wahler
JKop said:
This implies that if someone were to physically overpower
and rob and/or kill you, you'd consider that 'legal'.
-Mike
H
Howard
JKop said:
So, because I don't know you've stolen from me, it's ok? Does that apply to
everything? So... it's ok to sneak into a movie, or a concert, or a play,
or the symphony? It's ok to use someone else's possesions, as long as you
get them back to them before they notice them missing? It's ok to use
someone's home, as long as they're not there to know? It's ok for me to
screw your girlfriend, as long as we don't tell you about it?
There's a reason you're so ambivalent about your ethics...you're young and
poor (relatively speaking). When you're older, and have a home and cars and
wife and kids, you'll think differently about a lot of these things. And if
and when it's your job to explain to the boss why your monthly sales are too
low but that hacked versions of your supposedly copy-proteted software are
readily available on alt.warez.com, you'll think differently, too.
In the meantime, since it's "legal" for you to own pirated software, why not
register it with Microsoft so you can get all the updates, etc., that you
"deserve"? Oh, and be sure to tell your mommy how smart her baby boy is,
getting all that cool software for "free"!
-Howard
J
Julie
JKop said:
So, in your mind, if no one knows about something, then it is justified and
legitimate?
Have fun in the after-life w/ that attitude.
D
Default User
Howard said:
You're missing the point. The analogy is incorrect. If someone steals
the Mercedes, then the dealer is unable to sell that Mercedes to
someone else. If someone steals software, it doesn't affect sales to
other people, only sales to the person who stole it. If that person was
never a potential customer anyway, then there wasn't a real sale
avoided.
A better analogy would be (and I show my age here) sneaking a broke
friend into the drive-in movie by hiding him in the trunk. Wrong, yes,
definitely. Did the movie owner lose a sale? No. The guy had no money
anyway, he just wouldn't have gone.
It isn't a tale of right and wrong, but of correct analysis. As was
stated previously, you can't just multiply the pirated instances by the
retail price, because many of those sales would never have happened,
and no physical property was taken.
Brian
H
Howard
Default User said:
I'm not missing the point at all. It's wrong. Period. Using any kind of
analysis to "justify" a wrong action is irrelevant. It's still wrong. It's
theft, according to law (and according to any reasonable ethic, as far as
I'm concerned). You are free to argue what the actual *cost* of a specific
instance of piracy is to a given company, but the fact is that software
piracy does cost the sotware industry a vast amount of money.
A serious problem with your analogy is that when everyone else sees you
sneaking your friend into the drive-in, they do it, too. It has little to
do with inability to pay, it's a matter of thinking "why bother paying if I
can get it free"? So you see all your friends copying music or software for
free, and you do it, too. It multiplies over time.
It's illegal. And it most definitely reduces sales.
Argue the point all you want. You're still just rationalizing. It's wrong.
It's illegal. And it hurts MY business. So stop it!!!
-Howard
D
Default User
Howard wrote:
Yes, you are.
Which is exactly what I said. Are you unable to read for comprehension?
Where did I do that?
That depends very greatly. Most instances of copyright violation are
not consided theft in any legal sense.
But you can't demonstrate that with simplistic formulas.
Exactly. But you still can't just multiply the sneakers-in but the
price of admission. It's much more complicated.
Yes, but at what rate?
Are you really this dense? Do you think that objecting to a false
analogy means a rejection of all the points?
Show me ANYWHERE in my message where I said copyright violation was
acceptable. Stop putting words into my posts that aren't there.
Brian Rodenborn
Yes, you are.
Which is exactly what I said. Are you unable to read for comprehension?
Where did I do that?
That depends very greatly. Most instances of copyright violation are
not consided theft in any legal sense.
But you can't demonstrate that with simplistic formulas.
Exactly. But you still can't just multiply the sneakers-in but the
price of admission. It's much more complicated.
Yes, but at what rate?
Are you really this dense? Do you think that objecting to a false
analogy means a rejection of all the points?
Show me ANYWHERE in my message where I said copyright violation was
acceptable. Stop putting words into my posts that aren't there.
Brian Rodenborn
B
Bob Hairgrove
Then I suppose you've heard of this one:
"The higher they climb, the harder they fall."
(source unknown [to me]).
H
Howard
Default User said:
No, I'm avoiding the issue, by attempting to steer the discussion back to
right vs. wrong.
Sorry, I guess I thought you were defending JKop's interpretations.
I didn't suggest you did.
I never suggested I could. Determining losses to any degree of certaintly
is incredibly difficult, and likely impossible to verify. Of course, that
doesn't neccessarily diminish the losses, does it?
Again, I never said you could.
I have no idea. My only intent is to minimize it, and I try to do that by
pointing out to those who do it that it's wrong and they should stop.
No, on both counts.
But I feel that r's analogy is misleading, in thatit appears to justify the theft.
Again, sorry if I seemed to suggest that. It wasn't my intention. I was
addressing JKop, primarily, and any who would use the "justifications"
presented to defend their actions.
-Howard
M
majere
Howard said:No, on both counts.
misleading, in that it appears to justify the theft.
Sorry, I really was just trying to point out that the "theft of a
car" analogy is really inappropriate, *especially* the theft of a
car from another "end-user". Closer to the truth would be a car
thief stealing from the automobile manufacturer directly. Still,
I maintain that the formula is not as simple as
(number of copies) * (full retail price) = $loss
I think free software and student discounts help quite a bit in
this area. In particular, free software is an *excellent* way to
learn more about how complex computer systems really work
internally. (assuming enough free time, of course.)
As a software developer, I don't want to encourage piracy, but I
also acknowledge that some percentage of people who steal
software just CANNOT afford it. (perhaps my 90% was a gross
exaggeration?
~r
J
Julie
Default said:
Part of the cost of software includes $$ lost due to piracy.
I'm paying for someone else stealing.
Rationalize that one away.
Tell your broke (and *lazy*) friend to go and get a job like the rest of us.
If he doesn't have money for a movie, he shouldn't be playing hide-and-go-seek
in your trunk, but should be out working.
R
Rolf Magnus
John said:
Not everyone considers torture and F**KING to be the same. ;-)
D
Default User
Howard wrote:
Good, I'll apologize for some of my more acrimonious remarks. Just to
make it clear, violation of copyright is wrong and there's no
justification for it.
Brian Rodenborn
Good, I'll apologize for some of my more acrimonious remarks. Just to
make it clear, violation of copyright is wrong and there's no
justification for it.
Brian Rodenborn