Why Not To Use Pirated Software, Some personal thoughts for debate Options

[Fsgdjv]

What!!!?!

Edited for large text and implied language - Andrew

I feel the urge to ask you the same thing, what do you mean?

[Animosity]

I feel the urge to ask you the same thing, what do you mean?

I mean - That's not for you to decide. You cannot choose to obey certain laws and ignore others.

[ActiveX]

I don't know if this is coincidence or not, but I bitched about this yesterday in the complaint thread, so here it is again:
I am a programmer, and I develop shareware; this is how I make my living and feed my family - so this type of attitude (stealing software saves me money and doesn't hurt anyone) really upsets me. Stealing is stealing. Would you snatch a purse from an old lady? Would you car jack someone? Do you steal from Grocery and Department Stores? It's all the same. It may come as a shock to you, but not all software is produced by huge multi-million dollar companies like Microsoft; most of it comes from average guys like me who put in very long hours, and work extremely hard only for people to f*****g steal it.

[Fsgdjv]

I mean - That's not for you to decide. You cannot choose to obey certain laws and ignore others.

Everybody does it, that's a fact (ok, it's not a fact, but I don't know anyone who's never broken the law) . And I follow almost all laws, but for better reasons than just "oh, they tell me to do it".

And I'm really sorry for moving a bit far from the topic, this will be my last post that isn't super on topic. (or at least that is my plan!)

[swingline]

Filesharing is not like somebody going in and stealing all your guitars, it's more like someone coing in and copying your guitars and not paying you for it. (I personally wouldn't mind that)

Your full of crap! You would care, its like in school you do your homework and everyone else copies it you feel screwed because your the only one who did it and everyone else got a free ride. If you bought a 1500 dollar guitar and every one else got it for free how would you feel. Its all the same say I buy Adobe Photoshop CS3 for upwards of 600 dollars, but you got it for free I'd be pissed and you would to if it was the other way around. So don't lie to me, yourself, or anyone else.

[tonymiro]

***Impartial moderator voice on** * Guys keep it civil - especially towards each other. It's a debate.

Cheers,
Tony

***Impartial Moderator voice off***

[MickeM]

I mean - That's not for you to decide. You cannot choose to obey certain laws and ignore others.

Why not? I can speed and run a red light on occacions stay off robbing people. So it works.

EDIT: And to develop it a bit more breaking the laws you're unhappy with is a revolutionary way of challanging the state. An excellent way of making society change and it has been used for all times. When people never protested and just adjusted themselves to all the current laws there would be a great risk for the individual.

Me driving 115 instead of 110 km/h on the highway is not a big revolution but in the end it may lead to politicians saying "Everyone drives too fast, cars are more sequre, there's an economical winning in people getting to their destination quicker" would in the end lead to speed limits being raised to 120 km/h

Me and others running a red light in the same crossing all the time could in the end lead to a round about being built.

We'll see where file sharing will lead to in the end but I'm quite convinced they will adjust the laws instead of busting millions of teenagers all around the world. There's simply too high a cost and too complicated a task to do. It will likely become allowed within reasonable time, say in 10-15 years.

This post has been edited by MickeM: Nov 13 2007, 08:04 PM

[The Uncreator]

Valid argument, BUT, Still, this is something considered theft, (and yes, it believe it to be 100% theft...), not something as little as speeding, but you also make another good point about the whole protest/revolution thing, (excellent idea i must say)...And true, yes it is a good point, but continuing to steal music isnt gonna bring about revolutionary change to the world, hopefully what it will do is convince the record companys to do something about it, so where people still pay for it, and the artists get money for there work.

[blindwillie]

Your full of crap!

Please tone down this a bit. No need to insult anyone who has a different opinion.

Crackware shouldnt:

...
be discussed
...

My brother designs software for a living, if due to piracy he was unable to find work..it would ruin his many years of education and would be unable to start a family with his girlfriend.

I'd feel crushed if that were me...

Big fat no as far as i'm concerned!

I disagree strongly with this. Of course it should be discussed. Everyone is entitled their opinion. If it wasn't for past piracy, would he even have the opportunity to develop software now?

Why not to use pirated or cracked software

Five reasons not to use cracked software:
1) It is theft and therefore illegal.
2) It results ultimately in fewer and more expensive software products.
3) It is a ‘poor’ way to repay the music community.
4) It is often ‘malware’ and can potentially damage your pc.
5) It is GMC policy not to condone the use or discussion of where and how to get/use ‘crackware’ and illegal filesharing.

...

Cheers,
Tony

ps - stickied but open for debate.

I'm uncertain about posting this because bottom line is you are right and I don't promote piracy in no way, which I suspect this post could look like. I do disagree on some points though and would like to vent my opinions because as I see it this is not a simple matter. It's not as easy as a legal/illegal situation. Many tend to apply their own moral and claim that this is the right way. I want people to look at all sides and you left the thread open for debating.

1) No. It's illegal but it's NOT theft. I don't know the english legal terms when it comes to intellectual property, it's copyright infringement or something like that . Might be that different countries have different definitons of it, but I don't know of any that defines it as theft.

2) This can be, and is argued about. I'm sure you know that. Without piracy computers wouldn't be in the homes of as many families as it is today. Computers and software wouldn't be available at the prices they are today. Without pirated software I'm sure computers would be a very exclusive, extremely high priced technology available only to a few. Piracy laid the ground for the computer and software business as it is today. And it is a HUGE market, increasing for every day.

3) Yes. It is. I agree on that.

4) Yes. This is true too.

5) And it's a good policy. Since it is illegal GMC should in no way condone it.

Piracy is a crime. It is illegal. There is nothing to argue about that.

What should be discussed is if the laws are up to date and valid today.
Discuss the morals of software companies and media companies and politicians. The EULAs that you "sign" by opening a box and puts responsibilitys on you without an opportunity to disagree. Often they are in direct conflict with (at least in Sweden) local laws. The disclaimers that frees the company from all responsabilty of their product.

The copyright laws weren't written to protect an outdated business model. They was to encourage creativity. The purpose was NOT to ensure payment to the creator. Having artistic work protected for, I think it's 70 years after the makers death in Sweden, is NOT encouraging creativity. The pace today is to high for a timespan like that.

Of course the producer should get paid if you use their product (and they want payment) but as it is today it is getting more and more ridiculous. Dongles and software protection, EULA's. You are only "leasing" the product. It's not your own to do as you please with. Stealthy installed root-kits. Stealthy installed copy protection mechanisms that not only affects the application but your whole computer with slowdowns, phoning home, makes your CD/DVD useless, occupies memory and CPU resources. And so on.

All they are accomplishing is problems for the paying customer. The ones who download pirated software aren't affected since this stuff gets removed. There are plenty of examples of software that, to the customer, works better if it's cracked.

I'll just give one live example of this.
My wife loves games like Settlers, the MS one (can't remember the name now) and Sims.
She's bought every single game and addon in those series.

After awhile she started to complain that her computer was slow and sluggish. I knew about EA's (Electronic Arts) copy protection and told her so. Mail them and tell them and don't buy their stuff. But she really wants to play them. She mailed them and got a standard disclaimer auto response.

Then she bought Black and White 2 and now the fun starts. The game never starts. Ever.
Some research show that it installs a protection against virtual drives which was incompatible with her DVD drive. And The Sims stopped working too. Software from the same company, and their protection excluded each other. More mailing and non sense responses. EA ,officially, knew nothing about any copy protection that could cause that. Probably that's true. First Lionhead make the game, then an outside company is contracted for the protection then EA distributes it. So I guess technically EA wasn't responsible. EAs answer was "upgrade the graphics driver(duh!)". OK I've done that. "upgrade the sound driver". OK I've done that. "Replace the DVD drive". No way! I've traced it down to your copy protection, you turned down the proof I sent you without any explanation. I was active mailing them for 2 - 3 weeks and in their forums, together with others with the same problem and pinpointed down the problem but as soon as copy protection was mentioned it was met with dead silence from EA.
To put it mildly, that kind of ticked me off. Yes, that's the way to treat your customers.
Luckily we still had two choises. Return it or crack it, a game we paid for, to get what we paid for.
Actually we did neither. The game just lays in a shelf. No one has ever played it, I never got to going through the trouble of returning it.

Don't make this a black or white discussion (no pun intened) or a legal/illegal discussion. It's not that easy.
Don't follow laws blindly. Change them. Make the laws reasonable for the intended purpose. Not to protect a business model that's outdated.

In these kind of discussions sooner or later the argument comes along that the creator should be able to make a living of his/her work.
NO! That's not valid! Nothing is worth more then someone else is willing to pay for it. That's a basic commercial rule. If I can't make a living of what I'm doing I'd better start looking for another job.
If you write songs or play guitar but you can't make a living of it... tough luck. Get a job. I had too. Most people have to. If I write software (well, in most cases I'm probably employed and get paid for that) why should that be a guarantee to a secured future fro me, my family and future kids of kids?
Note: I was a software developer and I do play guitar.

Art and creativity in all forms should be encouraged and there have to be laws regulating it, but that's not equal to "I have the right to be rich on this". Or "The company representing me have the right to be rich on this". The laws are outdated and not valid anymore. What needs to be done is a complete remake. We need to decide what we want to achive and how the laws could support that. Do we want to encourage creativity? Do we want to protect the right to be paid when someone else uses it? Do we want to ensure the profit for a huge industry? Then set the laws accordingly.

And artists, don't be fooled. You sell your soul to the media company when you sign up. I don't think that's the best thing for an artist nor that it is good for art.

These are my opinions.

/edited for some spelling and also I misread an earlier post.

This post has been edited by blindwillie: Nov 13 2007, 08:52 PM

[DeepRoots]

i think its ridiculous to try to justify pirated software.

It shouldnt be used.

Even if you do decide it is how you want to acquire software- it shouldnt be publicly discussed as this breeds more pirates.

[blindwillie]

i think its ridiculous to try to justify pirated software.

It shouldnt be used.

Even if you do decide it is how you want to acquire software- it shouldnt be publicly discussed as this breeds more pirates.

As I see it everything should be open for discussion. You solve nothing by not talking about it.

/edit again: omg I really can't spell.

This post has been edited by blindwillie: Nov 13 2007, 09:03 PM

[MickeM]

i think its ridiculous to try to justify pirated software.

It shouldnt be used.

Even if you do decide it is how you want to acquire software- it shouldnt be publicly discussed as this breeds more pirates.

I don't even see why home users need software like Word/Excel etc. There are perfectly suitable share and freeware that come at a cost we can afford.

And software piracy often strikes directly at the company since it's distributed in a different way than music and film. So yes, software piracy is really really really bad.

Then I think that the music and film industry needs to be shook to its foundation until some unneccessary and expensive middlemen with huge cigars fall off and money can be redirected to the music writers and bands and it will cost the end customer a lot less.

Record companies have their task, but does it have to come with such a heavy price tag?

Don't follow laws blindly. Change them. Make the laws reasonable for the intended purpose. Not to protect a business model that's outdated.

+1

And true, yes it is a good point, but continuing to steal music isnt gonna bring about revolutionary change to the world, hopefully what it will do is convince the record companys to do something about it, so where people still pay for it, and the artists get money for there work.

Not change the world, but it's spread world wide and if that happens, the artists get payed more and the record companies less while the end customer gets the art at reasonable cost something is gained.

[Andrew Cockburn]

I don't even see why home users need software like Word/Excel etc. There are perfectly suitable share and freeware that come at a cost we can afford.

I agree - I have access to all the expensive stuff through work, but I decided to rebuild my home PC using as much free stuff as I could, I got 97% of the way there. I found free or cheap substitutes for:

- Word
- Excel
- PowerPoint
- Email
- Zipfiles

and many many more. It can be done.

[blindwillie]

I agree - I have access to all the expensive stuff through work, but I decided to rebuild my home PC using as much free stuff as I could, I got 97% of the way there. I found free or cheap substitutes for:

- Word
- Excel
- PowerPoint
- Email
- Zipfiles

and many many more. It can be done.

And a +1 to that. If there is a freeware alternative I prefer using that as long as it's not too awkward. Most of the time I find them easier to use and not as bloted as the commercial ones.

[tonymiro]

...
Don't make this a black or white discussion (no pun intened) or a legal/illegal discussion. It's not that easy.
Don't follow laws blindly. Change them. Make the laws reasonable for the intended purpose. Not to protect a business model that's outdated.
...

Art and creativity in all forms should be encouraged and there have to be laws regulating it, but that's not equal to "I have the right to be rich on this". Or "The company representing me have the right to be rich on this". The laws are outdated and not valid anymore. What needs to be done is a complete remake. We need to decide what we want to achive and how the laws could support that. Do we want to encourage creativity? Do we want to protect the right to be paid when someone else uses it? Do we want to ensure the profit for a .

I largely agree and as I've said before and elsewhere I support and lobby, and work unpaid, for open commons and copyleft organisations. For me the issue is to try to get the law changed. Until that happens though I work within it. What I don't see from the software pirates (rather then the end users or some of the distribution channels) is a desire to campaign to change the law. Now I wonder why they don't .

Cheers,
Tony

[Fsgdjv]

I said I wouldn't post any more that wasn't super on topic, but I have to post this (and just hope for it to be regarded as super on topic )

First of all I don't like that I can't state my opinion (and my opinion was that software piracy was bad, but that everything isn't black and white) without getting offended. Sure, what I read doesn't really offend me, but since I read "edited for language by andrew", I get the feeling that you have something more to say, and theres no way you will convice me of anything by just saying that I'm "full of crap" or whatever.

And what MickeM wrote about breaking laws is exactly how I see it, if I don't like a law, I brake it and hope that others also will so that the law could get changed. I consider it my right as a human being. (And no, I've never stolen anything in my life, not even a chokolate bar, I've never murded, raped or anything like that, amazing, isn't it? )

And to both MickeM and blindwillie: + 100000000000000000000, I totally agree with you to 100%

[ibanezkiller]

. Its all the same say I buy Adobe Photoshop CS3 for upwards of 600 dollars, but you got it for free I'd be pissed and you would to if it was the other way around.

Their is another way... why not to use pirated software... should be "use pirated software!" (as long as the man does not get you)

Their are some stellar arguments for both side here.

This post has been edited by ibanezkiller: Nov 14 2007, 01:57 AM

[tonymiro]

First of all I don't like that I can't state my opinion (and my opinion was that software piracy was bad, but that everything isn't black and white) without getting offended. Sure, what I read doesn't really offend me, but since I read "edited for language by andrew", I get the feeling that you have something more to say, and theres no way you will convice me of anything by just saying that I'm "full of crap" or whatever.

Which is of course why Andrew did the edit that he did and why I put my moderator's hat on briefly - so that you could make your point without being shouted at. We're more then happy for the debate to happen as it is an important issue worthy of discussion. It's also one reason why I'm not interjecting my opinion too much to let others put their points of view .

What we moderators do want is that both sides show respect to each other and not descend to the levels of an all out flame war. If it does descend I hasten to add that the thread will get locked.

BTW - if anyone hasn't realised both me and Andrew post in bold italics when we're making a moderator's comment rather then a personal opinion/observation .

Cheers,
Tony

[Fsgdjv]

Yeah Tony, I'm aware of that, and that's of course a good thing. I was just pointing out that it would be even better if people could post politely without getting moderated. And yeah, at least I've noticed the bold italics

[tonymiro]

np mate - it was sort of less to you and more a general comment .

Cheers,
Tony