Dumbasses need to stop pirating software.

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: edmicman
will people please stop comparing software piracy to physically stealing material goods?? agreed, copying software is wrong, but it is NOT the same as taking a stereo or BBQ or a whole car. If I steal your stereo, you no longer have the use of that stereo. If I copy a cd, you still have the original, but now I have a copy too. copying digital material is just that - a copy. Sotware piracy isn't as much stealing as it is lack of compensation.

Copyright infringement.

 

[igowerf]

Link

 

[MangoTBG]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It can cause people to lose jobs, go hungry"

Bullcrap. They wouldn't get my money either way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it isn't worth purchasing, it isn't worth using.

I like how you go directly from one statement, and as soon as I dispute it, you change the subject. Too bad this wasn't a formal debate.

 

[MangoTBG]

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

You own. Exactly my point, but said in a fabulous way.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Too bad this wasn't a formal debate.

Don't let that hold you back, I never do. 🙂

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It can cause people to lose jobs, go hungry"

Bullcrap. They wouldn't get my money either way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it isn't worth purchasing, it isn't worth using.

I like how you go directly from one statement, and as soon as I dispute it, you change the subject. Too bad this wasn't a formal debate.

I didn't change the subject. I gathered you wouldn't be purchasing the software even if you didn't use it. So I stated my belief that if it is not worth paying for, it is not worth using. Pretty simple.

 

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You own. Exactly my point, but said in a fabulous way.

All copies are stolen, none are bought, doesn't hold up does it ?

Stealing is stealing no matter how you put it.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkeySo I stated my belief that if it is not worth paying for, it is not worth using. Pretty simple.

maybe to you. but i can think of plenty of examples where something isn't worth buying is worth using.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Roger
All copies are stolen, none are bought, doesn't hold up does it ?

Stealing is stealing no matter how you put it.

Cool, because copyright infringment isn't stealing.

Is this a moral or legal debate?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: n0cmonkeySo I stated my belief that if it is not worth paying for, it is not worth using. Pretty simple.

maybe to you. but i can think of plenty of examples where something isn't worth buying is worth using.

I figure if it is worth using, and I use it frequently, I should compensate whoever made it available. Maybe I'm wierd like that, but that's the way I look at things. I hate it when people don't compensate me in some way for the work I do.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Roger
All copies are stolen, none are bought, doesn't hold up does it ?

Stealing is stealing no matter how you put it.

Cool, because copyright infringment isn't stealing.

Is this a moral or legal debate?

I think everyone agrees that in the U.S. this is illegal. I am guessing it would have to be moral.

 

I am not going to argue with you Bigbong, you took something that is not yours without paying, that is theft no matter how you look at it, all this is just symantics.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Roger

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You own. Exactly my point, but said in a fabulous way.

All copies are stolen, none are bought, doesn't hold up does it ?

Stealing is stealing no matter how you put it.

It is stealing, but I personally have no condemnation of John, but I do of Bob. As mentioned below when somebody _steals_ software they do not cost the manufacturer anything BUT profits. When somebody steals a car they cost them profits AND manufacturing costs. If somebody is unwilling to buy software then the manufactuer has lost profits ONLY. If somebody is UNABLE to buy software, then that manufacturer was never going to get the profits anyway.

Another way to look at it is this: If you have person 1,2,3 with $10,20,500 respectively and photoshop is worth exactly those amounts to those people adobe - if they were able - would probably set the price differently for all these people. In the case of VW with person 1,2,3 with $2k,12k,20k respectively VW still has to set the price at at least $15k to even make any money. In the case of adobe once the software is made all else is profit. You can't lost money from people stealing what they would never otherwise have bought anyway (if stealing was not an option).

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

 

[Spac3d]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

I nominate Skoorb for Govenor of Californa!:beer:

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Roger
I am not going to argue with you Bigbong, you took something that is not yours without paying, that is theft no matter how you look at it, all this is just symantics.

So then you're talking morally. It is an important distinction to make - because at least in the US, copyright infringment and theft are two different things, legally.

If people want to argue about morals, then it's pointless. The debate will never end, and nothing will be gained from it.

If people want to argue about laws -- fine, BUT -- since when should we follow the law to the letter? Wouldn't that create the type of nation that caused oppressed europeans to move here and start the US in the first place?

 

[DrPizza]

I agree.... it's easily settled legally...
it's more of a moral issue...

If my son is using some software at school and wants to finish working on his project at home..... I'm not going to go out and purchase a $700 program for 2 or 3 uses... I will always be happy to pay for software that I use on a regular basis... but I doubt I'll ever pay more than $10 for something I'm only going to use once or twice. If some of the companies had an option such as $700 for the lifetime license, or $2 per use... I'd go with a per use fee. Til then... I'll just pirate it. On the other hand... I'm more than happy to pay hundreds of dollars for programs like Mathematica, because I use them regularly.

 

[Ranger X]

Maybe if software wasn't so expensive more people would buy it. Piracy will never end. By the time the industry introduces a new method of copy protection, someone has already found a way around it before the announcement is made.

 

[StageLeft]

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

There you go 🙂 It's ok to steal in those cases IF you can truly and honestly to yourself say you'd never be buying it otherwise. Whether that's from the standpoint of you're dirt poor or a VW is not even worth a single $1 to you, then yes it's fine for you to "steal" it. Now, if being honest and true to yourself a VW is still worth $20k, then stealing it with the replicator is a no-no. I find few things in morality black and white and anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

Most of the MP3s I have are ones I'd never have otherwise paid a nickel for. I sleep well at night. Some of them I would have otherwise bought but didn't. THOSE are the ones that skoorbie is a bad boy for.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Screw anti-pirates. It's people that show the companies that you are willing to pay so much for software. $50 a game? Bump that.

No piracy or reduced piracy would lead to less expensive software titles and games. Assclowns that pirate the software drive up the cost for those that purchase it.

 

[MangoTBG]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

Hell yeah it'd be "OK". They could just make another copy.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about because you keep refering to pirating as stealing, when in fact, it is not. Copyright infringment is not stealing.


Is pirating morally accepted? Hell no. Will me using software that I didn't pay for hurt anyone else in any way, shape, or form? Nope. I have not done anything wrong.





You guys really wanna know something?...Just how bad I am?

I had a crap Italian place deliver me some food for me and a few friends. It took them 1 hr and 45 minutes, mean while I called them several times trying to figure out exactly when my food as going to arrive. The girl who constantly answer my phonecalls remained the same, so when I finally asked to speak to her manager and she said she was it I knew it was BS. I could even hear a guy in the backgroung giving her things to do (obviously the manager) so after the bitch hung up on me and I finally had the food arrive, again nearly 2 hrs later, I lied and told the driver that the manager comped the food. Puzzled. He gave me the food, I gave him $3 as a tip because "I felt bad".

How bad of a person am I? Guess what? I don't care what you think 😉.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

There you go 🙂 It's ok to steal in those cases IF you can truly and honestly to yourself say you'd never be buying it otherwise. Whether that's from the standpoint of you're dirt poor or a VW is not even worth a single $1 to you, then yes it's fine for you to "steal" it. Now, if being honest and true to yourself a VW is still worth $20k, then stealing it with the replicator is a no-no. I find few things in morality black and white and anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

Most of the MP3s I have are ones I'd never have otherwise paid a nickel for. I sleep well at night. Some of them I would have otherwise bought but didn't. THOSE are the ones that skoorbie is a bad boy for.

Well, I can see that being true in principle, but even you admit that you have stuff that you didn't pay for that you would have paid for if you had to. If people HAD to pay for software, you'd see people with 3 or 4 video games that they paid for instead of 30 or 40 that they got for free. Sure, you're right, they wouldnt have paid for most of them, but they would have paid for a few of them.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Roger
I am not going to argue with you Bigbong, you took something that is not yours without paying, that is theft no matter how you look at it, all this is just symantics.

So then you're talking morally. It is an important distinction to make - because at least in the US, copyright infringment and theft are two different things, legally.

If people want to argue about morals, then it's pointless. The debate will never end, and nothing will be gained from it.

If people want to argue about laws -- fine, BUT -- since when should we follow the law to the letter? Wouldn't that create the type of nation that caused oppressed europeans to move here and start the US in the first place?

They moved away. Towards something more agreeable... Maybe a movie to a consumer friendly OS and software is in order?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I agree.... it's easily settled legally...
it's more of a moral issue...

If my son is using some software at school and wants to finish working on his project at home..... I'm not going to go out and purchase a $700 program for 2 or 3 uses... I will always be happy to pay for software that I use on a regular basis... but I doubt I'll ever pay more than $10 for something I'm only going to use once or twice. If some of the companies had an option such as $700 for the lifetime license, or $2 per use... I'd go with a per use fee. Til then... I'll just pirate it. On the other hand... I'm more than happy to pay hundreds of dollars for programs like Mathematica, because I use them regularly.

I got a free copy of photoshop with a hard drive.

 

[MangoTBG]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Screw anti-pirates. It's people that show the companies that you are willing to pay so much for software. $50 a game? Bump that.

No piracy or reduced piracy would lead to less expensive software titles and games. Assclowns that pirate the software drive up the cost for those that purchase it.

And for that reason, piracy will continue.



Btw, where is this going? Nowhere.


Goodthing I have work because I'd probably sit here for another 30 minutes like a bafoon talking about this crap. Enjoy y'alls day.