<< Why? I am not supporting it as I got both my copies for free. >>
Using software is supporting it. Not financially, but it is being supported. There is a demand that you create for Windows software. The software out there is the number 1 reason Windows is number 1. By not using it you do not create a need for Windows software which makes less of a need for the Windows OS. If enough people did that and made known their reason for not using Windows Microsoft may get a clue.
n0cmonkey, my thoughts exactly. "i will not bow down to activation, but i will buy the os" is bullhonkey because the same argument can be applied to not registering a car or getting a drivers license. of course in that instance you may disagree with the state laws but you will be jacked if you ever get found out/pulled over. its only "feels" easier because you are a (hopefully?!) anonymous person using zeros and ones behind the safety of your keyboard. the morality/legality does not change.
If you want to use a free OS, then learn to use an open-source product like Linux, and support it's development by using applications that have been created for it.
Ever notice how the "Morality Is Relative" faction tries to portray themselves as "Freedom Fighters"? Yet the same people would be outraged if they were the victims of a burglery; or expected to work for free.
I note here that software developers aren't exactly "blazing a trail" to Sweden to establish their start-up companies - you figure that out. If I create and offer for sale something you want, I expect to be compensated for it. If I choose to give it to you, that's my choice, not yours. It makes absolutely no difference if I'm an individual, or or have grown to become a large corporate entity. If you don't like what I create, or my business practices - don't use my products. If you think you can make something that's better, have at it.
But don't expect me to be conciliatory, understanding, or cooperative if you choose to steal, or tacitly support the theft of the results of my work - and possessing an unauthorized copy, or circumventing an authorisation process for software does precisely that, regardless of whatever number of legitimate copies you own.
Ever notice how the "Morality Is Relative" faction tries to portray themselves as "Freedom Fighters"? Yet the same people would be outraged if they were the victims of a burglery; or expected to work for free.
I note here that software developers aren't exactly "blazing a trail" to Sweden to establish their start-up companies - you figure that out. If I create and offer for sale something you want, I expect to be compensated for it. If I choose to give it to you, that's my choice, not yours. It makes absolutely no difference if I'm an individual, or or have grown to become a large corporate entity. If you don't like what I create, or my business practices - don't use my products. If you think you can make something that's better, have at it.
But don't expect me to be conciliatory, understanding, or cooperative if you choose to steal, or tacitly support the theft of the results of my work - and possessing an unauthorized copy, or circumventing an authorisation process for software does precisely that, regardless of whatever number of legitimate copies you own.
<< But don't expect me to be conciliatory, understanding, or cooperative if you choose to steal, or tacitly support the theft of the results of my work >>
The problem with this argument is that pirating software, both in the eyes of the law and in my own eyes, is not "stealing" or theft. Because software companies are explicitly not giving you their software (they are licensing it to you, which means you own nothing), there is no theft able to be committed. It is copyright infringement, yes, but it is not theft.
Also, the BSA and other organizations that are funded by large software corporations will tell you things like "$5.3 gazillion is lost annually to software piracy"... this is also a load of crap. The fact is, a large portion of the people who pirate software (and some who get it free/discounted legally) would never buy the software if they couldn't pirate it/get it for free... therefore it is not a lost sale. For instance, the university I go to has a campus license agreement with MS, whereby I can get CDs of just about any recent MS product for free, legally. There is absolutely no way I would pay for Office or Windows if I could not get it through this method. $500 for an office suite is absolutely ridiculous, and I feel sorry for anyone who bent over to Microsoft and paid that much.
</rant>
-cb
Which is similar to my situation, in which I have gotten 2 free copies of XP from retail training functions. XP Corporate is more convenient because I am constantly upgrading my systems and reinstalling windows. They are not losing any money from me, as they gave me the software.
<< The fact is, a large portion of the people who pirate software (and some who get it free/discounted legally) would never buy the software if they couldn't pirate it/get it for free... >>
Oh, so that makes it right? Sweet! Im warezing everything!
<< Oh, so that makes it right? Sweet! Im warezing everything! >>
Nope, it's definitely not right to pirate... I never said that it was. I was simply trying to debunk some of the "facts" (read: BS) that the BSA puts out about software piracy...
-cb
<< Because software companies are explicitly not giving you their software (they are licensing it to you, which means you own nothing), there is no theft able to be committed. It is copyright infringement, yes, but it is not theft. >>
Wrong.
You can offer that argument in these forums, but it doesn't fly in the courts . . .
You pay for the priveledge of using the software - i.e.: the license. If you don't pay for it, that's referred to as "theft of intellectual property". Possessing an unauthorised copy is "copyright infringement", regardless of whether you use it or not.
The rest of the post is simply an irrelevent attempt to justify the ludicrous argument that "I wouldn't buy it if I couldn't steal it".
<< Wrong.
You can offer that argument in these forums, but it doesn't fly in the courts . . .
You pay for the priveledge of using the software - i.e.: the license. If you don't pay for it, that's referred to as "theft of intellectual property". Possessing an unauthorised copy is "copyright infringement", regardless of whether you use it or not.
The rest of the post is simply an irrelevent attempt to justify the ludicrous argument that "I wouldn't buy it if I couldn't steal it". >>
Please do your research before making statements such as this. If you do a search on the net for court cases involving software piracy, the defendants are almost always charged with one or more counts of either:
a) Copyright Infringement
b) Conspiracy to Commit Copyright Infringement
c) Wire Fraud.
No where do you find the words stealing, theft, or larceny in these charges. Bottom line: you cannot be charged with STEALING or THEFT (i.e. larceny) for software piracy unless you also stole PHYSICAL PROPERTY (i.e. the person who owned it doesn't have it anymore, and you do). If you can find something to prove otherwise please let me know.
(please note I do not condone software piracy, I just find it astounding the amount of false information that has been put in people's heads by the likes of MS and the BSA, SIIA, etc).
-cb
IMO there would be a lot less "pirating" if Microsoft would be reasonable about what they charge for their software.
And I won't accept the "R & D" answer anymore, because I can't believe that Office XP took all that much R & D. It's a souped-up version of Office 2000, yet it still costs $400-$500.
Take what it cost to produce and distribute Office XP. Now take what it cost to produce Michael Jackson's latest CD. Why does Michael Jackson's latest CD only cost $13.99 and Office XP cost $400-$500?
I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges, but am I really? Think about it.
$500 for a piece of software that is licensed to one computer is LUDICROUS.
If Office XP didn't come with my Dell, I would not own a legit copy.
Look, I'm not saying I agree with pirating software, but I do understand when people do it.
And I won't accept the "R & D" answer anymore, because I can't believe that Office XP took all that much R & D. It's a souped-up version of Office 2000, yet it still costs $400-$500.
Take what it cost to produce and distribute Office XP. Now take what it cost to produce Michael Jackson's latest CD. Why does Michael Jackson's latest CD only cost $13.99 and Office XP cost $400-$500?
I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges, but am I really? Think about it.
$500 for a piece of software that is licensed to one computer is LUDICROUS.
If Office XP didn't come with my Dell, I would not own a legit copy.
Look, I'm not saying I agree with pirating software, but I do understand when people do it.
<< IMO there would be a lot less "pirating" if Microsoft would be reasonable about what they charge for their software.
And I won't accept the "R & D" answer anymore, because I can't believe that Office XP took all that much R & D. It's a souped-up version of Office 2000, yet it still costs $400-$500.
Take what it cost to produce and distribute Office XP. Now take what it cost to produce Michael Jackson's latest CD. Why does Michael Jackson's latest CD only cost $13.99 and Office XP cost $400-$500?
I realize I'm comparing apples and oranges, but am I really? Think about it.
$500 for a piece of software that is licensed to one computer is LUDICROUS.
If Office XP didn't come with my Dell, I would not own a legit copy.
Look, I'm not saying I agree with pirating software, but I do understand when people do it. >>
Stop buying it. Stop using it. Get rid of the demand for it. Without demand Microsoft is no longer a monopoly (I believe they are because they can get away with charging outrageous prices like this for a text editor on steroids (and not even the good steroids, I swear Office made my nuts shrivel)) and might get a clue. When prices are reasonable ($100 for Office, $50-100 for full version of the OS in my opinion) then everyone wont have a reason to pirate right? Heh.
seriously, why is everyone so against illegal copies of software etc?
microsoft charges a ridiculously large and unreasonable amount for their software, theres NO WAY im paying like 500 dollars for windows xp pro and like 00 for office xp if i can get a cracked version for free or for 2 dollars (all values converted roughly from brazilian currency).
seriously, its ridiculous. morally, you should be happy that youre helping rip off those bas**rds at microsoft.
and activation...wtf is that about? waste of time and ppl can get around it so easily so a completely useless "feature" from microsoft trying to control us. :|
(lol maybe this is too anti microsoft but itll prolly stir up a few replies )
microsoft charges a ridiculously large and unreasonable amount for their software, theres NO WAY im paying like 500 dollars for windows xp pro and like 00 for office xp if i can get a cracked version for free or for 2 dollars (all values converted roughly from brazilian currency).
seriously, its ridiculous. morally, you should be happy that youre helping rip off those bas**rds at microsoft.
and activation...wtf is that about? waste of time and ppl can get around it so easily so a completely useless "feature" from microsoft trying to control us. :|
(lol maybe this is too anti microsoft but itll prolly stir up a few replies
)<< seriously, why is everyone so against illegal copies of software etc?
microsoft charges a ridiculously large and unreasonable amount for their software, theres NO WAY im paying like 500 dollars for windows xp pro and like 00 for office xp if i can get a cracked version for free or for 2 dollars (all values converted roughly from brazilian currency).
seriously, its ridiculous. morally, you should be happy that youre helping rip off those bas**rds at microsoft.
and activation...wtf is that about? waste of time and ppl can get around it so easily so a completely useless "feature" from microsoft trying to control us. :|
(lol maybe this is too anti microsoft but itll prolly stir up a few replies
) >>Because you can cause them more harm by NOT USING THE SOFTWARE AT ALL!! Its a simple concept, Im sorry your mind cannot grasp it.
<< I note here that software developers aren't exactly "blazing a trail" to Sweden to establish their start-up companies - you figure that out. If I create and offer for sale something you want, I expect to be compensated for it. If I choose to give it to you, that's my choice, not yours. It makes absolutely no difference if I'm an individual, or or have grown to become a large corporate entity. If you don't like what I create, or my business practices - don't use my products. If you think you can make something that's better, have at it. >>
I doubt piracy has much to do with it.
Anyways, firstly, I do use Linux, Im typing this in Konqueror, unfortunately games dont work that well, so I need Windows as well.
And secondly, I do have a license, Im just using a different sub version(both are XP pro, and cost equally much).
I think the whole activation thing is stupid, and if I didnt have access to the corp version, I would definately not be running XP, but as it is, I do have access to XP, and it is a bit more comfortable to use than 2K, so why shouldnt I use it?
what I want to know is why he got a cracked version of pro... you would think that he would find a copy of corporate... but to each his own...
<< Bottom line: you cannot be charged with STEALING or THEFT (i.e. larceny) for software piracy unless you also stole PHYSICAL PROPERTY (i.e. the person who owned it doesn't have it anymore, and you do). If you can find something to prove otherwise please let me know. >>
Attempt #2: Wrong!
Intellectual Property theft does not require posession of "stolen physical property" to fulfill any legal requirements for burden of proof; nor is there any legal requirement for the original creator to be deprived of posession of their property. Software Piracy is a sub-catagory of Intellectual Property Theft.
You also make the the common (and erroneous) assumption that 'Net access provides an unparalleled research database. Attorneys don't rely on the 'Net for their case law research, and you shouldn't either - try a law library.
Since physical (or digital, if you prefer) posession of 10 or more unlicensed copies of software constitutes a felony under US Federal law, there is little surprise that many of the piracy cases you may be aware of were prosecuted as copyright infringement. In the name of the relevent court case load in particular, and conviction rates in general, such posession would constitute an indefensable "legal slam-dunk"; thus acheiving the goal of conviction in the most expedient manner.
Essentially, you are presenting the same arguements offered by Cable TV pirates in the 1980's, and the Satellite signal pirates through the 1990's to present - and although those individuals were prosecuted and convicted for "theft of services" (again, easily demonstrated and indefensable), the reasoning was, and is, the same: absence of stolen item = no crime committed.
Your position is completely without merit.
Hey Timberwolf, I was trying to be polite and to express my opinions in a civil manner, but since you are insistent upon flaming me, here goes...
<< Attempt #2: Wrong! >>
Unnecessary. Please don't snap to judgements like this.
<< Intellectual Property theft does not require posession of "stolen physical property" to fulfill any legal requirements for burden of proof; nor is there any legal requirement for the original creator to be deprived of posession of their property. Software Piracy is a sub-catagory of Intellectual Property Theft. >>
Show me. Prove it. Also, "catagory" is spelled "category."
<< You also make the the common (and erroneous) assumption that 'Net access provides an unparalleled research database. Attorneys don't rely on the 'Net for their case law research, and you shouldn't either - try a law library. >>
You make a good point; however, you also make the common (and erroneous) assumption that you know what I am thinking because you have a superiority complex. Any nitwit would know that a law library provides infinitely more accessible and qualified documents about law... however, the internet is a great place to start when you don't care enough to go to a law library
<< Since physical (or digital, if you prefer) posession of 10 or more unlicensed copies of software constitutes a felony under US Federal law, there is little surprise that many of the piracy cases you may be aware of were prosecuted as copyright infringement. In the name of the relevent court case load in particular, and conviction rates in general, such posession would constitute an indefensable "legal slam-dunk"; thus acheiving the goal of conviction in the most expedient manner.
Essentially, you are presenting the same arguements offered by Cable TV pirates in the 1980's, and the Satellite signal pirates through the 1990's to present - and although those individuals were prosecuted and convicted for "theft of services" (again, easily demonstrated and indefensable), the reasoning was, and is, the same: absence of stolen item = no crime committed. >>
Again, prove it. You could very well be correct about the "theft of services" thing, but you could also be pulling it out of your butt.
<< Your position is completely without merit. >>
Well, thank you, Mr. I-Am-Better-Than-Everyone-And-Feel-The-Need-to-Put-People-Down-Because-Of-It.
-cb
<< Attempt #2: Wrong! >>
Unnecessary. Please don't snap to judgements like this.
<< Intellectual Property theft does not require posession of "stolen physical property" to fulfill any legal requirements for burden of proof; nor is there any legal requirement for the original creator to be deprived of posession of their property. Software Piracy is a sub-catagory of Intellectual Property Theft. >>
Show me. Prove it. Also, "catagory" is spelled "category."
<< You also make the the common (and erroneous) assumption that 'Net access provides an unparalleled research database. Attorneys don't rely on the 'Net for their case law research, and you shouldn't either - try a law library. >>
You make a good point; however, you also make the common (and erroneous) assumption that you know what I am thinking because you have a superiority complex. Any nitwit would know that a law library provides infinitely more accessible and qualified documents about law... however, the internet is a great place to start when you don't care enough to go to a law library
<< Since physical (or digital, if you prefer) posession of 10 or more unlicensed copies of software constitutes a felony under US Federal law, there is little surprise that many of the piracy cases you may be aware of were prosecuted as copyright infringement. In the name of the relevent court case load in particular, and conviction rates in general, such posession would constitute an indefensable "legal slam-dunk"; thus acheiving the goal of conviction in the most expedient manner.
Essentially, you are presenting the same arguements offered by Cable TV pirates in the 1980's, and the Satellite signal pirates through the 1990's to present - and although those individuals were prosecuted and convicted for "theft of services" (again, easily demonstrated and indefensable), the reasoning was, and is, the same: absence of stolen item = no crime committed. >>
Again, prove it. You could very well be correct about the "theft of services" thing, but you could also be pulling it out of your butt.
<< Your position is completely without merit. >>
Well, thank you, Mr. I-Am-Better-Than-Everyone-And-Feel-The-Need-to-Put-People-Down-Because-Of-It.
-cb
WTF is up with IT people and their egos?
Apparently the need to prove others wrong is compensation for the lack of a social life?
I'm beginning to wonder if the egos in the law profession have some serious competition...
Unfortunately, the lawyers still get paid way more than we do. Sad...
Anyway, I'm going to go have a chicken sandwich because I'm hungry. Please don't tell me that a chicken sandwich won't satisfy my hunger. You may be right, but I just don't want to hear it.
Apparently the need to prove others wrong is compensation for the lack of a social life?
I'm beginning to wonder if the egos in the law profession have some serious competition...
Unfortunately, the lawyers still get paid way more than we do. Sad...
Anyway, I'm going to go have a chicken sandwich because I'm hungry. Please don't tell me that a chicken sandwich won't satisfy my hunger. You may be right, but I just don't want to hear it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter