28 Sep, 2006, Asylumius wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
So I think most of us can agree that violating the Diku terms, and any other license, is lame. So it's safe to assume that most of us aren't willing to rip code out of someone's codebase and not give credit or pay for it (if their license allowed), or not commit to any other form of compliance.

That said, I'd be interested to know how many of our users use pirated software, download mp3s (torrents, ftp sites, friend's hdds, etc), torrent movies/tv shows, etc.

I'll be the first to admit I'm torrenting something 23 out of 24 hours a day. Although I do feel justified downloading certain things (like TV shows). Nonetheless, when I first read some of these recent "legal issue" threads, I, just a little, felt like a hypocrite.

Thoughts?

PS: I do realize there are dozens of practical and legal differences between software/media piracy and what we're talking about here, but it is similar, and the ethics probably apply in the same ways. This thread isn't a philosophy lesson/debate.
28 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
There isn't anything inherently wrong with downloading music, etc. It only becomes an issue when they start saying you shouldn't. To be nice, maybe you shouldn't. But then again, sometimes they're just greedy and being unreasonable. From that perspective, I think it would make the most sense if they tried to make it so there was no great demand for bypassing what they want. If there are more people downloading your stuff for free than paying for it, I think you're asking for too much money. It's called capitalism. Instead of realizing that they are producing crap and/or noone is willing to give them their arm and leg for whatever they have, they are simply being lazy and complain to 'mommy' that we're 'not playing fairly.' (Although we think they should just share a little.) What saddens me is when the US Government gives in and becomes a controlled economy, not the great capitalist country we were founded on. The MAFIAA is just a bunch of commies.
28 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I think the main difference here between using pirated software and/or music is the fact that copyright law doesn't dictate end-user behavior. That's what the EULA is for. Copyright is mainly about distribution rights. I realize I'm oversimplifying things but that's basically the reason for it.

So with that in mind, the better analogy is are we distributing pirated software and/or music, and would doing so make us hypocrites with regard to enforcing licensing for mud codebases? I would imagine in this case the answer would be yes. Afterall, copyright law says nothing about what you do with that CD you just got ahold of. That's the job of the licensing attached to it, which is a separate matter entirely.
28 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Look, its different.

Removing a Mud license takes the credit away from the creator, something pirating software or music doesn't do. Corporations publish their material for nothing but the gain of money, Mud creators(or at least ROM, MERC, DIKU, ect) do it to benefit their fellow members of the mud community.

Mud Licenses are MUCH more comparable to web scripts(free ones), like the one at the bottom of this site:
Quote
Powered by QSF Portal © 2006 The QSF Portal Development Team
Based on Quicksilver Forums © 2005-2006 The Quicksilver Forums Development Team
Based on MercuryBoard © 2001-2005 The Mercury Development Team
MudBytes skin © 2006 by The MudBytes Team


Like, I may would steal and crack Vbulletin to use to build a forum, but I would't hide that its vbulletin.

Just like if someone started a mud codebase you had to pay for, I may get a copy of it off a torrent site, but I wouldn't take the credit away from the authors.
28 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't, and it is clearly theft in my opinion. Downloading pirated music, movies, books, software or what have you is no different than going to a store and stuffing them down your pants and walking out. The only difference is it's easier to get away with it.
28 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
There may not be much of a legal distinction between the act of using pirated software vs distributing it, but it is there. Granted, in the eyes of the law, both are crimes, but law enforcement nearly always considers those doing the distributing to be committing the greater crime. This is why when they bust druggies, they want the dealers and their suppliers, not necessarily the users. It's why the feds pursue counterfeiting rings rather than those who are simply using counterfeit money. And why you hear about large busts of movie and software piracy operations rather than the end users. Although the music industry hasn't quite figured out they should be punishing the distributors rather than pursuing the 12 year old little girls who downloaded it.
28 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
I disagree, there is a difference.

Like, a couple days ago. I downloaded Adobe Photoshop CS2. I'm a high school student, there was no other way I could get it. I can't afford $700 for a piece of software. I mean, it was either that or not have it.

And why is it better to download it than steal it from a store? When you download it, or I did anyway, the company didn't lose a damn dime. No packaging costs, no shipping expenses, nothing. I couldn't have afforded it, so they didn't lose the money I would have spent. My using it hasn't hurt anyone.
28 Sep, 2006, Timbo wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
Like, a couple days ago. I downloaded Adobe Photoshop CS2. I'm a high school student, there was no other way I could get it. I can't afford $700 for a piece of software. I mean, it was either that or not have it.


$599.99 is what Wal*Mart sells it for, all the ones on eBay are all hovering around $300… that's still quite a bit, but just not having it is a pretty fair alternative; other programs do the same type of stuff for free and all. I'm curious, did you actually need it in some urgent way, or just felt like having it? There are a ton of other things that are stealable in the world where the decision comes down to either stealing or not having it (assuming one never feels like paying for anything).

I just now looked at their web site, and they offer a demo download ("Download free trial" link on http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ ), but I didn't sign up for their newsletter and download it or anything, so I don't know what's disabled in their current demo. One of their older versions according to tucows at http://www.tucows.com/preview/214261 says that saving in the 6.0 demo is disabled, so it sounds like if you know how to take a screenshot and save it in Paint then they offer everything for free… I guess I'll download it later myself and check it out :)
28 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
The trial only works for 30 days.

Gimp is the closest thing to photoshop and is nowhere near as good.

$300? $700? Dude, I have to find a way to make 5 bucks for lunch during my lunch break at school on monday. :-p

Price, availability, need, they only matter if you believe downloading it is morally wrong, I don't think that's the case. Who did it hurt?

Murder is wrong, stealing from a store is wrong. Taking something that when it hurts no one I don't think is. If I had the money, I'd buy it. If I were using it for a professional purpose, I'd buy it. Neither are true. No one but myself was affected by my decision to download the software.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
The Gimp 2.2 is ok, use that.
29 Sep, 2006, Paradigm wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
locke said:
The Gimp 2.2 is ok, use that.

GimpShop is even better as it is Gimp but with a more familiar Photoshop/Paintshop interface. Gimp is much more powerful than any of those other programs it just has a much much larger learning curve.
29 Sep, 2006, Paradigm wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
The trial only works for 30 days.

Gimp is the closest thing to photoshop and is nowhere near as good.

$300? $700? Dude, I have to find a way to make 5 bucks for lunch during my lunch break at school on monday. :-p

Price, availability, need, they only matter if you believe downloading it is morally wrong, I don't think that's the case. Who did it hurt?

Murder is wrong, stealing from a store is wrong. Taking something that when it hurts no one I don't think is. If I had the money, I'd buy it. If I were using it for a professional purpose, I'd buy it. Neither are true. No one but myself was affected by my decision to download the software.


Paint.net is good too and very easy to use though it may lack some of the more advanced features.
http://www.getpaint.net/
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
Murder is wrong, stealing from a store is wrong. Taking something that when it hurts no one I don't think is. If I had the money, I'd buy it. If I were using it for a professional purpose, I'd buy it. Neither are true. No one but myself was affected by my decision to download the software.


So let me get this straight. Stealing from a store is wrong, yes? Ok. Consider this then. Suppose that copy of the Adobe thing that costs $700 is on the shelf at a store. What then? Would you steal it? You already said that since you wouldn't pay for it anyway that it's ok to download a stolen copy of it. Why not steal one that's actually on real media, that comes in a real box, with a real manual to go with it? You aren't hurting anyone afterall. You wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Personally I think that's morally reprehensible. Who did you hurt? What about the two developers Adobe had to fire because they didn't make budget because you and your 500 friends all downloaded copies of it from Kazza? That's 500 downloads multiplied by $700 retail each. That's $350,000. Enough to pay the salaries of two experienced programmers for their publishing software department. Congratulations. You just got two people fired who never did anything to you. People who just might have been able to one day get you a job in the industry. Fellow coders.

Did you ever stop to consider why Adobe wants $700 for a copy of the program? Maybe it's got something to do with the thousands of people who are firing their development staff. They raised the price to keep these people employed. Continue to steal from them and that program will one day cost $1,000 and you still won't be able to afford it. And that just might cause some small businesses to decide to buy something else that's cheaper. Maybe even a competing product. Hell, you might eventually even drive Adobe out of business when they can't cover their operating costs. Then a whole lot of fellow coders are out of a job. Along with their co-workers in the shipping department, the marketing department, the mail room, right on down to the guy who picked up leaves in the parking lot for extra spending money after school.

Chew on that for awhile.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Personally I think that's morally reprehensible. Who did you hurt? What about the two developers Adobe had to fire because they didn't make budget because you and your 500 friends all downloaded copies of it from Kazza? That's 500 downloads multiplied by $700 retail each. That's $350,000. Enough to pay the salaries of two experienced programmers for their publishing software department. Congratulations. You just got two people fired who never did anything to you. People who just might have been able to one day get you a job in the industry. Fellow coders.


Remember that what you are really paying for is several people (probably 4 or 5) who are scientists or engineers, not just programmers, to optimize and verify interfaces and algorithms as well as develop new "cutting edge" algorithms. That's a lot of math, and probably many careers worth of knowledge taken from open source, published mathematics and graphics documents, as well as cutting into their "let's buy the latest hot algorithm" budget for those enterprising young scientists.

Quote
Did you ever stop to consider why Adobe wants $700 for a copy of the program? Maybe it's got something to do with the thousands of people who are firing their development staff. They raised the price to keep these people employed. Continue to steal from them and that program will one day cost $1,000 and you still won't be able to afford it. And that just might cause some small businesses to decide to buy something else that's cheaper. Maybe even a competing product.


This has been the classic reason for why Adobe charges so much: but its not entirely true. While it is set at a threshold level, there is a significant marketing budget included in this price, which includes a hefty profit margin for capitalization. The reasons a company capitalizes is to sustain itself perpetually; in essence, to keep itself running despite the organic component to the organization, which is a frail and weak part of its otherwise complex accumulation of technical (intellectual) and architectural property. This means that the idea created by the entrepreneur who started Adobe and its subsidiaries will perpetuate indefinitely (until it is absorbed, merged into or destroyed by another business entity). Since I am assuming you like cutting-edge creative software, like Adobe, you probably would want Adobe to continue making a superior Paint product that enables you to manipulate images in a way superior to that of the open source and competing inferior alternatives. You can measure the software's superiority by its optimization level, its number of features and its usability component (ease of use, intuitiveness of interface, etc) – as well as its usefulness – and since it is a rather well adopted product, it seems to be "winning" the "competition" by containing the aforementioned components of superior software.

Since much of Adobe's software has lead the industry, it is probable that the software will remain superior for at least a good deal of time until it can be acquired by another entity; if it is ever open sourced, this will most likely occur when it reaches a level of uselessness in light of other technological developments (a drastic change in the way graphics hardware is packaged and sold, for instance, might make Photoshop less useful versus a new competitor).
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Couldn't care less about Adobe personally. I don't use their products aside from the PDF viewer. Adobe just happened to be what Briston stole on the internet and was used as an example. I do what little graphic editing I have the talent for in Gimp. But obviously my point was understood anyway :)
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, nothing beats Illustrator in open source.
29 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
I mean, it was either that or not have it.


I want a Porsche but can't really afford it.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
To Tyche: I guess moonlighting as a homosexual isn't paying off?
29 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Personally I think that's morally reprehensible. Who did you hurt? What about the two developers Adobe had to fire because they didn't make budget because you and your 500 friends all downloaded copies of it from Kazza? That's 500 downloads multiplied by $700 retail each. That's $350,000. Enough to pay the salaries of two experienced programmers for their publishing software department. Congratulations. You just got two people fired who never did anything to you. People who just might have been able to one day get you a job in the industry. Fellow coders.


Not true. I've already said if I could afford it I would buy it. So, even if I hadn't downloaded it, they wouldn't have made any more money. It changed no one's life. Made no effect on anyone. Cost no one their job.

When I am slightly older and have a career I will buy these programs. For now, no one is being hurt by me using them. If anything its exposing me to how awesome they are, which will make me purchase them earlier.

And Gimp is not more powerful than photoshop. I know both almost intimately. Photoshop is consideribly more powerful. Gimp is fun, as is Illustrator, Paint Shop Pro, Corel Painter, all awesome, but Photoshop is the best.

If you answer me a question I'll stop downloading software for forever: Keeping in mind I would never have bought the software, who was hurt by me downloading it?
29 Sep, 2006, kiasyn wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
everyone! The internet is a series of tubes.. it's not a big truck..

:P
0.0/122