29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
I thought it was tubes with trucks in them… :cry:
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 22nd comment:
Quote
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?
I already did answer you. Your action of stealing a copy from the internet is no different than the physical act of stealing a copy off the shelf in a store. The end result is the same: You have possession of stolen property. Your download resulted in a single lost sale. Which in cumulative affect is eventually going to lead to someone at Adobe being fired to trim their budget. So yes, I'd say that hurt someone. You also deprive the retail establishment of their portion of the sale, which cuts into their profit margins and in cumulative affect will lead to there being one less person working at the store. So yes, I'd say that hurt someone too. I'd also wager you've already hurt yourself by creating a guilty conscience, as evidenced by your persistent need to defend an indefensible position. That's 3 people you've hurt so far. Shall I go on?
29 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 23rd comment:
I think its a bunch of trucks, that drive in tubes to get to other, larger trucks, where they meet up and go into different tubes.
Now that's technical jargon, there.
Edit:
You say over and over its a lost sale, but I'm PROVING to you its not because there is no earthly way I could purchase the software. If I could, I would. As it is, no one was hurt because no sale was lost, because even if I hadn't downloaded it, I wouldn't have bought it because I couldn't afford it.
Now that's technical jargon, there.
Edit:
You say over and over its a lost sale, but I'm PROVING to you its not because there is no earthly way I could purchase the software. If I could, I would. As it is, no one was hurt because no sale was lost, because even if I hadn't downloaded it, I wouldn't have bought it because I couldn't afford it.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 24th comment:
No I was pretty certain it was one truck per tube, one tube per octopus, one octopus per elephantine complex.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 25th comment:
Brinson said:
You say over and over its a lost sale, but I'm PROVING to you its not because there is no earthly way I could purchase the software. If I could, I would. As it is, no one was hurt because no sale was lost, because even if I hadn't downloaded it, I wouldn't have bought it because I couldn't afford it.
I'll remember to tell that to the Porche dealer then when Tyche and I go to pick up our cars we wouldn't have bought anyway because we can't afford them. Maybe the police will even realize what assholes they are for arresting us later after we tell them the brilliant defense strategy you've come up with too.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 26th comment:
I think that is Porsche
29 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 27th comment:
Heh.
My argument had logic, yours is entirely lacking it.
I think theft if wrong dependent on the amount of loss.
Stealing someone's house would be much worse than stealing a candy bar.
Stealing a software for which they lost $0 is nowhere near as bad as stealing a porsche in which they lost 50k+
I'd still like for you to tell me who was hurt by me downloading it, keeping in mind I never would have been able to purchase it, therefore they didn't lose a sale.
I base my ideals of mortality around a central concept- avoid hurting others. Something hurts someone else is wrong, that which does not is not.
My argument had logic, yours is entirely lacking it.
I think theft if wrong dependent on the amount of loss.
Stealing someone's house would be much worse than stealing a candy bar.
Stealing a software for which they lost $0 is nowhere near as bad as stealing a porsche in which they lost 50k+
I'd still like for you to tell me who was hurt by me downloading it, keeping in mind I never would have been able to purchase it, therefore they didn't lose a sale.
I base my ideals of mortality around a central concept- avoid hurting others. Something hurts someone else is wrong, that which does not is not.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 28th comment:
It would be hard to steal a house, but easy to hijack it or squat in it.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 29th comment:
Brinson said:
Stealing a software for which they lost $0 is nowhere near as bad as stealing a porsche in which they lost 50k+
I'd still like for you to tell me who was hurt by me downloading it, keeping in mind I never would have been able to purchase it, therefore they didn't lose a sale.
I'd still like for you to tell me who was hurt by me downloading it, keeping in mind I never would have been able to purchase it, therefore they didn't lose a sale.
They lost $700. The cost of one stolen software package.
I'd like to know why I'll be arrested for grand theft auto for driving off in the Porsche, keeping in mind I never would have been able to purchase it, therefore they didn't lose a sale.
29 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 30th comment:
How did they lose $700?
Had I not stolen it, would they have $700 more in their pocket? Even if I would never have bought it? Do they have $700 less because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? No.
Now, with a porsche, Do they have less money because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? Yes. There was a fiscal and very definite loss, which is NOT true with the software, because there was no raw material value for the software, the loss would only have been attained if I had otherwise intended to buy it.
Had I not stolen it, would they have $700 more in their pocket? Even if I would never have bought it? Do they have $700 less because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? No.
Now, with a porsche, Do they have less money because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? Yes. There was a fiscal and very definite loss, which is NOT true with the software, because there was no raw material value for the software, the loss would only have been attained if I had otherwise intended to buy it.
29 Sep, 2006, Timbo wrote in the 31st comment:
Timbo said:
I'm curious, did you actually need it in some urgent way, or just felt like having it?
Brinson said:
The trial only works for 30 days.
Okay, was there some urgent need for Photoshop in particular that you actually needed it for 31 days?
29 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 32nd comment:
I think what I'm seeing here is this:
Brinson is being mislead into thinking that the fact that it's an electronic version of the software the company could've sold rather than a physical product he believes that it takes money to produce the physical product be it a porsche or even software on packaged media in a store whereas an electronic copy is just that, only a series of bits electronically reproduced and therefore of no real value. Whereas the law does not make that distinction for the same reason that the manufacturers/authors/resellers do not, to them it is still lost revenue whether Brinson would have bought the software had it been affordable to him or not because if stealing a copy of it had not been possible then eventually Brinson would have saved up enough money to purchase it had he really wanted/needed it that badly.
The problem here is that everyone's trying to explain this rather abstract concept to Brinson using physical examples and he's not seeing the correlation because he's talking about something non-physical.
Brinson, you asked who you've hurt by this. Let me put it to you this way, and you let me know if this makes any sense at all to you, ok? If you were the one who wrote the software and were depending upon it's projected sales to bring in enough money for you to feed your family, and someone bypassed your web based store to download a copy for free rather than purchase it, that would lower your projected sales basis because it now means that others out there are also doing the same thing, if not just burning their downloaded copy to a CD to hand out to their friends who are also no longer needing to purchase a copy from you. Yes, you may still have a few moral individuals who purchase it from your site, but you will have significantly fewer who do so since they can get a copy for free by using the same exploit that kid found or even just getting a copy from their friends. Likewise, why would any of those people bother with purchasing the even more expensive copies from stores which have to mark up the price of the product due to addition costs in shipping, packaging, and their own store overhead? So, in reality, you are actually hurting the authors/manufacturers and the stores and other consumers because by stealing it the manufacturer will now have to raise their prices slightly to make up for the loss in potential revenue which will affect everyone in the entire distribution chain, in cluding those of your friends who have a better foundation on their morals than you appear to have.
Brinson is being mislead into thinking that the fact that it's an electronic version of the software the company could've sold rather than a physical product he believes that it takes money to produce the physical product be it a porsche or even software on packaged media in a store whereas an electronic copy is just that, only a series of bits electronically reproduced and therefore of no real value. Whereas the law does not make that distinction for the same reason that the manufacturers/authors/resellers do not, to them it is still lost revenue whether Brinson would have bought the software had it been affordable to him or not because if stealing a copy of it had not been possible then eventually Brinson would have saved up enough money to purchase it had he really wanted/needed it that badly.
The problem here is that everyone's trying to explain this rather abstract concept to Brinson using physical examples and he's not seeing the correlation because he's talking about something non-physical.
Brinson, you asked who you've hurt by this. Let me put it to you this way, and you let me know if this makes any sense at all to you, ok? If you were the one who wrote the software and were depending upon it's projected sales to bring in enough money for you to feed your family, and someone bypassed your web based store to download a copy for free rather than purchase it, that would lower your projected sales basis because it now means that others out there are also doing the same thing, if not just burning their downloaded copy to a CD to hand out to their friends who are also no longer needing to purchase a copy from you. Yes, you may still have a few moral individuals who purchase it from your site, but you will have significantly fewer who do so since they can get a copy for free by using the same exploit that kid found or even just getting a copy from their friends. Likewise, why would any of those people bother with purchasing the even more expensive copies from stores which have to mark up the price of the product due to addition costs in shipping, packaging, and their own store overhead? So, in reality, you are actually hurting the authors/manufacturers and the stores and other consumers because by stealing it the manufacturer will now have to raise their prices slightly to make up for the loss in potential revenue which will affect everyone in the entire distribution chain, in cluding those of your friends who have a better foundation on their morals than you appear to have.
29 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 33rd comment:
Timbo said:
Okay, was there some urgent need for Photoshop in particular that you actually needed it for 31 days?
Timbo said:
I'm curious, did you actually need it in some urgent way, or just felt like having it?
Brinson said:
The trial only works for 30 days.
Okay, was there some urgent need for Photoshop in particular that you actually needed it for 31 days?
I can't/won't answer this for Brinson, Timbo, but I do know that my own son is taking a graphics class in high school in which the teacher insists that the students use adobe software to do their work meaning that they need to either get their parents to buy a copy of the adobe software (which I can't afford to do for him, even with the rather deep discounts available from the company for students which indicates that they are well aware of this type of situation and are making allowances for it) or stay after class each day (as needed) in order to complete their work on the school computers. But even in this case, there is an alternative approach rather than theft available to my son. My son also feels that, upon graduation in June of this year, he intends to continue his education by majoring in graphic art therefore giving me even more incentive to save up for the adobe products that he is very likely to need in college and later, but that still does not change my own income and available funds, nor give me grounds to steal the product for him nor condone him doing so either.
29 Sep, 2006, Paradigm wrote in the 34th comment:
Brinson said:
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?
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?
Who is hurt? Well chances are you used bittorrent to download this. In using bittorrent you were uploading to dozens of other people now 600 in lost sales may not seem like alot but your 600 lead to 7200 in lost sales if only 12 people recieved any bits from you. Chances are there were more than that.
29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 35th comment:
Brinson said:
How did they lose $700?
Had I not stolen it, would they have $700 more in their pocket? Even if I would never have bought it? Do they have $700 less because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? No.
Now, with a porsche, Do they have less money because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? Yes. There was a fiscal and very definite loss, which is NOT true with the software, because there was no raw material value for the software, the loss would only have been attained if I had otherwise intended to buy it.
Had I not stolen it, would they have $700 more in their pocket? Even if I would never have bought it? Do they have $700 less because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? No.
Now, with a porsche, Do they have less money because I stole it rather than didn't buy it? Yes. There was a fiscal and very definite loss, which is NOT true with the software, because there was no raw material value for the software, the loss would only have been attained if I had otherwise intended to buy it.
How did the Porsche dealer lose the $50K? Had I not stolen it, would they have $50K more in their pocket? Even if I would never have bought it? Do they have $50K less because I stole it rather than buying it?
You argue that yes, I did cause them a fiscal loss. I would argue you are quite correct. Even if they would have built the car anyway and shipped it to the dealer anyway and even if someone ELSE would have bought the car even if I didn't.
How is there no fiscal loss for the cost involved in the production of the Adobe software you stole? What about the cost of designing it? The cost of development? The cost of the QA process? The cost of physical disc duplication? The freight costs in shipping the copies to stores? Or in the case of electronic copies, what about the cost of the bandwidth and server maintenance to make that possible? What about the cost of maintaining an IT department to support the software after it's been sold?
How about the cost involved in developing the copy protection schemes and serial number verification, and product activation now found on Adobe products - as a direct result of people stealing it like you did?
You ask who you hurt. You've hurt all of the legitimate users who now have to put up with this kind of crap because people steal it and send 500 copies to other people on bittorrent. You hurt people who use bittorrent when Adobe decides to sue to have the companies who develop clients for it shut down because they traffic in "warez". Think Napster and the RIAA for a real world example of exactly who got hurt. You hurt Adobe's reputation when these illegal copies get hacked, patched, and infected with viruses even though Adobe was not responsible for this. Most end users fail to make the distinction.
People like you are why Windows XP has WPA. Why Microsoft felt the need to deploy Windows Genuine Advantage. Why they're wasting valuable developer resources on Vista's even stronger counter-theft measures. Time that could be better spent on actually securing their underlying OS code instead of keeping assholes from pirating it.
So yes. You' hurt people. Many hundreds and possibly thousands of people. But it's clear your own morals revolve around how it benefits you and damn the rest of us.
29 Sep, 2006, Justice wrote in the 36th comment:
Asylumius said:
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.
Personally, I listen to MP3's, but most I rip off my own cd's, or download music that I owned at one point or another. In some rare cases, I download music I'm contemplating purchasing which is legal assuming I delete the file within a day or so.
At one time I used pirated software, but mostly I found alternative ways to get what I needed… like buying a copy of "Sam's teach yourself C++ in 21 days" to get a copy of visual studio… etc. Most of the software I didn't buy, I have on it's original disk from a friend.
As for movies/tv shows… eh, don't watch that many and I can afford to purchase them if I really cared.
29 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 37th comment:
Well, if we're going back to the original question…
I don't download movies at all. I have a VCR and a DVD player on each of my two televisions and I have digital cable that I pay for each month, if I want to see a newer movie that hasn't hit cable yet, I go to the theatre or rent the movie from a store where I have been a member since I moved here.
I do occassionally download a song here and there, but I don't download the ones that have fees attached to them. If I want to buy a particular song, I go to my music store and buy a CD or cassette (for older albums). But then I also still have quite a collection of LP's, 45's, cassettes, and CDs.
For software, I generally tend to use shareware and freeware extensively, though I certainly have bought many commercial pieces of software too, and have, in the past, used software that friends have bought and made copies of for me, but it's actually been years since the last time and, frankly, I have newer versions/copies of most of those programs these days which I've bought over the years since.
I don't download movies at all. I have a VCR and a DVD player on each of my two televisions and I have digital cable that I pay for each month, if I want to see a newer movie that hasn't hit cable yet, I go to the theatre or rent the movie from a store where I have been a member since I moved here.
I do occassionally download a song here and there, but I don't download the ones that have fees attached to them. If I want to buy a particular song, I go to my music store and buy a CD or cassette (for older albums). But then I also still have quite a collection of LP's, 45's, cassettes, and CDs.
For software, I generally tend to use shareware and freeware extensively, though I certainly have bought many commercial pieces of software too, and have, in the past, used software that friends have bought and made copies of for me, but it's actually been years since the last time and, frankly, I have newer versions/copies of most of those programs these days which I've bought over the years since.
29 Sep, 2006, Justice wrote in the 38th comment:
Yeah, I mostly use freeware/open source… although I have quite a bit of expensive software on this computer, but that is related to my work and was provided by an employer, or currently… taken from my company as a business expense.
If you thought adobe photoshop is expensive… Microsoft enterprise… yum…
Heh, may people on this site may get a kick out of this though… since I work with microsoft enterprise… on multi-billion dollar firms… and I often accomplish what is considered impossible (because MS doesn't support it) by using standards based open source software. Often at apache.org or sourceforge.org.
If you thought adobe photoshop is expensive… Microsoft enterprise… yum…
Heh, may people on this site may get a kick out of this though… since I work with microsoft enterprise… on multi-billion dollar firms… and I often accomplish what is considered impossible (because MS doesn't support it) by using standards based open source software. Often at apache.org or sourceforge.org.
29 Sep, 2006, Davion wrote in the 39th comment:
I feel like the bad guy here ;). I download music muchly. I also spend a lot of money on CD's. If I'm looking for a particular band and can't find the CD, I'll move to other resources (torrents, limewire, etc.) As far as software goes… never! I use Linux ;). The wonders of the free open source community. It's not like there's no alternative to get your software without stealing it. Now, as for TV. I'm nearly torrenting TV shows 24/7 ;). But I have digital cable and a VCR that I both pay for and could easily record to watch whenever I please, just, my TV sucks and my computer monitor doesn't. You get TV channels for a pretty small fee, and if you pay those fees I don't see why you can't download two days later as aposed to waiting around for prime time to come on to watch it, or how it's any different from recording it and watching it later. Of course, I could just be trying to justify my crime :)
29 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 40th comment:
Davion, your canadian, there is no crime.
Media is legally allowed to be downloaded in Canada, just not shared.
So download all you want, just don't upload and no crime in canada has been commited.
I know, i know, international copyright laws. But, they are void until the courts completely decide on the matter of shared legal media vs stealing.
Since the laws are so, ambigious on this topic that is, there-fore, download all you want while you can davion, its sure to change soon enough.
Media is legally allowed to be downloaded in Canada, just not shared.
So download all you want, just don't upload and no crime in canada has been commited.
I know, i know, international copyright laws. But, they are void until the courts completely decide on the matter of shared legal media vs stealing.
Since the laws are so, ambigious on this topic that is, there-fore, download all you want while you can davion, its sure to change soon enough.
Random Picks
