29 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
I dunno about Darien's perception of International Copyright Law, or Canadian-American Trade Agreements, but I do think that Canada is a nice place, great to know another Canadian.
29 Sep, 2006, Justice wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
For TV shows… I've never heard of a lawsuit regarding them, however recording off the air is generally okay. The courts decided on that when the media attacked tape manufacturers because of people recording music off the radio.

I'm not sure how downloading it off the internet affects that, however if it was recorded off the air, then it's probably okay. If they bought a dvd, and ripped it from that, it probably isn't (due to the FBI warning). If it's distributed by the network, then it's okay (some networks release their shows on the web)
29 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
canadian courts agree'd that the laws on media and media sharing were too ambigious, and that it could not be considered a crime under the criminal code of canada, nor will they extradite for a crime commited within canada's borders on the topic of media sharing/piracy until the laws could be accurately adjusted.

This was done in i believe 2004, and has been left as such since.

The music companies and other software companies have been trying to find ways around it, but so-far, the courts decision still stands on this topic because the laws are too ambigious as stated.

They needed to be refined for the new world, as they did not properly include the new technologies and the proper wording to accurately say, it is theft under canadian laws.

simple as pie :)
29 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
How did they lose $700?
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.


Do you ever employ plumbers, electricians, or doctors and then refuse to pay them because your theory of theft only involves stealing material items and not labor? Software, literature, art is almost entirely the sweat and labor of someone, many someones. We thought it so important to protect the rights of authors we wrote it into our Constitution (article 8).
29 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not saying the labor doesn't have a value. I'd never have claimed that.

However, there is -no- difference to the company between me not buying it and me downloading it. The amount of money in their pocket is the same. The amount of employees they have is the same. The difference only comes when assuming that they'd have more money to hire peple if I hadn't downloaded it, which only becomes true if I would have ever bought it.

Edit: Take music for example. I buy the cds of my favorite bands. If I want to just see what a band sounds like, I download some of their songs to see if I like them. Had the download option not been available I would never have bought it. So its really all the same.
29 Sep, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
Disclaimer: What with this post not being about pie, it's probably pointless.

Think for a second – when you work on your MUD, would you consider that, by any chance, labor? By pirating Photoshop, you're not paying for many programmers' thousands of hours of labor, thus ripping them off. In essence, it'd be no different than if I cracked into your server or shell account, swiped a MUD you'd been working on for 10 years or more, and did as I pleased with it, stripping out the credits and running it without any mention of you anywhere on the MUD whatsoever – I'm sure you'd dislike that, now, wouldn't you?

I won't argue with the fact that Photoshop is priced too high for average, sane people to use. Still, pirating it is wrong, admit it, and move on. None of us (well, except maybe Tyche) are going to hunt you down for doing something wrong. You're way off on this one, and should probably shut up before someone cares enough to really make you look stupid. …or, at least, moreso than they already have.
29 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Midboss said:
I won't argue with the fact that Photoshop is priced too high for average, sane people to use.

It's likely priced that high after factoring in expected losses due to software piracy.
29 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
I won't admit to something I don't believe, if that's what you're hoping for, you're out of luck, because I don't think its wrong. Moreso, I wouldn't do something I felt was wrong, and I don't think it was wrong.

However, your first example is not at all on. If I coded something for private use…and my computer was hacked…and it was stolen from me, then I wasn't given credit for it, that's quite different from me releasing software and it being cracked.

If I were to code something and try and sell it, I'd realize there are two kinds of people out there: those who ARE going to buy it and those who AREN'T going to buy it, and quite frankly, I don't care one way or another what those who AREN'T going to buy it do, it makes no difference to me. If they weren't going to buy it, why would I care if they have a copy of it? If they didn't, I wouldn't have more money in my pocket, nor have I lost any because they downloaded it.
29 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Alright, let's use your own example Brinson, let's say that you coded something and tried to sell it. You don't care a whit about those who weren't going to buy it anyway having a copy or what they do with that copy. Now let's say that they in turn don't care about you a whit either and decide to freely distribute that copy to everyone even slightly interested, which happens to include some of the folk who otherwise would have bought a copy. No worries, they havn't hurt you at all because they weren't going to buy it anyway.
29 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
Boy are you completely off the mark.

Think about it, I go, i spent 10 years developing some software, have dozens of coders behind the project, we sell the product, 10 people buy it, but 10,000 use it because 1 person decided to crack it and put it on the internet.

Now I have no way to pay my coders for their efforts. Everytime you steal a copy of a program, you make it that much harder for that company to produce a new product at a low price, because now they have to increase the overall cost to make up their losses on the previous failed sales.

You think of it as they didn't pay for it, but i didn't lose any money, the fact is, they did lose money, too much money. Every time someone downloads something, it steals a small percent of what could of been earned, whether it be from a mp3 off of a cd or to a full fledged software suite developed for graphics development.

Frankly, your stopping them from being able to afford their own coders, so they have to raise the prices just to afford to keep their staff working.

There is no way you can honestly look at it and say that they aren't losing any money by you stealing a copy off of the net.

As for if someone hacked your server and stole your code, that is no different then someone cracking your released demo-software and enabling the full-version support that was simply disabled in it.

More-so, if you say that cracking your server is wrong, but cracking a program isn't, then your way off the mark buddy. Let me tell you :P
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
I buy most software, at least that which I can afford.

However, when it comes to things I could never, ever, ever afford…like, uh, Maya…which runs at $8,000 for the full version…I don't see anything wrong with downloading it and toying around with it. Me downloading it isn't going to do anything to them because, well…as I've explained…I can't afford it, so they're not taking a loss. they still have the same amount of sales and money regardless that I downloaded it.

Now, I'm going to prove they don't lose money.

Lets say this software cost $10,000 and 100 people buy it.

They've made $1,000,000.

Now, if I don't buy it, still 100 people have bought it, they've still made $1,000,000

Now, if I download it, they've still sold 100 copies and they've still made $1,000,000

;)
30 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Okay, you do have a mental problem, you downloading it, stopped them from making that X amount of money, its like, if i go into a store and steal a candy bar, now X company doesn't make money from that candybar. But i still enjoyed it.

Its stealing nomatter how you slice it.

Theft of software stops them from making the profit that you should be paying for the product.

Use without payment is stealing.
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
How did it stop them from making X amount?

Would they have ANY more money if I had just not bought it? Nope.

With the Candy bar example. Would they have any more money if I had just not bought it? Yes, because they lost the cost of the candy bar.

Its not the same.
30 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Dude, if you don't buy it, but instead, download it, they have infact, lost money, and if you don't buy it, they don't lose money, but when you use it, without paying, yes, they lose. Its really simple.

If you were a software developer, you would understand this better, As a developer, I know what its like to not profit, because someone decides to rip off my work, thats 1 less person buying it. Now think of it in the grand scheme of things, 100 people, or 1000 people, or more, not paying for it, but using it, its stolen, there-for, i don't get payed for MY hard work.

And you'd understand that if you were in the situation.
30 Sep, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Not that I agree with Brinson, but I'd like to play
devil's advocate for a moment.

I agree that fileshare downloading Britney Spears's latest
album is illegal. I mean, that's what the law says, and that's
pretty much the end of it.

However, my question is less about the legality, and
more about the economics.

Suppose I detest Britney Spears, and I would never,
ever buy her music. Out of a sheer, bored, morbid
curiosity I decide I want to hear how godawful the
latest album was. Even if I lacked the internet,
I would have rather gone to the library and check it
out than pay for it.

So, given that I could have got it from the library, or
borrowed it from a friend, or taped it from the radio, all
without contributing a single dime to the Spears empire…

How is downloading her music a financial loss to
her, if I would have never stooped to buying it
in the first place?

I think a strong argument can be made that Britney
actually does not suffer from the act of me downloading
her music, in this case.

And I suspect that Brinson's logic here flows from this sort
of reasoning. Obviously he is in error in a few ways,
and the music analogy is not an apt one, which I
think is confusing him. But to a person lacking a
sophisticated discrimination of the differences between
types of intellectual property, his argument might
seem morally legitimate.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
30 Sep, 2006, Paradigm wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
How did it stop them from making X amount?

Would they have ANY more money if I had just not bought it? Nope.

With the Candy bar example. Would they have any more money if I had just not bought it? Yes, because they lost the cost of the candy bar.

Its not the same.


Stealing is Stealing it doens't matter how you look at it. As I said in an earlier post that you ignored chances are you downloaded this off of bittorent by doing so you were also uploading copies of the software package to others who may have the ability to purchase it. Looking at a bittorent site now I see one torrent of Photoshop cs2 + crack with 56 seeders and 11 leachers. that is at this one time 67 people are or have downloaded that software now if the software cost $700 that is a possible loss of 46,900 and i see another torrent with 60 people in teh swarm thats another $42,000 but what that is only right now when i look at the torrent for the first copy of photoshop i see it had 590 downloads that is a possible revenue of $413,000. So even though you say they have not lost anything since you would never pay for it anyway what would happen if it was not availble for downloading and those 590 people would have had to purchase it or go without chances are many would have purchased sure some would not but you have still uploaded to the people who have no decided not to purchase.
30 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
lets put this in perspective..

Your listening to her music, CD quality, without purchasing it,

Now, lets scale it up, 40,000 people download the album, that say the same excuse.

Now, 14$ a cd… Do the math. Thats 784,0000$ gone, sure, if those 40,000 people didn't buy, or download, its not loss, its just bad of the music industry to make another brittney album. But say even 1 of those people, wants the album, now they've just stolen 14$ from the company, if you would of never baught it, then you never should of downloaded it.

Borrowing from a friend, its not in their possession anymore, its in yours, the CD was payed for.

Recorded From radio, its shitty quality, enjoy it while you can.

You gotta remember, the radio stations are payed to play the music that they do, as a way to market the new music. So, ya, you hear it on the radio, and you like it, its supposed to stimulate you into going and buying the CD to hear all the other cool songs.

If you record from the radio, its a risk they take, but thats why they only release 1 song to a radio at a time, and spread them out over months at a time.

So lets recap. Its stealing, even if you weren't going to pay for it in the first place, even if you just wanted to see what its all about, its still stealing.

In the way of software, thats what demo's are for. Its a way to try it out, and then decide if you want to buy it.

Simple.
30 Sep, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not arguing it's not "stealing".

What I'm saying is that from the narrow perspective
of someone who honestly thinks they'd never
buy it, the argument that their illegal download
represents an economic loss to the copyright holder is
not credible.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/forum/

I
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Thank you. At least someone understands what I'm saying.

Softwares I can afford, I do buy. I buy PC games, I bought my FTP client. My mud client is free, so that doesn't matter, but I purchase a lot of software, but if I want to see what one of these "corporate" programs is like…its fun to download it and have fun…something I'd never do unless it was up for download.

And I still don't think the majority of people even understand what I am saying.

Darien said:
Dude, if you don't buy it, but instead, download it, they have infact, lost money, and if you don't buy it, they don't lose money, but when you use it, without paying, yes, they lose. Its really simple.


Key word there is "instead", I am not downloading software instead of buying it, so you're argument doesn't apply to me.
30 Sep, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
Well just to go ahead and put out my two cents (however worthful/worthless it may be).

Over the years I've spent plenty on CD's, tapes and other things. CD's are something that is very easily damaged and I've had to replace plenty of them because of damage/people stealing them. One cool thing is to get the album and makeing a backup copy of it that you use instead of the original one so the original one doesn't get damaged. Ripping it to your PC of course is great for when you want to listen to the music without wearing out the cd and the cd-rom drive, but it is only good for while your around your pc.

I for one like p2p shearing and all it has to offer, not on the side that it's easy for some to rip off others, but for other reasons. I like to check out all the verious songs out and download and give them a brief listen to see if I might be intrested in buying the CD. If I don't like it then I already know and don't have to waste my time or money trying to get a copy of the CD. Don't think thats hurting them since if I hadn't at least heard one song on there I like I wouldn't buy it anyways lol. As someone has already pointed out the music put on the radio and the TV is normaly months behind and means that sometimes they are costing theirselves cash because we don't know every song on there or if we even like it to buy the album. Now on to the software which is where this originaly started I think. When it comes to demos there are normaly features (the best features) I might add that are disabled and I for one am not going to buy something I wasn't able to fully test out. So demo's are just a waste of time if you ask me. Now if they give the full version for a limited time (long enough for you to test out everything and decide if you like it) then I'd be way more likly to buy it lol. So he downloaded some software, fine. Personaly I think within at least 1 month (should be enough time for anyone to decide if they like it or not) he should remove it and either live without it or buy it. I've tested out plenty of things to see if I like it or not this way (and as I said I wouldn't buy it till I could fully try it out anyways). I normaly spent a short amount of time trying it out and decideing if it was worth what they wanted for it. If it wasn't off it went, if it was then I'd pay for it, simple as that.

So to conclude I'm down for the useing p2p networks for testing out new things, getting copys of things you have paid for that were messed up and not useable now. At some point though you should have already paid or are going to pay if you wish to continue useing the product.
Random Picks
40.0/122