30 Sep, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
And I fully understand your reasoning. It is still flawed though.
Let me explain it this way:
Someone made the product.
You are useing this product.
You have not paid for the right to use the product.
You are not planing to pay for the right to use the product.
They have someone out there useing their product without paying for it.
So they have infact lost money since you are useing it but they will at no time receive money for you useing it.
The fact that you would do without it before you would pay for it isn't actually a valid argument, since you are useing it and just not planning to pay for it.
30 Sep, 2006, kiasyn wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
Your example was photoshop… not entirely sure on this but doesn't Photoshop access a website to check for updates? =] (automatically)
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
Well since our Adobe thief doesn't get it. I concede defeat.

I'm off to go get my Porsche I could never afford and won't cause the company any financial loss because I never would have bought it to begin with. I like red cars. I'll see if I can find one of them first. If not, then I think Midnight Blue would be good so I can race it in the dark on the freeway or something and not be so easily seen.

Anyone else here want a car while I'm at it? All I need is proof you can't afford it and we're all set. None of you would ever have bought one anyway, right?
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Ah, I wish you'd Argue my points, Samson, rather than just using the porsche example over and over :-p

And, Kiasyn, you're right, but the way in which Photoshop is validated is simply by using a number it generates, you call, they plug your number into their program, it generates a second code which makes it valid. The program they use can be downloaded. A download Adobe Photoshop CS2 can update normally.

I prolly buy 90% of my software and once I can afford things like Photoshop, I'll buy them, too, but at the moment I've got $7.50 to my name, so until I can afford it, I'll use a downloaded copy.
30 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Well since our Adobe thief doesn't get it. I concede defeat.


I get it. It's a variation of from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.

And yes…
Porsches want to be free.
;-)
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Ah, I wish you'd Argue my points, Samson, rather than just using the porsche example over and over :-p


I would, but the Porsche example fits and I see no reason to change my argument since you haven't changed yours. For whatever reason I have yet to understand, you simply feel that stealing a copy of something electronically has no financial cost associated with it. I've demonstrated soundly that there is a cost, an enormous one which only deepens with each stolen download.

I suspect you simply won't get it until it's your software company that goes under because of rampant piracy of your products. So for your sake I hope you never choose to become a developer.
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not a big fan of Porsche. I like Jaguar, Lexus and Ferrari. I also like the MG.
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Jags for the win.
30 Sep, 2006, Omega wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
personally, i like Pies, and thats what this topic is all about

(points to midboss)
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Well since our Adobe thief doesn't get it. I concede defeat.

I'm off to go get my Porsche I could never afford and won't cause the company any financial loss because I never would have bought it to begin with. I like red cars. I'll see if I can find one of them first. If not, then I think Midnight Blue would be good so I can race it in the dark on the freeway or something and not be so easily seen.

Anyone else here want a car while I'm at it? All I need is proof you can't afford it and we're all set. None of you would ever have bought one anyway, right?


An unequivocal comparison. Porsche has manufacturing costs. Getting photoshop from your 'friend' only costs your friend transfer fees (negligible).
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
Another point. And please don't think I have a side here (I'm just pointing out things people have missed).

Microsoft allowed piracy of its products for an extensive length of time before they decided they wanted to be a little meaner (although still fairly nice). And you shouldn't think they do not have the CAPABILITY to do better. Instead, their strategy was to corner the market. If everyone uses their products, they become the standard. Then people that DO buy software will feel heavily inclined to use their products. However, if Microsoft had NOT allowed this, those people who could not afford, or did not want to pay for software for whatever reason would use free alternatives instead. Those people that pay would then have to evaluate compatibility with the many pieces of software, and possibly move away from Microsoft because using the free alternatives gave them just as much compatibility, but it was free. Then Microsoft is not even getting money from people who WOULD pay for it.

I think the case is similar with Adobe. Simply put, photoshop is a piece of crap for how much it costs. And yet, it is the standard. There are plenty of free alternatives that suck about the same amount, but since people can learn photoshop by pirating it, noone bothers to learn the others, and Adobe keeps its monopoly.

Don't like this? Well here's a new app that's cheap, and might be better than photoshop. http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=11...
30 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Another point. And please don't think I have a side here (I'm just pointing out things people have missed).


Conspiracy theories are not points.
30 Sep, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
We'll take one Samson :biggrin:
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
You know, Locke, it's not about which car is better or cooler, it's that Samson's going to steal some porsches and offering to get an extra for those who also want but can't afford one, and while I'd never buy a porsche myself because of their extreme cost as well as other, less expensive cars being more to my taste anyway, if one's being offered to me for free, I'll certainly happily take it if only to use as a trade up for my current POS that so desperately needs replacing anyway. :wink:

So, yes, Samson, we'll gladly take one here too.. a nice blue would be awesome, but whatever you happen upon works just fine. :smile:

Oh, and Brinson, it is still stealing and wrong and still hurts people no matter what example is used to argue the issue. Take it to any court you'd like and I'm willing to bet that they'll still lock you up for grand larceny due to having electronically stolen this $700 software that you had no intention of ever buying anyway regardless.
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
I never argued that it was legal or that it wasn't theft.

I was arguing the moral issue.
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson is trying to require me to put Merc Diku credits inside files which are original work, unique to my project, and not written by or part of Merc Diku MUD.

I will not do this because it feels wrong and because it is unfair. To set the platform for this, I have decided to cite the U.S. government regarding this.
Since this is a derivative work, I agree that comments should not be "removed from the code" – but since the structure of NiM5 is in some places entirely different, I do not feel that files I have added to this source code deserve credits or comments added. I also feel that my work is my own and not the work of other peoples, and that any additional work I have done or my team has done with me is our work and not yours or anyone elses and should not be given away.

In the interest of appeasing this request to comply, I am attempting to do so with utmost fairness, but I feel Samson is trying to sabotage me in some way by requesting that I give away parts of my work to other people who, frankly, don't deserve it and aren't entitled to it.

From www.copyrights.gov: source
Quote
Derivative Works
A “derivative work,” that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.” Derivative works, also known as “new versions,” include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

(sic)

Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work
The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material.

One cannot extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work. A work that has fallen in the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer protected by copyright, may be used for a derivative work, but the copyright in the derivative work will not restore the copyright of the public domain material. Neither will it prevent anyone else from using the same public domain work for another derivative work.

In any case where a protected work is used unlawfully, that is, without the permission of the owner of copyright, copyright will not be extended to the illegally used part.
30 Sep, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson,

Well on the moral level you lose. The stuff is not
yours. You are using it against the express wishes
of those who made it, and who made it available under
conditions you violate.

By the standard of the categorical imperative, you are
flat wrong. Your advocacy of piracy by engaging
in it is deplorable.

Even if you were to feed the poor with your copy
of photoshop, that does not erase the stain. For example,
if you kill someone for money, then donate to the
red cross, you're still a killer.

In this case, you have not even made a claim of
redemption that I've noticed. As far as I can tell, you've
shamelessly enriched your own life without paying
the price, be it just or unjust, that ethical behavior requires.

That it hurts few, or not much, is beside the point.

Like the person who doesn't finish their antibiotics,
because what difference does it make, or the person
who doesn't vote, because what difference does it make,
you appear to lack the sense of social responsibility
required to help make the world less of a ball of shit.

Your contribution to the sum total of global shittiness is blameworthy,
and you shouldn't complain when you are rightly
identified as morally compromised.

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

PS I do completely understand your logic. It simply
does not excuse your behavior, nor does it make
you any less of a scumbag.
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 78th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
I never argued that it was legal or that it wasn't theft.

I was arguing the moral issue.


The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 79th comment:
Votes: 0
Just because something's a law doesn't make it right. That's why laws can be changed.

And Cratylus, my belief when it comes to morals is very simple: If something hurts others, its immoral. If it helps others, it is good. If it does neither, it is neithr immoral or good.

You can disagree with that belief, but its why I believe that because no one is hurt by me downloading it that it is not immoral. If it comes to a point where I would have otherwise bought the software I WILL buy the software. For instance, I will soon be working on a self-published newspaper. For it, I will be purchasing either Adobe Pagemaker or Adobe InDesign(not sure which yet). I will be using the software to draw a profit and I will purchase it, not download it.
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 80th comment:
Votes: 0
Some fundamental things about law never change.
60.0/122