Software Piracy

[Gario]

In the case of learning institutions, this means either providing necessary software to students, providing heavy discounts (bringing their price down to something similar to a textbook), or making labs accessible.

To your first two comments, often there are places (perfectly legal, by the way) that really DO give excellent discounts for college students. I didn't have the finances even for this, sadly, or I just didn't feel like investigating (until after I graduated... which was too late)... probably the latter, to be honest.

Check this out, for example...

http://www.academicsuperstore.com/category/Software/Music/278243

As to making labs accessible... well, like I said, I simply worked at one so I could have access to it all the time .

[zircon]

Slygen, that's a pretty good argument. In that case, IF you were to delete the software as soon as your access to the labs would be terminated, and IF you did not use the software at home for commercial purposes, then I would say that is, at least, not unethical.

[FlagshipAmadeus]

If I decide against commuting to a lab with software that I am entitled to use, and instead pirate the same software, I'm doing my part to preserve the environment. I'm being partially serious, and here's why:

I think the arguments against piracy regarding supporting the company being followed up with "drive to the lab and use the software there" present a non-sequitor. I did mention before that a lot of these anti-piracy alternatives still don't support the company. At least the students are using their cars less

How is that alternative unethical?

Case 1: Adobe doesn't get your money or support.

Case 2: Adobe doesn't get your money or support.

I think a lot of you aren't thinking outside the box, and automatically hear the word pirate and the alarms go off in your head and you say "BAD BAD BAD", but you don't really think about whether any business is really getting hurt. I understand that if I'm not a student and I have no lab alternative, then yes, I should deal with the inconvenience of not having the software. That emphasizes the ethics and consequences of not having money and how being poor sucks. It was a good point. But I like this student example, because there's still an agreeable alternative of driving to the lab that still does not support the company.

I reiterate. Cases 1 and 2, both: Adobe does not get your money or support.

This is something I attempted to articulate but completely failed at, thank you

[1337 1]

gimp isn't anywhere near photoshop. no offense, but who cares about .ico files? you don't make icons with photoshop, you make them with paint. you make high-end graphics projects that earn you money with photoshop.

None taken, I am not saying GIMP is by any means as good as Photoshop, but I'm saying people shouldn't be so quick to bag open source/free software just on those grounds. Yes, generally speaking the commercial software is better, and I admit to saying that I think photoshop is generally better than GIMP, but I'm also saying that GIMP has advantages too. Its just my examples are probably not the best examples of how GIMP can be useful.

But really, I think there are heaps of examples of the companies listening to the people hearing us complain about this very kind of thing (software is too expensive etc), and actually trying to help out. Last I checked, FL Studio did a deal where if you buy it online, you get the new versions free (and this applies to anyone, not just students), adobe claims they give students a "minimum of 80% discount" to students, and then there's photoshop elements (not passing judgement here).

So between some free/open source alternatives (which often aren't as good admittedly) and companies becoming increasingly aware of other solutions to piracy besides the inevitably vain copy protection/DRM, I think we'll be seeing some good things in this area. Who knows, the question may one day it might be preferable to buy the software as it offers advantages piracy simply can't.

Then again, I might be dreaming

[big giant circles]

Slygen makes a reasonable point, ALTHOUGH, I will throw out the factor that unless I'm mistaken, schools, institutes, organizations, etc usually have the option (and are generally required) to purchase commercial or multi-user licenses for such programs.

I can't quote this in every case, but especially in music software, the EULA is almost always for a single user. Therefore, such organizations that have more to lose generally protect themselves by acquiring adequate permissions to install and provide software.

Therefore, saying that in CASE 1 the software company still receives no support may not be entirely accurate. It could be that they have already received proper compensation and granted the appropriate license.

Otherwise, if I'm totally mistaken, I still think you've made a reasonable point and I admire your thought process.

Here: I'm too lazy to do the legwork, but for this example, here's Adobe's EULA's, if someone would like to do some research.

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/

This is something I attempted to articulate but completely failed at, thank you

Bear with my frankness, but perhaps then it's better that you sit this one out then and leave it to people who either know what they're talking about or at least present a more compelling argument. Or at the very least, try a little harder to have some substance to whatever it is you want to say.

I have no problem with opposing arguments, and as I've stated, I'm even in agreement with some of them, but only if they're sensibly presented, which you've struggled with.

Don't take it personally. I promise I'm not trying to be an ass or condescend you, but pretty much everything I've read that you've posted by this point has been mostly nonsense with little to no credibility. Cheers.

[Nase]

Why are you taking this so personally? I'm not attacking you or saying your school is "bad", I'm just saying that it doesn't seem logical to offer courses in a design discipline and then not provide students the resources to do their work. That's like teaching advanced chemistry but not having enough chem labs for all the students.

I'm not trying to defend my school...you got that the wrong way. I am just a bit annoyed that, regarding this issue, you're voicing your opinion so self confidently while your experience is limited to your country and school, and you show little effort in trying to understand circumstances different to yours.

Universities in Germany are still funded by the state to a large degree (Used to be completely state funded up until a few years ago).

This means that a school can have a great reputation and talented professors without having a whole lot of money.

Sooo...what does a reputable school teaching graphics design do when computers come around and replace good ol pen&paper, and they lack the proper funding for a really consequent upgrade to digital? Do they close it down and become alcoholics?

Nope, they try to compromise.

What's 'not logical' about that?

It's just too tedious arguing with you when you don't use your imagination one bit. Besides, you departed from the issue. I don't really know the financial workings of my university, maybe the officials just spend everything on prostitutes. It doesn't matter either way, the resources are lacking and the students gotta get their stuff done.

[zircon]

You're voicing your opinion as confidently as I am... I think everyone in this thread is pretty confident about what they're saying. Not much point in participating in a debate otherwise

Sooo...what does a reputable school teaching graphics design do when computers come around and replace good ol pen&paper, and they lack the proper funding for a really consequent upgrade to digital? Do they close it down and become alcoholics?

Nope, they try to compromise.

What's 'not logical' about that?

Nothing is not logical about that. What's not logical is making that transition, then making classes in a certain design discipline, but then allowing more people to take the class then there is room in the labs. It would be like if you opened a school to teach people how to drive, but only had one car. That wouldn't make much sense either.

As I said in response to Slygen, if someone were to pirate a piece of software that would be available to them in a school lab, and did not use that software for any non-education purposes, AND deleted it when their lab access ended, that to me would be as ethical as simply using the lab computers. I'm pretty capable of using my imagination

[big giant circles]

I'm pretty capable of using my imagination

Don't lie. I've heard your music. It's all a bunch of BOOM-tss nonsense.

You can't fool me.

[SLyGeN]

Slygen makes a reasonable point, ALTHOUGH, I will throw out the factor that unless I'm mistaken, schools, institutes, organizations, etc usually have the option (and are generally required) to purchase commercial or multi-user licenses for such programs.

I can't quote this in every case, but especially in music software, the EULA is almost always for a single user. Therefore, such organizations that have more to lose generally protect themselves by acquiring adequate permissions to install and provide software.

Therefore, saying that in CASE 1 the software company still receives no support may not be entirely accurate. It could be that they have already received proper compensation and granted the appropriate license.

Otherwise, if I'm totally mistaken, I still think you've made a reasonable point and I admire your thought process.

You mean multiple licenses for use solely on campus, right? That would be great. Then it's even better.

Case 1 and 2: Someone has paid them a sum for my use of this software.

And yes, I agree with the notions brought up that one should delete the pirated software once they no longer have their other free alternative of using a lab.

Thanks for the compliment, as well. Seldom do I feel that others have taken the time to really consider my argument, when I do my very best to consider theirs. I hope I come across as giving the rest of you that same respect.

I don't think I can justify downloading music, though. But damn it, I'll let you know if I figure one out ;P

[The Coop]

Music is a tough thing to classify when it comes to downloading to me. Yes, it's a no-no, and there's little can be said to legitimately back reasons for downloading it for free. But if there's one in my mind, it's simply this...

You can't rent music.

Unlike games and movies, which you can rent for a small fee for a few days and see if you like it, there's no way to rent music. How many times have we all been stung by hearing one or two songs on the radio, only to find out that those where the only songs you actually liked on the whole album? Just as an example, Def Leppard was a band I enjoyed listening up to their album Retroactive. Once Slang hit, to me, they took a turn for the worse, and they've been sliding downhill continually ever since. I was less than happy with Slang, and even more so with Euphoria. I haven't bought an album of theirs since, and wish I had the money from Slang and Euphoria back. If I had been able to listen to those albums in their entirety beforehand, it would have saved me a good deal of monetary regret.

So what are you left with? Well, if you spend twenty dollars on a movie and hate it, then you're a fool for not renting it first (assuming it's actually rentable mind you). That goes doubly for games when they're fifty and sixty dollars a pop. But what of music? Being told I'm SOL after buying an album for twenty bucks that I feel is horrid overall doesn't sit well with me, and it's this fact that makes me very wary of buying an album on impulse. It also makes me sympathize a bit with those who truly do grab an MP3 set so they can hear an album before dropping cash on it (as opposed to just being cheap and wanting it for free).

I really wish more artists would do what Alice Cooper did with his latest album, Along Came A Spider. A few weeks before it was released, the entire album was put on his MySpace page at 96kb/s. Sure, it was pretty iffy quality, but you got to hear the entire thing, and decide if you wanted to buy it when it finally came out. But no, the music industry throws up a middle finger to that idea ninety-five percent of the time. As a result, it makes music buying less of a pleasure, and more of a, as Ozzy might say, shot in the dark.

[Moseph]

Music is a tough thing to classify when it comes to downloading to me. Yes, it's a no-no, and there's little can be said to legitimately back reasons for downloading it for free. But if there's one in my mind, it's simply this...

You can't rent music.

Rhapsody and Napster are essentially music rental services.

[The Coop]

Really? Huh. Guess I've been out of the online musical loop too long.

I shall now go and slam my face into a thumb tack-filled bucket as penance for my ignorance.

brb...

[Flare4War]

The thing is, even if people do agree that downloading a song without paying for it is "unethical" as has been said. They still do it out of sheer convenience. That is part of the reason I was in such strong agreement with what djp said. The corporate scene needs to adapt to some of these realities.

How they can or should I'm really not sure.

[DuskyFerret]

Ok so the thread established earlier that software piracy is an incident of copyright infringement. But I have a few questions that I'm genuinely curious about.

Hypothetically, if a bunch of people living in the surrounding area are using the internet of someone who hasn't put a password on their wireless router, are they stealing internet from this person, or from the internet provider, or both? If the buyer is aware these people are using his internet for free and allows it to happen, is he sharing his internet and does this then become ok?

Depending on the responses to this, does this affect the discussion of piracy at all, where someone is allowing others to use what they themselves have bought for nothing? And do the opinions of people here regarding downloading material remain the same for burning/copying cds for friends?

I'm not trying to justify interent piracy at all, I'd just like to see some discussion on these things.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

As far as I know, as long as you're not making money off it, you're fine.

[Nase]

Nothing is not logical about that. What's not logical is making that transition, then making classes in a certain design discipline, but then allowing more people to take the class then there is room in the labs. It would be like if you opened a school to teach people how to drive, but only had one car. That wouldn't make much sense either.

As I said in response to Slygen, if someone were to pirate a piece of software that would be available to them in a school lab, and did not use that software for any non-education purposes, AND deleted it when their lab access ended, that to me would be as ethical as simply using the lab computers. I'm pretty capable of using my imagination

Fair enuff, I see we agree on the basic question.

Regarding the class sizes: It's certainly not perfect, but this way, I have more choice as a student, which is a plus. It might be a disorganised policy that somewhat indirectly suggests piracy, but still, the knowledgeable tutors are there, and you can profit from the class. Something can not quite make sense organisationally but still be an ok solution if it can't be helped.

One of the reasons I enlisted at HAW is its very broad offering, and the digital stuff is just one part. Still, it's something that you'll at least want to have tried once, even if you're completely paper based.

In short, it's better for me if I get to try it under flawed conditions than not at all.

[big giant circles]

stealing wireless internet[/paraphrase

That's a good question, I'd be curious to know the *technical* answer from the ISP. I'm sure this is probably addressed in the ToS thesedays since so many people have wireless now.

My own personal take on it is that anyone who doesn't secure their wireless signal is putting up a neon sign asking people to use it, and it's their own fault. It's like riding a bike on a major street. Even if you have the "right of way", it's still better to pretend like you don't, because in the end, you can be *right* but still get killed. Apply that to this topic in the sense that even though it's *your* internet, it's better to expect that there are people who are going to ignore that fact.

Re: Zircon & Nasenmann's sub-debate, it sounds like both systems have certain advantages over the other, but we just have to accept that everything has its price in one way or another.

[Moseph]

Ok so the thread established earlier that software piracy is an incident of copyright infringement. But I have a few questions that I'm genuinely curious about.

Hypothetically, if a bunch of people living in the surrounding area are using the internet of someone who hasn't put a password on their wireless router, are they stealing internet from this person, or from the internet provider, or both? If the buyer is aware these people are using his internet for free and allows it to happen, is he sharing his internet and does this then become ok?

Depending on the responses to this, does this affect the discussion of piracy at all, where someone is allowing others to use what they themselves have bought for nothing? And do the opinions of people here regarding downloading material remain the same for burning/copying cds for friends?

I'm not trying to justify interent piracy at all, I'd just like to see some discussion on these things.

You agree that the Service is not to be used to trunk or facilitate public internet access (“Hotspots”) or any other public use of the Service.

This is how they'd nail you. In fact, they'd probably be within the TOS to discontinue your service just for using an unsecured network.