the moral compass

They're both the same - stealing, and both wrong.

 

But if the person downloading would under no circumstances have ever
purchased a legit version then no income has been lost....
--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger"

"Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

 

Everything I do is okay by me.

--
cane [at] ukrm.org ¦ fireblade, r30
botafo t#50 f#03 YTC #15 bbb #6 apostle [kotl]
New? http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
Rideout? http://www.horrible.demon.co.uk/botafof/
"Brace yourselves ladies, I'm coming in dry"

 

Neither is good but one is a crime against a person which may cause
other problems apart from the physical crime.

The other although it is a crime it may not cause any loss to the
company because the people that are pirating are outside the company's
targeted audience and would not buy the product anyway. With software
in some cases it seems to be encouraged[1] by the actual company in
the hopes that it may encourage more sales[2] from other sources.


[1] The speed etc that some software becomes available, sometimes even
before it is physically manufactured - weeks before it has gone on
actual sale.

[2] How often have you had to upgrade software in a works environment
to be able to open documents - information from other people rather
than because you need the new facilities in the upgraded software.


--

Kevin - Basildon
pushbike (Retired)
CG125
GPZ305 (her's)
BOTAFOT#67 BOTAFOF#23
OSOS#29

 

It's an apparently 'victimless' crime.

Same as ripping off software.

 

You obviously have no idea of the amount of skill and man-hours that
goes into writing something like Photoshop.

 

darsy wrote

Wot they are saying.

 

I can't read.

 

It's easier to get away with. If you stole a motorbike you'd have to
explain it to someone where you got it from. If you nicked a few for
different jobs (i.e. cruiser, crosser, sports bike, race bike) you'd get
people suspicious as to where you got the money for legit aquisition.

If you've got a load of copied software for word processing,
spreadsheets, databases and gaming then it's easier to hide it, no-one
else tends to see you using it, it's much easier to get rid of it.

There's probably a bit of social aspect to it, in that it doesn't seem
like a big deal that some IT people aren't going to get 30 USD, they're
all rich anyway. Everyone must be paying it else they wouldn't be here,
so they won't miss my sub.

Finally I wouldn't be surpised that, as hunter/gatherers, if there's not
something physically there then humans have a deep-rooted difficulty to
give it the same priority as a physical object.

 

*dingly-ding*

 

because it fucking rocks a fat one. Photoshop is a Thing of Beauty.

 

"under no circumstances".

What about if it was not possible to pirate software - are you really
telling me that no-one who currently pirates software would actually
buy some instead?

 

I work[0] in software development[1], and don't tend[3] to pirate
software[2].

[0] well, turn up each day at the office.
[1] I'm more a "cause of software development" rather than a developer
these days, but I still write /some/ code.
[2] Each of my 4 PCs at home has a legit licenced copy of Windows, my
copy of Office XP is legit, as is all my other productivity software
(ColdFusion, C#.net, Dreamweaver etc. etc.).

 

this is what I thought i.e. "people are hypocritical fuckers".

 

darsy wrote

The real beauty is in motion. Premier is all the things that are
Photoshop and a truly wonderful set of more.

 

I agree, but was asking the question to see how the people who pirate
software justify their actions.

I feel a bit different about /content/ i.e. mp3s/movie downloads as -
IMO, and IME - people who download content quite often buy the stuff
on CD/DVD/go the cinema *as well* i.e. it's a "try before you buy" and
the revenue stream continues. What *this* means is that people won't
buy CDs/go to movies they don't like, and IMO, *this* is what the
record companies et al. don't like i.e. they are finding it harder and
harder to market shite product.

 

well, I wouldn't expect anything different...

 

It is, or so SWMBO tells me[1]. She *really* thinks it's worth the
money.

[1] I wouldn't know with my level of numptyness.

 

Does it rock to the extent that it costs more than the hardware it's
running on, though?

I've looked into how much it would cost Katie to set herself up with a
Graphic Design business - looking at the cost of 'pro' tools like
Photoshop and Illustrator, plus the cost of industry standard office
applications etc, and you could easily blow the thick end of £10k on
equipment and software just to get yourself going.

It may be a great piece of software, but you're going to have to be
using it pretty heavily to even start to get payback on the £600+ it
costs to buy. Plus the annual upgrades at over £100.

 

[photoshop]

well, I think it's worth the money, but I didn't pay for it[1].

[1] reviewed PS7 for (fx: memory straining) "Practical Web Projects"
last year; free journo software 0wns.