PDA

View Full Version : Morality and Installing Tiger...?


Reflect_TRUTH
05-19-2005, 08:54 PM
I just recently sold my G4 and purchased a new G5. Of course it comes with Tiger installed. However, I also have a Powerbook G4 that I am currently running 10.3.9. I would like to upgrade it to Tiger as well. This is where my question of morality comes into effect.

My roommate has an install dvd for "Tiger Client 8A425" and he is going to use it to update his machine. I have 2 positions on this: On one hand I feel that after having just made such a large contribution to Apple (buying G5) that I am entitle to a 2nd Tiger license. On the other hand, I do appreciate Apple's efforts in innovative and creative programming.

:o "oh, what to do... what to do"

Some feedback on this would be great. (Also, See opinion poll)
++++++++++++++++++++++++

I also have a couple questions concerning this. In fact, it my obliterate my delima all together.


1) What is the difference is the 8A425 version and the final released version 8A428???

2) Can v. 8A425 be updated via Software Update?

3) Is it even possible for me to install this version and not have to worry about anything?

:o

mclbruce
05-19-2005, 09:41 PM
Some feedback on this would be great. Pay for a license for your second machine. Advocating theft is not encouraged on this forum. If you want somebody to tell you it's OK to steal then go to another forum.

yellow
05-19-2005, 09:59 PM
1) What you want to do is not legal.
2) It's doubtful that your G5 installer will work on a Powerbook.

Reflect_TRUTH
05-19-2005, 10:21 PM
mclbruce:

No need to be rude. I was asking a genuine question about a moral decision we are facing every time we sit out our computers. Piracy or "Share the wealth." This forum may be painted in white but its users are still tempted. I am by no means "advocating theft." Im simply doing a position poll.

Caius
05-20-2005, 02:07 AM
Maybe it would ethical to install it while saving up to buy another copy of Tiger.

Personally I would have no qualms doing it, apart from the fact its an apple product. I make a point of buying useful software, but don't mind pirating other software.

I try and find freeware to do the same as the paid software first though. Whether I end up buying the software or not. I've also been known to squeeze my way onto the beta list for software, just to get a free copy.

pink
05-20-2005, 02:44 AM
mclbruce:

I was asking a genuine question about a moral decision
Not really: It is no question that the install would be illegal. Moral questions can (except for some extreme situations that do not apply here) only arise within legality. So you're questioning the legal system. In effect, the question you have to ask yourself is: "Do I accept the fact that software companies have the right to charge for what they produce ?" (Do you accept the fact that a car manufacturer charges for what he produces ?)
Apart from that: If you just shelled out several thousand $ for a new computer, another 129,- shouldn't be much of a problem, right ?


Just my 2 cents,
pink

Photek
05-20-2005, 02:57 AM
Its a tough question!

I think that apple have been very clever at marketing them selves to people like..... well, like everyone in this forum! You buy Panther, then there is an update..... and another and before you know it you spend a lot of time downloading free updates that make your computer better.

Then they release Tiger and you have to pay your 'enterance fee' to start all over again. I think there is something obsessive in the human psycie that is being exploited! And when it comes to someone having 3 or 4 macs that they want to upgrade it gets costly! I mean.... who in this forum is still running 10.0 and has no urge to upgrade?

pink
05-20-2005, 03:28 AM
Let me put it that way:
I think that BMW have been very clever at marketing them selves to people like..... well, like everyone liking sports cars! You buy a Z3, then there are these alloy rims, the air condition..... and another and before you know it you spend a lot of money on things that make your car better.

Then they release the Z4 and you have to pay your 'enterance fee' to start all over again.

Would you earnestly question that ?

Upgrading 3 or 4 Macs must not necessarily be very costly: the family license is 199 $, I got mine for 99 € (edu pricing), which I consider a bargain.

And of course no one would like to sit on a 10.0 version, which actually was a public beta in my view; but starting from 10.2, even more so for 10.3, there is no pressing reason for an upgrade, unless you want the new features. Well, and getting something new is something we usually pay for, don't we ?

cheers, pink

Craig R. Arko
05-20-2005, 05:17 AM
It's not our place to make moral evaluations for you. Nor is the System forum the correct place to ask such questions, and you should have had a clue about that by now. :rolleyes:

Moving to Coat Room, with Grade-A prospects for future closure.

acme.mail.order
05-20-2005, 07:59 AM
If you "just recently" purchased the G5 you should be eligeable for a free upgrade. (see http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/
If you bought it a week before April 12, then you should have waited! It's not like the Tiger release was a secret :D

If you do have a free upgrade coming your way then using any available install disc should not present any issues, legal or otherwise - the licence apples to the code, not the piece of plastic it is delivered on. But no fudging the receipt dates!! If it's before April 11, then it's time to get the credit card out again.

winwintoo
05-20-2005, 09:15 AM
If you were OK with installing your friend's Tiger on your PowerBook, you would have gone ahead and done it and wouldn't be asking us.

That doubt you're hearing is your conscience - listen to it.

Margaret

ShavenYak
05-20-2005, 02:20 PM
In effect, the question you have to ask yourself is: "Do I accept the fact that software companies have the right to charge for what they produce ?" (Do you accept the fact that a car manufacturer charges for what he produces ?)

Car/Computer analogies rarely make sense, and this one, I'm afraid, is no exception. There is no way to copy a car, until we get Star Trek style replicators. When you pay $20,000 for a car, you're typically getting something that costs the car company at least $10,000 to replicate even after the design work is done. Software costing $129, or even $999 (Adobe, Macromedia suites, for example), can be replicated for $1.

Basically, everyone accepts that the company has a right to charge... but when it comes to intellectual property, its lack of "physicality" and the low cost of reproduction make people think they're getting a raw deal. Then, imagining themselves to be some kind of technological Che Guevara, they create arguments justifying copyright infringement.

What they fail to recognize is the cost of development. If the software could be purchased for $5, there'd be no piracy... but what company would spend millions developing a $5 package?

It's up to each individual to decide if the value of the software is worth the price charged... but if the answer is 'no', then stick with Panther. Or switch to Linux. Don't push Apple into implementing Microsoft-style 'activation' schemes, and don't increase the cost of the software for the rest of us by failing to support the developers.

Oh, and don't forget that every time you pirate software, God kills a kitten!

yellow
05-20-2005, 02:41 PM
Oh, and don't forget that every time you pirate software, God kills a kitten!

"Innocent" questions about software piracy come up often enough that your statement has inspired me.

http://www.radonc.duke.edu/~yellow/GodKillsAKitten.jpg

CAlvarez
05-20-2005, 03:12 PM
I'm a big believer in the concept that a product should be purchased ONCE for use on a laptop AND a desktop which you own. MS applies this to the applications but not the OS. I don't know where Apple stands on the applications. I think this applies to the OS and applications, and act accordingly.

I also have put an unlicensed copy of Tiger on some old "play" machines I have laying around. I derive no value from these, don't use them actively, and just want to see if they can handle it.

I pay for software that delivers value and a return on my investment. I often pirate commercial software so I can demo it and figure out if I want to buy it. If I continue to find value in it, I buy it within a few weeks. If not, I don't.

yellow
05-20-2005, 03:30 PM
Kitten Murderer!!

Raven
05-20-2005, 03:31 PM
Just a little note coming back on the software/car comparison...
People find that there is a big difference between both because the car is something you can touch and see as its made of material... However, software looks small and insignificant as its only a cd, and you don't see it there... But there are frequenlty as many man hours put on software design as there is on a car design... There is all the testing, returns to drawing board (figuratively speaking of course)... Thus I do understand the comparison as its just the look of the end result that is different... Both share the same base for the creation process but one is showing on the outside while the other one just appears to "look nice and work fine" on a screen.
And speaking for my own... When I look at the price of Windows XP pro which doesn't have all the built-in tools OS X has, I find that X is very decently priced.

Reflect_TRUTH
05-20-2005, 04:05 PM
Moral questions can (except for some extreme situations that do not apply here) only arise within legality. So you're questioning the legal system. In effect, the question you have to ask yourself is: "Do I accept the fact that software companies have the right to charge for what they produce ?"


You make a very good point. And yes, I must say that I do agree with the fact that Apple is justified in charging whatever they see fit. As the consumer I have the option of whether or not to buy the product. Good Point.
+++++++++

That doubt you're hearing is your conscience - listen to it.


My roommate was upgrading his system for free and I just didn't feel right doing the same to mine. That is why I created this poll. I wanted some other opinions. After reading the input here I can now cast my vote.

mclbruce
05-21-2005, 12:04 AM
mclbruce:

No need to be rude. I was asking a genuine question about a moral decision we are facing every time we sit out our computers. Piracy or "Share the wealth." This forum may be painted in white but its users are still tempted. I am by no means "advocating theft." Im simply doing a position poll. I did not mean to say that you are advocating theft. I mean that you are asking if someone else will give you moral support in stealing.

Yes, you are doing a position poll. In your initial post you are also asking for technical information about the feasibility of stealing.

This forum is definitely painted in white. There is a reason for that. It's owner has financial relationships with various other Mac publications that depend on Apple's goodwill in order to survive. "Gray" or "black" posts on this board could ruin the owner's reputation and his career. I don't want to see that happen.

Reflect_TRUTH
05-21-2005, 01:00 AM
then perhaps and admin could so kindly remove the addendum at the bottom of my original post (assuming it can be edited). This would remove any "sketchyness" and allow the poll to go on.

styrafome
05-21-2005, 02:33 AM
I respect Apple and what they have done. I stay legal on my multiple Macs. My main Mac has the latest OS X and my older OS X gets passed down to my second Mac. OS X is mature enough now that it's not a big inconvenience to run Panther as an "old" OS on a secondary computer.

Photek
05-21-2005, 04:16 AM
enough said..... you shouldn't steal software, even if it is your own! But I cant help thinking that it would happen less if the prices were not so high, How many home users can afford to buy £1000's worth of Quark Xpress or £700 of Adobe CS?
And I DONT want to hear about the freeware alternatives!
If you could buy Software like that for £200 alot more people would buy it instead of resorting to files shaing or running the same copy on multiple machines.

Caius
05-21-2005, 04:53 AM
you shouldn't steal software, even if it is your own!


Can you steal it if you already own it? Isn't that just taking it with you :p

CAlvarez
05-21-2005, 06:38 AM
because the car is something you can touch and see as its made of material
No, because the car is a single entity, and stealing it deprives another person of its use. The analogy is completely invalid when applied to software because nobody is deprived of the use of the software (car) by your failure to pay for it.

Most often the vendor isn't even deprived of income, because the person wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Take Styrafome's situation for example; he isn't affecting Apple one bit if he just keeps an old OS on those machines or uses an unlicensed copy of the new one. Either way, Apple isn't getting paid.

Do you believe that people who get up during TV commercials are unethically failing to pay for their TV shows?

ShavenYak
05-21-2005, 07:47 AM
No, because the car is a single entity, and stealing it deprives another person of its use.

But if a car could be 'copied' for a fraction of the retail price, the analogy would work. Obviously that wouldn't be called grand theft, but it would infringe upon patent, trademark, and copyright. And, it would almost certainly be illegal.

Most often the vendor isn't even deprived of income, because the person wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Take Styrafome's situation for example; he isn't affecting Apple one bit if he just keeps an old OS on those machines or uses an unlicensed copy of the new one. Either way, Apple isn't getting paid.

But, he is taking advantage of the work of the software developers without compensating them. It's at least as bad as stealing cable or satellite TV, or using your neighbor's tools without permission.

Do you believe that people who get up during TV commercials are unethically failing to pay for their TV shows?

I think there's a general understanding among broadcasters and advertisers that a substantial fraction of the viewers are note watching the commercials. The fact that they continue broadcasting and advertising indicates that they are OK with this. Of course, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep TiVo and the like from making it easier for you to skip their ads. :mad:

On the other hand, in the UK, a tax is collected to support the BBC from anyone who watches television. Is it OK to watch TV and not pay it? After all, if you're not paying the tax, the BBC isn't really affected by whether or not you turn on the telly.

acme.mail.order
05-21-2005, 08:09 AM
Car/Computer analogies rarely make sense, and this one, I'm afraid, is no exception. There is no way to copy a car, until we get Star Trek style replicators.
No, the analogy works. If I have a Star Trek Replicator and can copy a car for the cost of the energy, then so can the manufacturer. Then our manufacturing industry would collapse, followed by the petroleum industry (why buy gas when I can replicate last month's liter?) and shortly after the entire economy tanks because everyone is replicating money and not working/producing anything anymore. Those replicators better be self-contained and self-sustaining so they work after the lights go out (they should be in theory, but in complete defiance of the conservation of energy laws). Even the replicator manufacturers would be out of business after they sell the first half dozen, assuming they don't simply replicate their retirement funds and quit for the Grand Caymans :D

winwintoo
05-21-2005, 09:47 AM
The reason that I paid $179 CAD for Tiger was that Apple expects to sell enough copies at that price to pay their engineering team for producing it. If half the people using it don't pay for it, the cost goes up and next time, I might have to shell out $350 CAD for my legal copy of it.

People who program for a living deserve to be paid for their time and effort.

Brain surgeons get paid handsomely, but that's not for just showing up, it's for knowing what to do when they get there.

Good programmers also get paid well and so they should. The difference between brain surgeons and programmers is that we know immediately if the brain surgeon succeeded in his mission and his job is complete as soon as he peels off his rubber gloves. The programmer, on the other hand, labors longer hours and even if he's done his work well, it may not succeed in the marketplace - ie people may not like it - and he may never get paid for his work.

But if a programmer's work is successful - ie people DO like it and use it - don't you think it reasonable that he/she get paid for all their work?

Where do you draw the line? If it's ok to steal from Apple, is it OK to steal shareware? Is it ok to steal shareware if they have a fancy webpage? How fancy? HUH?

You work, you expect to get paid period.

Margaret

Reflect_TRUTH
05-21-2005, 11:31 AM
It's at least as bad as stealing cable or satellite TV, or using your neighbor's tools without permission.

<<Chuckle>><<Chuckle>> That was good for a laugh. What if I use my neighbor's tools (w/o permission) so that I can splice into his cable and leech on his signal? Because thats always an option. Surely that wouldn't be immoral. I mean cmon... how high do you guys set your standards?

.............ok, Im only kidding here. No jaw dropping nor reprimand needed. :cool:

macmath
05-21-2005, 11:36 AM
If you are using something which has a price associated with it, then not paying for it is stealing whether it is a physical good or not. Take software for example (although the same is true of music, art, movies, etc.).

If the software did not have some value to someone, then they would not be using it. Thus, by using it they've conceded that it has some value to them. By using it without paying for it, they therefore must agree that they are stealing at least that perceived value (PV, in whatever unit their country measures it). If its value to them is different (more or less) than the associated retail price (RP), then the only disagreement between them and the developer is on how much is being stolen.

The argument that, "If I had to pay for it then I would not buy it, so the software developer isn't out any money." has a bit of circular reasoning because once I've adopted that reasoning I've devalued the software in the first place. The truth is, the developer is out at least PV in cash because (s)he has created at least that value for someone and is not getting reimbursed for it.

Other arguments also fail to hold water. To say that it is ok to pirate because 'They can afford it.' or 'I've earned it.', etc is admitting that a theft has taken place but that the other party has somehow forfeited the right to the money (something which they would probably not agree with).

We must face it: people have an infinite capacity to rationalize. Therefore, there are laws to draw the bold line so that it falls in the same place for everyone and protects everyone. [...which is not to say that every law is good.]

Like winwintoo below, I appreciate the creative and critical thought that goes into developing the software I like. Its value is not easy to measure. That makes its value harder to recognize, even though it is perhaps more valuable than the similarly priced DVD player.

styrafome
05-21-2005, 12:51 PM
enough said..... you shouldn't steal software, even if it is your own! But I cant help thinking that it would happen less if the prices were not so high, How many home users can afford to buy £1000's worth of Quark Xpress or £700 of Adobe CS?
And I DONT want to hear about the freeware alternatives!

That's a faulty argument. Quark and Photoshop etc. are not and were never meant to be sold to home users.

Home users have no reasonable need for CMYK channel editing, separations preview, trapping control, neutral density adjustment, HDR, JDF, PDF X-1a, preflight/package capability, etc. These are not features for home users. Those products are industrial tools. Complaining that they cost too much for the home is like complaining that brain surgery monitors cost too much for the home.

"But I run a home business, and I'm not rich!" Well, same here, and I use those tools. But because they are used for a business, the cost can count as a tax writeoff. (Apologies to those in jurisdictions where the tax laws are different.)

A home user who has the type of equipment to make the best use of the professional suites logically has a budget that can accommodate the software too. For example, the ironic thing about piracy of full Photoshop is that if someone has a legitimate need for the full Photoshop's features, it is very likely that Photoshop costs less than nearly any of the other lenses or camera bodies they already bought, disproving the claim that they can't afford it. The alternative, Photoshop Elements, costs less than $100 and has actually matured very nicely and has a much higher feature to dollar ratio than full Photoshop.

Phil St. Romain
05-21-2005, 04:03 PM
Moral questions can (except for some extreme situations that do not apply here) only arise within legality.

That's not really true. Sometimes something can be moral and illegal, or immoral and legal, depending on what values and principles one uses to make moral decisions.

And from the opening post: On one hand I feel that after having just made such a large contribution to Apple (buying G5) that I am entitle to a 2nd Tiger license.

Why stop there? Why not a second G5, or iWork, Soundtrack -- keep going! ;) The fallacy, however, is that you didn't make a "large contribution to Apple." You gave them money you considered equal to the product you purchased. That's not a contribution; it's a business exchange. Both legally and morally, you are entitled to no more than you agreed upon in the transaction. To think otherwise is to concede that it's also OK for Apple to come along at some point and take a little more money away from you since they gave you such a good product. Any takers on that kind of deal? :D

macmath
05-21-2005, 04:59 PM
Moral questions can (except for some extreme situations that do not apply here) only arise within legality.

That's not really true. Sometimes something can be moral and illegal, or immoral and legal, depending on what values and principles one uses to make moral decisions.
Agreed !

saint.duo
05-21-2005, 07:47 PM
This is, by FAR, one of the BEST comments I have seen.

As for the technical question: 8a425 is a beta copy that was seeded to paying developers to test their applications and development on. It is not final, cannot be software updated, may and probably will give you problems, and if your roommate got his copy from Apple, is only for him/her according to their agreement with Apple as a developer.


Moral questions can (except for some extreme situations that do not apply here) only arise within legality.

That's not really true. Sometimes something can be moral and illegal, or immoral and legal, depending on what values and principles one uses to make moral decisions.

And from the opening post: On one hand I feel that after having just made such a large contribution to Apple (buying G5) that I am entitle to a 2nd Tiger license.

Why stop there? Why not a second G5, or iWork, Soundtrack -- keep going! ;) The fallacy, however, is that you didn't make a "large contribution to Apple." You gave them money you considered equal to the product you purchased. That's not a contribution; it's a business exchange. Both legally and morally, you are entitled to no more than you agreed upon in the transaction. To think otherwise is to concede that it's also OK for Apple to come along at some point and take a little more money away from you since they gave you such a good product. Any takers on that kind of deal? :D

Reflect_TRUTH
05-23-2005, 01:33 AM
Here's a positive note: I checked Apple today and I am eligible for a student discount, which lowers the cost significantly. As a student, Tiger can be purchased for $69 U.S. I certainly cant complain about that.

SC_shooter
05-23-2005, 08:26 AM
Stealing is stealing. I doesn't matter if you're stealing a car, or stealing bits. It's all the same. But I guess a lot of people have really flexible morals.

Mr. Cheese
05-23-2005, 10:37 AM
I think it is more complicated than simply saying you are going to he** or that you should just do it. It often helps to be upfront and find out what Apple has entitled you to do, and this will help solidify in your mind that you are or are not in compliance.

Apple states the following in one variety of the license for the O.S. ...

"...2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. ..."

The "spirit" of the license seems to suggest that you are being granted a one user licenese, in other words, IF you can guarantee that both or the mutlitude of computers that could be using this software could NOT use the software at the SAME TIME. There seems to be sufficient disputable area for legal recourse to establish conformity with the license restrictions. The area of dispute is the meaning of "exist"? For example do they mean to include "stored on a dormant hard drive". Under one interpretation, powering the computer on might be a license violation, but other interpretations might extend to a computers availability to provide services. Other areas to expound upon would be user accountablity, if a user is not at the computer, how do you know it is on? This could go deeper still, but you might be wrestling legality vs. morality, i.e. that depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

It is probably somewhat safe to say, that if you bought a seperate OS install you have the right to install it on more than one computer IF you can guarantee that only one computer will be ON at a time. I say ON, because if a computer is on, Apple might consider it a used license if it was providing services. To what extent those "services" constitute a used license, I think is an area that needs more debate. I personally feel that their pricing structure is not fine-tuned enough to be realistic for consumer usage.
:confused:

Speaking plainly, it is doubtful that Apple intended you to be able to take a license from a purchased desktop Mac, though, and use it to upgrade powerbook. But the average user thinks in terms of a toaster. You plug it in, you pop in your toast and it's done. No fuss, no muss. You start talking in the same terms about a computer, and you'll have your Ba**'s handed to you on a plate. :eek:

I believe one of the fundamental successes of future vendor's could be empowering user's or at least being more explicit about the freedoms that users do have, rather than the verbose expositions and postureing that vendors do today on what users are forbidden from doing. Mac user's want a friend, not a punch in the face. :mad:

Mumbo Jumbo aside, I think the safest and most obvious choice that Apple would like you to make is to empty your wallet, rip off your arms, your legs and purchase a new license every 12 months an update comes out for each and every Apple computer you own and would like to run the latest OS software. Thus all legal proceedings can be avoided, but I assumed you wanted more options.

Objections? :o

MBHockey
05-23-2005, 12:36 PM
It continually amazes me how people justify pirating software.

Downloading a serial number for Photoshop is as bad as walking into the Apple Store and taking a box of Photoshop off its shelf, and walking out without paying.

It's really that simple.

opium
05-23-2005, 12:59 PM
It continually amazes me how people justify pirating software.

Downloading a serial number for Photoshop is as bad as walking into the Apple Store and taking a box of Photoshop off its shelf, and walking out without paying.

It's really that simple.

Why? Just because the government says so? The Berne Convention limited copyright protection to the life of the creator plus an additional 50 years. This was recently extended through the implimentation of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act by 20 years.

Does this mean that before the Act came into effect that my photocoping a book written by an author dying in 1950 was legal and that after the Act came into effect it was illegal? Yes. Absolutely.

Does it mean that before the Act came into effect that my photocopying that same book was moral, and that after the act came into effect it was immoral? Hardly.

Phil St. Romain
05-23-2005, 01:41 PM
opium, Adobe is still in business, and Photoshop hasn't been around for 50 years. No one's talking about photocopying old books, here.

The "spirit" of the license seems to suggest that you are being granted a one user licenese, in other words, IF you can guarantee that both or the mutlitude of computers that could be using this software could NOT use the software at the SAME TIME.

That's a compelling point, I believe, as the licence does say "install and use." So, theoretically, you could install the OS on one computer, use it on that one; then install a different OS (or boot into another one) and re-install the OS on another computer and use it.

For multiple installs in a home, Apple does make available the Family option, which is a real money-saver, especially with the $50 rebate that Amazon.com offers with it: 5 installations for $150! Can't beat that! :)

ShavenYak
05-23-2005, 01:47 PM
Apple states the following in one variety of the license for the O.S. ...

"...2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. ..."

The "spirit" of the license seems to suggest that you are being granted a one user licenese, in other words, IF you can guarantee that both or the mutlitude of computers that could be using this software could NOT use the software at the SAME TIME. There seems to be sufficient disputable area for legal recourse to establish conformity with the license restrictions. The area of dispute is the meaning of "exist"? For example do they mean to include "stored on a dormant hard drive".

Actually, it sounds to me more like the license is a one-seat, not a one-user, license. Look at the restrictions: 'a single... computer' not 'more than one computer', not 'used by multiple computers'. Everything is spelled out in terms of computers, not users.

Also, I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that a copy of software installed a computer's hard drive did not "exist" on that computer simply because it was powered off. By that logic, the software doesn't exist on the installation media, either! No logical court would side with you on that point. Of course, no one said America's courts were logical... :)

opium
05-23-2005, 02:42 PM
opium, Adobe is still in business, and Photoshop hasn't been around for 50 years. If you're going to argue a point, don't use logical fallacies. No one's talking about photocopying books, here.


No, nobody is discussing photocopying books. What is being discussed is the morality of copyright law.

I used books because current copyright laws cover all computer software that I am aware of, and copyright law was originally created to protect the printed word. I will try to stay away from theoretical comparisons.

My simple point is that government should not dictate what a persons morals entail. Staying on topic with software let me try this example: Is what Apple did to Konfabulator (http://news.com.com/Developer+calls+Apples+Tiger+a+copycat/2100-1045_3-5250692.html) moral? Apple did nothing illegal. What if copyright law changed tomorrow altering the legality of that action? Whould that change the morality behind the action? My arguement is that it should not.

hayne
05-23-2005, 02:57 PM
Is what Apple did to Konfabulator moral?
You seem to imply that perhaps it was not moral. Please read the references I supply in this other thread about that issue:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showpost.php?p=202381&postcount=28

opium
05-23-2005, 03:17 PM
You seem to imply that perhaps it was not moral. http://forums.macosxhints.com/showpost.php?p=202381&postcount=28

Actually, I wasn't trying to imply that it wasn't immoral, I was just trying to use an example that Phil St. Romain would find more relevant to the discussion than my book example.

Copyright law is a means to an end. It is a set of laws totally separated from morality. It is a way for society to encourage innovation. Without it, innovation would suffer because of a lack of incentive to create (or so goes the theory).

100% morality free.

Phil St. Romain
05-23-2005, 05:23 PM
from Opium:
My simple point is that government should not dictate what a persons morals entail. Staying on topic with software let me try this example: Is what Apple did to Konfabulator moral? Apple did nothing illegal. What if copyright law changed tomorrow altering the legality of that action? Whould that change the morality behind the action? My arguement is that it should not.

I'm not following your point. What does copyright law have to do with the license agreement that Apple and a user come to? That's part of a business transaction and the government has nothing to do with that. Even without copyright laws, Apple could sell their products and insist on certain restrictions of usage. Copyright laws have to do with someone else taking Apple's work and making it their own, and that's not the moral issue posed in this thread.

Copyright law is a means to an end. It is a set of laws totally separated from morality. It is a way for society to encourage innovation. Without it, innovation would suffer because of a lack of incentive to create (or so goes the theory).

I understand copyright law to be a means to insure that one's work is not stolen by another. Unless theft is not considered a moral principle, then I don't see how one could assert that copyright law has nothing to do with morality.

100% morality free.

Actually, I'll bet you're not, unless you think it's OK to steal, kill innocent people, rape, etc. ;)

opium
05-23-2005, 06:32 PM
I have a feeling that I am facing an uphill battle. It still is an interesting argument though.


I'm not following your point. What does copyright law have to do with the license agreement that Apple and a user come to?

If you choose to argue that point you are discussing contract law, which is entirely different. Theoretically, I guess that if you feel that violating a contract which you entered into by opening a package is immoral then you must have a point. I guess I never considered that angle.


I understand copyright law to be a means to insure that one's work is not stolen by another.

You would be right that it is the means, but it is only the means and not the end. Copyright was created (and is still used) to encourage innovation. The way it does this is to give the creator of the work the ability to profit from that work for a fixed amount of time. After this amount of time has elapsed the work goes into the public domain. If you would like to learn more you could read Gillian Davies book "Copyright and the Public Interest," or the 'history' chapter in any basic copyright text.

Unless theft is not considered a moral principle, then I don't see how one could assert that copyright law has nothing to do with morality.

But this is where I would argue that the government has exerted its influence over your moral beliefs. To select a random religion, on an English language forum I will choose Christianity (for no other reason than that it likely has the largest following of practitioners on these boards). The bible says "Thou shalt not steal" but I still cannot locate a "thou shalt not duplicate materials, should such duplication cause another financial loss." It is because it is not there.

"Stealing" in the traditional sense, is the removing anothers personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of that property. Society has been of the belief that this was immoral for as long as records exist to document it. Conversely, copyright law is a creature that did not exist until the creation of the printing press. The fact that this is now called "theft" by the law books, books written by politicians, does not mean that the Old Testament should be reevaluated in the context that new definition.

Stealing is stealing, & copying is copying. Otherwise Christ would have sure been in trouble for that 5 loaves and 2 fishes trick. Could you imagine the profit that baker must have lost? ;)

Phil St. Romain
05-23-2005, 06:52 PM
OK, Opium, one last round for me on this aspect:

Theoretically, I guess that if you feel that violating a contract which you entered into by opening a package is immoral then you must have a point.

Not opening a package, but clicking an "I agree" button which signifies agreement with the terms of licensing. That agreement is part of the business transaction -- contract, if you will -- and breaking it is a moral issue, having absolutely nothing to do with copyright laws. Giving one's word and then going against that is not simply a legal issue, but a moral one.

Copyright was created (and is still used) to encourage innovation. The way it does this is to give the creator of the work the ability to profit from that work for a fixed amount of time. After this amount of time has elapsed the work goes into the public domain.

And the reason the creator can profit from it is because it belongs to them exclusively, and cannot be copied by others. Else how would they profit from it? I don't disagree that innovation is encouraged, here, but the means for encouragement is the guarantee of ownership for one's creation.

The bible says "Thou shalt not steal" but I still cannot locate a "thou shalt not duplicate materials, should such duplication cause another financial loss." It is because it is not there.

That's because you're not understanding the prohibition conceptually, but are insisting instead on an impossible literalism. Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you and which you have no permission to possess. What that something is need not be spelled out once one comprehends the concept.

Anways . . . this is only tangentially related to the thread topic, and so I'll pass on further discussion of it. You and others are welcomed on my own forums at http://shalomplace.com if you've a liking for this sort of thing.

Pax!

winwintoo
05-23-2005, 07:08 PM
I got an iPod the other day. I want a different set of earphones for it 'cuz the ones that came with it hurt my ears. Darn Apple. I paid a wad of money for it. I saw my neighbor in the elevator with a better set. I tried to take his. He pushed me into the wall and broke my arm. Guess he thought I was trying to "steal" them.

I wonder where he got that idea?

I tried to explain to him that I had paid a lot of my iPod and it was hurting my ears and I should be entitled to have better earphones.

Margaret

CAlvarez
05-24-2005, 12:28 AM
Cute, but once again, not at all related to copying software.

Come on, it should be obvious here, people can't really think that taking someone's physical property is the same as copying the property.

styrafome
05-24-2005, 01:50 AM
Some guy told me he used your credit card number today. He said it wasn't theft because you still have your credit card number, so nothing was taken. He also said that if you can't afford what he bought today, just file a claim under your credit card protection guarantee and the insurance companies will take care of it. I said that if everybody did what he did, insurance rates would go up and add costs to the system. He doesn't pay for insurance so he doesn't care about rates going up. He also said to have a nice day.

hayne
05-24-2005, 02:51 AM
Some guy told me he used your credit card number today
You forgot to mention that he used it to buy a copy of Tiger!

CAlvarez
05-24-2005, 05:40 PM
Some guy told me he used your credit card number today.
Doesn't bother me, I don't have to pay for it. He can deal with the credit card company.

Lots of cute attempts to say the same thing, but it's still just as untrue as it was at the beginning of the thread.

fat elvis
05-24-2005, 05:51 PM
wow...this thing made it to 3 pages...never would have thought.

MBHockey
05-24-2005, 05:54 PM
I'm quite surprised at the amount of "Yes" votes in the poll results. :rolleyes:

Phil St. Romain
05-25-2005, 08:34 AM
Doesn't bother me, I don't have to pay for it. He can deal with the credit card company.

Lots of cute attempts to say the same thing, but it's still just as untrue as it was at the beginning of the thread.

I think that "cute attempt" pretty conclusively KO'd your earlier point which insinuated that stealing concerned taking someone's "physical property," or at least that's the impression you gave. I'm also decidedly unimpressed with your "I don't have to pay for it" point, as somewhere down the line, you will, in fact, have to pay for others' unethical behavior.

"3 pages." Well, sometimes a quasi-philosophical discussion related to computer issues is fun and interesting, I guess. ;)

Craig R. Arko
05-25-2005, 08:48 AM
"3 pages." Well, sometimes a quasi-philosophical discussion related to computer issues is fun and interesting, I guess. ;)


OK, you win. :D

sao
05-25-2005, 09:49 AM
Phil St. Romain wrote:
...as somewhere down the line, you will, in fact, have to pay for others' unethical behavior.
Yes, in science they call this cause and effect, action and reaction....in the spiritual world, the 'kingdom of heaven' doesn't know about good or bad (that's probably why it's called heaven)...but let's just say that there are consequences...

Good or bad is up to all to decide...

.

macmath
05-25-2005, 12:40 PM
Come on, it should be obvious here, people can't really think that taking someone's physical property is the same as copying the property.

If a developer has a software title, each unit of that title exists as an entity once someone uses it. If it did not exist then no one could or would use it. If someone uses a unit of that software and pays for it, then the developer has made money from that unit. If someone uses a unit of that software and does not pay for it, then that unit still exists and has been stolen because the developer did not receive any money for it, either the asking price or the value of that unit of software as perceived by the pirate. The only thing that was not stolen was the physical medium on which that software originally resided and the costs to put the software on that physical medium (this must be what you're referring to). So the pirate owes the developer (the cost of the software - $3.00 for the cd/vd and production).

By your argument, since it does not exist, then the developer cannot sell it either and is doing something fraudulent by selling it. Existence is not equal to having a physical component. There are a lot of things in this world which one cannot touch but which certainly exist.

The developer deserves that payment for (1) the cost to originally design & test the software, and (2) some profit for the developer. To say that the developer has lost nothing because the software does not have a physical existence also says that if everyone were to pirate the software title then nothing was stolen from the developer of the software because it never existed. You might say that this will not happen, but surely, particularly given the results of this poll, substantial financial damage is resulting.


With respect to 'Thou shalt not steal.' (really not limited to Christianity), that is far more broad than opium is reading it. [Moreover, the 5 loaves and fishes analogy carried over to software would be more like me writing my own version of Tiger instead of using Apple's. Apple would have no claim on that; the baker has no claim on the recipe for bread or for ingredients which are not his/hers]. The person born in Bangladesh has just as much claim on the resources of this planet as I do. To consume whatever I want without contributing something back to the disadvantaged of the planet is a form of stealing.

macmath
05-25-2005, 12:51 PM
The reference to copying physical property is not relevant either. If I were to copy someone's computer using my own materials and the general observance of what the computer is, then that would not be the same as stealing it. This would be like writing my own Tiger to do the same things as Tiger by observing what Tiger does.

Copying a developer's software (since you are using their actual code) is like copying someone's computer by using their components, and that is stealing.

In the middle-ground would be to steal from Tiger's code (reverse engineering or direct reading) to get ideas for my 'own' very similar code to write Tiger. The physical analogy would be to take apart someone's computer and then building my own based on those exact specifications. That would not be stealing the specific physical parts, but it would be stealing the research and development monies that went into it (either Tiger or the computer).

CAlvarez
05-25-2005, 04:53 PM
To say that the developer has lost nothing because the software does not have a physical existence also says that if everyone were to pirate the software title then nothing was stolen from the developer of the software because it never existed.
I did NOT say that. All I said was that copying software simply does not fit any of the physical analogies that people try to apply to it, usually in a high and mighty tone. I'm not advocating piracy; I'm saying that such spurious arguments are irrelevant.

I don't see how the credit card thing applies one bit. I seriously do not care about credit card number theft, it's not my problem. I can't see how I pay for it in the end, since my credit cards pay me, I don't pay them. Yeah, I guess they could pay me more if they didn't have to deal with fraud, that's one point. People who carry a balance do pay for it in interest, but that's not my problem.

But if you'd like to apply this analogy, we could say it's like stealing a car. If I had to pay for it, then you'd effectively be taking the property and depriving me of using it. Once again, copying software does not deprive another of its use, which is why I argue the car analogy. Different argument than right or wrong.

acme.mail.order
05-25-2005, 05:24 PM
MacMath: very succinctly put.

However (not that I'm disagreeing, 'cause I have the same opinion) digital media has created the new position of "The authour has lost nothing because I would not have paid for/would not use this product." If I use Gimp but three times a year someone sends me a Photoshop document I have to work on I won't want to drop $700 on Adobe just to convert about 6 files per revision to tiffs.

I remember Gates being (mis)quoted in the '90's as saying something like "I don't care if people like students copy my programs. They'll get used to them and buy the next version later instead if learning something new"

Phil St. Romain
05-25-2005, 06:14 PM
. . .I can't see how I pay for it in the end, since my credit cards pay me, I don't pay them. . . .

Where can I get one of those? ;)

CAlvarez
05-25-2005, 06:49 PM
Everybody's doing cards like that now. We're about three months away from a fully paid Carribean trip on Amex, and I got back just over $400 in cash from my Paypal card last year.

They'll get used to them and buy the next version later instead if learning something new"
Wasn't that Apple's strategy with cheap/free machines for schools...?

macmath
05-25-2005, 06:50 PM
I did NOT say that.
Apologies.

My point regarding the car analogy is: The fact that taking the car deprives someone of its use and taking the software does not deprive someone of its use is irrelevant. For one thing, we're not talking about whether or not we are depriving another user of the software of its use.

Taking the Ford off the assembly line deprives Ford of its value (whether it's used or not) and taking the software deprives the developer of its value (if the software is used). If the software is not used then I would admit that no deprivation of value has taken place.

If the software is not used in the active sense for which it is marketed, but in the limited sense that acme.mail.order suggests, then we're embarking upon a gray area slippery slope that make it too easy to slide all the way down to the bottom. That is, there is some degree of rationalizing taking place and so the result is dependent upon the rationalizer. I might agree with acme.mail.order's rationalization but not with someone else's. However, other alternatives might exist which, though more bothersome, eliminate the need for the rationalization.

Ideals are, well, ideal; but on the other hand, what else shall we aim for (even though we might occasionally fall short). To aim for less is to fall into a morass of amorphous semi-principles. Entropy applies to the Principles of a Society as well as to the house which has nobody taking care of it. If those Principles are not preserved to the best of our ability then the next generation will view those Principles as principles which are adjustable as our needs see fit. Several generations later they might not even recognize them as principles anymore, but as something a 'sucker' does. I don't know what I would have answered before I had children, but with my children I know that they indeed learn what they see me do, and they do not know about or understand the case-by-case rationalization which I might use to skirt the rules. The result is that they'll develop a faulty idea about right and wrong unless I stick to the Ideal as best I can.

styrafome
05-25-2005, 08:58 PM
Ideals are, well, ideal; but on the other hand, what else shall we aim for (even though we might occasionally fall short). To aim for less is to fall into a morass of amorphous semi-principles. Entropy applies to the Principles of a Society as well as to the house which has nobody taking care of it. If those Principles are not preserved to the best of our ability then the next generation will view those Principles as principles which are adjustable as our needs see fit. Several generations later they might not even recognize them as principles anymore, but as something a 'sucker' does.

Yes, this is more academically known as the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). "Free" resources always have hidden community costs which only become apparent when people take as much as they can.

In other words, the argument does not scale well. If it's established that piracy creates no loss simply because the original user is not deprived of use, the rise and fall of the revenue stream's value becomes disconnected from the value of the software to the overall user base. If the number of people deciding not to pay rises, the revenue stream can drop regardless of its popularity. If enough people fail to pay, you can reach a tipping point past which it is no longer economically viable to produce the software. If you deny this, you are basically saying that you expect enough people to pay and you don't expect to be one of them, and that's a really questionable statement, morally speaking.

On the other hand, if it's established that piracy does create a loss, the value of the revenue stream rises and falls in proportion to the value of the software to the user base as a whole, and development of software of value is encouraged.

chutem
05-25-2005, 09:45 PM
MS applies this to the applications but not the OS.
actually I agree with you, however M$ doesn't apply this to all apps. Virtual PC cannot be installed on multiple machines, and not just because of the os. The license says only for use on one machine.

nkuvu
05-25-2005, 10:14 PM
I have to say, I'm always amused at the argument that it is trivial to physically copy a CD, so it's not stealing.

Does it really seem like software prices are solely there to cover the cost of the distribution media? What exactly do you think you're paying for when you do buy software? The manual?

I know this has already been covered in the thread, but still the argument is common enough for me to feel the need to bring it up again.

And in unrelated bafflements, I have to mention that I've known a lot of software developers who pirate software. What are they thinking?

(yeah, it's late, and I'm not making a lot of sense. I blame it on the Guinness.)

Reflect_TRUTH
05-28-2005, 02:01 PM
WOW! I never imagined this would turn into such a debate. Some very interesting points have been brought up.

As I mentioned earlier I was sitting on the fence with this one. But when I saw Tiger for 69$ (education discount) I went ahead and made the purchase. It should be here in a couple days.

CAlvarez
05-28-2005, 11:43 PM
As I was fast-forwarding past a commercial on my DVR, I wondered...

Am I stealing the program I'm watching? If not, why not?

saint.duo
05-29-2005, 12:03 AM
If nothing else, I don't believe you ever agreed or signed an agreement or contract saying that you would watch the commercials. The advertisers pay the broadcasters for space during a show in the hopes that someone will see said commercial and buy their product.
"Real world" comparisons don't work with software... just look at patents to see that.

If you never attempt to install a piece of software, you may or may not have agreed to not make a copy of it (depends on if there is a license agreement sticker on the CD sleeve or somewhere).

I know a LOT of license agreement mumbo jumbo has been thrown out in court during law suits, but if you installed a commercial application, there is a good chance that you did click "I Agree" to a license agreement of some sort, which contains restrictions on whether you can install it on multiple computers (for any or no reason), copy the media, make a backup of the media, etc etc.
If you do something outside the scope of the licensed terms, then you are breaking your agreement with the developer, moral or not.

styrafome
05-29-2005, 12:23 AM
As I was fast-forwarding past a commercial on my DVR, I wondered...

Am I stealing the program I'm watching? If not, why not?

I'm no lawyer but I believe the TV networks asked this question in court a couple decades ago and they ruled you weren't stealing it (I guess it fell under "fair use") and therefore the use of a VCR as a time-shifting device became legal. But again, I'm not sure if that is precisely how it happened.

mclbruce
05-29-2005, 02:26 AM
Yes, this is more academically known as the Tragedy of the Commons. "Free" resources always have hidden community costs which only become apparent when people take as much as they can. The tragedy of the commons more or less sums up the history of civilization. Nearly every site of human civilization on this earth is less capable of sustaining life than before civilization happened there. So I'm not surprised that people have the attitude of, "It's just sitting there, why not copy it." That seems to be human nature. That's kind of scary to think about in the long term. An author I like named Jared Diamond writes about an extreme example of the tragedy of the commons: Easter Island.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html

He also has a book out about collapse in societies in general, but I haven't read it yet.

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0670033375,00.html

CAlvarez
05-29-2005, 06:23 PM
"Real world" comparisons don't work with software...
That was my point with the car theft analogy.

there is a good chance that you did click "I Agree" to a license agreement of some sort
So if I extract the files without an installer and never read or agree to the EULA, then it's ok...?

At least one network exec has publicly stated that using a DVR/Tivo or even leaving the room during commercials is breaking your "social contract" with the networks and advertisers. I'm sorry I can't recall who said it, but it was widely publicisized at the time.

Ah well, screw it, my point all along has been that it's murky gray and the ethics of it all are both different from the legalities and not completely clear.

NovaScotian
05-29-2005, 08:10 PM
I respect Apple and what they have done. I stay legal on my multiple Macs. My main Mac has the latest OS X and my older OS X gets passed down to my second Mac. OS X is mature enough now that it's not a big inconvenience to run Panther as an "old" OS on a secondary computer.
I run my machines as styrafome does. I don't have an Apple laptop, but if I did, I'd be tempted to share with this in mind: I've bought the system for me to use, not for the machine. I can only use one of the machines at a time so I'm only using one copy of the system I bought. My problem with this, of course, is that that isn't the way the law interprets it, and I never turn my desktop machine off. Ah well.

CAlvarez
05-29-2005, 08:52 PM
Who cares what the law says? Just be ethical about it, not like the software police can come in and search your home or office.

macmath
06-01-2005, 11:10 AM
MacCentral has an article on software piracy (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/05/31/piracy/index.php) today.

I am really astounded that the vote sits at 19 to 19 today.

hayne
06-01-2005, 11:36 AM
The ethical question is whether you are justified in buying something that imposes conditions on its use and then disregarding those conditions because you don't like them.

Suppose I'm leaving the country and I agree to sell you my dog on the condition that you walk him for at least an hour a day. Are you justified in later skimping on the walks because you don't think a dog really needs that much walking?

CAlvarez
06-01-2005, 01:21 PM
Now there's an analogy that I can live with. And no, it's not ok, but then I like dogs better than I like lawyers... :D

Of course, with software, the terms of the agreement are rarely revealed to you before the purchase. And most stores won't take back software if you open it, review the EULA, and don't agree to it. Does that mean it's ok to violate it then?

macmath
06-01-2005, 01:30 PM
The ethical question is whether you are justified in buying something that imposes conditions on its use and then disregarding those conditions because you don't like them.

Suppose I'm leaving the country and I agree to sell you my dog on the condition that you walk him for at least an hour a day. Are you justified in later skimping on the walks because you don't think a dog really needs that much walking?
Yes, this accurately describes the original issue of this thread.
...sorry for further taking the thread off course by the above post.

Many, myself included, expanded this into a discussion of piracy in general by putting forth and refuting common 'arguments' like: "It is not stealing because I would not have bought it anyway." and "It is not stealing because I'm not depriving anyone of its use.", and my most recent post continued to pull the discussion off topic.

I feel strongly enough on this issue that, while I'm apologizing for posting away from the topic of the thread, I'm going to leave the post there.

ArcticStones
06-23-2005, 06:34 AM
The way I practice this is simple:

I pay for my OS (although I did install a friend’s copy of Tiger before purchasing my own) and the software that I use to earn money (such as MS Office, ViaVoice). I pay for utilities (such as Retrospect, and Norton which I’ve since trashed). I pay for software which gives me pleasure. I may upgrade to iLife05; bought Myst Revelation, etc…

I must confess, however, that I do have pirate copies of some software – Quark XPress and Photoshop. I have them for one reason only: To open files sent to me by clients, of mistaken file type, that I cannot otherwise open – in order to read them. (Happens a handful of times a year, tops.)

Now these two latter applications are very expensive, and some may believe that I should pay for a license. I must confess, however, that I have utterly no bad conscience.
But if I started using them for design or photo work, then I would gladly fork over the appropriate portion of my paycheck. After all, that helps pay for somebody else’s

With best regards,
ArcticStones

NovaScotian
06-23-2005, 07:29 AM
The way I practice this is simple:

I pay for my OS (although I did install a friend’s copy of Tiger before purchasing my own) and the software that I use to earn money (such as MS Office, ViaVoice). I pay for utilities (such as Retrospect, and Norton which I’ve since trashed). I pay for software which gives me pleasure. I may upgrade to iLife05; bought Myst Revelation, etc…

ArcticStones
I'm with ArcticStones on this - pay for what you really do use whether professionally or for fun, but try before you buy if possible. If the software has unrealistic demo restrictions under which you really can't try before you buy, I might try a pirate copy. I'm amazed at how some authors castrate their demos and then expect folks to buy. No matter how appealing, I won't buy without a real demonstration because no software is returnable for a refund, and for all I know, software demos that won't save, export, or print might have problems doing those things. If I like the pirate, I buy. If I don't, I trash.

One ironclad rule of mine, however, is that I always, always pay for shareware if I continue to use it, even if only occasionally. If I think it's overpriced for what it does, I trash it. If I get no response to a query from the author, I trash it. I recently trashed a demo copy of Script Debugger, for example. I won't buy it because I had a problem with the demo, but couldn't get so much as an autoreply from the author. I really want to encourage those folks, but not if they just "put it out there" and then leave the scene.

Phil St. Romain
06-24-2005, 09:15 AM
. . . I do have pirate copies of some software – Quark XPress and Photoshop. I have them for one reason only: To open files sent to me by clients, of mistaken file type, that I cannot otherwise open – in order to read them. (Happens a handful of times a year, tops.)

Now these two latter applications are very expensive, and some may believe that I should pay for a license. I must confess, however, that I have utterly no bad conscience.

But if I started using them for design or photo work, then I would gladly fork over the appropriate portion of my paycheck. After all, that helps pay for somebody else’s

Just curious as to what kind of files you need to open with Photoshop that you can't open with Graphic Converter? And what kind of non-professional needs to be opening files created by Quark XPress?

nkuvu
06-24-2005, 01:01 PM
I'm still wondering about the physical counterparts of this type of argument.

If you only need a truck once in a while, do you (try to) take it from the sales lot and return it when you're done? Do you taste your food in the supermarket before you pay for it? How is this different from software occasional or pre-use?

The rationalizations around software continue to baffle me.

voldenuit
06-24-2005, 01:44 PM
Both sides have made their points and it is finally up to everyones own conscience to deal with the question.

However, like arctic stones said, there are cases when you get files in strange proprietary formats that nothing but an expensive app you don't otherwise need can open correctly.

And you may diplomatically not be in the position to mail back something along the lines "send me your stuff in a format I can use".

That is indeed a case where one would be embarassed to come up with a clear-cut yes or no.

After all, unlike a truck, all the bits you use do not deprive anybody from anything. It's just you not paying something you're legally required to without seeing a compelling reason to do so.

hayne
06-24-2005, 02:29 PM
After all, unlike a truck, all the bits you use do not deprive anybody from anything. It's just you not paying something you're legally required to without seeing a compelling reason to do so.


It's only very occasionally that I need to send something by courier.
And all the courier companies in my (hypothetical) area refuse to deal with one-off deliveries - they want me to pay a huge up-front fee for a flat-rate service. That's not worth it for the few times a year that I need to use a courier.
But I've figured out a way to forge one of their special envelopes and drop it into their delivery box for those few times when I need to send something to a client. I don't feel bad about this because it's not really costing them anything - their trucks are going to be running anyway and they're never full.

ArcticStones
06-24-2005, 05:53 PM
Just curious as to what kind of files you need to open with Photoshop that you can't open with Graphic Converter? And what kind of non-professional needs to be opening files created by Quark XPress?

Quark: On a couple of occasions I’ve had customers send me page proofs as Quark files, because they’ve forgotten to convert them to PDF. That is professional, but I only use Quark to open the darned file. Call it a safety valve. (Last time: two years ago)
By the way, the first time this happened, that same customer sent me urgent files and went away. That’s when I installed a pirate copy of Quark.

PhotoShop: On rare occasions I receive photos to peruse that don’t open in Preview, my preferred viewing program. (Don’t know Graphic Converter.) Again, a safety valve. (Last time: five or six months ago)

Strictly speaking, I’m sure I could find an alternative workaround and remove these two applications.

-- ArcticStones

ArcticStones
06-24-2005, 06:00 PM
Do you taste your food in the supermarket before you pay for it?

Well, I have to confess that I never purchase grapes in the supermarket without having tasted them.

;)

ArcticStones
06-24-2005, 06:14 PM
"Free" resources always have hidden community costs which only become apparent when people take as much as they can.

I would like to recommend a brilliant essay that was written many years ago: "Silence is a Commons" by Ivan Illich.

His point is that Silence is our common property. He compares it to a village square where markets are held, entertainers perform, music played, speaches are held. The village square is a "commons".
(Definition: "land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community" -- according to Oxford American Dictionaries, which accompanies Tiger.)

The problem is that Silence is eaten up by thoughtless advertising, and by many other types of static. As a result, we are overwhelmed. Every day, you and I, and the average modern person, are exposed to several thousand messages -- trying to influence, sell or manipulate.

Ivan Illich deeply considered point, is that this encroachment on "the Commons of Silence" is making communication increasingly difficult, and much of the time, in fact, impossible.

As a result our culture and quality of life suffers.
Well, so I agree with Styrafome -- although this may seem an unusual example.

Read it! It’s a brilliant essay.


With best regards,
ArcticStones

hayne
06-24-2005, 06:18 PM
Don’t know Graphic Converter
Well you should: http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/graphcon.htm
It is the one program that will import and export almost all formats in common use for image files.

voldenuit
06-24-2005, 06:20 PM
Well, I have to confess that I never purchase grapes in the supermarket without having tasted them.
In France, where culinary questions are a lot more important than they might be elsewhere, there is even a law explictly stating that there shall be no sale of goods usually tasted if the buyer has not been able to assure himself of the quality:

"à l'égard du vin et de l'huile , et des autres choses que l'on est dans l'usage de goûter avant d'en faire achat, il n'y a point de vente tant que l'acheteur ne les a pas goûter et agréés"

Code Civil - Art 158
So Arctic Stones just happens to live in the wrong country ;) .

It's pretty amazing how wildly the socially acceptable can vary even in western democracies.

ArcticStones
06-25-2005, 01:41 AM
Well you should: http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/graphcon.htm
It is the one program that will import and export almost all formats in common use for image files.

Thanks, Hayne. What do you know; I already got it on my computer! The information window says it’s registered to Apple Bundle Customers. Must have come with my PowerBook when I purchased it in April 2003.

It’s Carbon version 4.5.2. Seems version 5.6.2 is available from their Web site. Do you know the main difference between the versions? Should I definitely upgrade?

hayne
06-25-2005, 01:46 AM
It’s Carbon version 4.5.2. Seems version 5.6.2 is available from their Web site. Do you know the main difference between the versions? Should I definitely upgrade?

I can't remember the differences but there is a detailed "history" of the program on the lemkesoft web site that lists all the changes in each version.
When version 5 came out, I kept with version 4 for a while since I needed to pay to upgrade to the new version (I had had version 4 and perhaps even version 3 registered since my OS 9 days) and there was some reason why I decided to upgrade - maybe some feature I wanted or maybe just to support the developer who is one of the most energetic and productive individuals in the shareware market. He just keeps on improving it!

ArcticStones
06-25-2005, 02:05 AM
...there was some reason why I decided to upgrade - maybe some feature I wanted or maybe just to support the developer who is one of the most energetic and productive individuals in the shareware market. He just keeps on improving it!

Just read all the Customer Statements and the list of awards. Impressive! I think I’ll upgrade it very soon -- and look to see if I can find som sort of User Manual or Help function on this software.

Thanks again!

NovaScotian
06-25-2005, 08:28 AM
Just read all the Customer Statements and the list of awards. Impressive! I think I’ll upgrade it very soon -- and look to see if I can find som sort of User Manual or Help function on this software.
There's a downloadable e-manual (PDF) by Hagen Henke (in several languages) that I found quite good - very good examples. ($10US paid to Kagi for the unlock code).

macmath
06-25-2005, 09:54 AM
When version 5 came out, I kept with version 4 for a while since I needed to pay to upgrade to the new version (I had had version 4 and perhaps even version 3 registered since my OS 9 days) and there was some reason why I decided to upgrade - maybe some feature I wanted or maybe just to support the developer who is one of the most energetic and productive individuals in the shareware market. He just keeps on improving it!
Naturally, I can't speak to why you upgraded, but I did to trim PDFs. When OS X creates a PDF file, it creates a whole page. But to include the PDFs into TeX documents, I just want one about the size of the diagram I am inputting into the document. I asked him for the ability to trim those PDFs and save the resulting file, and it appeared within a month or two. I can't say enough positive things about his responsiveness or about the application.

NovaScotian
06-25-2005, 10:31 AM
The only thing I miss in version 5 (that may be there undiscovered) is the ability to scale to a pixel count (which I used to do all the time).

dr_avalanche
07-29-2005, 09:30 AM
Ouch. Just asked a similar question and got the thread locked. OK, i legally own 2 current OS's. Panther and tiger. I'm not using tiger. Does that mean i can use Panther twice? :p

yellow
07-29-2005, 09:34 AM
No. That's not legal. Legally you can use Panther once and Tiger once. Read the End User License Agreement.