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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

<<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:

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.

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.

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

Agreed !

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.

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.

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.

It's a complicated quesion...
 

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

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.

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! :)

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... :)

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 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.