Teenage Software Piracy - your opinion
 

im a teenager learning as much as i can about computer's (macintosh)

software piracy seems like its the only reasonable option. The software companies wont be loosing anything from me because i don't have the money to give them in the first place.

I mean when im older and working for some company, they will cover the costs for the legal copy of software needed. All I would really be doing is using that software a bit earlier.

Do you think thats wrong?

Wow, that's a stinky piece of bait you've just dropped in the water. This should be fun.

CAlverez was nice about this, but I don't really feel like being nice right now. You will not, under any circumstance, get any help from any of us when it comes to pirating. Yes, it's true, exec's aren't losing that much money from piracy. But there are some hard working programmers who are. My father lost his job because of piracy and we had to move half way across the country to find a new job. Granted, it's not the worst thing that could happen, but it wasn't fun.

Piracy hurts the little man, so don't do it.

Now that the messy part is over... There are plenty of Free alternatives to some of the major programs that are out there. And you can use those to get ready to learn the big ones. For example, go check out "The Gimp" if you want to learn how to use Photoshop style apps. Or check out Blender if you're looking for a 3D modeling piece of software. Honestly, there are so many free options out there piracy is pretty much unnecessary. Plus, if you use free (and legal) apps you can expect help from all of us here ;).

Good luck.

its ok, i wasnt looking for help. I was asking what you guys thought about piracy
sound like your opinion will be pretty bias then.
it does?? why does it hurt the little guy? All the pirated software ive seen people show off was from huge corporations like Adobe.
and thats the kind of software i was talking about.

Now do you think its wrong for my friend to pirate software from a large corporation?

oh and here is a link to 3D Studio max, you might want to check it out.
http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-15976.html
you do realize that
either way
blender or 3D Studio max
autodesk, the makers of 3D Studio max is getting the same sum of $0.00

your killing autodesk just as much as my friend is by stealing 3ds max!!

Two guys both cant afford to pay for the software.
One guy takes the free one
one guy, says why cant i just get a copy of it anyway? i could never pay for it so whats the difference in my just using 3D studio max instead of blender?

The "little man" works for the large corporations

Say you need a car, would you steal one? You can't afford one, but you feel like you have to have one, and car companies are huge corporations that (supposedly) make billions or millions a year, so who will be hurt if you steal just one little car?

Software piracy, whether you agree or not, is illegal.

Ultimately, the person that pays for the software also pays for you, the thief. As software companies try to offset their perceived losses they keep the prices of software high. So ultimately, I have to pay for you too. And I don't want to. Buy your own software.

You're also NOT looking at the big picture. It's not just you stealing software. It's thousands or tens of thousands of other people too. All those thefts cut into gross operating costs for companies, meaning the little people that do the real work (techs, programmers, support people, shipping people, administrative staff, etc), perhaps don't get raises this year. It's not execs who get their pay cut. It's the little people. All because you stole software that you perceived that you needed. Also, there are plenty of people who ACTUALLY NEED the software and really can't afford it, but manage to pay for it somehow.

Software piracy is wrong. Software piracy is illegal.

So, let's just end this discussion right here.

Ok, now that I have more time, I will add my (unpopular) opinion on this.

I pirate software. Not software that I use every day for things that I need to do. Well, I may pirate it if there is no demo, then buy it if I use it. However I have pirate copies of many things, such as Photoshop, which I don't need and aren't used for business needs. I play with it every now and then, and that lets me know enough to answer customer questions and to demo features for potential customers. I'm actually benefiting Adobe. There is zero chance that I would spend the money for Photoshop for any reason.

All of the applications that I need for my daily work and life are paid for.

You came in here to either start a fight or assuage your guilty conscience, I'm not sure which. Since piracy is a complex issue with a lot of emotional involvement, you're not ever going to get a clear answer. If you're looking for a fight, you won't get it here, so move along now.

While the point is true that the makers of Autodesk see no money in either of your examples, the issue comes down to principles. I realize they don't teach that any more, and you may not be aware of such an abstract concept. When it comes down to it, only you can decide what your principles are. I've decided mine, and I have no problem with limited piracy for specific purposes. If you decide its ok to pirate the software you use and depend on every day, I will think that's wrong, but there's nothing I can do about it.

I want to chime in on this topic, but first I want to find out if I'm allowed to use the word "pussy" around here. Otherwise I'll stay out.

You just did.

Piracy actually helps business in the long run. The game devs over at crytek when first starting out used pirated software to make the game Farycry. They were small and could no way afford to actually buy software. They got big off their game engine, in fact so big they even made a whole game to demo their engine, farcry. They later got busted, admitted to it, and paid for their licenses and now everyone is happy.

Over in Asia there are HUGE piracy problems, mainly because no country can afford to even get close enough money to buy licenses from MS, Apple, Devs, even paid Linux distros. They are either forced to go completely open source or use pirated copies. This is a good thing and a bad thing. It is a good thing because Asia's economy is starting to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world, meaning they are generating more revenue. More and more companies will go legit and when they start making the money to afford the license, they are just going to purchase real copies of the pirated software they already know.

Another perspective. I work for a school district, and recently this year I installed an Autodesk Suite (consisting of 35+ CDs) containing Revit, Inventor, Viz, AutoCAD, Architectual Desktop, etc. I had to custom make deployment images for each software package, load them on a shared network drive, make them into .msi files, custom input all the cd keys and register each package to the person in charge of software in our district. This required me to install a deployment wizard and go through tons of unnecessary steps to install this actual software and then validate a license online and then activate each copy of our site licensed software. I mean we purchased a package for every high school, and each package cost us probably over $30,000 each. So, we spent lots of money with autodesk.

After a grueling and annoying 15 hours of my life lost installing this software at every high school, I decided to check it out on bittorrent. Sure enough, there were full cracked vesrions of this software out there. So, why did I have to jump through all these hoops to install it properly (since that is their anti piracy stuff) when after all I could have very well just shelved the actual software we purchased and downloaded the priated version and not had all the troubles.

Don't even get me started on the render farm we set up with back burner and autodesk, that was a pain also.

So, if these companies make legit customers go through all this crap to set things up, when the pirated versions work eactly the same, and are a ton easier to use, why use the legit versions? The only beneficial reason I can think of is job security. Since, I was the one that did the installs, I now am in charge of them:rolleyes: and get to do this every time they upgrade. This is because no other person in IT really wants to fuss with it.

I also do independent contract work on the side, and have had to do some things with server OSes and exchange and the like. I have downloaded and used pirated versions to learn the software, but I never have used it for personal gain. I don't download video games either, I pay for them, and I like supporting that industry. I do occasionally download music, but then again I have over 5,000 bought CDs and over 300 vinyl records, so no one can argue that I don't support the music industry.

Symantec Ghost enterprise solution - I gurantee NO ONE uses this application legally. The license calls for you to purchase a copy for every computer on your network, at like $60 per a machine. Okay, we have 10,000 computers at my work, so do the math. We don't use Symantec's solution though, we use an older one we legally own, but I gurantee a lot of companies out there do not use ghost legally, it is just too freaking expensive. Plus that $60 per a client doesn't cover the cost of the server which the images are stored and pushed/pulled from. Right now I am testing out a complete open source solution (drbl.sourceforge.net) and it is actually working great, and it is completely open source and free.

I am a sole believer that developers should get their money, it is what keeps them in business, but at the same time I also think piracy in many ways helps the market out. I am not saying piracy is 100% positive thing, it just has its pluses and minuses.

my $0.02

Just because you pirate software doesn't make it right or ok.

If I were your IT manager and I found out that you'd used pirated software and installed it on every computer under our care, I'd fire you. Frankly, I'm not going to prison or paying fines for your blunder.

This statement makes no sense at all. It's completely contradictory to your earlier posting. You cannot say 'devs should get paid' and then say 'piracy is ok by me'. Devs DON'T get paid when people pirate software. :eek: And IMO, your view that piracy helps companies is totally flawed. Piracy doesn't help anyone out. The only reason the devs for FarCry paid was because they got BUSTED. Otherwise they never would have paid. How does that help the developer of the original software?

Yeah, figured I could be fairly zelous about my opinion because CAlverez would come out and counter it.

I should point out one thing real quick, CAlvarez has an excellent point. In the end it does benefit the company if you plan on buying it later, and actually do. It really helps in terms of education. That's why PhotoShop is sold for $200 at my college, so that they can grab people at a young age and make them buy the product for professional use. And, CAlvarez is certainly right when he says that you need to decide what your principles on the issue are going to be.

But, remember, that with every decision you make there are consequences. You probably won't get caught using pirated software if you never try to sell anything you make, but if you do... It can be very hard for you.

Personally, I believe that a person or business that creates a product has the right to distribute it however they wish, and put whatever controls on it they wish. Why? Because it's initially their property, and it's their right to make money on it however they may choose. If they choose to be stupid about it, so be it. It's still their property, and it's their right to be stupid, and that's my conviction.

You mentioned that my opinion is biased, and yeah, it is. But anybody who is trying to sell a product and find's out it is being stolen would be similarly "biased". I'm also biased against people stealing my guitars, stealing my car or targeting me for identity theft. If you want to call that a bias, fine, but I think it's perfectly legitimate.

In the end there are just too many free alternatives to the programs you are talking about. You don't need 3D Studio Max to learn how to use it, you can use Blender to learn the theory and apply it to 3D Studio Max later. Or you could find a lab that has a site license and use it there. If you had no other way to learn I might agree that it's okay for you to pirate the software. But that is not the case, and I would urge you to use legal options.

Piracy does help the company in the long run. Microsoft is pirated a ton over in poor countries that can not afford to pay for their licenses, when that country catches up with the economics of the rest of the world and can afford to buy things, what do you think they will buy? Microsoft because they are already familiar with that platform, and it is already in place.

I digress though, and agree with you that piracy in the work world is bad, and we legally pay for everything we use and we never put pirated software on school computers. that would be a very stupid thing to do. I was complaining how my $30,000 Autodesk package was a huge pain to install because of all the steps they took against piracy, when one could just download the priated version and not have to jump through the hoops.

The devs and companies should get paid, and that is why I don't pirate video games or music. That is also why I don't priate windows or OS X. I load open source Linux when I don't have a license to install and OS on one of my boxes. I even bought a family license for OS X since I have a couple macs. I have used pirated versions of OSes and software only to learn them, I never never install pirated software on a clients computer, never once have I distributed pirated software. However, if someone contacts me and wants to help them out with, lets say an exchange server, I have downloaded pirated versions to learn the software so I can support the client who is paying for it needs support or needs it installed. Also, how can I by myself learn applications when consulting people which I can not afford? I mean lets face it, a book can only teach you so much, hands on is where it is at.

I am not going to argue with you Yellow, over this, I think we just may have varying opinions. Piracy does have positive effects on poor countries, since the software they are pirating they will use once they can afford it, and its not like they could even pay for it in the first place. I used to work with a man from Ghana and he told me over in Africa they priate windows all the time, and now they are starting to become more industrialized, and technology is getting cheaper some people companies are going legit and buying legal copies. They are going with MS because they have used pirated versions for years now, and it is already in place. Microsoft can see the big picture now and knows that even though a lot of their software is pirated in some countries by businesses in the long run it is good for them.

As for farcry, they claimed they were planning on paying the money once they made money, but that is completely debateable and I guess not relevent at this point since nothing can be proved either way. its just one claim versus another.

Oh and one last thing, we also can't afford ghost, so instead of pirating it, I have decided to use an open source solution for imaging over the network on our windows boxes. And it works and I am going to be testing it out soon in a larger enviroment. I have already had many sucessful unicasting test runs with the server i built of Complete open source software.

http://drbl.sourceforge.net

I suspect that there is probiably not a single person on this forum that has never pirated software, knowingly or unknowlingly at some point.

Before you deny it... be honest!

My personal opinion is that Software Piracy (and music piracy and video piracy) wouldn't exist if the greedy companies in charge lowered their prices. If Photoshop was £49 instead of £499 I expect 10 times the amount of people would buy it legit.

Piracy..... shiver me timbers... Gaaa :D

Very well said, and excellent points.

Using pirated software when you own the licenses is not illegal. If I find myself having to install an onerous copy protection scheme, I will simply use a pirated clean copy and shelve the original disc/license. Nothing unscrupulous, unethical, or illegal about that.

I don't know about the 3D programs being discussed, but I have to say that I can't imagine any way to talk intelligently about Photoshop without having used it, and actually done some work in it (I don't produce graphics for pay, but I do play with my own images in PS). There are lots of similar examples.

Never said it was.

yeah well, I install it the legit way for many reasons. for one I have like 7 bosses, and if one of them doesn't like the way I do something, they all will hear about it. After all, i do work for the state, and we are a public school district. Probably one of the more advanced districts I have ever even heard about for a public school system, but even though we have tons of great technology, we always try to stay legit.

I mean we have render farms running Dual 2.0G5s w/ 2gig of ram, on gigabit VLAN with actual render boxes, each box contating 32 processors for the maya render farm. This is a high school I am talking about

Is it Ok for someone else to use your stuff when you're away at school or work, without you knowing it? You're not home anyway, so you're not losing any use of your stuff. Your books, home theater, DVDs, CDs, computer, and anyone you might live with aren't going to wear out if we sit in your home and enjoy them while you're not around. I really think you might want to do society a favor and leave your door unlocked when you're not home. We won't take anything...we promise. You'll never notice.

Mr. Larkin, I hear you're having problems with the cover letters on your TPS Reports.

It's not? And I don't mean that a bit sarcastically, I just don't understand it. I think this happened a while back when I had a scratched Panther install disc, and needed to reinstall the OS. I had the disc in hand, but it didn't work. So i was very unsure if i could simply download a disc image for it and that'd be fine. I just ended up using the restore CD to install Jaguar and when I realized I couldn't live with out exposé, I purchased another copy of Panther off ebay for cheap. Are you guys saying it would have been fine, in that situation, to go ahead and download a pirated disc image of the OS? (disregarding the potential security problems associated with doing that, of course)

And here's another sticky one for you. What if you own the PC version of a game? Can you download a MacOSX copy of it and use the license? My inclination is to say yes, I own the game anyway, right? Same goes for emulating PlayStation games on my computer. That was ruled legal by the Supreme Court as I recall, so long as I own the CD for the game...

This is all very highly debateable since the retraction and revision of the DMCA. At first it was legal to transfer said owned digital property from one medium to another, and now it is changed and it says it is not. Technically speaking the law now states that you can not change the format of digital media you buy, however, this is also highly in debate right now as well. So, really right now we are kind of in legal limbo, and what you think is legal today, may not be even close to legal tomorrow.

LOL, yeah lets just say office space jokes are said around here on a regular basis and for some reason, talking like Arnold Schwarzenegger never gets old, and is always funny.

Photosohp's a bad example. Photoshop Elements is about $70 US, and I bet a lot of people who think they want to pirate Photoshop because it's so expensive wouldn't even exhaust the feature set of Elements.

I think it's all about karma.

Person A uses some software that someone wants to sell but they can get without paying.

Person A then makes something with said software.

Person A now sells what they make with it and thinks it's worth $x.

Person B takes what person A made without paying $x for it.

Person A gets mad.

Karma.

Couldn't agree more.

I think CAlvarez has a pretty good system, where he only pirates software that he dosn't really use.

Im completely open minded on this, I just want to see some other peoples opinion in whats called an argument, not a fight.

Will people quit with this already
stealing software is not the same as stealing all your money, your car, and your guitar!!


tlarkin was talking a small company that made a game on stolen software, Made money off it, and purchased the software afterward.
Really thats a very similar situation im in. Once i go to work in a company that is selling the content made with that application there is no way i will be using an illegal copy.

if thats so, then i agree with you, for most people software piracy is wrong.

But for my situation, where im learning the software, making cool stuff, not selling my work,
its not wrong
do you agree?

Whether its morally right or wrong doesn't matter, it is still illegal. So just don't get caught is my advice to you. Plus lawyers don't target idividuals most of the time (with the exception of the RIAA). I have done it in the past to learn certain applications but not because I use them, but because I have had to support them and honestly I learn best by myself (since I am completely 100% self taught) and after I am done with it I get rid of it. I don't make any profit off of it and have no moral problem with it, though I do know it is illegal.

I think he actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.

I'm not sure if you're asking if it's wrong. I think you're asking if it's OK. It's clearly wrong based on the legal framework. There is no question about that. You sound like you're asking a different question, which is "does it do harm."

It probably doesn't do a lot of harm in your specific situation. But it's a very shaky justification. If you try to argue that piracy is OK because you are a student or because the price is high, then you are stating that it being a student makes it OK to steal, or that it's OK to steal just because you happen to think that a product costs too much. That thinking simply doesn't work in other situations.

If you're learning how to drive, is there any justification for borrowing a car without securing permission? No, because being a student doesn't excuse that.

If you really, really want a Chevy Tahoe but you're $10,000 short of the asking price, it is OK to steal one based on the fact that Chevy builds a $10,000 profit margin into every unit and that you think it's unfair? No, because a high price doesn't justify that.

Some will say "A car is a bad example because something physical is taken." But remember, the question of what harm is done is only one of the two questions. The other questions is whether it is right or wrong regardless of the amount of harm. If you easily do things that are basically wrong, you could be cultivating a mode of thought that can erode your moral judgement elsewhere in life.

No one's a saint; it's really hard to drive within the speed limit on a US highway without being abused by other drivers. But the basic principles and laws are clear enough. I pay for my software and my music and movies, and if I can't afford it, I save up. They're not that important. There is a time to perform illegal acts, but those should be reserved for extreme situations such as the American Revolution or Rosa Parks fighting racism, not relatively inconsequential things like software. You don't want to cultivate a mindset where everyone thinks minor crimes are considered acceptable, because if other people think that, those minor crimes will eventually start happening to you.

yea typed wrong, just fixed it.

How is it not the same?

AKA, read styrafome's last post.

My 2 Cents
 

"I'm learning" is not a good excuse for piracy. With all the open source projects out there I think you could learn all you needed to learn from them.

ALSO: The most important lesson you can learn is integrity. There are a lot of short cuts out there for people to take. But, as you are "learning" you will find that integrity means short cuts are not always your best choice in the long run.

Is it wrong to download a movie or an album you had no intention of buying in the first place, but since you had access to it you go it, and really don't use it that much?

Moral questions do not have solid answers because my morals are probably different than a lot of people in this world. I don't judge someone who downloads things that they normally wouldn't buy. However, if I download an album and like it, I tend to go buy it, and I also tend to go buy it on vinyl since I am a music nerd in a way.

If its something I don't really like, then I just forget about it. Or how about all those CDs that I used to have that have been lost, stolen, or broken. I already paid for them once, why should I pay for them again.

These are all questions that will have different answers from different people. Some people will say yes, others will say no, a majority will be indifferent.

Stealing is stealing, even if it is justified, it is still stealing. however, those anti piracy adds on dvds crack me up. You wouldn't steal a car would you? LMAO you can't compare stealing a car to downloading a dvd. Thats comparing apples and oranges in my mind. They're both fruits but they are both different so you really can't compare them.

thank you!!!

i mean i just dont feel bad about pirating software.
i would feel bad about like stealing someones guitar,
But i dont expect this forum thread to really go into a discussion on morals.

"Good Morals"
 

When it takes a huge amount of effort to justify your actions, it is usually an indication that you have some morals yourself that have triggered a consience...;)

what companys sould do is have it so the free version of flash publishes with a banner at the boddom that says
"MACROMEIDA FLASH TRIAL"
and the trial lasts forever.
so people can learn how to use the software, but if they want to be profseional they need to buy it.

that sounds really fair to me.

That's what you take out of the last two pages of clear, well thought out explanations to your original question?

It really cements the fact that you were only coming here to have a few people say "yeah, it's OK, even though it isn't legal" but didn't get that.

:rolleyes:

I can't speak for "us guys" but I would say that is 100% acceptable, and I can't think of any law broken.

Remember that "legal" or "illegal" still isn't proven in most of the contexts we are talking about. Shrink wrap license agreements have never been proven in court. They may be completely meaningless and non-binding.

There is right, and there is wrong. Sometimes the line between them truly is blurred (what do you call an otherwise honest person who steals food to avoid starvation?) but sometimes the line only seems fuzzy.

It only seems to be reasonable because of intellectual and ethical laziness.

In any other circumstance, would you simply take what you want without paying and claim that seller lost no money because you have no money to give them? Even though you have reduced their inventory?

At the very least, what is lost in the case of software piracy is a return on an investment. If you take something that belongs to somebody else, against their express wishes, no matter what it is, even if it is "just" a return on an investment, they have lost something and you have stolen something.

What if your definition of "needed" differs from theirs? What if you are self employed? What about the software you use at home? Where do you draw the line?

No, you wouldn't. You would be using pirated software before having access to a different copy of the same software. Even if you work for a company that has a legal copy of the same version of the software you used, the developer of the software only got paid for one version.

I was a glassblower (decorative, not recreational, items.) The people who knew the amount of work that went into a piece never questioned the price. For those who didn't, simply describing the three inch natural gas pipe leading to a 2000 degree furnace that ran 24/7 was enough to make them understand. If that wasn't enough, I told them that I invested a lot of time, energy, money, study, and practice to obtain my skills. They were welcome to spend the thousands of hours and many, many thousands of dollars necessary for them to possibly gain the skills required to make their own handblown glass art, but for $50 (or whatever) and a couple of minutes they could have it today.

I can honestly say that I have no pirated software (or music, for that matter.) Because I recognize the effort that goes into bringing a product to the market, I see no justification for piracy. I won't buy software from a developer that has a no return policy on software with no demo version, but I won't test a pirated copy either (although at first glance that seems less unethical, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it.)

Nor would I keep pirated software that I would use only for occasional personal use any more than I would steal a book that I would only read once or twice.

You're only looking for justification, which you won't get from me.

It has been enlightening reading the posts in this thread. I can recall a day, many years past, when I would have applauded stealing (pirating) from corporate 'amerika' and stickin' it to the 'man.'

I stole Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book." It seemed only fitting.

My views have changed radically from those radical years.

When Photoshop CS was out, prior to CS2, I had Photoshop 6 legally running on my powermac G4 running 9.1. I purchased off eBay an upgrade to Photoshop 7. Upon installing I read a hand written note from the seller instructing the purchaser to enter the provided key code, then delete a certain file (I don't remember which) to disable the program's ability to contact Adobe.

To my amazement, I binned the app upon realizing I had purchased a pirated copy. Never would I have done that in a bygone era.

I suppose we have the ability to change our points of view over time.

I'm sorry, but this is getting silly. What made you think this was not going to become a discussion of morals? Isn't stealing a moral issue.

You say you don't feel guilty about stealing software that costs thousands of dollars, and yet you (theoreticaly) feel guilty about stealing my $300 dollar guitar? It makes no sense! Yes, stealing software is just like stealing anything else! Hundreds upon hundreds of hours were put into writing tens of thousands of lines of code and then debugging them. It takes years to put together a program like that! And you don't feel at least a little guilty that you didn't pay them to use it?

Do you want to know why Adobe is losing money when you steal something like Photoshop? Because it never occurs to you to save the money to buy the program, that's why. You figure that since it's pretty easy to pirate that you'll just go ahead and do it. Perhaps if it weren't so easy you'd get together with some friends, save some money, and buy it. But instead you think, "heck, I'm broke, and I'm only learning, so it's okay..." In the process you're taking money from hundreds of programmers who have families to support. Try thinking about them a bit, will ya?

We live in a difficult era, one where property is easy to copy. Trust me, if the "Model T" was something you could duplicate in a matter of ten minutes then this problem would have cropped up and been dealt with a long time ago. We live in a world where people, not corporations, are stealing other peoples work. It used to be that if I wanted to steal the design for a car and do something useful with it, I had to have thousands of machines and employee's to get anything done. Now it just takes a file sharer, some good search skills and a few hours. You know what? If I stole the plans for the Corvette and built replica's that I just gave away, Chevy would sue my pants off and no one here would defend me or say I am morally justified. How is copying software any different? Just because it's easier? Just because you don't think you're going to get caught? Just because you figure, "well it's only me"? Just because so many people do it, so you feel it's socially acceptable? Give me a break. Piracy kills business, so cut it out.

I've said it twice, I'll say it a third time. There are too many free and easily options available for learning to justify piracy. If you want to learn, grab one of those.

Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.

- Barry LePatner

Adobe's astronomical pricing is caused by millions of individuals who pirate Adobe software; that reminds me of the riddle "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

It would seem a much easier solution for Adobe to lower their prices to make software affordable to the masses. It's much more difficult for the masses to organize themselves and make a unified effort to stop pirating so that Adobe might possibly lower prices.

Additionally, Adobe isn't making any regional pricing considerations. Their suites are slightly more expensive in Thailand than they are in the US, yet the average household income here is a fraction of that in the states. They cannot seriously expect to sell their product in a market like this without making some pricing consideration. They are refusing to do that, and we can see the result: Thailand has one of the least apologetic software pirating cultures in the world.

I would have to say that looking at the big picture, Adobe might be very happy to keep their pricing structure in place and to have millions of people pirating their software worldwide. Why? To keep competitors like Lemkesoft out of the global consciousness and off of people's PayPal receipts. Possibly, Adobe's greatest fear is that one day the computing throngs might wake up and see that there are some really good cheap alternatives to their software.

If Adobe wants to be the Louis Vuitton of graphic software, then they are traveling down the correct path. LV also charges a premium for their goods and are heavily pirated. It looks like the same business model to me.

Um, Photoshop Elements?

People aren't being denied air, water, or food here. The masses don't need Adobe software. It is ludicrous to blame a company's pricing structure for one's unethical behavior.

I am not so sure there is a direct cause/effect between piracy and high prices. High prices are high because of basic capitalism. You charge what the market will bear. Adobe is doing very well at the prices they charge. If the prices were really too high, they would not sell enough, and they would have to lower them. Everyone should stop buying it if it really isn't that good for the price.

But they haven't. On the contrary, they are one of the more successful companies. Those buyers who really know, apparently see the value at the price.

Plus, the Adobe tools are intended for professionals. If you aren't doing that kind of work, you don't need them and you have no right to expect them to lower the price just for you. These companies price for people and who can make the purchases pay for themselves and who can (At least in the US) get a tax write-off as a business expense.

Why does a household user need Illustrator? Or Photoshop? (Again, there's Photoshop Elements for very cheap.)

Isn't Apple just as evil because of their pricing of Final Cut Studio and Shake, and the original price of Aperture? What's the deal with Google selling Google Earth Pro for $400?

Ask any musician, photographer, filmmaker, cook, race car driver, construction worker, doctor, etc. If you are a professional, your tools and equipment will be engineered to professional, not household, standards and therefore cannot be cheap. The pros will tell you, if you try to use cheap tools, you will fail. And ask the same people: Where is software cost on the list of expenses compared to other tools? In many cases it will be at or near the bottom. So many quality pro tools (musical instruments and gear, SLRs and lenses, video accessories, the equipment required for car racing, restaurant, construction, medical, etc.) costs $1000 or more, while much software is priced under $1000 with features continuing to rise over time.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is leaving software out of the computer budget. Every time a friend asks me about pricing Macs and PCs I ask them what software they will need. They look at the MacBook thinking $1100 and tell me they need Office and I say "So your budget is $1250?" (they're usually students). If they hadn't thought of that then I say "Well you need to account for that in your budget." It's no different than needing RAM. If it's part of the deal, you'd better budget for it or make some adjustments or you're being unrealistic about your ability to pay for what you want. (We could go into how that's become a bad habit all the way up to the government itself...let's just say it's another bad habit to avoid in our lives.)

Much of the literature I see from Adobe, both print and electronic, is directed toward those whom they call 'the Creative Professional.'

My dad had made his living as a graphic artist in the mostly pre-computer graphics era, 1945 to 1985. Many of the tools of his trade were quite expensive. Drawing tables, light boxes, compressors for air brushes, paper, pens, inks, velum for masking, etc did not come cheaply.

To make his living as a professional, he had to consider that in his budgeting, and in the pricing of the product of his labour.

Would theft on a large scale (comparable to that of software piracy) of this equipment and supplies en route between the manufacturers of the items and the retail sellers of the items, be considered wrong?

Here's a slant along the lines of CAlvarez' - I know a guy (this really is not me) who writes workflows in AppleScript for a number of graphics and publishing operations; an entirely internet operation.

He doesn't own much of the software these companies use and would have to visit them physically to use theirs. He is not himself a graphic artist and doesn't really know much about using the software, but he knows a lot about AppleScript and the dictionaries of those apps. He follows CA's practice. Is he an evil, immoral person with whom I should no longer associate?

It sounds as if these graphics and publishing companies are benefitting from the fellow who is creating applescripts to improve their work flow. He's being paid for his efforts.

By pirating the software for which he is writing workflows, he is keeping his costs down, and therefore is more competitive in the marketplace. This also keeps the costs down for the graphics/publishing companies, which then keeps the price of their products down. This then can be viewed as a good thing. Except that the developers of the software are losing income, as mentioned in previous posts.

It will require a change in consciousness regarding what is considered bad form. The fellow mentioned above is profiting from his pirating despite not using the software to create graphics or to directly publish. With a certain change in viewpoint across our society, there may be pressure for those benefitting, such as the graphics/publishing companies, who are presumably using licensed copies of the software, to provide licensed copies for those who are benefitting them.

One must pay copyright fees for using work created by others, such as photos used by graphic artists in the software about which we're speaking. If one is creating an applescript, if one is creating a full blown major app, if one is creating an advertisement, and using something which is the fruit of someone else's creativity, it is considered proper form to pay for that.

All that said, one need not disassociate oneself from friendship with the aforementioned low life. It's okay to be friends with people who do things we might not consider moral.

Elsewise, lawyers would have no friends, eh?

I don't know about that, but I do think he should charge enough for his services to be able to legally own all of his tools and resources.

As a glassblower, I often took special orders. Because they sometimes interrupted production and often required me to purchase tools and materials that I might never need again, I charged accordingly.

And I, as a consulting engineer, occasionally needed access to software that I wouldn't have ordinarily used myself. I usually tried to arrange to have the company buy a copy for me, borrowed a seat from them if the software license could be transferred to me temporarily, Timbuktued to their machines (I own quite a few licenses for TB2 that I no longer use), etc.

In some cases the SW houses were willing to permit a short-duration trial license for the job either as a regular practice or by persuasion on the phone, so I never had to steal one. Also, as a professor in an Engineering school (now retired), I had access to several programs for which the school had a license (like the AutoDesk suite). Using those for my own gain was as close as I got to cheating, and I rarely did it.

Again thinking about tools and creativity, if you had been a professor in the fine art school, you would have been creating a piece using materials which probably would have been purchased by the school. Would that work be considered your intellectual/creative property, or would it be considered the school's? My fuzzy old brain is trying to think of instances, usually involving research I think, but also of material objects, where the school has retained the intellectual property rights/ownership rather than those who created 'the whatchamacallit.'

You'll find that that's quite variable from school to school, it certainly was in the three universities I taught at. If the "intellectual property" is funded by a research agency, they and the university share rights with you the inventor/composer/artist/author. If the work is unsponsored, but done on University premises and/or on their time, it's supposed to be shared with them. If done on your own time with your own materials, it's yours -- those conditions being a bit fuzzy vis-a-vis software or drafting tables, etc.

I'm a bit confused, as to some of these posts in this thread.

Anyway, I forget what the URL to the news article was, but a person recently sued OpenOffice, using GIMP and Firefox as examples of free programs to 'compete' with 'paid' software...

I'm not sure if there is a lawsuit, but googling openoffice and lawsuit brought up these urls:

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/articl...40914141417417

http://beranger.org/index.php?fullarticle=1945

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl...38229&from=rss

It would be a shame if micro$oft can scuttle the openoffice project.

This seems to be fodder for a whole new thread.

im all for "Ethical egoism" as Wikipedia calls it.
Ethical egoism
Self interest for sure.

not sure if anyone wants to rant about morals, but if im up for it if anyone does.

Do you believe it justifies piracy software piracy? According to some of it's adherents it might not. From the Wikipedia page -

This philosophy in any variation is too similar to amoralism for me to accept it as valid. This is not a conclusion based on religion - I do not believe religion to be a prerequisite for morality.

Your rationalizations for software piracy are logically fallacious as well as morally misguided.

Been there, done that. ;)

I think we'll avoid that discussion.

To slightly play devil's advocate...Adobe has taken one great stride in their licensing agreements. I first noticed it in CS2, but perhaps it was started before then.

Basically, if you have a legit copy of CS2 on your computer at work, you can legally install it (the same license of course) on your home computer also. The only requirement is that both copies are not run at the same time. I'm not sure how this works with a Corporate Licenseing package since it uses one number for everyone.

At least Adobe has taken one step towards doing the practical thing. They realize, or heard enough feedback, that creative professionals are working from home a lot and don't feel like spending the money for a "spare" copy.

I understand there are alternatives, and so does Adobe...but this is a customer-centric policy they never had to implement. This old thread has more info. And no, I don't work for them. I did in the past...but that was a long time ago

Personally I feel the software piracy laws are working just fine. It's somewhat of a "equal reaction" to the level of theft. Software companies know that piracy is rampant in universities. Unlike the RIAA they have a drop of warm blood, and don't target them. *I Think* they realize that a) students are going to support their software in the future, b) students don't have much money, 3) students aren't making a profit from the use of the software...with exceptions of course...but even then they aren't making gobs and gobs of money like Chiat/Day.

Accordingly most software piracy shakedowns are Joe Schmoes selling Windows Vista and Brokeback Mountain DVDs out of their trunk. I've never heard of an individual being busted for downloading Photoshop from LimeWire.

Timbuktu works the same way. You can have copies of the original spread all over your LAN, but when you open a client, it checks to see that no other client with the same serial number is open at the same time. Quite handy unless someone has left a copy running and you have to find it.

Contextual morality?
 

.
I remember when I studied art, I used a considerable amount of my money to purchase some of the best drawing and watercolour paper available. There’s a huge difference between first-rate and second-rate.

Today my philosophy is simple: I pay for all the tools I use to generate income. I also make a point of purchasing software that gives me and my kids significant recreational pleasure.

On the other hand, I readily admit to having had PhotoShop installed on my Mac at one point, albeit for the express purpose of opening PhotoShop files that should have been PDFs. That’s gone. Besides, I learned that there were alternative ways to open the files in question. Where? Right here, thanks to the good advice of a long-time Forum member.

It does seem to me that Adobe is, indeed, pursuing a sensible user-centric policy.

University students with low budgets may be an exception. I certainly don’t think that should be denounced as piracy bleeding away good profits. In fact I’m convinced that software developing comanies will eventually earn a nice return as students addicted to good software turn professional and pay for their tools. Microsoft seems to practice a similar policy in developing countries. That, too, is sensible and in the long term self-serving.

So I do think there is something to be said for context here. Not much, but something... :cool: