Can A Pirated Copy of GB Effect its Performance?

[arogge]

You're right, a licensing agreement which you click is not like a real contract. It is a real contract. Legal, binding, and enforcible.

And then there's contract law. A contract has some basic requirements. All parties involved must:

Be serious about entering into a contract;
Be able to enter into a contract - must be legally-competent;
Be given due consideration;
Be agreeing to legal purposes or terms.

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

 

[arogge]

"I have no idea what you're actually copying. What you've talked about copying (hypothetically) and what you said you wished to copy are titles in which this is a no-no (Mac OS X, iLife, Studio MX)."

I never talked about wanting to pirate Studio MX, and everything else was to be for my use only and hasn't actually been copied yet. The software I do copy and distribute publically is Open Source.

"So let me see if I get this: Say you give copies of Studio MX to 4 of your friends. You're saying that Macromedia's loss is the cost of the media only?"

No, Macromedia loses no money because I use my resources to make the copies. If those people intended to buy Studio MX, then Macromedia would lose potential sales, which are not the same as actual sales. This is a big mistake some people make on financial statements. You can't count future earnings estimates as actual earnings.

"I see what you're saying about production costs vs. bulk costs, but I can't help but want to divide the bulk costs to determine how many units need to be sold at a given price to make up those costs. They won't cover costs selling software for the cost of the media. There's a reason Studio MX costs $900. How do you explain this?"

An offical explanation from the company is that the software is targeted for the professional production market. It is not recommended for personal or non-profit use. Macromedia makes an educational version available at a reduced price for such purposes. The price of the product does not reflect piracy, and anti-piracy schemes that are included in the software now will not cause the company to reduce the price of the product. The people who usually buy Studio MX are making a profit through the use of the software, and the price is fair and reasonable to the buyers in those commercial markets.

 

[jxyama]

Hey jxyama what software company do you work for?

i don't work for a software company nor am i a software developer.

i just happen to have certain (strong) beliefs in regards to software piracy.

 

[jxyama]

And then there's contract law. A contract has some basic requirements. All parties involved must:

Be serious about entering into a contract;
Be able to enter into a contract - must be legally-competent;
Be given due consideration;
Be agreeing to legal purposes or terms.

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

two points:

1) unless the invalidity of EULA for a particular product has been proven in court, it stands. (i believe some may have been questioned in court.)

2) since software companies are the copyright holders, you do not have the right to do whatever you want just because EULA is not enforceable. if EULA is not legal, unenforceable, etc., you are supposed to not just use the product, much less pirate it.

i do commend you for at least contacting the companies to see if you can get a more agreeable licensing - however, companies aren't usually negotiable, as you found out.

 

[jxyama]

would you, arogge, demand that you be allowed to ride a commercial plane for free if there is an empty/unsold seat and you "offered" to provide your own drinks and food? (and not watch any movies or use the restroom, for the sake of this argument.)

afterall, the seat would have remained empty for the duration of the flight anyway (so the airline doesn't lose anything), adding your weight to the airplane will cost next to nothing in fuel and you won't be costing them any drinks or food or other amenities.

and to make the matter better for the airline, you may choose to use the airline more in the future if you have a pleasant trip! so the airline will see money from you in the future that may have gone to another airline!

is it unreasonable for airline to deny you a free seat that costs them nothing?

 

[Horrortaxi]

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

Funny, I think it meets all the criteria of a contract. We seem to have a disagreement. When there is a legal disagreement, where is it resolved? In court or in Arogge's mind?

Edit: You talk a lot about "non-profit" use. I just want to make sure we agree on terms. Do you mean that use of the software won't generate income for you, or it's used in a non-profit organization? If it's the latter, you can get software dirt cheap--and often free.

 

[tomf87]

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

If it's not legally binding, then why do people get sued, and lose the case, when they copy tons of software? It's happened before.

Also, under that same argument, if it is not legally binding, why did you bother asking manufacturers to change their EULA's when it didn't suit your needs. Actually I think that's actually a dumb thought, because huge companies aren't going to modify a general purpose EULA for one person because they don't agree with it. And I don't think any company is going to worry over one sale.

 

[mvc]

Arrrgh me hearties, avast…

i don't work for a software company nor am i a software developer.

i just happen to have certain (strong) beliefs in regards to software piracy.

Hey Jxyama, do you ever download music from p2p networks? Ever?

 

[jxyama]

Hey Jxyama, do you ever download music from p2p networks? Ever?

nope... i've never downloaded any music from p2p. (i've used iTMS once.)

i was in europe without a computer when the napster craze was going full force... so i never got into it.

even if i did illegal downloads, i wouldn't justify it to myself as if i'm doing artists/recording labels a favor... or to think there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Jimong5]

IMHO I don't think pirating is ever acceptable. Would you mind someone stealing your car for the day as long as they brought it back?

Car Dealers do it all the time. Its called a test drive. I've never used Garage Band, Apple offers no demo/Trial, and I don't have an easily accessible method of going to try it out. (I can drive 30 minutes to the apple store and play with it, but thats not enough to evaluate well enough and justify a purchase) And why blow $50 on something i won't use? as long as you aren't profiting on the software, I don't see the problem with taking it to learn/get used to the program before you spend the money on it. 30 day trials aren't even enough, because you only start getting used to the thing and then it expires on you. but once you decide you want the thing, you buy it. But to look at, there isn't much of a problem to me.

 

[jxyama]

Car Dealers do it all the time. Its called a test drive. I've never used Garage Band, Apple offers no demo/Trial, and I don't have an easily accessible method of going to try it out. (I can drive 30 minutes to the apple store and play with it, but thats not enough to evaluate well enough and justify a purchase) And why blow $50 on something i won't use? as long as you aren't profiting on the software, I don't see the problem with taking it to learn/get used to the program before you spend the money on it. 30 day trials aren't even enough, because you only start getting used to the thing and then it expires on you. but once you decide you want the thing, you buy it. But to look at, there isn't much of a problem to me.

when car dealers let you test drive, they set the terms for how they let you test drive. you didn't decide for them that they should let you test drive and you cannot because you don't own the cars.

it's up to the owner of the property to decide whether or not you can test it. you don't have some sort of inherent right to test whatever you want just because you want to. the only reason you can even "test" software is because it's a copyable. it's still a property and i believe right of the owners should be respected.

if someone other than the property owner can determine whether or not testing should be allowed, then can i borrow your computer while i learn from it? yeah, you own it, but i've decided for myself that i'd like to test drive your computer.

if you "test" without the owner's consent, it's called "theft." car dealers give you consent to test their property. if i take your computer as a "test" without your consent, i've "stolen" your computer. geez...

all these arguments are not about what's possible and what's not in real life. of course you can pirate. of course you can take software for unlimied testing by copying, with minimal costs to you. it's about principles and respect.

 

[arogge]

"If it's not legally binding, then why do people get sued, and lose the case, when they copy tons of software? It's happened before."

People get sued and lose because they don't have a very good case or have bad representation. There are several cases in which the EULA has been called illegal and unenforceable by a court. A EULA is more enforceable when combined with illegal activities such as large pirating operations that sell software for a profit or a company that violates a real contract regarding software and services provided.

"Also, under that same argument, if it is not legally binding, why did you bother asking manufacturers to change their EULA's when it didn't suit your needs."

The introduction of more restrictions would have caused problems. I requested that the old license be used and the copy protection be removed. I wasn't going to break the scheme so that I could use the software occasionally. The company obviously didn't want the sale.

"Actually I think that's actually a dumb thought, because huge companies aren't going to modify a general purpose EULA for one person because they don't agree with it. And I don't think any company is going to worry over one sale."

Smaller companies are more agreeable because they want more sales and will change prices or terms to make the sale.

 

[arogge]

"Funny, I think it meets all the criteria of a contract. We seem to have a disagreement."

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/martin.htm

You need to learn about real contracts before you can decide if something is legal. A EULA that makes unreasonable demands is illegal. If I open the software box and find that I don't agree with the license, I'm supposed to return the entire package to the store for a refund. But many retailers refuse to accept opened packages. If I don't know about the license before purchasing the software, there is no reasonable way to comply with that EULA, therefore the license can be made invalid. In Apple's case, the company did not provide any terms as a condition of purchase. When I opened the box, I found the EULA. Apple's license is actually not very restrictive when compared with those of other companies, and it can allow for multiple uses.

"You talk a lot about "non-profit" use. I just want to make sure we agree on terms. Do you mean that use of the software won't generate income for you, or it's used in a non-profit organization? If it's the latter, you can get software dirt cheap--and often free."

A non-profit use is any non-commercial use, which is a condition specified by many companies that allow users to download their software for free if the software isn't going to be used in any commercial setting.

 

[hulugu]

Nice try, but no cigar...

Car Dealers do it all the time. Its called a test drive. I've never used Garage Band, Apple offers no demo/Trial, and I don't have an easily accessible method of going to try it out. (I can drive 30 minutes to the apple store and play with it, but thats not enough to evaluate well enough and justify a purchase) And why blow $50 on something i won't use? as long as you aren't profiting on the software, I don't see the problem with taking it to learn/get used to the program before you spend the money on it. 30 day trials aren't even enough, because you only start getting used to the thing and then it expires on you. but once you decide you want the thing, you buy it. But to look at, there isn't much of a problem to me.

Nope, a test drive and going to the Apple store is the same thing. When you test drive a Jeep do you take it four-wheeling? Or take the mini-van to the grocery store or a truck to the hardware store and fill it up with bags of concrete? Nope. Nyet.
Instead you drive it around for 20-30 minutes, adjust the seats, marvel at the radio, blather with the car salesman, and take right turns. Furthermore, the test drive is a service, software companies are under no obligation to extend the same courtesy. Some do, in the case of a 30-day trial which is significantly more than the average test-drive.
Besides, a software pirate may have every intention of paying but 99% just forget about it, so there's no good reason for a company to give out free versions without any kind of 'trial' systems built-in.
I still say that software piracy is the simple inability to see IP as something of value because of its ephemeral qualities.

 

[jxyama]

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/martin.htm

um, those are public comments. just because it's on the ftc website doesn't make it any more "official"... the guy's not a lawyer or anything...

I still say that software piracy is the simple inability to see IP as something of value because of its ephemeral qualities.

agreed.

and with that, i think i'm finally done here. it's been kinda fun, i guess, but i think both sides are just expressing the same point. that gets kind of tiring after a while...

have a good rest of the week everyone.

 

[arogge]

"it's up to the owner of the property to decide whether or not you can test it. you don't have some sort of inherent right to test whatever you want just because you want to. the only reason you can even "test" software is because it's a copyable. it's still a property and i believe right of the owners should be respected."

This leads to something called intellectual property rights, a new legal field that will take many years to define. I also have rights under fair-use, which prevent a copyright owner from making unreasonable demands. Do you watch television? Did you know that some organizations consider the act of ignoring the commercials stealing. Because the commercials are part of the program, you are stealing if you don't watch and listen to the commercials. Do you buy music CDs? What if you opened a non-returnable CD and found that it would only play if you used Microsoft Windows? What if a CD has a license restriction that limited your use of it to 20 uses, and you must run the entire CD - listing to part of it will count as one use; after 20 uses, the CD won't work anymore. If you bought a DVD movie, would you accept restrictions limiting you to watching it only between certain hours or would you like it if the disc wouldn't read 2 days after opening the package? Do you ever record television programs for later viewing? That's stealing too, because the broadcast company only intended for them to be viewed at those particular times. What your kind of blind attitude will do is make these types of restrictions even more common.

"if someone other than the property owner can determine whether or not testing should be allowed, then can i borrow your computer while i learn from it? yeah, you own it, but i've decided for myself that i'd like to test drive your computer."

Based on your personal attacks and bad attitude? No, you may not. But pretty much anyone local who asks may use my computer. The good part about doing this for Microsoft users is that after they try it, they want Linux too. I have guest accounts set up for different tasks like operating system demos and games. I can also bring a desktop unit to other people and let them try it for a day or so.

 

[arogge]

Nope, a test drive and going to the Apple store is the same thing. When you test drive a Jeep do you take it four-wheeling? Or take the mini-van to the grocery store or a truck to the hardware store and fill it up with bags of concrete? Nope.

You've never been able to do an off-road test drive? I have some local dealers who want people to take the vehicles off-road, and even offer an area to try it. I met a customer at another dealership who was encouraged to take an SUV across the street to go shopping. He did and brought it back about an hour later; he then bought the vehicle.

 

[Horrortaxi]

It's been nice chatting with you, arogge, but for my own sanity I have to stop now.

 

[tomf87]

I agree with you, HorrorTaxi. It's like talking to a tape recorder, so I am stopping too.

 

[hulugu]

You've never been able to do an off-road test drive? I have some local dealers who want people to take the vehicles off-road, and even offer an area to try it. I met a customer at another dealership who was encouraged to take an SUV across the street to go shopping. He did and brought it back about an hour later; he then bought the vehicle.

That's very cool, I think a Jeep dealership in Phoenix does that, but the trails are dirt tracks with small rock beds, not a true test at all, but one to give you a least the feel.
But, I hope you understand my point, the dealer is not under any obligation to do this, they do it because it makes sales; software is similar.
I actually think the 30-day system and the Personal Learning Editions are great options for software companies to use.
Intellectual Property is the ability of the copywrite holder to maintain their rights to something they have created, this includes the financial aspects of such a work and the holder can retain these rights for a specific and limited period.
Fair-use is the ability for a consumer of copywrited work to retain this work for their personal use and enjoyment and extends only to copies or versions held in their personal possession. Anything beyond that is a subversion of these two rights.
These two systems should be balanced on the fulcrum of technological progress
'Nuff said.

 

[arogge]

hulugu

"But, I hope you understand my point, the dealer is not under any obligation to do this, they do it because it makes sales; software is similar."

A software company is similar, and I still say a lack of a reasonable deal means no sale. I don't understand why some people believe that software CDs are worth much of anything if they're sitting on a shelf. A software company should be willing to sell to different markets at different prices, something that Microsoft is trying now. The companies that have refused my business have lost money and saved no money. This simple fact is obviously beyond the understanding of some users and many marketing departments. Software discs are only worth something if people want them. I can plan a budget for and make 100 copies of Windows-based software for sale, but if I can't distribute the CDs right away they're costing me because I have to store them somewhere. It might only cost me a few cents to make a new CD that contains a version for a different platform, and I'd do that to get another customer instead of demanding lots more money and lose a sale as a result. I'm not saving money by letting media, with software that will quickly become obsolete, sit on a shelf. I'd want to move those CDs and get them into the hands of people who want them at any price, because a happy customer is usually a repeat customer. A car dealership can make deals, so why can't more software companies do the same thing?

"I actually think the 30-day system and the Personal Learning Editions are great options for software companies to use."

The 30-day trials aren't good at all, especially when they expire after only a few hours. Maya PLE is a good idea. I can try it and learn how to use it before buying it for commercial use, except that it only runs on OS X or Microsoft Windows 2000 and XP Professional.

"Fair-use is the ability for a consumer of copywrited work to retain this work for their personal use and enjoyment and extends only to copies or versions held in their personal possession. Anything beyond that is a subversion of these two rights.
These two systems should be balanced on the fulcrum of technological progress"

Now that I can agree with.
There is a big push for Open Source software in regions that were previously dominated by commercially-licensed software. Microsoft didn't get popular in Asia by selling software at full price, and now that Linux is there Microsoft doesn't like the competition. It's hard to compete with free stuff, even when you're a monopolist. A weird thing about Open Source software is that it can gain value if it is copied and distributed for free. For every new OpenOffice.org, Linux, or other free software package that is installed, Open Source becomes more popular and the demand increases. If certain companies continue to stick to their small markets by keeping prices high, Open Source will eventually dominate their old markets. My local computer store used to have Microsoft boxes taking up an entire set of shelves. Now that's been moved over to a smaller section and the old Microsoft display is now a big Linux software display combined with Open Source software promotions. People are buying what is really free software because they're getting more than a CD and a little instruction booklet inside the boxes.

 

[arogge]

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115251,tk,dn031804X,00.asp

 

[hulugu]

Agree to disagree on priacy, but OpenSource good stuff!

Now that I can agree with.
There is a big push for Open Source software in regions that were previously dominated by commercially-licensed software. Microsoft didn't get popular in Asia by selling software at full price, and now that Linux is there Microsoft doesn't like the competition. It's hard to compete with free stuff, even when you're a monopolist. A weird thing about Open Source software is that it can gain value if it is copied and distributed for free. For every new OpenOffice.org, Linux, or other free software package that is installed, Open Source becomes more popular and the demand increases. If certain companies continue to stick to their small markets by keeping prices high, Open Source will eventually dominate their old markets. My local computer store used to have Microsoft boxes taking up an entire set of shelves. Now that's been moved over to a smaller section and the old Microsoft display is now a big Linux software display combined with Open Source software promotions. People are buying what is really free software because they're getting more than a CD and a little instruction booklet inside the boxes.

I mean IP beyond even software, but nonetheless Open Source is easily the best thing that's happened to the zeitgeist of the computer market since the first Mac. The simple idea that not only can you have a true Personal Computer—I don't understand how IBM and x86 got such a hold of that term—but that you can now build software for it and then distribute that software under your own terms is quite amazing. OpenOffice is going to be my next Office Suite for sure—I would already but I was turned off by needing to run X11, etc., I'm going to wait for a true installer—and GIMP is getting very cool and is beginning to compete with the monolithic Adobe. The shear amount of shareware, etc. that exists out there now, much of it is actually quite good. Even something as powerful as Konfabulator or Salling Clicker come from little guys and while they ask that you pay for their software I don't mind shelling out a few bucks to help a developer. I like paying for good products because it allows me to vote with my pocketbook; I buy products I like, or companies I have faith in. And that allows me to do so on a interpersonal level that really starts to matter. Since Apple has done so much to help me to the things I want to do I don't mind shelling out 50.00 for iLife or 99.00 for .Mac because these things are very useful to me. I worry, especially in the case of Apple, that if enough people pirate their software they must stop development and
now we're all screwed because someone tried to cheat the system; it's the Prisoner's Dilemma and the only way to win this game is for everyone to play by the rules.
And, I mean everyone; I'm talking to you Bill! Yeah, you the geeky billionaire with the same bowl haircut—I mean come'on he could buy an Enzo for every day of the year and he still can't get anything better than a trip to Supercuts!
I hate that guy.

 

[hulugu]

I'll see your link and raise you another

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115251,tk,dn031804X,00.asp

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/lessig.html

The RIAA, the MPAA, Eisner's Disney, et. al have defamed the right of intellectual property into a gordian knot of bombastic legalistic arguments that use Copywrite as a placard for profit. As much damage as they have done to it, it's still a good thing, and while I realize why people continue to push in the opposite direction—such is their nature—I hope they don't completely eliminate the right of IP. I'm a writer too, and if people don't pay me for my work, ultimately I can't buy food with good feelings. There is a third-way.

 

[aslauga]

(deleted as all points were mentioned elsewhere)