Do people pirate software for the Mac?

[dukebound85]

So, me giving a list of definitions that are much more in depth than your own (not to mention more accurate), my definitions are at fault. Please, that's a poor argument.

Yes, you are name-calling, and being quite rude. I've been trying to keep this to a civil discussion, and there is no reason to get nasty about it. Your defensiveness on this point proves your guilt. Anyways, yes, name-calling. I've never called anybody a rapist that has been found guilty of rape, actually. I'd suffice it for you to call me a "thief" if you could prove I steal. But you can't call me a thief nor an infringer, actually.

How is it name calling to label those what they are

a thief is one who steals

a rapist is one who rapes

hardly name calling as its the very definition of the action

persecution complex perhaps?

Maybe I have missed something but there has been no nastiness or rudeness in this thread...

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Yes, it's a license, but when someone pays for the license, it's a bit different.

Instances of EULA infringment isn't the same as content infringement, as the first though paid for, butts heads with a specific use (machine vendor), rather than the latter, which is content aquired with no payment, or paid for, but distributed without an arrangement. In the aspect of content (music, movies,...), there are cases which establish the legal definitions.

Unlike in the case of Apple's EULA. it's sticky, None of the hardware is distinct in it's IP for functionality, as it's all based on standards or IP owned by other companies (specifically the silicon components), and has never been challenged in this manner in a legal setting. So far, this issue is unresolved, unless there's a ruling on the Apple v. Psystar case I've missed. This issue really belongs in another thread.

I completely agree with you. However hackintosh installs plain and simple infringe on Apple's IP and "take money out of their hands" Apple has a right to dictate what you can and cannot do with their IP, just as content producers can dictate how many copies you can make of your Switchfoot album, or which TVs you can watch your Blu-Ray copy of The Dark Knight on.

 

[dukebound85]

I completely agree with you. However hackintosh installs plain and simple infringe on Apple's IP and "take money out of their hands" Apple has a right to dictate what you can and cannot do with their IP, just as content producers can dictate how many copies you can make of your Switchfoot album, or which TVs you can watch your Blu-Ray copy of The Dark Knight on.

This hackintosh argument is quite the red herring

It is not in the same realm as one can walk into Apple and buy the OS and leave without buying a computer.

To equate that to taking software without paying for it is asinine

 

[kryptonianjorel]

How is it name calling to label those what they are

a thief is one who steals

a rapist is one who rapes

hardly name calling as its the very definition of the action

persecution complex perhaps?

Maybe I have missed something but there has been no nastiness or rudeness in this thread...

A thief steals, a rapist rapes. A piracy sympathizer is not a thief. Its rude and nasty to refer to me, and those who also argue my point, but do not infringe, thiefs. It's equivalent to calling "Bush-haters" unpatriotic.

This hackintosh argument is quite the red herring

It is not in the same realm as one can walk into Apple and buy the OS and leave without buying a computer.

To equate that to taking software without paying for it is asinine

False. You may only install Mac OS on an Apple computer, and by not doing so, you are depriving Apple from a sale (as the theft argument begins) of hardware. Apple sells OS X separately as a courtesy to users who have already purchased an Apple computer.

 

[LizKat]

~snip~ Anyways, thank God that news can not be copyrighted, else we'd be in the same mess with the other licensing industries.

"News" itself of course cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation of it to the world most certainly can be and is, every day. Look at the bottom of any news piece you print, or the Copyright link on a news site's home page.

Let's take the copyright statement from Reuters, for example:

All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.​

They're not saying they have a lock on the fact that some dude carted a facsimile bomb into a New York airport yesterday. They are saying that you may not distribute their particular reportage of it without their express permission.

And, if they catch you, you will find out they mean it. And, they as well as the Associated Press are getting damn tired of people not bothering. So, pretty soon people like me who like to read Reuters news or AP news will have to pay for it or settle for hosted content that is selected from AP by the host, and that in turn will get a new and improved price tag stuck on it. The free ride time is coming to an end. It's worth it, so I will do it. I will subtract something from my ever shrinking Chinese food budget (it must be in the red by now) and subscribe to Reuters news or AP news.

But I will be somewhat resentful of all the lazy&zz bloggers who have copped stuff from Reuters and AP without asking all along, and who have brought things to this end. It is those bloggers' assumption that "information is free" and their passing it on and acting as if it cost nothing to acquire, that makes you think "news" is free. When the real providers get tired enough of being plagiarized or having their copyright abused, then the world of "free" info will be exposed for what it actually is: pretty inadequate. After all, a lot of them have nothing to say in between what they hope are "fair use" quotes from actual news providers.

It's the abuse of copyright that is causing these content providers to start charging for the right to read their content instead of just asking people to respect their copyright statements. After all, they are compensated now by newspapers that subscribe to various tiers of AP or Reuters coverage. It's the rest of the freeloading planet that is causing these upcoming corrals to be constructed.

 

[dukebound85]

A thief steals, a rapist rapes. A piracy sympathizer is not a thief. Its rude and nasty to refer to me, and those who also argue my point, but do not infringe, thiefs. It's equivalent to calling "Bush-haters" unpatriotic.

The entire impression you have created in this thread is that you are a pirate....

I have to ask if you sympathize and have no issue with it and as you said, easy, why don't you pirate?

 

[nanofrog]

I completely agree with you. However hackintosh installs plain and simple infringe on Apple's IP and "take money out of their hands" Apple has a right to dictate what you can and cannot do with their IP, just as content producers can dictate how many copies you can make of your Switchfoot album, or which TVs you can watch your Blu-Ray copy of The Dark Knight on.

Where I see the difference, is in content issues (piracy), there's legal precedents that establish the limitations.

In Apple's EULA, it's not. Your argument is based on the presumption that the license is in fact valid, when it may very well not be. But its never come under direct fire in the legal system, and hasn't been reviewed to determine if it's valid or not. So it's presumption vs. known to me.

Apple's fought like mad to keep it out of the courts due to the potential aftermath, and as a guess, will try to hold up the legal proceedings with Psystar as long as possible, in the hopes they will finally disappear before the final court date. They've already filed for bankruptcy once already.

 

[Wondercow]

So, me giving a list of definitions that are much more in depth than your own (not to mention more accurate), my definitions are at fault. Please, that's a poor argument.

That's not what I said at all. What I said is that the Concise Oxford is edited for content, including the definitions. It's a statement of fact, nothing more. Now, if you really think that the Concise edition is "much more in depth than your own (not to mention more accurate)" then you quite obviously know nothing about this set of dictionaries. Not to mention that even if a given definition comes 50th in the list it is still an applicable definition, it's just not the most common.

Yes, you are name-calling, and being quite rude.

Please cite.

I've been trying to keep this to a civil discussion, and there is no reason to get nasty about it

Please cite.

Your defensiveness on this point proves your guilt

I see: Innocent until proven guilty, and defence is proof of guilt. Please cite my overwhelming defensiveness.

Anyways, yes, name-calling. I've never called anybody a rapist that has been found guilty of rape, actually

Does that make them not a rapist?

I'd suffice it for you to call me a "thief" if you could prove I steal. But you can't call me a thief nor an infringer, actually

As I've already said I only called you a thief because you implied that you are: "I've never "taken" a movie, song, or any content that can be infringed upon. Its the difference between taking and copying." If you've never pirated anything it doesn't change the fact that you implied that you have. On the other hand if you've pirated and you're saying "don't call me a thief because I've pirated (or "copied") but not stolen" then you are a thief and all references support this.

As for the hindsight, I misspoke. It's quite easy to boast claims about the defender's of piracy's arguments when you don't cite their arguments. It's a very, very poor exaggeration.

I don't follow this; are you implying that I haven't cited your arguments?

 

[kryptonianjorel]

The entire impression you have created in this thread is that you are a pirate....

I have to ask if you sympathize and have no issue with it and as you said, easy, why don't you pirate?

It's Illegal? I don't want to be sued (even though the chance is so small) because the court costs would be astronomical.

To Nanofrog: Well, the thing is, if the Apple EULA doesn't hold up, it will be chaos for everyone in the software industry. Chances are that the court wouldn't strike down one specific clause of it, but would expell them all as bunk stating that, in fact, you're selling copies of the software, not a license. We could go on and on about possible ramifications, and even other theoretical rulings, but lets not.

It was just to point out that those who find moral issues with piracy must also find moral issues with hackintosh, as two products are being used against their owners wishes, and loses their owner money. The hackintosh argument is absurd, just like all IP arguments.

Nanofrog, thank you for being a good sport, and for having a polite, thoughtful discussion.

I apologize for helping hijack this thread, so I bid you, goodbye

 

[Wondercow]

It's Illegal? I don't want to be sued (even though the chance is so small) because the court costs would be astronomical

If kryptonianjorel is gone that's fine, this will stand for anyone else who stumbles across this thread:

The idea that pirating (or anything else that results in a lawsuit) isn't illegal is ludicrous. Courts can only entertain disputes that are a matter of law. The court can only impose punishment for a violation of law, even in matters of equity. The wrong that has been done to one party must be something that is recognized in the corpus of law.

For copyright infringement the broken laws are contained within whatever copyright law exists in a given jurisdiction and the court-imposed punishment—the relief to the other party—is the monetary penalty.

 

[nanofrog]

To Nanofrog: Well, the thing is, if the Apple EULA doesn't hold up, it will be chaos for everyone in the software industry. Chances are that the court wouldn't strike down one specific clause of it, but would expell them all as bunk stating that, in fact, you're selling copies of the software, not a license. We could go on and on about possible ramifications, and even other theoretical rulings, but lets not.

As I understand it, the court could rule on specific language. I would expect this actually, in order to prevent the total chaos that would ensue if they invalidated all EULA's on principle. That would be a total mess.

It was just to point out that those who find moral issues with piracy must also find moral issues with hackintosh, as two products are being used against their owners wishes, and loses their owner money. The hackintosh argument is absurd, just like all IP arguments.

Unfortunately, some laws do exist that cover IP issues (the DRM of 1998 for example), despite how biased they are towards corporations (beyond reasonable protection). Particularly since the governement is supposed to be for the people, not at their expense.

Nanofrog, thank you for being a good sport, and for having a polite, thoughtful discussion.

I apologize for helping hijack this thread, so I bid you, goodbye

NP.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Its funny how you list YouTube and Hulu, two content providers that do not charge the consumer a dime. Their revenue is via advertisements, and it is a business model that seems to be working for them.

YouTube is estimated to lose a few hundred million dollars in 2009, they've never been a profitable company and they probably never will be a profitable company unless they drastically change who and what they are. Hulu is a glimmer of hope for an ad supported model on the web even though it hasn't turned a profit yet. You have to keep in mind though that the shows on Hulu rake in TV ad revenue as well as DVD sales. If the shows were completely dependent on Hulu to make money they'd pretty much all be cancelled in short order due to lack of funding.

Would you use YouTube if they charged $.99 to view a video? I sure wouldn't, because I find no monetary value in the content, or at least a value that is so low, it's probably not worth charging.

No one would which is why YouTube is ad supported. But companies largely don't want to put their ads on YouTube for the same reason no one would pay to watch YouTube hence the company being a money-sucking vortex. I can only imagine how much more in the hole YouTube would be if they actually had to pay for all the content they distribute on their site.

When outlets could control distribution of content, they controlled the pricing (buy the record or do without) but that isn't the case anymore. The business model is old and tired, and entrepreneurs are up and coming with new ideas (like Radiohead's pick your price).

Radiohead and NIN could only do what they did because they made a ton of money and built a massive, global fan base using the 'old and tired' business model.

All content has a cost, yes, but as a society, we're moving away from being the ones who pay it

Well someone's gotta pay for it otherwise it's going to go away and all we are going to be left with is Mentos+Diet Coke.


Lethal

 

[Eraserhead]

There is nothing I (or anyone else) can do to stop you downloading software for free but to argue that it isn't immoral/wrong (especially if you can afford to buy the software) is ********.

 

[SpeedFleX]

It's funny how people seem to worry about pirates all the time instead of trying to take care of the loyal customer who do pay, that is what programmers should focus on... Make a better experience intergrate it with a website for example where you can download things that make the software better.... Make it a full experience when buying it Legally...

So many companys shoot themselves in the face with ****** DRM themes that just makes the consumer feel like an idiot for giving them their hard earned cash.

When pirated copies of software are easier to install then legally bought ones, you have the ask yourself that maybe your investing to much time fighting off something that you won't win, invest in winning the hearts and your wallets will get bigger.

So the real questions is: Do people buy software for the Mac? If it is still yes well then that is who you want to be friends of, instead of making them enemies

 

[brad.c]

In the traditional sense, aren't pirates simply thieves with boats?

 

[The General]

In the traditional sense, aren't pirates simply thieves with boats?

Yes, but they steal actual physical objects that exist in the natural world. They don't copy 1s and 0s arranged in a certain order without permission.

 

[brad.c]

Yes, but they steal actual physical objects that exist in the natural world. They don't copy 1s and 0s arranged in a certain order without permission.

Then perhaps software "pirates" would do better than to name themselves after thieves, if the semantics matter.

 

[dukebound85]

Yes, but they steal actual physical objects that exist in the natural world. They don't copy 1s and 0s arranged in a certain order without permission.

Aren't physical objects merely atoms arranged in a certain order

Stop justifying it as it can't be justified no matter how you slice it

 

[Wondercow]

Aren't physical objects merely atoms arranged in a certain order

 

[SpeedFleX]

Aren't physical objects merely atoms arranged in a certain order

Stop justifying it as it can't be justified no matter how you slice it

yes they are expect if you steal a physical object, when the owner comes out it will not be there no more for their enjoyment, unlike a digital object is still there for the owner to enjoy which is why one should not worry about pirates but worry about making paying customers more happy...

 

[dukebound85]

yes they are expect if you steal a physical object, when the owner comes out it will not be there no more for their enjoyment, unlike a digital object is still there for the owner to enjoy which is why one should not worry about pirates but worry about making paying customers more happy...

I grasp that concept....I don't grasp why you guys use it as the sole reason to make it ok to do

 

[Swiss Apple]

This hackintosh argument is quite the red herring

It is not in the same realm as one can walk into Apple and buy the OS and leave without buying a computer.

To equate that to taking software without paying for it is asinine

I agree, it does seem hypocritical of Apple to trumpet the fact that you can run Windows on a Mac but to do the opposite is somehow equivelent to theft. As far as I'm concerned if you buy a legitimate copy of Mac OS you should be able to run it on any platform you like, the only caveat is that you will not be entitled to support on anything other than a Mac.

 

[SpeedFleX]

I grasp that concept....I don't grasp why you guys use it as the sole reason to make it ok to do

While I for one do buy almost everything, I admit I have had some apps here and there from friends and so on but I have always bought the ones I like in the end...

It's just when companys start putting restrictions or drm or the apps phone home it makes me mad and I then understand why pirates modify certain apps. I mean in the end all the drm restrictions and so on only hurt the people you dont want to hurt, the paying customer.

 

[HBOC]

This is an interesting read, for sure.

Piracy will always be there for as long as there is internet. That is just common sense.

I know this is a touchy subject to a lot of people. Have I pirated? Yes. But not a lot. For instance, let's say i have a cd. I paid for it, doesn't matter if it was yesterday, or 15 years ago. I already paid for it. Sometimes instead of ripping it to my Mac, i will head to demonoid and I will download it. Why? Sometimes I am lazy, it is quicker. Am I stealing it? I guess from a legal standpoint, yes. Do I have the physical media? Yes. The same goes for movies.

Now for software, I can understand why people download it. Someone who is learning a program, who is in college and not making money, doesn't have $3500 to pay for the Adobe suite. So I can understand that. They are not making money off of their products in the workforce.

NOW if someone who steals it is making a living off of this said program, that is just pathetic. I actually expect anyone who makes a living doing web design, photography, graphic design, etc; to pay for the software. 100%! I got really lucky. My buddy works for Adobe here in Portland, and I got the legit master suite. If and when I make a living in the field i am going to school, I will purchase the software, even though I received the Master Collection by Legal Means.

And, just for my curiosity, how many people with 50+ gigs (or many gigs of music, for that matter) have honestly purchased all of that legally? I have over 340 cds that i bought from either Circuit City, or Best Buy, or the warehouse, music plus....and i doubt that is even 50gbs of music....

 

[LizKat]

While I for one do buy almost everything, I admit I have had some apps here and there from friends and so on but I have always bought the ones I like in the end...

It's just when companys start putting restrictions or drm or the apps phone home it makes me mad and I then understand why pirates modify certain apps. I mean in the end all the drm restrictions and so on only hurt the people you dont want to hurt, the paying customer.

Software makers put DRM on the stuff to begin with as a way to try to combat the rampant piracy of unlocked, for-sale software.

If so many people had not pirated software, then we would all still be purchasing unlocked stuff like back in the 80s.

It is not a character defect in the seller that he attempts to padlock his merchandise, once evidence of nonpayment by "customers" begins to surface.

A fruit vendor may ask customers to make their own change from a cigar box in the front of the fruit stand, until the inventory and the cigar box contents don't jibe at the end of the day. Then there's a cash register and a kid watching the store and it's a whole big deal to buy an apple (and only slightly more difficult to steal one).

But who started the escalation? The person who does not feel like paying for the fruit.

Now it's true that the fruit stand goods are somewhat different from software, especially in the minds of software pirates, but the process that starts up the inconvenience for paying customers still originates with nonpaying customers: acquiring the product without paying.

I understand annoyance about apps phoning home. I used to think it was ok for them to phone home until we register the thing but after that, gimme a break. Then I realized that people will reggie the thing and share it on, or try to use a one-seat license on a network.

So the phone-home gig is another part of that reaction by vendors to people not buying their own license. Still ticks me off, but I do not blame the vendor for this, I blame the pirates.