Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Piracy and Mac OS X
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Piracy And Mac OS X
What I think is that we need to get past the idea that when we go to the store and buy a box of software, we're buying the software. In reality, we're buying a license to use it. The CD media we get is just a complimentary addition to the purchase price, so that we don't have to go and download it. I think software companies should be more up-front about this. Instead of selling Final Cut Pro and Photoshop, the boxes should say that they contain the software and a license to use the software. Too many people think, "oh, look, a software CD, now that I have it I can do whatever I want with it." Buyers need to be able to see the EULA before they buy, and the EULA needs to be supplemented by a brief, plain-English outline.
This could be applied to other mediums, like music and movies, as well. It wouldn't mean Avg. Joe has all his rights taken away. It wouldn't have any effects on his rights at all - it would just make the rights he has clearer to him. And it would have the potential to save him from getting screwed due to loss of media, format obsolesence, etc.
If you lost a CD, wouldn't it be great to be able to call into wherever and get a replacement CD or DVD for, say, $convenience charge + $shipping? Or do it online from your account at riaa.com? Wouldn't it be great to be able to "upgrade" all your albums and movies for a reduced price once they're all released on some new super-hi-def format as many as X years into the future? Wouldn't it be great to switch all your PC apps over to their Mac versions (if available) for a reduced price? Or vice versa?
The problem with intellectual property today is that both the consumer AND the RIAA/MPAA/SPA are getting screwed. If the two sides would (or could) just sit down and work out something equitable and fair, EVERYONE would be happier. Instead, we have a situation where we've got crap like Macrovision and CSS and this horrible CD audio copy protection technology, countered by buyers of this copy-protected crap getting pissed off and only more hateful and spiteful of the companies releasing this stuff, causing media companies to be even more reactionary and fascist, causing consumers to be even more spiteful and pissed off... and so on. We all need to chill and work something out.
Sorry to go so far off topic.
Alex
That's a good idea, and it's already in effect in some places (I think), but it's not for everybody, as there are some who are very adamant about their privacy and would abhor any system that would track their ownership of software. So I think it would have to be optional.
What I think is that we need to get past the idea that when we go to the store and buy a box of software, we're buying the software. In reality, we're buying a license to use it. The CD media we get is just a complimentary addition to the purchase price, so that we don't have to go and download it. I think software companies should be more up-front about this. Instead of selling Final Cut Pro and Photoshop, the boxes should say that they contain the software and a license to use the software. Too many people think, "oh, look, a software CD, now that I have it I can do whatever I want with it." Buyers need to be able to see the EULA before they buy, and the EULA needs to be supplemented by a brief, plain-English outline.
This could be applied to other mediums, like music and movies, as well. It wouldn't mean Avg. Joe has all his rights taken away. It wouldn't have any effects on his rights at all - it would just make the rights he has clearer to him. And it would have the potential to save him from getting screwed due to loss of media, format obsolesence, etc.
If you lost a CD, wouldn't it be great to be able to call into wherever and get a replacement CD or DVD for, say, $convenience charge + $shipping? Or do it online from your account at riaa.com? Wouldn't it be great to be able to "upgrade" all your albums and movies for a reduced price once they're all released on some new super-hi-def format as many as X years into the future? Wouldn't it be great to switch all your PC apps over to their Mac versions (if available) for a reduced price? Or vice versa?
The problem with intellectual property today is that both the consumer AND the RIAA/MPAA/SPA are getting screwed. If the two sides would (or could) just sit down and work out something equitable and fair, EVERYONE would be happier. Instead, we have a situation where we've got crap like Macrovision and CSS and this horrible CD audio copy protection technology, countered by buyers of this copy-protected crap getting pissed off and only more hateful and spiteful of the companies releasing this stuff, causing media companies to be even more reactionary and fascist, causing consumers to be even more spiteful and pissed off... and so on. We all need to chill and work something out.
Sorry to go so far off topic.
Alex
Piracy and prices
I work for a software company. Sales of software licenses allow me to house, clothe and feed my family.
Some software is expensive. People keep bringing up the cost of Photoshop and saying that it should be at a consumer level. Bull****! Photoshop is a professional tool for people making money in graphics. One contract is often enough to cover the cost of the software needed. Adobe makes lower priced consumer software for image editing that should suffice for people who don't spend all day, every day, applying effects.
The software I work with every day on the job costs thousands of dollars and our customers are happy to buy it because it's good value. Imagine not having to pay three employees for eight weeks. That's what time saving software can do for an organization.
Despite the high price of our software the company makes only a modest profit. That $4000 product cost millions to research, design, code, test, market and sell, and the users all expect free updates. Even if you make a lot of money up front, supporting people for the next few years will bankrupt the company if you can't generate upgrade and on-going support revenue.
If a piece of software seems to cost too much, then you obviously don't place much value on what it does for you. You have a choice: don't buy it.
I am sympathetic to people in parts of the world where US$100 is a lot of money. A number of people in this forum have taken a strong stance against all forms of piracy. I believe they are deluding themselves. Crime in all its forms gains strength from inequality and suffering. In a perfect world the people of poor nations would use their time (if they have any outside of putting food on the table) to write software so they wouldn't pirate ours, but we don't live in a perfect world. Those of us in the rich countries are going to have to adjust our way of doing things to adapt to a world where rich and poor meet on the internet.
I work for a software company. Sales of software licenses allow me to house, clothe and feed my family.
Some software is expensive. People keep bringing up the cost of Photoshop and saying that it should be at a consumer level. Bull****! Photoshop is a professional tool for people making money in graphics. One contract is often enough to cover the cost of the software needed. Adobe makes lower priced consumer software for image editing that should suffice for people who don't spend all day, every day, applying effects.
The software I work with every day on the job costs thousands of dollars and our customers are happy to buy it because it's good value. Imagine not having to pay three employees for eight weeks. That's what time saving software can do for an organization.
Despite the high price of our software the company makes only a modest profit. That $4000 product cost millions to research, design, code, test, market and sell, and the users all expect free updates. Even if you make a lot of money up front, supporting people for the next few years will bankrupt the company if you can't generate upgrade and on-going support revenue.
If a piece of software seems to cost too much, then you obviously don't place much value on what it does for you. You have a choice: don't buy it.
I am sympathetic to people in parts of the world where US$100 is a lot of money. A number of people in this forum have taken a strong stance against all forms of piracy. I believe they are deluding themselves. Crime in all its forms gains strength from inequality and suffering. In a perfect world the people of poor nations would use their time (if they have any outside of putting food on the table) to write software so they wouldn't pirate ours, but we don't live in a perfect world. Those of us in the rich countries are going to have to adjust our way of doing things to adapt to a world where rich and poor meet on the internet.
The thing to remember with this being a piece of software is that Apple is likely fully aware that it will be heavily pirated. They're not exactly idiots despite what some here may think. The thing is that there will still be some who will pay for the upgrade and when you're talking software, that's money in the bank for the most part. Apple makes its money on selling systems.
Frankly I'm still not sure I understand why people are so fired up about this. If it's just because Apple is calling it a 10.2 release then well...these people are idiots. This update is offering quite a bit. For those whining that Mac OS X has really been beta software then well...these people are idiots. If you don't like it, use Mac OS 9 that came with it.
Get a grip people and a life.
corperate capitalizaition
personnally i agree with pirating but not in the sence of steeling.
i think that all corperations in the field of digital media should base their markets on pirating and adjust for the way the market is going.
when video tapes came out movie theaters didnt go out of business they adjusted to the changing market. and im tired so i cant think of some better examples except that adjusting to the market of your product is vital to your company.
peer to peer sharing should be embraced and depended on and everyone needs to change how they sell their products movies and music and software alike because p2p is only getting easier and there is absolutely no end to it.
our future is infact p2p. this should be recognised accepted and capitalized on !
personnally i agree with pirating but not in the sence of steeling.
i think that all corperations in the field of digital media should base their markets on pirating and adjust for the way the market is going.
when video tapes came out movie theaters didnt go out of business they adjusted to the changing market. and im tired so i cant think of some better examples except that adjusting to the market of your product is vital to your company.
peer to peer sharing should be embraced and depended on and everyone needs to change how they sell their products movies and music and software alike because p2p is only getting easier and there is absolutely no end to it.
our future is infact p2p. this should be recognised accepted and capitalized on !
peterjhill
macrumors 65816
Just one more post ;-)
Actually, I did think about this. I think that it would be good if you could do one of two things:
If you have both computers at same time for some short time period:
The install(for used) or setup (for new) process would allow you to connect the old computer via firewire, hell through the appropriate cable into all new boxes!)
The install process at some point asks you to start the other computer in firewire target disk mode. Asks for the administrator password for the old computer. Asks if you want to copy all of your user folders and network settings. It would also remove your validation certificate from the old computer, since it has both your hardware and software SNs, it could go onto the Apple servers and unlink the old hardware SN and link the new SN.
You would then have (for example) thirty days that you would legally be allowed to run the OS on two machines. After the 30 days, the computer would only run for 15 minutes at a time (from login).
------
option 2:
If you don't have both computers at the same time, Apple will have a utility that would connect you to the internet (if you didn't have an isp, they could have a 1800 number), remove your validation certificate from your computer, and update their records that the original software SN is now available for install somewhere else.
---------
A key to all this would be that the OS would have to check to see if the same software SN was being used by more than one computer. I realize that with option 2, people are thinking, I'll just backup my certificate, run the utility, then manually restore the certificate.
What Apple could do to get around that would be that when someone runs software udate, it would verify that the hardware/software SN certificate is what is expected. If it is not, then it disables the Software SN. Then whenever someone with that SN tries to update their software, their computer goes into the 30 days till being disabled, then only runs for 15 minutes at a time after 30 days mode.
Apple would have to limit downloading of updates to be limited to their website. Now that they are using digital certificates to verify the software update server, this would be harder to set up a fake server to install updates.
The actual validation certificate could be rewritten by the OS every thirty days, it would have:
Your hardware SN
Your software SN
Your validation key, hashed from above
A timestamp
This would all be encrypted via a pgp like mechanism, which would sign the data with Apple's private key. If the timestamp was more than 30 days old, you would be told that you have 30 days to connect to the internet to keep your registration valid.
This might be too much. Perhaps 90 days would be better. How many macs do not connect to the internet once in 90 days. The os might even verify the hardware/software SN every time you connect to the Internet (but only once per day max), and update the certificate. The bandwidth would be minimal.
If people have a mac that never connects to the Internet, then they could perhaps be directed to call Apple, tell them, I do not use the internet, they would read off their hardware and software SN's, Apple could give them the dreaded long code to type in, that would set their certificate to never expire, but would also somehow block that software SN from being used with any other hardware SN.
Okay, this message is long enough. I got to go to work.
Actually, I did think about this. I think that it would be good if you could do one of two things:
If you have both computers at same time for some short time period:
The install(for used) or setup (for new) process would allow you to connect the old computer via firewire, hell through the appropriate cable into all new boxes!)
The install process at some point asks you to start the other computer in firewire target disk mode. Asks for the administrator password for the old computer. Asks if you want to copy all of your user folders and network settings. It would also remove your validation certificate from the old computer, since it has both your hardware and software SNs, it could go onto the Apple servers and unlink the old hardware SN and link the new SN.
You would then have (for example) thirty days that you would legally be allowed to run the OS on two machines. After the 30 days, the computer would only run for 15 minutes at a time (from login).
------
option 2:
If you don't have both computers at the same time, Apple will have a utility that would connect you to the internet (if you didn't have an isp, they could have a 1800 number), remove your validation certificate from your computer, and update their records that the original software SN is now available for install somewhere else.
---------
A key to all this would be that the OS would have to check to see if the same software SN was being used by more than one computer. I realize that with option 2, people are thinking, I'll just backup my certificate, run the utility, then manually restore the certificate.
What Apple could do to get around that would be that when someone runs software udate, it would verify that the hardware/software SN certificate is what is expected. If it is not, then it disables the Software SN. Then whenever someone with that SN tries to update their software, their computer goes into the 30 days till being disabled, then only runs for 15 minutes at a time after 30 days mode.
Apple would have to limit downloading of updates to be limited to their website. Now that they are using digital certificates to verify the software update server, this would be harder to set up a fake server to install updates.
The actual validation certificate could be rewritten by the OS every thirty days, it would have:
Your hardware SN
Your software SN
Your validation key, hashed from above
A timestamp
This would all be encrypted via a pgp like mechanism, which would sign the data with Apple's private key. If the timestamp was more than 30 days old, you would be told that you have 30 days to connect to the internet to keep your registration valid.
This might be too much. Perhaps 90 days would be better. How many macs do not connect to the internet once in 90 days. The os might even verify the hardware/software SN every time you connect to the Internet (but only once per day max), and update the certificate. The bandwidth would be minimal.
If people have a mac that never connects to the Internet, then they could perhaps be directed to call Apple, tell them, I do not use the internet, they would read off their hardware and software SN's, Apple could give them the dreaded long code to type in, that would set their certificate to never expire, but would also somehow block that software SN from being used with any other hardware SN.
Okay, this message is long enough. I got to go to work.
peterjhill
macrumors 65816
Re: Piracy and prices
Holy carp! Where have you been hiding? Excellent first post! Heck, you are even using a name from Tolkien (whether you know it or not!)
Welcome to macrumors.com, and please continue to post.
Holy carp! Where have you been hiding? Excellent first post! Heck, you are even using a name from Tolkien (whether you know it or not!)
Welcome to macrumors.com, and please continue to post.
peterjhill
macrumors 65816
damn, i have to post again ;-)
Obviously our future is not the English language or grammar. When you move out of your parents house and have to pay for your computer, you will realized that it is hard to pay the bills when you work for free. I think I am going easy on you btw
Obviously our future is not the English language or grammar. When you move out of your parents house and have to pay for your computer, you will realized that it is hard to pay the bills when you work for free. I think I am going easy on you btw
grammar & age police alert!
after so many intelligent, well-thought posts in this thread, it's amazing how some people so easily expose themselves as thoughtless jerks.
peterjhill couldn't think of any real response, so instead he "edits" hoshi's post. please.
save that garbage for your English class.
after so many intelligent, well-thought posts in this thread, it's amazing how some people so easily expose themselves as thoughtless jerks.
peterjhill couldn't think of any real response, so instead he "edits" hoshi's post. please.
save that garbage for your English class.
Re: grammar & age police alert!
-------
Well, aside from some funny inglees, hoshi's (ninja) peer to peer posting contains little (or nothing) more actual content than "yes, i sure wanna share with all my buddies and thus capitalize SW for ourselves, and everybody else must - banzai - adjust to how we want it".
How DO you reply to something like that? Hoshi, please clarify or continue posting somewhere else.
Way to go, peterjhill 😀
-------
Well, aside from some funny inglees, hoshi's (ninja) peer to peer posting contains little (or nothing) more actual content than "yes, i sure wanna share with all my buddies and thus capitalize SW for ourselves, and everybody else must - banzai - adjust to how we want it".
How DO you reply to something like that? Hoshi, please clarify or continue posting somewhere else.
Way to go, peterjhill 😀
>...you will realized that it is hard to pay the bills...
>realized
Dear Jack. And you think you're worried about someone else's grammar? Speak for yourself! 🙄
Look, this has gone rather off-topic here. So to put it back on topic...
We have all discussed/heard about the piracy issues and how OS X <seems> overpriced. Now on occassion I look through the license aggreement for the software I am about to use/install/whatever. And I am just curious to see how many people actually take this seriously. It's long, but it's the law.
Yet I wonder if certain forms of piracy results simply from blatant ignorance and disregard from the law. I don't mean in the sense that you can't afford to buy a license for every copy of $500+ software you own, but rather in a sense that people do it out of habit. Do people even realize what happens when they pirate material like this? And with such high prices on licenses would piracy become a habit, instead of an illegal means of protest? Most of the time, they'll get away with it. But if people started to adopt habits for the software they own they'll eventually get caught. It's just a shame certain people can't afford all the licenses to be legallized.
>realized
Dear Jack. And you think you're worried about someone else's grammar? Speak for yourself! 🙄
Look, this has gone rather off-topic here. So to put it back on topic...
We have all discussed/heard about the piracy issues and how OS X <seems> overpriced. Now on occassion I look through the license aggreement for the software I am about to use/install/whatever. And I am just curious to see how many people actually take this seriously. It's long, but it's the law.
Yet I wonder if certain forms of piracy results simply from blatant ignorance and disregard from the law. I don't mean in the sense that you can't afford to buy a license for every copy of $500+ software you own, but rather in a sense that people do it out of habit. Do people even realize what happens when they pirate material like this? And with such high prices on licenses would piracy become a habit, instead of an illegal means of protest? Most of the time, they'll get away with it. But if people started to adopt habits for the software they own they'll eventually get caught. It's just a shame certain people can't afford all the licenses to be legallized.
Or if it breaks, and a replacement MB is required ?
A few months ago I updated the driver for my Intel NIC card in my Athlon system, and damned if WinXP didn't refuse to start because of it's Windows Product Activation system, and I had to call the Microsoft Mothership and ask for 'permission' to continue using my computer!
I kid you not.
TL
I agree. it's like software--as just that: soft, intangible--is not 'property' like other things you're supposed to pay for are.
i.e., I (may) have hundreds of dollars of pirated software on my 'puter, but I wouldn't go into the market and steal even $2 worth of stuff. it's the physicallity that often turns people off from stealing.
again, I think it comes back to something posted pages ago: use your head.
when I was just starting out in design and had to scrape every penny together just to buy my Mac, I had nothing left over for software. now I know someone is gonna come along and say I had "bad business sense" for launching a business without enough money, and that's fine. but when your other options are making $8/hr, you make decisions that may not be 100% legal, but could be morally sound. I did it for just a couple of years. after I was on my feet I went legit. without that "illegal" running start in the beginning, who knows if I'd ever been able to afford $1000s in software?
peterjhill
macrumors 65816
Interesting post (glad to see the return of them). I think that perhaps it would be better to compare stealing something expensive from the physical world. I would think that the reason someone would not try to steal something that cost $2 would be that the risk/reward ratio is not very compelling. Even with MP3's, even though CD's are relatively cheap, what makes P2P so compelling for some (not me) is that the sheer number of songs that can be "stolen" so easily. So in the end people have thousands of dollars of songs, if you would convert it to physical CDs.
I can definitely see how young people are tempted to pirate software and music. As Madonna has so eloquently pointed out "We Live in a Material World" I work at a University, and we have on average around 70 megabits/sec of P2P traffic out to the rest of the world.
What would be nice would be if schools could get licenses for software like MS Office for the students home computers. No doubt they don't do this, due to the high risk of piracy. A bulk license for office is super cheap. I think 3 years ago, it was $50 for a license for Mac Office 98 and $15 bucks for the media. (I can't spell license to save my life ;-)
To clarify with anyone still reading this thread. I am not going to call the spa or whatever group that cares about software piracy and report people. I don't care that much. I am not going to let people copy software that I own. I will, OTOH, give away games that I no longer play to friends. I had a bunch of PC games, then I got my TiBook, no need for the ones that weren't on hybrid media.
Some of apple's software license policy bugs, such as the windows QT key I bought doesn't work on my Mac. That sucks. I don't understand why they do that, unless they have separate revenue streams for two different development groups (which I doubt). I do respect that they are charging to go to QT6, although, I think that they should have some period where you can get a free update.
Well, there are some thoughts.
Re: Re: grammar & age police alert!
sorry. thanks for being optimistic of my post 🙂
i didnt mean to make anyone angry i was simply trying to share my thoughts on our future. i think that a lot of people will agree with me .
im not trying to say that i like piracy or the way things are going generally, what i mean is just that things are going that way whether any of us like it or not.
i think many would agree that there is no stopping p2p.
i feel that instead of trying to stop it we should all adapt to it and capitalize on all the possabilities and opertunities that our culture and p2p sharing are offering us.
there has to be a way to profit from this and make everyone happy if we think about it.
or we could keep trying to enforce the internet and try fighting against the very people that invented it.
sorry. thanks for being optimistic of my post 🙂
i didnt mean to make anyone angry i was simply trying to share my thoughts on our future. i think that a lot of people will agree with me .
im not trying to say that i like piracy or the way things are going generally, what i mean is just that things are going that way whether any of us like it or not.
i think many would agree that there is no stopping p2p.
i feel that instead of trying to stop it we should all adapt to it and capitalize on all the possabilities and opertunities that our culture and p2p sharing are offering us.
there has to be a way to profit from this and make everyone happy if we think about it.
or we could keep trying to enforce the internet and try fighting against the very people that invented it.
physically stealing or digitaly reproducing
i think that you have twisted it.
you are comparing p2p to going into a supermarket and steeling groceries.
p2p is more comparable to going into your friends house and copying his groceries.
thats what ive been trying to say. the way that we are acquiring our media is changing thats all.
changing from buying cd's to copying the data from someone who bought the cd.
so selling physical cd's is what is going down.
just like we dont use the gold standard anymore.
im sure that a lot of people were angry about it but we all had to adapt. i feel like this situation is similar
i think that you have twisted it.
you are comparing p2p to going into a supermarket and steeling groceries.
p2p is more comparable to going into your friends house and copying his groceries.
thats what ive been trying to say. the way that we are acquiring our media is changing thats all.
changing from buying cd's to copying the data from someone who bought the cd.
so selling physical cd's is what is going down.
just like we dont use the gold standard anymore.
im sure that a lot of people were angry about it but we all had to adapt. i feel like this situation is similar
peterjhill
macrumors 65816
New Topic P2P and Music Sharing
This is an interesting issue. I still buy cds (BTW, there is a thread devoted to this right now), but once I rip it to my computer, the only reason I need the CD again is to play it in my car. Once I get my iPod and the iRock wireless transmitter, I won't need them again, unless I want to re-rip them.
I am curious about how many portable MP3 players are being sold compared to portable CD players. I would think that the MP3 players, with their longer battery life, would be more appealing. Not to mention the smaller size.
I don't agree that kazaa/limewire is the answer to musician's prayers, though. I am all for secure digital music. I would be willing to have some license key on my computer, that I install, that will let me purchase music from the Internet, and listen to it on my computer, or a portable mp3 player. If they could come up with a way that the license key would be copied to the portable mp3 player also, to authorize playing the music, I could accept that also.
Well, that is enough off topic discussion for now, anything else about piracy of mac os X?
This is an interesting issue. I still buy cds (BTW, there is a thread devoted to this right now), but once I rip it to my computer, the only reason I need the CD again is to play it in my car. Once I get my iPod and the iRock wireless transmitter, I won't need them again, unless I want to re-rip them.
I am curious about how many portable MP3 players are being sold compared to portable CD players. I would think that the MP3 players, with their longer battery life, would be more appealing. Not to mention the smaller size.
I don't agree that kazaa/limewire is the answer to musician's prayers, though. I am all for secure digital music. I would be willing to have some license key on my computer, that I install, that will let me purchase music from the Internet, and listen to it on my computer, or a portable mp3 player. If they could come up with a way that the license key would be copied to the portable mp3 player also, to authorize playing the music, I could accept that also.
Well, that is enough off topic discussion for now, anything else about piracy of mac os X?
Chew on this, you smug, self-righteous corpo-apologists.
http://u4ea.dynip.com:81/warez/underground/stallman1.html
Why Software Should Not Have Owners
by Richard Stallman
Digital information technology's contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.
Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.
* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.
* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:
* Name calling.
Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.
* Exaggeration.
Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
* The law.
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American should know that, thirty years ago, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.
* Natural rights.
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.
But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits* a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be justified for the public's sake.
* Economics.
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to production of more software.
Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of software. And it is well established that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.
But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the software has owners or not.
People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with it if you acquire it.
But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something--but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our society's civic spirit.
This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price.
The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that are less rewarding than programming.
For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
----------
http://u4ea.dynip.com:81/warez/underground/stallman1.html
Why Software Should Not Have Owners
by Richard Stallman
Digital information technology's contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.
Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.
* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.
* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:
* Name calling.
Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.
* Exaggeration.
Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
* The law.
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American should know that, thirty years ago, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.
* Natural rights.
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.
But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits* a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be justified for the public's sake.
* Economics.
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to production of more software.
Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of software. And it is well established that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.
But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the software has owners or not.
People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with it if you acquire it.
But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something--but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our society's civic spirit.
This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price.
The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that are less rewarding than programming.
For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
----------
---cont----
The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three employees who handle mail orders.
Some free software developers make money by selling support services. Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable percentage for a software company.
Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
All these examples are small; the free software movement is still small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity without forcing each user to pay.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying "No" to proprietary software.
You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
You deserve free software.
Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
alteration is not permitted.
The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three employees who handle mail orders.
Some free software developers make money by selling support services. Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable percentage for a software company.
Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
All these examples are small; the free software movement is still small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity without forcing each user to pay.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying "No" to proprietary software.
You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
You deserve free software.
Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
alteration is not permitted.
peterjhill
macrumors 65816
I like the ignore feature. It is easy to use. When you come across an idiot you want to filter, click on their profile button, then add them to your ignore list. When you view a thread, their posts are minimized down to a simple, this person is on your ignore list, click here to view this message.
That way I don't have to see 50 lines of crap posted by a moron.
That way I don't have to see 50 lines of crap posted by a moron.