CanadaRAM said:
Please don't use the term "Fair use" to justify music piracy. Fair Use is a legal term with a specific meaning. And it doesn't mean "I think it's fair for me to do x"
Who said anything about piracy, other than you?
I simply said I don't use the iTMS because it doesn't abide by the principals of fair use.
You're the one conditioned to call me a pirate, simply because I choose not to use your preferred DRM-based service.
Please don't use your inability to comprehend a paragraph of text the first time through as a means to acuse somebody of participating in 'music piracy'.
'Fair Use' means - you buy it - you do what you like with it, as long as that doesn't entail re-selling it or distributing it.
You buy a DVD? Make a backup of it to take on vacation - so your obnoxious little kid doesn't destroy your $20 investment.
The iTMS only allows you to download their proprietary songs to their proprietary player at a fixed (low) bitrate. You can only share with a limited number of computers, and if your HD fails, that's your problem.
Wait, I forgot, if they're on your iPod, you could just back them up onto iTunes, right?
Oh...you
can't transfer songs
from the iPod with Apple's software?
They only allow you to burn the cd a handful of times - and they send cease and desist letters to independent developers for trying to give you the rights to your own purchased music.
No thanks fella.
jsw said:
Gee, maybe if people paid for software, companies could afford the developers and testers they need to improve it.
Oh yes - boo-hoo. The poor corporations are being torn down by Joe Consumer.
Awww, they
can't afford to have beta testers! It's total anarchy!
Besides, they don't have the responsibility to test their software - it's the fault of the kids that download it for free!
...right.
I guess that's why Windows has never had a security hole, right? Because, I mean, practically everybody uses it - hell you don't have the option
not to buy it with 90% of the PCs on the market. They're the richest corporation in the world. By your logic - they're perfect.
You realize, that in the end - the person
can't afford this program. Can't buy. So, them downloading it and using it could be considered the same thing as if they hadn't downloaded it at all.
'Wha-wha-wha?'
Just blew your mind? Ok, here:
In the end - they're not
stealing, as much as they are 'using without a license'. The company sees no lost profit from Joe Consumer downloading Photoshop, because in the end -
they don't know - and they don't host the bandwidth anyway. They're not losing anything. If anything, they're gaining his interest in their product.
I'll bet you my Powerbook that there are plenty of people around the world that have purchased games, music, software, movies, etc. that they otherwise, never would've looked at - thanks to P2P file-sharing.
I know that's how I found half of the bands I support today...
Now, when Adobe starts a service like 'Steam' for Photoshop? And somebody hacks it and finds out how to download Photoshop from their servers? Then I'll agree with you on the 'stealing' charge - considering the company would be taking a loss.
Now, if he went to a retail store, and lifted a retail box (good luck by the way) - that's stealing. It's stealing because it's a physical item, tracked by inventory, supplied by the software manufacturer, etc.
Money was spent, by the company, to place that item there.
You may not feel it's 'morally
right' for somebody to download software, but it's not 'stealing' as you're defining it (with these example of 'I guess it's ok for me to rape your mom and steal your children', etc.). It's especially
not stealing if Joe Consumer isn't using this product to generate income - but rather - for his own education.
And yes, major software developers
can afford to reduce their prices - but their interest is solely in the professional and education markets (where they make a killing). And you know what? Professional firms and schools are routinely investigated to insure that they've purchased mass volume activation keys.
In the end, it's their own fault for over-charging for these applications. Again, if Photoshop (the full version) were $50 - 90% of the people that download it now would see no reason
not to purchase it. However, I'm not sure Adobe really cares. And until they do, the other side will continue to not care, right along with them.
The best your average human will get is a dumbed-down version for less. They don't see a 'pro market' for your average citizen.
In the end, the problem is price. Until minimum wage in this country is $9.50+/hr - there really isn't anything to argue about.
$600 for Photoshop is outrageous for students and small businesses.
iGary said:
Yeah, hey! It's the same thing!
Don't forget iPhoto. I mean, you can edit photos right? That's the same thing, right? It has 'Photo' in the name, it's gotta be rougly the same thing - which is good enough.
iGary said:
I'm sure you won't mind if I come over to your house and take your PowerBook. I couldn't afford one, so I got an iBook. you know I could really do a lot more photography work on the road with a PowerBook and make more money...I could even afford to buy one one day...
Yes, there's no difference between taking a penny out of a multi-billion dollar jar and stealing somebody's Powerbook from their home (for your own financial gain, no less). And yes, there's no difference between this and stealing a car, stealing from the federal government or whatever irrelevant examples you're bound to come up with...
Christ, sometimes, I really wonder about some of you guys...
I
require that
one (1), singular Powerbook to perform my tasks. Taking it away (based on my limited income) would effectively
cripple my productivity.
Now, when somebody downloads a copy of Photoshop - does Adobe have to lay off all of it's employees and file for bankruptcy?
Your example would be more along the lines of taking bread from a starving orphan. Not nearly the same as taking the crumbs from a well-off king, that you found in the town trash heap.
Now, if I had eighteen-billion Powerbooks...
You know what, trying to compare the downloaded digital media to stolen physical property is impossible. Let's not do that anymore..
First of all: Breaking and entering.
When you download software, you're not stealing directly from the servers of the corporation. There is a huge difference between downloading intellectual property (or acquiring stolen merchandise) from your buddy and hacking a corporate mainframe or lifting the box out of the store yourself. But if you don't think so, be my guest and try it out.
For example, if 'Dave 1' steals 'Photoshop CS2' from say, Best Buy. And then, he throws it up on Ebay for $100 Buy It Now. You buy it from him. Technically, you paid for it, right? Sure, not retail - but at auction price. Your copy of Photoshop is stolen - uh-oh. What do you do?
Well, even if that guy got busted, and they tracked down your sale - the worst that would happen is - they'd make you give it back and you'd have to negotiate a money return with your card company.
Whereas our poor buddy, 'Dave 1' faces criminal charges.
Whether you, the law or your mother see the difference or not - there is one.
Also, your feeble attempt at sarcastically responding to my points falls flat on its face - considering, in the end, you didn't give me my Powerbook back.
Also also wick, emoticons are for dicks.
Moxiemike said:
If you won't lower your prices by 50%, i'll just take one off of your website and use it. Ok?
THAT'S how i justify your sketchy morals.
In the english language, to emphasize a certain word, we use italics, rather than 'ALL CAPS'.
For example:
'No,
you, sir, are behaving in an
inappropriate manner!'
Ok, now, onto the meat and potatoes.
Well, by doing that, you would be stealing
directly from the artist, by removing copyrighted material
from his domain - using his own bandwidth to acquire his own copyrighted materials.
And since you are planning on using his art for your own business - boy fella - I hope you've got a great attorney.
The difference is - you're making money from stealing. Most 'pirates' aren't. In fact, they're at a loss.
In sum, yes, companies deserve to make a profit from their products. And yes, if
everybody (wow, that would be something, eh?) downloaded their products, they would probably stop making it.
However, we're not
nearly at that point, and I doubt we ever will be.
The problem at hand is - they're complaining about people with little income downloading their $600+ applications, rather than paying for them - when in reality, the most that would come from them elliminating downloads is that those people just wouldn't use it.
Either way, I think we can all agree that Gatorade is better than Powerade.
Cheers.