That would be a bit different as someone would have used his name and say, incriminated him. Thus he would lose something, perhaps freedom?
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.
The morality of pirating and EULA
- Thread starter likemyorbs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be a bit different as someone would have used his name and say, incriminated him. Thus he would lose something, perhaps freedom?
It's all just information somewhere. Nothing physical is actually lost or stolen (just information in a database) so what's the harm?
/sarcasm
I pity you if you can't tell the difference between software piracy and identity theft. But i won't bother explaining those differences since i think you know them already and you're just trolling.
whats the difference, stealing is stealing! maybe you will get lucky and experience it, after all, you would deserve it!
No but i think you're misinterpreting his sarcasm. He's mocking what i said in a sarcastic tone because he disagrees with it.
I thought you'd ask that. However, I am currently in University dorms (fits 2000+ people) and cannot ad a satellite- only basic cable TV via coaxial from the wall.
Next year, I'm living in an apartment complex, and also cannot ad a satellite there.
I live in the freaking U.S.A and can't PAY to watch shows that I want to watch!?!?
I probably am.
In my opinion, identity theft is a far bigger problem than piracy. I went through an identity theft thing back in the 90s due to an employer using SS#s as ID#s and posting them on the weekly schedule making the SS#s very easy to use. Someone back then bought a car and jewelry in my name. A year later I filed for bankruptcy and that more or less took care of the problem.
I think you just proved my point: you'd go to the cinema if you didn't pirate. Regarding software, why do people not get the cheaper alternatives instead of pirating? OpenOffice is free and useable, and student/ business licences of MS Office are cheap [i got an NHS licence for £30]. I also use Gimp [free] if I need to do some basic image editing.
Let's assume you are young enough to be claimed as a dependent (I have no idea but let's just pretend). If I claim you on my tax return (using your SS#), the same situation applies. I gain - lowered tax deduction (for free to boot)! Your parents lose an opportunity cost of benefitting from claiming you as a deduction.
How is that any different than what you said? In one case, you gain free software and the producer loses the potential income. In the other, I gain free tax breaks and your parents lose potential breaks. Why is one any less ethical? Or what if it was a friend - who wasn't planning on filing since he didn't make much - is it ethical for me to claim him on my taxes as a dependent?
The only way what you are saying can make ANY sense is that software can be copied/pirated. Why not start copying money too and making fake money? You could apply the exact same statements you made in the second quote to counterfeiting money. Or hacking/scamming a bank and making your account have more money. How are either of these different?
At the end of the day, you are justifying theft because it is easy and "well I wouldn't have bought it anyways."
edit -
You mean like software developers losing income from licenses?
Again, they aren't losing income, because i wouldn't have bought it. I only use their software because i can get it for free. If you put more money in your bank account, someone is losing that money, which is completely different. How do you not see this?
If I magically add $200 to my bank account (bank error in my favor!) who loses money - and why?
If I claim you, when you wouldn't file taxes otherwise, as a dependent who loses money - and why?
It's you who is missing the poInt. stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter that you wouldn't have bought it anyway, u r breaking the law, plain and simple.
Regarding software, why do people not get the cheaper alternatives instead of pirating? OpenOffice is free and useable, and student/ business licences of MS Office are cheap [i got an NHS licence for £30]. I also use Gimp [free] if I need to do some basic image editing.
Yeah but the cinema isn't always an option, since the movies stop playing there and such. In the end, there will always be people who buy them (I do, whenever I see the 3 for $10 or so). But paying $60 for a blu ray? No, thank you. If that's how much the people who make the films want for their work, I'm sorry, but they can't escape piracy.
Thought I'd chime in some more thoughts on the music industry and piracy.
How do we know for sure how much of an impact piracy is having on sales on music? Record labels compare sales figures now to pre-digital era sales. This has a number of flaws:
- Pre-digial sales required someone to buy a complete album (exception of single releases).
- Digital-era sales, people generally don't buy the full album, and probably only buy a few songs that they actually like from the album
- Song and album prices have come down since the pre-digital era
Even when I buy legit music, I never buy a complete album. I pick a few songs from it. The record labels interpret this as "lost sales due to piracy". The reality is, had I wanted those few songs in a pre-digital era, I'd have to have bought the whole album (e.g. all 10 songs). When now, I can hand-pick the 2-3 songs I actually want. There's a 70% sale loss right there.
If I torrented $500 software, there's no chance I'd ever buy that (unless I was a professional). So it isn't a lost sale. If that software wasn't possible to get for free, then I'd use something else.
I remember attending an Adobe seminar, where they were demoing CS5. I was with a few students from my course, and we spoke to the guys afterwards for a bit. Their point of view was that if students pirated Adobe's software, it wasn't a big deal, and actually could have future benefits. Students would graduate and start a job, and would push for Adobe's software suite to be supported in the company because that's what they are familiar with.
Though that's why a lot of companies give students free software (Microsoft does with Windows, Visual Basic etc, Autodesk does with 3Ds Max, Maya etc).
I think a company insisting it is loosing sales on a $300+ piece of software because of pirates, then they are mistaken. People are only torrenting their software because they can't afford it, and would never buy it if they couldn't get it for free.
How do we know for sure how much of an impact piracy is having on sales on music? Record labels compare sales figures now to pre-digital era sales. This has a number of flaws:
- Pre-digial sales required someone to buy a complete album (exception of single releases).
- Digital-era sales, people generally don't buy the full album, and probably only buy a few songs that they actually like from the album
- Song and album prices have come down since the pre-digital era
Even when I buy legit music, I never buy a complete album. I pick a few songs from it. The record labels interpret this as "lost sales due to piracy". The reality is, had I wanted those few songs in a pre-digital era, I'd have to have bought the whole album (e.g. all 10 songs). When now, I can hand-pick the 2-3 songs I actually want. There's a 70% sale loss right there.
If I torrented $500 software, there's no chance I'd ever buy that (unless I was a professional). So it isn't a lost sale. If that software wasn't possible to get for free, then I'd use something else.
I remember attending an Adobe seminar, where they were demoing CS5. I was with a few students from my course, and we spoke to the guys afterwards for a bit. Their point of view was that if students pirated Adobe's software, it wasn't a big deal, and actually could have future benefits. Students would graduate and start a job, and would push for Adobe's software suite to be supported in the company because that's what they are familiar with.
Though that's why a lot of companies give students free software (Microsoft does with Windows, Visual Basic etc, Autodesk does with 3Ds Max, Maya etc).
I think a company insisting it is loosing sales on a $300+ piece of software because of pirates, then they are mistaken. People are only torrenting their software because they can't afford it, and would never buy it if they couldn't get it for free.
^^ Exactly my point. It's not lost revenue, because if I had to pay for say, Photoshop, I would NEVER use it, because I don't make money from it, and I won't pay $1000 or whatever for software that I use occasionally for fun. They didn't lose a sale. They actually gained a user.
I think this thread just proves more that this generation is a generation of "me, me, me".
People see stuff they want, they aren't getting arrested for stealing it and to be able to pretend to be of sound conscious they have tricked their minds into believing these b.s. excuses such as "I occasionally use it but I'm not going to spend $1,000 for it."
I'd love to occasionally drive a Bentley but I'm not in the market to steal one.
People see stuff they want, they aren't getting arrested for stealing it and to be able to pretend to be of sound conscious they have tricked their minds into believing these b.s. excuses such as "I occasionally use it but I'm not going to spend $1,000 for it."
I'd love to occasionally drive a Bentley but I'm not in the market to steal one.
Only if you pay for it first. I'm sure you make hella bank handing out all those guest passes, bro.
Yes but you driving a Bentley for free would involve someone not having a Bentley in order for you to have it. Whereas, with my software, we both can have it at the same time
Yes but you driving a Bentley for free would involve someone not having a Bentley in order for you to have it. Whereas, with my software, we both can have it at the same time
I'm sure the makers of Bentley wouldn't mind making me a copy. I mean if piracy is such a legal and moral thing to do why don't you just start going straight to the producers? Probably a better quality copy anyway. I'm sure no one will miss it.
I'm sure the makers of Bentley wouldn't mind making me a copy. I mean if piracy is such a legal and moral thing to do why don't you just start going straight to the producers? Probably a better quality copy anyway. I'm sure no one will miss it.
Guess that's what Uncle Sam's capitalism taught us. Whoever has the lowest price for the same thing will win, in this case, free versus paid. So...
Not saying it's right, it definitely isn't, and I am totally wrong and am probably a horrible person for torrenting stuff that isn't even available for sale here, but well.
No it's what the generation of "I want this and it's owed to me" has taught y'all.
But well...
Here are some of my thoughts...
In a thread about morality...you can justify it however you want...but at the end of the day what you're doing is stealing...just because you don't see where someone is losing something, or there is no apparent victim...it doesn't make it any less wrong.
And it's not just this act...it's the mindset which appears to be lacking morality. Why pay for it if I can get it for free? That's the mindset of every thief who ever stole anything.
Hey...if you're cheap, or poor, or lazy, or just like getting one over on the "Man" just step up and admit it. Some of these justifications are ridiculous.
And come on...for those who say they wouldn't have bought anything they're torrenting...that doesn't seem based in reality. Especially with music.
In a thread about morality...you can justify it however you want...but at the end of the day what you're doing is stealing...just because you don't see where someone is losing something, or there is no apparent victim...it doesn't make it any less wrong.
And it's not just this act...it's the mindset which appears to be lacking morality. Why pay for it if I can get it for free? That's the mindset of every thief who ever stole anything.
Hey...if you're cheap, or poor, or lazy, or just like getting one over on the "Man" just step up and admit it. Some of these justifications are ridiculous.
And come on...for those who say they wouldn't have bought anything they're torrenting...that doesn't seem based in reality. Especially with music.
Not trying to be stupid here, but I really can't see the big deal here:
I buy an album. Ok. A friend of mine asks me to lend the CD to him so he can import it to his iTunes library just for him to listen to it. It's something I bought, and as long as I don't "make illegal copies of the disc" (which is what is written on the CD) I can do basically whatever I want with it. Even eat it.
So, importing to iTunes isn't making a copy of the disc, per se, and if neither my friend or I make any money from it, we are not profiting from someone else's work. So my point is, where is the crime?
I buy an album. Ok. A friend of mine asks me to lend the CD to him so he can import it to his iTunes library just for him to listen to it. It's something I bought, and as long as I don't "make illegal copies of the disc" (which is what is written on the CD) I can do basically whatever I want with it. Even eat it.
So, importing to iTunes isn't making a copy of the disc, per se, and if neither my friend or I make any money from it, we are not profiting from someone else's work. So my point is, where is the crime?