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.
Uber Disgusted w/ This Issue: Piracy
- Thread starter StarbucksSam
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's why you can listen to the music in the store before you buy it..:*Robot Boy*:. said:
These are all material things. If you don't bring back the guitar you can be sure as hell that the dealer will be after you to pay it or to bring it back. Second thing is that he knows that you were borrowing it from him. You didn't just take it without his knowledge..:*Robot Boy*:. said:
You also can't test-drive a car through the internet. Just go to a CD dealer and listen to the whole thing with headphones if you need more than the little 30sec sample..:*Robot Boy*:. said:
Music critics were always biased. That is as old as the MI itself... and has nothing to do with initial subject.
Big surprise... I bet not all of the 90% is bad, it is just not your style. I also wonder sometimes how bad (for my taste) especially the music in the charts is. But it is there because people buy it and like it..:*Robot Boy*:. said:
groovebuster
after reading this thread - i just realized how wrong it was to DL that file -
used it yeah - it's fantastic
but now i have deleated it off my system - awaiting the official Front Row from Apple.
i think it does not matter how much ,how little or how big a thing is that you steal! it is still stealing and it is wrong.
So sorry Apple , moment of madness was watching that Video from TUAW and wanting that software.
i advise everybody who downloaded it to get rid of it now.
used it yeah - it's fantastic
but now i have deleated it off my system - awaiting the official Front Row from Apple.
i think it does not matter how much ,how little or how big a thing is that you steal! it is still stealing and it is wrong.
So sorry Apple , moment of madness was watching that Video from TUAW and wanting that software.
i advise everybody who downloaded it to get rid of it now.
yg17 said:
stealing is a REAL crime
as for my i used Napster(before iTMS and before i knew it was illegal i was young) then kazaa then i went iTunes then for 20 songs i went limewire now im back on ITMS FOREVER!!
.:*Robot Boy*:. said:
It is. Lots of bands put samples of their music up on their sites, and both Amazon.com and iTunes provide samples of songs. Car dealers don't let you keep the car indefinitely on a test drive and clothing stores don't let you take home the shirt before you buy it, so why do you assume you are entitled to get a copy of an album or song (or movie or video game) to "try out" indefinitely before you buy it? There's also the going to the store option that GB mentioned.
Sometimes I've bought a shirt or something and after wearing it a few times I realize I don't like it as much as I thought I would. Can I take it back and exchange it? No. It just means I have to be a more discriminating shopper. Same w/music. I have a few CDs I never listen to (out of over 300 total), and I also have some that I didn't like at first but now I enjoy them.
If everyone really did just "try before they buy" that'd be one thing. But I bet the number of "I haven't bought a CD in 5 years, but I have 120gigs of music" people out number the "I buy what I like and erase the rest" people by like 100,000 to 1. If everyone was honest this probably wouldn't even be an issue. But everyone isn't so it is.
Just look at the regression Apple has had to make w/iTunes and sharing music. Apple had to roll back features because some people are just parasites.
Lethal
groovebuster said:
Actually, I disagree. I think the main thing keeping alternative models from blossoming is the fact that the main holders of song copyrights, i.e. the record labels, have no interest in alternative models. They've been in a golden age of profitability. They have milked it for more than its worth, and now see an end to this era in the changing behaviors of consumers. So they latch on to the immoral behavior of filesharing despite lack of conclusive evidence that it is the main reason for the decline.
groovebuster said:
I sympathize with you completely; it's truly sad to have to give up an enjoyable career due to financial stability. However, musicians are not alone in this, and I don't think that piracy is a significant cause.
At its most fundamental level, a professional musician relies on the support of large numbers of people. This is in contrast to more "normal" jobs where you only have to satisfy a small number of supervisors to earn full pay. This detail alone will make it very difficult for a musician to support himself as more and more talented performers enter the market. The shareware market is very similar; few independent developers are able to support themselves completely. I'm sure there are other factors which get involved too.
As a general statement (not directed at groovebuster), I think that we, as consumers and constituents, need to be wary of companies or people using the spectre of piracy as if it is the source of any particular misfortune especially when related to the political process. It's a very common tactic to use something that is clear-cut (e.g. piracy is illegal) to bring about a political change (the DMCA) in a related but more hazy issue (e.g. piracy is responsible for declining record sales) when no solid evidence is available.
crackpip
Chip NoVaMac said:
Not universally so. There are just laws and there are unjust laws. Is it a crime to break an unjust law? It was criminal, for example, for slaves to defend themselves agains their masters, but I think none of us would argue that such an act is, by default, criminal.
I've said this in other threads, but we do this discussion a disservice by not differentiating between intellctual property law and the reality that no human being owns an idea (or a "product") once they've shared it.
Another way of saying that. Democracy demands that everyone is equal. Capitalism demands an impossibility of equality. The real question beneath the intellectual property debate is this -- as a culture, to what degree are we democrats (sharing with each other toward our mutual equality), and to what degree are we capitalists (taking from each other to keep each other rooted in default socio-economic positions)?
zap2 said:
Yes, stealing is a real crime. Piracy is not stealing. If I walk into a store and steal a CD, that is one less physical copy the store has left to sell. If I download a CD, I'm making a copy of it. No one is missing a tangible copy of the CD.
Man did I start a thread or what?
Some of you guys have really good and interesting arguments, and everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, but I think what I was trying to get at with this thread is that the law is to not steal, therefore, people publicly admitting to stealing/talking about how to steal in threads on these boards is not appropriate and is offensive to those of us who do follow the rules.
I appreciate everyone's interest in this subject and thanks to MOST of you for being respectful enough not to flame me.
Some of you guys have really good and interesting arguments, and everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, but I think what I was trying to get at with this thread is that the law is to not steal, therefore, people publicly admitting to stealing/talking about how to steal in threads on these boards is not appropriate and is offensive to those of us who do follow the rules.
I appreciate everyone's interest in this subject and thanks to MOST of you for being respectful enough not to flame me.
Chip NoVaMac said:
even these crimes?
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts/
**** that mayor in newton owes a lot of hogs to the towns people
and christ two people can't kiss in front of a church in boston that means you can't kiss anywhere in boston basically O_O their is a church on like every friggen street.
I love these laws so much fun
and the only law i like on that little site is
"Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder."
oh hell no anyone that does that should be killed
i'm willing to agree that it shouldn't be discussed on the boards here...
but give me a break folks, i challange everyone here who is preaching about piracy laws to clean their computer of all of their pirated software, music, etc.
but give me a break folks, i challange everyone here who is preaching about piracy laws to clean their computer of all of their pirated software, music, etc.
eva01 said:
Bad laws should be changed not simply not enforced. Giulliani lowered major crime in NYC by cracking down on minor crime.
As for the tomatoes in clam chowder. Red clam chowder was inventing in New England and White was developed in Manhattan...
On the piracy issue... The laws need to be changed. The system needs to be changed. There are cartels which are usurping governmental authority (admittedly with permission) The prices are artificially inflated to feed a marketing machine.
Chip NoVaMac said:A crime is a crime. Period. Your attitude is the problem we have in the States with greedy corporate types. With greedy politicians.
Property crime means someone loses. And that makes it a crime plain and simple.
I can't believe that you even had the nerve to say that. Maybe I should come over and take possession of your home and worldly goods. By your reasoning you would not call the police.
Do you want to give us your address, so we can take what you have?
my statement wasn't meant to imply that i steal, or think stealing is ok, but that people should lighten up and think about more important things, like hunger, war, and homelessness. example: my roommate dropped my powerbook last week, and it doesnt turn on anymore. i was over it in a few hours. so, it's just a couple songs downloaded...
Personally, I understand why some people think Front Row is an exception because you can't buy it. BUT, I believe that MR should take the high road and not get anywhere close to legal and moral issues like this.
If you feel it's OK, Fine. Just do it somewhere else, not here.
About music priacy, I try to use iTMS whenever possible, but what about the russian alternatives like allofMP3.com? Legal? Moral? What do you think?
If you feel it's OK, Fine. Just do it somewhere else, not here.
About music priacy, I try to use iTMS whenever possible, but what about the russian alternatives like allofMP3.com? Legal? Moral? What do you think?
bankshot said:Doesn't matter. Apple has chosen not to make it available outside of an iMac purchase, and that's their right. Nobody else has the right to obtain it any other way.
Absolutely ludicrous! Hacking your Mac to run Front Row would be building an IR receiver device that conforms to the standards expected by the application. And then waiting/hoping for the time when Apple provides way to legally obtain the software. Obtaining the software without their permission is piracy, plain and simple!
Why? Because those cost more money (in theory -- because we don't even know how much Front Row might cost if it were ever sold separately)? Again, I say ludicrous. Piracy is piracy. Doesn't matter if it's a $5 share/trialware app, or a $50,000 custom software suite.
At this point in time, all we know is that Apple is using Front Row as a way to entice customers to buy a new iMac. It's their right to do so. If you want Front Row really badly, you have to pony up the cash for a new iMac. That's the only way to get it. Again, only Apple has the right to determine how Front Row is distributed. Bypassing the legal method they've provided and downloading it is simply wrong. If Adobe loses $800 on a pirated copy of Photoshop, then Apple loses $1200 (whatever the low end iMac costs) on a pirated copy of Front Row. Either argument, flawed as they are, carries an equal amount of validity.
It would be just as bad if that thread were about Photoshop, Office, Final Cut Pro, Logic, Tiger, iLife, or a major Oracle site license. My opinion anyway.
Give me a break. IS there a EULA ANYWHERE that states that you cannot run Frontrow on any other machine? Is there a EULA that states you cannot hack, modify, reverse engineer, or otherwise enable it to run without a remote, on another mnachine, and/or both?
You show me where this EULA is, and I will agree its wrong. You don't show me a EULA, I commend these people who cracked the app for being so inclined.
Software piracy is nothing like autotheft, or a violent crime. Despite what the media says, it's not funding gangs or organized crime rings or the taliban or jihad. Software piracy has been around a lot longer then before the Bush administration.
I find it funny how so many people waste effort and money on pirates when they could be spending that money on the homeless, making sure no other country nukes us, or going after REAL criminals.
But whatever. To each his own.
I agree with this. I DO go out and buy music CD's on occasion when I feel they are worth the $16, but if not, I'll download them and maybe I'll keep, maybe I won't. If I would never dream of BUYING a CD from a certain artist, that artist should at least be glad that his/her music was being heard at all.rickvanr said:
The only reason I still listen to music is because I can get it for free. If I had to pay for every song I wanted to listen to, I'd stop listening, EXCEPT for those few CD's I am willing to spend my money on.
That being said, neither side is ever going to see the other side of this argument's POV, so it is basically pointless to discuss this.. again.. I will continue to pay for what I feel is worth the money, and STEAL (yes, I admit it) what I feel is not. Snoop Doggy Dogg can just live with the terrible reality of having his music heard by nearly everyone in the world, including (thanks to P2P) those who normally wouldn't have heard his music because it wouldn't have been worth it to them to buy it.
I have several other points I'd like to make, but I really feel this topic has been discussed to death, so this is all I'm saying about this.
*opens Limewire and searches for that new Eminem song*
i will reiterate onizuka's question about where it says that front row cannot be put on another machine. i don't doubt it exists, just curious where.
I think the trying out sense is justified.
Before the internet explosion, you had radio and friends to tell you about music. That was basically it. Maybe you went out and saw local bands and the like, but you werent exposed to much other than what the radio stations (which then actually had a choice of what each station wanted to play) let you hear.
In comes the internet, Napster, broadband and the whole way we listen to music has changed. Now you can hear bands you never heard of, genres you cant get on local stations and pretty much anything you can think of. Times have changed and music isnt a east coast vs west coast thing, or I listen to Metal and you dont so you must suck. Ive broadened my musical tastes very much, and I can thank p2p for that.
The music industry is just too slow to get with the times and figure out themselves how to make a profit in this new land. But it will happen eventually, the invention of mp3s and broadband and napster and p2p is NOT a bad thing, its human progress. The "industry" just hasnt figure out a way to make it their own, and they are pissed.
Off the top of my head, Billy Corgan released something like 10 vinyls of "Machina II" and asked it be put onto P2P, for free.
So if I can dl something and listen to it because I have no other way of ever knowing its existence other than it being connected to a band I do like through mp3.com's musical grapevine, and I listen and like then buy, is that wrong? I doubt it. Otherwise, like someone else said, I never would have even known I could buy this music, so how did the artist lose anything?
Before the internet explosion, you had radio and friends to tell you about music. That was basically it. Maybe you went out and saw local bands and the like, but you werent exposed to much other than what the radio stations (which then actually had a choice of what each station wanted to play) let you hear.
In comes the internet, Napster, broadband and the whole way we listen to music has changed. Now you can hear bands you never heard of, genres you cant get on local stations and pretty much anything you can think of. Times have changed and music isnt a east coast vs west coast thing, or I listen to Metal and you dont so you must suck. Ive broadened my musical tastes very much, and I can thank p2p for that.
The music industry is just too slow to get with the times and figure out themselves how to make a profit in this new land. But it will happen eventually, the invention of mp3s and broadband and napster and p2p is NOT a bad thing, its human progress. The "industry" just hasnt figure out a way to make it their own, and they are pissed.
Off the top of my head, Billy Corgan released something like 10 vinyls of "Machina II" and asked it be put onto P2P, for free.
So if I can dl something and listen to it because I have no other way of ever knowing its existence other than it being connected to a band I do like through mp3.com's musical grapevine, and I listen and like then buy, is that wrong? I doubt it. Otherwise, like someone else said, I never would have even known I could buy this music, so how did the artist lose anything?
liketom said:
Thats exactly how I feel... When I was younger, more naive, and without a job, i used to download tons of music... but now I am bette rable to realize how my actions affect other people, and I actively try to curb my piracy habits. HOWEVER, I was so excited and impressed with the idea of running front-row on my imac (and it was so easy to get and right in my face) that I tried it out without thinking. I am definitely going to remove all traces of it this afternoon, and wait for the real thing. I suggest everyone else do the same. Besides, no matter what anyone says, hacked software NEVER works as well as the original.
Ditto. When I was a teenager, I was definitely guilty of pirating a lot of software. This was before the digital music era, so illegally downloading (a.k.a. "sharing") was not yet an issue; but on the other hand, my friends and I freely made copies of each others' audiocassettes, which is just a low-tech version of the same crime. Whenever my conscience bothered me about what I was doing, I fell back on rickvanr's rationalization (a classic): "Well, I can't afford to have paid money for this software, so it's not like they've lost any money just because I copied it."RJP31484 said:
Now that I'm a grownup -- and in fact making a living as a software developer -- I have a lot more respect for intellectual property rights, copyright laws, and such. But I think it's pointless to try to convince any of these teenagers that stealing music or software is wrong, just as pointless as it would have been for you to try to convince me of the same when I was a teenager. It's just a maturity thing.
There are a couple of reasons that it can't be the same with music. First, those who own the right to distribute the music said so. The guitar shop distributes the guitars, and said you can try before you buy. The car dealer, and the others also said so..:*Robot Boy*:. said:
The shirt is an interesting one, and I think the best comparison for the music. So you buy the shirt, wear it once and realize it makes you look like a clown out of Ringling Bros. You return it to the store. It is impossible for you to have made a copy of the shirt and returned it, keeping the copy. If you did, you would have probably cause some damage to the shirt.
Same with a book. Book stores let you return books, but only if they are in new condition. To copy the entire book would ruin the condition and probably cost you more than the book. If they can resell the book as new, then there is no reason for them not to refund your money when you make a return.
The CD/DVD cannot be sold as new because the security measures have been compromised. Even if there was a way to renew them, there is no method to determine if a copy was made - the store has to assume that a copy was made because so many people do make copies, that to not assume would be a financial liability. So, you can't return the music. Thus forcing you to violate reason one and pirate.
For those who complain that you can't listen to the music first on iTunes, many quality music stores (especially smaller stores), and some not so high quality, let you listen to the CD first before you buy. If you want to listen, why not be social, go outside, go to the store and listen (Americans especially...we are really becoming isolated). If you are a good customer at a store that doesn't, help them understand that sales would increase if they did that - that this is the reason stores do do it - they may just listen to you.
From what I understand, 10.4 is required to be on a machine running Front Row, and that Tiger is being used to copy or run Front Row. Front Row contains copyrighted material. The EULA of 10.4 begins by informing the user that "It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. If you are uncertain about your right to copy any material, you should contact your legal advisor."Onizuka said:
However I may be wrong and it can be run on 10.3. There, the EULA states that "It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. If you are uncertain about your right to copy any material, you should contact your legal advisor."
Now, a person may say that they are not copying the material. Well, I refer you to §2(A) of the EULA which states in part that "This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time" Apple Software is defined as software, documentation and any fonts accompanying the license. Front Row is distributed with 10.4 on the new iMac, rendering this license applicable.
As for hack, modify, reverse engineer, I refer you to §2(C) of the EULA which states in part that "except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
I am not a legal professional and am not engaged in the practice of law. I do not represent myself to be a legal advisor. I will continue to provide my reading of the EULA. That I leave to professionals.
Lyle said:
I hope that the "it's" in your final sentence is a reference to how hard it is to convince teenagers of an idea, and not to how once one is mature, they'll agree with your point of view.
At 28, I consider myself mature, and I see many mature arguments that demonstrate that intellectual property does not, and should not, exist.
Somehow i can't quite picture Steve Jobs going...."OMFG! People are using Front Row on other Macs!! SUE THEIR ASS'S THE BITCHS"
I think there are more serious issues, and crimes. Using pirated software isnt like stealing, not in the sense of walking into a store and walking out with a handful of items you didnt pay for. Software is different, you just pay for the right to use it - not the actual software itself (that remains the propery of the creators) and so using it without paying means you are using it without permission. However you are never actually taking anything 'away' from the original creator -- The argument is that you 'would have bought it' if you didnt get it for free. Thats not always the case, but then sometimes it is.
Anyhow i think there are worse types of piracy than someone using a ripped version of Front Row on their Mac, i mean piracy that really hurts the users and the creators. That is people actually selling and making money from pirated goods - include selling pirated software on 'new' pc's for example or selling supposed 'real' copies of the software for reduced prices.
IMHO If software/music piracy was erradicated tomorrow, i think it would do more harm than good (to both sides). For instance, bands not getting as much exposure, software not becoming as popular -- you know that people use what they are used too and things like Microsofts Office become standard because people start using it at work and at home. The more people use your software or hear your music, the more likley they are to buy something from you in the first place, and at the very least, recommend the software to other indeviduals or companys.
I think there are more serious issues, and crimes. Using pirated software isnt like stealing, not in the sense of walking into a store and walking out with a handful of items you didnt pay for. Software is different, you just pay for the right to use it - not the actual software itself (that remains the propery of the creators) and so using it without paying means you are using it without permission. However you are never actually taking anything 'away' from the original creator -- The argument is that you 'would have bought it' if you didnt get it for free. Thats not always the case, but then sometimes it is.
Anyhow i think there are worse types of piracy than someone using a ripped version of Front Row on their Mac, i mean piracy that really hurts the users and the creators. That is people actually selling and making money from pirated goods - include selling pirated software on 'new' pc's for example or selling supposed 'real' copies of the software for reduced prices.
IMHO If software/music piracy was erradicated tomorrow, i think it would do more harm than good (to both sides). For instance, bands not getting as much exposure, software not becoming as popular -- you know that people use what they are used too and things like Microsofts Office become standard because people start using it at work and at home. The more people use your software or hear your music, the more likley they are to buy something from you in the first place, and at the very least, recommend the software to other indeviduals or companys.
You go to a guitar store, and you ask for a guitar to take home and try out. You try it for a few days, and then you buy it. The guitar has value in "physical worth" and "design worth." Physical worth would be the price of making the guitar, such as the wood and the labor to physically construct it. Design worth would be the worth of the research put into making this guitar. For you to steal the design worth of the guitar, and then go to physically produce a replica of the guitar you've borrowed will cost you more than purchasing directly from the store. (Cost includes time/effort in addition to the material costs.)
You don't go to a Barnes and Noble, ask for a CD to take home and try out. You can't take the CD home for a few days and then decide whether or not to buy it. The CD has most of its value in "design worth" and a few pennies in value in "physical worth." The physical worth of the CD is simply the little disk, which is very easy to obtain. The design worth would be the content on the CD which can be easily replicated without much cost. Thus the music store would never let you take a CD out to "try out." The costs assosiated with taking the risk that some people would burn the CD and then return it would be way too high.
A big reason with why you can't "try-before-you-buy" with music (at least, in the pirating manner) even if you do purchase the music later if you like it, is because the rights don't belong to you. You may ask, "I can try out cars before I buy them; Why can't I do the same with music?" And assuming that the first point I've made with the guitar/CD thing doesn't apply here, I don't see anyone walking to a car dealership, hotwiring a car, test driving it for a few days, and then coming back to the dealership to make a purchase decision. Why? Because they can ask to test drive. They ask to test drive because hotwiring a car at a car dealership and driving it home for a few days is illegal, even if they mean to return it a few days later without damage. You can already listen to short music clips at music stores and on itunes; that's a little test drive that they legally give to you. Even if people would get a better "feel" for cars if they could take them home for a few days, car dealerships say "no." And we listen because if we dont, we're criminals. So now, we want to test our music - full length tracks - for a few days. We'd get a better feel for our music. But the record companies say "no." But people download anyways.
You don't go to a Barnes and Noble, ask for a CD to take home and try out. You can't take the CD home for a few days and then decide whether or not to buy it. The CD has most of its value in "design worth" and a few pennies in value in "physical worth." The physical worth of the CD is simply the little disk, which is very easy to obtain. The design worth would be the content on the CD which can be easily replicated without much cost. Thus the music store would never let you take a CD out to "try out." The costs assosiated with taking the risk that some people would burn the CD and then return it would be way too high.
A big reason with why you can't "try-before-you-buy" with music (at least, in the pirating manner) even if you do purchase the music later if you like it, is because the rights don't belong to you. You may ask, "I can try out cars before I buy them; Why can't I do the same with music?" And assuming that the first point I've made with the guitar/CD thing doesn't apply here, I don't see anyone walking to a car dealership, hotwiring a car, test driving it for a few days, and then coming back to the dealership to make a purchase decision. Why? Because they can ask to test drive. They ask to test drive because hotwiring a car at a car dealership and driving it home for a few days is illegal, even if they mean to return it a few days later without damage. You can already listen to short music clips at music stores and on itunes; that's a little test drive that they legally give to you. Even if people would get a better "feel" for cars if they could take them home for a few days, car dealerships say "no." And we listen because if we dont, we're criminals. So now, we want to test our music - full length tracks - for a few days. We'd get a better feel for our music. But the record companies say "no." But people download anyways.