I have yet to meet anyone in person who actually likes it

[Ray8]

I don't agree at all with piracy, every single program that I have on my devices is paid for, I even send (donate) money to sole developers because I've found their free products to be so good and wish that they can continue developing their products. Yet I have friends who have not purchased one single piece of software, music or movie in their lives and look at me like I'm weird when I say I pay for my stuff.

There are even cases where they want a piece of software, but aren't willing to pay even a pittance for it, and say they'll wait until it appears on one of the torrents. In fact, I think some are so into the get things for free mentality, that they actually take advantage of their friends, because it's become their moral style. But what do you do?

I think Microsoft did a trial in China, where they dropped the price of their products significantly, such that it had a major effect on piracy within China. I haven't heard much since, so I have no idea whether it worked long term or whether it's still in place. You might be able to reform the honest thieves, but you'll never reform the hard core ones.

 

[SIW2]

Billy Bragg very recently said he didn't approve of Piracy - people charging for copies his work. They make money and the artist gets none.

He finds file sharing helps him to expand his audience and gain a new generation of fans.

Several others have said the same kind of thing - Pink Floyd, iirc.

Interesting how they differentiate the two.

 

[SIW2]

I think all software will eventually be written in the Modern interface only to be purchased via the MS Store. This way they keep track of what's installed on one's computer. I think 3rd party software companies will enjoy this as well.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

MS acting as censor - only what they approve of.

 

[BillWindows]

I don't agree at all with piracy, every single program that I have on my devices is paid for, I even send (donate) money to sole developers because I've found their free products to be so good and wish that they can continue developing their products. Yet I have friends who have not purchased one single piece of software, music or movie in their lives and look at me like I'm weird when I say I pay for my stuff.

There are even cases where they want a piece of software, but aren't willing to pay even a pittance for it, and say they'll wait until it appears on one of the torrents. In fact, I think some are so into the get things for free mentality, that they actually take advantage of their friends, because it's become their moral style. But what do you do?

I think Microsoft did a trial in China, where they dropped the price of their products significantly, such that it had a major effect on piracy within China. I haven't heard much since, so I have no idea whether it worked long term or whether it's still in place. You might be able to reform the honest thieves, but you'll never reform the hard core ones.

I don't know how long you've been on the Internet but I've been here since the beginning, I was on bulletin boards before that. The Internet was vastly a different place at the start with no real GUI, it was like looking at the files and folders on your hard drive.

Then Web browsers came along and changed the landscape, anyway my point is the Internet was built on porn and Piracy, without it I doubt the computer industry and the Internet would be anywhere near what it is today.

I actually think that Microsoft owes a lot of what it is today to porn and piracy. The only people that were on the net when it first started were computer geeks like myself, nobody else even knew how to turn a computer on let alone set it up to go on the net. There were no businesses and advertising just websites to download porn, illegal music and hacked programmes, ahhh the good old days, no advertising.
I remember when businesses first set up on the net, it was like they were invading my private space, how times have changed. I always looked at piracy from the angle that I was just trying a programme to see what it was like. I tried many and hated even more and deleted them just as fast.
Most of the good ones I eventually bought, I can honestly say that piracy actually made me spend a lot more money than I would have without it.

Actually I forgot, the first places I found on the Internet were Universities and also bulletin boards.

 

[labeeman]

I think all software will eventually be written in the Modern interface only to be purchased via the MS Store. This way they keep track of what's installed on one's computer. I think 3rd party software companies will enjoy this as well.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

MS acting as censor - only what they approve of.

They have already censored one program already and no comments form either side.

 

[SIW2]

It would be very bleak if the public were to let themselves to be pushed into that position.

MS might not like start menu alternatives - simple - they don't allow it.

Most of the films/books/games many of use/read/learn from are not really suitable for under 14's. They don't allow those either,etc,etc.

It is an appalling prospect.

 

[lehnerus2000]

If we think about it, we pay for pirating by paying a higher price for legitimate software. Companies have to make profit. Too many thieves and people with there hand out in this world looking for a free ride. It's getting worse by the year. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of it. Something has to change and change soon.

You're being naive.

Eliminating Piracy won't cause prices to fall.
It will have the opposite effect.

Companies charge "what the market will bear".
Do you really think that record companies would allow you to buy music for $0.99/track, if they could have eliminated Internet Piracy?

The only reason that Windows isn't $1k/copy, is that MS knows that there would be a massive surge in the number of pirate installs.
How much tax would you be willing to pay, to lock up the millions of pirates under that scenario?

Companies constantly lobby the US Congress to extend copyright duration.

Note:
BTW, I am NOT advocating Piracy.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Billy Bragg very recently said he didn't approve of Piracy - people charging for copies his work. They make money and the artist gets none.

He finds file sharing helps him to expand his audience and gain a new generation of fans.

Several others have said the same kind of thing - Pink Floyd, iirc.

Interesting how they differentiate the two.

Interesting, yes, with no offense, but sometimes I find your logic simply amazing. You referred to two artists that have been around since before the internet was even a word. They made their millions before digital was around via vinyl recordings. My friends and I bought many of them. Difficult to pirate unless one recorded to tape. I knew a few that did via reel to reel. Those were expensive back in the day, so pirating was at a minimum. Then there was the eight track. Then cassette. Then digital on CD. The more technology grew, the more pirating grew.

Therefore you speak of artists, along with others I'm sure, that could give a rat's ass whether or not someone pirates their work. They have their $millions$. I think these are artists that are simply looking for more popularity and prestige as they stated. In a sense then they are advocating piracy in their own way. How about those starving artists that are starting out working hard to get to the top? How about the one hit wonders? Is that fair to cheat them out of income?

It doesn't matter what product it is. It all adds to a nation's GNP. That's what makes nations wealthy and healthy. Hard working people developing products so as to gain income to what? -> Spend their money on other products. Therefore, pirating throws a wrench into the working gears of economies.

I think all software will eventually be written in the Modern interface only to be purchased via the MS Store. This way they keep track of what's installed on one's computer. I think 3rd party software companies will enjoy this as well.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

MS acting as censor - only what they approve of.

Yes, I think it to be a good thing. You may think of it as censorship, but what about quality control aspect of it? I feel your comments lead to the fact that you think MS to be some monopolizing evil empire wanting to control the world of computing. They are a company that simply puts out products as so many do. We as consumers continue to have a choice to buy it or not. They didn't get where they're at by being smucks. Gates was simply a shrewd businessman putting out products that sold tremendously. Consumers voted them in, not Gates.

IMO, if you want to look at an evil corporation, try looking at a company liken to Walmart after the sons took over. They come into "Little Town America" to devastate that economy. Pure muscle to put ma and pa out of business with their lower prices only to raise them after ma and pa go under. I suggest a documentary called "The High Cost of Lower Prices" as a start. Of course they are not the only ones.

I, for one, avoid these types like the plague. I just don't see Gates and company attempting these tactics. I feel they continue to have some heart.

 

[labeeman]

Yes, I think it to be a good thing. You may think of it as censorship, but what about quality control aspect of it? I feel your comments lead to the fact that you think MS to be some monopolizing evil empire wanting to control the world of computing. They are a company that simply puts out products as so many do. We as consumers continue to have a choice to buy it or not. They didn't get where they're at by being smucks. Gates was simply a shrewd businessman putting out products that sold tremendously. Consumers voted them in, not Gates.

IMO, if you want to look at an evil corporation, try looking at a company liken to Walmart after the sons took over. They come into "Little Town America" to devastate that economy. Pure muscle to put ma and pa out of business with their lower prices only to raise them after ma and pa go under. I suggest a documentary called "The High Cost of Lower Prices" as a start. Of course they are not the only ones.

I, for one, avoid these types like the plague. I just don't see Gates and company attempting these tactics. I feel they continue to have some heart.

How quickly we forget; Microsoft was fund guilty in a court of law of the very things that you say they will not do.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

If we think about it, we pay for pirating by paying a higher price for legitimate software. Companies have to make profit. Too many thieves and people with there hand out in this world looking for a free ride. It's getting worse by the year. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of it. Something has to change and change soon.

You're being naive.

Eliminating Piracy won't cause prices to fall.
It will have the opposite effect.

Companies charge "what the market will bear".
Do you really think that record companies would allow you to buy music for $0.99/track, if they could have eliminated Internet Piracy?

The only reason that Windows isn't $1k/copy, is that MS knows that there would be a massive surge in the number of pirate installs.
How much tax would you be willing to pay, to lock up the millions of pirates under that scenario?

Companies constantly lobby the US Congress to extend copyright duration.

Note:
BTW, I am NOT advocating Piracy.

Lol! I'm naive in some ways no doubt. I'm aware that one charges what the market can endure. Being in a building business I used to charge by the size of the garage and what's sitting in the garage. Believe you me, I've seen many nice cars sitting in a four-bay garages! I charge accordingly, although I think one needs to keep in mind the shape of the economy. Now? -> Not so damn good! What I've read, totaling overall what American real estate values declined in 2010 -> $1.4 trillion. 2011 -> $800 billion. I don't know what the 2012 figure is and I don't remember what 2009 was. I'm afraid to look! Not looking good for building. Of course this is asset that is used for collateral for building projects. Not no more!

I'm sure MS follows some formula to charge accordingly. Doesn't make it right, though.

Perhaps I'm naive to software, but with a brick and mortar store we consumers absorb the cost of shoplifting. Ask any owner. The rate of shoplifting is a given factor added to prices.

Taxes to prosecute and imprison? Good question! Geez! Who knows the answer to that one? More efficient government for our buck perhaps. The only solution to that one I can think of. Doesn't seem we get it nowadays.

 

[labeeman]

Pirating software I do not do but any body doing so is bringing down the price of software not the other way around. A soft ware company charges what the market will bear when pirating does happen in large volumes the software company drops the price to generate cash flow if he hikes the price, more pirating will happen and cash flow drops. Sadly no mater the price some pirating for music and movies media is a fact of life. With digital goods the law of supply and demand does not work, only the demand side works.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Pirating software I do not do but any body doing so is bringing down the price of software not the other way around. A soft ware company charges what the market will bear when pirating does happen in large volumes the software company drops the price to generate cash flow if he hikes the price, more pirating will happen and cash flow drops. Sadly no mater the price some pirating for music and movies media is a fact of life. With digital goods the law of supply and demand does not work, only the demand side works.

Ok. I don't quite get it, but I'll take yours and other's word for it. It's just that it doesn't follow business principles is all. I'll surely be pondering this one.

 

[Mystere]

How quickly we forget; Microsoft was fund guilty in a court of law of the very things that you say they will not do.

It really bugs me when people throw around words they obviously don't understand. "Theft" when they mean "Infringement" for instance.

This is another one, Microsoft was sued by the government in Civil court. You can't be "found guilty" in Civil court. "guilt" is related to criminal court.

One can be found "liable" for violating civil statues, but that's not the same thing as being found guilty.

The reason why there is a big distinction between "liable" and "guilt" is that civil court has a dramatically lower standard of proof. And that's why the only penalties for a civil infraction are monetary, injunctive, and behavioral.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Shoplifting vs IP Piracy

I'm sure MS follows some formula to charge accordingly. Doesn't make it right, though.

Perhaps I'm naive to software, but with a brick and mortar store we consumers absorb the cost of shoplifting. Ask any owner. The rate of shoplifting is a given factor added to prices.

Taxes to prosecute and imprison? Good question! Geez! Who knows the answer to that one? More efficient government for our buck perhaps. The only solution to that one I can think of. Doesn't seem we get it nowadays.

People are always debating this.

Shoplifting is different to IP Piracy though.

The store owner bought the product and put it on his shelf.
If someone steals it, he loses the Product AND the Income from selling the product.
He has to spend more money to replace the item.

If someone downloads Pirated software the IP company only loses the Income from selling the product.
The IP company still has the original item (i.e. they can still sell the product)

It's still a loss to the IP company, just not a "double" loss as in the case of the retailer.

Another thing to consider is that people follow the "examples set by their betters".
How many CEOs, Corporations, Government Officials, Law Enforcers and Politicians have been caught breaking the Law?

Note:
BTW, I am NOT advocating corruption and/or criminal behaviour.

 

[Max Peck]

Interesting, yes, with no offense, but sometimes I find your logic simply amazing. You referred to two artists that have been around since before the internet was even a word. They made their millions before digital was around via vinyl recordings. My friends and I bought many of them. Difficult to pirate unless one recorded to tape. I knew a few that did via reel to reel. Those were expensive back in the day, so pirating was at a minimum. Then there was the eight track. Then cassette. Then digital on CD. The more technology grew, the more pirating grew.

Hey Gypsie,

Pirating content has been around a long time. My father was a Navy pilot back in the 60's ('Nam). He and his buddies would buy tape decks (reel-to-reel) in Tokyo (or wherever over there). Then they'd buy one copy of an album and everybody would make recordings of it. No telling how many guys were swapping those albums around while on board the carrier.

I remember we had a big stereo at the house with a huge tape deck and dozens of reel-to-reel tapes with all kinds of albums recorded on them. Back then I didn't realize what the issue was but now, in retrospect, I realize that a huge chunk of my father's music collection was pirated. The stereo did have a turntable and I think we had SOME purchased albums but the largest part of the collection was those tapes.

My father didn't think twice about lying about my age when getting us into the Fresno Zoo (so he wouldn't have to pay the adult admission for me) either, so (again in retrospect) I'm not surprised that he so easily pirated those albums. I guess lying and stealing is just the thing to do when it can get you the advantage.

-Max :-/

 

[Max Peck]

I'm sure MS follows some formula to charge accordingly. Doesn't make it right, though.

Perhaps I'm naive to software, but with a brick and mortar store we consumers absorb the cost of shoplifting. Ask any owner. The rate of shoplifting is a given factor added to prices.

Taxes to prosecute and imprison? Good question! Geez! Who knows the answer to that one? More efficient government for our buck perhaps. The only solution to that one I can think of. Doesn't seem we get it nowadays.

People are always debating this.

Shoplifting is different to IP Piracy though.

The store owner bought the product and put it on his shelf.
If someone steals it, he loses the Product AND the Income from selling the product.
He has to spend more money to replace the item.

If someone downloads Pirated software the IP company only loses the Income from selling the product.
The IP company still has the original item (i.e. they can still sell the product)

It's still a loss to the IP company, just not a "double" loss as in the case of the retailer.

Another thing to consider is that people follow the "examples set by their betters".
How many CEOs, Corporations, Government Officials, Law Enforcers and Politicians have been caught breaking the Law?

Note:
BTW, I am NOT advocating corruption and/or criminal behaviour.

OK ... so if the piracy is LESS of a crime then it's not a crime, eh?

Sorry ... as far as I'm concerned, theft is theft. The development of "cloning" technology does not diminish the fact that you are taking something that does not belong to you​.

-Max

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Interesting, yes, with no offense, but sometimes I find your logic simply amazing. You referred to two artists that have been around since before the internet was even a word. They made their millions before digital was around via vinyl recordings. My friends and I bought many of them. Difficult to pirate unless one recorded to tape. I knew a few that did via reel to reel. Those were expensive back in the day, so pirating was at a minimum. Then there was the eight track. Then cassette. Then digital on CD. The more technology grew, the more pirating grew.

Hey Gypsie,

Pirating content has been around a long time. My father was a Navy pilot back in the 60's ('Nam). He and his buddies would buy tape decks (reel-to-reel) in Tokyo (or wherever over there). Then they'd buy one copy of an album and everybody would make recordings of it. No telling how many guys were swapping those albums around while on board the carrier.

I remember we had a big stereo at the house with a huge tape deck and dozens of reel-to-reel tapes with all kinds of albums recorded on them. Back then I didn't realize what the issue was but now, in retrospect, I realize that a huge chunk of my father's music collection was pirated. The stereo did have a turntable and I think we had SOME purchased albums but the largest part of the collection was those tapes.

My father didn't think twice about lying about my age when getting us into the Fresno Zoo (so he wouldn't have to pay the adult admission for me) either, so (again in retrospect) I'm not surprised that he so easily pirated those albums. I guess lying and stealing is just the thing to do when it can get you the advantage.

-Max :-/

Max, your father and anyone else in the service defending our country should have gotten the music for free so far as I'm concerned. It doesn't bother me one bit that they pirated the music. God bless them! The ones I spoke of in my post were Viet Nam vets coming home with the reel to reels along with top notch stereo systems they bought in Asia before coming home. They had the best systems around! I would have pirated the music back then too I'm sure, but I couldn't afford a reel to reel!

Lol! I came from 12 children. We didn't have much, although we weren't the poorest around. My oldest brother is 8-1/2 years older than me. He'd stick 3 or 4 of us siblings in the trunk to sneak us into the outdoor theater. We'd bring our own popcorn and pop. That outdoor is still in operation. I used to take my kids there. Not too many left in the U.S.

I raised six children. I know how expensive that can get to be. My hat off to those raising children now! I don't blame your dad one bit for "adjusting" the ages, especially being a veteran. I bet he is/was a great dad!

 

[Mystere]

OK ... so if the piracy is LESS of a crime then it's not a crime, eh?

Sorry ... as far as I'm concerned, theft is theft. The development of "cloning" technology does not diminish the fact that you are taking something that does not belong to you​.

Yes, Theft is Theft. But Piracy is not Theft. Theft is depriving someone of something they have. Not depriving them of something they don't yet have. Theft is not "taking something that doesn't belong to you", theft is taking something that belongs to someone else. For instance, if you find a dollar laying in the street, it's not "theft" to take it, even though it doesn't belong to you. It doesn't belong to anyone, because the previous owner abandoned it (either through accident or loss or whatever). Theft has nothing to do with whether or not the item belongs to the thief, it's whether or not it belongs to someone else.

Nobody (well, not anyone reasonable anyways) is saying that Piracy is "less of a crime", it's just not theft. Extortion and Fraud are two different things. They are both bad, but you shouldn't say that someone has been extorted if they've been defrauded. It's simply not factually correct or accurate.

Piracy is Copyright Infringement. That's all it is. It's not theft. It's not stealing. It's not robbery. It's copyright infringement.

Infringement is depriving someone of a right. In this case, you are depriving them of the right to control whether a copy of their property can be made. In this sense, it's similar to trespassing, which is also a right (to control what happens to your property).

Now tell me, is Trespassing the same as stealing?

 

[Max Peck]

I don't blame your dad one bit for "adjusting" the ages, especially being a veteran. I bet he is/was a great dad!

No, actually he isn't that hot as a Dad. We parted ways a long time ago. His choice. I won't go into it.

-b

 

[Max Peck]

Now tell me, is Trespassing the same as stealing?

Of course not, Mystere, but they're just as illegal. Pirating software is still taking something a product that you are not paying for which is, by definition, stealing.

That's OK ... I don't care if you agree with me. This discussion has gotten old. Let's just table it. I've got better things to do.

Later d00d.

-Max