PDA

View Full Version : Is software piracy good or bad?



puddinlover
May 11th, 2009, 01:33 PM
I posted a large post on my programming blog today about piracy and how I feel it is affecting the industry.

I really wanna hear your opinions on it! I love to hear from the ubuntu community!

(You can read my opinion on piracy here (http://codejustin.com/internet-debate-on-software-piracy-statistics-music-games-industry/))

gnomeuser
May 11th, 2009, 02:20 PM
I don't especially mind people downloading a copy to try a program or a game. If they like it, then my experience tells me that people with means will go out and support the game hoping to get patches and more games like it. People without means would not have bought it regardless.

There are of course people who will just see it as a saving and buy hookers, coke and beer for their money instead but these people will likely have the same attitude to a lot of things. I think a deeper educational approach is required.

When I used to have my Amiga 500 most of my games, like that of most people were copied. When I got more money that was definitely something I spent my money on. I think that will be the case for a lot of people.

I don't buy software anymore, not because I have an problem with it but because I use Free Software and I don't really play games anymore. I donate to projects I like instead.

Bölvağur
May 11th, 2009, 03:04 PM
I was talking to a friend that said he was going to pirate this one game I was going to buy when it came out. He does that to see if the game is good or not, as he has often been burned by a buggy game that doesn't get patches... like this one last game he bought didn't even have dedicated servers....


What I think of piracy?

Overall it is bad. The more people use program X instead of an alternative of it, then they will tend to stick to pirating the program X instead of considering the alternatives. Good examples are photoshop and windows.
People that use photoshop tend to be baffled by the gimp, even though it isn't as difficult as moving from qwerty to dvorak, but more like stand on right foot and switching to the left one.
Also they help spread out the illusion that there is no alternative and increase the tech support and tutorials for photoshop instead of the alternatives.,

As for windows it is even worse. It is the same effect for people to be baffled by new things, but also they are increasing the marketshare for it and by that they are making it stronger.
I have seen people say they are going to damage MS by pirating their software but they are just helping them out to make their software ubiquitous, and hence software companies do not port their programs to other platforms.

SunnyRabbiera
May 11th, 2009, 03:05 PM
I think digital piracy serves a noble purpose in its own way, it might hurt sales yes but most of what is pirated has it coming.
Software and Multimedia just ask for it, the music and movie industry is corrupt and willing to sue anybody while most software companies like Adobe and Microsoft do anything to give the end user a hard time and a large bill.
Adobe has it coming by selling its products so high in a time of economic depression, I mean come on whats cheaper paying up to $900 for Photoshop or getting it for free rather if it be legal or not?
Microsoft certainly has it coming with thier crap business practices, by keeping others down they encourage hackers and crackers to come at them.
So yes I support software piracy to a point, as do I support music and video piracy.
I just stopped caring

fatality_uk
May 11th, 2009, 03:53 PM
Software piracy is baaad, MMM KAY!!

michaeldt
May 11th, 2009, 04:18 PM
As long as multi-billion dollar companies continue to punish legitimate users with DRM I'm going to have to say they brought it on themselves. I know people who pirate don't do it to get back at them, but tit for tat I say. Of course I'm against people who pirate software from smaller organisations which don't make excessive use of DRM.

In a nutshell, if I buy a game and have to go on-line to register the CD-Key and then have a working connection to play the game, WHY OH WHY must I have the CD in the drive!!?? Oh, and the film industry needs to get their finger out and let people make fair use copies of DVDs. The fact that they now sell DVDs which let you download a legal copy of the film at twice the price of regular DVDs speaks volumes about where their customer service lies. With their shareholders!

karellen
May 11th, 2009, 04:22 PM
if you ask me, software piracy hurts especially the open source model. if you can get almost any piece of software/game you want, why bother trying the alternative? I don't know anybody who owns a legally purchased copy of Photoshop, but in the meantime everyone uses it because they've downloaded it from the torrents sites...

aysiu
May 11th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Bill Gates has said he prefers people pirate Windows than use Linux, and he will find a way for them to pay for Windows later. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-truth-about-open-source-and-piracy/)

So I vote for piracy being bad.

BZF
May 11th, 2009, 04:31 PM
same here its really not that good

fatality_uk
May 11th, 2009, 04:35 PM
I use GIMP, don't need Photoshop.

As for the image that corporations are run by evil master villans, twisting thier mustaches and dreaming up ways to screw users, wrong, just wrong.

Taking photoshop as an example. It ISN'T aimed at the average user, so the price is set accordingly. 99% of those who have pirated copies of Photoshop only ever user 1% of the features! Ironic isn't it!

I used to write bespoke software and also released a number of titles under shareware, one which was quite well used in the print industry. That cash allowed me to survive as a small software house. As soon as crack for my app appeared from astalavista, I had to divert time, cash and energy to creating a new security system to allow me to profit from the 2 years of development time I had put into the software. I stopped developing that application.

BrokenKingpin
May 11th, 2009, 04:36 PM
I do not agree with software piracy. It is up to the developer if they want to sell it or give it away for free. There is enough free software out there that people should not have to steal proprietary software if they don’t want to pay for it. I am a software engineer it would not appreciate it if people were pirating any software that I wrote (although all of the personal stuff I write is open source :)).

sujoy
May 11th, 2009, 04:40 PM
software piracy is bad. its equivalent to stealing. if you pirate softwares then you are a thief, as simple as that. if the developer or the company behind it wont let you legally share/download it for free then why shouldn't you respect that?
would you steal a car if the company won't allow you to take it for free? will you rob a bank because they wont let you take others money? so why take others code without their permission?

pwnst*r
May 11th, 2009, 04:44 PM
I think digital piracy serves a noble purpose in its own way, it might hurt sales yes but most of what is pirated has it coming.
Software and Multimedia just ask for it, the music and movie industry is corrupt and willing to sue anybody while most software companies like Adobe and Microsoft do anything to give the end user a hard time and a large bill.
Adobe has it coming by selling its products so high in a time of economic depression, I mean come on whats cheaper paying up to $900 for Photoshop or getting it for free rather if it be legal or not?
Microsoft certainly has it coming with thier crap business practices, by keeping others down they encourage hackers and crackers to come at them.
So yes I support software piracy to a point, as do I support music and video piracy.
I just stopped caring

worst. reasons. ever.

Bölvağur
May 11th, 2009, 04:49 PM
its equivalent to stealing.

that is not as bad as that by stealing it you are giving the counterparts of that software hard time and you increase the likely hood of other people using that same software.

But if you steal a car then you are not increasing the odds of million of other people using it also just because everyone else is using it and all the customizable seats and plug and play mirrors are designed for that car.. as that model has higher market share than the free car you can get from Jan Mayen.

Bios Element
May 11th, 2009, 05:10 PM
software piracy is bad. its equivalent to stealing. if you pirate softwares then you are a thief, as simple as that. if the developer or the company behind it wont let you legally share/download it for free then why shouldn't you respect that?
would you steal a car if the company won't allow you to take it for free? will you rob a bank because they wont let you take others money? so why take others code without their permission?

Tell me, what has been taken? Stealing involves depriving the original owner of something. Take Adobe Photoshop for something. Someone pirates a copy of that, How has adobe lost anything? Sales? People can't afford most of their stuff anyway so they'd go without.

And comparing it to cars and robbing banks...I don't think I really need to explain why that's silly.

For the Record: I don't even like Photoshop.

pwnst*r
May 11th, 2009, 05:11 PM
Tell me, what has been taken? Stealing involves depriving the original owner of something. Take Adobe Photoshop for something. Someone pirates a copy of that, How has adobe lost anything? Sales? People can't afford most of their stuff anyway so they'd go without.

And comparing it to cars and robbing banks...I don't think I really need to explain why that's silly.

For the Record: I don't even like Photoshop.

so basically if you can't afford it, you're going to take it?

aysiu
May 11th, 2009, 05:18 PM
Tell me, what has been taken? Stealing involves depriving the original owner of something. Is that from the pirate's third edition dictionary? In a real dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stealing), none of the definitions say anything about the owner having to have no backup copies of the thing stolen.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5. Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6. Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show [Emphasis added]

And, in fact, if everyone pirates commercial software, then the software company is deprived of its proper revenue. If you don't agree with a software license, don't use the software. As a consumer, you don't get to pick and choose the terms of use.

Bios Element
May 11th, 2009, 05:22 PM
so basically if you can't afford it, you're going to take it?
If it's something actually needed yes. And as a programmer I'd hope that people who couldn't afford to buy my work would get it in whatever way they had too. Even if people who 'can' afford it pirate it I believe if they find it useful they'll buy a copy when they can.

Marlonsm
May 11th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Overall it's bad.
But I can see some ways it can help the software maker.
Think MS in its early days, or Adobe as it is now:
I'd bet that most Photoshops (or Flash, Dreamweaver or whatever) out there aren't legal, but Adobe just don't care, I think they even like it. As most people who pirate a PS just can't afford a legal one, BUT they end up learning how to use it. So, if someday they start making money with graphics and need to use legal software, they won't change PS for GIMP, they will continue using PS, but now they will pay for it.

Summarizing: if you can(and would) pay for that software, pirating is bad; but if you wouldn't pay, it's not.

pwnst*r
May 11th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Summarizing: if you can(and would) pay for that software, pirating is bad; but if you wouldn't pay, it's not.

wow.

Incense
May 11th, 2009, 05:38 PM
If it's something actually needed yes. And as a programmer I'd hope that people who couldn't afford to buy my work would get it in whatever way they had too. Even if people who 'can' afford it pirate it I believe if they find it useful they'll buy a copy when they can.

If you really need the software, then pay for it. Just because you don't have a problem with people stealing your software, doesn't mean you can make that decision for the devs of the program you're stealing. I guess I really don't understand why people think stealing software is ok. Same with music and movies.

aktiwers
May 11th, 2009, 06:35 PM
If you really need the software, then pay for it. Just because you don't have a problem with people stealing your software, doesn't mean you can make that decision for the devs of the program you're stealing. I guess I really don't understand why people think stealing software is ok. Same with music and movies.

I think that's because some people don't really see downloading a movie or a mp3 as the same thing as stealing. This is not stealing. I download the song to check it out, and to see if I wanna go pay for the concert next month or the album. Before the internet I did this too, only that time I checked out the music in the radio, TV or at a friends house or something.

I was not stealing back then, and I am not stealing now.

I would suggest that downloading becomes stealing, when you download, burn and sell it to make a profit.

sujoy
May 11th, 2009, 06:38 PM
i would suggest that downloading becomes stealing when you are doing so without the permission of the author/artist/developer.

LowSky
May 11th, 2009, 06:41 PM
I personally think that Piracy is bad. It hurts alot of people that work in the business, many who need to feed their families. Not everyone makes millions off an album sale.

But I also understand Piracy, or at least stealing. Using a P2P isn't thought as stealing but sharing to many people. Media outlets forget that the world is globalized. When a movie opens in the US it may take months to get to Russia or other places, and by then the movie has been leaked world wide in decent quality, why pay 3 months later to see something when you can get it now for free. Same thing happens in music and TV. If these companies found better ways to distibute content globally then less pirating may occur. Also selling a product at a standard price. It is unfair for Americans or Europenas to pay a much higher price for something then ofer it for much cheaper in developing nations (example Windows). If the price was consistant and readily availible then it wouldn't be an issue.
Lastly companies need to stop using long codes for keys and DRM. These dont help and lower quality for people buying real copies. Plus is it fair to me who might buy something that I can only use it 5 times and only on one machine? I dont think so.

monsterstack
May 11th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Software piracy. I hate the use of the word "pirate" to refer to copyright infringements.

Still regardless of that, software really does make a mincemeat of our traditional concepts of trade. Supply and demand is based on the premise that I have a collection of finite goods, and I will give them to you for a price; as I run out of goods to sell, the price increases as the items become rare and thus more valuable.

Software puts paid to that: once you've written it, you have infinite copies of it. If the available supply of goods is roughly inversely proportional to the price people are willing to pay for it, then the price will be zero.

Any semblance of value is lost because the copy you come to own cost nothing to produce. The original copy has value, and certainly did cost the creator some money possibly, but you can't buy that.

Let's have some bad car analogies. If some guy invented a machine that produces cars at zero cost, would you still consider it acceptable to pay thousands for one of them?

Attempts have been made to stop software from becoming a loss-making industry. DRM is one of the more insipid devices people can use. EULAs are another: rather than sell the zero-cost collection of binary to you, companies sell you a licence to use the software. You never actually own it. You think you paid for Photoshop? You paid Adobe to let you use it. Nothing more.

Whilst I have no need to break software licences as I only use free software, amongst my Windows-using friends, I don't know a single one who pays for their software licenses. I'm not exaggerating; they all get software from bittorrent. If I were to ask if they would pay for Photoshop they'd probably look at me as if I were from Mars. None of them pay. Not one.

Bios Element
May 11th, 2009, 08:28 PM
I personally think that Piracy is bad. It hurts alot of people that work in the business, many who need to feed their families. Not everyone makes millions off an album sale.

No, the RIAA makes money off album sales instead of the artists. Really, look at the actual figures before believing their FUD. They could teach Microsoft a thing or two. But I thought this topic was about software...

fatality_uk
May 11th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Software piracy. I hate the use of the word "pirate" to refer to copyright infringements.

Still regardless of that, software really does make a mincemeat of our traditional concepts of trade. Supply and demand is based on the premise that I have a collection of finite goods, and I will give them to you for a price; as I run out of goods to sell, the price increases as the items become rare and thus more valuable.

Software puts paid to that: once you've written it, you have infinite copies of it. If the available supply of goods is roughly inversely proportional to the price people are willing to pay for it, then the price will be zero.

Any semblance of value is lost because the copy you come to own cost nothing to produce. The original copy has value, and certainly did cost the creator some money possibly, but you can't buy that.

Let's have some bad car analogies. If some guy invented a machine that produces cars at zero cost, would you still consider it acceptable to pay thousands for one of them?

Attempts have been made to stop software from becoming a loss-making industry. DRM is one of the more insipid devices people can use. EULAs are another: rather than sell the zero-cost collection of binary to you, companies sell you a licence to use the software. You never actually own it. You think you paid for Photoshop? You paid Adobe to let you use it. Nothing more.

Whilst I have no need to break software licences as I only use free software, amongst my Windows-using friends, I don't know a single one who pays for their software licenses. I'm not exaggerating; they all get software from bittorrent. If I were to ask if they would pay for Photoshop they'd probably look at me as if I were from Mars. None of them pay. Not one.

Wow, that is one of the most ridiculous set of poorly conceived answers I have ever read. Where to start.

"Attempts have been made to stop software from becoming a loss-making industry". OK. Micrsoft could stop ALL work tomorrow and not sell another product for the next 10 years and still have "cash in the bank" Adobe's profits are rising, again.

"once you've written it, you have infinite copies of it." That's right, you can produce infite copies of your software, once you factor in costs of production, distribution, advertising etc.

And the MAIN fact that I think a few of you guys simply CAN'T or WONT get youre head around.

The production of software is NOT, I repeat NOT free. If you atre adobe, you have to pay staff. If you are GIMP project, you ask people for time. Either way, there is a cost to developing software. It doesn't just appear for all to enjoy.

lethalfang
May 11th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I'd say piracy is also bad for FOSS.
If you use pirated copies of MS Windows, Microsoft still controls your computer.
From Microsoft's point of view, if someone cannot afford to buy my product, I'd much prefer that he pirates mine, rather than use FOSS.

monsterstack
May 11th, 2009, 08:58 PM
"Attempts have been made to stop software from becoming a loss-making industry". OK. Micrsoft could stop ALL work tomorrow and not sell another product for the next 10 years and still have "cash in the bank" Adobe's profits are rising, again.

Software piracy is still enough of a legitimate threat that software companies wish to try and stop it.



"once you've written it, you have infinite copies of it." That's right, you can produce infite copies of your software, once you factor in costs of production, distribution, advertising etc.

And the MAIN fact that I think a few of you guys simply CAN'T or WONT get youre head around.

The production of software is NOT, I repeat NOT free. If you atre adobe, you have to pay staff. If you are GIMP project, you ask people for time. Either way, there is a cost to developing software. It doesn't just appear for all to enjoy.



The original copy has value, and certainly did cost the creator some money possibly, but you can't buy that.

No, I understand perfectly well, thank you.

starcannon
May 11th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Bad;

In my mind its like asking if counterfeiting money is good or bad. Or stealing a car, or a painting is good or bad. Or not paying for a meal, or not paying for a service, or not paying an employee for their time.

If someone creates something, and chooses to be payed for their creation, then not paying is STEALING. I know many will "justify" their actions, but justification does not change the fact they are using something that belongs to someone without their permission. I've heard all the "sharing" arguments, and how they aren't "stealing" they are simply "duplicating"; and I'm sure if they started "duplicating" Dollars, Euro's, Pounds, or any other currency that is considered legal tender they would have a hard time convincing a court that they weren't counterfeiting, they were "duplicating".

Anyway, I think its bad.

michaeldt
May 11th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Before the explosion of the internet, people shared disks to copy software. I remember doing it as a kid with games. The internet makes things easier, but copying software has been around as long as software has, pretty much anyway. I'm sure Microsoft, Adobe and all the rest would love it if everyone who used a copy of their software had paid for it, unfortunately, there probably isn't enough money in the pockets of all the pirates in the world to pay for all the illegal copies out there. Which is one of the things which gets me worked up more than anything related to piracy. Companies listing all the pirating going on and then attaching a retail price to every illegal copy and calling that a loss.

Most of the people who pirate software from major vendors wouldn't pay for it if they never had the opportunity to pirate it. I'm not saying pirating is right, not by any stretch of the imagination, but you cannot overlook the reality. You cannot make money from nothing. If people weren't going to pay for it before, preventing piracy won't make them. Of course, the people they need to be targeting are those who can afford and would pay if they couldn't pirate it. These would, in almost all cases, be businesses.

What the likes of Microsoft and others need to do is figure out a pricing model which doesn't hurt the pockets of consumers, especially in the days where most households have multiple computers. Crying about piracy is a bit hypocritical when you've priced your software out of reach of a large portion of your customer base. Again, not saying piracy is right, but people can't spend money they don't have.

However, on a lighter note, I tried several applications over about a year for processing raw files from my camera. I eventually settled on one which met my needs and was affordable and bought it. That it has a Linux version was certainly a plus. I don't mind paying for software, so long as it's reasonably priced. My wife's laptop has office 2007 which was bought at the rock bottom student price of about £40 for the ultimate version. We can't afford more than that.

I think what developers need to do is think forward and realise that services is where the money is going to come from in the future. Cloud computing will in many cases put many vendors out of the market unless they quickly find a way to make the most of it. Software vendors need to get the same wake up call that people have been trying to force onto the music and film industries, that the traditional models no longer fit today's society.

Sealbhach
May 11th, 2009, 09:06 PM
It's no different than going into a store and stealing it off the shelf. I have no problem with software makers asking for payment if they've invested time and money on developing a software product - and think of the poor starving children if Daddy doesn't get paid.

I came to that conclusion after downloading a movie I really wanted to watch - I might as well have stolen it from a shop. I'm not going to do it anymore - peace of mind is more important.


.

Wiebelhaus
May 11th, 2009, 09:13 PM
I don't care anymore as I don't use anything that's not open source , period.

Other then restricted drivers and other obvious things like media codecs and things.

monsterstack
May 11th, 2009, 09:20 PM
Before the explosion of the internet, people shared disks to copy software. I remember doing it as a kid with games. The internet makes things easier, but copying software has been around as long as software has, pretty much anyway. I'm sure Microsoft, Adobe and all the rest would love it if everyone who used a copy of their software had paid for it, unfortunately, there probably isn't enough money in the pockets of all the pirates in the world to pay for all the illegal copies out there. Which is one of the things which gets me worked up more than anything related to piracy. Companies listing all the pirating going on and then attaching a retail price to every illegal copy and calling that a loss.

Most of the people who pirate software from major vendors wouldn't pay for it if they never had the opportunity to pirate it. I'm not saying pirating is right, not by any stretch of the imagination, but you cannot overlook the reality. You cannot make money from nothing. If people weren't going to pay for it before, preventing piracy won't make them. Of course, the people they need to be targeting are those who can afford and would pay if they couldn't pirate it. These would, in almost all cases, be businesses.

What the likes of Microsoft and others need to do is figure out a pricing model which doesn't hurt the pockets of consumers, especially in the days where most households have multiple computers. Crying about piracy is a bit hypocritical when you've priced your software out of reach of a large portion of your customer base. Again, not saying piracy is right, but people can't spend money they don't have.

However, on a lighter note, I tried several applications over about a year for processing raw files from my camera. I eventually settled on one which met my needs and was affordable and bought it. That it has a Linux version was certainly a plus. I don't mind paying for software, so long as it's reasonably priced. My wife's laptop has office 2007 which was bought at the rock bottom student price of about £40 for the ultimate version. We can't afford more than that.

I think what developers need to do is think forward and realise that services is where the money is going to come from in the future. Cloud computing will in many cases put many vendors out of the market unless they quickly find a way to make the most of it. Software vendors need to get the same wake up call that people have been trying to force onto the music and film industries, that the traditional models no longer fit today's society.

Agreed entirely. It is pointless railing against the suspect morals of filesharers. You have to face reality. And the reality is downloading copyrighted stuff without permission isn't even seen as wrong by a great many people. You can fine them and sue them and cut them off the internet all you like: the next day there will be more.

Some music artists are finding new and interesting ways to make money despite allowing their music to be made available online for free. The rationale is, "I can't stop piracy, but I can give people a reason to buy things." Deluxe boxsets, fancy gigs, signed vinyl records. Everyone is keen to try something. It isn't a matter of choice: if you want to make money in music, you have to try new business methods.

Software is in a similar boat. Whilst there are always people willing to code for free, making a bit of money certainly can't hurt. I loved Miro's "adopt a line of source code (https://www.getmiro.com/adopt/)" [getmiro.com] idea. I would adopt a line myself, only I'm worried I'd end up with


}

:eek:

fatality_uk
May 11th, 2009, 09:23 PM
Well as long as the blanket of FUD you guys wrap around yourselves to justify stealing other peoples work keeps you warm at night, then that's fine!!!

Roasted
May 11th, 2009, 09:27 PM
I'm probably going to come off as a total prick, but I've bought enough buggy software with horrible support to make it a long shot for me to purchase software again. This mentality only extends to my personal use. When it comes to the district I work for, I wouldn't even consider this.

I do, however, push open source software here as much as I can, using Ubuntu, GParted, Clonezilla LiveCD, FOG Imaging Server, etc to help me with my job. But then again, for what I do, I don't need photoshop or other programs that are actually half decent.

But it really depends what it is. If I know the company is reputable, has good support, etc, I certainly would consider buying their product. That being said, you wouldn't catch me dead buying Windows XP. :o:o:o

monsterstack
May 11th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Well as long as the blanket of FUD you guys wrap around yourselves to justify stealing other peoples work keeps you warm at night, then that's fine!!!

Some people have disagreed about the semantics of this term, but in my opinion theft and the act of copying are not analogous.


dictionary.com definition:
theft /θɛft/
–noun

the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
an instance of this.
Archaic. something stolen.



Even so, I certainly didn't say anything about downloading copyrighted works without permission. Why would I need to? I run Linux. Do you?

Dropbear
May 11th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Bill Gates has said he prefers people pirate Windows than use Linux, and he will find a way for them to pay for Windows later. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-truth-about-open-source-and-piracy/)

So I vote for piracy being bad.

So Bill Gates will find a way to extract blood from stone?

Wiebelhaus
May 11th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Some people have disagreed about the semantics of this term, but in my opinion theft and the act of copying are not analogous.



Even so, I certainly didn't say anything about downloading copyrighted works without permission. Why would I need to? I run Linux. Do you?

I agree with you man , totally. But come on let's not be coy or foolish here , just because the Bible didn't specify not to shoot people with missiles doesn't grant you permission to kill the innocent with weapons of mass destruction , same for stealing or any other sin for that matter , if you take something without paying for it unless specified that you may use it by your own accord , your stealing.

We know in our hearts it's wrong and convincing ourselves otherwise with with intellect is fooling ourselves , plain and simple.

SuperSonic4
May 11th, 2009, 09:41 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png

As for software (the point of this topic), I never needed to illegally download it. On windows the rewards were never worth the high risk of getting a file with a virus on and on kubuntu/arch there is no need since everything is free in both senses of the word.

Something like giving full features but for a limited time/number of uses would make the most sense

Rocket2DMn
May 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Regardless of any opinions dished out in this thread, pirating software is illegal and should not be discussed on these forums. Thread closed.