You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Pirating.....yarrr

Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 5:13am

Post 1 of 120

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Recently in school my History teacher assigned a project were we must show a certain theme that has played throughout history in a 45 min video. A lot of kids went out that afternoon and pirated programs like Vegas, primiere, final cut etc. This really bothered me because this past Christmas my loving parents bought me the Vegas DVD bundle, but a kid in my class clicks a few buttons on his comp and.....poof.........he is editing with a $500 program. Do these kids have no morals? Dont they understand the work that went into making the program? Do they realize pirating is equivalent to stealing?

I was curious what others thought of this ILLEGAL issue
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 5:26am

Post 2 of 120

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Whether its music or software.. im sure all of us in one way or another have pirated.

Its impossible to track these people and yes its totally wrong. I bought my version of premiere.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 5:49am

Post 3 of 120

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I have no illegal software on my computer. I think it is wrong, I have done it before a while ago, I have moved past that. Now I try demos, look at what people say, see results, and then wait for a Christmas/Birthday and that is the only big thing I ask for. Those kids won't know how to use the software anyways, and they will make it nowhere.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:00am

Post 4 of 120

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

WHy were you assigned an assignment that would basically encourage a bunch of students to download these programs is my question.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:57am

Post 5 of 120

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Gnome has a point. What is someone who wants to make a good video and has no cash to shell out supposed to use to edit? Avid Free is good, but say they didn't know of or couldn't get that. In that case, I can see why someone would pirate. If I had a project to do for a grade, and I didn't have cash for Vegas, I'd probably pirate it, even though that's a rather unChristian thing to do, it makes sense. Sometimes people see no other choice.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 1:04pm

Post 6 of 120

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, I'd be interested to hear the views of your history teacher on the subject, lisab. Have you mentioned to him that most of his class have indulged in illegal aquiring of software in order to complete his assignment?

When school teachers are practically encouraging piracy, albeit indirectly, it's pretty hard to convince young people that it's a bad thing to do. If you do mention the topic to him, let us know what he says!
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 1:12pm

Post 7 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I think the best thing you can possibly do is make your project about the history of stealing which culminates into an area covering software piracy. It'd be a good way to make a point and also to get grades.

Also, Downloading vegas seems a bit silly really, considering the editing they're doing could probably be done in iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. What do you think of my idea?

-Hybrid.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 1:58pm

Post 8 of 120

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid will be Made or Broken depending upon if you like his Idea. Its sad, But somewhat Epic.

Annd onto the subject @ hand, I would just tell the kids that all that software will give them viruses or something along those lines. Then, Convince the school to Buy some software on load it on they're computers. Unless, You go to a tiny school with no budget. In that case, I would recommend Pirating Fully.





******NOTICE: I was Not being Serious. Except about hybrid*******
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 2:06pm

Post 9 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

ben3308 wrote:

What is someone who wants to make a good video and has no cash to shell out supposed to use to edit? Avid Free is good, but say they didn't know of or couldn't get that. In that case, I can see why someone would pirate. If I had a project to do for a grade, and I didn't have cash for Vegas, I'd probably pirate it.
So if a guy steals a ferrari because he wants to drive really fast, it's ok albeit unchristian?

All piracy is wrong, although I do agree there are different facets of maliciousness. Some people live by a moral code - though shalt not make money from pirated software, it is learning only. Whereas others just flat out pirate everything. Both forms are 100% illegal, though I do sympathise more with those who break the law only with "good intentions" as I've been there myself.

However, my involvement with the FXHome team has really opened my eyes to the negative effects of piracy. It's not something I can condone under any circumstances.

*campaigns his idea some more*

-Hybrid.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 2:23pm

Post 10 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I don't think pirating software/music is always morally wrong at all. Obviously it is illegal but it isn't the same as stealing because you are not taking something away from someone. Copyright was not made to secure rights to sell information and allow large companies to exploit the individual, it was originally intended to make it worthwhile for people to share ideas and be compensated for the costs of making them a reality. In fact there are a number of laws against monopolies that directly conflict with the way copyright is used today.

It is very easy to simply say that piracy is theft but I do not think that this adaquately covers this complicated issue. And because it does not that is why a large part of society does not see it as wrong.

What if someone can not afford some piece of software? Why should they not get to use it free or cheap if doing so does not harm anyone?

If food was free to make would it be right to let people starve if they could not afford to pay you for it?

What if someone downloads pirate music that they had no intention of buying simply because it is free and like it and goes and buys an album?

The whole problem I think stems from the fact that in the real world items are priced based on supply and demand. However supply in this case is infinate so it all breaks down. The artificial pricing means that once you cover your base costs any further sales are pure profit.

Obviously people who make stuff need to be compensated (and small business' are the ones that suffer the biggest negative effect from piracy) but I think it is morally wrong that they should continue raking in the cash at the expense of your average guy on the street. Just because the entertainment industry has the means to use the law to continue this exploitation does not mean they have to. When business is used as an excuse for immorality then that is not plain sense, it is sheer greed.

At some point the law is going to have to change as information becomes more and more the main commodity of the world. It is a shame that greedy politicians are held back from doing anything because the rich companies that fund them will lose out from such a change.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 3:56pm

Post 11 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

What if someone can not afford some piece of software? Why should they not get to use it free or cheap if doing so does not harm anyone?

If food was free to make would it be right to let people starve if they could not afford to pay you for it?
wow that is a really bad analogy. you said, "if food was free to make". well, software is not free to make, only to copy. also, if you are starving, you are morally obligated to steal food if you would die otherwise. you will not die if you dont have an expencive peice of software. why should you own something you shouldn't be able to afford?

I do agree that this is a very complicated issue though, as you are not taking something away from somebody else.

Last edited Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 4:00pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 3:56pm

Post 12 of 120

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

This project is an enormous grade for the year, assigned in October and due in June! I have been planning to ask my teacher if he knows he assigned a project that makes kids go and steal. However, he obviously knows nothing about computers and the computers the school has. The video club just recently adopted 6 G5s loaded with Final Cut, but not once has he mentioned you can edit the video with those. But bringing up the issue is somewhat like tattle-tailing (spelled right?) which i am very against.

This project has been assigned for i think 15 years, and there are thousands of videos kids have amde. Most of them are terrible, but one or two are good. The one the teacher thinks is best was made two years ago with pirated software. Hopefully, this year i blow every video out of the water with all legal software. im pumped!
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 3:59pm

Post 13 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

The people who don't care about copyright have never made anything worth copyrighting.

I find this particually annoying on my uni course. I bought XSI: Foundation and so I am limited to the features in that version. But then about 95% of the people on my degree course just download the latest cracked version with all the hair and cloth etc.

And this is a degree course!
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 4:01pm

Post 14 of 120

Lithium Kraft

Force: 2728 | Joined: 10th Jun 2005 | Posts: 538

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This is weird. A few months ago I made a topic just like this about those pirated programs and P2P networks and stuff, and it got deleted.

Anyways, a friend of mine downloaded premiere 6.5, premiere pro, ulead, avid, final cut pro, and much more. I despise it. The most I can say is, one day he's going to be caught and I won't be sorry. In short, I hate it. These things cost MONEY for a reason.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 4:11pm

Post 15 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

I don't think they will get caught. Simply because alot of the big companies quite enjoy it.

Think about this. There are say 5 major 3D packages at the moment in a very highly competative market. Most of there sales come from studios, not from high school students or hobbiests. So they don't really enforce it, as the students soon grow up and are working at studios if they are good. And if there are lots of maya users (for example) then most of the studios will use maya.

This kind of thinking has kept 3dmax going. In the eyes of these big companies its better for a person to be using and learning a cracked version of thier software than to be using a competators.

Also then they can sell books and DVD training material to them, as I bet that even though your mate has downloaded all that stuff, he has probably bought a book. So where they would have had no money coming in, they are at least getting some.

Also it keeps smaller competors out of the market. For example, why buy EffectsLab if you can just download a cracked version of shake or digital fusion etc.

I am not condoning it, I am just saying that for the big companies they are not in a rush to crack down on it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 4:17pm

Post 16 of 120

Lithium Kraft

Force: 2728 | Joined: 10th Jun 2005 | Posts: 538

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I guess one way for the companies to think of it is, If they use the cracked program every day and night and get really good at it, they'll eventually have to buy a legal version of it if they want to sell and use work commercially.

It just pisses me off my friend only downloaded premiere so that he could reverse clips. He's like, "check out this awesome program! LOOK I REVERSED CLIP, now he's going backwards down the ramp!! This programm is so 1337!" One day he called me asking me how to pirate a version of a program that I legally own. He's like, "I downloaded a crack off limewire, it says to use the demo version and enter the key there. how do I do that!?!?"

Sometimes it's good for commercialization of the program, sometimes it's just plain annoying.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 5:03pm

Post 17 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Kid wrote:

...it isn't the same as stealing because you are not taking something away from someone...
OK, so Tarn and the guys manage to sell one copy of each of their programs to me. I copy it and give it to all my friends. I don't chrage for it, just give it away. All my friends do the same, no one makes any money, we're all just giving it away.

So, if we're "not taking something away from someone" how will the guys make any money and avoid going out of business? Are you not effectively taking money away from FXHome? You would be no better in my eyes if you were to steal the money straight from their wallets.

Pirating is stealing. Full stop. No "ah, but, what if". IT IS STEALING.

Whether you make money on what you have pirated or not, whether you pass it on to anyone or not - YOU ARE A THIEF and what you are doing will have an impact on someone else.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 5:12pm

Post 18 of 120

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

rcamuk, exactly!
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:28pm

Post 19 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

chipmandoo wrote:

The people who don't care about copyright have never made anything worth copyrighting.
That both isnt true and isnt the issue. The problem is not with copyright but the way it is used.

Many people make worthwhile stuff, give it away free and take donations or money for support and the amount they get covers the costs to make it. You don't have to be a money making machine, lots of people are happy to simply get what they are due. (this work is still copyrighted - people can object to it being used in certain ways or being commercial exploited by someone else which is what copyright is supposed to be about.)

Copyright is currently being used to support an unfair model where companies charge way more for an application than it cost to make. If that was not the case then piracy would not be so common.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:31pm

Post 20 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

[quote="Kid"]

chipmandoo wrote:


Many people make worthwhile stuff, give it away free and take donations or money for support and the amount they get covers the costs to make it. You don't have to be a money making machine, lots of people are happy to simply get what they are due.
If you give something away for free it doesn't mean you don't care about copyright. Copyright and making money are 2 different things. I am sure the person making the movie and giving it away on there site wouldn't be happy if someone was putting onto cds and selling them, without there permission.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:39pm

Post 21 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

well of course it is a rule of thumb. But i tend to find that the more love and attention people put into making something, such as say, a movie. The more they begin to respect copyright and not pirate.

For example this thead was started by someone who wants to make a good movie for this class. He is concerned about the piracy as he knows how much effort it takes to make these programs, due to himself trying to learn his side of the trade and try to better himself.

His classmates, on the otherhand, are not concerned about it, as probably they will make something that is pretty bad and probably not continrue the skills after.

I am sure everyone at some point has made something that they dont' want to be exploited, either by sold through piracy or distributed in an incorect manner. And then the copyrighting laws really begin to make sence.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:45pm

Post 22 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

chipmandoo wrote:

Kid wrote:

Many people make worthwhile stuff, give it away free and take donations or money for support and the amount they get covers the costs to make it. You don't have to be a money making machine, lots of people are happy to simply get what they are due.
If you give something away for free it doesn't mean you don't care about copyright. Copyright and making money are 2 different things. I am sure the person making the movie and giving it away on there site wouldn't be happy if someone was putting onto cds and selling them, without there permission.
Yes. Hence why I am saying there is a problem with the way copyright can be used.

The difference here is that a user is doing something morally ok but technically illegal and a business is doing something morally wrong but legal. Hence the law needs to be changed to align to what is acceptable for both sides and not weighted towards big business. Law needs to reflect society rather than what rich companies want to force society into. When it is more clear cut it will be much more easily enforcable and this would benefit small businesses like fxhome as they are the ones that lose out most from piracy.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:50pm

Post 23 of 120

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

well lots has been written - and well I'm too lazy to read it all, but heres what I think...

Piracy is going to happen either way.... Yes it is illegal and bad etc etc, but it will happen - thats the nature of humans. If you found a twenty dollar bill on the ground your going to pick it up.

But after saying that, the software doesn't make you a better filmmaker and wont make things better. I'm currently reading "rebel without a crew" (thanks to a discussion I saw on this forum I ordered it)... Robert Rodriguez made a better film with crappy vcrs and crappy a crappy camera than people with all the right equipment.

If I've paid for a legitimate copy of a lower end peice of software for editing... and someone else I know downloads I copy of final cut, or premiere.... it would not bother me. Because regardless of what others use, it does not affect my skills as a filmmaker.





The bottom line is, I could use a sony hi8 camera, and windows movie maker... and come out with something better than almost all my friend if they were using an xl2 or dvx100, and final cut.

Dont let what others do (pirate software) bother you. Just use cheap free software and make something better - maybe they'll realize it doesn't matter what they use and get over the hype of "im using final cut! mines gonna kick @$$!"

-MAGIC
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:53pm

Post 24 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

the trouble with morals is that everyones differ.

rcamuk
"Pirating is stealing. Full stop. No "ah, but, what if". IT IS STEALIN"

Kid (yourself)
"What if someone can not afford some piece of software? Why should they not get to use it free or cheap if doing so does not harm anyone?"

Also I think its important to note that these uber expensive programs (say, maya at £5000) are not designed to be used by students and hobbists. They are designed, and priced, to be used by big studios, where they are quite oftern the cheapest componant in making the film. We all know how much cameras, computers (industry computers, not home ones) etc cost and then a good salary for an artist is about £34-40 grand. So the price for software is very reasonable.

Also it must be remembered that they will neer be able to sell it for £60 like a copy of windows, as everyone uses windows, the movie making (and even more so the 3d) markets are very, very small in comparison, so they need to charge more.

Most companies realise this and release free versions, or 'home' versions like Maya PLE, Photoshop Elements etc. And have always released academic licences at a greatly reduced price.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:56pm

Post 25 of 120

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Im not worried by the competition, but the fact that my peers have no sense of morals. You cant pirate skills, just a program that they wont know how to use.

Kid, you talk about it being unfair that businesses can create a high price for software, but thats inevitable. Its going to happen because of a free market and competition. You need to accept that fact.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:02pm

Post 26 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

chipmandoo wrote:

well of course it is a rule of thumb. But i tend to find that the more love and attention people put into making something, such as say, a movie. The more they begin to respect copyright and not pirate.
Well when I spend time making something I want as many people to experience or benefit from it as possible. The more effort I actually put into something the less I feel the need to exploit it to make money out of it for myself and the more I just want my costs covered.

When I make something for money (ie. at work) the more corners need to be cut and compromises need to be made in order to get it finished by a certain deadline or to make it more sellable.

Of course I want to to live comfortably but striving to make something better goes against making something for money. This is a balance that needs to be made.

Choosing whether to pirate or not is not about respecting copyright, it is about whether you respect the company's business practices and whether you think they have priced something fairly or not. Obviously there will be people out there who are simply out to get something for nothing but they are not in the grey area that we are talking about. What I am talking about is where there is a difference between morals and the law. Some people will do it when it is both morally wrong and legally wrong, it is those people that we should be concentrating on.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:06pm

Post 27 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

KID " whether you think they have priced something fairly or not"

Personally, I think house prices in the UK are far too high for what you get. Should I steal someones house?

I also think cars like BMW's are over priced. Do you think it's ok to steal cars?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:06pm

Post 28 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

Kid wrote:

Choosing whether to pirate or not is not about respecting copyright, it is about whether you respect the company's business practices and whether you think they have priced something fairly or not.
Well there we will have to disagree smile

Last edited Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:07pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:07pm

Post 29 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

That's not how it works, software and physical objects alike need pricing partly so as to imbue value and also partly to make a profit and continue the existance of the company.

If you don't respect a companies strategies or pricing you simply take your business elsewhere, you can't use it as a means of justifying piracy.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:24pm

Post 30 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

KID " whether you think they have priced something fairly or not"

Personally, I think house prices in the UK are far too high for what you get. Should I steal someones house?

I also think cars like BMW's are over priced. Do you think it's ok to steal cars?
Ah but the key difference here is that you have already decided that it is not worth the price. So the choice becomes go without or download a copy. In that choice the company receives no money either way so no one has lost out at all.

When you take a real life object, the problem is not that you have gained something but that someone else has lost something. If someone gains something and no one lost out then there is no wrong.

The question in piracy is did they lose a sale? The answer in a lot of cases is no. The hard part is determining the answer to that question in any given case.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:31pm

Post 31 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

Kid wrote:

The question in piracy is did they lose a sale? The answer in a lot of cases is no.
Plus it benifits the company as

A) Your not using a competing product.
B) You are learning there software, and might buy in th future.
C) Even though you can't afford the software, you might buy a book, or training material that they can make some money on.

The trouble with this, is that it is much harder to regulate than just saying it is all bad.

Personally I would like to see a situation that commercial software is free for non commercial use. The trouble with this is that it would be a nightware to regulate and keep tabs on, and require alot of good will. Also it would completely kill off smaller companies such as FXHome.

So there we go. Yet another unresolved pirating software topic with exacally the same views and arguments on the internet.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:34pm

Post 32 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

That's not how it works, software and physical objects alike need pricing partly so as to imbue value and also partly to make a profit and continue the existance of the company.
That is true. But I am talking about companies that not just cover their costs, but then go on to make that amount thousands of times over in profit.

If you don't respect a companies strategies or pricing you simply take your business elsewhere, you can't use it as a means of justifying piracy.
It is more of a reason than a justification.

In history the people have risen up and fought against kings and queens for charging unfair taxes, providing only a small service and using most of it to line their own pockets. Yet when big business does it it is perfectly ok?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:42pm

Post 33 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

chipmandoo wrote:

The trouble with this, is that it is much harder to regulate than just saying it is all bad.

Personally I would like to see a situation that commercial software is free for non commercial use. The trouble with this is that it would be a nightware to regulate and keep tabs on, and require alot of good will.
Ah right so when someone is murdered should we just chuck everyone in jail because it is easier than finding the killer?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:42pm

Post 34 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

No, because only the murderer has committed a crime. Piracy is a crime.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:43pm

Post 35 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

neutral Kid, you must be reading my posts differently to how I write them
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:55pm

Post 36 of 120

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Kid, how can you say the companies dont lose anything when someone pirates? They are losing their profit which pays for salaries and the continuation of that company. I think your arguement in justifying the crime of piracy is pourous. A product is being stolen via the web. You are not actually running into a warehouse and stealing a CD, but you are still stealing the program by download.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:57pm

Post 37 of 120

chipmandoo

Force: 60 | Joined: 15th Oct 2001 | Posts: 129

Member

Rating: +1/-1

lisab8195, check your messages
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 7:58pm

Post 38 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

No, because only the murderer has committed a crime. Piracy is a crime.
Well duh. I'm saying that it shouldn't be.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 8:09pm

Post 39 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

lisab8195 wrote:

Kid, how can you say the companies dont lose anything when someone pirates? They are losing their profit which pays for salaries and the continuation of that company. I think your arguement in justifying the crime of piracy is pourous. A product is being stolen via the web. You are not actually running into a warehouse and stealing a CD, but you are still stealing the program by download.
Well if you read what I am saying the point is that they are not always losing out. When you download a copy of a product they are not physically losing anything. The only time they lose out is when you would have bought the program instead of getting it free. Most often people would not have bought the product anyway so the company has not lost a sale.

Piracy is not stealing. The MPAA and RIAA may want to drum that into you because automatically assuming that it is means that it is obviously wrong but it is not the case. Downloading something is not illegal, only sharing or copying it is. You can not be arrested for breach of copyright, only sued. It is a hard concept to get your head around that someone can gain without someone else losing out and it is easier for them to push it as theft but there are many ways in which piracy is significantly different.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 9:36pm

Post 40 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

kid, I read your posts, and i think the one key thing you aren't getting is that not ALL companies want their software pirated. to say that people may actually buy the program in the future is just being naive. sure, they are are probably a lot of well meaning people who will buy it eventually, but most people will not pay for somthing they already have free.

what is the point of offering a demo? so that you can try it out even if you would not ordinarily buy it.

"Well if you read what I am saying the point is that they are not always losing out. When you download a copy of a product they are not physically losing anything. The only time they lose out is when you would have bought the program instead of getting it free. Most often people would not have bought the product anyway so the company has not lost a sale. "

you cant base whether somthing is right or wrong based on things like "not always losing out" and "most often people would not have bought the product anyway".

companies dont want to rely on the small percentage of well meaning people. basically, if i am correct, you think of pyracy as trying out a demo of the software to see if you like it or not, and if you do like it, the company usually loses nothing becuase you may go out and buy it. This is the whole point of a demo!

Companies would give away the software and then setup and optional donation if they saw things like you did.

As my last point i would like to say this. think of the number of people who would buy a product after trying a demo, and then think of the number of people would buy it after owning it for free.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 9:45pm

Post 41 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

i hate to double post, but i want to make this point: companies that make tons and tons of money because of higher prices than necessary are not doing anything morally wrong. they have the right to decide how much to sell their product for, and if you dont like it, you dont deserve to own a copy. a person shouldn't expect to get somthing for free just becuase he thinks it costs too much and wouldn't have bought it otherwise.

iits like making counterfiet money. you aren't stealing the money. if the counterfeit is really good, you can buy loads of things you would never have bought otherwise becuase they cost way too much. no one will ever find out. is this morally right? of course not! is this a reason to download illegal software? of course not!
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 9:46pm

Post 42 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

companies dont want to rely on the small percentage of well meaning people. basically, if i am correct, you think of pyracy as trying out a demo of the software to see if you like it or not, and if you do like it, the company usually loses nothing becuase you may go out and buy it. This is the whole point of a demo!

As my last point i would like to say this. think of the number of people who would buy a product after trying a demo, and then think of the number of people would buy it after owning it for free.
I would agree that not many people would. I'm not trying to claim that everyone will buy it if they like it, I do know that happens though. What I am saying is that a lot of people would pirate something that they wouldn't dream of buying. If you took away the choice of piracy then a lot of those that downloaded a given product would simply not have it rather than buying it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 9:52pm

Post 43 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

i hate to double post, but i want to make this point: companies that make tons and tons of money because of higher prices than necessary are not doing anything morally wrong. they have the right to decide how much to sell their product for, and if you dont like it, you dont deserve to own a copy. a person shouldn't expect to get somthing for free just becuase he thinks it costs too much and wouldn't have bought it otherwise.
It is their right to set prices but if they set them high then it is morally wrong because it is greedy.

iits like making counterfiet money. you aren't stealing the money. if the counterfeit is really good, you can buy loads of things you would never have bought otherwise becuase they cost way too much. no one will ever find out. is this morally right? of course not! is this a reason to download illegal software? of course not!
When you spend conterfeit money someone loses out though. If not the person who discovers its conterfeit and cant spend it then everyone who has some real money which devalued slightly.

A copy of software/information has no such effect.

Last edited Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 9:54pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 9:53pm

Post 44 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

I would agree that not many people would. I'm not trying to claim that everyone will buy it if they like it, I do know that happens though. What I am saying is that a lot of people would pirate something that they wouldn't dream of buying. If you took away the choice of piracy then a lot of those that downloaded a given product would simply not have it rather than buying it.
I deffinatly see what you are saying, and at this point it may be purly up to individual opinion. but all I am saying is that a company has the right to not let people pirate the software. A company has the right to not let someone own their product, even if the options are download or never own it. and they deffinatly don't want to let people download if there is a large percentage of people who did want the software and may have saved up enough to buy it.

I do however, think that your comment that piracy should be legal is not only wrong in my opion, but i think it is actually false. obviously, it is my opinion that it is false...

if piracy were legal, companies would literally make next to nothing. only the most well meaning people in the world, with intensly strong morals, would still buy the software.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:01pm

Post 45 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

When you spend conterfeit money someone loses out though. If not the person who discovers its conterfeit and cant spend it then everyone who has some real money which devalued slightly.

A copy of software/information has no such effect.
here is were i not only disgree with your opinion, but you are actually incorrect. even if somebody made $30,000 dollars in counterfeit money, would it really affect America at all? i mean, it would be such a small fraction to be negligable. but ill iignore that for now.

Think about it. when you pirate software, there is less of a demand for the software. this is similar to the inflation that occurs when counterfiet money is made. ( even though you would have to counterfiet hundreds of thousands to make a difference).

a comment i can imagine being made would be that if many people countefeit only a little money, it would make an impact. well many people pirate software too.

PS i was talking about counterfeit money that was not ever caught by the way.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:04pm

Post 46 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

I do however, think that your comment that piracy should be legal is not only wrong in my opion, but i think it is actually false. obviously, it is my opinion that it is false...

if piracy were legal, companies would literally make next to nothing. only the most well meaning people in the world, with intensly strong morals, would still buy the software.
Well I am certainly not saying that piracy should be legal across the board. All that I am saying is that the current system is wrong and it should work in such a way that it makes companies need to set fairer prices in order to be competetive, rather than hoard intellectial property and demand whatever they feel like.

Yes it would devalue a lot of software, music or whatever but that puts every company big or small on the same playing field on a product by product basis. Rather than the current situation where one or two big companies control an entire market, gobbling up smaller businesses with anything worthwhile, basically having a license to print money.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:06pm

Post 47 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Kid "The only time they lose out is when you would have bought the program instead of getting it free"

Do you think it is morally ok to give copies of all your FXHome products to all your friends who can't afford to buy the original progams?

This is a simple Yes or No question.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:07pm

Post 48 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

Kid "The only time they lose out is when you would have bought the program instead of getting it free"

Do you think it is morally ok to give copies of all your FXHome products to all your friends who can't afford to buy the original progams?

This is a simple Yes or No question.
I believe kid was refering to companies that are much bigger than fxhome.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:10pm

Post 49 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sorry, but what has size got to do with it?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:11pm

Post 50 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

Sorry, but what has size got to do with it?
I dont agree with what kid is saying, but read all of his posts, he makes his point very clear.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:14pm

Post 51 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

Kid wrote:

When you spend conterfeit money someone loses out though. If not the person who discovers its conterfeit and cant spend it then everyone who has some real money which devalued slightly.

A copy of software/information has no such effect.
here is were i not only disgree with your opinion, but you are actually incorrect. even if somebody made $30,000 dollars in counterfeit money, would it really affect America at all? i mean, it would be such a small fraction to be negligable. but ill iignore that for now.
Well if you bought a car off me with your $30,000 and then I realised it was fake I would have lost $30,000!

In theory if you could make totally undetectable fake money then no it wouldnt effect anyone so much unless you made tons of the stuff. In which case it wouldnt be harming anyone.

Think about it. when you pirate software, there is less of a demand for the software. this is similar to the inflation that occurs when counterfiet money is made. ( even though you would have to counterfiet hundreds of thousands to make a difference).
Well no. There is no drop in demand if you were not going to buy it anyway. In fact piracy can improve demand as it stirs up interest.

The countefeit money analogy doesn't really work very well, its more like if you made counterfeit money and never spent it then it wouldnt devalue anything.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:16pm

Post 52 of 120

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Indeed. Adobe is a gigantic company that now pretty much has a monopoly (PC-wise anyway) on professional multimedia programs. It makes millions (billions?) of dollars, since it charges AMAZINGLY expensive prices for their software.

So if you take Joe Blow that wants to make a movie, he will automatically go for something other than Premiere Pro because of its huge price tag. As Kid has said, it is now either a choice of going for a competitor's product, not buying anything, or downloading it. The only one of those where Adobe actually loses money is when they go for competitor's products.

So if the guy decides to download the program instead, both he and the company are in the best position they could be assuming the guy really can't afford buying it in the first place.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:20pm

Post 53 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

but what of all the people who would buy it! you cant forget those people. there are lots and lots of them.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:22pm

Post 54 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

The fundamental flaw in KIDS whole argument is that he is p****d off with big companies making a large profit. Its "unfair".

Unfortunately that is no basis for trying to justify piracy. Thats what a little kid would say.
"They have more than me, waaaaa!!!"

I'm sure if he came up with a killer idea that could be worth millions he'd take the millions - not say "actually, I think I'll only take a few hundred pounds for this and then give it to everyone for free, once I've broken even or made a rather small profit".

I run my own business and I am out to make as much profit as I can. Regardless of how great the guys may or may not be I'm sure FXHome are also out to make money.
You don't run a business for fun, or for the love of it. You do it for money. If some little B*****d came along and stole from me, I'd string em up.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:23pm

Post 55 of 120

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Counterfiet money hurts the economy, not people.

Do you want to hurt the economy?

Anyway, the big software programs are way to expensive- Fxhome here has fair prices for thier software. When Companies like Avid can provide better trial programs for $500-700, that don't only let you see what the interface is like (there should be comprehensive tutorials and timed demos) AND make thier programs hakcer-safe, then pirating will continue.

In any case, most cracked programs are bug-ridden, so if anyone actually wants to be able to commercially use thier products on big tasks, it'd be the right idea to purchase the legal software.

Those who cannot, do what they can. Learning needs to be hands on, and if schools cannot provide liscened software, and they can't afford them for fiscal reasons, I wouldn't mind letting them yank my copyright stuff- at least there's a potential customer in the future- and my product/design is able at least to be used.

That's my input.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:23pm

Post 56 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

Kid "The only time they lose out is when you would have bought the program instead of getting it free"

Do you think it is morally ok to give copies of all your FXHome products to all your friends who can't afford to buy the original progams?

This is a simple Yes or No question.
Well fxhome's products prices are quite low so I find it hard to believe that anyone who can afford a camcorder and a computer can not afford them.

If they truely were at no point now or in the future going to buy it and fxhome had no other objection then yes it would be morally ok. But if people were being honest rather than simply using it as an excuse I think that that would very rarely be the case.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:29pm

Post 57 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I can't beleive these arguments!

It all revolves around the fact that you believe it's ok to steal if something is too expensive.

That's your whole argument in its most basic form - its too expensive (how dare these people make a profit evil ) so it's ok to steal it.

If that morality catches on we'll soon see the end of civilization.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:33pm

Post 58 of 120

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Think of it this way: Imagine a device that can copy any object as many times as you want was invented, and someone copied 50000 ferraris and distributed them to poor people.... would you consider that illegal considering the poor people couldn't have afforded it anyway, and the company didn't lose any money in making them?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:39pm

Post 59 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

The fundamental flaw in KIDS whole argument is that he is p****d off with big companies making a large profit. Its "unfair".

Unfortunately that is no basis for trying to justify piracy. Thats what a little kid would say.
"They have more than me, waaaaa!!!"
That's not a flaw, it is my complaint! I do not think it is morally ok to live in the lap of luxary when there are lots of homeless and starving people around the world struggling to survive. And to a less extreme extent I do not think it is morally ok for big companies to make large profit at the expense of average joes.

I'm sure if he came up with a killer idea that could be worth millions he'd take the millions - not say "actually, I think I'll only take a few hundred pounds for this and then give it to everyone for free, once I've broken even or made a rather small profit".
I wouldn't actually, what I would do after covering costs and putting money into making new killer ideas, is put most of the rest into worthwhile causes.

I run my own business and I am out to make as much profit as I can. Regardless of how great the guys may or may not be I'm sure FXHome are also out to make money.
You don't run a business for fun, or for the love of it. You do it for money. If some little B*****d came along and stole from me, I'd string em up
Lots of people do run a business for fun. Business doesn't have to revolve around greed, it only seems that way to greedy people. smile

If my killer idea was to invent a cure for cancer for instance and it cost me £5 to make one shot and I decided 'hey these people are pretty desperate, I think I'll charge £10,000 per shot'. Would that be morally ok?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:40pm

Post 60 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

I can't beleive these arguments!

It all revolves around the fact that you believe it's ok to steal if something is too expensive.

That's your whole argument in its most basic form - its too expensive (how dare these people make a profit evil ) so it's ok to steal it.

If that morality catches on we'll soon see the end of civilization.
Its not stealing if they dont lose anything. You keep ignoring this concept.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:44pm

Post 61 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

Think of it this way: Imagine a device that can copy any object as many times as you want was invented, and someone copied 50000 ferraris and distributed them to poor people.... would you consider that illegal considering the poor people couldn't have afforded it anyway, and the company didn't lose any money in making them?
thats not really such a great analogy. sure, if a somebody went out and made LIMITED copies of the software (like 50,000 to use your example) and gave them only to poor people, who would object to such an act of charity?

There is of course the problem that it is still agaist the law. and the the copyright laws (although i didn't think cars had copyrights, only patents?) are different for cars.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:56pm

Post 62 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kid wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure if he came up with a killer idea that could be worth millions he'd take the millions - not say "actually, I think I'll only take a few hundred pounds for this and then give it to everyone for free, once I've broken even or made a rather small profit".
I wouldn't actually, what I would do after covering costs and putting money into making new killer ideas, is put most of the rest into worthwhile causes. "



I guess you are just a really really nice person. not everyone would do this, nor are they morally obligated to do so. People have to make money, not just cover their needs.



Quote:
I run my own business and I am out to make as much profit as I can. Regardless of how great the guys may or may not be I'm sure FXHome are also out to make money.
You don't run a business for fun, or for the love of it. You do it for money. If some little B*****d came along and stole from me, I'd string em
up"
Lots of people do run a business for fun. Business doesn't have to revolve around greed, it only seems that way to greedy people.




Why are you called people greedy? and how many people that you run a buisness purely for fun make very much money? you are thinking of a utopian world, where everyone thinks of his neighbor just as much as he does himself. I am a big believer in charity, but giving away so much...

Anyhow how do you know what companies like adobe do with their extra money?




""If my killer idea was to invent a cure for cancer for instance and it cost me £5 to make one shot and I decided 'hey these people are pretty desperate, I think I'll charge £10,000 per shot'. Would that be morally ok?"


THAT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. In that case it is a life and death. in that case the person should sell it for just enough money to cover his costs.

GETTING THE SOFTWARE IS NOT LIFE OR DEATH.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 10:58pm

Post 63 of 120

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

Its not stealing if they dont lose anything. You keep ignoring this concept.
I'm not ignoring it, but you are missing the point.

You keep saying "Its not stealing if they dont lose anything". Ok, basically what you are doing when you download an illegal copy of software (or whatever) is "MAKING A COPY". The owners of that software (or whatever) are "LOSING" the chance to make a profit from that copy.

I take you back to my earlier post. If FXHOME only sold one copy of EL before you came along and copied it - then you gave it to say, 1000 people - that's 1000x the price of EL that FXHome have lost.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:05pm

Post 64 of 120

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Using FXHome as an example doesn't work because we are talking about huge companies like Adobe. In their case, almost no normal person would buy a piece of software for 1000$... so they wouldn't make a profit anyway. Barely anybody that pirates such software does it because it's cheaper... only because it's the only way they can get it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:09pm

Post 65 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

but pooky, thats their decision to make. they are allowed to make their things pricy regardless of how greedy it iis, ITS THEIR RIGHT. so just becuase you think sombody is greedy, you steal from them?

also, as i said before, what if adobe gives all that money to charity? doubtful, yes, but possible! or what if they improve their products once they cut even?

you cant assume that and then start stealing.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:10pm

Post 66 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

Kid wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure if he came up with a killer idea that could be worth millions he'd take the millions - not say "actually, I think I'll only take a few hundred pounds for this and then give it to everyone for free, once I've broken even or made a rather small profit".
I wouldn't actually, what I would do after covering costs and putting money into making new killer ideas, is put most of the rest into worthwhile causes. "

I guess you are just a really really nice person. not everyone would do this, nor are they morally obligated to do so. People have to make money, not just cover their needs.
Well I'm not, there are lots of people who give away everything they have to help people. I wouldn't go that far but why not help people? A small gesture by you can mean a big deal to someone you help.

Well actually theres this little thing called the bible and in it there was this samaritan guy...

Quote:
I run my own business and I am out to make as much profit as I can. Regardless of how great the guys may or may not be I'm sure FXHome are also out to make money.
You don't run a business for fun, or for the love of it. You do it for money. If some little B*****d came along and stole from me, I'd string em
up"
Lots of people do run a business for fun. Business doesn't have to revolve around greed, it only seems that way to greedy people.

Why are you called people greedy? and how many people that you run a buisness purely for fun make very much money? you are thinking of a utopian world, where everyone thinks of his neighbor just as much as he does himself. I am a big believer in charity, but giving away so much...
How is trying to make as much profit as possible at the expense of someone else not greed? Its only the rat race society and capitalism taken to the extreme that says greed is good.

Anyhow how do you know what companies like adobe do with their extra money?
Well I did used to work for Adobe smile But besides that they have publically available annual reports and dividends and fat cat bosses in the news. A lot of these companies do community projects but it tends to be mainly for PR and I don't think they do enough. Why for instance does Bill Gates need a $1M salary when he is already the richest guy in the world?
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:12pm

Post 67 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

rcamuk wrote:

Kid wrote:

Its not stealing if they dont lose anything. You keep ignoring this concept.
I'm not ignoring it, but you are missing the point.

You keep saying "Its not stealing if they dont lose anything". Ok, basically what you are doing when you download an illegal copy of software (or whatever) is "MAKING A COPY". The owners of that software (or whatever) are "LOSING" the chance to make a profit from that copy.

I take you back to my earlier post. If FXHOME only sold one copy of EL before you came along and copied it - then you gave it to say, 1000 people - that's 1000x the price of EL that FXHome have lost.
If I gave it to 1000 people that were not going to buy it anyway then they would not have lost anything.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:18pm

Post 68 of 120

LilCaesars

Force: 480 | Joined: 27th Dec 2004 | Posts: 530

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

Its not stealing if they dont lose anything. You keep ignoring this concept.
Stealing by definition is taking something without the right of permission to do so. When you buy a piece of software you are buying the right to use that program. So when you use the program and do not have the right to do so that is stealing. It doesn't matter if they didn't lose anything. For you to use it you must have their permission which is enacted in buying the software. So you are missing the big point here. Also it doesn't matter how much someone charges for their product taking it from them regardless is stealing and wrong. If you think they overcharge then buy it from someone else and if everyone is expensive then deal with it life is tough. It never says obey the law only when it is reasonable, you just have to.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:18pm

Post 69 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

i did sound rather thoughtless in my rant, sorry.

and yes, i do not love bill gates. if i were him i would give a whole load to charity.

and about the "little thing called the bible" i am a religious person, and study the bible in school daily. I understand the concepts of charity, but my point is not that greed is good, my point is maybe its just not greed at all. i guess adobe is a bad example as you have inside info about them. but it still bothers me the way you thing selling things for a high price is "at the expence of another". its so simple, just dont buy their products!

I dont get it, if someone is being greedy that is no justification for stealing. what is this some kind of robin hood thing? steal from the rich and give to the poor?

that reminds me of another statement of yours about kings and queens making people pay high taxes. this is so different. you dont have to buy the product... hello...
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:19pm

Post 70 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

AcjPictures wrote:

Kid wrote:

Its not stealing if they dont lose anything. You keep ignoring this concept.
Stealing by definition is taking something without the right of permission to do so. When you buy a piece of software you are buying the right to use that program. So when you use the program and do not have the right to do so that is stealing. It doesn't matter if they didn't lose anything. For you to use it you must have their permission which is enacted in buying the software. So you are missing the big point here. Also it doesn't matter how much someone charges for their product taking it from them regardless is stealing and wrong. If you think they overcharge then buy it from someone else and if everyone is expensive then deal with it life is tough. It never says obey the law only when it is reasonable, you just have to.
You havent taken it from them though. They still have it.

I'm not a parrot. I don't not steal because it has been drummed into me that stealing is wrong. I choose not to.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:21pm

Post 71 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

kid, the taking it part was not even part of his point, that was just the way he worded it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:22pm

Post 72 of 120

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Why for instance does Bill Gates need a $1M salary when he is already the richest guy in the world?
He doesn't *need* it, but it is his right as the boss of microsoft to dictate not only how much his products are sold for, but also how much of that money he keeps.

But what right do the pirates have to take his software? Legaly, moraly and ethically none.

Copyright is there to protect people's creativity - and stealing other people's ideas and hard work is never, ever ethically right, no matter what way you try and spin it.

Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:24pm

Post 73 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

kid, the taking it part was not even part of his point, that was just the way he worded it.
No but it IS the point. Because it highlights his different interpretation of the act of taking something from someone.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:25pm

Post 74 of 120

MrShmoe

Force: 1114 | Joined: 29th Apr 2003 | Posts: 411

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

and yes, i do not love bill gates. if i were him i would give a whole load to charity.
This is a little off topic but I'll write it anyway.

I DO NOT like Microsoft or Bill Gates but I respect him for donating 27 976 million dollars to charity during his lifetime.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:30pm

Post 75 of 120

LilCaesars

Force: 480 | Joined: 27th Dec 2004 | Posts: 530

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

You havent taken it from them though. They still have it.
A copyright protects the makers work and ensures that THEY have the rights to distribute their product. So the law does not give you permission to distribute the software as you want whether they lose anything or not. You can try and justify it all day long the point is the law says it's wrong. I don't care if you stole a tv, program, or a toothpick without the right or permission of the maker it is wrong. It's all about your right to use something. Sony sells the tv to Best Buy so then Best Buy has the right to it then Best Buy sells it to you so you have the right. The same goes for software and the copyright laws hold the company as the distributor not Larry or Bob on the internet.
Edit:

Kid wrote:

sgb4622 wrote:

kid, the taking it part was not even part of his point, that was just the way he worded it.
No but it IS the point. Because it highlights his different interpretation of the act of taking something from someone.

It is not taking physical things it is taking the right to use it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 11:33pm

Post 76 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

sgb4622 wrote:

kid, the taking it part was not even part of his point, that was just the way he worded it.
No but it IS the point. Because it highlights his different interpretation of the act of taking something from someone.
I understand that....
i didn't say that it wasn't THE point, rather, not HIS point. see the difference? i meant he wasn't refering to the issue of taking, becuase that is obvious.

basically he just said a bunch of stuff that i think proves my point precisly, but he accidently worded it using the word "take". im sure he didn't mean actually taking a physical thing, becuase that point was made a myriad times and doesn't have to be repeated.

EDIT: to make myself more clear, i mean making the point that distinguishes taking a physical object rather than a copy of a progam.
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 12:21am

Post 77 of 120

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

Think of it this way: Imagine a device that can copy any object as many times as you want was invented, and someone copied 50000 ferraris and distributed them to poor people.... would you consider that illegal considering the poor people couldn't have afforded it anyway, and the company didn't lose any money in making them?
People go out and get a job to make money! With this money they buy materialistic things. Its a fact of life that if you dont have enough money to afford it you cant buy it. You dont have the resources, so you dont have the right to use the object. The money you pay gives you a powerful product. There are free ones but they are not as good. BUT THEY ARE FREE FOR A REASON.
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 12:39am

Post 78 of 120

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

On the other hand,

For a small production company with no financing sources, wanting to produce thier first film- it's hard to edit on software that came with your video card.

Some of the bigger companies offer striped down versions of thier programs for a cheaper price and comprehensive demos.

There are even open source NLEs in the works.

Lots of resources to avoid piracy.
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 7:06am

Post 79 of 120

Zeroman

Force: 60 | Joined: 20th Apr 2005 | Posts: 53

Member

Rating: +1

What really bugs me about this is that the poeople who actually made the programs are making nowhere near as much money as the people who own the company.

For instance, and average programmer at Adobe is making the program, while the higher-ranked fat cats profit greatly from it.

If a significantly larger share of the money went to the people who made the program, I would never even consider piracy.

That's why nobody here would ever consider pirating and FXHome product - they're not millionare fat cats, they're people who put hard work into making an affordably priced product for average joes like us.

And that is admirable.
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 11:13am

Post 80 of 120

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +2

Kid wrote:

Ah but the key difference here is that you have already decided that it is not worth the price. So the choice becomes go without or download a copy. In that choice the company receives no money either way so no one has lost out at all
You always bring up this angle, and it's still as much a load of codswallop as ever. If someone thinks a product isn't worth their money, then they shouldn't want to use it at all. If they want it enough to download and use it...then that implies they also think it is worth something.

You seem to want a marketplace whereby the consumer decides on the price, rather than the producer - some kind of donation scheme. That simply isn't how most companies function, so it's a null point.

For example: There are lots of computer games I'd like to play. But I consider pretty much all computer games to be massively overpriced. That doesn't give me licence to use them without paying, though. Instead I either wait for prices to drop, or I save up some money over time, or I carefully select which game I'd most like to play. By your argument, I'd just pirate every single game.

I agree that laws and companies still have a lot of catching up to do with regard to computer products, especially with the advent of the internet. But the basics of "I made this, if I'm going to give it to you, I want some compensation" remain. If you don't like that, then you're living in the wrong kind of economy.

Also, saying that companies should charge only enough to cover their costs is fairly absurd and naive. Sure, it's very altruistic and lovely, in a hippy kinda way, but it's not going to get anybody anywhere. If a company charged only enough to cover its costs, it wouldn't be able to finance future products, development etc. Sure, you have to hit a balance - turn enough of a profit to advance, without ripping off the customer. Companies want to grow, otherwise there's no point putting in all the work.

Kid wrote:

sgb4622 wrote:

i hate to double post, but i want to make this point: companies that make tons and tons of money because of higher prices than necessary are not doing anything morally wrong. they have the right to decide how much to sell their product for, and if you dont like it, you dont deserve to own a copy. a person shouldn't expect to get somthing for free just becuase he thinks it costs too much and wouldn't have bought it otherwise.
It is their right to set prices but if they set them high then it is morally wrong because it is greedy.
Rubbish. They made the product, they can set the price however they like. If you don't like it, don't buy it. They're not forcing you to buy it. It's not an essential purchase.

If essentials (food, electricity, etc) were priced ludicrously that's one thing, but luxuries such as high tech computer equipment are a completely different issue.

Greed is an integral part of capitalism. Similarly, the right to not buy a product if you don't want it is also integral. So if you don't like a company's prices, don't buy it. But don't start getting on your high horse about how it is somehow 'morally wrong'. How is is morally wrong exactly?

sgb4622 wrote:

i did sound rather thoughtless in my rant, sorry.

and yes, i do not love bill gates. if i were him i would give a whole load to charity.
He does. He's one of the biggest charity contributors in the US. Except he doesn't feel the need to brag about it, so most people don't realise.

Last edited Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 11:33am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 12:39pm

Post 81 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

He does? I always thought a Bill Gates as a rather heartless person who didn't give so much. Guess I was very wrong.

But my point was that if i were bill gates, i would probably sell the company, give half my money to charity and live the rest of my life in luxery.

SGB
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 3:42pm

Post 82 of 120

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Just curious, what made you assume he was a "heartless" person who didn't give so much?
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 3:52pm

Post 83 of 120

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I hear he Eats small children and Shites Lightning. Its only a rumor though.
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 3:54pm

Post 84 of 120

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Shites Lightning? now THATS what i call punishing the toilet!
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 3:55pm

Post 85 of 120

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bill Gates is like the friggin hugest philanthropist in thw world. I'mpretty sure he's given away more money than any other single man has, ever. Oh, but I'm sure he's a heartless guy. smile
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 4:00pm

Post 86 of 120

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

sgb4622 wrote:

He does? I always thought a Bill Gates as a rather heartless person who didn't give so much. Guess I was very wrong.

But my point was that if i were bill gates, i would probably sell the company, give half my money to charity and live the rest of my life in luxery.
So if you were "Bill Gates w/ Heart", you'd sell one of the biggest companies in the world?

You know who would buy it? F'en Donald Trump, that's who.

And you'd only get half your half, with government taxes. Hey- why don't we all blame the government for our problems and get over it.

Tarn is right though- we live in a capitol world. Therefore- it's up to the companies to protect themselves against pirating, or they sink and go out of business- oh my, harsh world.
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 6:14pm

Post 87 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Well... We couldn't protect the majority of FXhome from KidBlag forever...
Posted: Mon, 21st Nov 2005, 11:22pm

Post 88 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

woa, i dont know why everyone is taking my comments about bill gates so seriously. I was wrong about him, and am not afraid to admit it.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 5:04pm

Post 89 of 120

Erfa

Force: 1554 | Joined: 16th Aug 2004 | Posts: 242

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

What if someone can not afford some piece of software? Why should they not get to use it free or cheap if doing so does not harm anyone?
Yeah, it doesn't harm anyone. But it's still illigal. I guess we'll have to wait for some new smart professor who can solve the problem. Its not stealing anyway.

Pirating software from a small company like FXHome though is bad. Really bad. Actually, the less the software costs the worse it is to pirate it. crazy
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 8:08pm

Post 90 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

For example: There are lots of computer games I'd like to play. But I consider pretty much all computer games to be massively overpriced. That doesn't give me licence to use them without paying, though. Instead I either wait for prices to drop, or I save up some money over time, or I carefully select which game I'd most like to play. By your argument, I'd just pirate every single game.
Or perhaps you would experience a lot more games and buy those that were worthy of the price hence pushing a trend in quality over quantity.

Kid wrote:


sgb4622 wrote:


i hate to double post, but i want to make this point: companies that make tons and tons of money because of higher prices than necessary are not doing anything morally wrong. they have the right to decide how much to sell their product for, and if you dont like it, you dont deserve to own a copy. a person shouldn't expect to get somthing for free just becuase he thinks it costs too much and wouldn't have bought it otherwise.
It is their right to set prices but if they set them high then it is morally wrong because it is greedy.
Rubbish. They made the product, they can set the price however they like. If you don't like it, don't buy it. They're not forcing you to buy it. It's not an essential purchase.
Yes and the consequence of setting it unfairly high is that people will think they are being greedy and pirate it!

It comes back to the cancer cure argument again. People agreed that it was wrong to price something really high when lives directly depend on it. But when it only harms people or is about people's happiness it doesn't count?

I'm not saying a company shouldn't make money to expand or make future products but when they make 1000s of % in profit and simply waste it, that is both greedy and irresponsible. We look down on countries with goverments that act like that so why don't we expect the same responsibility from business?

Last edited Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 8:33pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 8:14pm

Post 91 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Greed is an integral part of capitalism. Similarly, the right to not buy a product if you don't want it is also integral. So if you don't like a company's prices, don't buy it. But don't start getting on your high horse about how it is somehow 'morally wrong'. How is is morally wrong exactly?
So are you saying that greed isn't morally wrong because it is part of capitalism?

sgb4622 wrote:

i did sound rather thoughtless in my rant, sorry.

and yes, i do not love bill gates. if i were him i would give a whole load to charity.
He does. He's one of the biggest charity contributors in the US. Except he doesn't feel the need to brag about it, so most people don't realise.
He donates a lot but he also earns a lot. Proportionally I donate more than him and I don't donate that much. Think of all the churchy people and those that actually volunteer for charity stuff, they donate way more (proportionally).
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:03pm

Post 92 of 120

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Kid wrote:

Tarn wrote:

Greed is an integral part of capitalism. Similarly, the right to not buy a product if you don't want it is also integral. So if you don't like a company's prices, don't buy it. But don't start getting on your high horse about how it is somehow 'morally wrong'. How is is morally wrong exactly?
So are you saying that greed isn't morally wrong because it is part of capitalism?
'Greed' isn't nearly as clear-cut as the other moral sins in your book. Where do you draw the line between someone being enterprising and wishing to achieve great things, and someone being greedy?

Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'. The qualifier or 'deserves' makes it a murky issue - if somebody has worked incredilby hard, starting with nothing, to build a business, and has made loads of money off it eventually, surely he deserves it? Or does somebody immediately become 'greedy' the moment they become successful, in your book? Similarly, 'more than what one needs' is a superfluous argument. How do you define 'need'? I have an absurd amount of wealth compared to a poverty-stricken person starving in the Third World, but I'm practically penniless compared to others. I don't need my house or computer or double-bed or gas oven...but at the same time I'm not going to give them up. That doesn't make me necessarily greedy by default.

You have such a black and white concept of 'greed', it seems to be clouding your judgement on this issue. In some instances, greed is self-evident (such as when medicine is withheld because the inventor of the cure would rather profit from it than help people). But when it comes to non-essential products, it's not nearly that simple.

And no, I'm not saying greed is ok because it's part of capitalism. I'm just challenging your rather simplistic definition of greed, and your rather evangelical assumption that profit=greed=sin. Greed that directly disadvantages others (such as with overpriced medical cures etc) I consider morally wrong. But overpriced software etc, which people can simply choose not to buy, I don't perceive as morally wrong. People aren't being forced to buy the product. It's not a moral issue in this case, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:23pm

Post 93 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Kid wrote:

Tarn wrote:

Greed is an integral part of capitalism. Similarly, the right to not buy a product if you don't want it is also integral. So if you don't like a company's prices, don't buy it. But don't start getting on your high horse about how it is somehow 'morally wrong'. How is is morally wrong exactly?
So are you saying that greed isn't morally wrong because it is part of capitalism?
'Greed' isn't nearly as clear-cut as the other moral sins in your book. Where do you draw the line between someone being enterprising and wishing to achieve great things, and someone being greedy?

Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'. The qualifier or 'deserves' makes it a murky issue - if somebody has worked incredilby hard, starting with nothing, to build a business, and has made loads of money off it eventually, surely he deserves it? Or does somebody immediately become 'greedy' the moment they become successful, in your book? Similarly, 'more than what one needs' is a superfluous argument. How do you define 'need'? I have an absurd amount of wealth compared to a poverty-stricken person starving in the Third World, but I'm practically penniless compared to others. I don't need my house or computer or double-bed or gas oven...but at the same time I'm not going to give them up. That doesn't make me necessarily greedy by default.

You have such a black and white concept of 'greed', it seems to be clouding your judgement on this issue. In some instances, greed is self-evident (such as when medicine is withheld because the inventor of the cure would rather profit from it than help people). But when it comes to non-essential products, it's not nearly that simple.

And no, I'm not saying greed is ok because it's part of capitalism. I'm just challenging your rather simplistic definition of greed, and your rather evangelical assumption that profit=greed=sin. Greed that directly disadvantages others (such as with overpriced medical cures etc) I consider morally wrong. But overpriced software etc, which people can simply choose not to buy, I don't perceive as morally wrong. People aren't being forced to buy the product. It's not a moral issue in this case, as far as I'm concerned.
It seems to me though that it is you and others who are seeing it as black and white. We all agree that with holding a cure for money would be greedy. But surely harming someone to a lesser extent is still greed but to a lesser extent. When a company or individual demands more money than they really need or deserve for a product from the man on the street they are taking it not just from him but also from whatever he would otherwise spend it on. When times are hard for a given social group they donate less to charity, people lose jobs and so on. And for the company or individual, a price cut may not even harm their profits as it may encourage sales.

I say more than they need or deserve because there comes a point where no one deserves past a certain amount. Bill Gates as not the most virtuous person might not be the best example but even someone who has worked really hard to build up their empire still owes a great deal of it to luck. Generally someone in that position has worked only as hard as a lot of poor people, but been in the right place at the right time to take advantage of an opportunity. (I do realise lots of people are just lazy or stupid, but there are lots who worked their asses off but never had that break)

But back to my point about copyright and patents and so on. It does not make exceptions for the cancer example. Someone would be legally able to withhold the cure if they wanted to. Would people just ignore the law like Taiwan did with flu innoculations? Obviously letting them withold it would be wrong so where do you draw the line of how much greed is allowed?

Last edited Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:31pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:30pm

Post 94 of 120

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Kid wrote:

When a company or individual demands more money than they really need or deserve for a product from the man on the street they are taking it not just from him but also from whatever he would otherwise spend it on. When times are hard for a given social group they donate less to charity, people lose jobs and so on. And for the company or individual, a price cut may not even harm their profits as it may encourage sales.
All very true, however you're missing an important element of the marketplace, which is that a company overpricing products opens up routes for other companies to come along with alternate solutions at better prices. The resultant competition then causes (in theory, anyway) an increase in quality and a drop in prices.

Of course, there are exceptions, when companies gain monopolies. That's when the whole system falls apart and you end up with a big problem. As long as there is choice, however, I don't think it's a problem at all - as seen in the video editing arena, there are plenty of solutions starting from free all the way up to tens of thousands of dollars.

but even someone who has worked really hard to build up their empire still owes a great deal of it to luck. Generally someone in that position has worked only as hard as a lot of poor people, but been in the right place at the right time to take advantage of an opportunity. (I do realise lots of people are just lazy or stupid, but there are lots who worked their asses off but never had that break)
All very good points.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:34pm

Post 95 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Kid wrote:

When a company or individual demands more money than they really need or deserve for a product from the man on the street they are taking it not just from him but also from whatever he would otherwise spend it on. When times are hard for a given social group they donate less to charity, people lose jobs and so on. And for the company or individual, a price cut may not even harm their profits as it may encourage sales.
All very true, however you're missing an important element of the marketplace, which is that a company overpricing products opens up routes for other companies to come along with alternate solutions at better prices. The resultant competition then causes (in theory, anyway) an increase in quality and a drop in prices.
I agree with that to an extent but what also tends to happen is that prices for similar products tend to just aline unless someone takes the initiative to start dropping prices.

I see piracy as a good thing economically at the moment because it acts as a competitor and keeps pricing honest. In DVDs for example I think they have responded well by adding value in the form of features and by dropping the average price of a DVD to a sensible amount. I think looking at why it is going on and trying to do something about the cause rather than hounding people with the law is a better route to take. But for a company that has a lot of resources the law makes individuals easy targets. It should be there for everyone and not just the rich. I think it should strike more of a balance.

Last edited Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:43pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:38pm

Post 96 of 120

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The whole world's market places are mainly controlled by multinational conglomerates who in turn create vertical and horizontal synergies, we just don't realise how insanely well marketed some things are. Once you start to investigate the strategies of such companies like News Corp or AOL Time Warner, you'll begin to realise just how much they control different aspects of our shopping, from beauty products to television programs.

Programs, games software, from dvd's to videogames. If its a price I see fair and I want it, I'll save up the money to buy it. That's my bottom line on the subject. I'm just sick of how much the customer is always the one to blame. Companies should look at their own pricing and see that if a customer wants to obtain a pirate copy, then something is wrong elsewhere.

It'll never fully be disposed of. But piracy can be reduced through sensible release and market prices.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:45pm

Post 97 of 120

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

er-no wrote:

I'm just sick of how much the customer is always the one to blame. Companies should look at their own pricing and see that if a customer wants to obtain a pirate copy, then something is wrong elsewhere.

It'll never fully be disposed of. But piracy can be reduced through sensible release and market prices.
Indeed. In a lot of cases the producers are to blame to a large extent. Music and TV/movie companies in particular. As shown with iTunes et al, it's not that people want to download music illegally/free - it's that they want to download it. Once the industry finally got its arse in gear and offered a legal system, people lapped it up.

Same goes for movies and TV - the sooner some kind of internet distribution system becomes available, the better. Of course, it means that the media companies are going to have to abandon their ludicrous release strategies and finally embrace a global market.

US television shows are downloaded in the UK all the time, months before they reach UK television. Is this because UK television audiences want to be a bunch of pirates? No, it's because they want to watch high quality television programs, and the current systems mean they either will never get to see it, or they'll have to wait months, or possibly even years.

I hear that Warner Bros is going to experiment with making TV shows available for download - good for them, I say. I believe they're starting with old shows, like Babylon 5, but it's a definite step in the right direction. Plus we have Steven Soderbergh releasing his new film in cinemas and on DVD simultaneously.

Consumers want options. They want to be able to buy product, certainly, but they want to choose their own method. Rather than trying to arrest their own customers, some of these media companies should instead see it as a massive, massive opportunity. That they haven't already got systems in place and ready to go indicates that the researchers have been seriously lax for the past couple of decades.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 9:52pm

Post 98 of 120

TommyB

Force: 190 | Joined: 25th Nov 2004 | Posts: 666

Member

Tarn wrote:


US television shows are downloaded in the UK all the time, months before they reach UK television. Is this because UK television audiences want to be a bunch of pirates? No, it's because they want to watch high quality television programs, and the current systems mean they either will never get to see it, or they'll have to wait months, or possibly even years.
Exactly. Almost all my mates downloaded O.C. episodes long before they came out here. Demand, but no (legal) supply!

Last edited Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 7:24pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 10:51pm

Post 99 of 120

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

You bring up some good points, people.

If anything, piracy will help indie-filmmakers. In order to combat piracy, the industry should drop prices on merchandise- that means in order to still make a profit, they will have to spend less money on production costs...

And who better to cut production costs than the battle-hardened guerilla filmmakers/software programers?

The market will turn to indie cinema when HD tech gets cheap enough for $50,000 budget movies to achieve technical leverage, and the big markets will be swooping to acquire these cheap movies.

Argh, matey.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Nov 2005, 10:52pm

Post 100 of 120

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

sgb4622 wrote:

i did sound rather thoughtless in my rant, sorry.

and yes, i do not love bill gates. if i were him i would give a whole load to charity.
He does. He's one of the biggest charity contributors in the US. Except he doesn't feel the need to brag about it, so most people don't realise.
He donates a lot but he also earns a lot. Proportionally I donate more than him and I don't donate that much. Think of all the churchy people and those that actually volunteer for charity stuff, they donate way more (proportionally).
So... just because he earns worlds more, he should donate his money according to the proportion of your money that you donate relative to your salary? Because he has built his corporation and his enterprise resulting in a lot of profit, and has earned every cent, he should give it according to your scenario? Respectfully, I disagree.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 1:39am

Post 101 of 120

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Tarn wrote:


Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'.
So dont you think that charging "too much" for a product qualifies as more than they deserve, thus making them greedy. If not than you condradicted yourself.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 1:53am

Post 102 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

ssj john wrote:

Tarn wrote:


Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'.
So dont you think that charging "too much" for a product qualifies as more than they deserve, thus making them greedy. If not than you condradicted yourself.
I think by stating its exact definition, Tarn was agreeing. Although who's to dictate what someone deserves? It still falls back to if you as an individual think that someone is charging too much, you don't pay for it.

High prices still do not justify piracy.

Kid - I'm interested in how much exactly you donate to charities and how it compares to what you earn. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to give any of their money away simply because they've put the effort in and made more of it. People with higher wages are taxed more as a result already.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 2:31am

Post 103 of 120

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ssj john wrote:

Tarn wrote:


Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'.
So dont you think that charging "too much" for a product qualifies as more than they deserve, thus making them greedy. If not than you condradicted yourself.
By putting 'too much' in quotes you made my main point for me. Who determines what is 'too much'? As Hybrid said, how do you decide how much someone 'deserves'. Essentially, only the producer can decide that, and then see how the market reacts. If he's being too greedy, chances are people won't buy - then he'll have to lower his prices. If people do buy, then he presumably isn't being too greedy, as people are prepared to pay that price for the product.

But as I've said above, when it's entirely the choice of the consumer whether to buy or not, I'm not sure greed is really applicable or relevant.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 3:53am

Post 104 of 120

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

ssj john wrote:

Tarn wrote:


Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'.
So dont you think that charging "too much" for a product qualifies as more than they deserve, thus making them greedy. If not than you condradicted yourself.
By putting 'too much' in quotes you made my main point for me. Who determines what is 'too much'? As Hybrid said, how do you decide how much someone 'deserves'. Essentially, only the producer can decide that, and then see how the market reacts. If he's being too greedy, chances are people won't buy - then he'll have to lower his prices. If people do buy, then he presumably isn't being too greedy, as people are prepared to pay that price for the product.

But as I've said above, when it's entirely the choice of the consumer whether to buy or not, I'm not sure greed is really applicable or relevant.
Another thing people do when they think it's too expensive is pirate it, which brings us back to where we started.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 4:10am

Post 105 of 120

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

stealing isn't stealing when you do it to rich people (they're eeeevil)
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 6:56am

Post 106 of 120

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Tarn wrote:

ssj john wrote:

Tarn wrote:


Greed is described as 'An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth'.
So dont you think that charging "too much" for a product qualifies as more than they deserve, thus making them greedy. If not than you condradicted yourself.
By putting 'too much' in quotes you made my main point for me. Who determines what is 'too much'? As Hybrid said, how do you decide how much someone 'deserves'. Essentially, only the producer can decide that, and then see how the market reacts. If he's being too greedy, chances are people won't buy - then he'll have to lower his prices. If people do buy, then he presumably isn't being too greedy, as people are prepared to pay that price for the product.

But as I've said above, when it's entirely the choice of the consumer whether to buy or not, I'm not sure greed is really applicable or relevant.
I agree with you on every point. But you gave an example,
such as when medicine is withheld because the inventor of the cure would rather profit from it than help people)
Who decides whether that consitutes greed or not, morales? I bring this up because you use that example which I agree shows greed. But the same could be said for software producer's
such as when software is priced too high because the inventor of the software would rather profit from it than help people
Yes like you said people don't have to buy the software and then not be able to do what they want. And people cannot get the medicine and die. Yeah the software producer needs to make money, but so does the doctor, that is a little dramatic, but ultimatly it all comes back to piracy being wrong, whether the programmers are "greedy" or not.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 8:34am

Post 107 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

SSJ John, the human suffering caused by being unable to afford life saving medicine simply because it is expensive is something entirely different to not being able to afford some computer software because its expensive.

Maybe for reasons unknown, you can't understand that so I'll word it simply...

No one dies because they can't afford some computer software, no physical pain, no emotional distress, no concerned relatives etc etc. Human Suffering and simply not being able to afford a luxury are worlds apart.

Waser wrote:

stealing isn't stealing when you do it to rich people (they're eeeevil)
That's only if you give what you steal to the poor, and I don't see any homeless people using stolen copies of final cut pro on their laptops razz
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 6:26pm

Post 108 of 120

Jetwise

Force: 220 | Joined: 15th Oct 2004 | Posts: 90

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Not owning Chromanator has caused me emotional stress..
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 6:29pm

Post 109 of 120

SMB

Force: 561 | Joined: 26th May 2005 | Posts: 493

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Jetwise wrote:

Not owning Chromanator has caused me emotional stress..
lol biggrin
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 7:40pm

Post 110 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

SSJ John, the human suffering caused by being unable to afford life saving medicine simply because it is expensive is something entirely different to not being able to afford some computer software because its expensive.

Maybe for reasons unknown, you can't understand that so I'll word it simply...

No one dies because they can't afford some computer software, no physical pain, no emotional distress, no concerned relatives etc etc. Human Suffering and simply not being able to afford a luxury are worlds apart.

Waser wrote:

stealing isn't stealing when you do it to rich people (they're eeeevil)
That's only if you give what you steal to the poor, and I don't see any homeless people using stolen copies of final cut pro on their laptops razz
Well that isnt entirely true because with less disposable income people will be spending less on things that might benefit the poor or save someone's life.

As an example if you have 100 people making £100 a week, and after all they spend on bills and entertainment and savings they have £5 to give to charity.

Charity gets £5 x 100 = £500

Now if 1 guy has an idea and sells it to all the others for £2 each. They all make £98 now but each have £2 less to give. The 1 guy earns nearly 3 times as much so he decides to 'generously' give 3 times as much to charity.

Charity gets (£3 x 99) + (£5 x 3) = £312 losing more than a 3rd!

So as you can see from this simplified example as one guy makes more money someone loses out.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 8:17pm

Post 111 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

I spend 0% of my income on charity regardless of how much I earn or software I buy.

And I still don't see how this bares any relevance whatsoever to software piracy or the amount person X donates to charity. Most people who do donate to charity do so due to their moral belief rather than how much money they have spare after buying a program.

Oh how this debate tangents the more desperate you get Kid. Your inability to either see the world from a realistic point of view coupled with your conspiracy theorist like paranoia serves only to make you an incompetent arguer.

There is no argument that software piracy serves as anything but a negative. An example would be Autodesks 'Autocad'. Owning 90% of the CAD market in china yet recieving negligable sales due to the acceptance of piracy. Each application is something people have worked to create and regardless of how much money that company makes their data doesnt lose value and become material that is acceptable to pirate.

By your rationale, it's alright to steal a ferrari provided 1000 other people buy one. To me, that's just silly.

Whilst it's true that to some extents piracy may benefit certain markets, the fact that it is illegal remains and is often known and accepted by those or actually pirate the software though said individuals often have their own moral rationale to the piracy i.e. never make money from it, educational use only, just interested before buying the program and so on. None of the rationales claim it to be legal, simply morally acceptable. Which I am inclined to feeling more sympathetic towards.

Debating that piracy should be legal reminds me somewhat of people who have smoked so many drugs that they're convinced they should be legal, in their own bubble of being high existing as the exact reason why X drug remains illegal. It's kind of sad, a theory that will never take flight outside of an individuals mind.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 10:10pm

Post 112 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

I spend 0% of my income on charity regardless of how much I earn or software I buy.

And I still don't see how this bares any relevance whatsoever to software piracy or the amount person X donates to charity. Most people who do donate to charity do so due to their moral belief rather than how much money they have spare after buying a program.

Oh how this debate tangents the more desperate you get Kid. Your inability to either see the world from a realistic point of view coupled with your conspiracy theorist like paranoia serves only to make you an incompetent arguer.

There is no argument that software piracy serves as anything but a negative. An example would be Autodesks 'Autocad'. Owning 90% of the CAD market in china yet recieving negligable sales due to the acceptance of piracy. Each application is something people have worked to create and regardless of how much money that company makes their data doesnt lose value and become material that is acceptable to pirate.

By your rationale, it's alright to steal a ferrari provided 1000 other people buy one. To me, that's just silly.

Whilst it's true that to some extents piracy may benefit certain markets, the fact that it is illegal remains and is often known and accepted by those or actually pirate the software though said individuals often have their own moral rationale to the piracy i.e. never make money from it, educational use only, just interested before buying the program and so on. None of the rationales claim it to be legal, simply morally acceptable. Which I am inclined to feeling more sympathetic towards.

Debating that piracy should be legal reminds me somewhat of people who have smoked so many drugs that they're convinced they should be legal, in their own bubble of being high existing as the exact reason why X drug remains illegal. It's kind of sad, a theory that will never take flight outside of an individuals mind.
Very well said. I agree totally.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 10:29pm

Post 113 of 120

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I have to say, I've seen/read some stupid analogies, and been guilty of a few - but Kid, what the hell is all the maths nonsense. You're simply hiding behind silly analogy as over these 5 or 6 pages, you've consistently failed to provide any logical backup to your argument.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 10:36pm

Post 114 of 120

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

SSJ John, the human suffering caused by being unable to afford life saving medicine simply because it is expensive is something entirely different to not being able to afford some computer software because its expensive.

Maybe for reasons unknown, you can't understand that so I'll word it simply...

No one dies because they can't afford some computer software, no physical pain, no emotional distress, no concerned relatives etc etc. Human Suffering and simply not being able to afford a luxury are worlds apart.

Waser wrote:

stealing isn't stealing when you do it to rich people (they're eeeevil)
That's only if you give what you steal to the poor, and I don't see any homeless people using stolen copies of final cut pro on their laptops razz
Well that isnt entirely true because with less disposable income people will be spending less on things that might benefit the poor or save someone's life.

As an example if you have 100 people making £100 a week, and after all they spend on bills and entertainment and savings they have £5 to give to charity.

Charity gets £5 x 100 = £500

Now if 1 guy has an idea and sells it to all the others for £2 each. They all make £98 now but each have £2 less to give. The 1 guy earns nearly 3 times as much so he decides to 'generously' give 3 times as much to charity.

Charity gets (£3 x 99) + (£5 x 3) = £312 losing more than a 3rd!

So as you can see from this simplified example as one guy makes more money someone loses out.
That analogy is bogus. accourding to that no one should buy anything because then others miss out!

I believe that a person should not decide not to buy somthing becuase it would effect how much he can give to charity.

Last edited Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 10:41pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 10:41pm

Post 115 of 120

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, either that or everyone should give all their ideas away for free.

I'd love to see that - it's hypercommunism, and it'd be great, but it just simply will not work in practice.

You're essentially asking for the end of the capitalist system, Kid. Think about it - you honestly want that?
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 11:07pm

Post 116 of 120

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

SSJ John, the human suffering caused by being unable to afford life saving medicine simply because it is expensive is something entirely different to not being able to afford some computer software because its expensive.

Maybe for reasons unknown, you can't understand that so I'll word it simply...

No one dies because they can't afford some computer software, no physical pain, no emotional distress, no concerned relatives etc etc. Human Suffering and simply not being able to afford a luxury are worlds apart.
You completely missed the point. Hybrid I agree that medicine and software are two totally different situtations but I'm just getting my point across that its all about your morales. For example, Someone with no morales who dosn't value human life, those two sencarios are exactly the same to them.
I spend 0% of my income on charity regardless of how much I earn or software I buy.
What ultimatly defines greed for someone is morales. Some people might find you greedy, while others may not find you greedy. Some people believe that you should give whatever you don't NEED to charity while others think you only need to give a little. It all comes down to morales. I dont know if you can put one definate definition on greed, because its al skewed by morales.
Posted: Thu, 24th Nov 2005, 7:13pm

Post 117 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

ssj john wrote:

[You completely missed the point. Hybrid I agree that medicine and software are two totally different situtations but I'm just getting my point across that its all about your morales. For example, Someone with no morales who dosn't value human life, those two sencarios are exactly the same to them.
I dont see how someone void of morals really enters into this debate* though, as the majority of those committing software piracy are otherwise moral human beings. You can't really say its down to "moral levels" as software and medicine deprivation due to pricing also exist on entirely different moral planes.

-Hybrid

*Unless you're saying kid has no morals which is the reason he argues such a ridiculous point, in which case I agree.
Posted: Thu, 24th Nov 2005, 7:15pm

Post 118 of 120

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:



*Unless you're saying kid has no morals which is the reason he argues such a ridiculous point, in which case I agree.
haha I dunno maybe... wink
Posted: Fri, 25th Nov 2005, 11:21am

Post 119 of 120

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

I spend 0% of my income on charity regardless of how much I earn or software I buy.

And I still don't see how this bares any relevance whatsoever to software piracy or the amount person X donates to charity. Most people who do donate to charity do so due to their moral belief rather than how much money they have spare after buying a program.

Oh how this debate tangents the more desperate you get Kid. Your inability to either see the world from a realistic point of view coupled with your conspiracy theorist like paranoia serves only to make you an incompetent arguer.

There is no argument that software piracy serves as anything but a negative. An example would be Autodesks 'Autocad'. Owning 90% of the CAD market in china yet recieving negligable sales due to the acceptance of piracy. Each application is something people have worked to create and regardless of how much money that company makes their data doesnt lose value and become material that is acceptable to pirate.

By your rationale, it's alright to steal a ferrari provided 1000 other people buy one. To me, that's just silly.

Whilst it's true that to some extents piracy may benefit certain markets, the fact that it is illegal remains and is often known and accepted by those or actually pirate the software though said individuals often have their own moral rationale to the piracy i.e. never make money from it, educational use only, just interested before buying the program and so on. None of the rationales claim it to be legal, simply morally acceptable. Which I am inclined to feeling more sympathetic towards.

Debating that piracy should be legal reminds me somewhat of people who have smoked so many drugs that they're convinced they should be legal, in their own bubble of being high existing as the exact reason why X drug remains illegal. It's kind of sad, a theory that will never take flight outside of an individuals mind.
Your response is totally bogus. Just because you don't understand the analogy doesn't mean that it is incorrect or clutching at straws or anything you have mentioned. In fact it is simple economics.

Just because you don't directly give to charity doesn't mean what you choose to spend on doesn't effect other people. It is very naive to think that it does not.

Once again your comparisons to stealing ferraris and drugs do not apply because in that instance harm comes to someone.

Yes I am well aware that Communism is a great idea that wouldn't work in practice. I am not saying that we should get rid of capitalism but what I am saying is that you do not have to take it to the extreme. It is possible to be succesful without putting other people down and taking advantage of them. The law should help that balance for society's sake rather than the wants of the individual.

Copyright law was never intended to be a profit making device and at the moment it is being exploited as such. Large companies can use their financial muscle to put smaller companies out of business and crush good ideas if they might have some effect on their bottom line. I do not think the law should help that. I feel that the law needs to be revised so that we don't get bogged down doing the same thing over and over and that innovation and creation can flourish.
Posted: Fri, 25th Nov 2005, 11:32am

Post 120 of 120

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Kid wrote:

Copyright law was never intended to be a profit making device and at the moment it is being exploited as such. Large companies can use their financial muscle to put smaller companies out of business and crush good ideas if they might have some effect on their bottom line. I do not think the law should help that. I feel that the law needs to be revised so that we don't get bogged down doing the same thing over and over and that innovation and creation can flourish.
I understood the analogy, I just believe it to be a load of BS you've designed in order to mask the fact your argument really has no backing whatsoever. Oh how we move Further along the downward spiral...

Copyright Law exists to protect applications and work (both as products and otherwise) which ARE intended to make money. I don't see how the copyright law infringes on origionality because if something is origional it won't be copyrighted by someone else. It seems that the big issue you're screaming about is more to do with companies monopolising areas of business through means other than being the best. And there are laws against that.

Argueing no one gets harmed by piracy is ridiculous, even if your single act of pirating a program which you may never intend to buy... the desires that made you pirate the program may have turned into a more powerful desire which eventually convinced you to buy the program, that's a lost sale which is money the company doesnt get.
Say you pirate a product just randomly, one you've no interest in it would still harm someone, the reason piracy is such a problem is its level of acceptance. Just by participating and holding your crazy outlook on the subject you are fuelling the acceptance of something entirely illegal.

I'm not really prepared to argue this any further as I've said all I wish to say on the matter. Software Piracy is illegal and it is so for a good reason. fullstop.