Free stuff!! An addiction or a hobby?

Schluep

Daniel333 wrote:

Ultimately, from a all truism, freedom of speech, Platoism standpoint we must then eliminate all intellectual copy right laws. You can even argue for this using the current trend of lowering costs.

I think you meant to say Altruism. Truism means something that is self-evident to be true, so saying something is "all truism" isn't logical. One thing you will notice from any defition of the word is that is relates to unselfish action. Aren't the truly selfish ones those that demand, steal, or attempt to regulate their desire to have something for nothing as opposed to those created something traded for what others are willing to freely pay for it? What you are actually describing is universalism as opposed to altruism. The reference to Plato and comarison between universalim and freedom is very reminicent of the writing of Karl Marx. I think history has now clearly shown that those identified ideals were in contrast with those of freedom.

Of course you could argue it would lower costs, nobody can deny that. If a ficticious company called "Webmaster and Friends" spent 5 years writing some incredible software and the day it went on a sale I made copies after putting in no effort and starting selling it for $5.00 each it would drive the price down that amount. The problem however is that "Webmaster and Friends" would not even recover their expenses through software sales and would go out of business. The software sold would never be upgraded, patched, or fixed. Hundreds of companies planning on entering the industry and developing new software would see the example of what happened with "Webmaster and Friends" and decide to open a Pizza Shop instead or work for someone.

People cannot devote their entire lives to something they believe in if they also have to support their family if the improvments they devote themselves to are unable to provide for them or unable to be funded. With the loss of protection of people's creation's due to the fact that they can be copied or reverse engineered comes the ultimate loss of the creation. There have been countless studies over the years that have compared the new inventions and ideas coming out of Countries with comprehensive Intelletual Property laws including those for Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Software, and Digital Information. I don't have access to any such reports off-hand and don't have the time to search now, but the numbers have always been staggering.

Daniel333 wrote:

It’ll never happen in my life, as that would place a heavy pressure back on the manufacturing center for generation of GNP for a country. A country like the United States/UK/Japan couldn’t not deal with that well, as it work put the power of country back in the hands of the working class.

The true power comes from the fact that any person regardless of background, race, religion, upbringing, or financial status has the freedom to choose their own path. Obviously any government regulation infringes on freedom, but in the case of Intellectual Property laws (nothing new by the way, they are several hundred years old in most Countries and were around long before the internet) they create the neccessary protection so that people will put their creative resources to work and be justly rewarded for the improvement to the society around them. I am sure glad someone came before and though of automobiles, it would be a LonG walk to the office!

sprkymrk

Looks like Schluep has been to debate calss too.

There is one thing he left out that I would like to address:

Daniel333 wrote:

Now, when a government states that that a physical item (such as an audio CD) is a physical representation of intellectual property you get into the games or lawyers and sophists, control of another human being for someone’s profit. Purest form of sophism I can think of.

Your use of the word "sophism" here is really out of place, except maybe when applied to your statement. How did you make the connection between laws that protect an individual's product that is unique and has some value in the marketplace and control of another human being for profit?

By your argument, if I wrote a book, anyone could copy it word for word and sell it, because what is a book but a physical representation of my thoughts?

When you stop and think about it, any and all laws prevent us from doing something. By having speed limits we are prevented from getting where we want to go faster. By requiring someone to have a drivers license you are limiting their freedom until they reach a certain age and pay certain fees. Likewise making us all have license plates and insurance. But guess what? All these laws were put in place not to limit your freedom (although they do) but to protect us from harm caused by unfit, careless or unskilled drivers.

IP copyright laws were put in place for the reasons very plainly put forth by Schluep.

Darthn3ss

sprkymrk wrote:

But guess what? All these laws were put in place not to limit your freedom (although they do) but to protect us from harm caused by unfit, careless or unskilled drivers./quote]
heh. you live in Charleston, you should know that doesn't work out too well :P

sprkymrk

Darthn3ss wrote:

sprkymrk wrote:

But guess what? All these laws were put in place not to limit your freedom (although they do) but to protect us from harm caused by unfit, careless or unskilled drivers.

heh. you live in Charleston, you should know that doesn't work out too well :P

Touche!

win2k8

Heres a warning to anybody who downloads mp3s using P2P software:

DONT DO IT!

Somebody my friend knew just got busted for using a popular P2P program out there for downloading MP3s.


If you want to listen to music, theirs plenty of free & legal sites out there that let you listen to music online, eg. www.deezer.com which lets you listen to music on their site legally without downloading the music on your systems.

just thought i would put my 2 cents in

win2k4

paintb4707

win2k4 wrote:

Heres a warning to anybody who downloads mp3s using P2P software:

DONT DO IT!

Somebody my friend knew just got busted for using a popular P2P program out there for downloading MP3s.


If you want to listen to music, theirs plenty of free & legal sites out there that let you listen to music online, eg. www.deezer.com which lets you listen to music on their site legally without downloading the music on your systems.

just thought i would put my 2 cents in

win2k4

Until you download a program like WMRecorder to record streaming movies/music.

win2k8

If you do that, then your breaking the law, as your going against the site's intent to listen to music online only.

win2k4

Pash

Some companies charge well above the production costs for their software....and monopolies are born. I think their should be laws agaisnt this and every consumer should get multiple choice of packages and features for their buck. This is surely the best option for all......

JDMurray

Pash wrote:

Some companies charge well above the production costs for their software....and monopolies are born. I think their should be laws agaisnt this and every consumer should get multiple choice of packages and features for their buck. This is surely the best option for all......

People do get the best available value for their buck, but it's not handed to them. Consumers must perform their own due diligence and find the best bargains that they can. Capitalism (market economy) provides variety and price control, but it can't provide ease-of-use without restricting freedom. Please don't take away my freedom of choice for the sake of your laziness.

Pash

JDMurray wrote:

Pash wrote:

Some companies charge well above the production costs for their software....and monopolies are born. I think their should be laws agaisnt this and every consumer should get multiple choice of packages and features for their buck. This is surely the best option for all......

People do get the best available value for their buck, but it's not handed to them. Consumers must perform their own due diligence and find the best bargains that they can. Capitalism (market economy) provides variety and price control, but it can't provide ease-of-use without restricting freedom. Please don't take away my freedom of choice for the sake of your laziness.

Rubbish, people do not get the best for their buck at all. I could provide a list of recognized software packages and vendors who maybe offer 2/3 package options. All valued way above the production cost's and maybe going out of production life cycle in 1/2 years. We are told that this is to cover software support and develpoment costs. But the consumer isnt always left with gurantee of a complete product anyway. That said there are several other vendors and packages which are very good value for money, this could also form a list im sure.

JDMurray, we are lining the pockets of greedy capitalist fat cat's so they get richer while the poor get poorer, wake up and smell the coffee.

Schluep

Pash wrote:

JDMurray, we are lining the pockets of greedy capitalist fat cat's so they get richer while the poor get poorer, wake up and smell the coffee.

The economy is not a pie where if one person takes a larger piece than others must be getting smaller pieces. The fact that one person is becoming wealthier in no means that another must be becoming more destitute at the same time.

Those capitilist "fat cats" are the same ones proving a livelihood and source of income for the vast majority of people on these boards. The majority of the certifications dicussed here deal primarily with Microsoft and Cisco products. If they were to be penalized or regulated by government intervention there would be a lot of small companies going out of business or having difficulty integrating new solutions. Many companies in good financial situations would likely still need to cut back but could weather the storm.

Not one person on these boards was forced to purchase a Microsoft product, yet nearly everyone here did so by choice or works for a business that did so by choice. There are plenty of alternatives available. In a free enterprise economy the consumer has tremedous power through their buying habits. It is essentially the same as voting, but instead of casting a ballot you vote with your dollar. If you don't like how a company does business or the product they offer at the price it is being sold for then your best choice is to not vote for them. Once enough people stop voting for them by purchasing their products new competitor's will rise.

There is a small town in Montana where the average family income used to be $19,000 per year and almost none of the families in this town had any type of health insurance of full time work. There were no large companies in the area and the many small business did not run enough volume of their products to need to hire more than a few part time people. The town sat on a very nice lake however. A magazine article was released listing this lake as one of the nicest lakes in the Country to live around. A bunch of wealthy people made offers for chunks of this lakefront property offering these poor folks several times the previous value of the property when they were initially reluctant to sell. They were able to bank large amounts of money and buy nicer houses in the surrounding area and drastically improve their quality of life. With the growth in the area business such as Wal-Mart, the Home Deport, and many other large retailers started building in the area. The surrounding towns all began to grow and money was donated to the community for improvement. Other business began following suit and moving into the area. The average income is now much times higher (don't have the current numbers available) and nearly everyone has health insurance through their companies. Those same people that freely sold their land for a tremendous profit and saw their entire lives change in a short period of a little over a decade now get together at the bar and complain about how "All the rich folks are driving them off of their land and away from the lake).

The same is true in the movie/music industry as we have been discussing throughout this thread. If you don't like what some of the actors in a particular movie with their personal lives then simply don't buy the movie. All it takes are two or three box office bombs in a row and you barely see that actor/actress anymore. For example, Lord of the Rings was incredibly successful, and they now announced that "The Hobbit" is going to be made into a two part series to cash in one that success. "The Goldren Compass" has performed very poorly its first few weeks out, and if things don't turn around it is possible the next two movies in the series may not even air despite some of the production for them already taking place.

Going back to the pie example from my first sentence, it would seem that when a business or company begin making more money the only way they coul do so is by helping more people through selling a product or service they deem to be a fair value and choose to purchase. This vote for such a company is not only a win-win situation for both parties involved, but it has a drastic impact on the surrounding community. Instead of thinking of them taking a large piece of pie it is the equivalent of them making a pie factor so many can eat their fill. If Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Microsoft, Cisco, or some other company announced that they were opening a large office in your community and you were looking for work that you would be very happy there are some "fat cats" ultimately supporting your livelihood.

To bring this all back on topic now, theft hurts these same companies that are raising the financial status of all those around them if that Country has a free enterprise (capitilist) economy. That means it also hurts the same poor people including those that claim they "can't afford to buy the software/movie/music". If everyone stopped stealing it there would be a LOT more people able to easily afford it if the same price remained the same, but in actuality the price would likely decrease because other companies would see the success and become competitve in that industry and less of the costly safegaurds would be needed to try and prevent the theft.

sprkymrk

Pash wrote:

JDMurray, we are lining the pockets of greedy capitalist fat cat's so they get richer while the poor get poorer, wake up and smell the coffee.

Pash - rather than make a blanket statement like that, define for me 2 things to qualify your statement:

1. Who are the greedy capitalist fat cat's
2. Who are the poor

I ask you to define these terms because it sounds like you've been listening to too many CNN or BBC news bytes, and buying their philosophy hook, line, and sinker.

Oh yeah, and to get back on topic, how does pirating help the poor to get richer?

Pash

Schluep wrote:

Pash wrote:

JDMurray, we are lining the pockets of greedy capitalist fat cat's so they get richer while the poor get poorer, wake up and smell the coffee.

The economy is not a pie where if one person takes a larger piece than others must be getting smaller pieces. The fact that one person is becoming wealthier in no means that another must be becoming more destitute at the same time.

Those capitilist "fat cats" are the same ones proving a livelihood and source of income for the vast majority of people on these boards. The majority of the certifications dicussed here deal primarily with Microsoft and Cisco products. If they were to be penalized or regulated by government intervention there would be a lot of small companies going out of business or having difficulty integrating new solutions. Many companies in good financial situations would likely still need to cut back but could weather the storm.

Not one person on these boards was forced to purchase a Microsoft product, yet nearly everyone here did so by choice or works for a business that did so by choice. There are plenty of alternatives available. In a free enterprise economy the consumer has tremedous power through their buying habits. It is essentially the same as voting, but instead of casting a ballot you vote with your dollar. If you don't like how a company does business or the product they offer at the price it is being sold for then your best choice is to not vote for them. Once enough people stop voting for them by purchasing their products new competitor's will rise.

There is a small town in Montana where the average family income used to be $19,000 per year and almost none of the families in this town had any type of health insurance of full time work. There were no large companies in the area and the many small business did not run enough volume of their products to need to hire more than a few part time people. The town sat on a very nice lake however. A magazine article was released listing this lake as one of the nicest lakes in the Country to live around. A bunch of wealthy people made offers for chunks of this lakefront property offering these poor folks several times the previous value of the property when they were initially reluctant to sell. They were able to bank large amounts of money and buy nicer houses in the surrounding area and drastically improve their quality of life. With the growth in the area business such as Wal-Mart, the Home Deport, and many other large retailers started building in the area. The surrounding towns all began to grow and money was donated to the community for improvement. Other business began following suit and moving into the area. The average income is now much times higher (don't have the current numbers available) and nearly everyone has health insurance through their companies. Those same people that freely sold their land for a tremendous profit and saw their entire lives change in a short period of a little over a decade now get together at the bar and complain about how "All the rich folks are driving them off of their land and away from the lake).

The same is true in the movie/music industry as we have been discussing throughout this thread. If you don't like what some of the actors in a particular movie with their personal lives then simply don't buy the movie. All it takes are two or three box office bombs in a row and you barely see that actor/actress anymore. For example, Lord of the Rings was incredibly successful, and they now announced that "The Hobbit" is going to be made into a two part series to cash in one that success. "The Goldren Compass" has performed very poorly its first few weeks out, and if things don't turn around it is possible the next two movies in the series may not even air despite some of the production for them already taking place.

Going back to the pie example from my first sentence, it would seem that when a business or company begin making more money the only way they coul do so is by helping more people through selling a product or service they deem to be a fair value and choose to purchase. This vote for such a company is not only a win-win situation for both parties involved, but it has a drastic impact on the surrounding community. Instead of thinking of them taking a large piece of pie it is the equivalent of them making a pie factor so many can eat their fill. If Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Microsoft, Cisco, or some other company announced that they were opening a large office in your community and you were looking for work that you would be very happy there are some "fat cats" ultimately supporting your livelihood.

To bring this all back on topic now, theft hurts these same companies that are raising the financial status of all those around them if that Country has a free enterprise (capitilist) economy. That means it also hurts the same poor people including those that claim they "can't afford to buy the software/movie/music". If everyone stopped stealing it there would be a LOT more people able to easily afford it if the same price remained the same, but in actuality the price would likely decrease because other companies would see the success and become competitve in that industry and less of the costly safegaurds would be needed to try and prevent the theft.

Yes companies probably would have to take cut backs to deal with reduced revenue in sales of products, OR (big OR here), the owners/shareholders COULD spread the wealth a little and take less of the pie and keep the staff anyway. Im sorry this is one duck who refuses to stop quacking, keep trying.

RussS

Sorry Pash - JDMurray is correct.

The production cost of something has little to do with the price it will achieve on the retail market - that is mostly defined by what the market will pay for that product.

Software can be vastly overpriced as it seems some people will pay anything to have the latest & greatest .... take Vista for example. But there is however something else that many people do not take into account - development costs for example are huge. As Schluep mentioned, some here are involved in that R&D. Also seldom taken into account by many with software is the development needed to port it to many different languages - English may seem universal but it is not the language of many ..... even in the USA.



Personal thoughts on RIAA

BIG Record companies are on my personal hate list due to their practices. Having had involvement in the music industry and watched up close the wasy they operate I could quite easily justify a case for pirating music. I have however many musician friends that need the 5c or 10c they get from every $10 CD sold - not to make a living, but to just pay back what they owe to produce the CD

Pash

sprkymrk wrote:

Pash wrote:

JDMurray, we are lining the pockets of greedy capitalist fat cat's so they get richer while the poor get poorer, wake up and smell the coffee.

Pash - rather than make a blanket statement like that, define for me 2 things to qualify your statement:

1. Who are the greedy capitalist fat cat's
2. Who are the poor

I ask you to define these terms because it sounds like you've been listening to too many CNN or BBC news bytes, and buying their philosophy hook, line, and sinker.

Oh yeah, and to get back on topic, how does pirating help the poor to get richer?

Youd love me to say bill gates wouldnt you I am not gonna.

The fat cat's are the original old schoolers who stopped "working hard for it" a long time ago, now they are just reeling money in because they can. Don't get me wrong, im not naive, I understand the reason for companies charging more for good's and services today, the average joe to the big shot executive is asking for larger salaries............pushing production costs up. We are all to blame as well. At the end of the road though, there is a fat cat, in his mansion, smoking a big fat cigar, knowing he can push the price of product x up because 1000's depend on it. Don't tell me otherwise.

The poor are you, me and everyone else who has to consciously think about money and survive each day.

Look don't get me wrong, im not at all in anyway saying piracy or theft is a good thing AT ALL. But I don't wanna have to pay through the roof for something that cost a fraction per unit of what im charged, just so the people at the top can buy more cars and planes to add to his/her fleet.

Merry Xmas all by the way, hope its fun and you spend it with family/friends!

JDMurray

Pash wrote:

Look don't get me wrong, im not at all in anyway saying piracy or theft is a good thing AT ALL. But I don't wanna have to pay through the roof for something that cost a fraction per unit of what im charged, just so the people at the top can buy more cars and planes to add to his/her fleet.

In addition to pirating all your software, you must grow all your own food and refine all of your own petroleum too. Food and oil has some of the highest price mark-ups of any commodities on Earth. Very few people are getting rich off software compared to the riches earned from the sale of food and oil. To keep those people from getting richer, you'd better start stealing those things too.

sprkymrk

pash wrote:

The fat cat's are the original old schoolers who stopped "working hard for it" a long time ago, now they are just reeling money in because they can.

No, I mean specifically. We all like to point a finger at some imaginary evil person, but WHO are they? How do you know they quit working hard? Even if they did kick back and let the money roll in after years of WORKING hard to get where they are, who are you or I to rain on their parade? Isn't that the dream of every hard working capitalist?

Pash wrote:

The poor are you, me and everyone else who has to consciously think about money and survive each day.

Oh please... I am not poor. I've seen the poverty in India and other 3rd world countires. I am rich and so are you. If your idea of "poor" is having to think about money and paying bills, then your definition is very broad and includes millionaires. They have to think conciously about money and survival too or else they'd go broke just as fast as you or me.

And again - how does pirating software help the poor? The poor aren't the ones doing the pirating. It's the middle class that does. The real "poor" are too busy looking for food and shelter to worry about our precious MP3's and DVD's. Show me some of those skinny, hungry, decrepit souls from India or Etheopia that are sitting at home in a mud hut with a computer and a high speed Internet connection downloading warez so they can feed their families.

Who gets busted for pirating? Middle class teens and young adults from countries like the US, Canada, and the UK. Yup, they are real modern day Robin Hoods, huh?

Pash

JDMurray wrote:

Pash wrote:

Look don't get me wrong, im not at all in anyway saying piracy or theft is a good thing AT ALL. But I don't wanna have to pay through the roof for something that cost a fraction per unit of what im charged, just so the people at the top can buy more cars and planes to add to his/her fleet.

In addition to pirating all your software, you must grow all your own food and refine all of your own petroleum too. Food and oil has some of the highest price mark-ups of any commodities on Earth. Very few people are getting rich off software compared to the riches earned from the sale of food and oil. To keep those people from getting richer, you'd better start stealing those things too.

They probably do yes. I mentioned software initilally, but on more thought, many other goods and services apply to this subject.

Me a thief?

Accusations, such a powerful weapon but not in a fools hands. Keep trying JDMurray, you might start to sound convincing soon.

sprkymrk

Pash wrote:

JDMurray wrote:

Pash wrote:

Look don't get me wrong, im not at all in anyway saying piracy or theft is a good thing AT ALL. But I don't wanna have to pay through the roof for something that cost a fraction per unit of what im charged, just so the people at the top can buy more cars and planes to add to his/her fleet.

In addition to pirating all your software, you must grow all your own food and refine all of your own petroleum too. Food and oil has some of the highest price mark-ups of any commodities on Earth. Very few people are getting rich off software compared to the riches earned from the sale of food and oil. To keep those people from getting richer, you'd better start stealing those things too.

They probably do yes. I mentioned software initilally, but on more thought, many other goods and services apply to this subject.

Me a thief?

Accusations, such a powerful weapon but not in a fools hands. Keep trying JDMurray, you might start to sound convincing soon.

I don't think JD was calling you a thief. He used the term "you" as a plural pronoun, not second person singular.

Pash

sprkymrk wrote:

pash wrote:

The fat cat's are the original old schoolers who stopped "working hard for it" a long time ago, now they are just reeling money in because they can.

No, I mean specifically. We all like to point a finger at some imaginary evil person, but WHO are they? How do you know they quit working hard? Even if they did kick back and let the money roll in after years of WORKING hard to get where they are, who are you or I to rain on their parade? Isn't that the dream of every hard working capitalist?

Pash wrote:

The poor are you, me and everyone else who has to consciously think about money and survive each day.

Oh please... I am not poor. I've seen the poverty in India and other 3rd world countires. I am rich and so are you. If your idea of "poor" is having to think about money and paying bills, then your definition is very broad and includes millionaires. They have to think conciously about money and survival too or else they'd go broke just as fast as you or me.

And again - how does pirating software help the poor? The poor aren't the ones doing the pirating. It's the middle class that does. The real "poor" are too busy looking for food and shelter to worry about our precious MP3's and DVD's. Show me some of those skinny, hungry, decrepit souls from India or Etheopia that are sitting at home in a mud hut with a computer and a high speed Internet connection downloading warez so they can feed their families.

Who gets busted for pirating? Middle class teens and young adults from countries like the US, Canada, and the UK. Yup, they are real modern day Robin Hoods, huh?

The middle class was created to make people like you THINK they are better off. Compared to the people I mentioned above, we are poor and we shouldnt need to be.

Pash

sprkymrk wrote:

Pash wrote:

JDMurray wrote:

Pash wrote:

Look don't get me wrong, im not at all in anyway saying piracy or theft is a good thing AT ALL. But I don't wanna have to pay through the roof for something that cost a fraction per unit of what im charged, just so the people at the top can buy more cars and planes to add to his/her fleet.

In addition to pirating all your software, you must grow all your own food and refine all of your own petroleum too. Food and oil has some of the highest price mark-ups of any commodities on Earth. Very few people are getting rich off software compared to the riches earned from the sale of food and oil. To keep those people from getting richer, you'd better start stealing those things too.

They probably do yes. I mentioned software initilally, but on more thought, many other goods and services apply to this subject.

Me a thief?

Accusations, such a powerful weapon but not in a fools hands. Keep trying JDMurray, you might start to sound convincing soon.

I don't think JD was calling you a thief. He used the term "you" as a plural pronoun, not second person singular.

you'd (yōōd) Pronunciation Key

1. Contraction of you had.
2. Contraction of you would.

He meant it as "you had". Don't worry fellas I got it from the online dictionary, ITS FREE.

sprkymrk

Pash wrote:

The middle class was created to make people like you THINK they are better off. Compared to the people I mentioned above, we are poor and we shouldnt need to be.

Why limit your comparison to the fat cats? Compared to the people I mentioned, you are rich. So if they steal from you, is it justified?

BTW - The middle class wasn't "created" by anyone. It is simply a reference to a particular social class. How does one "create" an entire segment of a financial society on purpose?

Pash wrote:

He meant it as "you had". Don't worry fellas I got it from the online dictionary, ITS FREE.

Let's see - the Internet connection you used to access that free definition wasn't free. The computer you used to access it wasn't free. The electricity you used to run your computer to access it wasn't free. So the fella in Ethiopia w/o any of the above should steal it all from you to make it "fair".

The "you" in "you had" or "you would" can be a plural pronoun. I don't know why you would think JD (or anyone) would turn a discussion on pirating into personal accusations. So far I am the only one that has been called any names (laywer/woman) in this thread. :P

JDMurray

Pash wrote:

Accusations, such a powerful weapon but not in a fools hands. Keep trying JDMurray, you might start to sound convincing soon.

Very wise-sounding and empty "weasel words" those are.

Plantwiz

Pash wrote:

Youd love me to say bill gates wouldnt you I am not gonna.

The fat cat's are the original old schoolers who stopped "working hard for it" a long time ago, now they are just reeling money in because they can.

Read my comments in this tread regarding wealth and potential each of us has to retire wealthy.
http://www.techexams.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29054

***

You and I vote with our dollars. If you don't like the price don't buy it...but DON"T STEAL IT. When you or someone steals a good/service you are showing the market that there is demand for it.

Frankly, guys like Bill Gates have worked extremely hard to reach the level they are at, and while the proverbial snowball of wealth rolls over faster the larger it grows....you and I could be there if we worked at it.

Stealing is not the answer. Once a thief....potentially always a thief. How do you explain yourself to your employers? Do you tell them you only steal the small things and that's ok? But you could be trusted with client data because that stuff matters? I cannot think of many people who differentiate levels of theft.

If you want to get back at the 'big' cats....quit buying, using, supporting their products. Your role in IT may change a bit, but if you don't support MS products, and you get your clients to begin using Open Source products you are on the right path. If you simply just don't pay for licensing or look for loop holes in the licensing to 'save a couple bucks' then you are not doing the rest of us any favors, AND you're allowing your users to see the MS logos everyday and reinforce the Brand of MS so that they request it for their personal systems.


(under breath....don't they teach ethics courses in school any longer?.... ).

dynamik

Wow. This thread has jumped by about 20 posts since the last time I glanced at it. I thought of this thread when I came across this via digg: http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-morals-and-the-need-for-change-071323/

GT-Rob

The only thing I have learned is if I ever get asked if I download music by an employer, is to lie and say I don't. Thanks for the heads up that there are people in power that are naive enough to make the connection from downloading music, to stealing from a company or cheating on my certs. I will be on the safe side to not disclose my personal life in the future.




Why I don't think downloading is stealing:


If I download 1 song, lets say from sony, they count that as a loss of say $1. What happens if I steal that same song, 1000 times. Does that mean I stole $1000? What if I downloaded it a million times? Could I single handedly drive down sony shares? Put people out of jobs?

What if I download a song, and don't listen to it? Does that still cost them money? What if I download a song, and then buy the CD later? Does that clear me?

What if I download a song, but then give it back? Wouldn't that be ok? Even if I said I was sorry?



I don't buy music. Even if it was impossible to download music, I still wouldn't buy it. I listen to the radio. I have XM in the car, and internet radio at home. I download music for my MP3 player when I go for a run, which is a total of about 2hrs a week. For the 40-50 songs I like on there, it would cost me hundreds to buy those CDs. I would hate to buy through iTunes, as that would put CD stores out of business right spymrk?


For example, lets say theres a really good joke I like. I hear it on the radio 10 times a day. I go on youtube and listen to it when ever I want. I can even repeat it all I want to my friends. They sell the joke for $20 at a store, because it comes with 10 other jokes I do not like. However, if I write it down next time I hear it, and keep it for 100% personally use and never let anyone else see it, I am immoral and should lose my job.

Slowhand

This topic is drifting more and more into my list of things I refrain from discussing in mixed company. Religion, politics, and now, software/music piracy. Seems to me that we have opposing sides, neither of which feels that the other is seeing the whole story, and I doubt that either side will convince the other of what's correct. I hate to see people that usually coexist and converse so peacefully draw battle-lines, and it'd be even worse if we were to have animocity between members over a single thread. So, my two cents on the whole topic is this:

You're not going to convince someone that has an opposing opinion on a subject, and are as passionate about their ideals as you are about yours, that you're right and they're wrong any more than they will convince you. The opinions have been heard, and in leau of letting heated arguments make us not want to speak to each other anymore, we'd all probably best step away from this thread for a while and breathe.

After all, once we hit the point where we're hurling feces and smacking each other with bone-clubs, there's no going back.

royal

I am absolutely amazed this thread is still going on and on. This is all common sense and stuff we learned as kids. Stealing is wrong. End of story.

Webmaster