This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Windows XP SP3

2»

Comments

  • And so, if I get it via other means then I don't have to bother paying. Glad we agree.
    Yeah, it's also stealing. You should be punished for that.
  • Andrew, You may have presumed that I am using Windows in spite of paying for it. If a legitimate copy of windows was less than the amount of effort it took for me to crack it then I would buy a copy. Unfortunately, as it stands, I lack the spare money to afford it and the time it takes to crack it is trivial. You should not punish people for copying something they would not buy anyway. The company may even be profiting through my future purchase and has nothing to gain my me not using their software. Using, as opposed to not using is beneficial for a company as it may lead to future purchase.
  • edited May 2008
    If a legitimate copy of windows was less than the amount of effort it took for me to crack it then I would buy a copy.
    It doesn't matter what you would do, only what you actually do.
    Unfortunately, as it stands, I lack the spare money to afford it and the time it takes to crack it is trivial.
    Not their problem. They set a price for it and that is what they expect for their work.
    You should not punish people for copying something they would not buy anyway.
    Yes you should! It doesn't matter if you wouldn't buy it at all. You are not entitled to someone else's products!
    The company may even be profiting through my future purchase and has nothing to gain my me not using their software.
    They won't be able to make any future software if no one pays for the current software.
    Using, as opposed to not using is beneficial for a company as it may lead to future purchase.
    Not when everybody steals it. Also, when you illegally take their software, they feel like they have to lock it down and try to stop it from happening again. This only screws the legitimate customers. If no one stole stuff, we wouldn't have DRM. It's all your (The pirates) fault.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Don't copy that floppy!
  • edited May 2008
    Yay, all as planned, it heated up! Pity I was away.
    You are still stealing. You can call it whatever you like but the principle is still the same.
    Not really, no. In a legal sense, the two are certainly very distinct. That's why they are handled under completely different sections of the law.

    However, I would presume that you are trying to argue on a moral basis.
    So, I would guess that the basis of your argument is an attempt to equate intellectual property with real property. However, you simply cannot do this.
    You see, when you copy something you are doing just that - copying. You can copy something while leaving the original intact.

    What you are doing is infringing on their copyright, which is a right assigned by law that one can control the copying of one's work. So, what you are doing is infringing on one of their rights, yes, but to call it "stealing" only serves to prevent people from really understanding it. By the same token, you may as well call it murder...

    Some people tend to think that copyright is somehow an inseperable part of capitalism. Sure, standard property law is a fundamental aspect of capitalist society, but this does not translate so simply to intellectual property. Not in the least.
    Not only that, but copyright is in fact inherently anti-capitalist. Why? I'll use a quote from an article,
    In "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism", the economist and Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek explains the difference between conventional property rights and copyright. While the supply of material resources is limited by nature, the supply of an immaterial good [is] unlimited, unless the government limits the supply by law…. A later Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman, describes copyright as a monopoly that decreases supply to a level below the optimal level. Copyright and the regulations that follow from it should, according to Friedman, be described primarily as a limitation of free speech.
    So, if it's not something so straightforward as a natural right, why do we have copyright?
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
    That's not to say that copyright first came into being with such a noble purpose. Read up on the history Stationers' Guild (I'd recommend this article).

    The purpose stated in the U.S. Constitution is certainly a worthy one, but copyright is far from a black-and-white issue, unlike stealing. So, don't equate the two!!
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited May 2008
    Some people tend to think that copyright is somehow an inseperable part of capitalism. Sure, standard property law is a fundamental aspect of capitalist society, but this does not translate so simply to intellectual property. Not in the least.
    Not only that, but copyright is in fact inherentlyanti-capitalist. Why? I'll use a quote from an article,
    Would you agree though that copyright helps protect the consumer in knowing the quality and source of their material? Say I want to buy a CD from Person A because they made it and I want to financially support them buy purchasing their media. However, Person B copied their media and is offering to sell it to me as well. Without Copyright Laws, I would have no idea which person is selling the media on behalf of the creator and who is selling it for pure personal gain. If this were to happen, I believe consumer confidence in the market would be lost.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • edited May 2008
    I won't deny that copyright achieves that purpose, but it is far from the best, and certainly not the only possible mechanism for doing so.
    How about, say, the "Author-Approved" mark?

    Simply because the law is how it is doesn't mean it ought to be.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • I won't deny that copyright achieves that purpose, but it is far from the best, and certainly not the only possible mechanism for doing so.
    How about, say, the"Author-Approved" mark?
    What is the point of such a mark? No one is preventing people from doing similar adaptive means of distribution. Just look at Radiohead's album, In Rainbows. It does exactly what that author suggests without having to change any current copyright laws. I'm not saying that the current copyright laws are just and completely fair, nor that they shouldn't be changed, but I need more of a reason than just "Down with the corporations, dude!".

    I guess the real question is whether or not you believe that people are entitled to profit from their Intellectual Property for a limited time or not. Do you? If not, why? The problem is that Intellectual Property is, by definition, a monopoly. However, I'm not quite convinced that allowing people to share it freely without regards for the producer is the correct choice of action.
  • edited May 2008
    Would you agree though that copyright helps protect the consumer in knowing the quality and source of their material?
    I won't deny that copyright achieves that purpose, but it is far from the best, and certainly not the only possible mechanism for doing so.
    How about, say, the"Author-Approved" mark?
    What is the point of such a mark? No one is preventing people from doing similar adaptive means of distribution. Just look at Radiohead's album, In Rainbows. It does exactly what that author suggests without having to change any current copyright laws. I'm not saying that the current copyright laws are just and completely fair, nor that they shouldn't be changed, but I need more of a reason than just "Down with the corporations, dude!".
    You provided one argument in favour of copyright, I refuted it. It wasn't the basis for an argument against copyright though.
    I guess the real question is whether or not you believe that people are entitled to profit from their Intellectual Property for a limited time or not.
    I really don't think it's a question of "entitlement". I hold with the Constitution of the USA in that it is a question of practicality, of providing incentive. As we currently are, it does seem like Intellectual Property law serves some purpose in society, but it is over-the-top as it is. It's not like every creative work warrants the reimbursement of its author. That worth is decided by society, ideally in a free-market type situation. Of course, with Intellectual Property these days the big issue is that there is a near-zero cost of reproduction, of copying. So, obviously the big question is, how can we reconcile the facts that:-
    • If something can be distributed freely, everyone should get it
    • We want such things to continue to be created, and;-
    • Distribution might be free, but the creation is not
    • Sadly, people don't always want to make stuff for free
    If you accept that this is a practical consideration, then we can move on and accept that a practical question warrants a practical solution.

    Copyright is not practical (it just isn't working, and unless you're in favour of gross violations of our rights, it won't), nor desirable...
    Sadly, I don't think there is any viable, legal solution to the question I posed above, as things stand now.

    Then again, it's not surprising. The law needs to follow society as much as society needs to follow the law.
    So the medium in which all of this is really happening is a social one - the law can merely follow step when the course becomes clear. I think the Creative Commons and Open Source movements are an inkling of such a course.

    In the present, what we need is for modern society to understand what's at stake and how important it is. What we need is a paradigm shift in these monolithic industries that manage to make such brilliant use of modern technology while completely failing, or refusing, to understand the implications of the technology they use. "Business models" that don't rely inherently upon copyright are a real possibility, and that is the direction we need to be going in. Prioritising services over goods is one of the biggest bits of advice that any modern business in the field of intellectual property, perhaps even any field at all, cannot ignore.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited May 2008
    If something can be distributed freely, everyone should get it
    Really? Why?
    So the medium in which all of this is really happening is asocialone - the law can merely follow step when the course becomes clear. I think the Creative Commons and Open Source movements are an inkling of such a course.
    No argument from me here. CC and OSS are great alternatives to current copyright claims. However, if I produce a product and want to be financially reimbursed for it, I should be allowed to require payment for said product.
    In the present, what we need is for modern society to understand what's at stake and how important it is. What we need is a paradigm shift in these monolithic industries that manage to make such brilliant use of modern technology while completely failing, or refusing, to understand the implications of the technology they use.
    What we need is for society to understand how important it is to follow the rules. Like you said, it's important for the laws to follow the will of the people, but also for the people to follow the laws. Without the latter, it won't matter what the law is changed to, if people don't follow them, nothing will get changed. The reason why industries are so unwilling to change is a lack of faith in society to follow any sort of agreement. They aren't following the current agreement, so what incentive do they have to change?
    "Business models" that don't rely inherently upon copyright are a real possibility, and that is the direction we need to be going in.
    Sadly, I do not see a Star Trek economy in our future.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Sorry, but I'm going into the software business and I wanna make some fucking money. This shit just doesn't poof into existence.
    How about this? I assume the software you wish to make money off will be windows software (correct me if i'm wrong). If Omnutia only uses an operating system that can be legitimately acquired, and thus avoids Windows, there's no way that your software would be purchased.

    Would you be more partial to cracking Windows if it improved your personal bottom line?
  • edited May 2008
    How about this? I assume the software you wish to make money off will be windows software (correct me if i'm wrong). If Omnutia only uses an operating system that can be legitimately acquired, and thus avoids Windows, there's no way that your software would be purchased.

    Would you be more partial to cracking Windows if it improved your personal bottom line?
    No, it's my fault for producing a product that is not available to more consumers. My loss, not his. If I don't make it, someone else will.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • If something can be distributed freely, everyone should get it
    Really? Why?
    Erm. Common sense, and economics, perhaps?
    If something has near-infinite supply, then any demand for it should ideally be met at zero cost.
    I'd like to see you argue the same way if, say, somone managed to work out how to make free food.
    "Business models" that don't rely inherently upon copyright are a real possibility, and that is the direction we need to be going in.
    Sadly, I do not see a Star Trek economy in our future.
    I think you're being too pessimistic... There are many excellent ideas in this area; such as the threshold pledge system; the "Radiohead" model, the evolution of businesses around the Open Source environment by focusing on services over goods...
    What we need is for society to understand how important it is to follow the rules. Like you said, it's important for the laws to follow the will of the people, but also for the people to follow the laws. Without the latter, it won't matter what the law is changed to, if people don't follow them, nothing will get changed. The reason why industries are so unwilling to change is a lack of faith in society to follow any sort of agreement. They aren't following the current agreement, so what incentive do they have to change?
    Well, unfortunately, all they really have going for them is survival. I wish there was more to it than that.
    I think that to claim that what is happening now is the result of a somehow "broken" society is at the least inadequate, if not misleading. The Internet is an immense copying machine, and an integral part of the modern world, and yet here we have this commandment of "Thou shalt not copy".



    Copyright-centric business models are failing, and there is little that can be done about it.
  • If something has near-infinite supply, then any demand for it should ideally be met at zero cost.
    This is not what you said. Perhaps you just weren't verbose enough. You said if it can be distributed freely, not that it has a near-infinite supply.
    I think you're being too pessimistic... There are many excellent ideas in this area; such as the threshold pledge system; the "Radiohead" model, the evolution of businesses around the Open Source environment by focusing on services over goods...
    Can you point me to the financial success of said systems? Didn't Radiohead say it wasn't going to do the same model for their next album because it just wasn't successful?
    I think that to claim that what is happening now is the result of a somehow "broken" society is at the least inadequate, if not misleading. The Internet is an immense copying machine, and an integral part of the modern world, and yet here we have this commandment of "Thou shalt not copy".
    So just because it's easy it should be allowed? I agree with you that the current copyright system is not perfect, but I have yet to see a better model which adequately finds a solution better than the current system.
    Well, unfortunately, all they really have going for them is survival. I wish there was more to it than that.
    Isn't survival the key to the free-market ideals you hold? What, should there be something more than "keep it in the black"?
  • edited May 2008
    If something has near-infinite supply, then any demand for it should ideally be met at zero cost.
    This is not what you said. Perhaps you just weren't verbose enough. You said if it can be distributed freely, not that it has a near-infinite supply.
    Yeah, I should have said that straight off the bat. It's basically the same thing if we're speaking of data, but then I didn't say I was.
    I think you're being too pessimistic... There are many excellent ideas in this area; such as the threshold pledge system; the "Radiohead" model, the evolution of businesses around the Open Source environment by focusing on services over goods...
    Can you point me to the financial success of said systems? Didn't Radiohead say it wasn't going to do the same model for their next album because it just wasn't successful?
    Not a resounding success by music industry standards, but this is not really enough to warrant heavy pessimism on the matter either. Sure, we need a lot of work, but alternatives to obsolete pieces of DRM'd plastic are needed.
    I think that to claim that what is happening now is the result of a somehow "broken" society is at the least inadequate, if not misleading. The Internet is an immense copying machine, and an integral part of the modern world, and yet here we have this commandment of "Thou shalt not copy".
    So just because it's easy it should be allowed? I agree with you that the current copyright system is not perfect, but I have yet to see a better model which adequately finds a solution better than the current system.
    Well, as a legal model, no, there's not much that can be done. We don't even need to do that much iwith copyright itself (though it would be a great help); all we need is to prevent businesses from taking over our freedoms, so that better business models will finally start to prevail on the free market.
    Well, unfortunately, all they really have going for them is survival. I wish there was more to it than that.
    Isn't survival the key to the free-market ideals you hold? What, should there be something more than "keep it in the black"?
    Yeah, another bit of bad wording on my behalf. If copyright is failing they must adapt and innovate to survive, and I wish there was more to it because all too many are failing to do so.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited May 2008
    all we need is to prevent businesses from taking over our freedoms, so that better business models will finally start to prevail on the free market.
    They wouldn't be taking such drastic steps if we just purchased the content instead of openly defying them by blatantly pirating like Omnutia (just an example). If people just stopped and said, "yeah, you guys are right, we shouldn't be copying music", DRM wouldn't exist. I think that if we want change, we need to focus first on getting society to shape up before we start demanding that companies change their business practices.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Well, it's a difficult issue. Change is needed in all of these industries, but because of their inherently monopolistic nature, if we were to stick with what they offer us, very little would change.
    Also, if we don't take anything at all they offer us, they die out and we're left with nothing.

    So perhaps the best way for things to proceed is in fact some balance between the two? Perhaps both the pirates and the, (ninjas?) are a necessity? We may not have the right balance between the two, but it's an interesting idea ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.