Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Piracy and the Digital Divide

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:12:06 AM PDT

We've had several discussions on the GripeLog about whether software piracy is ever justifiable. And, while I've always sided with those who say it isn't, it would seem recent events might have changed my perspective at least a bit. That's because I just happened to re-read a comment that I recall I disagreed with when it was posted, and I find it now makes a lot more sense to me.


"A few decades ago, a man could still 'pull himself up by his bootstraps' -- meaning all it took was some hard work and determination to improve your lot in life," a reader wrote in response to my "Unjustifying Piracy" story a few months back. "If you already had money and means, you could easily afford the tools and education that it required to move from one station in life to another. If you didn't have the tools or the education, you could legally obtain them by borrowing them from a neighbor. Even the government was more than willing to give you a hand-up in doing what needed done.

"Today it is not necessarily the case, especially in a digital world," the reader continued. "The argument of pirating software needed for business and productivity is a valid one, in my opinion. When the Software Age started there was no copy protection, and while businesses may not have liked you pirating their software out of need in order to learn how to use it and become productive with it, they did appreciate it because eventually you would reach a point where you could afford to purchase the software and, more importantly, afford the support that the purchase provided.

"Today that is not the case," the reader continued. "EULAs restrict when, where, how and even how often you use the software. Oftentimes you're not permitted to share it with a friend or a co-worker, even if you wanted to try to win them over to the software. Our jobs require us to use computers more and more, especially at home. Even our children are facing the fact that they need a computer at home in order to complete assignments. The government is not handing out free computers and software, nor even lending it. A few private and non-profit ventures have tried to fill this gap, but they often lack the resources to make this a successful task beyond small communities or specially classified individuals. Sure you can turn to library resources, if they are even available, and you also see a severe lack of services available including sufficient computers and sufficient software.

"How does a modern man in the digital age who has nothing 'pull himself up by the bootstraps' in order to do what needs done to improve himself?" the reader wrote. "His neighbor is now legally barred by the courts from helping him. Government refuses to do anything. And the private companies that provide all of these resources are most assuredly out to punish you even if you are a good user and follow their policies to the tee. I believe that you will find the answer when we can find the way to close the so-called 'digital divide' and you make access to these modern tools equal to everybody. Until then, the only reasonable method that I can see to get to this point is piracy. It's not the best method, but for many it is going to be the only method."

Of course, the events that have me seeing this reader's comment in a new light are Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. As we all saw, there's a whole lot more than just a digital divide between those who can get themselves safely to high ground and those who can find themselves left behind. But with a whole region of the country needing to bootstrap itself back to what will hopefully be even greater prosperity, there can be no doubt that eliminating the digital divide is going to be crucial.

No, I'm not suggesting that hurricane victims should be allowed to pirate software as they choose any more than I'd advocate they be allowed to steal the computers on which to run the software. But I do agree with the reader that the software industry's continuing attempts to extend the grasp of its intellectual property rights have helped create the digital divide. If we really want our nation to be one where everyone has a fair chance to lift themselves up, the software industry will also have to help us find a way to level the playing field for all.

What's your opinion? Post your comments below or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< Needing Support for Oracle Support | Support the Community Broadband Act >


Display: Sort:
Piracy and the Digital Divide | 102 comments (102 topical) | Post A Comment
No surprise what the answer is[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by wantobe on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 03:30:34 AM PDT

Open Source software isn't perfect, but it sure helps close that divide, at least from a software perspective. The problem is, the people who would benifit the most from Open Source either don't have computers or don't know about the alternatives.

Those of us in the know, who have the resources, are just as responsible for helping out as the software industry. If OSS is available, we need to let the people who need it know about it. Then we need to actually get it for them (most OSS is available for free download, and when it's not free it's cheap), install it for them, and provide a reasonable amount of support to help them get over the rough spots. This applies to small businesses trying to get off the ground as much as, if not more than, home users.

Just as importantly, we need to support OSS authors and encourage our clients (or just the people we help out) to support them too. That way, we can help ensure the continued availability of the OSS that's already there, and maybe give these guys the incentive to create alternatives to software for which there is not yet OSS available.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This ]



Agreed to a point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#56)
by kamnet on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:51:25 AM PDT

I'm not sure whether or not Open Source can fix this problem, but I do believe that it can at least help alleviate the problem. And we may have to put in some extra legwork on our part to make it happen, but I believe that it will be a fruitful experience.

I'll volunteer my own example: a few years a go a friend of mine who operates a very profitable cable contracting business was bemoaning the fact that he was going to have to lay out $400+ per computer in order to use Microsoft Office and whatever modern OS it required to run efficient in order to expand his computer network for his employees. I made the suggestion that he look into using Open Office on whatever OS he was already using. He did, he quickly found that he could adapt to it, and eventually Open Office replaced every copy of Microsoft Office that he had. Furthermore, he now requires all contractors and subcontractors that he deals with to submit their paperwork in Open Office formats rather than MS Office formats. Sure he can read the MS Office formats no problem, but the point is that he's now an advocate for this software and since it is free, easy to install and no more difficult to learn than MS Office then it isn't an unreasonable requirement for his employees and contractors to comply with.

One of his sub-contractors eventually seperated and started his own contracting business in a related field, and he now uses Open Office as well, and is also requiring that all employees and sub-contractors submit their work in Open Office format.

It is small steps, but it is examples of what we can do to make changes for the better.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



In Retrospect This Argument is Still Absurd[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:00:20 AM PDT

This post didn't make sense the first time and it doesn't make sense now. Just for fun, let us apply this same argument to a teenager who is musically inclined, loves rock and roll, and wants to make it his career:

Having spent a fair amount of time doing the same thing myself, I can tell you that playing guitar in a band can be an expensive proposition. First you need a guitar and amp. Not necessarily cheap and unlikely something you can get from your neighbor (if they even have the equipment you need, you must convince them to part with it). You also need to learn how to play. Those lessons can be costly and I doubt they teach guitar at your local high school. Sure there are exceptions, but we're speaking in generalities here. You can forget the government helping out too. Last I checked, there was no Department of Rock and Roll wannabe musicians could petition to get started on a career in entertainment.

Continuing with the original poster's logic here: Since our kid is unlikely to find a helpful neighbor and the government isn't dolling out free guitars, it should be okay for him to break into to a music store and steal a guitar, amp and a couple of Mel Bay to get him started. Does this really sound okay to you? How much different is this from the aspiring, but broke, graphic artist who downloads an illegal copy of Photoshop?

I am not a fan of all of the garbage we see in EULAs these days. I'm certainly not a fan of activation. But the jerk mentality goes both ways. Users can be jerks too when they think they are entitled to the hard work of software developers without paying for it. Hello! These people write software for a LIVING. It is up to the consumer to decide if they are going to a) purchase a product, b) go with an alternative, or c) forgo anything. It is not within the consumer's rights to steal a product because they do not like the terms or do not have the means to purchase it. For capitalism to work effectively, it depends on people will to take options b and c. These last two cause the market to adjust in positive ways. The first, cause negative adjustments.

But there is something that has already been mentioned in a previous comment that makes piracy really inexcusable in this day and age: Free/Open Source Software. This makes option b (finding an alternative) not only easy, but free or at least cheap. You can learn the basics of operating a modern computing (what files are, how to interact with the file system, finding things in menus, networking, etc) as easily under Linux, BSD, and other free OSes as you can under Windows or OS X. The same goes for Open Office where you can learn enough about word processing, spreadsheets and the like that you could easily transition to Microsoft Office if it was required for a job. Wanna be software developers have Java (not open source, but still free), the GNU suite of development tools, and on and on and on. And our budding rock and roll star? Get that boy a copy of Audacity.

[ Reply to This ]


Stupid analogy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:26:22 AM PDT

Breaking in does damage to physical, real property. Stealing a physical object robs the owner of its use. Copying software, nothing is stolen, only a copy is made, the original remains unchanged in it's original form, with the original owner. You can't compare the two. It doesn't work.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Sure it Does[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 10:33:06 AM PDT

An insured business (and you are an absolute fool if you are not insured) can recoup costs of damaged property and stolen property. The software developer cannot. If you steal software, you are depriving the vendor of revenues they should have received had you rightfully purchased it. There is no insurance policy for that.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


There is...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:03:27 AM PDT

..no right to revenues... Price fairly rather than gouging and software/music/movie piracy will vanish... (or at least reduce to miniscule levels)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Nor is there[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:00:21 AM PDT

a right to get something free that someone else has produced.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Last I checked[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:05:02 AM PDT

Insurance costs money, and usually having claims against your policy raises the cost of that policy. Or at least the costs are spread out among all the insured. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there is no cost of physical damage done.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Not really...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:52:45 PM PDT

That's assuming that everyone that ever pirated a piece of software would have paid for it, if the pirated version were not available. Furthermore, not all costs incurred by theft can be recovered via insurance. Sure, they'll pay for your window, and the guitar that was stolen. Perhaps they'll even throw some "cost of business downtime" money in, if you had to close the store while it was being repaired/cleaned up. However, if your store gets robbed more than once in a blue moon, you can be sure the premiums you pay are going to increase as well. You may get your money in the short run, but in the long run, you're going to be paying more for the same service, which means lower overall profits. On the other hand, pirating software would be more akin to walking into the store, grabbing a guitar off the way, thowing it into the magical guitar-duplicating machine you brought with you, and then putting the original back on the wall and walking out with your duplicate... how was that for absurd?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


That still works[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:23:35 PM PDT

If there were such a magical duplicating machine, and it were legal to use it, then how long would the store be in business when it never sold any guitars because everyone was just duplicating them? See the problem? Theft is theft.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


No, it's not....and...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:33:43 PM PDT

No, it's not... and... if people could duplicate physical objects it simply mean a shift in the market. Duplicating is not a physical theft, and does not take anything from anyone in any direct sense. You have to draw philosophical abstracts to even try and make a connection... If the physicql obejct could be duplicated, then many people would still buy officially licesned versions[though the cost of everything would be reduced thankfully!], and there would be free-ware versions/designs available, just like freeware software is available now. It would be a new market, and it would have to adapt. It's called progress...

-Chris

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Just the opposite[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:45:57 PM PDT

If it were legal, then almost no one would buy the original, if for no other reason than convenience. It would just be easier to duplicate my neighbors instead of drive downtown to the store to duplicate theirs. In response, the creator of the original item would have to account for this, so he might charge $5,000 for a baseball cap to make up for the 1,000 copies that he knows will be made from it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I did not...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:05:38 PM PDT

I did not advocate removal of copyright. I was responding to the absurd notion that copyright infringment is directly equatable with theft. However, for the record, copyright needs to be seriously revised to become a balanced system once again.

-Chris

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Let's take that a step further[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:56:30 PM PDT

Duplicating is not a physical theft, so it should not be illegal. So, if I am willing to retypeset and publish a book on my equipment and my paper, I should be free to sell that and give the original author no royalties. After all, you don't know that people who bought my copy would have bought his instead.

I didn't steal anything physical from him. I mean, it's not like ideas, creativity and thoughts are at the core of what it means to be a human. It's really our physical possessions that make us who we are, right?

You are taking away any reward for being creative, and basically going back to a physical barter type society. Welcome to the middle ages!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



No need...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:03:25 PM PDT

I think  you misconstrued my reply. I am not advocating a removal of copyrights. I was replying to the absurd notion that copying is unconditionally equatable with physical theft.

-Chris

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



"Uncoditionally"?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:07:30 PM PDT

Everything has its exceptions. No one is saying no exceptions exist. In fact, there are ways to come out ahead from physical theft. In the case where you have inventory that is not selling at all, with no right of return to the manufacturer. You are losing money letting it take up space. If it is stolen or damaged and you can collect on insurance, you may come out ahead or even.

But the main point is that people tend to trivialize software piracy. I make my living writing software. I detest activation, strict EULAs, etc. I do not employ them. I do not purchase software that contains them. But, I do not engage in piracy either. There is no need and never has been one. Long before F/OSS was a popular buzzword, free and cheap programs have been floating around -- a lot of it fairly high in quality.

Nor did I ever imply that ALL or MOST of the pirated software equals a lost sale. But in a lot of cases it certainly does. Occasionally I write shareware or freeware for fun. In the beginning I released the shareware solely on the honor system -- it's full featured with no restrictions, nagging, sunsets, etc. -- just pay if you like it and use it. Almost no one did. As an experiment I took the same version and put up a nagging banner. There was some increase in sales, but very little. Then I limited the non-resgistered feature set and added a serial number. The result? Sales went up. Way up. Quadruple digit percentages up. Cursory searches on Google show plenty of keys for my software floating around, so I know people are probably using the full versions without paying.

This is how the industry made it to activation. They saw the same things I am seeing. The next obvious step would be for me to add activation myself. From talking with other shareware writers I know who have done so, I can expect sales to go up a good bit. But I detest activation so I won't, but I can see why some vendors push it. There are certain categories of software where it will not adversely affect demand and convert pirates into (grudgingly, I'm sure) paying customers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Reply[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 07:02:36 PM PDT

But the main point is that people tend to trivialize software piracy. I make my living writing software.

You'll have to specify whom and how they are trivializing it. But it remains true that copying something is totally different from taking a physical object. For example: using an illegal copy of Adobe Photoshop is not the same as stealing someone's physical photo processing equipment. In one case, tangible property is lost. In the other case, an unauthorized copy is made. In this perspective, copyright infringement is not of an equal magnitude as physical theft. So is it trivializing piracy to point out such a fact?

This is how the industry made it to activation. They saw the same things I am seeing. The next obvious step would be for me to add activation myself. From talking with other shareware writers I know who have done so, I can expect sales to go up a good bit. But I detest activation so I won't, but I can see why some vendors push it. There are certain categories of software where it will not adversely affect demand and convert pirates into (grudgingly, I'm sure) paying customers.

This is beside the point, and is an issue of the viable market, not of the main subject of this thread. However, my views, are that the software company has the right to use whatever method of protection that they desire. However, here is the catch: they should have no right of expectation of the government to back up their [today, often absurd] methods. This does not apply to your method[with is the only fair method of this sort]. But activation, EULAs, etc.; are not a balanced set of rules. The foundation of copyright was to have an equally balanced system of give and take among IP originators and consumers, in the spirit  of promoting new work(s). Today, such balance for the most part, does not exist, with software products, for example, because the courts and government seemingly side with any inane idea that is conceived today by software giants, totally screwing the citizen/consumer rights. EULAs on retailed software, for example, are totally against any sort of proper contract. How in any logical world, can you force an agreement on someone AFTER you took money/sold the product? It's makes no rational sense. DRM or other methods that require manufacturer 'permission' to use after you buy it: the product is not reliable to work in the future, it is totally dependant on the willing continued support of the manufacturer. While I said earlier it is a right for them to use this, it should be completely legal for cracks to be made for said items to ensure fair[non encumbered] consumer use of purchased products. This would probably cause such DRM to be used seldom, since such bypasses would be a legal right of use. To be able to tell people what they can or can't do to or with their property is absurd.

-Chris

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#89)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Analogy is bogus[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:48:13 AM PDT

for a budding rockstar, most schools have music classes for them to learn how to play the instrument and provide an instrument to practice on. For those who are entering the workplace and their prospective employers want certain criteria such as MS Office experience or Macromedia development, it is harder for a person to learn on their own, let alone afford the licenses to learn on their own.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


As I Said, We Are Talking Generalities[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 10:37:16 AM PDT

Most schools do not not, in fact, teach guitar. If they have music programs (many schools are actually losing funding for such programs), they are often for marching band style instruments. Our budding rock star is still left out. This is just another excuse for people being able to break the law because they do not like the way things are. Sorry, but except for extreme cases (like the hurricane), there is no excuse for theft in this country. Good decision making (key point, here) combined with hard work can get you the things you want and need in the United States. But you need both along with some patience. If you have this or not, you still are not entitled to the fruits of other's hard work just because you want something or think you need something.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Schools & neighbors[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by CowboyinBRLA on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:14:35 AM PDT

While not all schools offer rock guitar lessons, many if not most offer some music lessons, and many music stores offer discounts or favorable terms to students and their parents. Pawn shops often have second-hand guitars which are more affordable than new ones. Several students can pool their money and buy a guitar and amp and take turns learning and practicing on it. You may have a neighbor in his 40's or 50's who has an old guitar from his own school days that he's willing to get rid of cheaply.

None of this is usually true for software. Many companies no longer offer student pricing, and as the article points out, EULAs and DRM and the DMCA are working to make it impossible for someone to transfer software from one user to another. And usually software is licensed to one person for one computer, making it illegal for several people to share it.

Theft is almost always morally wrong; but as we saw in Katrina, sometimes folks have to loot food after a disaster in order to survive. Is that wrong? If not, then there clearly can be exceptions to a general "stealing is always wrong" rule.

In the case of software, let's say you're a store owner in a disaster zone. You have inventory that people need to aid the recovery; people are willing to pay for the inventory; but your computerized cash register program ran on PC's that were destroyed, or they'll only work if they're online with a central server in Minnesota, and all lines are down. Getting another computer and register program will take weeks because there's no delivery infastrucutre any more.

The store next door has been looted and can't operate, but he has a working computer with a stand-alone cash register and accounting program he paid $10,000 for. The EULA prohibits using it for any business other than your own.

If he lets you use the computer for your sales, he's breaking the EULA, and if the EULA is legally enforceable, he's breaking the law. But if he doesn't, you can't track your sales and get the commerce going again in the disaster zone so people can recover.

It's easy to construct scenarios where an absolute "piracy is wrong" leads to an absurd result. The software industry, in its greed, long ago abandoned trying to determine "reasonable" circumstances where that might be the case.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Katrina and Theft[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 08:34:36 AM PDT

Actually the store in your scenario could do what some/most of the Walmarts did in Mississippi and Louisiana. The managers opened up the stores (except for guns/knives/arrows/etc and prescription drugs) and let people take what they needed. In some cases, the police got the weapons (or at least the ammo). Not sure what happened in New Orleans proper. Yes, each store lost money in doing that but corporate Walmart and the individual stores got something probably more important - good will. (As well as the good feeling of knowing you did the right thing and helped people in times of need.)

Software piracy is not direct theft but an indirect theft since the person from whom you get the items is not the injured party. The original creator/copyright owner is the injured party. I would assume that puts it in the same category as other white collar crimes.

Btw, If a kid wants to learn to play guitar, there are many options besides paying for music store classes. Things such as getting another kid to teach him, checking out books/tapes/CD out of the public library, online resources/classes via the public libraries, mowing yards or washing cars for a music teacher, working afternoons at the music store to get free lessons, etc. Most of those solutions are not available for software (especially with some of the recent EULAs).

Using Open Software is almost a solution but having Open Office on your 'resume' will not get you pass the HR folks who are looking for Microsoft Office. You also still have the hardware issue. Most libraries & schools will not allow a general user to load software on their computers.

It is hard for me to fathom that EULAs are legal contracts since everything I have ever read about contracts is that there has to be a 'meeting of the minds' on the exchange before there is a binding contract. EULAs normally appear after the contract is made. Nor are they with the person (store) with whom you made the sales contract. Plus aren't stores still fighting taking back an open box product just because of EULA? Last I heard they want Microsoft (or other publisher) to handle that. Which says to me, that the EULA is not part of the sales contract. Just a thought.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Shools don't teach computer skills?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:29:23 PM PDT

Don't most schools also teach basic computer skills, along with word processing, spreadsheets, etc. I would imagine most schools would cut music classes before computer classes if there was a conflict.

There is no general excuse for piracy. There probably are in the context of disaster recovery, but let's face it: Most people posting here are just trying to justify there theft of convenience, not necessity.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



My experience with such "education"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 10:47:42 AM PDT

has been that they do not teach you "computer skills", but how to do braindead, repetetive tasks on whatever software package the district had bought contracts for (in mine it was MS Office and Frontpage). For example, for my school the concept of preserving work was "Click on 'File', click on 'Save'". Nevermind what save actually does, which results in things like users being unable to "move" a "Word file" to the "A Drive" without opening Microsoft Word.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


If you want to learn it, you will[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 01:46:07 PM PDT

I'm a self-taught computer "guru". Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, I've learned, I've learned by myself. I was able to purchase the software because it MATTERED to me, enough that I didn't buy the latest games, nor did I buy the latest $200 pair of shoes. If you WANT to learn something, nobody in this country is stopping you. Not the software people, not the hardware people, not the government, not your teachers, etc. Most people that kind of want to learn something whine about how hard it is to get resources. It's just their excuse. I don't know of any of my 50+ computer guru friends that had a hand up to learn what they did. They all did it on their own. They gave up sleep, they gave up perks, they took low paying jobs, etc. to achieve their goals. Today, it's even easier to get into computers. When I was buying parts for my computer, a MB of RAM cost $100, yet I could afford it and I was "poor". I didn't have any of the money most of the people who complain about not having resources have. I also didn't have a big-screen TV, 5 different gaming consoles, drawers of games and videos, etc. The point is, if they want to learn, there's nothing stopping them, except themselves. When they get tired of not trying and failing and they STILL want to try, they'll succeed. As soon as they stop making excuses and start working toward their goal, they'll move forward. Stealing anything to get ahead is wrong. Period.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


You lost me in second paragraph[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:17:33 AM PDT

You missed the point of the original post. In fact, if your neighbor does have a guitar and amp, you only need to convince him/her to let you come over and use it a bit. With software, you are prohibited by restrictive EULAs from letting someone else come over and use it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Good Analogy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:08:08 PM PDT

And actually, you are perfectly free to let your neighbor come over and use it at your house. With one copy on one computer, only one user can use it at a time. This is inline with most EULAs. It holds with the guitar analogy, if your neighbor was using the guitar, then you could not be. When you make the copy of YOUR software on HIS computer, then you can both use it at the same time. This is where the problem comes in.

I do agree that the transfer restrictions are bogus, but that is not really what most people are violating. I think it is just a convenient bashing point that people use to try an justify copying, which is equivalent to theft.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Not necessarily[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Reziac on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:29:46 PM PDT

One of Microsoft's licensing schemes is per-warm-body: even tho only one person can use the computer at a time, if two people use it at separate times, the software must be licensed for BOTH users (and sometimes for the PC itself too, so that's three licenses to cover two users and one PC!! No, I'm not exaggerating, M$ went over this at one of their tech seminars.)

So -- IF the software your neighbour wants to use has such a license, it is indeed prohibited for you to let your neighbour use your duly-licensed copy on your PC. It may also be illegal (thus "piracy") for you to let your spouse or kids use it without additional licenses.

To go back to the analogy of the moment, this would be the same as being prohibited from letting anyone (perhaps even a family member!) borrow your guitar, even tho only one person can play it at a time and the lending is done in a private home (not a commercial environment).

Just goes to show how ridiculous the most-restrictive software licensing has become.
~REZ~
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Which Product?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:43:21 PM PDT

Which product was that for? I just checked our products, and several EULAs on the Microsoft web site. The only restriction I see on multiple users on the same computer refer to Citrix or Terminal Services environments where multiple people could use the software AT THE SAME TIME on one computer.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Guh, MS licensing.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#58)
by foxyshadis1 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:47:46 AM PDT

Lots of them, especially the popular ones, under some of their byzantine ever-changing licensing schemes. When we got our subscription to Office, we had to get one for everyone who could use a computer with it installed - everyone in the company. Under other schemes it wasn't like this; I have no idea if this scheme was better than the others, since they aren't even around anymore to compare to. On the other hand, some software was concurrent use, not sure if it was the same scheme or not.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Not true![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 06:24:20 PM PDT

That statement about being free to come over and use your neighbors software is not true in the case of Borland's single user license. In their case you are free to load that software on as many computers as you like but YOU are the only one allowed to use it. I found this out the hard way when my company purchased 3 single user licenses for JBuilder with the intent of loading them on three common machines where anyone could use the product but only three people would physically be able to use it at any one time. Eeehhhh...bad assumption. It is tied to the login of the person registering it so ONLY that person can bring it up and when you are in an environment where letting others use your login is an offense well.... We had to end up upgrading to the Concurrent license which involved a seperate license server to handle the arbitration. It is another form of activation and WHAT A NIGHTMARE. Never again!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Same for Microsoft.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous User on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 12:32:49 PM PDT

This is true for nearly all of Microsofts development software as well.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


No you can't![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous User on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:38:52 PM PDT

No, you can't always let your neighbor come over and run your software on your computer. Look at the licensing on tax preparation software. Not only are you specifically prohibited from letting your neighbor prepare his or her tax returns on your computer, you are even prohibited from preparing your neighbor's tax returns -- unless of course, you upgrade to the very expensive "preparer's edition" of the software. Ultimately what the software and entertainment industry seem to be aiming for is a pay-per-use model, so every time you fire up their product, their cash register goes Ka-Ching!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Rock Star Analogy Misses the Point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by DavidSalahi on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:22:40 AM PDT

I think the post about the rock star wannabe misses the point that a computer, with software, is increasingly necessary to function as a full member of our society these days. A guitar and amp are not -- no more so than a mechanic's tools or a contractor's pickup truck. A computer is now becoming like a telephone or TV. And not only a computer but also internet access, of course. It's gotten so that if I don't have broadband access in my hotel when I travel I feel disconnected. Imagine how people without access to a computer at all must feel. David Salahi

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Worldviews[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:08:47 PM PDT

It's gotten so that if I don't have broadband access in my hotel when I travel I feel disconnected.  Imagine how people without access to a computer at all must feel.

How do you feel not having a bodyguard and publicist... things essential to those whose great wealth or celebrity dictates that need? When these things are absent or compromised, how vulnerable they feel, yet you do fine without them.

Your worldview is just different. Those without the means to afford a computer often don't notice because the lack of it has so little impact on their particular circumstances. They don't know that they're missing it.

But, just to weigh in on the discussion at hand: The restricting of transfer of ownership of software is unconscionable. I personally have done this in the past by removing legal, unused software packages from my computer and giving it to another to use. In all cases it was software that had no practical market value anymore, given expressly for the purpose being discussed here: allowing someone to learn general skils without the burden of purchase their own.

The industry better find a way to make this possible as it will not go away through strongarm tactics.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Worldview[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:47:43 AM PDT

"Your worldview is just different. Those without the means to afford a computer often don't notice because the lack of it has so little impact on their particular circumstances. They don't know that they're missing it." This has all the compassion and understanding of Barbara Bush's comment about Katrina victims being better off in the displacement centers than in their homes. Working in Downtown Los Angeles, I see lots of homeless people who are far more concerned about their next meal than software for their laptop, that's true, but the shelters that try to train these unfortunates for re-entry into mainstream society are burdened with the same costs and EULAS as the rest of us. Ultimately, like it or not, we all have to deal with the fact that Micro$oft, not open source, is the defacto standard of software in this country, and people without a minimum level of expertise on Wintel gear are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce. By the way - I was at Kaiser Permanente for treatment recently and was shocked at how many medical appliances had a desktop computer attached that was running at least the M$ operating system - which has to equate to a M$ tax on healthcare because of their monopoly position in the market - but that's for another rant.....

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Apples and Oranges[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:12:14 PM PDT

Your analogy was a poor choice and it is quite evident that you missed the point of the original post. I hardly think you can compare obtaining the skills to play a musical instrument with obtaining basic computer skills needed for todsy's busines world. The point is not to defend piracy, but to figure out a way for people not to become criminals just to obtain basic skills. Greed, as usual is getting in the way...but hey that's just the way our society runs now. "As long as I have mine...screw everyone else!!" Starts at the top in this country and rolls downhill. Sorry for the digression.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Both Are Found in the Produce Aisle[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 04:30:37 PM PDT

I think you missed the point of the analogy. It was meant to show two things:

1) That you can justify any kind of theft, like our wanna be rock star might in breaking into the music store.

2) That many people believe you taking intellectual property you do not own and doing with it as you please against the owner's wishes is not theft. This was shown by the responses to my post.

The truth is that if I put my time, money, and effort into creating a piece of software, you have no right -- NONE -- to take it from me. As the owner I have the right to set the terms under which it will be sold or given away. You have the right to accept those terms and use it legally, get something similar from someone else under their terms, create your own version, or just forget it and do without. But you do not have the right to take it from me (even if I can make more copies) against my will. Sorry, but you don't. And if you did, it would destroy the software industry in this country.

And anyone who thinks you have to become a criminal to learn basic computer skills in this country is just not that bright. Most schools teach such skills these days. There are a lot of programs for the poor and unemployed to help educate them so they can get a job. Outside of the government there are plenty of charities that do the same (I know, I teach at these from time to time). Libraries hold seminars, have machines available for use, and often have broadband. Sorry, but the opportunities are there. It is incumbent upon those who want or need to learn these things to find them. It is an important lesson to learn. You are destined for a miserable life if you do not.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Nothing[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:07:32 AM PDT

I repeat nothing was stolen from you. You still have your software...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


nothing stolen...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 06:51:24 AM PDT

I repeat nothing was stolen from you. You still have your software...
So in the same way I can copy and share naked pictures of your wife, girlfriend, etc on the web for all to enjoy. You have not lost anything - you still have the wife, girlfriend, etc and the original pictures.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Her image[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous User on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:02:23 AM PDT

You are manipulating her image there, pruvate images. I don't release images of my wife to the public to encourage people to use her. Another stupid analogy by a moron...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Intellectual Property Rights[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#62)
by Howling on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 05:41:13 AM PDT

I thnk you missed the analogy.  

There was nothing stated about manipulating the images - just sharing them.  

By default, under copyright laws, software is the private property of the creator (author).  Control of who my copy/ share the software and under what conditions is the right of the author.

Both software and photographs are intellectual property protected under the same copyright laws.

So software piracy and sharing pictures of your wife on the web are very similar.  Both break the same laws if not done with the permission of the creator.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You're getting closer[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous User on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 07:12:09 AM PDT

But naked pictures of my wife are private. How did you get them to distribute them? You;d have to TRESSPASS on my property to steal them, I don't sell them in stores or on the internet. They are kept private. If you want to protect your "intellectual property" you keep it locked up and don't show it or sell it to others...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Fine, be stubborn.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#66)
by foxyshadis1 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:10:34 AM PDT

If you really want to be this pedantic, then how about if you sent naked pictures of your wife (or baby photos, cat photos, scans of art, draft of a story, source code, whatever) to someone online, with explicit instructions not to let anyone else see them? If he were to post it online or start sending it to other people, wouldn't that be no different than if he posted some software vendor's program? I mean, you've still got your copy, what do you care if anyone else has them?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


If you want ...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous User on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 12:01:33 PM PDT

... to be ignorant. Then yes, if you are stupid enough to release something you don't copied into the hands of another, then tough luck if it gets copied. You want to protect your code? Don't let ANYONE else use it or see it. You seem to be too freaking dense to grasp that the pictures wouldn't be shared with anyone else in the first place. In the real world, the only way to protect something is to not let anyone else know it even exists. When a products is just a collection of 0's and 1's, there is no real protection, nor should there be.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


How stupid can you be[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:47:28 AM PDT

So the only way to protect my software is to not release it. If I can't make money from it by selling it, then why write it in the first place. In that case, the entire software industry should just fold up shop. That includes the companies that write development tools.

Notice, anyone wanting a job as a secretary must be proficient at programming in machine code so they can write their own word processer first.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Yawn...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:00:08 AM PDT

Yet M$ is still the richest company in the world despite all the piracy... Get your argument holds no water what-so-ever. Those who can afford to buy will... Sort of like charity... they don't have to give, but they do. Consider yourself "special" when someone buys your product.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#92)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM PDT

出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り