Is a CD not a material thing? I'm inclined to support the personal use aspect myself, but it is not clear to me that the license agreement you are bound by separates the music from the media quite this way.
I thought we were discussing what things should be, not what they are? Otherwise, well, we have lawbooks, we can look them up, no need for discussion. :p
If there was an exact estimate, would this address your point? It doesn't seem so. You almost seem to be advocating that teenagers have an "unalienable right" to Photoshop6. Or perhaps, that the inability to purchase something confers the right to use it without cost. Can you explain what you mean here?
What I mean is the same thing I mean when addressing someone's sexual orientation or private activities. If it's not hurting anyone, I don't care. If an individual couldn't possibly afford a piece of software and is not making profit off using it, then I don't care if he uses it. Laws may be black&white, but reality is not. If a company uses pirated software to make a profit then by all means, prosecute them, but in this case damage is being done. Right now, a lot of the prosecution and accusation is aimed at a public that is tehnically not a valid market for it [I'm talking on the scale they're talking about]; your average gamer will play some 3 new games a month. That comes to around $2000US a year worth of software. How many teens do you know that could possibly support that? And how many of those live outside of the US or Germany?
"Did he use this software without paying for it?" "Yes." "Could this boy have payed for it otherwise?" "No." "Case dismissed."
They're looking for a scapegoat and using a group that doesn't have a voice. The same arguments have been used since the times of C64 and yet the software industry still stands and people still pirate software. When 200 million people break the law, you have to ask yourself- are the people at fault here or is it the law? What other mass-criminal activities have we had in the past we might gaze upon for reference... Prohibition? Laws changed. War on drugs? Yeah, look where that's gotten us so far.
I'm not saying we should legalize piracy, far from it, but the laws as they are now treat intellectual property much like they do material property, ignoring the fact it doesn't cost anyone to actually manufacture the goods once created. Laws against stealing are there are because when you steal, you hurt someone's profits. If you're NOT doing that, why should you be punished for it? Gray area, but that's life.
There are freeware photo editors, are there not?
Yes. And people use them, but see, the internet's a big thing... I didn't discover Download.com `till `99, looong after going online. They are there, but you have to find them, not the easiest thing of all on the net.
if a business becomes dependent on the product, it will use it -- but why should the business be required to purchase the software if the business cannot afford to?
Anecdote time. I know 3 people that are/were in the professional 3d design&animation business, each in their own company. And wouldn't you know it, all of them started it with a pirated copy of Maya... But lo and behold, they all use legal versions now [or did before switching jobs/firms]. So let's see, we have thriving companies, we have creative works being done and we have tens of Maya licences sold, all because they weren't busted the moment they went into business. Use pirated -> make profit -> purchase legal -> make profit. Everyone wins.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2002-07-06 12:34 pm (UTC)I thought we were discussing what things should be, not what they are? Otherwise, well, we have lawbooks, we can look them up, no need for discussion. :p
If there was an exact estimate, would this address your point? It doesn't seem so. You almost seem to be advocating that teenagers have an "unalienable right" to Photoshop6. Or perhaps, that the inability to purchase something confers the right to use it without cost. Can you explain what you mean here?
What I mean is the same thing I mean when addressing someone's sexual orientation or private activities. If it's not hurting anyone, I don't care. If an individual couldn't possibly afford a piece of software and is not making profit off using it, then I don't care if he uses it. Laws may be black&white, but reality is not. If a company uses pirated software to make a profit then by all means, prosecute them, but in this case damage is being done.
Right now, a lot of the prosecution and accusation is aimed at a public that is tehnically not a valid market for it [I'm talking on the scale they're talking about]; your average gamer will play some 3 new games a month. That comes to around $2000US a year worth of software. How many teens do you know that could possibly support that? And how many of those live outside of the US or Germany?
"Did he use this software without paying for it?"
"Yes."
"Could this boy have payed for it otherwise?"
"No."
"Case dismissed."
They're looking for a scapegoat and using a group that doesn't have a voice. The same arguments have been used since the times of C64 and yet the software industry still stands and people still pirate software. When 200 million people break the law, you have to ask yourself- are the people at fault here or is it the law? What other mass-criminal activities have we had in the past we might gaze upon for reference... Prohibition? Laws changed. War on drugs? Yeah, look where that's gotten us so far.
I'm not saying we should legalize piracy, far from it, but the laws as they are now treat intellectual property much like they do material property, ignoring the fact it doesn't cost anyone to actually manufacture the goods once created. Laws against stealing are there are because when you steal, you hurt someone's profits. If you're NOT doing that, why should you be punished for it? Gray area, but that's life.
There are freeware photo editors, are there not?
Yes. And people use them, but see, the internet's a big thing... I didn't discover Download.com `till `99, looong after going online. They are there, but you have to find them, not the easiest thing of all on the net.
if a business becomes dependent on the product, it will use it -- but why should the business be required to purchase the software if the business cannot afford to?
Anecdote time.
I know 3 people that are/were in the professional 3d design&animation business, each in their own company. And wouldn't you know it, all of them started it with a pirated copy of Maya... But lo and behold, they all use legal versions now [or did before switching jobs/firms]. So let's see, we have thriving companies, we have creative works being done and we have tens of Maya licences sold, all because they weren't busted the moment they went into business.
Use pirated -> make profit -> purchase legal -> make profit.
Everyone wins.