The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
itt: We learn that only ege knows the secret to crafting and marketing video games, and that cracking and downloading free software is the same as listening to your Dave Matthews CD in earshot of your roommate.
Goddamn, this thread makes me fucking weep.
So far most of us have been putting philosophy to this discussion. The last two mod posts have been ad hominem
Just in case MrMister is still around: Do you think that the indirect damages I mentioned are real, even if they are difficult to measure? Also, how does one precisely weigh the rights of the producer vs. the enrichment of the consumer?
I guess I fall more on the side of the producer in this case since we're talking about luxury goods.
sanstodo on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Just in case MrMister is still around: Do you think that the indirect damages I mentioned are real, even if they are difficult to measure?
Yeah, I do.
Also, how does one precisely weigh the rights of the producer vs. the enrichment of the consumer?
I guess I fall more on the side of the producer in this case since we're talking about luxury goods.
I don't believe much in rights, really. If some action has more net positives than negatives, then it's a good action, regardless of rights.
However, there's obviously an important positive effect of having intellectual property. Small amounts of piracy may wind up making the world a better place, but total system-wide piracy would destroy the industry, and we'd clearly wind up in a bad place. What amount of piracy is optimal is an interesting question, but one that I feel you'd really have to do empirical research on.
I do feel fairly confident that it's not 0% though. The increase in quality of life that reasonable piracy can bring outweighs the damages it does to anyone's bottom line, and to the system at large. That is not to say that there is no damage to bottom lines, or to the system, just that it's outweighed for small values of p(iracy).
MrMister on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
itt: We learn that only ege knows the secret to crafting and marketing video games, and that cracking and downloading free software is the same as listening to your Dave Matthews CD in earshot of your roommate.
Goddamn, this thread makes me fucking weep.
So far most of us have been putting philosophy to this discussion. The last two mod posts have been ad hominem
I don't even know who you are, except some kid who thinks that he's morally entitled to other peoples' software.
I sort of knew what to expect coming into this thread, but still....
I've never understood the justifications for piracy: "It's a captive market" (for a luxury good?); "If they wanted me to buy it, they'd charge less" (People would still pirate PhotoShop if it cost $50, guaranteed), etc. I especially love the guy saying PhotoShop is easier to create than a videogame.
I'll come back to this because I think it's relevant: Photoshop's substitutes are not true competition. When 90% of the tutorials and plugins out there are for Photoshop, it makes it significantly harder to just switch to some other $50 image editor. Paying $700 or being cut off from the community just to do a bit of casual image work is a stupid choice to have to make. Especially since Adobe has expended zero effort to construct all those third party tutorials and plugins.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited August 2007
You can get Photoshop Elements for $100 if you feel it's very important to gain some experience with photoshop. If you just need the functionality, you can use GIMP for free.
I'll come back to this because I think it's relevant: Photoshop's substitutes are not true competition. When 90% of the tutorials and plugins out there are for Photoshop, it makes it significantly harder to just switch to some other $50 image editor. Paying $700 or being cut off from the community just to do a bit of casual image work is a stupid choice to have to make. Especially since Adobe has expended zero effort to construct all those third party tutorials and plugins.
Every PS tutorial I've worked from has translated quite nicely to The GIMP, it just takes knowing what the names of each function is in each program. Brushes can be converted, and most PS plugins just automate a series of tasks, or have an equivalent plugin in other programs.
I'll come back to this because I think it's relevant: Photoshop's substitutes are not true competition. When 90% of the tutorials and plugins out there are for Photoshop, it makes it significantly harder to just switch to some other $50 image editor. Paying $700 or being cut off from the community just to do a bit of casual image work is a stupid choice to have to make. Especially since Adobe has expended zero effort to construct all those third party tutorials and plugins.
Every PS tutorial I've worked from has translated quite nicely to The GIMP, it just takes knowing what the names of each function is called in each program. Brushes can be converted, and most PS plugins just automate a series of tasks, or have an equivalent plugin in other programs.
This actually raises an interesting point.
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
I'll come back to this because I think it's relevant: Photoshop's substitutes are not true competition. When 90% of the tutorials and plugins out there are for Photoshop, it makes it significantly harder to just switch to some other $50 image editor. Paying $700 or being cut off from the community just to do a bit of casual image work is a stupid choice to have to make. Especially since Adobe has expended zero effort to construct all those third party tutorials and plugins.
Every PS tutorial I've worked from has translated quite nicely to The GIMP, it just takes knowing what the names of each function is called in each program. Brushes can be converted, and most PS plugins just automate a series of tasks, or have an equivalent plugin in other programs.
This actually raises an interesting point.
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
Proper CMYK support, and over a decade of inertia.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited August 2007
Really, the sentiments in this thread seem to be encapsulated in "I want it, don't want to pay for it, and don't have to, so it's okay". I don't think that there's much more of substance than this.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
Proper CMYK support, and over a decade of inertia.
Also, PS has a much better UI, and is generally speaking less buggy.
Still, it's mostly inertia. OpenOffice is free and in a lot of ways better than MS Office. Yet few people use it.
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
Proper CMYK support, and over a decade of inertia.
Also, PS has a much better UI, and is generally speaking less buggy.
Still, it's mostly inertia. OpenOffice is free and in a lot of ways better than MS Office. Yet few people use it.
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
Proper CMYK support, and over a decade of inertia.
Also, PS has a much better UI, and is generally speaking less buggy.
Still, it's mostly inertia. OpenOffice is free and in a lot of ways better than MS Office. Yet few people use it.
Oh yeah, that's another one I use. See, this is interesting to me. While I freely admit that my impulse is mostly "want it, don't want to pay", I do pay for a significant amount of my software. I think most of that has to do with wanting support, ease of use, etc. I don't think inertia will carry some programs once every person they're marketing to has been using the internet almost their entire lives.
I don't really think that attempts at more and more restrictive DRM will help these companies as much as providing services that cannot be copied will. Provide the same abilities as The GIMP, but make it easier to use, better supported, etc. This is a major reason, I imagine, why most people using Photoshop professionally don't bother downloading it.
I was actually going to use consoles as an example of where restrictive DRM was actually working, but now that I think about it, a big reason why I use consoles for gaming is the support. Well, not direct call-center support, but the fact that 99% of the time, everything works, everything is at full capacity, and I can still trade with my friends if I feel like it, or buy a single copy and play on a LAN.
I'll come back to this because I think it's relevant: Photoshop's substitutes are not true competition. When 90% of the tutorials and plugins out there are for Photoshop, it makes it significantly harder to just switch to some other $50 image editor. Paying $700 or being cut off from the community just to do a bit of casual image work is a stupid choice to have to make. Especially since Adobe has expended zero effort to construct all those third party tutorials and plugins.
Every PS tutorial I've worked from has translated quite nicely to The GIMP, it just takes knowing what the names of each function is called in each program. Brushes can be converted, and most PS plugins just automate a series of tasks, or have an equivalent plugin in other programs.
This actually raises an interesting point.
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
Proper CMYK support, and over a decade of inertia.
Massive piracy. You tell someone that the GIMP is free, they're like, "So? So is Photoshop."
People who use photoshop professionally have seen the GIMP. They know of the GIMP. They may even have a copy of The GIMP installed on something somewhere.
Why dont they use it?
Because my friends, it is not a comparable program. It is particularly buggy on my rig, and I don't know why. This happens. (Another poster said CS3 doesn't run on his.)
If photoshop elements really did everything that I could possibly need it for, I'd buy it. It doesn't, so I haven't, and I won't. How do I know it doesn't? I downloaded a version to see if it did. (A practice that some still find to be bad, but hey I didn't waste $100 to know that I needed something more.)
I have yet to see a comprehensive tutorial for The GIMP that covers as mush as the tutorials for Photoshop. It is true that the UI for the GIMP is it's main downfall, and it is true that you can do near everything in it that you can do in PS. I have a choice between a learning curve of 4 months to learn how to do certain things in The GIMP to do what Photoshop hands to me in a week though, and guess which one I choose.
They really aren't comparable programs. I mean I suppose they are... the way age of empires is to Warcraft 3. Sure comparing them can be done, but when you get down to it, they are completely different.
@MRK: iunno what tutorials you are looking at... Maybe how to color in a paint program? All joking aside, link me to where you are getting these great tutorials. I would love to be better with the GIMP.
@IronWill: More ad hominem? I am not a "kid" nor have I resulted to defending my position nearly entirely upon such methods.
@stryker116: Yeah, even if it were $50 people would still pirate it. No argument there. But a lot less of us would. I for one would have bought a copy of CS a long time ago if it was $100. (NO IT IS NOT THE SAME AS ELEMENTS)
People who use photoshop professionally have seen the GIMP. They know of the GIMP. They may even have a copy of The GIMP installed on something somewhere.
Why dont they use it?
Because my friends, it is not a comparable program. It is particularly buggy on my rig, and I don't know why. This happens. (Another poster said CS3 doesn't run on his.)
If photoshop elements really did everything that I could possibly need it for, I'd buy it. It doesn't, so I haven't, and I won't. How do I know it doesn't? I downloaded a version to see if it did. (A practice that some still find to be bad, but hey I didn't waste $100 to know that I needed something more.)
I have yet to see a comprehensive tutorial for The GIMP that covers as mush as the tutorials for Photoshop. It is true that the UI for the GIMP is it's main downfall, and it is true that you can do near everything in it that you can do in PS. I have a choice between a learning curve of 4 months to learn how to do certain things in The GIMP to do what Photoshop hands to me in a week though, and guess which one I choose.
They really aren't comparable programs. I mean I suppose they are... the way age of empires is to Warcraft 3. Sure comparing them can be done, but when you get down to it, they are completely different.
@MRK: iunno what tutorials you are looking at... Maybe how to color in a paint program? All joking aside, link me to where you are getting these great tutorials. I would love to be better with the GIMP.
@IronWill: More ad hominem? I am not a "kid" nor have I resulted to defending my position nearly entirely upon such methods.
@stryker116: Yeah, even if it were $50 people would still pirate it. No argument there. But a lot less of us would. I for one would have bought a copy of CS a long time ago if it was $100. (NO IT IS NOT THE SAME AS ELEMENTS)
Thanks! I didn't see any PS tutorials in there... So the statement about translating to the GIMP is still open for debate or search I suppose. Either way some of those look interesting enough to look into.
Thanks! I didn't see any PS tutorials in there... So the statement about translating to the GIMP is still open for debate or search I suppose. Either way some of those look interesting enough to look into.
TY. (In the heterosexual context.)
That's not what I meant by they translate - I mean if you know both apps, the techniques introduced in one can be done with the tools of another. :P
That's not what I meant by they translate - I mean if you know both apps, the techniques introduced in one can be done with the tools of another. :P
So I would still have to know how to use photoshop? Kinda defeats the claim that I wouldn't need photoshop then... As I would need it to learn it in the first place. :-/
Massive piracy. You tell someone that the GIMP is free, they're like, "So? So is Photoshop."
So, at the same price, when GIMP and Photoshop compete, Photoshop wins. Not that having a price-point of $0 is preferable, but it seems to me that Photoshop can compete with itself and imitators being free if they dedicate themselves to service, reliability, and ease of use.
durandal4532 on
We're all in this together
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
@IronWill: More ad hominem? I am not a "kid" nor have I resulted to defending my position nearly entirely upon such methods.
You're a college kid, right? Like around 20?
Also, your position is pretty much exactly that you do not want to/ cannot/ will not pay for software products under the terms given by the owners of these products, but you want them regardless, so you take it upon yourself to construct some sort of alternative arrangement - either downloading as a "trial" with the possibility of buying if you feel like it, or just deciding that the price is too high and straight-up pirating.
I used to think pirating stuff was okay, but then I grew up and earned money and stuff and now I really don't think it's okay. If you need to use Photoshop, use it at school or work. Otherwise, use Paint.Net (or the Gimp I guess, but my first impression of Gimp was that it really sucked ass). If you're not in school/work and feel the urgent need to use these softwares, join school and pay the tuition that lets you use the software, like the rest of us.
The one thing that's been tempting me though is the iWork/iLife '08 Family Packs. I have friends who would be willing to share the cost of getting the 5-license Family Pack, which would save enormous amounts of money for us. But Apple's License Agreement forbids this, so .
I think the best argument against pirating Photoshop in particular is that it hurts the creators of affordable software, namely Corel, like people pointed out earlier in the thread. If Paint Shop Pro was more widely used, they could also afford to offer better quality. I think my opinion has been swayed from "cautiously OK with pirating this particular product" to "cautiously against it".
I used to think pirating stuff was okay, but then I grew up and earned money and stuff and now I really don't think it's okay. If you need to use Photoshop, use it at school or work. Otherwise, use Paint.Net (or the Gimp I guess, but my first impression of Gimp was that it really sucked ass). If you're not in school/work and feel the urgent need to use these softwares, join school and pay the tuition that lets you use the software, like the rest of us.
The one thing that's been tempting me though is the iWork/iLife '08 Family Packs. I have friends who would be willing to share the cost of getting the 5-license Family Pack, which would save enormous amounts of money for us. But Apple's License Agreement forbids this, so .
See, this is what I don't like to see a company do. One reason why I bought Company of Heroes, and will be buying Opposing Fronts, is that it allows me to share with my damn friends. I don't want software that's harder to share than hedgeclippers.
I've read through the first couple of pages and the last few, so apologies if this has been brought up already. Has anyone mentioned that one of the reasons piracy is so common is because buying something doesn't actually get you anything and it seems like companies go out of their way to extort money out of you.
If I've bought a copy of some software, does that mean I actually own the CD? Nope, I don't own a goddamn thing, since I'm not allowed to make a backup copy like any sane person would want to do. I'm also not allowed to let a friend borrow it, like I could do with any physical object. Nor am I allowed to modify it in any way like I could do with any other thing I own.
Does that mean I've just bought a license to use Software? Oh wait, if my CDs are scratched I'm not able to call up the company and get a new one. I have to re-buy the physical media, even though if I had actually bought a license, then I'd simply be entitled to use the product for the duration of the license.
Furthermore, the copy protection methods on some software is so ridiculous that it is actually worse to buy a legal version than get a pirated one. For example, games with Starforce could permanently cause your CD drive to break and never work again as well as open up several exploitable vulnerabilities on your system. In those cases, I would much rather pay $50 to pirate the game than actually buy it at any cost from the developers. As a counterexample, I consider Steam to be as close to an ideal software distribution method as possible, and I will happily buy from them.
Does that mean I've just bought a license to use Software? Oh wait, if my CDs are scratched I'm not able to call up the company and get a new one. I have to re-buy the physical media, even though if I had actually bought a license, then I'd simply be entitled to use the product for the duration of the license.
Depends on the software. Wit most "business" software (Windows, Photoshop, etc.) this isn't an issue...replacement discs are offered at reasonable fees (and, in some cases, digital downloads at no cost). With games it varies...I know in the past it wasn't uncommon for PC game companies to offer reasonably priced replacement discs, though I imagine the growth of disc-based copy-protection might have changed this. Console game companies have always, to my knowledge, told you to go fuck yourself.
Personally I think that even for games with disc-based copy-protection, I should be able to receive a reasonably priced replacement disc if I'm willing to send in my original. Does anybody know if any game companies actually offer this anymore?
Oh, and by "reasonable fees" I'm talking in the $5-$10 range, including shipping. Which for a $200 piece of software, isn't really that bad.
Exactly. Software derives a hell of a lot of value from being supported well. This is a big reason why Steam is such a success. I'll pay, but you're going to have to accept that your competetion is free. Bottled water did it, you can too.
I've read through the first couple of pages and the last few, so apologies if this has been brought up already. Has anyone mentioned that one of the reasons piracy is so common is because buying something doesn't actually get you anything and it seems like companies go out of their way to extort money out of you.
If I've bought a copy of some software, does that mean I actually own the CD? Nope, I don't own a goddamn thing, since I'm not allowed to make a backup copy like any sane person would want to do. I'm also not allowed to let a friend borrow it, like I could do with any physical object. Nor am I allowed to modify it in any way like I could do with any other thing I own.
Does that mean I've just bought a license to use Software? Oh wait, if my CDs are scratched I'm not able to call up the company and get a new one. I have to re-buy the physical media, even though if I had actually bought a license, then I'd simply be entitled to use the product for the duration of the license.
I was under the assumption that your allowed to make personal back up copies. Also I thought that you can legally install and use the software on one system at a time so you can give it to a friend you just legally can't both play it at the same time. Am I wrong about these?
Since nobody addressed my point earlier regarding broadcasting vs. pirating:
If my roommate's broadcasting music makes me not want to buy that CD, that means my roommate is hurting the sales of that CD and thus having a negative impact on the life of the artist. In this sense, broadcasting music is no different than pirating.
Should we not allow people to broadcast music as well?
What about my friend coming over and playing Starcraft on my computer for a few hours? Technically he is not allowed to do it, and since he doesn't buy the CD (he knows he can come over and play any time he wants), I am stealing from Blizzard, right?
And what about those times when my sister wants to borrow my mp3 player and listen to my music (that I purchased from iTunes music store)?
--
The bottom line is that IP laws and measures such as DRM do not have any long-term feasibility because they go against common sense and common decency; no matter what the fucking law says, I am going to let my friends play my games and listen to my music, because not doing that would make me a greedy asshole. I mean, let's face it, if your friend refused to let you borrow his copy of Halo because of IP laws, you would be like, what the fuck.
The bottom line is that IP laws and measures such as DRM do not have any long-term feasibility because they go against common sense and common decency; no matter what the fucking law says, I am going to let my friends play my games and listen to my music, because not doing that would make me a greedy asshole. I mean, let's face it, if your friend refused to let you borrow his copy of Halo because of IP laws, you would be like, what the fuck.
Except that IP laws and, in general, DRM do not prevent any of what you described here. Allowing a friend to play your copy of Starcraft, or listen to your CD, or even borrow either of the two, does not violate IP law.
DRM can in some cases make this difficult...though generally if you're only "using" one copy of the game at once you'll have little issue. I can lend a buddy my Civ IV CD and he can play it all he wants...when he gives it back, I can play it once again. And loaning somebody your MP3 player so they can listen to the music on it is perfectly legal.
In other words, you're taking the idea of IP to an absurd extreme that neither the law nor (in 99.9% of cases) the IP owners call for.
Or, to put more simply, you're being a fucktard.
You did not address my main point.
If my friend does not buy the CD because he knows he can borrow it from me any time he wants, that means I am hurting the sales of the CD and thus stealing from the artist. By this logic, I should not be able to lend the CD, because that is precisely the same grounds on which piracy is illegal.
The bottom line is that IP laws and measures such as DRM do not have any long-term feasibility because they go against common sense and common decency; no matter what the fucking law says, I am going to let my friends play my games and listen to my music, because not doing that would make me a greedy asshole. I mean, let's face it, if your friend refused to let you borrow his copy of Halo because of IP laws, you would be like, what the fuck.
Except that IP laws and, in general, DRM do not prevent any of what you described here. Allowing a friend to play your copy of Starcraft, or listen to your CD, or even borrow either of the two, does not violate IP law.
DRM can in some cases make this difficult...though generally if you're only "using" one copy of the game at once you'll have little issue. I can lend a buddy my Civ IV CD and he can play it all he wants...when he gives it back, I can play it once again. And loaning somebody your MP3 player so they can listen to the music on it is perfectly legal.
In other words, you're taking the idea of IP to an absurd extreme that neither the law nor (in 99.9% of cases) the IP owners call for.
Or, to put more simply, you're being a fucktard.
You did not address my main point.
If my friend does not buy the CD because he knows he can borrow it from me any time he wants, that means I am hurting the sales of the CD and thus stealing from the artist. By this logic, I should not be able to lend the CD, because that is precisely the same grounds on which piracy is illegal.
As a society, we have deemed it reasonable for you to play a CD while other people are listening, and unreasonable to steal the CD without paying the artist.
Anyway, here is a portion of the Software License Agreement from Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy:
The Software is licensed (not sold) to you, and LucasArts owns and/or
controls all copyright, trade secret, patent and other proprietary rights in the Software.
You may use the Software on a single computer. You may not: (1) copy, distribute,
rent, lease or sublicense all or any portion of the Software; (2) modify or prepare
derivative works of the Software; (3) transmit the Software over a network, by
telephone, or electronically using any means, except in the course of your network
multi-player play of the Software over authorized networks; (4) engage in matchmaking
for multi-player play over unauthorized networks; (5) design or distribute unauthorized
levels; or (6) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software. You may
transfer the Software, but only if the recipient agrees to accept and be bound by the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you transfer the Software, you must
transfer all components and documentation and erase any copies residing on computer
equipment. Your rights in and to this license are automatically terminated if and when
you transfer the Software.
It says I may use the software on a single computer. This means that if I lend it to my friend, I have to erase it from my computer, otherwise I am breaking the law.
Also, when I give it to my friend, my license is terminated.
Anyway, here is a portion of the Software License Agreement from Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy:
The Software is licensed (not sold) to you, and LucasArts owns and/or
controls all copyright, trade secret, patent and other proprietary rights in the Software.
You may use the Software on a single computer. You may not: (1) copy, distribute,
rent, lease or sublicense all or any portion of the Software; (2) modify or prepare
derivative works of the Software; (3) transmit the Software over a network, by
telephone, or electronically using any means, except in the course of your network
multi-player play of the Software over authorized networks; (4) engage in matchmaking
for multi-player play over unauthorized networks; (5) design or distribute unauthorized
levels; or (6) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software. You may
transfer the Software, but only if the recipient agrees to accept and be bound by the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. If you transfer the Software, you must
transfer all components and documentation and erase any copies residing on computer
equipment. Your rights in and to this license are automatically terminated if and when
you transfer the Software.
It says I may use the software on a single computer. This means that if I lend it to my friend, I have to erase it from my computer, otherwise I am breaking the law.
Also, when I give it to my friend, my license is terminated.
Makes a lot of sense. :roll:
If you think just a bit harder about it, you'll realize it does make sense. As a hint, try considering what sort of things would be entirely legal if the last two sentences of that license were deleted.
Posts
So far most of us have been putting philosophy to this discussion. The last two mod posts have been ad hominem
I guess I fall more on the side of the producer in this case since we're talking about luxury goods.
Yeah, I do.
I don't believe much in rights, really. If some action has more net positives than negatives, then it's a good action, regardless of rights.
However, there's obviously an important positive effect of having intellectual property. Small amounts of piracy may wind up making the world a better place, but total system-wide piracy would destroy the industry, and we'd clearly wind up in a bad place. What amount of piracy is optimal is an interesting question, but one that I feel you'd really have to do empirical research on.
I do feel fairly confident that it's not 0% though. The increase in quality of life that reasonable piracy can bring outweighs the damages it does to anyone's bottom line, and to the system at large. That is not to say that there is no damage to bottom lines, or to the system, just that it's outweighed for small values of p(iracy).
I don't even know who you are, except some kid who thinks that he's morally entitled to other peoples' software.
I sort of knew what to expect coming into this thread, but still....
I've never understood the justifications for piracy: "It's a captive market" (for a luxury good?); "If they wanted me to buy it, they'd charge less" (People would still pirate PhotoShop if it cost $50, guaranteed), etc. I especially love the guy saying PhotoShop is easier to create than a videogame.
Every PS tutorial I've worked from has translated quite nicely to The GIMP, it just takes knowing what the names of each function is in each program. Brushes can be converted, and most PS plugins just automate a series of tasks, or have an equivalent plugin in other programs.
This actually raises an interesting point.
The GIMP is free and does what Photoshop does, so why exactly is Photoshop competing with it so easily?
Piracy allows you to get soemthing for free that does the same thing as the product you want (so similar in fact, it's impossible to distinguish), but it's not the dominant method of getting software. What are things software companies can do to compete with free?
Proper CMYK support, and over a decade of inertia.
Also, PS has a much better UI, and is generally speaking less buggy.
Still, it's mostly inertia. OpenOffice is free and in a lot of ways better than MS Office. Yet few people use it.
Default UI.
How is this not sexy?
Oh yeah, that's another one I use. See, this is interesting to me. While I freely admit that my impulse is mostly "want it, don't want to pay", I do pay for a significant amount of my software. I think most of that has to do with wanting support, ease of use, etc. I don't think inertia will carry some programs once every person they're marketing to has been using the internet almost their entire lives.
I don't really think that attempts at more and more restrictive DRM will help these companies as much as providing services that cannot be copied will. Provide the same abilities as The GIMP, but make it easier to use, better supported, etc. This is a major reason, I imagine, why most people using Photoshop professionally don't bother downloading it.
I was actually going to use consoles as an example of where restrictive DRM was actually working, but now that I think about it, a big reason why I use consoles for gaming is the support. Well, not direct call-center support, but the fact that 99% of the time, everything works, everything is at full capacity, and I can still trade with my friends if I feel like it, or buy a single copy and play on a LAN.
Massive piracy. You tell someone that the GIMP is free, they're like, "So? So is Photoshop."
Why dont they use it?
Because my friends, it is not a comparable program. It is particularly buggy on my rig, and I don't know why. This happens. (Another poster said CS3 doesn't run on his.)
If photoshop elements really did everything that I could possibly need it for, I'd buy it. It doesn't, so I haven't, and I won't. How do I know it doesn't? I downloaded a version to see if it did. (A practice that some still find to be bad, but hey I didn't waste $100 to know that I needed something more.)
I have yet to see a comprehensive tutorial for The GIMP that covers as mush as the tutorials for Photoshop. It is true that the UI for the GIMP is it's main downfall, and it is true that you can do near everything in it that you can do in PS. I have a choice between a learning curve of 4 months to learn how to do certain things in The GIMP to do what Photoshop hands to me in a week though, and guess which one I choose.
They really aren't comparable programs. I mean I suppose they are... the way age of empires is to Warcraft 3. Sure comparing them can be done, but when you get down to it, they are completely different.
@MRK: iunno what tutorials you are looking at... Maybe how to color in a paint program? All joking aside, link me to where you are getting these great tutorials. I would love to be better with the GIMP.
@IronWill: More ad hominem? I am not a "kid" nor have I resulted to defending my position nearly entirely upon such methods.
@stryker116: Yeah, even if it were $50 people would still pirate it. No argument there. But a lot less of us would. I for one would have bought a copy of CS a long time ago if it was $100. (NO IT IS NOT THE SAME AS ELEMENTS)
Pirating out of Necessity.
http://www.gimp-tutorials.com/
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/
http://www.gimptalk.com/
http://gimpology.com/
http://gimpguru.org/Tutorials/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/?page=tutorials
http://www.pixel2life.com/tutorials/Gimp/All/
Edit: Also, http://docs.gimp.org/en/index.html
Thanks! I didn't see any PS tutorials in there... So the statement about translating to the GIMP is still open for debate or search I suppose. Either way some of those look interesting enough to look into.
TY.
That's not what I meant by they translate - I mean if you know both apps, the techniques introduced in one can be done with the tools of another. :P
So I would still have to know how to use photoshop? Kinda defeats the claim that I wouldn't need photoshop then... As I would need it to learn it in the first place. :-/
Still though, I got meh sum bookmarks!
Also, your position is pretty much exactly that you do not want to/ cannot/ will not pay for software products under the terms given by the owners of these products, but you want them regardless, so you take it upon yourself to construct some sort of alternative arrangement - either downloading as a "trial" with the possibility of buying if you feel like it, or just deciding that the price is too high and straight-up pirating.
The one thing that's been tempting me though is the iWork/iLife '08 Family Packs. I have friends who would be willing to share the cost of getting the 5-license Family Pack, which would save enormous amounts of money for us. But Apple's License Agreement forbids this, so
If I've bought a copy of some software, does that mean I actually own the CD? Nope, I don't own a goddamn thing, since I'm not allowed to make a backup copy like any sane person would want to do. I'm also not allowed to let a friend borrow it, like I could do with any physical object. Nor am I allowed to modify it in any way like I could do with any other thing I own.
Does that mean I've just bought a license to use Software? Oh wait, if my CDs are scratched I'm not able to call up the company and get a new one. I have to re-buy the physical media, even though if I had actually bought a license, then I'd simply be entitled to use the product for the duration of the license.
Furthermore, the copy protection methods on some software is so ridiculous that it is actually worse to buy a legal version than get a pirated one. For example, games with Starforce could permanently cause your CD drive to break and never work again as well as open up several exploitable vulnerabilities on your system. In those cases, I would much rather pay $50 to pirate the game than actually buy it at any cost from the developers. As a counterexample, I consider Steam to be as close to an ideal software distribution method as possible, and I will happily buy from them.
Exactly. Software derives a hell of a lot of value from being supported well. This is a big reason why Steam is such a success. I'll pay, but you're going to have to accept that your competetion is free. Bottled water did it, you can too.
I was under the assumption that your allowed to make personal back up copies. Also I thought that you can legally install and use the software on one system at a time so you can give it to a friend you just legally can't both play it at the same time. Am I wrong about these?
If my roommate's broadcasting music makes me not want to buy that CD, that means my roommate is hurting the sales of that CD and thus having a negative impact on the life of the artist. In this sense, broadcasting music is no different than pirating.
Should we not allow people to broadcast music as well?
What about my friend coming over and playing Starcraft on my computer for a few hours? Technically he is not allowed to do it, and since he doesn't buy the CD (he knows he can come over and play any time he wants), I am stealing from Blizzard, right?
And what about those times when my sister wants to borrow my mp3 player and listen to my music (that I purchased from iTunes music store)?
--
The bottom line is that IP laws and measures such as DRM do not have any long-term feasibility because they go against common sense and common decency; no matter what the fucking law says, I am going to let my friends play my games and listen to my music, because not doing that would make me a greedy asshole. I mean, let's face it, if your friend refused to let you borrow his copy of Halo because of IP laws, you would be like, what the fuck.
You did not address my main point.
If my friend does not buy the CD because he knows he can borrow it from me any time he wants, that means I am hurting the sales of the CD and thus stealing from the artist. By this logic, I should not be able to lend the CD, because that is precisely the same grounds on which piracy is illegal.
As a society, we have deemed it reasonable for you to play a CD while other people are listening, and unreasonable to steal the CD without paying the artist.
Deal.
It says I may use the software on a single computer. This means that if I lend it to my friend, I have to erase it from my computer, otherwise I am breaking the law.
Also, when I give it to my friend, my license is terminated.
Makes a lot of sense. :roll: