Why people actually pay for recording software..

Forget the moral argument as it has absolutely no value in actual practice for people who use illegal copies and software that isn't used often or for profit is sort of in a category that hadn't existed previously.

Bottom line is this: support the companies making software that you need. All you PC Logic users and the Cubase hordes who didn't pay for the applications--guess why those companies were bought out by larger firms (and why Logic on PC is dead) ....

If you find yourself using a certain piece of software all the time, pay for it. Support the company producing it so that they can improve it. Please remember, too, that the audio market is pathetically small compared to other software markets and that a lot of progress is made by small developers. Never mind morality, it's in your best interests, long-term, to support them.
 
I'm going to preface my comments by stating that I do not agree with stealing software by using it without paying for it, and that FrizzleFry, by stating that it's OK to do so, is very much in the wrong.

However, it is also a mistake when people equate intellectual property (software, songs, essays, patents, etc.) with physical property, without explaining why they are equivalent. There are definitely differences between the two, not the least of which were touched on by FrizzleFry. (e.g. Intellectual property can exist in infinite amounts without negating the original owner's ability to posess it.)

Before we jump down the throat of people like FrizzleFry, who do not believe in intellectual property (probably because they don't like payin' fer stuff), we need to establish exactly why intellectual property deserves protection in the same way that physical property does. You certainly cannot make the argument that "If someone steals my software, I won't have that software anymore." like you can with, say, a couch. You'll need to come up with something else.

The philosopher John Locke put forward the idea that, in a primordial "state of nature" that people could lay claim to, and own, land because by working it, they changed it from something that had no value, and into something that was valuable. (I'm paraphrasing this from a political philosophy class from years ago, so I may have screwed up this argument.) Maybe this can be the beginning of our reasoned argument in favor of treating, to the extent possible, intellectual property the same as physical property.

Anyone want to take up my challenge and do an old fashioned BBS philosophizin' session?
 
the funny part is dipshits constantly complain about their computers crashing. Well if you have legit software you're most likely going to have a more stable set up unless you're good with shell extensions. bad cracks and possible file corruption from dowloading make your computer very unhappy.
 
There is a law of nature that has caused me some "pause" in my downloading. Some people would say,"What goes around, comes around." Others would say,"You reap what you sow." Anyway, I'd rather not have stealing come back on me. You get to make up your on mind for you.
 
>"If someone steals my software, I won't have that software anymore." like you can with, say, a couch. You'll need to come up with something else.

That's easy enough. If I print a few million worth of crisp Franklins it in no way affects the balance in any of your bank accounts or the cash in your wallet. It *does* however dilute the buying power of both and so is frowned upon by those holding these liquid assets.

While stealing software doesn't affect the utility of said software to legitimate owners and (aside from shitty cracks) the utility of same to the thiever, it does dilute the value of the SW as a tradeable commodity and so reduces the incentive of the writers to create more useful applications.
 
drstawl said:
While stealing software doesn't affect the utility of said software to legitimate owners and (aside from shitty cracks) the utility of same to the thiever, it does dilute the value of the SW as a tradeable commodity and so reduces the incentive of the writers to create more useful applications.
Click to expand...
You missed my point. I'm not disputing what you're saying above, I'm just saying that intellectual property, unlike physical property, can exist in an infinite number of places without diluting anyone's ability to use said intellectual property. I didn't say it didn't dilude the ability to sell it.
 
Why would vendors object to more people using their SW?
That just gives them better exposure. But anybody selling a product is concerned with actions taken to drive the price down.

Why do you think dope dealers oppose legalization?

:cool:
 
drstawl said:
Why would vendors object to more people using their SW?
That just gives them better exposure. But anybody selling a product is concerned with actions taken to drive the price down.

Why do you think dope dealers oppose legalization?

:cool:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're confusing me with someone who thinks its OK to pirate software. I'm not. I know that SW vendors do not object to people using their software. I'm just arguing that there are fundamental differences between intellectual property and physical property. Physical property can only exist in one place, and if its stolen, the original possesor of the property can't have it anymore. Intellectual property can exist in infinite places, without affecting the existence of the original instance of intellectual property. I'm not trying to infer from this that intellectual property is not deserving of legal and ethical sanctions against its theft, I'm just saying there are differences. I was hoping that some of you might be able to argue why intellectual property deserves protection in the same way physical property does. I'm not asking for a pragmatic explanation, like "If we don't protect SW companies from piracy, they'll all go out of business," I'm asking for a philosophical reason, like "Intellectual property and physical property have x in common. They also have y in common. That is why it is wrong to steal both ideas and physical objects." I'm asking for this philosophical justification because it's impossible to steal something that you can't possibly own. Some people feel this way about ideas. All that I'm asking is that you make a clear argument against these people. Either that, or quit saying that people are "stealing" software. Please just back up your statements. Just because you're probably right doesn't mean you don't have to back up your arguments.
 
>Please just back up your statements

I thought I did. :confused:

Just because the theft doesn't fit into your pre-conceived box of snagging a physical item from your possession for one's benefit doesn't preclude its inclusion into the definition of theft.

It's fuzzy because the "transfer" (SW theft) is really an act of vandalism against one's property but with the added feature of the thief/vandal gaining financially. I don't know any taggers that get paid by the word like professional writers or paid by the piece like professional artists or even get paid at all. You *do* admit that not paying for a product but getting to use it without restriction like the people that DID pay for it indicates having incurred financial gain?
 
Notice that we haven't actually heard from FrizzleFry for almost 3 days on theis thread... will he show his head again?????

Porter
 
drstawl said:
>Please just back up your statements

I thought I did. :confused:

Just because the theft doesn't fit into your pre-conceived box of snagging a physical item from your possession for one's benefit doesn't preclude its inclusion into the definition of theft.

It's fuzzy because the "transfer" (SW theft) is really an act of vandalism against one's property
Click to expand...
OK, this is what I'm asking you, and other people that equate intellectual property with physical property: tell me why ideas are property. It seems to me there are several arguments you can make, but I'd like to hear someone, anyone, articulate them before they call people who used bootlegged software theives. This is all I'm asking of you.

but with the added feature of the thief/vandal gaining financially. I don't know any taggers that get paid by the word like professional writers or paid by the piece like professional artists or even get paid at all. You *do* admit that not paying for a product but getting to use it without restriction like the people that DID pay for it indicates having incurred financial gain?
Click to expand...
Well, that's a little more complicated that the way your portray it. I'd say, yes, in most cases the software pirate gains financialy, because it is logically possible that they could afford the software. However, if there is no way a person could concievably afford the software (this is very unlikely, BTW, since there are affordable alternatives) than the person is not gaining financially, they are just gaining the software. It's a subtle difference, I know. And again, I'm not saying its OK to pirate software, I'm just saying that if you want to call it "stealing" you need to provide a good argument that intellectual property is equivalent to physical property. The only thing you said is that, by pirating software, you lower the market value of the software. Well, when the "wrong" type of people move into a neighborhood, property values go down. That, in itself, doesn't mean that the current residents have the right to keep these people out. Just because something happens to have market value doesn't mean it is "property" that should be protected in the same way that physical property should be. I'm not saying that there aren't other characteristics about intellectual property that warrant that it be protected like physical property is, but no one on this board has yet articulated those characteristics.
 
It's more than "ideas".

It's about the work to turn those ideas into a product that someone without any knowledge of how to implement those ideas can use those ideas.

That is work.

Beyond the work is the cost of the development of compilers which implies the work of other parties so that we all can enjoy the fruits of such labor. In other words, even if I had the talent to write this shit myself, chances are I would have to buy the tools before I could pull it off. Who pays for that?
 
So it sounds like you're arguing that you can lay claim to something if you've put a lot of work and smarts into it. That's a good start. What is it about work that changes a series of 1s and 0s (or sounds, or words) into something that you can lay claim to, and prevent others from duplicating if you so choose? I think you're on the right path. I want to see where you go with this, if you choose to.
 
I have an example that may or may not help: one of my friends is in the research of developing the AIDS virus vaccine at a lab of his alma mater. If he leaves the lab, and happens to discover the cure for AIDS on his own. The institution that educated him can legally claim rights to the cure because they "assisted" in his education and research. In a way, they own that knowledge.
 
Urh. Whhat a chorus of blitehering buffoons. O.K I think, in the interest of this thread, and for the greater good of humanity, I shall withdraw my opening statement claiming that only morons "buy" software. Clearly this is not true, it was mostly a joke.. but it has inflamed you sullen souls to the extend where you are not willing to accept simple facts. For the RECORD, buy ing software does not make you are a moron. People who buy it are supporting the industry and all credit to them. Next, I am not claiming that ripping programs is ethical. It is unethical. About as unethical taping a song of a radio, reading a book you didn't buy, and all the other things that heppen every day that nobody cares about. It is nowhere near similar to the stealing of goods and services, which have an immediate effect on the seller, and you are just flaunting your stupidity saying that it is. Further, while it is a fact that if everybody didn't pay for a particular brand of software the company would be affected, there are "instances" where the software can be stolen without effecting the makers sales ones bit. I can not speak for anyone else, but I am one of those instances; simply, because there is was no possibility that was never going to buy the software in the first place. This being so, the only outcomes of this scenario are a, I will get an unlicenced version, or b, I will get none at all. Neither of these impact upon the software company. The only way it does impact on the company, is when people could afford to buy the software, but just decide to get it free instead. Perhaps some of you denigrations would be apt on these people, but they are not on me. That is all I shall respond to you idiots. I have no time or inclination to argue this with you. Most of you display the lateral thinking abilities of a goat. If what I have brought up in this thread is an affront to your moral code, go to a developing country some time. See that 50% of the worls population lives on under $2 per day! I wonder do all you riding on a high horse lament this situation with the same vehmence and consistency as you do the scum like me that download free software and eat small holes into the lucrative paypackets of programers. Hate who you want, me, im gonna save mine for where its needed.

Finally, one of you pathetic computer nerds has bugged my computer with a virus, prohibiting it from running Kazaa. I know it was one of you because nobody else would do it. It might surpirise you to know that mostly I downloaded SONGS and texts form Kazaa..not software. Either way well done. You're a hero. I mean it's really put me out a bit.. as I'm going to have to to use another fileshare program until I can get a new operatiomng system. the Virus it self was extracted I free windows anti vurus.
Ciao.
 
Last edited:
>Finally, one of you pathetic computer nerds has bugged my computer with a virus, prohibiting it from running Kazaa

You're just trying to make me feel good.

I applaud your pathetic attempt to kiss my ass.

But it's not necessary.

I think you are full of shit so it doesn't make me feel better.

:D
 
FrizzleFry said:
unbelievably long and idiotic post
Click to expand...

You really are a special kind of idiot aren't you? I'm sure any virus you did get would be from some of your pirated software. What didn't you understand from one of the posts above that said these "free" files were often carriers of viruses. Got what you deserved IMHO. Look ladies and gentlemen, one of the few instances you see of justice in this world. It doesn't happen often, so take a look and see what it looks like while you can.
 
Jagular said:
You really are a special kind of idiot aren't you? I'm sure any virus you did get would be from some of your pirated software. What didn't you understand from one of the posts above that said these "free" files were often carriers of viruses. Got what you deserved IMHO. Look ladies and gentlemen, one of the few instances you see of justice in this world. It doesn't happen often, so take a look and see what it looks like while you can.
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm sure you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. I Would believe that if it wern't for the fact that this virus specifically targeted my Kazza program. Coincidence non?

*edit*

P.S I hasn't put me out a whole lot.. so don't get too excited just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top