[Vgta]

Okay first off let me make this clear, for some reason this popped into my head late last night and I was wondering what you all though about this. All opinions and comments are welcomed

I am almost 100% sure that at one point or another during everyones early education we have resorted to finding not so legal copies of our favorite programs. Whether the person be self taught or going to school, the prices of the software we use is not exactly easily accessible to someone on a student budget, even the student prices are kinda up there. So I just want to know what your thougths were on this, basically pirated software used by people for learning purposes. (We all know that if you are making a profit out of it you shouldn't pirate any software but what about if you are learning the software???) hope all this rambling made sense.

[roundeye]

yeah, the companies would like you to think youre stealing. but if you just cant afford it them they get no bloody money either way, so its simply not.

but ive worked at cheap assed graphic design companys where everything in the place was stolen. now thats just not cool.

[Ripelly]

As long as you're a low profile individual who doesn't do business with the software, crack/reverse engineer/modify and/or distrubute it in public I am pretty sure they don't have much interest pursuing your *ss. It's still morally wrong, but they really have larger fish to catch there.

However, if you ever decide to make money or share the software (against the license agreement) you should be concerned getting into trouble sooner or later.

Disclaimer: I'm not encouraging you to use pirate software. I'm just sharing some thoughts here.

[Gandalf-]

Hmmm.. this makes me curious.

I wonder how many of the high profile artists here at Sijun use pirated software? I tend to assume that someone like Jason Manley or Craig Mullins would be using legal copies of software, but I could be incredibly naive. Hrmph.

[Awetopsy]

the company I work for at has legal copies of the software I use.. so I dont have any problem with using it at home.

Whenever you have the money you should get out and buy the programs.

I used to be into pirated software bigtime butI gave it all up and destroyed it all because you can go to jail over it.

personally I think that once you buy it, it should belong to you.. not the company that made it.

[FireFry]

Morally it's wrong either way, but if you don't have the money how else are you going to learn? I think if your just trying to learn the program, get familiar and pratice with it then it's ok. If your going to make a profit out of it your fair game to get your ass thrown in jail. Those companies may have bigger fish to fry. But there's a saying that goes every dog has its day.

[the_monkey]

i have a question, if you leagaly own a program, are you entitled to the money you make on it or should the company take a roalty?

[egerie]

the_monkey : If that ever happends, I think a LOT of people will go back to traditional arts.... It's like saying the makers of your paint/brushes have a right to profits of what's been created ? Aer ?

[roundeye]

firefry, despite what youre taught in your schools down south. theres no absolute set of global morals and right/wrong. all you can go on are you local laws which in this case are abiguous, and differ from country to country, continent to continent.

[the_monkey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by roundeye:
firefry, despite what youre taught in your schools down south. theres no absolute set of global morals and right/wrong. all you can go on are you local laws which in this case are abiguous, and differ from country to country, continent to continent.

---

he can go on his own conscience as well. its not a legal problem hes having, but a moral.
morality changes from person to person in the grayer areas, but i think there is a definate universal moral code. most people believe its wrong to kill, and some can agree that its wrong to pirate software. my point is that regardless of place/time/civilization we have a firm understanding of right and wrong, i guess it just matters if we choose to follow what we understand as ethic.

i dont intend for this thread to become a huge moralistic debate...

[roundeye]

ok, no huge moralistic debate. i dont want to get into it either. lets just agree to agree that youre naive.
"there is a definate universal moral code" = wrong. there simply isnt. especially when you include "place/time/civilization". wow.

anyway his statement was a broad "Morally it's wrong either way" statement, that i have every right to object to.

[the_monkey]

if i truly was naieve, then i would never agree upon the notion that i am.

[roundeye]

word.

[ValarianROOT]

Hello everyone. This is my very first post on Sijun.com.

This is a very interesting thread for me because I�ve worked with some kids that go to LAN parties and just disperse pirated software. Working at one of the nation�s smaller retail chains that sell software I get to see what some of that backlash is. For example the most pirated soft-ware in the world, �Microsoft Office,� was going to move towards a subscription only style product. That would have meant every year you would have to pay the big �M� to continue to use a product you�ve already paid hundreds of dollars for, not fun. Also, do you really think a suite as small as Microsoft Office is really worth the over four hundred dollar price tag? A fair chunk of the price is just to recuperate some of that lost revenue. And Microsoft keeps trying to come up with new ways to protect their soft-ware from piracy, hoping to find the magic mix that the public will bend over and take. So, more and more I think soft-ware makers will follow Microsoft�s lead trading your privacy to stop a few bad apples from squeezing them out of a percentage. So piracy is definitely not worth it, and besides with all the demo and student versions/discounts of soft-ware out there it doesn�t take to many hours of hard work and you can have a legitimate copy of some good soft-ware.

Sure everybody thinks the cries of piracy are just a ploy to charge outrageous prices for soft-ware, but some of the affects of piracy really do hurt. Like what roundeye pointed out some companies are making money of stuff they never purchased. And the old fall back of, �as soon as I make it in the industry I�ll buy a legitimate copy of the soft-ware,� is weak, because it could take 2 or 3 jobs before it equals the kind of money these programs cost. And as for Awetopsy using software his company purchased licenses for at home, does his company have a license for that program to be on his computer and provide the convenience for him to work on?

So in closing to this rant I will try to justify myself by saying: �I just don�t want to have someone monitoring my computers usage and charging me a fortune to allow them to do it.�

[dr . bang]

companies like Adobe wont give a fuck if you are using their stuff illegally as long as you don't sell it. In fact, i think they secretly wants you to use it illegal knowing that one day, you'll buy it.

[FireFry]

quote:

---

Originally posted by roundeye:
firefry, despite what youre taught in your schools down south. theres no absolute set of global morals and right/wrong. all you can go on are you local laws which in this case are abiguous, and differ from country to country, continent to continent.

---

Shouldn't have said global, I know the laws are different for every country.
Usually when we are wee little folks we are taught the basics of right and wrong. (don't steal, don't swear, etc, etc.)

anyways, I'm wandering from the original subject so I'm going to shut up now.

[Dr.Squirley]

ahy, but firefly there are no basics of right and wrong. in fact even no right or wrong. it just happens that you were brought up with judeao-christian (sp?) ethics, as many people are. but, this doesn't make your way of thinking the only way, or the correct way,(or the moral way.) It only means those are YOUR values and most likely those of people around you.

and in my stupidity i pulled the thread to a place it neednt be.

so about the software issue. i do believe that copyed software, agianst the law, is wrong, BUT i don't have a problem with people doing it. in fact i don't really care, but if companys like microsoft want to protect THEIR software from being copied, then i say go ahead. but alot of companys are not worried about this simply because they dont care as well. they still make money even whether or not their product is being reproduced. When reprouction leads to income somehow though i do care, because in my opinion thats just bad.

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Dr.Squirley ]

[Vgta]

Hey more replies than I thought this would get, awesome.
This is a rather touchy subject as it goes into everyones definition of right and wrong and just and unjust.
Just remember people, I want your opinions and no flaming anyone for theirs.
Here is a little more thought on the subject. Remember the one guy that always seemed to have all the software you could ever need? Was he/she a blatant thief and software pimp or a Robin Hood for those who did not have the resources to obtain the software "legally"?

[aquamire]

Hmm, what about companies who claim you cant buy one piece of software and use it on multiple machines at home? Like Microsoft is trying to do with WindowsXP.

The argument generally goes, if you go and buy a Ford Explorer (yuck) does that mean your obliged to get a free one for every member in your family with a license. No, of course not.

On the flipside, if you buy an audio cd, do you have to buy a new cd for every cd player you have? Of course not! Tho I'm sure the record industry would like that.

It really bothers me when companies control what YOU have bought and ought to be yours to do what you will within legal boundries. I shouldn't have to pay 200+ dollars for an 'upgrade' and have to buy an additional one for every computer in my home. If it was a business, it might be different.

[Pat]

"companies like Adobe wont give a fuck if you are using their stuff illegally as long as you don't sell it. In fact, i think they secretly wants you to use it illegal knowing that one day, you'll buy it."

Mmmm.... is this why Adobe Photoshop 6 installs a special dll in my extensions folder, profiles all the Adobe Products on my hard drive along with their serial #'s, my name and whatever other personal information it can get, and sends it back to Adobe? Sure they claim it's so they can "better tailor their customer service" to me. I'm buying that.

Fact is, Adobe is worried about the rampant pirating of their software enough to consider everyone who owns a legal copy a potential thief.

Part of the reason software prices are so inflated is due to piracy. I can't blame Adobe for wanting to make money off their hard work. But if they're going to start profiling my hard drive and collecting personal information about me, how about a warning and a price break?

-Pat

[ambient-whisper]

ya right.
Alias power animator was like 50k in the early 90s...and a machine to run it was going for about another 100k or so..
that was when you couldnt pirate that software..because you needed that machine to work it...

prices have fallen since. you really think that the prices are like that because people are pirating ?. heh.

look at 3dsmax. probably the most pirated software out there...and its doing very well for itself.

[ValarianROOT]

Yeah all this discussion is great, but doesn't it just feal great if you "legally" own the software you using to create... no twinges of guilt?

[travis travis]

computer pirating defeats it's own sense of guilt or penalty - that's why I think it's pretty easy for most people to do without batting an eye. what I mean is, if it amounts to pushing a few buttons in the privacy of your own home - than damn right people aren't going to give a fuck and they're going to take for free what they can get for free that seems to have no adverse consequence.

the further you get away from just 'click & steal' to other activities like buying a warez cd or making a warez cd, of course then you get exponentially more antsy - and it's funny that danger seems to bring out our moral compass

but at the basic level - software being something people practically expect to be part of the computer anyway - it's no big deal. and of course with business you have to be licensed or you could get in deep shit anyway

[dr . bang]

Imagine some day all the softwares will be sold as a piece of hardware, then all the warezer will be obselete.

[lazydead]

This thread has moved me to post.

I've worked in the graphics industry for awhile. I have seen how the industry works from the inside and I hope I have some helpful thoughts to share.

"In fact, i think they secretly wants you to use it illegal knowing that one day, you'll buy it."

AutoDesk is well known for thier lienient piracy policy to keep their strangle hold on the cad market in the 80's by the sheer number of users over the competitor's, legal or otherwise...but I'm sure that has changed by now.
The thought process follows thus:
If everyone is using only our product then there will be no-one left to use/buy thier product. The competitor goes belly up and then, and only then, do they ask for the people to pay up.
Shrewd business, but it would only work in a very tight market. I don't see PaintShop Pro making any bold moves towards Adobe. Adobe has already won. Thus the current tracking in v6.

I had the opportunity during my internship to work on an old sgi Iris workstation. I was working in softImage and found out that the software was linked to a code on a chip in that specific sgi. No chance of using it elsewhere. Here's the kicker, a yearly renewal/upgrade fee topped several thousand a year! Don't ask how much it cost to put it on in the first place, yeesh.

I don't know how many of you own 3dsMax but to the rest...Did you know that the liscense is non-transfereable? You pay your 3k and that's it. You can't sell it later to recoup the cost. It's not like a car that you are buying to "own". You are paying for the opportunity to use the software for a specified length of time. That's why it's called a liscense and not a title or deed. Most software is for life, but not all.

The idea behind this is that the business recoups the costs by producing products in the form of graphics. They can afford such an investment on these grounds. The software is not intended for home usage. The dongle for max also applies to the next quote.

"Imagine some day all the softwares will be sold as a piece of hardware, then all the warezer will be obselete."

It's already happened. It was called pre-1970's. This is also the current state of things in the console games market. The game cartridges are small cards that fit into a slot just like your pc...well maybe not playstation, that is software. :/

Unfortunately there is little room for morality in big business...and it's up to the individual to decide on thier own what they should do. Well, that and lawyers. They could probaby influence me to stay moral.

"but doesn't it just feal great if you "legally" own the software you using to create... no twinges of guilt?"

Yes it most definitely does.

Stay safe.

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: lazydead ]

[maceface]

i feel that if a person uses the software for personal or learning reasons then its "ok". It is still stealing and that person still is a theif...but that is something that the person with the pirated software has to deal with. I dont have a problem with that...but where i have the problem is when that person tries to make money off it one way or another. wether it be selling pirated copies or artwork.
i have a question for you all to think about. Say a student is learning the program at school. And he makes a picture that is bought is there any moral or legal problems with using the schools software?
i personally dont think so but i am interested in see what you think.

[ValarianROOT]

Maceface, most definitely there is no problem with a student making money using the schools software. The students have access to it for learning purposes sure, but just like if a student sells a still-life painting he doesn't have to give a cut to the school, right? Besides your tuition pays for the privledge to use the schools license to the software.

I feel so incoherent, sorry i just woke up, hope you get what i mean...

[elam]

I read this real interesting article the other day about how the software industry in general, it's methodology, business practices are all fucked up.

Companies are constantly releasing terribly engineered software, charging lot's of money for it, then coming out the next year with new software, dropping support for the older versions, and essentially forcing people to upgrade. This article focused more on business software like Oracle and Windows, but it holds true for American software companies in general.

It stated that a lot of people were looking at Open source software and paying for a "subscription" fee for software instead of buying it.

Now, I know 3d Max and Maya pretty well. But to even consider that their worth the asking price is ridiculous. $16,000? sheeeeiitt. Even the student prices are silly. When I was in school, one of my TEACHERS hooked us up with programs. She knew none of us could afford them, and we need to work on them outside of class. I never made a dime off any of the programs, but it sure helped my studies.

The nature of software makes it immune(IMO) from the traditional stealing argument. Software is infinitely reproduceable with minimal cost. It's not even tangible. It's an idea. How can that be stealing?

Now, I'm not a programmer, so I can't speak from experience, but I often ponder someone "stealing" my work, selling it, getting a job from it. Would that piss me off? Sure, but I'm never gonna run out of ideas. Or talent, or hard work.

Companies need to quit worrying so much about piracy and focus on making decent software.

The whole argument is moot nowadays anyway.
There are excellent free and cheap programs to be had. Animation Master is a poor man's Maya, as well as Blender and GIMP.

Anybody want a copy of Maya 4.0 Unlimited?

[Wild]

What if person X had an illegal copy of Photoshop, made some kick-ass pics and sold them so that he could afford to buy a legal copy?
Is that wrong?
I'm just curious.

[Bishop_Six]

If you want to get familiar with 3DS MAX, for example, and you don't make any money or anything off of it, but use it exclusively for learning then I'm fine with it. I'd prefer not to, but you all know how expensive stuff like that is.