Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to be against software piracy. And I used to admire Microsoft, Apple and other "American" technology companies.
I've lost that respect for these companies when decades ago, they started dodging taxes, paying a gajillion dollars to lobbyists to influence more favorable laws for themselves, exploiting the public, creating a false shortage of programmers so they could influence and manipulate Congress, shipping jobs off shore, then later in-shoring jobs but with foreign labor instead of training the developers here, etc ... I've lost track of how many foreign worker visas there are now. They'll probably come up with a visa per originating country soon?!
I'm sure it made business sense for them. But really, if you're going to be spending gajillion dollars paying lobbyists and politicians anyway, why not invest in training the local people already in the country instead?
Oh right, they wanted to "seed" the potentially larger economies of India and China, at the expense of American developers. Just ship all the jobs overseas. Again, it made business sense for them.
Years ago, my cousin worked at one of the Microsoft companies in Asia. Microsoft, Sony, among others, even "allowed" software piracy in Asia because it used to lead to more actual sales of their products. While they claimed it was illegal, they sort of just winked at it. It was part of their marketing strategy.
One of the reasons why pirated software and videos are still going strong in in Asia. You can buy a 4-TB external drive over there and have it filled up with hundreds of movies, software, thousands of songs, etc.... Serves them right. You reap what you sow ....
It used to be when you bought software, you actually owned the software. You read the EULA now, you don't own anything. Just the right to use a piece of software. Imagine if all car companies came up with a similar EULA and said you can buy our product, but you can never own it fully. You just have the right to use it.
But the majority of people seem to be okay with it. And now, okay with the intrusiveness of Windows 10. Talk about conditioning.
So, as far as I'm concerned, it's open season on them too. My personal principles prevent me from doing it myself - I'm an open source/free software kind of guy. But I'm okay with other people doing software piracy.
Agreed. Seriously, Dude111, now you're on the side of Software pirates?
You act as if MS owes YOU an operating system. One that should work how YOU think it should.
You have choices. Don't like Microsoft? Quit whining already, and move on to Linux. You aren't a gamer. Linux would be perfect for you. You could have something more up to date and secure and not have to live in MS's world.
after 20 years of putting up with MS buggy bloated OS I think we are entitled to one free OS and a very big apology.or how about this, we pay for the OS but we get to sue MS every time we lose valuable work because their useless OS has crashed.
It used to be when you bought software, you actually owned the software.
When you buy something on a disc what you own is a plastic disc. It's the license that dictates how you can use it, this is the way it's always been. Retail copies of Windows can be used on different computers or sold but very few people ever buy a retail copy. The OEM versions that come with computers are only licensed for that computer because the manufacturer got a discount on it.
Quote:
But I'm okay with other people doing software piracy.
When someone pirates material that is one less dollar in MS's pocket and one more dollar they are going to try and squeeze out of legitimate users.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,081,428 times
Reputation: 3995
Software piracy is a complex question for me.
Yes, most software these days is licensed unless explicitly declared to be in the Public Domain, and yes the terms of the license are often enforceable by the courts (at least in the US and the EU), but there are also other elements of those licenses where the legality or enforceability of the license terms is very much an open question. Certainly in many localities.
Also, the concept of licensing computer software is a somewhat more recent invention than computer software itself. In the mainframe days, operating systems and associated tools were often (usually) provided for free by vendors like CDC, UNIVAC, Honeywell, IBM, etc., and bundled with the hardware purchase, and shops often had the source for the OS as well as the executable binaries. Not only that, but the users in various shops were often developers, and those developers often freely exchanged software through formal user sharing groups like USE (UNIVAC) or SHARE (IBM).
When open source software licenses like the BSDL and GPL were created later on, that creation was almost certainly done with that older mainframe software culture in mind.
Bill Gates is also infamous in certain circles for his Open Letter to Hobbyists written to those who were "pirating" his Altair BASIC, so some might argue that Bill Gates (and by extension Microsoft) is one of the main entities largely responsible for the current practice of charging money for the software which is arguably required in order to effectively use a computer system.
Software piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. You are not actually stealing property, but using a copy in an unauthorized manner in violation of a license. Whether or not one has actually and explicitly accepted the license in question might be debated in some cases.
Also, the definition of piracy is sometimes not clear. If one has a legal copy of a licensed piece of software installed and licensed on a given machine and that machine dies, is one able to move that software to another machine? What happens if one replaces parts of a machine? Hard drives? Video cards? CPU updates? A new motherboard?
I personally think that people who use Windows for whatever reason should pay for their copy. Whether that means obtaining a license with a new machine or a used machine, or involves obtaining an OEM copy of Windows through legal channels makes no difference to me.
For those who don't want to pay for a Windows license through traditional channels, there are alternatives now in many cases which work very well, such as Linux distributions which run on the same hardware. Many (most) of those do not require payment. Many are easy to use. Some require no installation at all, but can be booted from CD/DVD or USB drive. The argument that one has no choice but to use Windows may be true in some cases, but that isn't as true today as it was years ago. Because of this, some folks who pirate Windows may be doing so because they are unaware of alternatives.
Moral of the story:
Is piracy wrong? Probably, for certain values of wrong. It may also be unethical.
Is piracy illegal? That isn't as simple as question as some would have you believe. Even the definition depends on specific circumstances.
Should someone pirate software? I can't answer that question for you. Make your own decision, but remember that there may be consequences.
Before you call this pirate “stupid,” there’s something you should have in mind: the chances are that the one involved in this case is a retailer that sells Windows PCs and thus activates them with licenses that, according to Microsoft, were stolen from its supply chain.[LEFT]
so.. This isn't like Bob down the street getting a pirated key and using it.. Which is still wrong.. But this guy is building PCs and selling them with pirated copies of Windows.. Which, in theory, he's charging people for.. They're getting software that Microsoft won't support and technically.. You have no idea what else he's done to it, so far as loading backdoors and the like.
So, i totally understand Microsoft going after this guy.. it's not like they're going after Bob down the road for a single pirated copy.
[/LEFT]
Considering how much time we all spend on C-D and not get anything other than occasional infractions, I'd say, yes, we all are working for free!
Quote:
When someone pirates material that is one less dollar in MS's pocket and one more dollar they are going to try and squeeze out of legitimate users.
That seems like a speculation but let's say it is true, 2 wrongs make it right?
Because it sounded like you were suggesting that MS would deliberately be doing an unethical, immoral retaliation. A major company like Mikrosoft would never do such a thing or have they already done it, hence your comment?
Even though I am with FastNinja for the most part, in the case of some jerk-off making money from pirated anything, I have no sympathy!
That said, anyone who has seen Pirates of the Silicon Valley could tell you who the first jerk-off who made $$ from stealing others' hard work.
It is a bit ironic if not poetic when a thief complains about people stealing from him!
When you buy something on a disc what you own is a plastic disc. It's the license that dictates how you can use it, this is the way it's always been. Retail copies of Windows can be used on different computers or sold but very few people ever buy a retail copy. The OEM versions that come with computers are only licensed for that computer because the manufacturer got a discount on it.
I'm guessing I'm older than you. Actually, it wasn't always that way. Maybe you meant only Microsoft software. I'm not talking buying software from Microsoft only. I'm talking about how we used to buy software in the early days of PCs, if we even had to buy them. Most of the time, software actually was distributed/exchanged for free. But in those early days of personal computers and buying software, we actually got the source code. And we compiled or assembled it ourselves, depending on if it was Basic, Assembler or C. And if we wanted to change or customize some code, all we did was tell the programmer/s and get their company's permission, if there was even a company. There wasn't even a EULA then.
Even on the mainframe, we could buy software and get the Assembler and Cobol code, which we paid for.
Quote:
When someone pirates material that is one less dollar in MS's pocket and one more dollar they are going to try and squeeze out of legitimate users.
Yep. Like MS saying "let's let the people in Asia pirate it for free, because we can always gouge it out from the stupeed Amereekans".
Look, Microsoft can do anything it wants. They have that kind of influence all over the place.
But I'm not one to condemn these individual software pirates, while Microsoft gets away with bending our laws and corrupting politicians wholesale. They're both breaking the spirit of our laws. The only potential losers I see here are those people who unknowingly buy pirated software. It might or might now work for them in the long run. For them, it's "buyer beware" and "you get what you paid for".
Hey, it's a free country. At least until Microsoft tells you that you pay for your own computer, pay them for the privilege of using their software, and they will install anything they want on your computer, even lock you out of it when they want to, and you're going to like it!
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,081,428 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastninja500
Even on the mainframe, we could buy software and get the Assembler and Cobol code, which we paid for.
Some of us still do.
Most people just want to do stuff and have software that does what they want.
License fees are often a necessary evil.
A person can get around them (usually by using alternatives) with enough knowledge, but sometimes that takes a bit of work. Or time. For some folks, it's as simply as finding a LiveCD like one of these:
What - No Goobuntu?
Was curious how that looks like. All these years, I haven't been able to get Google's internal version of Ubuntu. I mean there's iso's of it available, but questionable sources.
Even my friend at Google won't let me see it nor try it. He does say that the only difference with Ubuntu LTS are some security, networking and skins.
I'm a long time Linux user, Microsoft-free for years, until I Windows 7 came along and I liked it, enough to dual boot it. But with the Windows-10 peddling now, I've decided to go Microsoft-free again. I don't need anything Microsoft.
I've simplified my home computers to Tails, PCLinuxOS Full Monty, Ubuntu Studio and (Fedora for studying and development).
Which brings up the software piracy question again - are most Linux users engaging in software piracy because of some proprietary software and codecs their distros include (i.e. Linux Mint) out of the box?
I think the answer to that is Yes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, it wasn't always that way. Maybe you meant only Microsoft software. I'm not talking buying software from Microsoft only. I'm talking about how we used to buy software in the early days of PCs, if we even had to buy them. Most of the time, software actually was distributed/exchanged for free. But in those early days of personal computers and buying software, we actually got the source code. And we compiled or assembled it ourselves, depending on if it was Basic, Assembler or C. And if we wanted to change or customize some code, all we did was tell the programmer/s and get their company's permission, if there was even a company. There wasn't even a EULA then. 
