When is "FREE" OK?.

I started a thread like this several years ago. There still seems to be a huge grey area about what's right and what's wrong. Let's face it. Many of you here openly admit (albeit in a subtle manor) to using "Barrowed" software. I'd like to here your reasons as to why you do it.
For instance:

Is it simply the anonimity of the internet which allows you to behave so?.

Do you feel that the prices of certain programs preclude you from paying for them from a moral standpoint?.

Do you think that, because it comes from the internet that it doesn't deserve the same treatment as, let's say, a diamond ring from a jewelers counter?.

I doubt I'll get much in the way of honesty from most of you, as it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt(save for Orph, who has been a serious pirate for years ),
but I would like to hear your opinions on the matter none the less.

Keep in mind that I'm no angel. When I first got internet in the late 90's I did my share of this, but having been in the entertainment industry for 15 years now I see what effect it has had on the bottom line. Now, I own every piece of software I use, and have a box/CD/DVD/reciept to prove it. Can you say the same?. Would you care to?.
This thread is simply designed to stimulate some interesting conversation. It is not to judge you in any way. Just growing tired of the Travels/learned/humor/ blah-blah/etc./threads. So delete the thread if you must, or call me an asshole, but if not, then it should make for some interesting conversations...... I hope.

Dude you still seem to be under some serious misconception. I have literally been offline for over 4 years. I have ALMOST NOTHING borrowed anymore. Even the software I use to back up movies with is bought. Paid for in full. The only thing I have that is NOT mine is a program that converts my library audio books from windows media crap to MP3.

I tried to tell you this already but you seem unable to understand it. I never have had borrowed games. Now my son has, but I like the boxed original and can take pictures of them and post it here if you need proof.

As for my movie collection. I rented them, and retain a copy for my own pleasure. I don't sell them and I seldom allow anyone to borrow them since they feel I stole them and have no right to bitch if they scratch them or otherwise render them unusable.

Anyway, I have NO STOLEN SOFTWARE IN MY HOUSE OR ON MY PC"S

Now.. On with the discussion.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Now that's what I'm talkin' about........Interesting replies.
P.S. I believe you Orph. Just threw you in there for a more interesting mix.

I know but its touchy. If you recall my house burned down 4 years back and I lost almost everything, including all my backed up software (borrowed).

If you recall, the only thing I really boasted about was a movie collection of AVI files. They're gone.

As for my viewpoint: Stolen and borrowed can be viewed the same but in this case I don't really see the similarity. People say I stole my present movie collection, because the new copy right laws SAY I have. I bought the PC. I bought the blank DVD's. I rented the movies. I made a backup. Its no different than if I recorded the movie with my DVR and put it on disc, yet no one gripes about that. For the record I haven't done that yet BUT plan on it soon because you are now able to connect an external hard drive to most DVR's and record on your own systems now.

As I said, I own all my games. ALL OF THEM.

The library books: That's a touchy subject. I have permission to burn them. It says so in the download page. I just cannot keep the copies. Hmmm. Now that's gonna happen. Anyway, the books are almost all in WMA and my truck will only play MP3. So I had to find a program that will convert them. Now oddly enough, its against the library rules to do THAT. But I can put 2 or 3 books on one cd in MP3 and I can copy 1 to 1 if I burn them to normal cd. So what would you do?

As for stealing/borrowing software, I really have no opinion. My viewpoint is, if you can get the same job done with a shareware/freeware version don't steal a name brand version. Other than that, I have no opinion.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Not to tute my own horn here, but as a future software developer I have a few qualms with "borrowing" software. You don't justify stealing a car, because it took time/labor to build it. But people justify stealing software because theres no tangible product, however there was just as much time/labor put into developing it.

I like what orph said, if you don't want to pay the full price for a product then you can get a freeware equivalent, express version, or open source version that does the same. EG: can't pay 1000$ for maya, get XSI to do your modeling.

What I don't like too is the ethics piraters use to justify software piracy, one of them being that information (eg: Software) should be free to inspire and have the net grow and flourish. If there were no product being sold then there would be no competition, and therefore no innovation/drive to develop new features/new version of a product.

I also feel as though if you enjoy the product being put out, then you can support the makers by BUYING the product so they may produce more. Which is why I will never pirate my favorite developer's games (Valve, bioware, blizzard, etc). Also if a game is less than 10$ and you can't afford that (I've seen pirated versions of Braid, and Portal when it was 5$), then theres an inherent problem with you. I mean get a job to pay for it, be a productive member of society.

HOWEVER im not gonna be a hypocrite. Yes i've gotten borrowed software before. In fact I have a 12,000$ program on my computer, full version. I could have used the express version for my needs, but I happen to come across a key that activated the legitimately acquired trial version. Where is the line in this case?

I have/will never pirate holywood movies from torrents, I WILL however make copies of movies from friends on my computer, but never distribute it online.

If its one song I want from an artist, then I'll find it on youtube (at that point its in Public Domain), and record it. If I want a full album i'll buy it to support the artist so they may make more music.

Software I can find freeware versions out there that get the job done. If you wan't to learn to use a piece of software like maya, and justify pirating the full version for educational purposes, you can always get the TRIAL VERSION that gets the job done. They all exist. If there doesn't exist a trial version, then you don't need to be learning that software (EG: I think I recall that there was Renderman on limewire five years ago, you DO NOT NEED TO LEARN THAT program, thats proprietary to Pixar).

I refuse to buy any pc game that requires a mircrosoft live account. Xbox/microsoft live is the worst thing that has ever happened to the video game industry.
I also refuse to buy any game published by EA.
Rarely but, from time to time I'll happily pirate a game that falls into one of these categories.
I pirated mine craft till it hit beta and then promptly bought it. morally im fine with this.

When it comes to pirating any type of software/intangible media, it depends on whether the company deserves to be paid at all. Did EA deserve any money for Far Cry 2? No! They should have been punished.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

I've never downloaded anything pirated, except for a little bit of music and the Human Centipede. The rest of my pirated software/media comes from my friends.

I don't support piracy, the thing is, as I am still a student I can't afford to pay $1000 for the Adobe Suite, it's just way out of my league at the moment. And sometimes the free/lite equivalents aren't sufficient unfortunately. As I get older, I'm sure my usage of pirated software/media will decline. It's more satisfying to have a legit copy anyway.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Some points here:

#1: UbiSoft made Far Cry 2, Not EA. UbiSoft bought the Far Cry license after CryTek made Far Cry 1 and ran with it. CryTek went off and started building CryEngine 2 and build Crysis which was published through EA partners program, allowing CryTek to hold on to Crysis property as a studio.

#2: Open Source software is not necessarily free. I understand that this is a confusing idea, but it is the case. You can sell your software even if the core is OSS.

#3: Piracy is not theft. Theft deprives the person who has been robbed of the stolen item. Piracy, or copyright infringement, is ENTIRELY different. Thinking about it in a black and white mindset of, "you didn't pay for it, therefore it's theft" is nonsense.

Since this is really a conversation about piracy ... I'll just talk about that. I'd like the point out that I'm a computer scientist and software is my medium. Now that the weight tossing is out of the way I'll say this: Piracy is not necessarily a bad thing and there's generally nothing you can do about it.

Why is piracy bad (claims from various people in suits who want your money):
Based on ancient business practices, there's no feasible way to make money outside of the standard business product model. Which is, make the product, sell it to a distributor, sell it to a store, sell it to the consumer, order more units from the distributor.

With the introduction of the internet, this business model has started to show it's wrinkles, however, people still want to continue to use the same plan, just cut out the distributor and the expensive physical productions and it's about the same. Well, sort of.

See, the reason why people are so outraged over piracy more now than ever before, isn't really because it's easier to get a hold of the data, it's because they potentially lose more from a pirated digital version over their e-store digital version. Since the thing costs the same price as the physical retail version, but has significantly less overhead, they'll make entire profit brackets more. Potentially. Therefore, we must attack this idea to save the profits!

Not really.

Most people who download various software fit into, about, three categories:

#1: People who can't afford it.
#2: People who are curious.
#3: People who think your product is crap.
#4: People who refuse to pay for it.

The thing is ... almost all of these reasons are something the content creators can do something about.

#1: If people can't afford your product, but need it, or are coaxed into desperately wanting it ... then you're actually shooting yourself in the foot. You're creating a large demand ... but then keeping everyone back at arm's length. Chances are, your software is overtly expensive, just because it's software. Video games are a very good example of this. They cost a fraction of the cost of film, have factors larger profit margins ... but still charge about four times as much. Why!? Because they can.

This is a clear sign that perhaps your product is just too damn expensive. You can better price your product so that you can get the maximum sales possible while still making a profit. Or explore other avenues for profit.

#2: People who are simply curious about the product ... but aren't going to invest the ludicrously high price just to try the thing. Demos have long since been manipulated into a sort of high class interactive commercial.

Demos will have a separate team working hard on polishing them to the maximum levels while the ACTUAL product does not have the same level of polish. This is misleading and the consumer is generally going to get something that they didn't want.

And then there's the case of ... well there is no evaluation demo. How exactly are you going to know if this is something you want in that case?

The product should be given open trials of a long period of time. That's the LEAST that could be done

#3: Well ... are you really going to complain about lost sales when you put out something ridiculous? This is the entire strength of a free market society, something business people claim we have. But, piss and moan when it's actually true. OK.

#4: These are the people who most companies think about when they think "Pirates". Those dirty cheap bastards who refuse to pay for my hard blood and sweat made product.

Well guess what? There's not that many of these type of people. Almost nobody falls into this cheapskate category of, I could buy it, but I refuse to pay for anything. People will almost always be part of one of the other categories.

How can you combat this? It's actually pretty simple. First step is to not make a bucket of shit and expect people to pay hundreds of dollars for it.

You can also offer a free version not with ads, but with for-pay small features. Not only will you not treat your legitimate customers like criminals, but you'll actually make more money! Paying $2 every so often for five years ... will yield FAR more profits than a single $200 transaction. You have less trouble getting users to commit to using the software, since the price of admission is the time it takes to download the software ... and you technically can't pirate something that's free ... it'd be a step in the direction of sanity.

So ... if there is this type of solution and MANY others ... what's the holdup?

Greed.

Greed on the part of the publisher. Developers see this problem too, but chances are ... hey, they're not going to publicly bash their bosses. What they want, is not for people to get a realistically quality customer experience. No, what they want, is for you to buy the same thing you bought before, for double the price, and if you have any qualms about it, we'll take you to court. Because you owe us.

This is the way companies act. This does not make ANY sense.

The issue isn't an unhappy consumer base ... it's how content providers treat them. And there's plenty of evidence to back this up. This is the reason why UbiSoft's PC game sales are so low and the reason why Valve's games sales are through the roof.

The days of expensive software licenses are OVER and people need to get with the times, get their heads out their ass, and do it fast before they financially collapse the entire software industry.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Quite simply put....If you fell guilty or question the way you obtained something, you probably already know the answer to this post.

---

Light is faster than sound:That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Your riches in life are family and friends, everything else is just a distraction.

sgtfly said:
Quite simply put....If you fell guilty or question the way you obtained something, you probably already know the answer to this post.

I dunno about that. Guilt is a tricky thing. People can feel it about eating cake and be anorexic/bulimic. Conversely an obese person can feel none at all.

The petroleum industry is a perfect example of not feeling guilt.

My brother, one of those born again freaks, constantly feels guilt for everyone.

So, you want/think/suppose someone with borrowed software is gonna feel guilt or not? Perhaps. Anything is possible.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I see your point Orph, I know there are ppl with less morals than others and I can't vouch for them but the majority of us know when something is wrong. I know there are some ppl who can't distinguish between right or wrong out there, and some who just don't care.

Our conscience is our only guide and that is what rules us. We all have to make the personal decision whether of not to follow it.

The use of intellectual property is the same as any product, you either have the right to use it or not. Borrowing said property is fine as long as you follow the agreement of it. Most software is limited to one use on one comp if I get most agreements right so if you "borrow" it your not breaking the law IMO as long as the person "borrowed" from doesn't continue to use it on their comp.

About the cake, there again it's a personal thing whether not you feel it, in alot of those cases it's usually a psycological or medical problem their dealing with. If your happy with who you are, then whether you eat cake or not is no big deal.

I guess I can say I'm a simple guy, I don't try to over think or analyze things. I feel something's either right or wrong and try do the right thing. I'm sure most of us feel the same way (at least I hope so), that's why I said what I said in my last post.

---

Light is faster than sound:That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Your riches in life are family and friends, everything else is just a distraction.

I was just keeping the conversation going bud. Don't go all guilty on me.

Seriously though, I personally don't feel that guilt is the correct word. Like my examples, guilt is a fickle concept. I am not really sure yet, and I will give it more thought, but I am not sure what word we are looking for.

See, we're back on that gray area ground where you cannot lose something you never had. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is that this gray area has a product at the end that the user is borrowing.

I do not believe the makers of said software are actually losing anything because in most cases the borrow would just do without the product and the maker would NEVER have sold it to them in the first place. SO, no money lost.

I could be mistaken, but at present, and from my own personal experience, this is the case. Anything I ever borrowed (and I am unsure if AVI movies count) I could have obtained using freeware/shareware.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

LOL...No guilt here.

To get back to the title of the post though When is free ok?.

I guess my whole thing is it's ok when it's given to you or you buy it w\o breaking any previous agreements or licenses, between parties involved.

---

Light is faster than sound:That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Your riches in life are family and friends, everything else is just a distraction.

I only pirate to sample a product, if its good I will go buy.
For example game companies that don't release demo's because they know the games turd.

Crono said:
#1: UbiSoft made Far Cry 2, Not EA. UbiSoft bought the Far Cry license after CryTek made Far Cry 1 and ran with it. CryTek went off and started building CryEngine 2 and build Crysis which was published through EA partners program, allowing CryTek to hold on to Crysis property as a studio.

I apologize for my inaccuracies. Still, someone should have been caned for Far Cry 2.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

I was about to reply but Chrono already said what I was going to say a thousand times better. Digial Piracy can NOT be compared to stealing a physical object.

Perhaps Crono is right. Perhaps software companies invite piracy by creating certain type of programs and lacing them to an aging business model.

I believe the main reason for piracy is simply affordability.

Let's say for example that a gaming company creates a very expensive to make but complete and total shite(to the majority of the masses) computer game. They implement restrictive and smothering DRM and force the public to either pay or quit. Without knowing weather or not it is a worthy investment in my time or money I am forced to take the gamble. Now, after losing 70.00 or so American I don't actually own the game, but I've entered into a software lease type agreement with this company,(the EUA) and it isn't until after I spend the money that I find out that it's shit and I am out that cash.

Possible solution:

Release the first 10% of the game with all features enabled.Not some lame hamstrung version of Mp. Perhaps even the entire first level. Let me decide after that if I choose to make the investment. Other games like RPG's and MMORPG's could be more generous with their samplings and entice more people to "not steal" from them, but to actually purchase it.

Another example:
Photoshop:
Apparently if you purchase it and all of it's extensions you could be looking at 1000.00+ American.
Now I work in the business and know personally people who make an entire living off of PS. They tell me that there are people who know more than them who still have no idea what PS is totally capable of doing. Now as an enthusiast user, what use would I have for all of that?. Why should I pay $1000.00 to be able to put text and a custom border on my "FAIL" poster for the internet?. If there was a 20 or 30 dollar PS that offered those options I would gladly pay for it. If I needed to add layers/effects/and further usability I would be able to pay for them in increments according to my own needs.

This all points to a "new type of business model" to which Crono has eluded.
Make the main frame of your software and some of its abilities available to the masses at affordable prices. Let them then choose to upgrade in affordable increments from there on in.

The key to this would be of course, honesty in presentation, and an entirely new business model. Something I don't see the industry being willing to commit to yet. It is with this in mind that I see piracy as the result.

Too expensive

Generally shite

Treating the consumers as lambs and not being honest.

Unwillingness to adapt and change for the better.

So, while there are simple theives out there who have no excuse for what they do, there are thousands more who cry "FOUL" and treat themselves to the amount of software they need to achieve what they can without being penalised hundreds of dollars for what they don't need.

sgtfly said:
I guess I can say I'm a simple guy, I don't try to over think or analyze things. I feel something's either right or wrong and try do the right thing. I'm sure most of us feel the same way (at least I hope so), that's why I said what I said in my last post.

Am I the only one who majorly disagrees with this? I think there are spectacularly few things that are cut and dry right or wrong. But that's for another discussion.

I pirated nearly everything for a damn long time. For context, I'm 19 (20 in 5 days). I remember when Napster came out and my dad spent hours downloading ancient files of Doctor Demento and all sorts of old music he couldn't find anymore. As in, this stuff was only practically available online. Then of course the shitstorm began, and as a young kid the impression I got was there was a miraculous tool out there that let you find all sorts of stuff you wouldn't be able to, and record companies are trying to shut it down. That message was hammered into me pretty strongly.

I still have huge issues with paying for music in many respects. I find the whole industry so pathetically rigid in adapting to change (PS read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig) and it seriously pisses me off. I like supporting artists, but I'm not paying $20 for that CD. It's an intense load of bullshit. That being said, I buy music all the time from local artists I go see, and on kickstarter.com I've pitched money to start some musician's projects. In essence, when I know that I'm giving my money directly to the creative people who are making the project happen, I gladly give them my money. While the RIAA is still suing 12 year old girls I'm not supporting those idiots.

Software/Games I pirated for a long time - then I got a full time salaried job 8 months ago to save for university, and with the extra cash on hand I've paid for every piece of software I've acquired since then. I do support that, although I admit I haven't bought anything from certain groups. Example: My uncle lent me his Crysis DVD so I could play it and on the disc it said "Do not make illegal copies of or lend this disc". Fuck. That. Shit.

I think there are few people who outright refuse to pay for digital stuffs, and that's evidenced by how well companies who decide to adapt to changing technology instead of stubbornly and douche-ishly digging in their heels are doing.

/2 cents

You know there is one thing nobody has brought up yet. Now the analogy of software being stolen is the same as say a car is not quite a good comparison. Each and every car is built one at a time and sold that way. A computer program is built once and copied millions of times by the owner, using their own PC's. Saying someone stole their hard work is stretching it a little bit. I am NOT saying they deserve some monies for their effort but here again I fall back on my "You cannot miss what you never had"

Its an area I am unsure has a simple solution.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Juim said:
Photoshop:
Apparently if you purchase it and all of it's extensions you could be looking at 1000.00+ American.
Now I work in the business and know personally people who make an entire living off of PS. They tell me that there are people who know more than them who still have no idea what PS is totally capable of doing. Now as an enthusiast user, what use would I have for all of that?. Why should I pay $1000.00 to be able to put text and a custom border on my "FAIL" poster for the internet?. If there was a 20 or 30 dollar PS that offered those options I would gladly pay for it. If I needed to add layers/effects/and further usability I would be able to pay for them in increments according to my own needs.

This all points to a "new type of business model" to which Crono has eluded.
Make the main frame of your software and some of its abilities available to the masses at affordable prices. Let them then choose to upgrade in affordable increments from there on in.

Exactly, it's always nice to have 'free', 'lite' 'pro' and 'ultra' versions of software at their respectable prices, because then you'll get the exact functionality that you need and none of the extra crap that you'll never use.

I have photoshop but have never truly used more then 25% of it's potential. Why? Because the only times I actually use it are for tools that don't exist in Paint.NET, exist in photoshop and photoshop's tool is perfect for the application.

Okay using the photoshop example why not use adobes photoshop express? Its free - however you have to register with "the man". Theres also GIMP shop (which strains to be the same layout as photoshop) which is free as well.

I just find it hard to justify pirating a piece of software for smaller needs when theres a fully free alternative(s) out there. You can tell me that GIMP isn't something a tech savvy person is going to know about, but if the person is going to the length downloading a cracked photoshop from torrents then they are fully capable of typing "photoshop alternatives" into google.

You know it's really surprising that companies still act this way ... they're aware of the problem and possible solutions and have even shown interest in different types of approaches.

EA, for the Sims 3 released a 40% or so (equating to a 5 hour demo!) version of the game on torrent sites. Once you got about 5 hours or so into the campaign the game would say, "Thank you for your interest, would you like to purchase the full game?" and had the ability to unlock the rest of the game right then and there. To note ... Sims 3 is the best selling PC game of all time. Gee, wonder why.

Photoshop is one of those cases where they're focused on large companies. I honestly don't think Adobe expects average users to pay their ridiculous license fees. (But they'll still try to stop you) They KNOW it's overpriced, but businesses ... well they pay for anything. (Business managers seem to tend to PREFER paying an arm and a leg for something they don't even need). And that's primarily Adobe's market. Schools, Studios, etc. Individual people can use Elements, or whatever.

It's, obviously, very silly. In terms of alternatives, just to note, Gimp has all the same tools PS has, but a more difficult interface. Which should be changing this year. Some of the tools even work better than Photoshop's versions (such as the lasso tool. Adobe can't make that thing function right to save their lives ... GIMP has a smart hybrid which will act polygonal if you just click spots, and will be freeform if you drag it, making it so you can combine the two. GIMP's pen tool is much more difficult to use, though. And the layer system makes no sense)

The fact of the matter is that ... what's REALLY going on is that companies want you to shovel whatever shit they feed you, and then complain that you're stealing from them if they make something terrible. They're just going to use the cry and scream tactic until people bend to their will ... I just hope customers stop doing it.

You know, don't buy the triple dipped BluRays because they slowly release the features you ACTUALLY wanted the third time .... but never make a compilation of all the features (because that wouldn't make bleed you dry business sense)

The entire business model is silly because it's unsustainable and now that it's not actually working anymore, they're complaining that everyone is stealing their stuff ... while making record profits. Cry me a fucking river.

My entire original point was ... I feel that piracy is more indicative of a problem with the product, how it's delivered, priced, or marketed rather than its customer-base. I wasn't inferring that people shouldn't pay for things or anything like that.

However, we've slowly been getting less for our money in a squeeze-em-dry campaign ... and the usual solution is to abandon your market and pursue a new one. Then dupe a whole new group of people (who will be far less loyal). It's the standard wall street blow it up then cut and run money making technique ... and, it's getting to the point in our society that this behavior, inside ALL markets, is started to not just hurt our economy but bring it crumbling down.

All of this matters in an interconnected way and it all leads back to ideology.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

omegaslayer said:
Okay using the photoshop example why not use adobes photoshop express?

I believe you are missing the point entirely.

Crollo said:

omegaslayer said:
Okay using the photoshop example why not use adobes photoshop express?

I believe you are missing the point entirely.

I know you haven't been here very long but its criminal here at Snarkpit to make a claim like that without saying how/why/where or when. You could be strung up by your scrotum. I'd advise you remedy this deficit.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Crollo said:
I believe you are missing the point entirely.

I dont believe I am. I think YOU missed the point I made.

Crollo said:
Exactly, it's always nice to have 'free', 'lite' 'pro' and 'ultra' versions of software at their respectable prices, because then you'll get the exact functionality that you need and none of the extra crap that you'll never use.

You said you want a free version of a program that fullfills your basic needs for photoshop tools: therefore theres photoshop express.

Crollo said:
I have photoshop but have never truly used more then 25% of it's potential.

If you only use 25% of the full programs potential then go with express version instead of pirating the full version. Thats what I've been saying this whole time.

Maybe im misunderstanding what you were saying in the end because of the oddly-worded sentence here:

Crollo said:
Because the only times I actually use it are for tools that don't exist in Paint.NET, exist in photoshop and photoshop's tool is perfect for the application.

As in which application are you referring to?

And thanks orph.

See... Scrotum squashage from being suspended there from.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I think in this case, it appears Photoshop Express doesn't even offer a legitimate image editing suite. It's mostly for people who want to fix minor things with photos.

The main cost for Photoshop full being things like paths, channels, and filters. It's understandable if someone said that Photoshop Express was not a viable alternative. (GIMP is, however and you don't need GimpShop, that utterly garbage package to make it act more like PS. Outside of how layers work, the multiple windows, and the slightly different modifier keys, you can make it look and act like photoshop just by adjusting the in-software settings)

Anyway, I think that's what he was getting at. It's NOT actually a viable alternative to their mega-expensive version (then again there IS Photoshop Elements)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Juim said:
Why should I pay $1000.00 to be able to put text and a custom border on my "FAIL" poster for the internet?

That made me laugh pretty hard I think PS got so popular simply through that line of reasoning alone.

As with my experiences.... Up until I was 16, I had pirated everything I wanted, including games. I think another factor is age. A lot of young people pirate because they don't care about or have a valued sense of ownership. I mean, there's not a whole lot you really own before you're 16. Let alone having a paying job to pay for your own stuff to begin with. I suppose that depends where you're at in the world too.

Up until CS2, I had pirated every version of Photoshop since version 7. Eventually I was able to buy my own copy of the Creative Suite 4 when my university bookstore sold the entirety of CS4 for $300.00 I thought it was worth it and a good value, considering the student license of the software had no limitations from the full copy. It even came with the x64 extended version of PS. I saved up for it for the end of that school year, and bought it. I still use it today.

From what I could tell, anyone can buy that copy. Simply walk into a college bookstore and purchase it for the discount price. No need to prove you're a student. I think the only limitation is you agree not to make commercial products using it.

As far as music goes. I have over 115GB of music (not all commercial albums) that I've collected over the years. A LOT of it comes from friends letting me have copies of it. And I reciprocate. Often times it's like trading. When I do buy music, I refrained for the longest time from ever getting it from iTunes (there are many alternatives, I know), but after they got rid of their DRM in 2008 I believe, I see no problem from purchasing from them now, which they have good deals some times for albums. Sometimes there are only albums available in Europe, to which then I may have no qualm about looking for them 'elsewhere' -Does that make me still guilty?

For instance, I was given Justice's album (cross) back in 2007 and have enjoyed it thoroughly. They just released a new single "Civilization" last week (for the first time since 2007) and I first listened to it on YouTube, and then as soon as I got home, bought it promptly for $1.50. All because I feel like I owe them. I plan to buy the whole new album when it comes out later this year. I never bought their original album, but I still enjoy (and have even remixed with my friends) their music. Should I be feeling guilty? Because I'm not. Perhaps I feel it's ok because I will purchase their new album or have always planned on it.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Oddly enough, I never shared the fascination with collecting music. I prefer cd versions. Then again, I don't have many of those either so..

I did however collect some really old radio programs when Kazaa was still popular.

I have no adverse negativity to collecting audiobooks. I fully intend to collect every one I can get my hands on. I buy some, but I get 90% of them now from my library. I'd really like to set up some form of a book swap between my online friends but finding the bandwidth at this time would make that an unreasonable activity right now.

I do have about 10 to 20 gigs worth of books methinks. That's a conservative guess. I'd be unsurprised if I actually had 100 gigs worth.

At last count I had 1,300 movie dvd's.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

omegaslayer said:
You said you want a free version of a program that fullfills your basic needs for photoshop tools: therefore theres photoshop express.

That was so far and beyond the point it's amazing you actually focused that literally on it. it's not a matter of photoshop, it's a matter of almost everything else.

If you actually went to the length as to point out alternatives for a EXAMPLE that was meant to showcase the entire industry as a whole, I believe YOU are the one missing the point.

Yes, there are free alternatives to photoshop, does that mean every single program has free alternative? Ever used the alternative? You know exactly what tools the 'alternative' has? And you think the alternative is good enough? What if the 'alternative' doesn't have a useful tool?

If I wanted 'basic needs' for photo editing, I already have a entire plethora of programs. It's called the internet. I also have a modern operating system. It's called MS PAINT.

Crollo said:
That was so far and beyond the point it's amazing you actually focused that literally on it. it's not a matter of photoshop, it's a matter of almost everything else.

Yes we were focusing on one specific point. Hence why I said using photoshop as an example.

If you actually went to the length as to point out alternatives for a EXAMPLE that was meant to showcase the entire industry as a whole, I believe YOU are the one missing the point.

I did not miss the point. I was pointing out that photoshop was a poor example to use because of its alternatives. I was never generalizing over the entire industry, you assumed I was.

Yes, there are free alternatives to photoshop, does that mean every single program has free alternative?

If its widely used, yes, theres always a mimic out there.

Ever used the alternative? You know exactly what tools the 'alternative' has?

Tools I've used im my past for alternatives: XSI (Max Maya), OpenOffice (M$ Office), Sketchup (Max, Maya), GIMP/shop (Photoshop), CDBurnerXP (Nero burning), Avg (Anti-Virus), Eclipse, netbeans, M$Visual Express (M$ Visual C#), even (lol) iTunes for CD Compilations (Nero CD making).

And you think the alternative is good enough? What if the 'alternative' doesn't have a useful tool.

I never said they were good enough, some are, some aren't. And what does it mean if the program is "good enough" or "useful." Is it whatever happens to be the industry standard? Mostly. 5 Years ago the standard for 3D modeling was Maya, before that it was 3DStudioMax, now its Lightwave3D. Whats the point? What we call "good" or "useful" is what ever the majority of the industry is using. It may be photoshop now, but in 2 years will apple release a better product? Unlikely because of the monopoly Adobe has, but hopefully the point will be gotten across in the perspective of "the entire industry". But i've side tracked a bit, let me get back to my main point:

These alternatives are better choice to use over the (risky) process of pirating software. If you need the full version with all its features then pirate it by all means. I do the same (can't live without pro version of M$ Visual C#). However you agreed with Juim that a 20-30$ version would be suitable for simple needs. My response was to Juim (not you) that Photoshop is a poor example because of the Free (express) and cheaper solution (Elements) that are obtainable for "basic" needs.

I say risky because of the:
-"cracks" you must go through to get it working.
-The corruption of the software companies feed to the torrents (im sure crono will comment on this).
-The viruses that can come with executables that "hackers" inject - I've done computer repair for 3 years, THIS is where the NASTY viruses come from, the ones that steal your identity and truly crash your system.
-And even the legal ramifications, although unlikely they will occur for now, but software companies are lobbying our government for anti-net-neutrality laws because of (in part) piracy (im sure crono will comment on this TOO, but thats another topic in itself).

If I wanted 'basic needs' for photo editing, I already have a entire plethora of programs. It's called the internet. I also have a modern operating system. It's called MS PAINT.

And just so I quote your entire post so no-one can say im quoting out of context.

Don't get me wrong though I pirate stuff that I need, I just weigh the risks/benefits. However if I can find a free/cheap alternative to my needs then I would do it. I don't need to feed my ego to tell my friends that I have CS5 when GIMP will get the job done.

omegaslayer said:
I did not miss the point.

Actually, you did as a matter of fact.

Crollo said:

omegaslayer said:
I did not miss the point.

Actually, you did as a matter of fact.

I think you'll have to do better than that. Come on.

French Toast said:
[quote=Crollo][quote=omegaslayer]I did not miss the point.[/quote]

Actually, you did as a matter of fact.

I think you'll have to do better than that. Come on.[/quote]

He started off alright but went off on a tangent that didn't really prove his point as much as proving Omegas point. At least that was how I interpreted it. I can bet I wasn't the only one either.

I think that's why he fell back on his original short reply.
Mayhap he won't uphold Snarkpit standards.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Crollo said:
Actually, you did as a matter of fact.

Good reply. I wonder if I Should have put in a too-long-didn't-read tag?

omegaslayer said:

Crollo said:
Actually, you did as a matter of fact.

Good reply. I wonder if I Should have put in a too-long-didn't-read tag?

Your signature could use a bit of wisdom like this bud.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.