More on Warez

: I hate this prissy, holier than thou attitude that people : get when mentioning warez, this is the bottom line, if : you dont like using warez, or dont condone it, just dont use : warez, dont *** and moan when others use it or post listz of : sitez. Grow up. And dont tell me that warez users drive up the prices : either, thatz total horse shit. Any decent title makes a profit : soon after release and after that its a cash cow for the distrubutor : PS, Ibought my copy of N1, N2, NFS, NFS2, and ICR2 so dont label me a : troll, other titles....

I hear you, Saro. Rae

> : And dont tell me that warez users drive up the prices > : either, thatz total horse shit. Let's see...You attend the University of Florida, so I'm to assume that the school has an Economics program? Tip: next time you're near where these classes are held, stop by for a little chat with one of the professors there...Explain your view that pirated software in no-way drives up the cost of software in general. When he stops laughing, stop by Buisiness Admin and chat about ethics... -- Marc J. Nelson The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com/ Extinct Track Archive - http://www.simproject.com/eta/

> And don't forget the Dean of Spelling. LOL!...I was going to mention it, but as most know, *I'm the last one* to be pointing out spelling errors! ;) -- Marc J. Nelson The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com/ Extinct Track Archive - http://www.simproject.com/eta/ * Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

Let me say ... I've never used warez or downloaded pirated software off the net. Not that I'm so pure but downloading 20+ Mb of software on my 28k modem doesn't exactly thrill me. However I have used software 'borrowed' from friends, which is a similar thing in my opinion. I think there's some honest value and integrity in this practice. Invariably, whenever I have liked the program I've bought a genuine copy. Again this isn't due to some kind of high ground value system but simply more to do with wanting my own genuine box/manual/CD etc. More of a childish territorial possessive thing I suspect. In the other case, whenever I didn't like a piece of borrowed software I deleted it from my system as I don't like my hard drive space taken up with stuff I don't use or don't like. In this way the using of non-purchased software has been more of a free test run in my case, and I suspect in lots of cases. I feel this is OK because of the many claims by so many manufactures about their products that simply are not true. Everything from how stable their programs run, to the hardware it needs, to the quality of the features etc. So many software companies have gilded the lily so heavily that the stem has bucked and broken under the weight of their 'lies'. Politicians say anything, used car sales people say anything, and software companies say anything. The only way you can have any idea about what you're buying is to try before you buy. Ultimately only the dishonest politician, car seller, or software company has anything to fear from this approach. I see that some countries have laws that allow buyers to take software back if its unsatisfactory. In Australia once you've walked out the door with it its your problem, such is the weakness of our politicians over here. For these reasons I have complete symphony for anyone who would like to test an item before they pay for it. I vaguely recall I once read an article, several years ago in fact, where someone from a major software company ( was it Lotus ? ) was asked, among other things, why they didn't use any kind of copy protection for their very popular programs when many other smaller companies used all kinds of devices, from requiring the original disc to be inserted to providing codes from manual pages etc. They answered that nothing really worked anyway. Also their research found that it inconvenienced and irritated their genuine customers. The guy also said they had researched the very point and found the practice of people giving out copies of their products to friends etc actually helped promote their programs. They found that sooner or later the illegal users often bought their own genuine copy, which they may not have done if they hadn't already tried it. As to the argument that using pirated software reduces a manufactures profit - I don't think it's as plain a case as it appears. Certainly the professional software pirate who mass produces software for reselling is a real criminal and profit reducer but that's not the scenario here and certainly not something I support at all. Here we're talking about an individual who acquires a copy of a program for their own use without any intention of making money from it. So what are the possibilities ? 1) If I buy a copy of a program and am disappointed with it I invariably sell it off 2nd hand to get some of my money back. In this case the company has sold one copy. It looses the sale to the 2nd hand buyer who might never have paid full price anyway. 2) If I don't buy or sell such a copy then my 2nd hand buyer will have to buy their own new copy or forget about it. In this case the company at best sells one copy and at worse sells none. 3) If I 'borrow ' a copy and like it and so buy my own genuine copy. In this case the company sells one copy. 4) If I borrow a copy, and like it, and decide I'll happily continue to use the borrowed copy without ever buying a real copy. This is the only case where a sale is missed. But does this happen that often ? All my friends and I have our own copies of the software we like. Regardless of whether the first contact with such software was borrowed or not. 5) Someone lends me a copy of something that I would never have been interested in the first place. Only because I get it for free do I even try it. To my surprise I like it and go out and buy my own copy. This has actually happened at least a couple of times. A sale is made that would never have happened otherwise. 6) Similar to 5). I might try out a program out of idle curiosity or whatever that I would never pay the price of. If I don't like it it'll soon be off my system anyway. But occasionally I might actually be surprised and like the item and buy one. Again a sale that would never have happened otherwise. Like the guy said in that long ago interview, I think its quite possible that program proliferation by any means generally results in overall more sales for the makers.

: This is my exact point... : in my original post , i mentioned that I do buy several titles, : including N1, N2, ICR2, etc, What I do is download a warez game : and try it out, and if I like it, I ususally buy it due to the fact : that most warez games arent full versions or dont include videos. : I think a fact that is overlooked is the fact that warez might actually : HELP software manufacturers, due to the fact that it stimulates : interest in a product and may facilitate the purchase : of a particular title. NO I do not condone people who mass produce and : sell warez, to make a proft, IMHO that is just asking to get thrown in : jai. but the causal warez user should not be treated as a criminal. : and to the people who replied earlier, yes I can Spell, LOL. : what the *** was that all about, if you dont have a legitimate : argument shut the *** up. and I may just ask my business college : what they think of the effects of parating on companies profits, i would : like to know the real answer myself. Although I am pretty sure I am : right. :

Troy "The Kid" wrote, What you do IS illigal, so you ARE a criminal. Even if you buy it later. Well, You still cann't spell. (neither can I) Warez DOES NOT help software manufactors. (Lets face it, you'll buy GPL anyhow) You are a criminal. Errrr....where are you right? Remco

<snip>

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Well, > You still cann't spell. (neither can I) > Warez DOES NOT help software manufactors. (Lets face it, you'll buy > GPL anyhow) > You are a criminal. > Errrr....where are you right? > Remco

I'm afraid I agree. Regardless of how you justify it, obtaining something that someone is selling without paying for it is wrong. You can have the best of intentions, it is still just as wrong. And the sentence where they wrote "and if I like it, I ususally buy it due to the fact that most warez games arent full versions or dont include videos. " is just pathetic. This translates to: "I still buy the game if the warez version sucks" Again, I have read plenty of people doing a great job of justifying it, but supporting the warez people who, for the most part, are NOT going to buy a game but just thrill in the illegal trade of games is wrong. You cost all of the consumers of that game money. Uh, that would be me...

Hi Phillip, I like this idea, but why not put the royalty fee on to the medium specifically intended for copying? What you've outlined assumes certain things, including that a predetermined number of consumers will eventually, but may not intentionally, make illegal copies of said item. However, puting the royalty fee on blank tapes and CD's, recording equipment, and maybe even pencil and paper rightly assumes something will be "copied" to this medium. Call it insurance... The whole point is that by placing the fee on the equipment, you're no longer labeling the average CD-consumer as a potential pirate, at least not to their face.<g> Cheers! Marc > What eventually has come to pass is that a royalty fee is added to the > price of every blank cassette tape sold in Australia. [snip] -- Marc J. Nelson The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com/ Extinct Track Archive - http://www.simproject.com/eta/ * Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

This raises the whole issue of copyright on easy to reproduce material. The form of the original medium really doesn't matter. Books, magazines, cassettes, music CDs, floppy disks, data CDs, etc, whatever. Many people may not realize that its actually illegal to simply lend someone a copyrighted book or magazine. Yet how many of us lend books etc to one another all the time? Its also illegal to copy by any means any material from magazines, books, or newspapers etc. Yet how many of us do this all the time. If you're going to cry foul specifically about a particular form of copyright infringement then you may be exposing yourself to claims of being a hypocrite, and rightly so. How can you claim that your particular form of copyright infringement is less of an offence than someone else's? You can't and maintain integrity. So what's the solutions? We can simply accept than a certain amount of copying inevitably will go on and so factor such into our equations as a normal facet of being in a publication business. We could rely more and more on tracking technology so that eventually everything a person owns, hears, sees, or smells, is listed in a global data bank - disallowing access by and/or pouncing on anyone who appears to have access to a non-cleared item for their ID. I suspect the latter will regretfully be more the case as time goes by. ( Someone once wrote than an ounce of freedom is worth a pound of accountability in any language. But I fear the money monsters of the world will/have adopted the axiom that an ounce of individual freedom for someone else generally means a potential bottom line negative for themselves. Alas and sigh etc. ) There is one approach I know of that actually sounds like a fair compromise. Like all compromises it isn't fair in every aspect for every party but I think its not bad. In Australia the problem existed where people would borrow others' music CDs, records, cassettes, etc and record the music onto blank cassettes. ( I'm sure this happens everywhere and has gone on since personal tape recording devices were invented ). This of course robbed the copyright holders of their rightful revenue. It seems impossible to police. Its hard enough to get a permit to search a persons house if there are grounds for suspecting them of being a drug dealer. To search a private citizens effects or house because they are a suspected music copier would never be allowed by any politician who had a desire to be reelected. What eventually has come to pass is that a royalty fee is added to the price of every blank cassette tape sold in Australia. This goes into a royalty fund. Periodically this fund is dispersed proportionally to the copyright holders of the known music sales for the relevant period - the reasonable assumption being that the mix of the music illegally copied would reflect the mix of music bought in the normal way in the same period. The assumption wouldn't be perfect of course and some folks who buy blank cassettes may be using then for entirely non-copyright-infringement purposes. But overall I think it's not a bad solution. If you transferred this approach to computer mediums then I suppose there'd be a royalty fee on every floppy disk, recordable CD, and perhaps even hard drives themselves. The resulting royalty fund to be divided in a similar way as the music royalty fund above. These aren't perfect solutions I know. But perhaps they'd go some way in solving the problems that everyone complains about. Publishers complain about lost income. End users complain about not being able to try before they buy. I think that basically everyone wants to be treated fairly and with respect. Under this system the producers would still get revenue for their popular items, while the end user also feels able to try before they buy to protect their reasonable interests. I for one would be happy to pay a bit extra on the price of recordable mediums if it meant I could freely test out software before I bought it. Phillip McNelley

> This raises the whole issue of copyright on easy to reproduce > material. The form of the original medium really doesn't matter. > Books, magazines, cassettes, music CDs, floppy disks, data CDs, etc, > whatever. > Many people may not realize that its actually illegal to simply lend > someone a copyrighted book or magazine. Would you care to back that notion up with a citation from ANY country's laws? (I'd obviously prefer a citiation in the English language, but I have a feeling you'll have such a hard time finding any cite for it, that I wouldn't demand it...) Do you have libraries where you live? Are the police routinely raiding them? :) I'm only familiar with US law, but there are wide exceptions in US copyright law for "fair use" and "archival" purposes. ---Jim

If I was paying a surcharge on every hard-drive I bought for all the illegal copies I was expected to store on it, I would feel that I had also bought the right to make illegal copies, having already paid something for them. It's just a twisted proposition. rob. <snip> <snip> <snip>

Yes it isn't perfect. But as was decided in Oz, in the end its the only way to gather at least some revenue from what are otherwise un-policeable laws. The music industry here agreed to it and as far as I'm aware no one has suggested it has failed as a concept or are asking for its repeal. It certainly does beg the question, if I have paid a royalty surcharge then am I legally entitled to copy what I please. I don't know how this has been addressed in the act, if at all. I don't have nor have I read a complete copy of the act. My knowledge about the matter comes entirely from the popular media. Its an interesting point and I suppose if I was more keen about the area I'd get a copy of the bill to see the detail. I'm not that interested, as it happens, and have mentioned it here simply as a case in point about how a particular case of copyright infringement was addressed by what seems a reasonably workable system, as opposed to un-policeable systems that are honored more in the breach than in the compliance. Cheers Phillip McNelley

Quoted text (7 lines)

>If I was paying a surcharge on every hard-drive I bought for all the illegal >copies >I was expected to store on it, I would feel that I had also bought the right >to make illegal copies, having already paid something for them. It's just a >twisted proposition. >rob.

>It certainly does beg the question, if I have paid a royalty surcharge >then am I legally entitled to copy what I please. I don't know how >this has been addressed in the act, if at all. True enough - I like questions like these :-) It's like in the UK just now they're trying to extend the drink-driving laws to cover marjuana, specifying how much you are allowed to have in your body and still drive, and to develop a test for it. Thing is, how can you specify a "legal limit" for what is an illegal substance? Hmm, I'll need to keep myself just below the legal limit at all times to remain within the law :-) Cheers! John

And dont forget the Admin dept..you have to pay for that schooling. Mike Dunn

But if you get caught out, and go through the whole process of the seemingly conflicting laws, you'll be able to advise the group how these paradoxes work themselves out in real life. We would of course appreciate you sacrifice and will send you letters to help bide the time. Phillip McNelley