@sela: I completely agree with your sentiments. When one has taken the time to understand 'both camps', then most likely they'll come to the conclusion that a middle ground (such that you've proposed) should be struck to maintain all the benefits of copyright protection yet keep them in check from blowing it out of proportion.

Unfortunately some people trying to justify their unethical actions take up the similar side without actually knowing what's on stake.

That's a bad argument for an OS that ships with SMB, Remote desktop, www, ftp, telnet servers, support for AD. Leaving it up is using it. At this rate, all servers and dedicated machines would be free.

On Office, e.g., the number of install varies on edition, some allow a PC and a laptop, other up to 3 devices.

Bringing Apple into this is like bringing a gun to a match of chess.

[QUOTE=qwazix;828299]5. Why software companies are just so relaxed against piracy by individuals? Couldn't each update break the cracking methods? Usually is just a cracked exe. [QUOTE]

They do all the time. That's why updates come patched through torrents. And because most cracks also kill the auto-update.

Afraid Texrat is right on this one. It's not illegal, there's no law against it. This is something a company imposes on you and, lacking a law that says you can, they can sue for breach of terms. Also, jurisdiction couunts. I'd like to see them pull that elsewhere.

And we're back to lobby and pressure.

Huh? An even split in voting? As was said, theft is theft. Would you consider walking into a store and walking out with a boxed version?

Also, not having money is a pretty weak excuse. If the software is really important, you could save up to purchase it -- just as you would for any other product.

Entrepreneurs invest and people work hard to develop intellectual property. If you developed intellectual property, how would you feel if people who "felt they could not afford the software" pirated it?

Well its not theft and second of all it should be legal, in sweden with bahnhof you can not get caught

And second of all it should not matter if you are poor or rich... If it is legal it should be for all people and not discriminate the rich

Pirating software is illegal period... however..

If one was under the direct oppression of an unforgiving institution/government- let's say one that functions to keep their people in a completely ignorant or academically limited state- then pirating is understandable.

It is understandable for someone to pirate physics texts because they want to understand the laws of nature; and for clarification, this pirating is understandable only if the government or society they live in wants to prevent the advancement of scholarly knowledge... this kind of oppression directly limits the quality of the human experience.

In cases that are not this extreme, like most cases, pirating is not okay. I'm a financially constrained university student and I, too, am guilty of pirating several study aids/software...

When situations are not as extreme as the aforementioned, creativity must be utilized.

Im gonna catch hell for this but i dont really care .. I dont believe it to be a source of lost income because i wouldnt have bought it anyway. I dont think its stealing since there is no taking of a physical item its a copy of a copy .. movies.. music.. software...n900 apps... if it is good enough i will buy it as is evident from my 60 bluerays I have at home even tho I still download and if i see it and i think its worth the 30 bucks then yes i will purchase it.

People pay to watch a movie (we're not even talking about acquiring the dvd/bluray/digital release) for the experience; be it to see their favorite/hated actors, to look at the visuals, enjoy the plot, find out about the twist endings, or even 'just to know what everyone else is talking about'.

You just need to watch it once, to reap most of its value.

Don't tell me it's of no value to you. Why would you even bother downloading AND watching it, if you don't care about it.

I find it utterly hypocritical to say 'Hey I wouldn't pay for it anyway!', then turns around to go find a torrent/rs/nl site, queue it to download and spend the time to watch it.

BS.

And I have tried to make the split more even.

A boxed version is a material object. With material objects, theft is clearly defined. But with electronic representation, like software... By copying it, a software "pirate" doesn't take the original away from the legal owner.

If software is really liked, then the human will pay for it, sooner or later. At least, by word-of-mouth advertising.
If the human is forced to use the proprietary software because of the company's monopoly and bad practices, pirating becomes much more easier to justify.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A jocular comment:

You say:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work"
I reply:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, a pretty common case:

1. a human gets a new computer; it has a new Microsoft Windows OS on it;

2. the human doesn't like the OS at all;

3. but the computer is very good, and there is practically no legal/easy way to downgrade to previous, more acceptable version of Windows;

4. the human "pirates" the previous version of Windows;

5. the installation CD with the newer version of Windows is tossed into a box and covered with dust;

6. and later, with about 20%-30% probability, the human starts to use Linux instead of Windows.

Now, there is pirating of software clearly involved, but the human has already paid for the newer version (which he doesn't use), and he "pirated" an older (and supposedly cheaper) version. Therefore, the human has caused no financial harm to the manufacturer.

I don't pay attention to the clause "student with limited financial resources": in the case described, the pirating is entirely justified even without it.

Of course, the above-described isn't the only reason of pirating.

Some people have to upgrade their operating system and/or office suite because Microsoft haven't considered backward compatibility (if A communicates regularly with B, B pays for Microsoft Word 2007 and starts sendings docx, A tries to read it on Windows 2000, he cannot do it - at least, special formatting, like equations, is lost - and A is forced to get Word 2007, and therefore Windows XP, too; and then "limited financial resources" along with Microsoft's absence of support for older software, might force him to pirate some software).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, what's the reason people still use (and pirate) Microsoft's Word, when there is OpenOffice.org?

For many people, the reason is Word's non-standard but comfortable "MathML" equation editor. If OO had anything similar, but with Standard MathML and could save it as standard XHTML, people would enthusiastically go for it. At least, some people.

Microsoft Word has crashed a lot (often damaging the document by the way).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What's the reason people still use (and pirate) Microsoft's Windows, when there are many different flavors of Linux?

Mostly, habit. Also, some favorite programs: Word, Outlook, Internet Explorer, Media Player. When OpenOffice.org will be able to read flawlessly my old .doc and .docx documents, and save new documents as XHTML with MathML and SVG integrated, many switches to Linux might occur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry if I sound like life-long advocate of piracy of Microsoft's products.
In reality, I don't like piracy at all.
But, don't blame poor consumers for being forced by a monopolist into getting a program, even when they get it by pirating.
If you want to blame somebody, blame the monopolist (who ties the operating system with the computer, the programs with the operating system, etc) and the people who try to take a pirated copy of software and sell it as a genuine one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The theater analogy is wrong. I downloaded a copy of an MP3, I didn't sneak into a concert.

And, if I can't afford AutoCAD, and still download it and look around, exatly what has been lost? What amount of anguish have I caused? What exactly damage to others have I done to merit imprisonment or crippling fines?

If no measurable damage has been done, is it still wrong, or illegal?

So, where's the limit? Stop prople from looking at me because I have a custom haircut? No photos? Ban information we don't like? What is I inspired a book? Book burnings? What if I inspired history?

The copy was willingly shared. If someone sends me a funny pic, am I to require proof of permission before viewing it?

Where is the limit, I ask you. If I yell out in frustration, is it my yell? Are you barred from yelling out?

Did you know that silence is copyrighted? Yes, people have been sued over empty tracks, because someone already made a song that is "silence".

Did you know there is a patent application for a stick?

It's past ridiculous.

MS was laughing all the way to the bank with the release of Vista. First it forced most computer manufacturers to stick Vista on their machines and hence forcing customers to pay for it whether they wanted it or not. Then when people cannot endure the Vista torture anymore they are forced to shell out more money for some form of XP.