StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mad wrote:First, that same logic can be applied to plagiarism. Do you consider it wrong to steal somebody's essay and pass it off as your own? The other person isn't getting hurt, it's just that you didn't have time to write your own essay. If you don't write the essay, nobody gets hurt except yourself. If you grab an essay someone else already got a passing grade off of, and don't get caught (and they don't know about it, anyway), then nobody gets hurt. Therefore, regardless of what you do, the original author isn't hurt, so it must be okay. Right? (Problem is... I'm afraid you might actually agree that plagiarism is okay...)

Incorrect. Others DO get hurt because your grade goes up and you are afforded rights and priveleges that you havent earned IN PLACE OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO DID.

Second, there are other ways for you to obtain the software legally. Asking the right people at the right time or getting a part-time job doing something mundane can help land you a legit copy. Obtaining an illegal copy isn't the only way to aquire something you desire.

This is true. Can't argue with that. I was merely saying that all things being equal (starting monies and ending monies) noone is loosing out and it is thus not morally wrong because noone is harmed.

kojikun, why do you feel it's necessary to justify stealing? Do it because you want what you steal, not because you found some philisophical loophole in society. You're not kidding anybody.

Vertigo1 wrote: If I can't pay for photoshop, so I download it off of kazaa....HOW IS THAT NOT THEFT?! ADOBE IS NOT GETTING MONEY OFF OF A PRODUCT YOU WOULD'VE PURCHASED.

Photoshop is crap. That's why I downloaded it off Kazaa and tried it out
then promptly deleted it. Give me my Jasc Paint Shop Pro 7 any day
(and yes I paid full price for PSP 7 - I tried the trial version of PSP7, liked it so much I bought it)

kojikun wrote:Incorrect. Others DO get hurt because your grade goes up and you are afforded rights and priveleges that you havent earned IN PLACE OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO DID.

I only said a passing grade. We'll say an average passing grade, from an average paper. You can't hurt other people very much that way, since those who really benefit are still those who score well above average.

Can't argue with that. I was merely saying that all things being equal (starting monies and ending monies) noone is loosing out and it is thus not morally wrong because noone is harmed.

So a relatively poor person can morally obtain more software than someone who works hard and is paid enough so that he can afford some high-priced softare as long as he doesn't splurge all the cash on other luxeries?

Robert Treder wrote:kojikun, why do you feel it's necessary to justify stealing? Do it because you want what you steal, not because you found some philisophical loophole in society. You're not kidding anybody.

im not looking to steal because i found a loophole. i download whatever i download because i dont have the money right now to pay for it.

Mad wrote:I only said a passing grade. We'll say an average passing grade, from an average paper. You can't hurt other people very much that way, since those who really benefit are still those who score well above average.

You're still cheating someone who is more deserving out of something they earned. This is very different than downloading a song.

So a relatively poor person can morally obtain more software than someone who works hard and is paid enough so that he can afford some high-priced softare as long as he doesn't splurge all the cash on other luxeries?

I'm saying that its not morally wrong for someone who can't pay for it to download it.

If you can't aford it, it isn't stealing?What fucking great logic.
What utter bullshit. You sir are a thief, and a liar as well.
Lie to yourself, but don't lies to us.

It ain't yours. You took it without permision, or payment. THEFT.

Don't do it if it bugs you, but own up to it if you do it.I steal pencils and pens from work, but rationalise it as trivial. I admit to thievery though.
Redifining theft is cowardly.
The gyrations of doublethink upset most to watch, juxtaposed with your moral outrage. (I DESERVE to steal, (it's not REALY stealing) cuz I can't aford it and I want it REAL bad!)

im not looking to steal because i found a loophole. i download whatever i download because i dont have the money right now to pay for it.

Right, and I drive off in stolen vehicles because I don't have enough money to pay for them.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Don't do it if it bugs you, but own up to it if you do it.I steal pencils and pens from work, but rationalise it as trivial. I admit to thievery though.
Redifining theft is cowardly.
The gyrations of doublethink upset most to watch, juxtaposed with your moral outrage. (I DESERVE to steal, (it's not REALY stealing) cuz I can't aford it and I want it REAL bad!)

I already said I'm taking shit without permission. But its not hurting anyone so I don't feel bad about it. I buy CDs if I listen to the stuff for any worthwhile amount of time.

HemlockGrey wrote:Right, and I drive off in stolen vehicles because I don't have enough money to pay for them.

How many times are you retards going to use that arguement? Stealing a CAR prevents its owner from using the car, stealing a song, prevents nothing.

So, theft is determined by the amount, not the deed?
Glad to see you fess up if only reluctantly.
Most people steel all the time, pens, paper, internet time on the clock.

The amount of theft only changes the DEGREE of wrong, not the wrongness.
Like talking back to your parents shows disrespect, but that you live under their rules shows the bigger part of the picture.
The degree of wrongness has more to do with wheather the crime is actionable. Many crimes are too small to be actionable, (worth the time to investigate, and prosecute) but still wrong.
Just keep your eyes open, and admit the small wrongs you do. Getting huffy when wrong is the sign of smallness.
NOBODY likes a hypocrit, including you.

There is no graceful way to be wrong, stop trying to look good.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:So, theft is determined by the amount, not the deed?
Glad to see you fess up if only reluctantly.
Most people steel all the time, pens, paper, internet time on the clock.

No, its determined by the impact it has on the person the stuff is taken from.

There is no graceful way to be wrong, stop trying to look good.

I was arguing the morality of taking something if it does not harm those youre taking it from. I'm not denying that its immoral for someone to make copies of music or CDs then SELL them to someone else, because that money theyre getting COULD go to the artists and THAT is wrong.

Real quick, I'd note that an RIAA supported on-demand internet radio source (yes, WITH advertisements between x number of songs) would be very very useful. I would listen to that, fuck downloading. I don't care where I get my music, or whether its ad-supported or not, I actually enjoy the ads. They just dont have something like that yet.

So steeling from rich people is ok, because the amount of theft will not impact them.
This just gets better and better.
So, only steel from the rich, in amounts they never notice, and it's ok.

Give it up man, if you can admit it is theft, it is wrong, end of story.

The MAGIC ME, strikes again.

It's ME, so it is different.
Get off it, you're getting deeper, and deeper.
You will not look good in this thread, now matter how you twist.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:So steeling from rich people is ok, because the amount of theft will not impact them.
This just gets better and better.
So, only steel from the rich, in amounts they never notice, and it's ok.

I believe I already stated that they wouldn't be getting money, ANYWAY. Theres no loss of revenue. When I get money, I buy, so they DO get money from me when I have it.

BTW, when did you get the new screenname? I thought I saw you posting with the old one pretty recently.

I got the name changed about 2 weeks ago. It was what I wanted, I just goofed up when registering here. The double joke, is that Emperor Chrostas the Cruel was my alter ego before I even used the net, and it was just one character too long to fit. Emperor, Lord, Grand Moff, ect.., are quite aplicable to this genre.


My favourite royal name, is King Figurehead the Worthless, puppet plenipotontiary extraordinare, incompetus magnus, grandious illusionarious.

I have to admit, "Hey, Crue!" is very functional, though.
Short, and to the point.

Well, I have a um... W2K CD that isn't legal- my sister obtained it from who knows where. My cousin gave me this computer w/o installing an OS, though he offered to install XP. My Win98 CD is warez, since I broke my original, but that's legal since I have a license. Came with the CIH virus on it though. Computer upstairs has warez Office XP, but that's not mine.

So essentially the only warez I use (will, since I haven't installed 2k yet, running linux) is W2K, which I might buy when I can get a summer job, assuming I don't get yelled at for wasting money. I suppose I could use Win98, so it would be "less" immoral, but *shrug*. I hate MS anyway, and only have that space reserved on my HDD for compatibility, since Linux is now my main OS.

Then there's the warez game pile which I don't use and should promptly destroy... then again those are so old they count as abandonware... still not legal.

For my music collection which is <40 songs, most of it is from the radio, but I don't have a radio with an output connector to record. I should try to get used to MP3.com stuff, which is legal.

The argument that the RIAA's stuff is crap is BS though. If it's crap, why are people DLing it?

Geez- if software is >5 years old, it should be free, but *shrug*.

Oh, and Jodo, is the gov't still lax on warez in China?

Kojikun, stop trying to deny warez is immoral. Just admit it.

The difference between warez and the plagiarism analogy:

there are often a limited number of places for passing grades and essays are often graded comparatively. (i.e. the same guy would score higher in a poor class than in a good class)

Even if this weren't the case, having everybody pass would cause a glut of graduates, making the search for employment more difficult for those who obtained their cert. legitimately--the value of their cert. goes down.

In the case of warez, you aren't cheating somebody else out of their copy, and the software won't degrade in quality or utility because of warez.

Exactly my point Jodo. Plagiarism gives you a leg up in life that you would not have had, while warez changes absoluetly nothing except your enjoyment.

And this is why I'm using Linux...

No, warez is theft pure and simple. I download tons of warez and mp3s, but I don't lie to myself that it is not stealing.

The argument "I'll pay for it later" is just horrible and deceitful at best. If you are trying to use the concept of an IOU, you're forgetting that it is a two-way deal. The person you're taking from should give CONSENT and enter into the agreement that they'll let you sample their product upon which time you will reimburse them.

The people who ripped the programs or mp3s are violating copyright laws by duplicating them for non-personal use and distribution. You are accepting those illegally distributed goods. Granted, you are not the one doing the ripping, but you are still contributing to the companies net loss in revenue.

And you ask yourself "so what? They have so much goddamn money it doesn't hurt them." No? What if their revenues slip enough that a shop has to close because too many people are getting their programs for free? You've just put people out of a business. Companies cut back on CD productions and don't need that many people on the workline. People out of a job. A startup company in bad need of cash doesn't make any because people don't buy their program, people just take it.

Don't try to justify it with half-assed ill conceived "I promise reimbursement" lies.

trytostay: that has been a 5% reduction in CD sales over the past half decade. We also are in an economic recession so CD sales are expected to drop. There is no loss of revenue. I know for one that I buy more CDs now that I listen to downloaded songs then I ever did before. Why? Because now I know what there is out there, whereas without MP3s I don't know who sounds like what, or anything. (mind you, I listen to stuff that isnt on MTV or the radio)

I don't deny that its stealing, but im not harming anyone. And I don't just promise reimbursements, I provide them.

And again the moral argument hinges on the all important point that you COULDN'T AFFORD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Hence no loss to the company.

JodoForce wrote:And again the moral argument hinges on the all important point that you COULDN'T AFFORD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Hence no loss to the company.

Which is BS since they loose the money that would've been paid for a legitmate copy. Why? Because you (not you in particular Jodo, just a hypothetical warez user) didn't pay for an actual copy, therefore the company doesn't get the money, lowering sales figures, which ultimately hurts both you (the consumer) and the devs. The whole "I can't pay for it right now, so I'll download it, and it won't hurt anyone" arguement is a bunch of bullshit.

Vertigo1 wrote:

JodoForce wrote:And again the moral argument hinges on the all important point that you COULDN'T AFFORD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Hence no loss to the company.

Which is BS since they loose the money that would've been paid for a legitmate copy. Why? Because you (not you in particular Jodo, just a hypothetical warez user) didn't pay for an actual copy, therefore the company doesn't get the money, lowering sales figures, which ultimately hurts both you (the consumer) and the devs. The whole "I can't pay for it right now, so I'll download it, and it won't hurt anyone" arguement is a bunch of bullshit.

I for one support that arguement.

If I'm never going to buy the software and I get the chance to download it. I fail to see how anyone is hurt. They won't be loosing any money off me because I got it for free. Since I wasn't going to buy it in the first place even if I had the money

Specialist wrote:If I'm never going to buy the software and I get the chance to download it. I fail to see how anyone is hurt. They won't be loosing any money off me because I got it for free. Since I wasn't going to buy it in the first place even if I had the money

There's one scenario at least where harm can come of this, and to you at that. For anyone who gets their living from doing something with software (be it writing for a living, like authors, or producing computer art or whatever), and they use warez to do that, they'll have no end of deep shit if that happens. And for all the rationalizations and everything, it is still stealing.

I've a couple of friends who have downloaded some software in order to learn to use them and deleted them afterward, so that they have gained skills which allow them to find employment, so that they can actually buy the software if they really want to use it on their own time too.

Edi

kojikun wrote:Exactly my point Jodo. Plagiarism gives you a leg up in life that you would not have had, while warez changes absoluetly nothing except your enjoyment.

Warez doesn't give you a leg up in life that you wouldn not have had? How about getting something for free? Is that not a leg up?