Slashdot Mirror
Malaysia Says Piracy (Might Be) OK for Learning
mkbz writes "a Malaysian newspaper published a story quoting Malaysia's Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, who condemned the use of pirated software for business, but also said they may turn a blind eye to piracy when it comes to education: "But for educational purposes and to encourage computer usage, we may consider allowing schools and social organisations to use pirated software." is learning more important than copyright enforcement? could each of the pirated works found in schools be written off as donations? how can this benefit both the people AND the software makers? Read the full article here."
I know my university (as well as many others in US) has to pay MS more than once for the OS (once as part of the purchase price and then a license for the site), but then again if it wasn't at a discount it take up the ENTIRE IT budget.
If there is really no other software available to do what needs to be done, and your schools honestly do not have the money to pay for it... morally, I think it's okay for the schools to just copy it, legal or not. Knowledge trumps money.
A lot of software, though... you don't really need that commercial version, you can get something free, especially in educational institutions. If all you need is office software for writing papers, then get Linux and OpenOffice, don't pirate copies of Microsoft software.
Maybe this should be common sense, but it seems like common sense really isn't all that common, especially when it comes to intellectual property issues.
WARNING:
All files contained in this ftp are for EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY and must be deleted within 24 hours. No members of any law enforcement or governmental agency or anyone affiliated with stated agencies are allowed, and you must disconnect now.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Why are they better than me? I'm a student and because I can't afford proprietary software licensing schemes, I use Linux. There are other less costly yet equal or superior systems out there. Just because you can't afford to buy something doesn't give you the right to steal it.
Students have no money to buy stuff. However, if they get a good education, they get a lot of money to buy the things that they like. Hmmm...
I'm sorry for that last comment, I had a moment of temporary insanity. Bad Malaysia. Bad. We here in the U.S. should extend our copyright terms another 90 years in retalitation!
Company A is a relatively new, but wealthy graphical effects company that does effects for commercials, promotional vidoes, and traning multimedia. They need graphic artists capable of using a new modelling and animation tool we'll call Tool B.
Tool B costs 1500 dollars and has a complex registration system that involves connecting to a registration server. (Yes, high-end tools do this.) University graphical art programs would rather use Tool C which costs $150 and a 'normal' registration system so that they can install it on more than one workstation. (1st instance of 'piracy)
Artist D knows 3d animation and modelling concepts. He's even spent a few hundred dollars on software. He is capable of doing the job for Company A, but doesn't know the tool. There is no way he can possibly afford to buy Tool B, but he *can* download it and the crack for its registration system of alt.binaries.3dtools.yadda.yadda... (2nd Instance of Piracy)
After Artist D demonstrates his mad graphic skilzz in his interview, Company A hires Artist D, justifying licensing of a new copy of Tool B at $1500 a pop. Despite 2 instances of piracy, the makers of Tool B have gotten their money and have a user who is using their tools in the industry.
The bottom line here is that because Tool B was used in an educational sense, it makes more money than it would if it weren't being used.
There are many high-end graphical tools that you can very safely plug into the 'Tool B' slot, like 3DSMax, Maya, Lightwave, and Even Photoshop/Illustrator. Despite the fact that these high-dollar tools are the most pirated pieces of software out there with the exception of games, the companies that make them are still raking in the dough. They scream and cry about 'lost sales', but they know as well as we do that if there wasn't at least some piracy of their products, they wouldn't have nearly so many business users.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Well, they might not be totally OK, but I'm sure if they had a choice about people pirating THEIR software or using FREE software, they'd go for people pirating THEIR software (they're not making any money either way, but at least their software becomes standard in the industry and school/college graduates know it since they've been using it a few years in school :-)
Didn't Bill Gates say something of that sort a few years back, like "I'd rather have them pirate our software than someone else's."
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Piracy is a interesting word, one that really can't be defined without an understanding of our democratic/capitalistic society.
.02
Copyright holders need to realize that countries that are sovereign from the US may make decisions that are not in their perceived best interests. The countries have a right to do that. If the company has a problem with that, they have two choices. 1) Play politics in that country 2) Not do business in that country. Unfortunately, the third option is often 3) get US to get pissed at that country (not necessarily playing fair, IMO).
I think this decision will ultimately have two outcomes, 1) Students will start to like using certain pieces of software (in the copyright holders interest) 2) Students will have less respect for copyrights (not in the copyright holders interest)
Just my
-Sean
If the software is for educational use - why not just charge whatever it cost to get the physical product to the user. So, if a copy of Office is being bought for educational use it costs say $10 - the price of the packaging, materials, shipping and handling. If the software is being used by a FOR-profit organization, the retail pricing applies. This allows educational institutions to legally own the software, while not 'hurting' the software company quite as bad. It would simply require selling more in the retail sector to make up for the R&D and programming costs. I do understand that you can get NFR copies of software, but even then the prices of these products are way over the physical cost of the product.
Make software more affordable and people will buy it instead of pirating it. Yes, you will still have people who insist on having a free lunch, but I think this would curtail the problem considerably.
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
In the past, I believe I have heard an AutoDesk executive comment on this in an interview about piracy. While I am sure it may not be their official position, they commented about be light on enforcement of piracy in the educational arena (for students that is) since it was getting users hooked on the software who would be legit professional users of the product after getting out of school.
It seems like many companies (at least the smart ones) have a love hate relationship with the education piracy topic. In the Java world at least, I am seeing many companies get what I believe is the best license. Free to use for development etc. but production rollout of the product or the output of a product needs a commercial use license. I know at least the Resin servlet container and Oracle's Java IDE are like that.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
I'm not sure they should even call it piracy under the circumstances. In theory at least this could be considered fair use; at least one purpose of fair use is to promote knowledge and education. I know current US case law regarding fair use would hardly uphold such an interpretation, but it is not that far-fetched.
As a Malaysian, I am ashamed to read on Slashdot that a Malaysian minister actually says that it's okay to pirate software, never mind that it's for educational purposes. Pirating software is still stealing software, no matter how you look at it.
:)
Like the Slashdotters who have posted before me, I've resorted to using Linux and other open source alternatives instead of pirated software.
Having said that, I do understand the reasons that motivate many Malaysians and other citizens of developing and third-world countries to pirate software. One of the main reasons is that commercial software is usually sold at the equivalent price of US dollars. This means that software is almost four times as expensive in Malaysia. A US$100 software sounds relatively cheap here in the US, but in Malaysia it would cost almost RM400 (RM = Ringgit Malaysia). Many individuals, educational organizations, and so forth find such prices ridiculously high. Imagine buying 10 licenses: it would cost US$1,000 here, but it'll cost RM4,000 there. Therefore they resort to pirating software.
It would be good if software companies here in the US provide alternative prices for developing countries. It's really unrealistic to expect people to pay for software at such prices. Maybe they already do that, but I don't know.. I use Linux.
Actually it would be even better if governments advocate the use of open source software. But first, open source software must get its act up as a viable alternative for commercial software. At the moment, it's not "there" yet, for many desktop applications anyway.
As tempting as it is to say "its for the children", software piracy is not really in theirs or anyone's best interest. I see the reasoning for piracy in schools; students trained in the latest/greatest software will have an advantage over those who don't. I've known several people to even pay for their college education by working as programmers/temps/etc. But by pirating what you are really doing is keeping software costs high, and possibly limiting competition.
Part of the reason we like Linux is because of its low cost. If Windows were free, however, Linux's use might wavier. Schools will immediately use the most famous choice, ignoring competition if things are free. School heads are idiots; don't expect anything from them other than the bottom line.
I think the best solution is to have government or local contributions to pay for reasonably priced software. A competitive software company will price their software reasonably if they have a large school base to purchase their software.
Really the temptation for piracy only exists because software/music/videos are not priced so that normal profit can occur. All these markets are in excess, but I think because of the danger of losing it all to piracy, smart companies will soon price things more reasonably.
I will gladly pay $20 for my operating system. I will dance with glee to spend $50 on Photoshop. I am willing to pay for software, and my community's software if priced to compete. Don't take competition out of the equation.
Rob
Already is free for non-commercial use check out their download page for details.
Its an interesting point but Maya is an example of a company that has already thought of this....
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Educational (at least publically-funded primary and secondary schools, i.e. high school) institutions frequently lack cash--so as a result, they either use pirated software (dangerous and illegal) or simply do without necessary software (i.e. half the machines don't have MS Word because they can't afford licenses for them.)
By allowing the software companies to write off software used in nonprofit institutions, they are in essence getting the same thing as if they sold the profit--only the number goes on the other end of the stack, on the debt side, and cancels a part of it. It keeps them happy (there is a simulated positive cash flow), and keeps the nonprofit organizations happy because they don't have to spend as much on licenses.
Perhaps if a large software manufactuerer were willing to announce such a policy in the United States...If you're an educational organization, catalog the number of pirated copies of Microsoft software, and send it, along with a copy of a certificate of tax excception and a signed affidavit of compliance to Microsoft Piracy...the promise being MS won't take action against you for the declared copies. Forget to declare some, and you're in trouble...
The Malaysian government has a very different stance than we have here in the US, but it seems to be one that will be beneficial for all parties involved.
That stealing is ok if the cause is deemed just?
Copyright infringement is not theft. If you steal something from me, you have it and I no longer do. If a school in Malaysia pirates a copy of Photoshop, Adobe has no fewer copies than they did before the school pirated it.
From an ethical standpoint, a more meaningful consideration is whether the school is depriving someone of revenue. In other words, are they pirating the software to avoid paying for it or are they pirating it because they are unable or unwilling to pay for it? If a 14 year old kid that gets a pirated copy of 3D Studio Max -- a $3,500 software package, who is being hurt? The publisher had no reasonable expectation that the kid could have purchased it.
Please keep in mind that the above is a discussion of ethics, not law. The law has made many ethical acts illegal. Just look at the effects of the DMCA, for instance. Or consider that it is illegal for you to exceed the posted speed limit even if you are transporting someone to the emergency room after a serious injury.
As a Free Software user, I have deep respect for copyright laws.
I expect everyone to act responsibly and condemn piracy. It is a task for government to act against software piracy. That is a way of keeping the market open and honest.
Monopolies were born from and are sustained by piracy. How do you think Microsoft software got so widespread?
The corporate world abuses the lack of government attention to software piracy in any way they see suitable to their own corporate strategy.
By not reacting against piracy, you allow a convicted monopolist to undercut competitors (Free Software in this case) on pricing. And education is a key area where finally some competition might be taking off in the near future.
But not if this minister gets away with his irresponsible deed. Maybe we should ask the BSA to react if they haven't already?
Proprietary software vendors bend over backwards to give out discounts to educational institutions. Why? Because people who become comfortable using a specific piece of software will want to buy that software later for home and work purposes. In fact, Apple's strategy for the past 20 years has been to give discounted computers to educational institutions in the hopes that this would spur consumer adoption of the Macintosh.
.Net is available for $30. At these prices, there is absolutely no incentive to pirate the software. If you can't afford $5 for Windows XP, how can you afford $8 from Linux for Cheapbytes, or the bandwidth for downloading the ISOs, the CD burner and blank CDs to burn them?
Microsoft gives ridiculously deep discounts to educational institutions. I have friends who go to Indiana University. At the bookstore there, you can pick up Windows XP Professional (no activation required) for $5. The entire 5-CD version of Visual Studio
Condoning pirated software in these cases is simply unacceptable. I find it discouraging that a government would encourage educational institutions to pirate software instead of ironing out legitimate deals with software makers.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Perhaps instead of legalizing pircay Malaysia should mandate fair and reasonable educational pricing for software sold in their country. Whether you like it or not, companies are mostly for profit and development costs must be returned. Another issue to consider is how this will create a "software welfare" system. It doesn't work for helpig people find work and food and it won't help in this situation either.
how can [piracy] benefit both the people AND the software makers?
Seems kind of unlikely, doesn't it. Perhaps if a benevolent alien race someday visits Earth and rewards the founders of those companies that allow piracy for educational purposes with a vial containing a potion of eternal youth... bet you never thought about that! (Hey, you can't prove it won't happen.)
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Microsoft and others should realize this. They can let the educational institutions run rampant with piracy if they want, and it wouldn't make much of an effect. Those who want to pirate will do so. There's not a whole lot stopping them. Those that insist on being in full compliance may do so by investigating alternatives. In the end, it makes no difference to the school. What it makes a difference to is the IP owners of the software being used.
Those students are going to use the software in school then go out into the workforce and use the software that they're familiar with. This means that employers are going to be using the software that most of the workforce is familiar with. And the corporations are much more likely to spend the cash on software than the starving college student is.
You're not going to make the money from the student or even the institution. You're going to make it from that corporation that will be spending the next 20 years buying upgrades. And when that graduate goes home from work, he's going to buy a copy to use at home. You'll lock that person in. To deny yourself that legacy by forcing the first purchase of a potential many, you risk losing all those subsequent sales, a foolish prospect indeed.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I assume any Malaysian can go to any college and university for free there?
I sure wish that's the case. I'm Malaysian and my parents worked really hard just to put me through school, college, and university. The discriminatory government didn't help either, but that's a different story.
And in case you're wondering about my views on this topic, no I don't support software piracy and I think it's wrong.
There's a catch-22 here, though. Since we're all willing to use a warez copy of expensive applications in order to get enough familiarity with them to do the work, businesses have no reason to provide training or other tool-exposure time, since we're doing it for them, even if it is piracy.
Wouldn't we be better off if businesses recognized that 3D SuperMagic Dot Net cost $5k per copy and required a testicular implant -- and thus people with the background and skills to learn the application and do the job weren't likely to walk in with those skills and should instead be exposed to a training period where they (A) learned the application in a productive fashion that helped them get productive faster?
As long as we're willing to do the industrial training businesses want ourselves, why should we expect them to hire us without work-for-pay experience?
You are stealing intellectual property by warezing, no matter who you are. You can rationalize all day and night, but at the end of the day, it's illegal here in the USA to do that. If companies want to give software for free to beginners, that's great and probably sensible, but you're not giving them the option if you just go and warez it.
Anecdote:
If you steal a Stratus from my car dealership, use it to earn money and buy a Viper, and return the Viper to me in exchange for the Stratus two years later, you've still committed a crime, whether or not the Viper is worth more and is a fair trade. Maybe I would have agreed to a deal (Stratus for Viper in two years) - but you have to give me the option, first.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Ok, first, it's not stealing, it's copyright violation. Now, if the copyright law in Malaysia is changed so that this is NOT a copyright violation, what exactly is illegal here? :)
Considered harmful.
It's a matter of public policy for govenments to decide what intellectual property protections they want to provide in their nations.
In the U.S., public policy on Copyright is embodied in U.S.C. Title 18, and derives from Article I Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The idea of piracy is peculiar, in that it assumes that the Right in question is inalienable, rather than legislatively granted by the state. Further, it derives from the concept of individual ownership, and depends from that on a right to license use.
-
The apparent public policy in Malaysia seems to achieve the goal of promoting the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, without securing *exclusive Right*, but rather by securing *some* rights.
In fact, this is *not* beneficial to the Open Source Software movement, as such.
By ensuring that schools *and social organizations* are permitted to use the software for educational purposes, they will have established an egalatarian secondary market, where price of the software is no longer a factor. In this market, the *most fit* software wins... not the *least cost*.
One of the consequences of this must be that use of Open Source Software in such situations will decline: for all the vaunted peer review and quality, it's usability that wins in this or any market.
Familiarity will also breed commercial piracy (an area where the title "piracy" is still applicable, accoding to the article), particularly in the middle margins between educational institutions and large companies (e.g. small business started by recently graduated students).
All in all, this looks to be bad for Open Source Software advocacy, and bad for commercial software comapnies.
But good for Malaysia.
And that is the purpose of public policy in Malaysia, isn't it?
-- Terry
man, the software vendors *only* lose money when someone warezes their product if it keeps them from buying that particular product. Do you honestly believe a 15 year old can afford photo-shop? Or that his parents are going to buy it for him (unless they are rich). Your analogy is seriously flawed, copying something is very different from stealing a physical product like a car.
Vending pirates take the software for free, and then sell it to others at a reduced price. Result? The company loses X potential customers, thus reducting its revenues.
Educational pirates take the software for free, but keep it to themselves just so they can learn how to use it. They wouldn't buy it anyway, but when they get a regular/greater source of income, they may purchase a legitimate copy of the software to make up for it. Result? The company will lose 1 potential customer in the short term but probably gain a customer in the long term, thus increasing its revenues a little.
Who would YOU go after?
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
WinXP is $100 for the upgrade for Pro here at JMU, VS.NET is $100 and Office XP Standard is $150 with pro being $200.
That's why on the majority of the planet, patents, trademarks & copyright comes under the civil court.
& Criminal legislation in regard to IP in the remaining countries is relatively new, since about 25 years ago.
Say with trademarks, until then you could sell fake fashion label stuff (fake Adidas Romes in the 70's) quite legally as far as the crimes act was concerned. Although Adidas could sue you for trademark infringement in the civil court. Plus the police could prosecute you for fraud if you did not inform your customers that the shoes were fakes.
It's due to corporate lobbying, about 25 years ago, that Copyright/trademark law also entered the criminal codes in the US & later elseware.
Apparently, Visual Studio .Net is 6 CDs, because it's $5 per CD.
More information.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
What crap! I understand that many people don't like Microsoft and are glad to screw them, but as a legal principal this makes no sense at all. What if you are a small company making educational software? How would you feel to suddenly hear governments discuss that maybe it was perfectly OK for your customers to steal your product?
Here's a more reasonable solution: Catch a big monopoly misusing their monopoly in the market with abuses that are clearly illegal, prove it in a trial, and rather than letting the monopoly choose their own punishment or threaten to break them into two monopolies, nationalize the bastards! Then you could give that software to any schools you want and still not muck with the copyright laws. The income could be used to lower taxes, and the extra layers of government mismanagement would help ensure that the smaller companies could compete!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
But if copyright enforcement is more important than learning, isn't the act of learning piracy in itself? Lets say you read a book and learn the concepts it's addressing. By learning, you are copying the information to your brain, and you are capable of further infringing the owner's copyright by discussing the book with people who haven't read it.
Fair use? Nah that's just a liberal attempt to legalize piracy, like marijuana, for "educational" or "medicinal" purposes.
Suggesting the possibility that learning might be more important than copyright enforcement also leaves open the possibility that copyright enforcement may be more important than learning. And if you're still thinking about this tomorrow, I'm going to sick my lawyers on you for infringing my implied copyright.
In my (left) opinion, ofcourse it's ok to use pirated software if (1) you can't afford it, but really need it - otherwise, you're in a circle you can never get out: no money, no software, no skills, no hightech-industry, no progress, no money; and (2) why would I pay the ridiculously high fees of most software packages (not only the Redmond rip-off) _before_ I use it? I'm not gonna spend $500 on some graphics suite without at least trying the software for some months. I like it, I buy it; otherwise I delete it. How can they expect us to pay these high prices, without being able to test it? I never pay before I receive the service, surely not when it's that high for something that in reality is just a $1 digital copy.
;) ), some will copy it, and some will just not care about it. The group that copies it, must have a reason: most likely, they can't afford to buy it, or maybe they don't think it's that good they will spend $20 on it - which is actually the same as not really having money.
:)
Same goes for music - how can you buy a cd without knowing you like it? Who has the money to gamble on it with the current price?
Furthermore, I play music, and I've been thinking... Imagine I make a cd. Some people will buy it (hopefully
Do I mind that those people enjoy my music? Not at all. I actually would prefer that people copy it if they can't afford it, and enjoy what I made. For free. How can I mind? If I don't allow those people to listen to my music, nobody gets anything out of it. If you really don't want or can't pay it, and like it, please, by all means, copy it. Give me at least the pleasure to know that someone likes what I do.
This is what I do too. I am a student. I download songs. The cds I really like, I have on a list. When I have money, I will pay for the cds. If I wouldn't download it, I wouldn't know it, and I would never buy it. And even if I wouldn't pay for it, maybe I pass it on to someone who does, or maybe I check out a concert of the band. Why do you make music? Only for the money?...
But, ofcourse, I am kinda leftish.
Now, this counts as much for software (I just can't explain as good as with music, because I don't really write software). You can't go to the shop and ask for something you don't know, or didn't try. So, you must try the product first. Learn it. Use it. Only then you can express your appreciation. Especially with this ridiculously high prices some programs have.
When these students graduate, they'll make money. And pay. Possibly even recommend your product. Look ahead, see it as an investment. If I would be Micro$oft, I'd give all my software away for free (except hard costs like packing and shipping) to development countries. It won't cost me a thing, because that software is made already, I don't have to do anything about it; and it's not like they will buy it anyway. That's where there's possible market growth, not in the US or Europe, those markets are pretty satisfied (that's probably why Micro$oft raises the price).
If they don't allow this 'pirating' to happen (mind, they don't really loose anything at all), free software or local companies will take the market when those countries come 'round (let's hope they do), and you've lost one of the only markets where you can still get rid of your products.
Well, at least that's my view. I wouldn't mind at all if open source philosophy in software, music etc will take over though.
Here's to rights back to consumer.
Well, maybe, as a soveriegn nation has a wide responsibility to it's citizens.
BUT this is only a reasonable choice if all other avenues are exhausted, i.e. use of free software, approaching vendors for licenses that fit the particular circumstances, etc.
If Malaysia acts totally irresponsibly in this matter, what software company is going to export to Malaysia?
You sez:
"
Alas, someone who never set foot on Malaysia has the impression that Malaysia's schools has no money.
On the contrary, the money for the schools are PLENTIFUL ! Just last week, there was a new "bill" authorizing RM 5 Billion (almost 1.3 Billion) for the schools' computer project alone.
And there were, and will be, lots of other "Billion RM bills" for the schools.
The only problem in Malaysia is, the money were squandered by the officials - in other word, massive and rampant corruptions.
If there's no corruption in Malaysia, there is NO NEED for any "Piracy is Okay for Educational Purpose" thing.
I hope the BSA in Malaysia will spearhead the anti-corruption move now, that one of Malaysia's cabinet member has given his go-ahead for software piracy.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Well it really depends how you look at things. In one country one does one thing and another one does another.
For example, drugs are illegal, death penalty is legal, carrying a machine gun is legal in the USA. In Holland drugs are legal, most other "western" countries death penalty is illegal, machine guns in most places are illegal.
Now before you say this is stealing, it depends what you consider software to be. Is it a product or is copyright. If it is a product then by American definition there must be consumer protection against defects. Oh yeah wait, if you have bugs, tough! Therefore it is not a product, but copyright. And in copyright there is a concept such as fair use and host of other issues. And copyrights are held to different levels in different countries in different settings. Just like said here, education fine, corporate usage not!
So before you start comparing that quick lets first figure out what software really is!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
1- Send money out of the country's economy buying software for students.
2- Rip off foreign software companies, spend more money on the education itself and not the software, allowing a better workforce capable of competing with external firms to develop.
Yeah, that decision is really a hard one.
While in school, I had to pirate software. I simply could not afford it, but I needed to learn it, so I bit the bullet and did it. Once I was out and working in the market, I made it a point to buy the full versions of all the software I use on a regular basis, and I'm religious about it.
I benefitted by having the software on-hand to learn with, and since I became so familiar with it, and needed it for my career, I became a repeat customer of the products. Had I not done this in the first place, I'd be slinging fries (hey, my degree is in English) and Adobe, Macromedia, etc., would be out a paying customer. It became a win-win situation.
The original poster quoted $5 to pick up Windows XP from a university but failed to state that the institution has already paid Microsoft a big license fee, granted it is at a discounted price. The license fee is ultimately paid by the students through tuition fee.
This is all well and great for students who choose to use Microsoft products, but there is no opt-out, you have to pay that percentage through tuition even if you do not use it. It's bad for OSS uses, and even worse for students who doesn't own a computer.
geek page at KY speaks
Using proprietary software even if it is free, "Free" or what ever still leaves you dependent.
Oh pllllllluuuueeeessseee. Your killing me. What company really has the required skill set to take a OSS project and alter it to their own needs? id say relativly few.
But that true of most proprietary packages as well. A lack of local venders makes this an even bigger problem. At least with Free Software a host of local businesses can be grown to service these needs. In fact this would be a good place for the government to invest as a way to start a local economy in software services.
So they are still tied in to that proprietary system. Only now they are at the whim of a few hundred thousand coders who seem to change stuff in OSS projects at a whim (the linux 2.4 VM change...).
That was bad and it should not have been done the way it was. But I will except the point. Even then there were alternatives like the -ac line.
Something gets changed, and you can do 1 of 2 things:
1. Stick where they are and live with the older version 2. upgrade to the latest version
Kinda the same situation now isnt it?
This is also true. but because Free Software tends to stick to well documented open standards it is less likely the new version will be a must upgrade. If you do need to upgrade you have more choices in how you do it. If version lock or conflict does happen. Setting up an both does not present as large a problem.
only now the economy suffers as no one is buying software.
But lots more people will be buying software services from local vendors. This means the growth of a local industry. There are also national security advantages and economic advantages to not being dependant on far away places for your tools. There are social advantages in that local people can find jobs near there families.
I can really think of only one tool that can get into a corporate arena with any force, and thats openoffice. other tools jsut seem kinda amaturish.
I think this is a weak argument. The hammer and the screwdriver have not changed much since there invention. (at least in the modern age). With tools that can do the job, why even get on the upgrade rat race.
Dont get me wrong, i like OSS, jsut dont say "oooh piracy is advocated in the OSS arena" which is essentially waht u are saying.
No I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that making yourself (an individual or as a nation) dependent of someone else puts you at a state of lesser control.
There is a big difference between being interdependent and being completely dependent. Yes you will be interdependent but you will still have control over the software you have and can create more. You can use your resources to push projects in the direction you want them to go.
Unlicensed copying is not a problem in the Free Software world. There is no "piracy". In fact most Free Software Advocates are against unlicensed copying, it weakens the protections that protect Free Software, it removes some of the advantages, and it is constancy used as a stick to beet Free Software by calming the at Free Software does Advocate "Piracy"
It's easy to say in ignorance that companies should sell software to companies and give it free for people to learn, but they assume you'll pirate it anyway. Like Adobe said it wanted Skylarov jailed, but they didn't EXPECT it to actually happen. "Put all the software pirates in jail" is something the sales department would say (and they talk VERY loudly and forcefully). The CEO on the other hand would definitely recognise the learning effect of pirated software, but the massive cost of consulting lawyers to actually release two tiers of the product and splitting/forking the codebase to give a different free version are prohibitive. It took me 10 days to make a minor alteration to a shareware contract just to allow distribution. This is because at the end of the day every lawyer knows that a Judge can spend 8 hours debating the meaning of one word, and that your entire case will depend on the outcome.
This is why the BSA targets corporations only, they know that if they went after the public that the ACLU, FSF would bring a whole pile of trouble on their heads, and BSA's customers won't want to be associated with this so the BSA would lose its funding.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything? I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either. And if such technology did exist, wouldn't it make such matters irrelevent since we can produce cars effortlessly and with little cost?
Such technology does not exist for cars, but it does for sound, video and other data. Data can be cloned endlessly, thus it has no value. So why are we artifically trying to keep something scarce that we can copy endlessly?
Stealing = misusing something that is legally someone else's
Copyright infringement = misusing something that is legally someone else's
please explain the difference? they're two terms for what are essentially the same thing
Troll? Nay, Insightful.
"Stealing = misusing something that is legally someone else's "
No...
Stealing = taking away something that is legally someone elses, DEPRIVING THAT PERSON OF THE USE OF THEIR PROPRTY.
You can't steal an idea, or steal fire, or steal a song. You can use it, extend it, or sing it.
But you've deprived no one of property. It wasn't stolen. You are using a loaded word to semantically equate a non-harmful act with a harmful one -- a rhetorical game that works in America, sadly, since we use logic, but not reason.
This could be an interesting twist to the situation with the big media companies. If a country has a very small, or almost no, media industry itself and the big multinationals (like the film firms, Microsoft, etc.) start throwing their weight around, the government always has the choice to simply nix their country's copyright law, so that piracy ceases to exist there.
The multinationals lose all their power to control distribution within the country, and they can't even just deny the software to that country at all - because they can just download warez copies from other countries, that cease to be illegal the moment they cross the border of the country in question. They could try and get the country's ISP to refuse them service, but they're unlikely to accept that, especially since all those warez downloads will mean a fat payoff to the ISP for the bandwidth. The country gets a massive boost to its citizens quality of life (hey, all the fun stuff is FREE now!), and its trade gap evens out.
What would happen if some country did this? Would countries go to war over a breach of the Berne convention?
Are you aware that the Ukraine was put under embargo by the U.S. this year (or late last) for a time? It was lifted when they complied with U.S. demands to make their copyright laws equivalent to ours.
Not very funny. If Malaysia acts up and tries to be an independent nation, Bush et Congress will courteously perform corporate bidding and punish Malaysia until it grovels.
It sort of reminds me of a case a few years ago when the U.S. actually pressured... Sweden was it?... to change its constitution in order to seal public records that contained the holy writings of L. Ron Hubbard. Seems their constitution required court records (and evidence) to be publicly available, and the Xenu story was introduced as evidence. The Boys From Hubbard took shifts keeping the material checked out at the library until the U.S. Guvmint pressured a constitutional change... for copyright or trade secret exemptions to the law, I think.
The U.S. has no compunctions about meddling with the world's laws if we don't like them. It's cool to be the New Evil Empire. All Hail!
Your fallacy is so subtle, you can barely detect. Practiced awhile to get it right, eh?
You see, he's been trained as a professional corporate sycophant, people, so be careful. Very very dangerous.
He'll claim that you're only "rationalizing" no matter what valid argument you have. In effect, he shuts down any and all debate. Let's dissect it further.
Rationalizing, in its most proper form, is still a dubious psychobabble concept. If you were to apply it fairly, it would be in an example as such "the sociopath reasoned that the victim would die someday, so what is the difference if he let her live...". It means using reason in a way that stretches its definition, appearing to be reasonable when you actually aren't. This term is on shaky ground to begin with, but then Erwhos slides an earthquake underneath it.
Now, by claiming that you are rationalizing, he makes it seem that you shouldn't be taken seriously. That's right, no matter how serious you are, no matter how well founded your points, he undermines them pre-emptively. He refuses to even give them any credit, sincerity, honesty, wisdom... you don't get any of those, and he all but says he has decided before ever hearing a word out of your mouth.
In a way, it reminds me of how the religious are supposed to behave, nothing can ever disprove what they believe, and if it appears to do so the experiment can only be false.
Stealing = taking away something that is legally someone elses, DEPRIVING THAT PERSON OF THE USE OF THEIR PROPRTY
Which is misusing their property - using it as the owners did not intend their property to be used. Pirating software is stealing, like it or not, and it's not harmless. It's not harmless because companies spend lots of money and development time on trying to make it harder to warez - thus increasing the costs for people like me who actually pay for the software.
How many times do we have to repeat this?
Copyright infringement != Theft
Yes, it's illegal, but it's not theft. It's a different offense covered by a different part of the criminal code. Calling it theft equates intellectual property with physical property which is false.
I was a fan of SmartDraw myself, then my trial expired. When I tried Linux for my first time,I was happy to learn that Mandrake came with DIa, It lacks the wizards, but gets most of everything done quite well. Try it out
"And would I (as owner of that car) mind, knowing I (my car) possibly saved someone's life? I didn't need the car, and I didn't loose anything, when the car's returned. This leaves me with a _positive_ feeling, and no personal loss."
So do you return the software when you are finished?
There is no comparison between stealing a car in a life threatening situation and stealing software. That's about the lamest analogy I've ever heard.
There is never an excuse to steal. Period. Justifying and rationalizing it because you claim it fulfils a *need* of yours is just egocentric and self-serving.
You don't *need* the software. You *want* the software. I agree that there is not necessarily a monetary loss involved in illegally copying software.
No 15 year old *needs* PhotoShop. No 15 year old *needs* MS Office. They want. And taking what one wants without regard for the law is called - gasp - theft.
If you want to protest the current state of the industry through theft, fine. But call a spade a spade and be prepared to pay the piper when he comes calling. Stop attempting - poorly - to justify your illegal actions through some amoral viewpoint you hold. Your morals and mine are irrelevant. It's the law.
If you don't like the law. Change it.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
That would make perfect sense, if you could go up to a machine, put in a quarter, and a perfect copy of your friend's ferarri could pop out, while he still keeps his, and would never know you had yours.
funny munging
Indeed, it is. A man stealing to feed his family and doesn't have another way to do it is not wrong.
I didn't learn that at university, I learned it by living in Europe before the Euro came.
We had the Dutch Guilder, which was worth almost one German Mark (DFL 1,10 =~ 1,00 DM). The Belgian Franc was only worth DFL 0,06.
This of course means that in Belgium you paid almost 20 times as many Francs for Widget A than you paid Guilders in The Netherlands.
The problem in Malaysia is that the prices of the import software products are approximately equal to their prices in e.g. the US. Since people in Malaysia (on average) make much less money than people in the US, these software products become very expensive.
The exchange rate doesn't matter here: the problem is that money is worth a lot more in countries like Malaysia.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I can see the argument when the university is non profit or state run, but how about all those (and there are many) for-profit schools? They are a business. Just ask the stockholders if they are a business if you are not sure.
... on pirated software?
Does it make any difference that in the process of making money they might also be teaching students
By the way, what great propriatory software do you know of that you would replace Linux with if you could afford to? Let me assure you that money has nothing to do with my abandonment of M$ junk. Me thinks I smell a troll looking for someone to justify "stealing" or coppying M$ O$.
Training people to use M$ toys is a bad thing to do. The API, formats, and the system itself are all unstable. The time spent learning little left hand tricks would be better spent learning something real or more stable, like good comunity supported free code. The only thing worse than encouraging people to do study M$ trash is paying the M$ tax to do it.
Sorry if that sounds a little hard on Microsoft, but they broke my trust a long time ago. Far from assuring the world that they would mend their ways, they have justified their behavior and gone on to such abuses that the federal government noticed. Never deal with dishonest people. Free yourself from M$ today.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything?
Stolen? No, of course not. The words "theft" and "stealing" are wrong for this situation.
I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either.
That is true, and your point makes sense when we apply it to the cost of the physical materials and the direct labor to make the copies. The car company has obviously not lost those assets.
There is another factor, however. That is the value of the engineering. The car company spent money to create the information needed to build the car. This includes intellectual labor, like mechanical design, software, compliance with government regulations, documentation, and all kinds of other things. Someone has to pay for all this. Normally, the car company will simply add it to the sales price and everyone is happy.
With your scenario, the car company spends all that engineering money, and gets paid how? Do you expect that your neighbors will pay the cost so that you don't have to? Or do you suggest that the "rich" (eg, everyone else) pay for the engineering?
In many cases, scarcity is a major component of the "value" of an item. Making counterfeit goods reduces the value of the legitimate goods. For many cars, this is another important factor. If you make an unauthorized copy of a Ferrari, you are reducing the value of the cars owned by people who bought the legit ones.
Scarcity can also be an important factor in the value of software. Suppose I pay $1000 for a program that will do amazing things, for which that I can get consulting dollars. Part of the value in this purchase is knowing that my competitors will also have to pay $1000 before they can compete with me. Just like paying for an exclusive license or exclusive territory for something, the price I had to pay might be an important competitive advantage. I have paid for that advantage, and I do not think it is fair that some kid (who cannot afford the program) can use an unauthorized copy of the program to compete with me.
A dingo ate my sig...
First, no one's forcing them to use Photoshop/Quicken/Visio/Director/Office.
.txt, .rtf and .html, we wouldn't have this .doc problem.
Second, if more people posted
Third, do we _really_ need all of this stuff? If you're just starting out, do you need all of the whizbang features of Photoshop? Do we really need the macro capabilities of Word documents? Some people do. Most don't.
Sometimes we use software features to cover up our own lack of skills, and that's why people feel they have to go for the biggest, most featureful pieces of software - because they don't want to face the fact that they can't hack it with tools that don't have whizbang feature #42.
Sometimes we use software to make life more convenient for us. We already know how to do those funky things, but some tools make them easier to do than others. The more people use open source programs (maybe even contributing to them!), the better open source programs can be. It's just a matter of evolving software until it does what we want. Now some people can't take that, so they'll just stay with proprietary, expensive software - a dead end as far as they're concerned - but some people have the patience to work with and improve open source software. =)
Ah, but what about companies?
Why would the industry hire some open source free-as-in-speech-_and_-beer- geek instead of someone who cut his or her teeth on pirated copies of the software that the company uses (perhaps even legitimately)?
At first glance it seems that committing to open source as students penalizes us when we get into the industry and we're expected to know how to deal with MS SQL Server and stuff like that. We'd have to learn on the job - and that's valuable time! We'd have to learn how to do Photoshop and Flash and things like that!
But it's not as simple as that. While the proprietary software pirate might be familiar with the ins and outs of the software he or she used, there aer other things to consider. The open source geek would have demonstrated resourcefulness and ethics. Maybe the open source geek would be able to help the company save more money. At the very least, the open source geek would be able to adapt to the 'far superior' closed source proprietary tools that the company uses, and upgrading from an okay tool to a great tool is easier than going from a great tool to an okay tool.
And dare I mention that no one is being forced to be a graphic designer? (Okay, maybe some people are, but...)
If we tell people that piracy is okay, what we're teaching people is that they can ignore their conscience in order to earn the kind of money they want. Yes, some software companies set ridiculous prices for their software - prices far out of a school or student's budget. Yes, some companies are downright mean. That's no excuse. Do the right thing.
You always have a choice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We, the people, have the right to decide what we protect under copyright and what falls under fair use.
Analogies between "intellectual property" and physical property are self-serving and legally inaccurate for the most part. People who say that "piracy is OK" have already given into the mindset. No, piracy is not OK, but copying should not and does not constitute "piracy" under many circumstances.
Your point is invalid - prices aren't going to drop because of a free pirated version - unless you pay people to use the software, the people pirating it are going to pirate it regardless of whether the legal product gets a 90% price chop or not.
yeah, one's easier to get away with.
if you don't get paid for your product, you're still out the money and can't pay your staff.
Stealing, in whatever form, for whatever reason, is STILL stealing.
What you are saying - "One of the main reasons is that commercial software is usually sold at the equivalent price of US dollars. This means that software is almost four times as expensive in Malaysia." - is just an excuse !
Nobody points a gun onto the user's head, threatening the user to use the software or they gonna pull the trigger.
The user, for whatever reason, if he or she decides to use the software, has to be RESPONSIBLE for his or her own action.
Don't tell me the user has NO CHOICE. There are always two choices -
1. If you refuse to pay the price, don't use it.
2. Look for alternatives - like open-source packages, or the user can write their own programs.
I've heard those cop-out excuses too often, and I'm really sick of it.
Tell you a secret, I do work in Malaysia, and I for one, will NEVER use pirated softwares. It's not that I'm rich or anything - if I'm rich, I won't be working in this god forsaken place - it's just a principle for me - stealing, by any other name, is STILL stealing.
And if I'm not mistaken, there's a "Thou shalt not steal" thing in the ten commandments.
But of course, you might not be a Christian, you might be a Moslem, who hates Christians. But no matter what religious belief you belong to, stealing is STILL stealing, even your Allah will tell you that stealing is STILL stealing.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Call it what it is please.
It's not theft. Period.
It may be something illegal, but its not theft. Best guess is that it's infringement of copyright, depending on the laws in that country. In any event it is in a different category to theft which I think is defined as
"Taking with intent to permanently deprive"
Bracketing copyright infringement with plain ordinary theft encourages people to scoff at all laws.
You sez:
"You are only stealing software because the law say so."
Semantically speaking, you are correct.
But let's go beyond semantic, and come to this real world we live in, shall we?
Do you see any samatarian lately ?
Do you see poor people getting really well fed, lately ?
What's the point for people going through rote training - for example, taking programming classes, and doing all-night-long hacking sessions - and producing softwares that work, if not because the resulting software brings the producer (author) some type of benefits - money, fame, or both ?
Yes, I am a supporter of Open Source software. I do contribute codes (not whole program, just fixes, and sometimes suggestions) when I find the time, or when I have the talent to do so.
But there _are_ commercial softwares out there that require people to pay for the use of the softwares.
Maybe the software prices are too exorbitants, but that doesn't reduce the fact that NOT EVERYTHING WE HAVE IN THIS WORLD ARE FREE !
If one wants to use a commercialware, one is required to pay for it. If one refuses to pay, one can A) Not using the commercialware, or B) Find an alternative to the commercialware.
Pirating commercialware is an act of USING the commercialware KNOWINGLY without paying for it.
Yes, it's the LAW that says pirating commercialware is an act of stealing. But if we go beyond the law, one who pirates the commercialware already BROKEN the agreement between the owner of the commercialware (the producer) and the user - the agreement whereby anyone who wants to use the comemrcialware must PAY for the use.
Just like I say, if you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't use the product.
Don't come back and tell the world about "it's the law" or "it's too expensive".
Nobody is forcing anyone to use commercialware.
If the commercialware is TOO EXPENSIVE, then you can try to search for open-source (and/or free) alternatives, or, you can write your own software(s) that do whatever the commercialware does.
It's that simple.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I don't know if there still available but a few years ago you could get an educational version of 3dstudio &co. for about £60 in the UK.
You didn't have to be a student either.
The disk included,
3d Studio MAX.
The latest version of autocad.
and a few other great packages.
All full versions.
Now thats about £6,000 of software for £60.
I too use a lot of 'trial' versions of software, I don't believe it's stolen because:-
1: the points you made,
2: I couldn't afford to buy it in the first place so there's no lost sale.
I think most 3d companies realise that they gain more from 'trial' software then they loose.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Your people are all dying of Aids, the US / EU drug company that holds the patent charges you US$3000 per person per year for the drugs to give them a sustainably high quality of life.
You can make them yourself for US$80 per person per year. Piracy??
As a raving capitalist I think the copy protection of material which has a genuine direct impact on human quality of life is evil and wrong and should be stopped.
Copy protect Britneys next CD, but when she goes back to school and finds a cure for cancer - that should DEFAULT to the public domain.
> RMS, who wrote the GPL and should know what
> he's talking about, once said [rmz.priv.no]
> that: "Sometimes I think that perhaps one of
> the best things I could do with my life is:
> find a gigantic pile of proprietary software
> that was a trade secret, and start handing out
> copies on a street corner so it wouldn't be a
> trade secret any more, and perhaps that would
> be a much more efficient way for me to give
> people new free software than actually writing
> it myself; but everyone is too cowardly to even
> take it."
Personally I wonder if it would be possible to simply announce that you have created a database of all possible digital intellectual property, and that you're GPLing the whole thing.
The database would be indexed only by serial number, so that to download any possible work you simply enter its serial number.
Of course, this serialisation system saves massively on disk space, as the work with serial number X is just the number X encoded into binary. This does not mean that the data is not stored in a database, though; it just means that the database is very well compressed. (For example, the database could be the binary encoding of each ASCII number in the database. Or a 650mb file of all binary 1's, which contains all the raw data needed to create any CD image.)
If you wanted to formalize the generation you could send out a distributed.net style system that just counts up very large numbers and reports to the central server the highest number that it has reached.
Any ideas why this wouldn't work? AFAIK, creative property is creative property even if it isn't produced by a creative process (if I just write random bits of music by rolling dice, I can still copyright all the music I write). As the computer is unaware of any other creative work, all copyrighted works it might discover while counting are parallel developments.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
News flash: Legal counsel for the MPAA and RIAA informed congress that literally quadrillions of people were illegally infringing on Hollywood's copyrights in parallel universes. "Mr. Chairman, a large number of quantum physicists have theorized a nearly infinite number of parallel universes, many of which are similar to our own. If this is true, and many experts believe it so, then there are any number of people in these universes that are improperly using out intellectual property. Something must be done. The RIAA estimates that each year, $97 trillion trillion trillion dollars is lost to parallel universe mp3 trading. Need I remind you that that is $97 trillion trillion trillion dollars that could have been taxed?"
The interesting thing about an action like this, where a country declares that piracy shall be condoned if it's done to help educate people, is that if it works, those same people will be LESS likely to pirate software as adults in the professional world.
Why? Because a properly educated individual is more likely to accept what we consider to be modern ethics. They are more likely to consider the consequences of their actions, and thus as the overall level of education rises, the level of anything beyond casual try-before-buy piracy will probably decline.
Sounds like you want to keep certain people down, and hope to rise to the top. Or perhaps you don't have much skill, and your only hope is that this kid who has talent will be kept from using it b/c he can't afford the tools.
Not at all. I was simply creating a scenario to illustrate my point about scarcity being a possible element of value. In this case, the person buying the expensive sofware has paid for some exclusivity of sorts. I was explaining the matter from his point of view.
It is not good manners to take my hypothetical case and suggest that I am incompetent, or wish to oppress others.
A dingo ate my sig...
Spell it slow: c-o-p-y-r-i-g-t-h.
Good boy, again: c-o-p-y-r-i-g-h-t.
Copy Right. Ged it?
Good man, copyright is about legislating how do you deal with copies (the copy part, do you follow?) of original works.Or in other words how to regulate the Right to Copy stuff that anyone has.
If it was teft, there would not be the need for copyright law, you bozo.
A person infringing copyright may be breaking the law, but is not stealing anything.
Now, try to understand this before using such lame examples like the one you poorly choosed to make your point.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If copyright infringement was stealing we would not have two different laws dealing with the "same" crime.
Somebody copying software without permission is infringing copyright, or commiting a copyright violation (do you understand English, read it slow copy-right: regulation of the right to copy).
If you want to discuss these issues use the correct terminology.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Look, if you live there and don't understand what Islam is all about then shut you mouth, you appear pretty stupid and ignorant.
And for the record: I lived in Malaysia for 4 years and made many friends and worked with great people.
With your attittude you should be working somewhere else.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... to show me a piece of legislation where copyright infringement is labeled as theft.
I know you can't do it, so I will not bet.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the Malaysian (or any goverment for that matter) decided tomorrow that there is no copyright violation if software is copied to allow for teaching in schools, I am sorry to burst you closed-source bubble, but then the act will be completely legal.
Copyright is not set in stone, it can be modified according to the needs of a country.
If the US goverment has decided that the needs of Disney Studios are more important than the promotion of invention and inovation, well, tough luck, that does not mean any other goverment should be forced to follow suit.
This Malaysain minister at least has got a clue what he is talking about and is suggeting a possible solution to a real problem, namely, the decriminalization of copying of software for educational purposes (which otherwise would make criminals of teachers and students of poorer schools).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I recommend software for my company who purchases for about 10,000 users, but I cannot afford to buy this stuff for my own home use. Since I'm not affiliated with a university, I cannot get the educational discount.
Question: For just fiddling around (read: playing with my toys) should I be required to pay software prices that assume I am using the licensed software to make a profit?
To be honest, this seems to be where free-as-in-beer software is most useful - to the "prosumer" computer geek who is using software, not to make a profit, but just to have fun and learn.
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Well thanks for the update. I don't keep up-to-date with stuff at home because I'm totally fed up with it. Well, I'll believe it when I see it.
I just wish we'll just cut this racial issue crap and stick with totally merit-based non-discriminatory policies. Don't you?
I'm so bloody tired with archaic nonsense.
What you are saying - "One of the main reasons is that commercial software is usually sold at the equivalent price of US dollars. This means that software is almost four times as expensive in Malaysia." - is just an excuse !
Straight from the beginning of my post, I said that piracy is WRONG. I personally use open source software. But I said I do understand what motivates people to pirate software. That's NOT advocating piracy, is it? Did you read my post or not?
But of course, you might not be a Christian, you might be a Moslem, who hates Christians. But no matter what religious belief you belong to, stealing is STILL stealing, even your Allah will tell you that stealing is STILL stealing.
You are SO clueless I don't even know where to begin. Just because I'm Malaysian that doesn't mean that I'm a Moslem (and I'm NOT). This is SO uncalled for. And you said that you worked in Malaysia so I'm even more shocked at your uneducated response. Where do you stay and work in Malaysia, some hole in the ground? You would've been better off not telling me your little secret.
Look, I know that stealing is stealing, in fact I referred to piracy as stealing, while the posters who replied earlier said that it's copyright infringement. Bottom line is that it's a crime. And I don't advocate it.
Next time read the bloody post before you reply.
I really don't know how to reconsile your statements. Paying for exlusivity? Sounds like a class system. It also seems to go against the American dream of starting with nothing and building a personal fortune.
Exclusivity, rarity, scarcity are usually associtated with anything that is "expensive". I am pointing out WHAT IS, not WHAT SHOUD BE.
I personally don't care if someone pirates something and learns a skill; i am confident enough in my abilities to know that i could compete with him for a job. It seems to me thats what you fear, and logically leads me to the conclusion that you think you are incompetent.
Your logic is flawed.
i think its safe to say you are, because your parents were wealthy enough to buy you a complier or photoshop or whatever.
Bullshit. You have no idea how wrong you are, and I am not about to start explaining. Goodbye.
A dingo ate my sig...
Theft is taking something *from someone* That other person actually has to lose something. (No, not "earn less". If you have a lemonade stand and I set up another lemonade stand and compete with you, am I a thief?)
Manager of the Microsoft Lemonade Division says "Hell yes!"
You sez:
"Look, if you live there and don't understand what Islam is all
about then shut you mouth, you appear pretty stupid and ignorant."
Oh, all the Christians in this god forsaken country know how "well" Islam is. We all know how "well" they have treated the infidels (non-Moslems), so well that they burn down churches, and stop the building of a Catholic church, in the _middle_ of the construction process.
We also know how much those Moslems "love" the Christians, so much that they kill a Christian politician in Kulim, Kedah !
And we understand fully why the Moslems are so concern about their "brothers" in Ambon, Indonesia - who, incidentally, commit murderous rampage against the Christians villages, - so much so that the main Moslem political party actually sent stuffs to "aid" their "suffering brothers". Among the "aid" they sent were guns and ammunitions.
We all know that.
Now, who is to shut up ? Who's stupid and ignorant ?
If you've been working here for 4 years and don't know anything, hey guy, have you check your head lately ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You sez:
"I am a Malaysian Moslem, and I have not seen any case
where it's even mentioned that a Moslem hates Christians."
Now would you kindly tell all of us who murdered that Christian politician in Kulim, Kedah ?
Fellow Christians ?
Or the Moslems ?
You tell us how well the UMNO (Moslem) thugs are behaving, in the case of the abrupt stoppage of the building of a Catholic church in Selangor ?
You may NOT hate Christians, but many of your fellow Moslems do, including those who are studying in the local universities. Look how those "university students" are treating the "infidels".
Look more closely next time, and you will find them.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !