Slashdot Mirror
Single Software Licence Shared 774,651 Times
nk497 writes "A single licence for Avast security software has been used by 774,651 people after it went viral on a file-sharing site. Avast noticed that a license for its paid-for security software, sold to a 14-user firm in Arizona, was being distributed online. Rather than shut down the piracy, the company decided to see how far the software would spread — it's since popped up in 200 countries, including the Vatican City. Now, the company is turning it into a marketing opportunity, with a pop-up encouraging users of the pirated copy to download a legal copy of the free or paid-for version. Avast isn't sure how many pirates have gone legal, but said some have made the switch."
Well, that’s a good start, I guess.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Amazing how that works.
Cue 4,000,000 slashdot posts how this proves, objectively, with 100% accuracy, that software piracy does zero economic harm and is actually beneficial to everyone involved.
FCKGW-RHQQ2...
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
“We found our licence code at a number of warez sites around the globe,” said Vince Steckler, chief executive of Avast Software. “There is a paradox in computer users looking for ‘free’ antivirus programs at locations with a known reputation for spreading malware.”
The pirating of legally-free software never ceases to amuse me...I know the licence is for a "paid" version of the program, but still, for personal users, the "free" version is more than sufficient. That being said, Avast's response to this has been PERFECT.
Living With a Nerd
AVAST, ye mateys!
Am I right or am I right?
As it turns out, when asked, all 774,651 people were "just trying out to see how it was before they bought it."
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.
Palm trees and 8
people cheat when they think they can get away with it.
Your post was completely unrelated to mine, yet you replied to me. Did you think you’d get away with that?
Anyway, to respond more to your point, yes – people cheat when they think they can get away with it. However, pirating software that (by definition) phones home is... sort of... especially dumb. By which I mean, you’re unlikely to get away with it.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
But the controversy was that he downloaded it from demonoid. And that he has a pretty leechy ratio.
At least 774,641 searched for the file (wanting to pirate it) and found this copy first. If this copy was not there, 774,641 would have searched for the file and found what was otherwise the second result for said software. What we can say is that 774,641 pirated the software, not that the uploaded caused it to be pirated 774,641 times.
I'm trying not to condonng the pirates or sympathizing with the software company. This is just (hopefully) an objective observation.
The RIAA would extrapolate 774,651 equivalent illegal downloads as $11,619,765 in lost revenue - and then go to the courts.
you know, like the old days, when code was in magazines, and you could use it free. you could patch it or turn it around yourself, and learn something useful reading the stuff you didn't want to type in.
and the Avast folks have a list of the files in Windows handy, so they don't have rogue updates that brick your system by quarantining core files.
try it, you just might buy it. I did for my last surviving XP machine.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The Vatican is a soverign state that does not have a software treaty with the US, so no infringement there ...
This will still be used by the RIAA/MPAA/etc. Because look at it. It's proof that piracy cost Avast 774,651 sales. I like the non-litigious response by Avast, and their remedy is offered in such a way that a lot of people will probably take it, so they don't harm their user base by driving people off. But props to Avast. You handled it right.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Not that everyone pirating Avast and Photoshop could get by with linux. But I bet a huge majority of college kids that are pirating the latest Office, Photoshop, etc could get along perfectly fine with an apt repository.
Maybe that should be Ubuntu's next marketing campaign. Tell college geek-wannabees that there is a super secret way to pirate free software called "apt-get". It's not for everyone since it has a steep learning curve. But if they master it, they can get some sweet software for free. Maybe a wrapper that puts "market" prices on the software.
Office Suite - $400!. But not if you use apt-get. Sssh, don't tell ANYONE.
Before you know it every 'hacker' on campus will be l33t with apt-get. Once you convert the guys that think they know a lot about computers will come the girls as the guys will try and use their skills to impress the girls.
where lots of software doesn't get ported because software companies can't make a profit due to the high piracy.
But yes piracy isn't a problem because of this one case. Nevermind how this would benefit software that only needs to be updated once per year like a utility or software that is only used for a month like a game. We just need to find 2 or 3 more cases like this one to show that copyright laws aren't needed.
Last I checked the US State Department recognized something like 194 countries. So they appear to have coverage of 103% of the countries in the world!
Better lobbyists.
The paradox might be that pirate sites are trusted more by users than antivirus creators.
It's clear that they can see where the license is used on warez sites without spying. But how do they know what countries the *users* are in, and how do they push the advertising to them? Inquiring minds want to know!
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Even mom and pop stores can get a commission from anti-virus subscriptions. There is a free version of avast, why would they not install it instead?
As Microsoft Security Essentials is offered for free for personal and small business (up to 10-PCs) use, the only reason I can think of to pirate AV software is because you're also pirating Windows and can't pass the WGA validation test. Even then why bother...just use the free version of Avast that doesn't care about WGA validation.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
They are likely grateful that people are using their software rather than the superior (and free) Microsoft Security Essentials. (Yes, MS makes a piece of software that is superior in virtually every way to its competition. Hard to believe, but it's true.)
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/
Ian Ameline
OMG - "they" are hiding entire countries from us now!
Technically, you are correct - there are 194 or 195 countries, but there are dozens of territories and dependencies that might be counted separately. E.g. many would count China, Hong Kong, Tibet, and Taiwan as 4, but China would say 1...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Also, the "Reply to This" button under the first post is much more prominent than the "reply" link to the left at the footer of the Article text. I've accidentally replied to the first post my share of times. Mind you, the "first post" differs depending on who is reading it and how the replies are sorted for them.
Last I checked the US State Department recognized something like 194 countries. So they appear to have coverage of 103% of the countries in the world!
Rounding error. This is what happens when you let arts majors use computers.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
There's nothing special about the software industry. Plenty of industries that offer services not needed or wanted or which can not do so to a degree that the free market can support them continue to survive, thanks to government (tax payer) subsidies. If you have a big union that wields a lot of votes, you're even more likely to long out live your usefulness, without suffering from it.
However, I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with a million people using a commercial piece of software without paying for it. Unlike typewriters, people *need* anti-virus software (well, most of them, at least). Comparing typewriters which nobody wants or uses anymore to a piece of software that everyone wants and does use (just doesn't want to pay a few bucks for) doesn't exactly make sense. The fact that it was copied and used almost a million times sort of invalidates the idea that it's an unwanted service.
In my experiences with people, I'd have to say that the correct word is 'most,' not 'some.'
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
So...what's the code they were using anyway? Just curious....
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Unless we redefine "people" to mean those who cheat, and reserve some other word to describe those who don't. The Supreme Court has already redefined "people" to include corporations, so it's apparently fashionable to redefine key terms like this.
has been used by 774,651 people
I wonder how they figured that out... Installs or IP addresses or People or reported back to Big Brother NIC MAC addresses or ?
I installed AVG-Free four times on two machines this weekend.
I'm the only person using both.
One install on a traditional machine.
The other machine has removable drive bay hard disks. One disk for real work that being Linux. Four with different installs of Winders. (Why? the ultimate compatibility test is to boot into W2K on a W2K only hard drive and see if it works, also I have a "real" windows XP partition that I use exclusively for games and the two apps that I haven't set up on Linux, one being a radio-scanner programmer and the other being a Garmin GPS map uploader/controller thingy)
So was that one person or two machines or four installs?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Thieves are everywhere!!! Whatever happened to Ethics?
Am I the only one that finds it slightly humorous that people were pirating a product called Avast! ... ? :)
But Avasts free product is pretty good as well, and the only 2 features that the pro version has that the free version doesn't is
Neither of which seem like killer features to me. The free version of Avast does however require you to go to their website and register, enter the licence key into the product and repeat when the license expires.
I wonder if the scale of this pirating shows that people prefer a simpler solution (see Note #1) more than it shows that people prefer a free solution?
Note #1: At least 1 step in the process is removed, the registration step. Possibly the next step as well, the pirate version may not require the install to enter the license number either, although I've not used the pirate version so could say for sure.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
How many people here could name more then 5 anti-virus programs? How many normal people? Not many. On the otherhand if I'm looking for antivirus where do I go? Certainly not store.. tom's software guide doesnt really exist. I might have heard about some names from friends. I dont really know what's good. Instead I goto piratebay or whatever. Top 100 - apps -windows and sort by seeds. Find #1 antivirus and now I have the best one really. Crowdsourced goodness.
How fitting it be that a bunch of landlubbers calling themselves "Avast" be victims of piracy.
More grog me boys!
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
What difference does it make for the software companies if a user that wouldn't buy their software in the first place installs Linux or installs pirated software? There is no lost sale there, and I think it's better for a company like Microsoft that the majority of the people pirates Windows instead of using Linux, I'm sure.
It doesn't matter to the software companies.
It matters to me, who has to deal with botnets, spam, etc all from Windows Machines, some of it coming from pirated software with malware attached.
Good to see a business actually using some common sense on piracy. And now look. They get even free ad on /.
They are turning pirates into subscribers. Taking people from stealing and turning them to giving
The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
Hey Vatican, what part of Thou Shalt Not Steal did you misunderstand?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I wonder how true it is that the company also
Which is the kind of marketing I expect from the crappy companies that market anti-virus software.
--
make install -not war
As another poster confessed, I would be hesitant to download any pirated software less out of moral qualms than out of fear of malware. Add to this, the fact that much software does use an Internet connection, even if the software's functionality does not require it. Being always connected has changed things. Software can phone home and does so often. Be it for "update checking" or "license verification", vendors have a better notion of where their software is installed than ever before.
Sure there is firewall software to stop unauthorized Internet access, but now so many applications use the network that there is a lot of noise to signal or vice-versa. These days, when I have a software need, I try to find a (legitimately) free alternative whenever possible.
In other words, people are assholes.
I think they're a bit behind the curve; even FIFA recognises 208 national associations.
Well, I see your point, but that doesn't have to do with pirated software per se, but it's (usually dubious) distribution methods. OTOH, the subject of your post was about getting free software, so I replied to that.
This proves, objectively, with 110% accuracy, that software piracy does negative economic harm and is actually beneficial to everyone involved.
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
I'd like to see the usage stats for that one.
It was possibly the most widely used VLK for pirated Windows XP copies. I reported seeing it used on a community college network at one point. Im sure i got that admin into some hot water
1. Publish your software on a P2P server.
2. Wait for people to download it.
3. Sue
4. PROFIT!
I'm actually surprised by this number.
When one of my favorite software companies started including copy protection, I was angry because I felt they were treating me, a loyal customer, as a criminal. This statistic actually makes me feel that their actions are at least somewhat justified. Almost three quarters of one million licenses... I would have never dreamed of so many cases of infringement for one program!
I'm one of those good honest people who is happy (and happily able!) to afford the applications I use and enjoy. Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements go a long way towards making my life legal and affordable. :-)
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
crap, i wasn't logged in...
If they are making the claim of "200 countries" based on where the users say they are, there is a significant problem in that they are trusting that response to be legit. There was a time when I used to register most of my software to Uzbekistan, even though I have never been there. And of course, if you are registering software with a code that doesn't belong to you, why would you give your real location?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Avast, ye harties! Thar be pirate booty in them Internetz!
The folks at Avast are great. Thank you for turning what someone did wrong as a marketing & business opportunity. At home we use free Avast on the computers. Based on my recommendations two small businesses (15 to 20 seats each) use the paid version.
That's next.
That’s why I said it’s a good start.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
"The irony is staggering, sir!"
--- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
So, can this company get any tax credits for single handidly solving global warming? (pastafarians untie)
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
He got information that 'FCKGW' key was used billion times :)
Most cheat. Some get away with it.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I know I've downloaded cracks for things and thrown them in the folder with the game because it's easier to crack the game with the apps than it is to type in the keys I bought.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
When everyone is doing it, is it even still cheating?
Learn to love Alaska
When everyone is doing it, is it even still cheating?
Yes.
With a name like Avast it is not surprising that they are comfortable with piracy. Perhaps this can become the pirate business model. First, name your company with pirate terminology (Avast, Matey, etc) to signal you are ok with piracy. Second, send a kind message that urges people to pay for your software after it has been pirated.
Avast! They even get their own button on the pirate keyboard!
Program Intellivision!
I skipped Avast when I learned that the free version required registration. I went to AVG, which as we discussed not loo long ago was a terrible mistake.
I don't believe in antivirus, I put responsibility on Microsoft and Adobe for the safety of my machines. Router/firewall, noscript, on-demand scanning, and not visiting stupid sites or downloading from untrusted sources are my responsibility. But I do have MSE for on-demand scanning in case I'm not sure.
nah, FCKGW.... holds the honorary title for that one, even if MS killed it with the SP1 update all those years ago.
Is Avast not malware? I once saw how many times Avast would throw up popups on one computer and how difficult it was to remove so I thought Avast was malware.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The companies need to find a new business model or die, just like every other company whose business model was rendered obsolete by new technology.
Why do they need to change their business model? It is successful. Just because someone is technically but not legally able to obtain your product through another means does not mean you are required to change your business model. If they change to the business model that the pirates want, THEN they will die.
If free music was such a great business model, then someone would have started a company that distributed music for free and totally trashed the big media companies. So far, it hasn't happened.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
All ones save for a 3 at the end is a valid Starcraft key (it won't get you on battle.net, but if you like the campaigns and were still challenged by the AI...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Well I can say one of the reasons I switched to Comodo AV for my customers is even though all they had to do was give Avast an email to get a new key they would often end up with an expired AV instead. With Comodo you get a lifetime license so that is one less thing they have to do, so I would have to agree that simple tops free just about every single time. Hell one of my more popular packs is the "make it a toaster" pack, where I set everything to automatic, from scans and defrags to registry and shortcut cleaning. I've found people are quite happy to pay to not have to deal with their "stupid PC" except to do what THEY want to do with it. Now if I could only automate install of third party apps I'd be in heaven.
As for TFA I bet I can name a key that can quite easily top that one: The "WinXP Corporate SP2" key, ala the RAZR1911 corporate key. I swear around 05/06 I think that every third machine that crossed my desk had that key, even those that had a legit XP Home would often end up with that key if they took it to one of the shadier repair shops, because they often had all the patches slipstreamed to that disk.
That is why I still say Ballmer shot himself in the foot by getting rid of the $50 Win 7 HP deal, because more pirates I know switched because of that than all the WGA bullshit. Now that it is back to $100 I have no doubt I'll end up seeing "Windows 7 Ultimate RAZR1911 Edition" machines start showing up on my desk, whereas with the $50 HP they not only turned pirates but they had a captive audience which they could use to try to upsell to Pro and gotten many of us with legit XP machines to switch. At $50 I would have switched this netbox off XP Home, but at $100? A RAM and GPU upgrade is the better deal.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Isn't cheating gaining an advantage over others? Then if everyone is gaining the same advantage, isn't it now the new standard, rather than a cheat?
Learn to love Alaska
I've used Avast (although currently I don't have any antivirus software) and the program behaved very nicely. It needs to be registered once a year or it will pop-up a notice at start up. Also, the program was nicely divided in components so it was easy to select the ones that I needed. In addition to this, the computer I had it on was a bit underpowered, so it was nice that it could be easily disabled temporarily when gaming (and wasn't all that heavy when running either).
I had zero problems uninstalling it. If I'd install an antivirus program now, I would install Avast. (AVG isn't that bad either, but I can't say that I never had any problems with it.)
It is what it is.
... bless me for I have sinned. Uh, what's the penance for stealing a software license again?
Wordstar was at one time the most popular word processor in the PC world. It was also the most pirated. In 1985 they offered an amnesty for pirates -- anyone who wanted to go legit could pay an inexpensive upgrade price and get the most current version, legally.
A lot of people took them up on it, including me.
Unfortunately, they made other mistakes, and the company didn't last, but that was a smart move on their part.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
because it's easier to crack the game with the apps than it is to type in the keys I bought.
I could cope with typing a key in during the install. I do it because I hate fetching the CD to play the game.
I thought they said, "Avast, matey!" and figured I was among fellow pirates.
Have gnu, will travel.
You just pirate two antivirus software and let them check each other :).
Not to me. Cheating, IMHO, is breaking the rules of a system to gain an advantage for yourself that you would not of otherwise had if you had not broken the rules.
Not everyone defines their own morality in terms of other people.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
They simply used the list from the countries which entered in the Olympics.
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.
It's not a good estimate of how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place. That number is zero, as the people who would have paid for the software in the first place did pay for the software in the first place (removing the need to download unauthorized software).
It's actually a new measurement, one that's long overdue. It's how many people will pay for an authorized copy without resorting to legal threats when caught using an unauthorized copy. Basically they know they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and the options are to stop using the software or pay up. I'll wager a lot of them will pay up the moment they are caught, and only scofflaws and the destitute will continue to use said software without payment.
Last I checked the US State Department recognized something like 194 countries. So they appear to have coverage of 103% of the countries in the world!
Rounding error. This is what happens when you let arts majors use computers.
I would believe it would be a by product of how countries are listed. Many Country selection lists separate territories and other such locales from the country that owns them. So, if anything the use of only the word "country" would be wrong, not the number.
Disclaimer: I don't use AVAST, and I do not know how their country registration system works.
Quite likely true, however you really need to be careful when responding to a joke with a serious comment lest the *WHOOSH* pirates take you hostage and hold you for ransom.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
What does cheating have to do with morality? Or are you asserting that cheating is immoral, thus any judgments on whether something is or isn't cheating will be defined by your opinion of morality?
When I look up the definition from impartial sources, it could go either way. And the most common definition of "getting an advantage over others" is specifically not satisfied if absolutely everyone is doing the same "cheat."
Would you assert that someone using an erasable pen is cheating? What about someone who uses spell check on their posts? Not everyone has that advantage. Not to mention that "the rules" are often not set in stone.
Cheating, IMHO, is breaking the rules of a system to gain an advantage for yourself that you would not of otherwise had if you had not broken the rules.
Not everyone defines their own morality in terms of other people.
Wait, you just defined your morality based on how someone else sets the rules. So if you did something today, and they changed the rules and you did the same thing tomorrow, then if you took the same action tomorrow, you are suddenly immoral because someone else changed their external rules. And then you condemn me for defining my morality based on others. But then, you also begged the question of morality. As you assumed cheating to be always immoral, then argued about morality, rather than specifically talking about cheating.
Learn to love Alaska
I agree, I mean if more than one person kills someone, cant I then in turn kill people without regret?
Justify it all you want, illegal is still illegal.
What a mess of ridiculousness. I'd love to give an exposition on morality, but lack the time and space. . This shall have to suffice:
Every action can be moral, immoral, or amoral. Cheating certainly can be immoral, but not all moral offences are the same, and not every action is absolutely immoral in and of its nature. Furthermore not all immoral acts are equal in their immorality.
Having laid that foundation, yes I would say that in general cheating is immoral. If you agreed to follow a set of rules, you should, again in general, follow them. The immorality comes from you breaking your agreement, not necessarily from the absolute morality of the broken rule itself.
I did not mean to condemn you, per se, just the common attitude of adjusting ones morals to the actions of one's peers, a dangerous trend oft manipulated by powerful men to terrible results.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Sure, I had $30,000 worth of pirate software when I was in college, and I went legit after my student discount was up
And there you have it boys and girl. The exact reason why the vast majority of commercial software approve of violating the terms and conditions of using their software. You will in all likelihood become their customer.
And what about the other users who don't go legit? Well, you certainly don't want them to use your competitor's software, right?
Now, how does the evil BSA figure into this? Like the RIAA, they make an example out of an individual/organization to instill fear. Again, the idea is to discourage the violations, not actually prevent them from happening.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
When everyone else has committed murder, get back to me. Until then, you are an off topic troll whose non sequitur doesn't address the point.
Learn to love Alaska
It's obvious that what Avast has here is basically a subscription model. What they are selling is continuing protection against new, emerging threats.
The Windows program is just the mode of delivery for this subscription model. The program isn't really what you're paying for when you buy a license.
The license is effectively a user ID representing an account on the Avast site, and so this license sharing amounts to a large number of people trying to share a single data subscription, which could obviously and easily be terminated at any time by Avast.
What are they thinking? Probably not much. Most people who download these kinds of programs are driven by fear and ignorance.
Every action can be moral, immoral, or amoral. Cheating certainly can be immoral, but not all moral offences are the same, and not every action is absolutely immoral in and of its nature. Furthermore not all immoral acts are equal in their immorality.
Cheating can be immoral. I've also heard a number of arguments where telling the truth in some circumstances is immoral. Just because something "can be" immoral does not indicate that necessarily is. So you are not only begging the question in asserting that cheating is immoral as a premise in discussing whether cheating is immoral, you are making arguments in your premises.
I did not mean to condemn you, per se, just the common attitude of adjusting ones morals to the actions of one's peers, a dangerous trend oft manipulated by powerful men to terrible results.
My issue on response isn't that an immoral act becomes moral when everyone does it, but that cheating itself, even if immoral in all cases, isn't what someone is doing if there is no competitive advantage (as is the case when everyone is doing it). Separately is the question of whether cheating is always immoral. And for that, the specific instance is very important. "Cheating" is a word used to describe assault (bumping a competitor in a race) fraud (inappropriately gaming a financial market to cause losses in others and gains for yourself) and down to, say, slightly adjusting the rules of solitaire when you play it on an airplane with yourself. Given the massive range of what people consider when the word "cheating" is used, I agree that some would consider some cheating to be immoral. However, you'd have to prove to me that adjusting the rules of solitaire to make the games longer to reduce shuffling as you are killing time is necessarily immoral to prove "cheating" to be an immoral act by definition.
Learn to love Alaska
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Avast! Antivirus (yes the ! is part of the name) is free for personal use to begin with, and the license key is very easy to get ahold of and only needs renewing once / year... so I don't know WHY anyone would bother to pirate it.
I've been using Avast! for a few years now (ever since AVG turned to annoying bloatware/spamware) and have no complaints, it has caught a few infections and I have never been spammed by them or anything like that. They seem like a decent outfit.
From pirated to free version since they were scared/annoyed by the pop-ups or they found nothing particularly useful in the paid version?
As far as I can tell, you said "I don't care what the dictionary says about this, here is my opinion and I'm not interested in discussing anything that implies my opinion could possibly be wrong."
Otherwise, I'm not sure why you are unable to use words to explain, without the insinuation and implications you used in the previous post. "Every action can be moral, immoral, or amoral." For one, that's a tautology. For another, that's assuming absolute morality, something not covered in the discussion. Additionally, something could be both moral and amoral at the same time. "Amoral" is defined as "not involving questions of right and wrong." If I knock over a vase and someone else catches it before it falls, their action is both unrelated to morality (a practical choice to avoid disruption and possible harm to themselves) and moral (protecting someone's property from damage). They aren't exclusive. Though I'm sure you could go back to the "or" in the original statement and assert that it's inclusive and not exclusive.
The impasse is that you have an opinion not supported by facts and are unwilling to examine the facts in regards to your opinion. And me bringing up facts or pointing out that you present sequential unrelated sentences as if there was some proof is where we have a difference of opinion. I think you have an opinion. I think it's valid. You may hold it all you want, share it all you want and such. But I think it isn't based in fact, and you are unwilling to discuss the facts based on impartial starting points, like a dictionary, and work from there.
Learn to love Alaska
With a name like "Avast!", is it any surprise that people are inclined to pirate it?
So, you are saying most people are individually 100% obedient of the law and polite social custom even when there is nobody watching?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
>>>you can in no way determine how many sales were lost to getting it for free.
Precisely. I'd go without virus software rather than pay for it, just as I go without Cable TV rather than pay for it.
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You just defined a war. And, yes, killing during war is not considered murder.