There's no walled garden. There's a door that has a requirement to enter, but I can just walk around and use a different door to get to the same area.
Limiting access in a single instance != walled garden. I can still use the regular Android market, or the amazon market, or install applications individually on my own, or any number of other ways of getting applications. Sorry, but there's no walled garden here...
I never said the Tea Party doesn't have influence. Of course they do. As for valuing Liberty, that's debatable. They value some forms of liberty. But saying that the Tea Party is asking for less government control while simultaneously arguing for government telling us who can and can't get married and that women can't get abortions is just hypocritical.
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. I don't look at the party affiliation, I look at the way a particular candidate stands on particular issues. The biggest problem with the current political climate is that individual Congresscritters are mostly afraid to go against their party on any issues.
If you think that the all Democrats = government control and all Republicans = Stupid (though from what I can tell, most are) and all Tea Party = crazy, then I feel sorry for you because you have no choices at all. I see a few individual people that I would vote for. It just seems that only people who vote with Democrats seem to be professing things aligned with my interests. However there are plenty that aren't.
I hear name calling, "You are naive" but nothing factual.
It's interesting that you would say that after doing the same yourself. When you state "It's also true grass roots, unlike the paid astroturf deployed against it" what facts do you have that show it is "true grass roots"? What "paid astroturf"? You state that the person you replied to is ignorant, yet have no facts to back up your assertions. Then you come and claim that I need facts. Why must I prove myself yet you do not have to?
Which TEA party isn't grass roots?
I'll give you that the original movement of the TEA party was somewhat grass roots but has since been co-opted and formed into an astroturf campaign full of people being manipulated by larger organizations
Who is funding them if they aren't grass roots?
When you have Tea Party organizations such as "Americans For Prosperity" which are funding a lot of Tea Party movements and activities. Then you realize that the "Americans For Prosperity" are funded by the Koch brothers....You begin to wonder. That, and if you look at the funding that Tea Party candidates receive, you find that they get tons of donations from the oil industry, gas industry, health professionals and the financial industry. Every large donation (Tea Party Patriots received a $1million donation from an 'anonymous donor'. How is that grass roots?) is hidden behind the new laws that don't require disclosure. So while you might look at everything I just said and claim I made it up (Ididnot) and then say I haven't proved it isn't grass roots. I say to you, you haven't proved that I'm wrong and that it is grass roots.
Did I hear you say according to your assertions that Rand Paul is ultra conservative far right?
Rand paul is so conservative that he scared Dick Cheney. Think about that for a second:
Some of his positions frighten even staunch conservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who backed Paul's GOP opponent. Source
He opposes abortions even in cases of rapes and incest and wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He wants to eliminate the department of education. I'll give you that some of his positions aren't as far right. He's an interesting mix of both far right and moderate, even a little left (such as legalizing Marijuana). But if it'll make you feel better, my original assertion was slight hyperbole and should have said "are generally ultra conservative/very far right" because yes, there are some exceptions.
The TEA party was effective in....
Just because they got someone elected does not necessarily mean they were effective. Consider Wisconsin where I'll be surprised if Scott Walker gets another term doing anything ever again. He's outright shown that getting rid of Unions has nothing to do with the budget or money, he just wants to bust unions. Including firefighters and policemen. In fact, the only public worker he's not trying to take a paycut and benefits from is himself!
Just because you haven't been paying attention, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I never said it didn't happen, hell the Tea Party is causing chaos, I even said that. But don't pretend that there's no corporate influences going on here. Don't pretend there's no astroturfing. Hell, don't pretend that the Tea Party is "drastically chang[ing] the conversation towards what We the People believe is important" because it's not. It's just another corporate funded group of people who believe they know best thinking that they are speaking for many more people than they actually are.
3. a culture that values feelings, consensus , and respect-by-title rather than facts/truth, individual out-of-box expression, and earned respect. if I can be put in jail for calling someone a name, there's a serious problem of legislation gone too far.
Wait, you think that the current culture actually respects facts and truth in the US? Where the hell do you live? I want some of that! Everyone I hear just panders to FUD and uses it to control the populace while lying their asses off and gets angry whenever you use facts to tell them they're wrong....
If you believe the Tea Party is "true grass roots, unlike the paid astroturf deployed against it." then you're really naive.
In addition, the Tea Party, the ones that make themselves known via candidates, news, etc., are ultra conservative/very far right. As such, they frequently make themselves seem out of touch and get the label of "Nut Job" slapped on them.
The only thing I've seen the Tea Party be effective at is creating a large amount of turmoil within the GOP causing chaos within the political discourse while the rest of the Republican party flounders while trying to "reign in the crazy".
You assume that GP doesn't agree with you that the textbooks you had were also unreasonably priced. Personally, I believe that if a textbook required for a class costs more than ~$30-$50 then it's unreasonable to require its purchase. Especially if you're only using a chapter or 2. I got by in college mostly by either sharing textbooks with friends, or just going without the textbook and borrowing it from a friend when necessary.
Obviously I know that not everyone is able to do that, but textbooks are just ridiculously priced nowadays.
If your request was granted, then yes it would be a legal precedent.
If your request was granted, the next time someone has a car accident involved suit, they will request the same and then point to your case's precedent. That would be very bad.
If they were true Hactivists they would have hacked their playstations to support the feature once again and posted how to do it to the public.
What rock have you been under? That's EXACTLY what they did. That's why Sony sued George Hotz. Because he posted how to hack the PS3 on his block and via youtube for all to see. Also, you're assuming that the people who hacked the PSN are in any way associated with the same crowd asking for OtherOS to be back and not just some opportunistic crackers.
Essentially there's a public key which is the associated "owner" which is changed everytime the coin is transferred. In addition, the coin keeps it's history of transactions. Therefore if you have the private key associated to the "owner's" public key, it means you are authorized to transfer it.
You miss the point. You can create public keys on the spot for yourself and therefore use completely different keys for every transaction if you like. Or use the same for multiple transactions. It doesn't matter as long as you keep the public/private key stored on your computer. Therefore the only way to trace a public key to a specific person is to find the communication that gave the public key to someone. Thus those entry and exit points are as secure as you make them.
If you're a merchant, you might put your public key up on your site in order for anyone to send you a payment via the key. However, if you want to make a transaction and privately give your key to someone via the phone or an instant message, they would first have to find that text message/instant message/phone call log which means that they would already have to suspect you before they could get a warrant to get that information to confirm it. Essentially, it's a needle in a haystack. Out of the entire world, they'd have to find the single communication which communicated that specific public key. So for any transaction that you're worried about, you can simply create a one-off key and write it down and hand it to someone. Voila. Untraceable.
That's assuming the IP address from which the public key was communicated from is saved. Otherwise you'll have a hard time figuring out what IP address a specific key came from...
Unfortunately, that's not how democracy works. If 90% of the US voters decided it was legal to kill someone for whatever reason and then congress had a 90% vote to change the law to make it legal, then nothing would stop them from making it so. Because "Murder" is not listed in the constitution as something that must be prevented. It's assumed, but not stated.
Even if it was stated, with a 90% of the population, an amendment could be made to make it allowable.
In a democracy, a sufficiently large majority will take charge and decide everything, thus there must always be a balance to how big the majority is allowed to get.
Except there's nothing to make the link with. You have the private key to the signature stored when you generated it. The only way it could be traceable is if you made your public key, well, extremely public. For a private transaction you can create a public key, use it once and never use it for anything else again. Thus as long as you keep it stored but never release it, there is absolutely no way for it to be traced to you. This is very easy to do with the way bitcoin's software works.
If we all payed[sic] for our media, there would be no deficit
Broken window fallacy plain and simple. The money that is not spent on media is instead spent on other things. Thus there would be no difference. The music industry as a whole is making more money than ever. Even the labels are making hefty billion dollar profits. Learn some economics.:)
You could have used the software in labs if you didn't want to buy it
As I stated, the lab hours are very specific and restricted. If you had classes and/or work during most of the time the labs were open, then you weren't going to be able to do much in the labs. It just doesn't work out that way.
Even today, degree courses do not even expect you to have your own computer, let alone one that can run the course software.
That depends on the course. Any technical focused school will indeed expect you to have your own computer. Any technical degree is going to expect you to have your own computer.
It's just like course textbooks. They're typically expensive. But if you don't want to buy them, you can find them in the library.
Except course textbooks can be bought used for very cheap. Software can't. Not only that, but I can check a book out of the library and take it home to use it. You can't do that with software and a lab. So if I have time restraints on only being able to get the library for a short period of time while it is open, it's ok because I can take the book out of the library. If I can only get to the lab during a very short period due to classes and work, then you're saying I should just be SOL.
I think you are overcomplicating things that are actually quite simple.
I think you have a sense of privilege that you don't realize. You are making something out to be simple, when in reality, it's not quite so easy and simple. If everything works out properly and happily, then yes. You can use the software in the lab, get your work done and be happy. Frequently for many people, it doesn't work out so nicely. In that situation you do what you have to do to get your work done.
So I took a class in college which required me to use a specific piece of software. I had choices of course. I could work in the computer lab during the severely limited overlap between the hours of the computer lab and me not being in class or working, or I could purchase the software from the company, or I could pay the school for their bundle of software (which they made relatively cheap because your license expired when you were no longer a student there and thus you were expected to remove the programs.) This class wasn't part of my major and if I didn't spend enough time working on the projects I wouldn't pass the class. So what do you think I did? I certainly wasn't going to shell out money for a program that I was going to use once to pass a class and that's it (even textbooks can be sold back. Software can't.) Obviously, I pirated a copy and got my work done.
It's nice that you use the terminology of "stealing" software because it's anything but. There's no BS here. As a student you save money whereever you can. 90% of any software that you "need" in college, unless it's part of your major such as Photoshop for a graphics designer, you aren't going to use it outside of that class or two. There's no reason to spend hundreds of dollars for a program that you aren't going to use except to do assignments in a class. Even the calculator could be sold back to someone. Pirating an application deprives the author of NOTHING. I was not going to be able to afford it, there was no lost sale there. As is the case with most college students.
As has been said, piracy is a symptom of software being priced outside of the range of it's market. They may not consider it their market, but if it's required then that makes it part of the market. Believe what you like, but there's no theft here. No stealing. There is copyright infringement, yes. But the end result is professionals who know how to use software and will use it in their professional lives which generate sales for the companies. Why do you think the big name companies don't care about piracy. You think Adobe has a problem with the 19 year old computer graphics student who pirated Photoshop? Of course not, that's a future customer right there.
Your principle seems to come from your belief that copyright "is unjust and damaging to creativity and culture". This is debatable.
A little bit out of context, though I admit it's my own fault for not clarifying. I meant copyright as it is currently implemented.
Furthermore, you appear to think that if you disagree "with what [a] license represents and says", then you have the right to ignore it and use the software anyway.
If I did not agree to the license, I am not bound by the license. I personally have not pirated any software for many years, I've moved to free alternatives really. This has mostly to do with what is stated elsewhere in this thread, that continuing to pirate that software just results in keeping the marketshare for that software alive and by supporting (and even donating, which I do) to free alternatives, we can make those alternatives better which is better for the community.
If you do not like a particular software license, then don't use the software!
It's not always that simple now is it? When I was in school there were a couple situations where I needed specific software to do my work. The school offered a software package for a specific amount of money which would have given me license to use the program. (Interestingly the way they made it cheaper was because my license would expire as soon as I was no longer a student. Kinda fucked up, innit?) My choices were to pay money I didn't have for software, be unable to do my work except in the limited amount of time that overlapped between the hours of the computer lab and me not being in class, or pirate the software so I would be able to work on my own time and be able to get the the project done. What am I going to choose? Kinda obvious really. The company who made the software loses nothing, I get my work done. Hell, if that class was part of my major I may have gone on to have needed the software in my professional life which would have led to me purchasing it or at least having a license purchased for my by a company.
Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be.
How many people pay $40k - $60k out of their pocket to go to school? Very few. The vast majority are a combination of scholarships and loans while paying some out of pocket to reduce the amount of loans. Therefore your argument is disingenuous, no one is first paying $40k and then turning around after spending it and going "Wow, that $250 is really expensive!".
Highly discounted software which in many cases is free?
If the software was free, then there's no discussion is there? There's no need to pirate something that is free. Nor is there any possible argument for lost revenue or stealing if it is being given away for free. As for being "highly discounted" if it's not affordable, it's not affordable. It doesn't matter how much you discount off the price. If offered to fix a leak in your plumbing for $100,000 and told you that my regular price is really $1,000,000 and i'm giving you a 90% discount, does that make the $100,000 any more affordable and mean that you'll take it? Absolutely not.
The distinction is just as arbitrary as your decision not to see the distinction. You look at it in a black and white world where the only thing that matters at all is the rights of the author and publisher. You ignore the philosophical idea that is the basis of the licenses to begin with.
You see it only as a case of "there is a license which dictates such and such" and "you have violated that license". Which is all well and good from a legal standpoint. I would never argue that, under the current laws, piracy is copyright infringement and is therefore unlawful. The difference is that you care about something that is unjust and damaging to creativity and culture (copyright) and do not see the idea that if the author and publisher do not respect their end of the bargain for copyright to exist, there is no reason for someone else to uphold their end of the bargain to not violate their monopoly.
There is no inherent right for an author or publisher to control an idea they let out to the world. In fact, the very intangibleness of an idea is why once an idea is loosed upon the world you cannot take it back or control it. The only right they are given are through a bargain with the public. That they will be given a short and limited monopoly of their idea in order to profit from it as an incentive to create more ideas. That way people can build upon these ideas.
I think this is a matter of principle
I also think it's a matter of principle, the disagreement here is that our principles do not mesh. Not really much more to it. Just note that the distinction may seem arbitrary to you, while I wonder why you arbitrarily deign to ignore the difference between simply following a license and actually disagreeing with what that license represents and says. Let alone the fact that the license holds you hostage when you can't agree to it until after you have purchased a non-refundable product.
Physics textbooks can be bought used or a group of people can pool money and share to buy. Neither is possible with photoshop. (A student license is for a single person not multiple installations.
Graphing calculators can also be bought used, in addition they don't cost anywhere near $250. Usually closer to $80 or $90.
chances are you don't NEED Photoshop
True. In many cases people don't need it. But these are the people who know that the industry standard is Photoshop and therefore they should know it in order to get a job, even if a free alternative will do the job for school.
can use either the ones in the lab, or free alternatives
Labs have hours and limited resources, it is not comparable to having your own copy. Free alternatives would be preferable, but as I said above, going with the Industry Standard application is better for learning what you'll be expected to know as a professional.
If you're a graphic arts student who really DOES need Photoshop, then suck it up and buy it
Will you help pay for someone who needs it to buy it? I doubt it. It's kinda fucked up to assume that everyone who goes to school for graphics design would have the disposable money to pay $250 for Photoshop. These are the same people who will drive businesses to purchase licenses wholesale of photoshop. Why do you think Adobe doesn't crack down on it? Give me a break, Adobe benefits the most from piracy of Photoshop due to keeping market share.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no walled garden. There's a door that has a requirement to enter, but I can just walk around and use a different door to get to the same area.
Limiting access in a single instance != walled garden. I can still use the regular Android market, or the amazon market, or install applications individually on my own, or any number of other ways of getting applications. Sorry, but there's no walled garden here...
Nice sidestepping of my points.
I never said the Tea Party doesn't have influence. Of course they do. As for valuing Liberty, that's debatable. They value some forms of liberty. But saying that the Tea Party is asking for less government control while simultaneously arguing for government telling us who can and can't get married and that women can't get abortions is just hypocritical.
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. I don't look at the party affiliation, I look at the way a particular candidate stands on particular issues. The biggest problem with the current political climate is that individual Congresscritters are mostly afraid to go against their party on any issues.
If you think that the all Democrats = government control and all Republicans = Stupid (though from what I can tell, most are) and all Tea Party = crazy, then I feel sorry for you because you have no choices at all. I see a few individual people that I would vote for. It just seems that only people who vote with Democrats seem to be professing things aligned with my interests. However there are plenty that aren't.
I hear name calling, "You are naive" but nothing factual.
It's interesting that you would say that after doing the same yourself. When you state "It's also true grass roots, unlike the paid astroturf deployed against it" what facts do you have that show it is "true grass roots"? What "paid astroturf"? You state that the person you replied to is ignorant, yet have no facts to back up your assertions. Then you come and claim that I need facts. Why must I prove myself yet you do not have to?
Which TEA party isn't grass roots?
I'll give you that the original movement of the TEA party was somewhat grass roots but has since been co-opted and formed into an astroturf campaign full of people being manipulated by larger organizations
Who is funding them if they aren't grass roots?
When you have Tea Party organizations such as "Americans For Prosperity" which are funding a lot of Tea Party movements and activities. Then you realize that the "Americans For Prosperity" are funded by the Koch brothers....You begin to wonder. That, and if you look at the funding that Tea Party candidates receive, you find that they get tons of donations from the oil industry, gas industry, health professionals and the financial industry. Every large donation (Tea Party Patriots received a $1million donation from an 'anonymous donor'. How is that grass roots?) is hidden behind the new laws that don't require disclosure. So while you might look at everything I just said and claim I made it up (I did not) and then say I haven't proved it isn't grass roots. I say to you, you haven't proved that I'm wrong and that it is grass roots.
Did I hear you say according to your assertions that Rand Paul is ultra conservative far right?
Rand paul is so conservative that he scared Dick Cheney. Think about that for a second:
Some of his positions frighten even staunch conservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who backed Paul's GOP opponent. Source
He opposes abortions even in cases of rapes and incest and wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He wants to eliminate the department of education. I'll give you that some of his positions aren't as far right. He's an interesting mix of both far right and moderate, even a little left (such as legalizing Marijuana). But if it'll make you feel better, my original assertion was slight hyperbole and should have said "are generally ultra conservative/very far right" because yes, there are some exceptions.
The TEA party was effective in....
Just because they got someone elected does not necessarily mean they were effective. Consider Wisconsin where I'll be surprised if Scott Walker gets another term doing anything ever again. He's outright shown that getting rid of Unions has nothing to do with the budget or money, he just wants to bust unions. Including firefighters and policemen. In fact, the only public worker he's not trying to take a paycut and benefits from is himself!
Just because you haven't been paying attention, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I never said it didn't happen, hell the Tea Party is causing chaos, I even said that. But don't pretend that there's no corporate influences going on here. Don't pretend there's no astroturfing. Hell, don't pretend that the Tea Party is "drastically chang[ing] the conversation towards what We the People believe is important" because it's not. It's just another corporate funded group of people who believe they know best thinking that they are speaking for many more people than they actually are.
In some cases I can agree with you, in other cases being PC is just pointing out the truth to people who don't realize how entitled they are.
3. a culture that values feelings, consensus , and respect-by-title rather than facts/truth, individual out-of-box expression, and earned respect. if I can be put in jail for calling someone a name, there's a serious problem of legislation gone too far.
Wait, you think that the current culture actually respects facts and truth in the US? Where the hell do you live? I want some of that! Everyone I hear just panders to FUD and uses it to control the populace while lying their asses off and gets angry whenever you use facts to tell them they're wrong....
And murder is still illegal.....so your point is what exactly?
If you believe the Tea Party is "true grass roots, unlike the paid astroturf deployed against it." then you're really naive.
In addition, the Tea Party, the ones that make themselves known via candidates, news, etc., are ultra conservative/very far right. As such, they frequently make themselves seem out of touch and get the label of "Nut Job" slapped on them.
The only thing I've seen the Tea Party be effective at is creating a large amount of turmoil within the GOP causing chaos within the political discourse while the rest of the Republican party flounders while trying to "reign in the crazy".
You assume that GP doesn't agree with you that the textbooks you had were also unreasonably priced. Personally, I believe that if a textbook required for a class costs more than ~$30-$50 then it's unreasonable to require its purchase. Especially if you're only using a chapter or 2. I got by in college mostly by either sharing textbooks with friends, or just going without the textbook and borrowing it from a friend when necessary.
Obviously I know that not everyone is able to do that, but textbooks are just ridiculously priced nowadays.
If your request was granted, then yes it would be a legal precedent.
If your request was granted, the next time someone has a car accident involved suit, they will request the same and then point to your case's precedent. That would be very bad.
If they were true Hactivists they would have hacked their playstations to support the feature once again and posted how to do it to the public.
What rock have you been under? That's EXACTLY what they did. That's why Sony sued George Hotz. Because he posted how to hack the PS3 on his block and via youtube for all to see. Also, you're assuming that the people who hacked the PSN are in any way associated with the same crowd asking for OtherOS to be back and not just some opportunistic crackers.
Essentially there's a public key which is the associated "owner" which is changed everytime the coin is transferred. In addition, the coin keeps it's history of transactions. Therefore if you have the private key associated to the "owner's" public key, it means you are authorized to transfer it.
You miss the point. You can create public keys on the spot for yourself and therefore use completely different keys for every transaction if you like. Or use the same for multiple transactions. It doesn't matter as long as you keep the public/private key stored on your computer. Therefore the only way to trace a public key to a specific person is to find the communication that gave the public key to someone. Thus those entry and exit points are as secure as you make them.
If you're a merchant, you might put your public key up on your site in order for anyone to send you a payment via the key. However, if you want to make a transaction and privately give your key to someone via the phone or an instant message, they would first have to find that text message/instant message/phone call log which means that they would already have to suspect you before they could get a warrant to get that information to confirm it. Essentially, it's a needle in a haystack. Out of the entire world, they'd have to find the single communication which communicated that specific public key. So for any transaction that you're worried about, you can simply create a one-off key and write it down and hand it to someone. Voila. Untraceable.
That's assuming the IP address from which the public key was communicated from is saved. Otherwise you'll have a hard time figuring out what IP address a specific key came from...
Unfortunately, that's not how democracy works. If 90% of the US voters decided it was legal to kill someone for whatever reason and then congress had a 90% vote to change the law to make it legal, then nothing would stop them from making it so. Because "Murder" is not listed in the constitution as something that must be prevented. It's assumed, but not stated.
Even if it was stated, with a 90% of the population, an amendment could be made to make it allowable.
In a democracy, a sufficiently large majority will take charge and decide everything, thus there must always be a balance to how big the majority is allowed to get.
Except there's nothing to make the link with. You have the private key to the signature stored when you generated it. The only way it could be traceable is if you made your public key, well, extremely public. For a private transaction you can create a public key, use it once and never use it for anything else again. Thus as long as you keep it stored but never release it, there is absolutely no way for it to be traced to you. This is very easy to do with the way bitcoin's software works.
If we all payed[sic] for our media, there would be no deficit
Broken window fallacy plain and simple. The money that is not spent on media is instead spent on other things. Thus there would be no difference. The music industry as a whole is making more money than ever. Even the labels are making hefty billion dollar profits. Learn some economics. :)
If all universities did precisely as you have stated yours does. Then you're right, there'd be no need to pirate the applications that students do.
Unfortunately, not many universities do that.
Well shit, I just went and sent off a very polite letter to my senator who is on that list. I doubt it'll come to anything, but I can hope!
Reading comprehension. You need it.
You could have used the software in labs if you didn't want to buy it
As I stated, the lab hours are very specific and restricted. If you had classes and/or work during most of the time the labs were open, then you weren't going to be able to do much in the labs. It just doesn't work out that way.
Even today, degree courses do not even expect you to have your own computer, let alone one that can run the course software.
That depends on the course. Any technical focused school will indeed expect you to have your own computer. Any technical degree is going to expect you to have your own computer.
It's just like course textbooks. They're typically expensive. But if you don't want to buy them, you can find them in the library.
Except course textbooks can be bought used for very cheap. Software can't. Not only that, but I can check a book out of the library and take it home to use it. You can't do that with software and a lab. So if I have time restraints on only being able to get the library for a short period of time while it is open, it's ok because I can take the book out of the library. If I can only get to the lab during a very short period due to classes and work, then you're saying I should just be SOL.
I think you are overcomplicating things that are actually quite simple.
I think you have a sense of privilege that you don't realize. You are making something out to be simple, when in reality, it's not quite so easy and simple. If everything works out properly and happily, then yes. You can use the software in the lab, get your work done and be happy. Frequently for many people, it doesn't work out so nicely. In that situation you do what you have to do to get your work done.
So I took a class in college which required me to use a specific piece of software. I had choices of course. I could work in the computer lab during the severely limited overlap between the hours of the computer lab and me not being in class or working, or I could purchase the software from the company, or I could pay the school for their bundle of software (which they made relatively cheap because your license expired when you were no longer a student there and thus you were expected to remove the programs.) This class wasn't part of my major and if I didn't spend enough time working on the projects I wouldn't pass the class. So what do you think I did? I certainly wasn't going to shell out money for a program that I was going to use once to pass a class and that's it (even textbooks can be sold back. Software can't.) Obviously, I pirated a copy and got my work done.
It's nice that you use the terminology of "stealing" software because it's anything but. There's no BS here. As a student you save money whereever you can. 90% of any software that you "need" in college, unless it's part of your major such as Photoshop for a graphics designer, you aren't going to use it outside of that class or two. There's no reason to spend hundreds of dollars for a program that you aren't going to use except to do assignments in a class. Even the calculator could be sold back to someone. Pirating an application deprives the author of NOTHING. I was not going to be able to afford it, there was no lost sale there. As is the case with most college students.
As has been said, piracy is a symptom of software being priced outside of the range of it's market. They may not consider it their market, but if it's required then that makes it part of the market. Believe what you like, but there's no theft here. No stealing. There is copyright infringement, yes. But the end result is professionals who know how to use software and will use it in their professional lives which generate sales for the companies. Why do you think the big name companies don't care about piracy. You think Adobe has a problem with the 19 year old computer graphics student who pirated Photoshop? Of course not, that's a future customer right there.
Your principle seems to come from your belief that copyright "is unjust and damaging to creativity and culture". This is debatable.
A little bit out of context, though I admit it's my own fault for not clarifying. I meant copyright as it is currently implemented.
Furthermore, you appear to think that if you disagree "with what [a] license represents and says", then you have the right to ignore it and use the software anyway.
If I did not agree to the license, I am not bound by the license. I personally have not pirated any software for many years, I've moved to free alternatives really. This has mostly to do with what is stated elsewhere in this thread, that continuing to pirate that software just results in keeping the marketshare for that software alive and by supporting (and even donating, which I do) to free alternatives, we can make those alternatives better which is better for the community.
If you do not like a particular software license, then don't use the software!
It's not always that simple now is it? When I was in school there were a couple situations where I needed specific software to do my work. The school offered a software package for a specific amount of money which would have given me license to use the program. (Interestingly the way they made it cheaper was because my license would expire as soon as I was no longer a student. Kinda fucked up, innit?) My choices were to pay money I didn't have for software, be unable to do my work except in the limited amount of time that overlapped between the hours of the computer lab and me not being in class, or pirate the software so I would be able to work on my own time and be able to get the the project done. What am I going to choose? Kinda obvious really. The company who made the software loses nothing, I get my work done. Hell, if that class was part of my major I may have gone on to have needed the software in my professional life which would have led to me purchasing it or at least having a license purchased for my by a company.
Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be.
How many people pay $40k - $60k out of their pocket to go to school? Very few. The vast majority are a combination of scholarships and loans while paying some out of pocket to reduce the amount of loans. Therefore your argument is disingenuous, no one is first paying $40k and then turning around after spending it and going "Wow, that $250 is really expensive!".
Highly discounted software which in many cases is free?
If the software was free, then there's no discussion is there? There's no need to pirate something that is free. Nor is there any possible argument for lost revenue or stealing if it is being given away for free. As for being "highly discounted" if it's not affordable, it's not affordable. It doesn't matter how much you discount off the price. If offered to fix a leak in your plumbing for $100,000 and told you that my regular price is really $1,000,000 and i'm giving you a 90% discount, does that make the $100,000 any more affordable and mean that you'll take it? Absolutely not.
The distinction is just as arbitrary as your decision not to see the distinction. You look at it in a black and white world where the only thing that matters at all is the rights of the author and publisher. You ignore the philosophical idea that is the basis of the licenses to begin with.
You see it only as a case of "there is a license which dictates such and such" and "you have violated that license". Which is all well and good from a legal standpoint. I would never argue that, under the current laws, piracy is copyright infringement and is therefore unlawful. The difference is that you care about something that is unjust and damaging to creativity and culture (copyright) and do not see the idea that if the author and publisher do not respect their end of the bargain for copyright to exist, there is no reason for someone else to uphold their end of the bargain to not violate their monopoly.
There is no inherent right for an author or publisher to control an idea they let out to the world. In fact, the very intangibleness of an idea is why once an idea is loosed upon the world you cannot take it back or control it. The only right they are given are through a bargain with the public. That they will be given a short and limited monopoly of their idea in order to profit from it as an incentive to create more ideas. That way people can build upon these ideas.
I think this is a matter of principle
I also think it's a matter of principle, the disagreement here is that our principles do not mesh. Not really much more to it. Just note that the distinction may seem arbitrary to you, while I wonder why you arbitrarily deign to ignore the difference between simply following a license and actually disagreeing with what that license represents and says. Let alone the fact that the license holds you hostage when you can't agree to it until after you have purchased a non-refundable product.
Physics textbooks can be bought used or a group of people can pool money and share to buy. Neither is possible with photoshop. (A student license is for a single person not multiple installations.
Graphing calculators can also be bought used, in addition they don't cost anywhere near $250. Usually closer to $80 or $90.
chances are you don't NEED Photoshop
True. In many cases people don't need it. But these are the people who know that the industry standard is Photoshop and therefore they should know it in order to get a job, even if a free alternative will do the job for school.
can use either the ones in the lab, or free alternatives
Labs have hours and limited resources, it is not comparable to having your own copy. Free alternatives would be preferable, but as I said above, going with the Industry Standard application is better for learning what you'll be expected to know as a professional.
If you're a graphic arts student who really DOES need Photoshop, then suck it up and buy it
Will you help pay for someone who needs it to buy it? I doubt it. It's kinda fucked up to assume that everyone who goes to school for graphics design would have the disposable money to pay $250 for Photoshop. These are the same people who will drive businesses to purchase licenses wholesale of photoshop. Why do you think Adobe doesn't crack down on it? Give me a break, Adobe benefits the most from piracy of Photoshop due to keeping market share.
Wrong. 80% off
Wait...I said "$250 or so" and you're going to say I'm wrong because the actual price is $200?
You do realize that you didn't prove me wrong about anything? Rarely will a student be able to afford to spend $200 on a piece of software.