Originally Posted by geohsia

Getting people hooked has been a tried and tested strategy for getting your software out there. Most software companies have a way to let you try it without anyone having to resort to stealing.

Originally Posted by Grok

True. What was interesting in this case was that there were no time restrictions, you could update and download post-processor files and you could generate drawings and g-code.

I agree, the intel model is very interesting.

Originally Posted by Texrat

The US did the same thing on VHS and audio cassette tapes and IMO it's the most reasonable solution overall.

We were actually going to be prevented from legally taping over-the-air content. The legal compromise was that we could do so for personal use only, and a small fee would be assessed to recordable media since the most common use of the media was for recording copyrighted material. I'm willing to bet that is equally true for CDs and DVDs.

Of course, some of that fee should go directly to the content creators. In cases where a decent amount does not, to me that's an injustice.

SOMEhow revenue must be captured and distributed for content creators. It's only fair. I'm willing to entertain better solutions than what's in place now.

Originally Posted by Grok

The other sad justification in this pervasive pattern of stealing intellectual property is that it's EASY!

I wonder, who of you would borrow or steal a nice car if the keys were in it and no one was around?

Those of you who wouldn't should rethink your justification for stealing software etc.

Those who would..........well, a thief is a thief.

Originally Posted by Texrat

s/rationalization/justification

And while I agree with your analogy (see my previous book example that no one wanted to touch), many claim that improper acquisition of intellectual property isn't theft due mainly to the product's "insubstantial" nature. But that argument is a gross failure of logic. Not that anyone cares.

Originally Posted by geohsia

I don't agree but I understand why you might think that.

Let me ask you then, about music. If you were a musician, you love making music and for you its a joy but also a ton of work to get it just right, you need agents, band members, equipment the whole works. Now let's say you only make $0.05 or $0.10 on every song, iTunes takes 30%, the label gets their cut, so forth and so on and then all that's left for you is a few measly percentages. Now, if you were full-time and the only way of sustaining, you, your family, your children, do you think you'd still be ok with the world downloading your songs for free? Again, I'm talking full-time profession, not just a part-time hobby you do after dinner before you go to sleep.

So when people say, yeah, it just a stupid digital song, it has no value, do you think that would make you feel good after you've poured yourself into your art? You think that's right?

Look, some people get rich, some people don't. When people think Microsoft they think Bill Gates with BILLIONS of dollars, when they think music, they think Michael Jackson with his Hundreds of Millions. The music and software industry employs thousands if not millions of other people who also depend on the revenue.

Sure, there are the rich in any industry, that DOES NOT mean you can steal from that industry as a whole because you're also stealing from the regular workers, not just the big names.

Sorry I just can't seem to get my mind wrapped around taking for free someone else's hard earned work. I'm a photographer so maybe for me I'm more sensitive because my work is digital as well and I don't like it when I hear people say that digital media has no value, and no I am not rich.

Originally Posted by matthewbpt

Again about the morality aspect, you just described your view of morality, a view which many including myself agree with. But morality is not universal, as we can see by examining people from all over the world outside the more homogenous western culture, and people can have completely different moralities. For example in some tribes of indigenous people in the Amazon, the mother often drowns a newborn child if she already has many children and it is impractical to feed another. We may view this with horror and disgust, but that because of the moral system that we have been brought up with, and to them it is a completely normal and acceptable thing to do, indeed many other species in the animal world do this too.

Originally Posted by ysss

In a forum debate, is it possible to change anyone's mind?

Same answer