Considering that nearly every pre-built computer sold on Earth comes with Windows pre-installed, I'd say Linux would still be struggling. If anything, you've just proven that piracy *isn't* a good thing; as it doesn't seem to be helping Linux a lot. Regardless, Linux's market shared sucked before P2P and writeable discs, and it'll continue to suck.

NO, it isn't. That is not what you've paid for, that is not in accordance with the agreement, the contract that you underwent with the vendor. If you're not happy with it: DON'T USE IT. It's that easy.

How they sell it, and why, is sadly none of your business. Why are houses in Bromley worth 12 times less than 80 years ago (after accounting for inflation)? Because they're being sold in Bromley. Why are houses in Toowong worth 180% more than 2 years ago? Because the market changed. Any kind of seller will change their profit margin in order to attack new market segments.

Also, when you buy an OEM product, usually the computer manufacturer will modify it to suit their needs (strip out specific drivers, add specific software, etc). They already pay for a part of the licence, and as such the price of Windows is slightly less than when you purchase the full version in a store. The software isn't exactly the same, and you don't get the same service either.

Don't understand arguments you don't understand.

That's weird, because that's exactly what it sounds like.

I'm sorry, we must not be living on the same planet. Nice to finally talk with an extra-terrestrial. Because you see, on my planet -- strange as it may seem from your point of view -- our population is purchasing more media than ever before. Even with a so-called economic crisis, people are buying more crapazines that before, are spending more money on concerts, buying more songs on iTunes and games on iPhones than ever before. Books have gone up as well, and blu-ray growth has never stopped rising since it came out.

It seems as if though more people are realising that what they're paying for isn't that expensive, and a fair contribution to an artist's success ($1 per song, COME ON). And guess what, you don't even have to buy the full album! You can just buy the songs you like.

When I was a kid, I would put money aside for 3 (or more) months before I could buy a record. I would go to the "discobus" which was a bus that had a bunch of CDs, tapes and vinyls in it, a music store in a bus. Every Wednesday afternoon I would bike the couple of kilometres to the bus, and listen to my favourite album all afternoon (At the time that was The Offspring's Smash, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Blood Sugar Sex Magik). And trust me, the joy I had when buying those first albums is something that most pirates will never experience.

Nice try, troll, I'm sure you were hoping for a bit more of a cataclysmic reaction. I'm not even going to reply any further to such a stupid and brain-dead blow.

Because they have better things to do? Seriously, do you honestly believe that people at AutoDesk want to spend their time surfing the web amongst porn ads trying to remove cracks? Of course not. People have, you know, lives -- interesting things to do. Stop thinking that because it's being ignored, they tolerate it. They're not asking for it. You have to understand the difference between limiting your losses when facing a lost sale, and attempting to recover a sale.

Teenagers who pirate AutoCAD, which is indeed a $3k software package are not an interesting market for AutoDesk. They would never buy it, so you might as well just ignore them. They won't cause you much harm, and they're getting trained on your product. No engineer/architect/company in its right mind would use a pirated version of AutoCAD, because once they get caught, they could lose everything, and that's where AutoDesk makes its money. But then again, ignoring someone isn't giving them permission. The license agreement you sign when you install the software (yes, by installing you are entering a contract with the vendor) says you're not allowed to pirate it. That's, effectively, the law, from there and then.

There's one other thing though: as a student, you don't need the ****ing software. Or let me put it another way: If you can't afford it, or account for it as an operating cost, you don't need it. Need it for studies? Well, you just bought a $4k computer, why not buy the software that's going to run on it? 85% of all startups will use their main credit line to purchase their base infrastructure (which includes servers, networks, desktops and software), why not students... If you really need it, that is.

Again, broken argument by design.

It's actually quite interesting to see this new generation of people who essentially pirate everything and believe that they're entitled to anything go flying at the world, thinking they can change everything. Most of y'all probably don't have a job, are still in school, and if you've already started working, you haven't realised yet how simple things are, and complicated that makes life.

And now for the village idiot:

Well actually, that's the only thing we ask for. The software I write doesn't have serial numbers, and doesn't require cracks. It just runs, you can install it on any machine, by anyone, and it will run, without any limit, at any point in time. I trust my customers to pay me when they use my software (actually, the software is so complicated to install/use properly that they need us to set it up, train them, so, we don't need the cracks).

Most authors, artists and software companies don't want to put more security around their products. They just want to do what they're paid to do: write good software, good music and good books, that will make you want to buy their creations.

Oh piss off. Don't insult us by saying things like that. No software maker asked for that, no author nor artist ever requested that. What governments do in the name of piracy is NOT what artists want. Raise the taxes on writeable-CDs? Yeah, like we care. 3-strike law in France? We don't give a sod about that. We want people to either not use our intellectual property, or pay for it. It's that simple. I would never want to send anyone to jail because they violated my IP, and I don't want to ruin their lives either.

Just pay the bloody $10 and be done with it.

I just can't fathom why people would think they're allowed to use something they haven't paid for (if those are the rules of the sale)? How stupid, arrogant, self-centered and lobotomised do you have to be to believe something like that?

Wow this discussion is on every board I visit. Guess a lot of people are feeling a need to justify.

1) "piracy" when applied to software or digital media means making a copy of digital media that is FOR SALE, that you intend to use (and/or redistribute) WITHOUT paying for the copy.

2) it is never justified. If the digital media was meant to be freely distributed (and much software, music, and video IS) then it would be. Deciding you don't want to pay for it doesn't make it free. Ever. Even if you REALLY wish hard. If you don't want to pay for something then DON'T USE IT. Simple.

So yeah, you're stealing from someone's kid. Way to go. Fight the power.

Bah.

i said I am not trying to justify myself because I am not. I repeat I have a fully legal licence of windows for each of my computers.

that's exactly what I said. And the fact that people do have more interesting things to do is not an argument. I also have more interesting things to do than count steel rods but I do it because it's part of my job.

and you must not call somebody extraterestrial if you just cant understand his post. I am talking about tso's post. I think YOU are trolling by attacking all past posters who have a nice conversation expressing different views. Ok disagree if you like but stop insulting.
Thanks.
________
Park Royal 2 Condominium Pattaya

Yes you did. That's precisely what you require with non-redistribution rules.

What you say is precisely :

« Pay the bloody $10 for this stuff, and don't give it to anyone else. »

Sorry but this is not exactly the same.

I think I am allowed to use something without paying for it, just because using it doesn't harm anyone. You don't even have to know it, I have just copied a damned bunch of 0 and 1s on my disk.

We all use many things that have been designed and created by other people in the past. These people doesn't try to waste public force energy to have us charged for that. Because they know very well their creation is sooo easy to be shared. When N people use it, it doesn't cost more to anyone if N+1 people use it.

Your work as a software developer doesn't worth nothing compared for instance to a major scientific discovery. And yet you have the arrogance of saying that your work should be paid beyond the only forces of market, when scientists have never claimed anything like that.

If for instance someone demonstrate Riemann's conjecture, he will receive $1M from the finnish state, and that may be deserved. But then hopefully I won't have to pay if I want to read or use this demonstration.

Just sell your software $1M if it worths it.

Trying to sell something that can be easily copied is tricky. Asking for public force to help you to do that, is a shame.

As Richard Stallman has often pointed out, we should never fall into the trap created by e.g. Microsoft, Apple, and Disney and equate the cruel hijacking of ships (and killing of people) with something essentially good as helping your neigbour.

I use free software and I have no unauthorized software on my computer, simply because I do not want to use that kind of software. It is ethically wrong to use non-free software because the developer of such software essentially asks me to be a bad friend by demanding that I don't share things with my friends.

I have however noting against paying for good (free) software and have e.g. joined the FSF and donated to many great software projects like GNU Emacs, Emacs orgmode and TeX. These days donations are much easier to make because of paypal and similar services.

This is actually a funny and quite pertinent way of seeing things.

I want to add that in most countries, non-redistribution rules allow you to share the sofware you bought with your family and close friends. But what if you consider that everyone is your friend ? What if you are that a good person ?

Basically non-redistribution policies are non-christian concept. I'm atheist so I'm not concerned, but I think that's quite ironic that those policies are so much widespread in countries where christian dogma is so popular, and where people are therefore supposed to be all brothers.

All credit goes to Stallman. For a fine (and funny) talk on free software and related topics, see e.g.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&view=3&dur=3#

God damned it. Have you paid license fees for quoting him ?

This conference seems very pleasant. I've only watched the beginning and I've already laughed several times.

Thanks.

piracy is never justified, but you're not going to stop me from doing it