No because schools now usually supply free yearly licenses for their students (like autoCAD or Solidworks etc)

Of course, some schools don't do that

Sometimes getting free software is just getting into the right place at the right time.

A former employer once got rid of AutoCAD. They tossed everything they had into a dumpster. A friend of mine rescued a lot of it. In the pile I found a brand new unregistered AutoCAD 13. Nice.

A few years later I was managing CAD activity for another employer. We had decided to switch from Solidworks to Pro/ENGINEER (not my choice). To try to win us back, the SW salesman gave me 5 licensed sets of Solidworks 2000. My employer didn't want them. I kept one, and made 4 good friends with the rest.

Best advice: keep your eyes open. Deals happen.

Wait a second.. how the hell is dumpster diving to obtain the software any better than anything else being discussed?

As you stated, in bold, previously: You pay for the right to USE it... you are still circumventing that by Dumpster Diving.

In the computer security world, dumpster diving is a form of Social Engineering and typically is a stepping stone to a form of hacking.

Dumpster diving to grab software, and then using said software, is just as much a form of piracy as taking it off the shelf, downloading it, copying it, whatever.

YOU still didn't pay for it.

I'll never admit to having stolen/pirated anything while in college.... Now that I am a professional I do buy my software as i use it to make money. However I would have never become a professional if i didn't do, what i never, while in school.

Not really an answer, just food for thought that maybe the software companies really do, in the long term, profit from piracy.

In regards to the poll, I voted no.

Relax there fatalsaint.

There is a HUGE difference. I didn't walk into a store and steal it. I didn't illegally download it. In the dumpster example, a company paid for it, then threw it away. My friend kept it from becoming landfill material.

No theft whatsoever. No security threat (really, WTF?). A simple rescue.

I'm amazed you're even making an issue out of that.

EDIT: in the dumpster situation, the company involved paid for the privilege, so there was no net loss to the software provider. The purchasing company then abidicated that privilege.

Let me make myself clear: my opinion is based on what's legal/illegal, nonharmful/harmful or fair/unfair. Note that those principles get more nebulous as you go left to right.

And when I said we "pay for the privilege (not actually right) to use the software", I mean that specific to USE, NOT PAY. In other words, identifying what is being paid for, not saying one must always pay for the privilege (that would work against FLOSS).

a) Just because I don't want it doesn't mean anyone can have it. Generally speaking, of course.

b) Not all that is discarded is open salvage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

c) If throwing away and recovery is legal, then so should lending, donating and resale as second hand. They aren't, especially in the software league. Many an example where second hand software is denied access, updates, support.

If I were, I'd be able to claim my right to the content at any time. I can't. If I have a tape version of a song, downloading it in a torrent would still get me axed.

If I were, I 'd get a discount in the CD store because I already bought the material and only need to pay the support.

If I were, I wouldn't be limited to the number of times I can download the same song. Nor would I be to the number of installs I can have. Nor would the functioning of my software be tied intentionally to the physical support.

If I buy a CD, I don't get the second at a discount. It may work like that in theory, but in practice nobody gives a flying rat about that because we don't have a say.

--

And Devil's Advocate on the forums or not, if there's anything I actually hate and would pick up arms against is injustice. Can't stand it. And say what you will, companies cut a lot of corners and nobody cares because they have expenses and mass production to take care of, so, you know, cut them some slack. Who cuts the buyer some "slack", legally? We don't have expenses? I pay from my pocket for every failed marketing campaign out there. They all add up to "advertising". No questions asked.

Some out there actually have a word they stick to. Others are simply and insanely hell bent on thrusting on the general area of the customer's seating arrangements.

After paying something like minimum wage for a game, they make me watch commercials (COMMERCIALS!) before I can play. Every time. No skips. Illegal to modify the file.

Tie my game to a support that poor quality and sheds the paint layer.

Deny me the right to play because my card is special. Cripple my experience by requiring me to play online and forcing me to wait through updates. Actively breaks my game by updating it even though it never asked.

Is it wrong to circumvent these people? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Will I?

Most are domestic. All perishable goods that aren't insanely prices are at least prepared here. 99% are at least packaged here due to mandatory language instruction limits. Once you go over a certain volume it's actually a bad idea to carry them over.

The few that aren't are from neighbor countries. It's not like shipping from Texas to New Mexico. It's shipping from Texas to Niger.

And even if you ship it at great personal cost. Let's see you ask $2.99 for a burger there. Who's gonna pay for it?

Read it again. I'm not hung up on moral ground, as I said, it's OK to give advice and serve as an example. But if you start to uphold righteousness, you will be reminded of it. Simple as that.

Serving as an example is not hypocrisy. Pillaging at home while posting it's wrong is.

Never said it wasn't valid. If a thief that is now rich from stealing says it's wrong to steal, he's right. Point is valid. It's not OK to steal.

Let me inflict on to you some of the ambiguity I face trying to get a point across. ls it "ok" for a thief, that has a wallet in his hands, to join a crowd and scream for the hanging of another thief, just because the latter has been caught?

Let that settle a little and you'll see that the whole answer truely hinges on what "ok" is. Because if the poll was "is it moral to steal" or "is it legal to steal", votes would be 99-1 (because there's always one).

I won't argue with you on a and b. But you're mistaken on c.

You're confusing legalities with policy. Lending, donating, giving away, reselling are not always issues of legality. Companies FAILED in their attempts to make it so in the US. Ergo, Blockbuster, Gamestop, Half Price Books and others can resell software LEGALLY.

Often companies forbid users from trading OEM and similar licenses, but again: NOT a legal issue.
You're grossly misconstruing what copyright is. I erred in use of the word "right". A better term to describe this is privilege.

Copyright means conveying upon another person the privilege to use the content in prescribed manners. Now, I think current copyright law is a travesty in many ways, but I agree with the core principles. I do think usage terms should be expanded. Maybe with the next generation...

Of course copyright can be transferred to another entity. Different subject.

As for support, it would be nice if it was transferrable, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen. Logistical issues.

The US has the luxury of being able to grow a lot of its own food but some of it does come from other countries. I'm not sure why we're on this tangent, but the point is, the whole world has enough food for the world. This is an issue for the world not just the US.

Not talking about burgers. We're talking about basic foods, grain, rice and other raw ingredients.

This is why I don't like internet discussions. Who is talking about anyone getting hung? I just don't think yelling for someone to be hung is a good idea even if you're in the right. I will stand for the rights of and protect the person who was stolen from all day long but I think we as a society can be better off if we can resolve issues without having to scream for anyone to be hung. I'm not sure how that solves anything.

Maybe we need to take it down a notch. This is a discussion that has practical affects on artists and software developers and the industry as a whole, let's stick to that and leave the moral high ground and hangings out of it.

Round and round we go because you only look back, I try to see what's ahead. You think that for-profit pharma companies are gonna save our health by spending billions on chemistry? Well, think again. How much money did the inventor of penicillin make from selling it? Also, have a look at this as some food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcetrapib

Who do you think payed for that trial?

All above notwithstanding, drug research is a little to the side of this discussion, because even derivative drugs need to be produced and sold by someone other than the end consumer, and they are a physical product.

Just because you and I cannot describe in detail a winning economy model where IP is free today, doesn't mean that it's not going to happen tomorrow. You are defending a dinosaur...

Quick: what problem led to the creation of IP protection laws?



(for fun, my old article on IP: https://tabulacrypticum.wordpress.co...-for-my-ideas/)