Thread
How do you feel about old software licenses?
I don't follow laws that are passed by corporations with deep pockets of money to pay off Congressman and the like. I do this in protest. that's the reason I download most music (illegally) and am rather doing this in protest, mainly as the RIAA/MPAA just pocket all the money, with a few table scraps to the artist. However, I will try to go and spend money on merchandise if the Band is in town. As far as movies, I don't want to encourage bad movies making obscene amounts of money. I download it, if I like it (and watch the whole thing) and decide it's worth the money, I will go pay for it. that's how I accumulate most of my movies. But if I get 1/3rd to 1/2 the way through it and find it atrocious, I just delete it and don't even keep it. I want to preview stuff and not spend money on absolute junk. I have found good movies that way, but I won't think twice about downloading and if finding it's so god-awful bad, I just delete it.
With the trash the movie studios put out on film, I don't want to encourage the idea of dumb humor and senseless violence of "Fan Service" when it's not needed. Therefore, I don't buy much. but if I deem that the movie is a masterpiece, I will go out and buy it and probably memorabilia that goes with it.
I don't want to encourage bad decisions, nor MPAA/RIAA for paying someone to make the laws. So I choose to ignore any law that corporations set. I am not going to live my life by who has more money to bribe someone
What do you mean often? :
I selected download without thinking twice.
It really depends on how desperate I am for the software, e.g. Do I need it today? Will I use it much?
Then there is the situation of is it avaliable? If I can get a second hand copy at a reasonable price I would be quite tempted to go for it, assuming it is something that i am going to make quite a bit of use of and I would like a boxed copy of it. I can be nice to have a genuine boxed copy of something. Otherwise I would just download it. Or get someone to copy it for me.
It really depends on how desperate I am for the software, e.g. Do I need it today? Will I use it much?
Then there is the situation of is it avaliable? If I can get a second hand copy at a reasonable price I would be quite tempted to go for it, assuming it is something that i am going to make quite a bit of use of and I would like a boxed copy of it. I can be nice to have a genuine boxed copy of something. Otherwise I would just download it. Or get someone to copy it for me.
I would argue that pirating music, movies, and software is not a form of protest. Well, at least in most cases. In those cases, you aren't playing a 21st century Robin Hood. You are just taking something for your own benefit. If you don't agree with copyright law, there are a couple of things that you can do. You can avoid using copywritten content altogether, or you can use stuff like open source software or creative commons licensed materials.
Also, most piracy is committed in what people believe is the privacy of their own home. Protests in private aren't protests at all.
Also, most piracy is committed in what people believe is the privacy of their own home. Protests in private aren't protests at all.
They are if many do it and it hits a corporations bottom line.
For example, boycotts can be done in private, you don't have to make a song and dance about it, you just refuse to abide by certain peoples expectations.
Lat. sumere = to take up, to bear, to adopt. Con, an intensifying prefix = together, altogether. 'To ingest' is only one extension of that idea. Modern commercial consumerism, implying acquisition (principally) and exploitation (literally, not emotively) makes the root meaning very clear. I cannot concur with your understanding of the term.
And frankly, I am no-one's client until I choose to be, and before I petition them and am accepted as a client = dependant. I am a customer if I bestow my custom upon a supplier. I happily admit to being a user of software in that I feed it to my ravening flock of Macs.
de
Consumerism is not about aquisition, it's about providing an endless sink for production.
Though producers produce until they are red in the bottom (line), without consumers' acquisition of that produce there is no 'sink' available to the producers but a real or virtual landfill and a bankruptcy court. Not even a benevolent (or beholden) government can tolerate or support endless production without consumption of the product. Do we but appreciate it, we the customers (and consumers if we choose to be so) have potential control, not the suppliers.
de
de
What was the response demanded by the POTUS to 911, "Go Shopping!". The greatest fear is people stop consuming.
No one in his mind is going to bother enforcing copyright law if both:
- the original copyright owner is no longer profiting from the product
- you, the potential infringer is not profiting from the product
Taking people to court costs money, and if no one's making any money off the program, then there' really no point.
Therefore, I "Download without thinking twice."
- the original copyright owner is no longer profiting from the product
- you, the potential infringer is not profiting from the product
Taking people to court costs money, and if no one's making any money off the program, then there' really no point.
Therefore, I "Download without thinking twice."
The owner has to show losses to recover anything after you are found guilty. So without knowing who the owner is and not being able to prove losses because they item is no longer available for sale even if the owner wanted to sell it (code was lost) I can't see it going to court at all.
It takes somebody to press charges to even get a court case. For example if I walked over to a neighbor and beat the living hell out of them, while the act is illegal there is no prosecution unless the one getting beat down presses charges.
It takes somebody to press charges to even get a court case. For example if I walked over to a neighbor and beat the living hell out of them, while the act is illegal there is no prosecution unless the one getting beat down presses charges.
Which does not mean something like extortion would be legal, I assume ;-)
Taxes are legal extortion.
In my opinion, copyright law in its current state is atrocious (95 year terms?). I think the companies bribing our congresspeople through "donations" should be the ones getting in trouble, not the people who download 15 year old programs from some abandonware site. I believe copyright terms were done correctly the *first* time in 1790 (14-years with an optional extension) and the expansions (especially the DMCA) are atrocious abominations pushed by the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and Disney.
Food for thought: Is Microsoft making anything from Office 4.2.1 for Mac?
BTW this is US copyright law
Food for thought: Is Microsoft making anything from Office 4.2.1 for Mac?
BTW this is US copyright law