A tell of two tales - "warze" related
Martin Rowley
reactive.
Two scenarios to maybe get my point across.
1) Ok, lets say someone on this group gets the idea to build, open, and
operate a movie theater. I'll call this person "Joe". Joe goes out an
get loans to finance this venture. Hires people to design and build his
theater. Hires people to work there. Pays to stock the food counters -
does everything needed to open up and show movies. He opens this
week-end with the showing of "Tomb Raider". The tickets ar $12.50 a seat
(a bit high). Well, a few of our other newsgroup friends decide they
much see this film. But being students, they have little money. So they
just sneak in without paying. What's the harm, eh? They end up getting
"caught" and taken to the office to see our man Joe. "Where do you get
off sneaking into my movie theater?", Joe demands. "Do you have any idea
of how much it cost to build, operate this place - not to mention the
renting of the film itself?". "Hey, wait a minute there - ", says one of
our students. "I'm a student at the local college, studying film and
theater arts!", he says. "You don't understand where we're coming
from.", "We just wanted to study this film, so that we will become great
film producers and directors." he continues. "Years from now we will be
in Hollywood creating great films, just like George Lucas and Steven
Spielberg!". "Just think of all the money you'll make from showing our
future films to people." he goes on. "You'll be rich someday because of
us!". "Yeah," another student comments, "and besides if we spent the
$12.50 for the film, we'd never have enough for a pint of beer at the
pub afterwards".
Just try "reasoning" with the theater manager with this logic the next
time you get caught not paying for seeing a movie. I just wonder if he
will be as sympathetic as you seem to thing these software vendors will
be. i mean, the basis for most of my argument is that by buying and
learning the software you will be more than reimbursed when you get a
job and start getting paid for using it. You don't seem to mind the
software companies waiting to get paid till sometime in the future -
what makes you so special?
2) Say we take a famous painting - lets say the Mona Lisa (only thing I
could think of and spell). Ok, I've got the Mona Lisa painting here
(looks a lot smaller than I thought it would be). I also have a neat
machine that can duplicate any object (at least nothing living, but
we're working on that). I pop the painting into the machine and press
the button. Bang - sparks and smoke come from the back of the machine
(hey, its' my imagination), and an exact duplicate of the original
painting pops out of the copy slot and the original pops out of it's
slot. Now it's my limited understanding that the painting of Mona Lisa
is worth a nice chunk of change. Lets say ONE million dollars. Ok, now I
have the original painting and a copy that is so well made that no one
could ever tell it from the original. How much is the original worth now
that I have this copy, and how much would you say the copy is worth?
Next I put both pictures behind my back (I've got a big back), and with
no one watching I shuffle the two pictures - now no one knows for sure
which is the original and which is the copy. How much is the one on the
right worth? now the one on the left? Now, I spent a leisurely afternoon
popping each into the machine and pushing the button (just love that
bang noise the machine makes each time). By evening I have a pile of
painting, all exactly identical to the other. How much are they worth
each and if we could identify the original how much would that one be
worth now?
Instead of a famous painting, lets say we instead use a $2.00 flower
pot. We have the pot that I just picked up from the local shop for which
I paid $2.00. The shop was full of these things, but they seem to be
selling well and should make the shop owner a good days profit as most
people in the town seem to have a need for flower pots. Ok, I got my one
pot and I put it into the machine and poof I've got two pots. This time
I put both pots in and poof again I've got four. I spend a couple hours
doing this and now have a huge pile of pots. My neighbor Bob stops by
(he was on his way into town) and sees the pots and says, "Hey, that's
just what I was going to go buy. Do you mind if I take a few?". "No,
knock yourself out", I reply "I can always make more". So he takes some
a goes back home. Next thing I know several of the other neighbors stop
by. Bob, could never keep his mouth shut about anything. They all want
some of these "free" flower pots, which I happy to give them. After a
bit I'm back down to just one pot. The next day in town when I stop at
the shop and strike up a conversation with the shop owner. "Strangest,
thing.", he says. "You know that flower pot I sold you yesterday?". "I
was selling a ton of them, and now for some reason they just ain't
selling.", "I've haven't sold but one today".
"I can't imagine why that is.", is all that I reply.
Just a thought.
Martin
Ferenc J. Haraszti
feri
"Martin Rowley" <kmro...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B33A84C...@swbell.net...
Kooter
"Ferenc J. Haraszti" <nitr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9h0l86$rjh$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> And the bottom line: free pot ruins the business for the dealers :-)
<snip>
Denakhan
Interesting post...but...
Martin Rowley <kmro...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B33A84C...@swbell.net...
> Let me try something different. I'll be a little pro-active instead of
> reactive.
>
> Two scenarios to maybe get my point across.
>
> 1) Ok, lets say someone on this group gets the idea to build, open, and
> operate a movie theater.
To take it a bit closer to the MAX thing, lets say a movie must be seen
every other day (3 times a week). The course is 10 months. That's 40
weeks, -1 week worth of 'holidays', so thats 39 weeks. 39 x 3 = 117. A full
version of MAX with Character Studio is what, $6000? Divide 117 into that
and we get a movie ticket price of...$51.28. A "bit" more than $12.50...
Now, if we get into the Student price (but lets face it, why get a
cracked student version with "Education ONLY" emblazoned on your startup
screen and across the top of the program when you can get one without it?),
things get more reasonable. Even less than your 12.50 (somewhere around 7.50
or so I think).
I understand the anit-student-warez POV...I just don't agree with it. :)
> 2) Say we take a famous painting - lets say the Mona Lisa (only thing I
> could think of and spell).
<<snip>>
>Lets say ONE million dollars. Ok, now I
> have the original painting and a copy that is so well made that no one
> could ever tell it from the original. How much is the original worth now
> that I have this copy, and how much would you say the copy is worth?
I'd say the original is still worth $1 mill. It's still an original.
There are copies of paintings/clothes/computers/cars/etc....that doesn't
reduce the value of an original. It just makes the "look and feel" of such a
good thing affordable to the masses.
> Next I put both pictures behind my back (I've got a big back), and with
> no one watching I shuffle the two pictures - now no one knows for sure
> which is the original and which is the copy. How much is the one on the
> right worth? now the one on the left?
The original is still worth $1 million....you just have to figure out
which is which. This has actually been done, IIRC, with some Monet
painting(s) were hanging in some museum when they finally figured out one or
two of them were actually fakes. Until that point, they were worth tones as
"original Monets". Point is, making copies of things does not reduce the
value of the orginals.
Now, I spent a leisurely afternoon
> popping each into the machine and pushing the button (just love that
> bang noise the machine makes each time). By evening I have a pile of
> painting, all exactly identical to the other. How much are they worth
> each and if we could identify the original how much would that one be
> worth now?
See above.
> Instead of a famous painting, lets say we instead use a $2.00 flower
> pot. We have the pot that I just picked up from the local shop for which
> I paid $2.00. The shop was full of these things, but they seem to be
> selling well and should make the shop owner a good days profit as most
> people in the town seem to have a need for flower pots. Ok, I got my one
> pot and I put it into the machine and poof I've got two pots. This time
> I put both pots in and poof again I've got four. I spend a couple hours
> doing this and now have a huge pile of pots. My neighbor Bob stops by
> (he was on his way into town) and sees the pots and says, "Hey, that's
> just what I was going to go buy. Do you mind if I take a few?". "No,
> knock yourself out", I reply "I can always make more".
This is now in my realm of "no-no". This is when actual "money" is lost
to the company/individual that created the 'flower pot' in the first place.
As "Bob" said..."...that's just what I was going to go buy.". This
indicates that he has the money and is willing to spend it in the first
place. I said something like this in another post...where someone saves up
$6000 and spends the weekend looking for a cracked version of MAX/CS; when
he finds it, he uses it for his business, and keeps his money. In this case,
Discreet would be loosing money as there was money out there with "their
name on it", so to speek...the only reason they arn't getting the money is
because a pirated version was found. Now, if Bob had said "Hey, those are
cool! I would love to have one of those...but no way do I have $2. Can I
have one?", and he gets one for free...IMHO, the store owner isn't getting
"ripped off", as he wasn't going to get any money from Bob in the first
place. Same with the droves of other neighbors; if they weren't going to buy
a flower pot in the first place (money, principle, bad phase of the moon,
whatever), then those "non-purchases" can't be seen as a "loss".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Dan
fact that some people see no harm in using something if they are not making
a profit out of it.
The truth is, people will copy things that don't belong to them for as long
as we will live. The truth is, this is called theft.
As I see it? If you are making money out of something, you deserve to pay
what is owed to those who helped you get there. Simple.
And this, my friends, is the end of the line for the tale of warez.
"Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9h3lcf$61h$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Dan
daises forever bloom. (no offense Martin)
In the real world businesses must come to terms with 'theft' or 'copies' as
this cannot be completely stopped no matter how much security you put into
something, it's always hackable or copiable or whatever.
The real market for such expensive programs are businesses with the cash.
Such markets would hardly use pirated versions anyway. Home users who are
interested in careers within the 3d industry may use the software without
paying for it if they do not have the money at that particular time and that
may be fair enough, but, I believe they should meet half way and purchase
the program should they ever obtain a career or make a profit from the
skills they have acquired - kind of like going to a University and then
paying your fees once you obtain work.
Sadly, some people in the world are only out for themselves and the use of
'WAREZ' is abused. Such is life. If a company cannot survive against such
obsticles than they are not fit enough to do business.
As it stands the production of 3DMAX is quite successful, most likely due to
such an ingenious design of program. Imagining all the owners of a pirated
copy of 3DMAX to 'pay up' is completely out of the question. Sure, the idea
behind such a concept is a great one but completely delusional. It's a sad
fact and the company would completely BLOOM if such an event were to occur,
but as it stands the company is already making millions profit - above all
their expenses - so they can't be doing all too bad.
"Denakhan" <pm...@home.com.REMOVETHIS*> wrote in message
news:%WfZ6.544442$166.11...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Martin Rowley
Martin
Denakhan wrote:
> Hiya.
>
> Interesting post...but...
>
> Martin Rowley <kmro...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3B33A84C...@swbell.net...
> > Let me try something different. I'll be a little pro-active instead of
> > reactive.
> >
> > Two scenarios to maybe get my point across.
> >
> > 1) Ok, lets say someone on this group gets the idea to build, open, and
> > operate a movie theater.
>
> To take it a bit closer to the MAX thing, lets say a movie must be seen
> every other day (3 times a week). The course is 10 months. That's 40
> weeks, -1 week worth of 'holidays', so thats 39 weeks. 39 x 3 = 117. A full
> version of MAX with Character Studio is what, $6000? Divide 117 into that
> and we get a movie ticket price of...$51.28. A "bit" more than $12.50...
>
> Now, if we get into the Student price (but lets face it, why get a
> cracked student version with "Education ONLY" emblazoned on your startup
> screen and across the top of the program when you can get one without it?),
> things get more reasonable. Even less than your 12.50 (somewhere around 7.50
> or so I think).
>
> I understand the anit-student-warez POV...I just don't agree with it. :)
Ok, let me go along with your line of thinking. I'm not 100% clear on what your
saying, but I think I understand. You're saying that they typical course (or
courses) where you would use this program (Max & CS) is ten months long. So if
we that the price of the full commercial packages ($6,000) then we can divide
that by the number of days of the course and come up with a "daily" cost of
owning the program. You say in the neighborhood of $51.28. (I'm I understanding
this right?). Then you do the same thing for the student version and come up
with a "daily" cost of somewhere around $7.50. Ok, I good with that and
understand what you're getting at. Now my comment in reply. Back when I was in
college in the BC era (before computers), one of the first things that I bought
was a brand-new professional full size drafting table, and with it the other
things you needed to make it usable - like a board cover and a parallel bar
(later upgraded to a drafting machine). Now I know in comparison to the full
commercial package this drafting table didn't cost as much as those two software
packages - but it did cost more than the student version. Somewhere around
$1,000+ (1980 dollars). Plus, you should figure in the cost of my drafting
instruments - which at the time were a LOT of money when bought new, remember we
didn't have a resource like eBay where you could easily find and buy "used"
equipment. And besides who wants some old beat up equipment to work with? Did I
need to buy this stuff to do my assignments, did the university tell me to go
out and buy this - no. I bought it for two reasons. 1) I wanted to be able to
work at home instead of staying late in the school's drafting lab. And in
working at home I wanted to work on something of the same quality as I did at
school. This was my "choice", I didn't have to do this and there were a lot of
students that didn't buy a table - and some others that did like I did. You
could break down the purchase price of this equipment and come up with a per
class day cost for having it, but that leads me to reason number two.
2) I also made the decision to buy this equipment because I fully expected to
someday go to work and get paid for using it. Yes, I expected any future
employer to have / supply this equipment in his office for me to work with. But
like school, I knew that I would want to probably do some work at home instead
of staying late at the office. Plus, who's to say I couldn't do a little side
work drawing up room additions and floorplans for pay. I'm certainly not going
to ask my employer if I could do this with his officeresources, so I needed to
have my own equipment to use. So that "daily" per class price you figured might
not be an "exact" true cost.
I really assume that like I was, these "students" are going to school to learn
knowledge and skills that they would later take with them and use to get / do
some "job" that they will be paid some monetary salary for. Either they are
going to work for some employer or they will be going into business for
themselves. Either way they are (I assume) going to have need to use a fully
licensed commercial version of these "tools" (software). That's, to me, pretty
much a given. Now, if they go to work for someone then I fully expect that
someone to be financially responsible for providing these "tools" at their place
of business for the employee to use. I don't think there is anyone here that
would argue that point. But if the now graduated student decides to go into
business himself, the he/she is now "the boss" and it's their responsibility to
buy the "tools". Again, I don't think anyone will argue against this statement.
(although, I could be wrong.)
Now a point that may probably get argued is in the first case. Say the employee
wants to work at home, like I did with my drafting table (I think you can see
where I'm going with this). Whose financial responsibility is it for providing
this "at home" set of "tools"? The employee's or the employer's? I think you
know which side I would take (employee's), but I can also see the other side
reasons and agree with some of them to an degree. The main reason I have Office
97 on my machine is that my boss at my part-time job went out and bought
everyone in the office a copy of this program to use at home. He fully expects
us to take work home with us and knows we need the same tools that we have at
the office if we are going to do any work at home. But I know that this is the
exception not the norm. A lot of software today allows for this situation,
AutoCAD being one of them. From what I understand you can have a single license
installed on your machine at work and that same license installed on your
machine at home. This is perfectly legal as long as both copies of the program
is being use at the same time. It's kind of a variation of the typical network
licensing, where you have a copy of a program on your network. You have two user
licenses of this software. Any two people in the office can start up the
program, but if a third tries he/she gets the message that the total user limit
has been reached and they need to either close one of the running sessions or
just wait till one of the licenses is available. That is one of the reasons for
the hardware lock on Max, to try and keep the number of installations being
"run" to the number of licenses you have. If you have it (like Henry mentioned)
installed on your desktop machine and that same copy installed on your laptop,
that's perfectly ok as you have to move the hardware lock from machine to
machine for whichever copy you want to use. Because of the lock there is no
(legal) way that both of the installation can be used at the same time. Now if
you use a crack like Henry does on the laptop, then there isn't anything to stop
you from running both copies at the same time, just like there isn't anyway to
stop him from installing that crack on three machines and running three
installations of that one license at the same time, nor any other number of
machines. Bypassing the hardware lock removes the control from that of the
manufacture and puts that control in the hands of the end-user, who now like
Henry can make the decision to operate that single license on as many machines
as suits him, there is now nothing to stop him.
Boy, did I diviate from where I was trying to go - well to get back on track.
Where was I? Oh, yeah. The now ex-student has a job using this software, he/she
is employed by a company and for want ever reason he/she wants to do some of
this work at home. Well, if they had bought their copy for school use then they
have the software already at home to use. They probably will have needed to
upgrade it at some point to the newest version (I bet as much as well as some of
you can argue, you "might" just be able to convince your employer to spring for
the cost of this upgrade. Probably more easier than you could get them to pay
for a new full version for you to use at home - just a thought). If the student
had bought a student-version that version can be upgrade to the commercial
version also (unless it's one of the low-cost "subscription" versions which as
far as I know are not upgradeable). plus, I would bet that even if someone is
working for someone else, most of the people in this field wouldn't turn down a
job to do some work on the side. To do something like that you need the "tools"
at home, just as I did.
> > 2) Say we take a famous painting - lets say the Mona Lisa (only thing I
> > could think of and spell).
> <<snip>>
> >Lets say ONE million dollars. Ok, now I
> > have the original painting and a copy that is so well made that no one
> > could ever tell it from the original. How much is the original worth now
> > that I have this copy, and how much would you say the copy is worth?
>
> I'd say the original is still worth $1 mill. It's still an original.
> There are copies of paintings/clothes/computers/cars/etc....that doesn't
> reduce the value of an original. It just makes the "look and feel" of such a
> good thing affordable to the masses.
As I was just told on another newsgoup - these software programs are nothing but
"ones" and "zeros", granted those are arranged in a particular pattern, but sill
nothing but 1's and 0's. Now what is the difference between the 1's & 0's that I
take off the CD that comes in the box that autodesk sells me and the 1's & 0's
that the bootlegger downloads off the internet? (Not taking into account any
"missing" files or "added" virus 1's and 0"s). There is no difference, if you
decomplied the the files and compared them you would find the dl'd ones
identical to the one on the legal CD. So what exactly makes one "legal" and one
"illegal"? Is it the box? The bit of plastic that we call a CD? Maybe it's the
manual. None of these things. It's the license that makes the difference. With
one you are buying the license from the company to be able to use that software
based on the rules of that license. With the other you get no such license, so
you're basically making use of that software without the permission of the
owner. Just as if you stole a car (and please don't go into the whole physical
item vs. software thing). Even if the owner didn't have plans on driving his /
her car that night, he or she has the right to say who does or doesn't get to
use it instead.
> > Next I put both pictures behind my back (I've got a big back), and with
> > no one watching I shuffle the two pictures - now no one knows for sure
> > which is the original and which is the copy. How much is the one on the
> > right worth? now the one on the left?
>
> The original is still worth $1 million....you just have to figure out
> which is which. This has actually been done, IIRC, with some Monet
> painting(s) were hanging in some museum when they finally figured out one or
> two of them were actually fakes. Until that point, they were worth tones as
> "original Monets". Point is, making copies of things does not reduce the
> value of the orginals.
So please tell me with software, what makes the one in the box on the shelf in
the store an "original" and worth money, where the one on the warze binary
newsgroup a "fake" and then such totally worthless. I could install each on
separate machines - could you without really looking tell the difference? Does
the one dl'd render any differently than the other? Can not both open the files
created by the other? If I gave you the files produce by both, could you tell me
which was legally created and which wasn't? If I rendered out an animation from
both machines based on a file that you gave me, could you tell which machine did
which video? What excatly would you look for to tell this difference?
And again, I will go back to my argument that just because a "student" doesn't
receive cash money for his use of Max, he is receiving "value" from it. He is
learning how to use it and he can later take that knowledge and skills to an
employer and "sell" those skills to that employer. In the case of my flower pot
maker, does he make money directly off the clay he has to buy from the clay
dealer - no. It's not until he works with the clay and turns it into a flower
pot. Could he get just the same amount of money selling a lump of unworked clay?
He could probably get something similar to what the clay dealer did, but he can
get even more by turning that clay into a flower pot. No a student doesn't get
money for using the software to learn on. But come graduation, who is the
employer most likely to hire (pay) someone who has worked with the software or
someone who hasn't. One person has "value" to the employer the other doesn't. So
I say the student DOES get paid for "using / learning" the software and as such
the software company should get paid for the license that the student is using
to learn on.
Martin
>
>
> ^_^
>
> Paul L. Ming
Martin Rowley
Dan wrote:
> I think you guys were missing poor Martin's point. He just can't accept the
> fact that some people see no harm in using something if they are not making
> a profit out of it.
Who are these people that you say are not "making a profit"? The student who
is learning to use this software in hopes that he will someday get paid to work
with it? Sounds as if that student will someday make a profit from having that
software to learn on. Would a employer be more likely to hire someone who has
some experience working with the software or would they instead hire someone
who never even seen the program? One candidate has "value" to the employer and
the other doesn't. Shouldn't getting that "value" be worth something? I guess
this is just a concept that people either don't comprehend or are unwilling to
because it would then require them to accept that they are doing something
"wrong".
> The truth is, people will copy things that don't belong to them for as long
> as we will live. The truth is, this is called theft.
>
> As I see it? If you are making money out of something, you deserve to pay
> what is owed to those who helped you get there. Simple.
>
> And this, my friends, is the end of the line for the tale of warez.
I agree, if some one is making a "profit" on the use then they must pay for it.
But what we apparently can't agree on is the definition of "profit".
To me this is a rather broad term. Does not the student get a profit as I tried
to point out above, when he gets hired for the knowledge and skills he has
developed using the software? Does not the "artist / teenager" get "profit"
from the entertainment from using the software to "play" with. No one typically
expects to get paid for playing a game of Half-Life. but the software company
that publishes that came still expects to get paid for it's use. (Now, of
course there will be a response that says "Yeah, but Half-Life doesn't cost
$3,000 like max does!". This is true but why does that teenager who is just
"playing" playing with a $3,000 program when he could probably get just as much
- if not more - "enjoyment" out of playing with a $150 copy of Poser or
Bryce?). Just because all that teenager can "afford" is the cheap carnival set
up in the parking lot of the local supermarket, doesn't give him the right to
sneak into the back lot of Universal Studios to enjoy himself. Give me some
more example of people "not" making a "profit" and I'll do my best to argue
that they are. (Question?, a thought just popped in my mind - "Do churches have
to pay for software? I mean "they" have non-profit status so should all
software not be freely available to them. I could see a big increase in people
going into preaching if this is the case. Just a thought.)
Martin
Martin Rowley
Martin
Dan wrote:
> I believe Martin lives in a world where the fairies fly around and the
> daises forever bloom. (no offense Martin)
(Nodding his head in agreement), They do. I can't tell you how many times I've
had to spray and mow this summer. You just barely open the door and they fly
right in. The sticky strips I've hung work ok, but just can't do the job of
keeping them from buzzing around. I 'm thinking getting one of them electronic
zapper devices that you can hang outside. I wouldn't mind them so much if they
didn't bite so bad. Other night I woke up just covered in bites. And I can't
begin to tell you what those daises are doing to my allergies. Guess that's why
I have stayed inside and on the internet these last few days.
> In the real world businesses must come to terms with 'theft' or 'copies' as
> this cannot be completely stopped no matter how much security you put into
> something, it's always hackable or copiable or whatever.
As I've said before, this is true of most "crimes". We are never going to stop
people from just doing what they please. People are always going to drive faster
than the speed limit, cheat on their taxes, use drugs, and inflict harm on one
another among other things. The sad fact that we are spending more money
building prisons than we spend on our public school system shows that this is
not an abnormal situation. If someone thinks they can safely get way with
something they are going to do it. And in the case of driving too fast, most
people know that the police can't catch them all - not even a small fraction of
them. As I have argued with Henry, just because there is a majority of people
that do something doesn't necessary make that something "right". Acceptable and
Right are not one and the same (at least not in my infested world). To me
"wrong" things get turned into "acceptable" things when there are no longer
anyone around to point out what "wrong" is. Which is why I've spent so much time
with this thread, I'm not attempting to "fix" the problem and I realistically
know that I would never be able to do so. I can how ever be someone that does
point to something and say "that's not right". Just because you can do something
and get away with doing so with no punishment doesn't make it "right". If that
was the case the only "crime" that the people in jail are guilty of- is the
crime of "getting caught".
> The real market for such expensive programs are businesses with the cash.
> Such markets would hardly use pirated versions anyway. Home users who are
> interested in careers within the 3d industry may use the software without
> paying for it if they do not have the money at that particular time and that
> may be fair enough, but, I believe they should meet half way and purchase
> the program should they ever obtain a career or make a profit from the
> skills they have acquired - kind of like going to a University and then
> paying your fees once you obtain work.
I challenge you to show me a single high-end commercial software package that
has a licensing clause that states your idea of using their software free of
charge for "educational / learning" purposes. Just one, but it needs to be one
of the recognizable industry standard programs that is currently being used. If
you and some of the others truly feel this is a viable marketing stratagem then
why don't you sink some money into developing an alternative to what is on the
market today. Or better yet, If you don't want to use your own money I sure with
your believe in this idea that you would have not problems convincing some
venture capitalist to front you the money to finance such a business venture.
> Sadly, some people in the world are only out for themselves and the use of
> 'WAREZ' is abused. Such is life. If a company cannot survive against such
> obsticles than they are not fit enough to do business.
I also think that it is wrong for parents to have sex with their children, but
according to the paper some parents seem to think otherwise. Weather or not that
family "survives" is immaterial to the fact that what they are doing is wrong.
It is an accepted cost factor when operating a retail store that some
merchandise is going to "stolen", weather this theft is by customers or the
employees themselves - this loss in "anticipated". The "cash" value of this loss
is usually factored into the cost of what-ever the store sells, which then
basically spreads that cost of this theft to the customer. (You don't think the
business is really going to just "absorb" this cost themselves do you?) This
makes for slightly higher prices for the legitimate buyers. Back when I was
working as an engineer, one of the other engineers had his phone card pin number
"pirated" when he use it at an airport. Before we were informed of this "theft"
by the phone card company - there had been several THOUSAND dollars worth of
calls made using this card. We're talking about just in a three day period.
Apparently this number was passed around all over the US and there were
thousands of calls charged to this one number to everywhere on the planet. Our
company was only responsible for paying about 1% of this bill, which while still
meant a bill of several hundred dollars - it wasn't anywhere near the whole
amount. When our office manager asked the card company about the remainder, the
representative just shrugged and said "We'll just raise everyone bill a dollar
or so and after awhile it will get made up. This happens all the time." Just
keep that thought in your mind the next time you think your phone bill is a bit
steep. It's all a part of the cost of doing business.
> As it stands the production of 3DMAX is quite successful, most likely due to
> such an ingenious design of program. Imagining all the owners of a pirated
> copy of 3DMAX to 'pay up' is completely out of the question. Sure, the idea
> behind such a concept is a great one but completely delusional. It's a sad
> fact and the company would completely BLOOM if such an event were to occur,
> but as it stands the company is already making millions profit - above all
> their expenses - so they can't be doing all too bad.
"Imagining all the owners of a pirated copy of 3DMAX to 'pay up' is completely
out of the question."
Why is this out of the question?, what makes one user more "special" than
another. What gives one person the right to use the program for no cost and
another has to pay for it. And if there is a reason for one to use it for "free"
and another for "cost", shouldn't the OWNER make that decision. Say you have a
pick-up truck. And I needed a such truck and being your best friend you have the
"right" to loan me at no cost the use of your truck if you feel like it. But
since I'm not really your "friend", you say "Well, you can use my truck - but
it's going to cost you $200 a day to do so.". Now, would it be acceptable for me
since I can't pay that much and since I'm not actually doing this work for pay
(hey, I'm just wanting to move my junk) for me to wait till you go to bed and
"borrow" your truck and move my stuff. Afterwards, I fill the tank back up and
return it just as I found it. What's the harm done. None other than I made the
decision that I had the "right" to use your truck for free and you now can't do
anything about it. Even when you found out that I did this, what could you do.
Now, what's to stop someone else from doing the exact same thing the next night,
and again what's the harm. The truck is being returned, the tank is being
filled, you aren't exactly using the truck yourself since you're upstairs
sleeping when it's getting used. Going against your wishes (the owner of the
truck) of how this truck should be or not be used should be perfectly acceptable
(in your world) just as long as none of us are using it for "profit".
Bottom line, the owner of the product / service should be the one to decide on
how it is to be used, not the users.
Reminds me of something one of my ethics professors once said. He asked the
class to think about this statement. "Can a prostitute be Raped?"
Martin
>
>
> <snippage of old postings>
Ferenc J. Haraszti
anyone going on and on like that either.... wish all the efforts were put
toward helping fellas here (or anywhere).... I just feel this argument
(conversation) is totally pointless and won't solve anything, even if folks
type up a whole book, like here. I see quite a few unanswered questions,
wish those had yields over stuff like this. I've always wondered why users
jump up and fight for Discreet, or whatever company, instead of the
companies themselves. ISP provieders give green light to warez on the
binaries groups and I don't see anyone doing anything about it.... who knows
why. By the way, early betas, etc. get out *straight off of the developers'
desks*, so who's screwed up more, the cracker, or the employee who leaked it
out? Byt the way: what would all the cops and so many lawyers do without
those thieves? :-) Just kidding... the world isn't perfect, that's just
how it is.
"Dan" <d...@nan.au> wrote in message
news:kThZ6.10503$qJ4.4...@ozemail.com.au...
Martin Rowley
post) that are responding to these messages on this topic. Is this topic - off
topic for this newsgroup? don't really know, point me in the direction of the
faq / charter for this group and I'll go take look. The tropic does revolve
around Autodesk / Discreet / Max (ie; 3dstudio) and the use of it - admittedly
it's about the legalities rather than the nuts and bolts use - but still it's
about the software that this newgroup pertains to.
I see just a few other post other than the ones associated with this topic (and
I didn't began these threads in the first place, well maybe just this one) and
yes some of those post I see are unanswered questions. Why didn't you try to
help those people? or was I suppose to do that? I'm sorry if I missed my turn
(no one informed me).
As for users who jump up and fight for Discreet - so far it's just been me and
maybe two others and that one guy who said he was a CEO for a graphics company,
that's the only people I've seen so far trying to "fight for Discreet". Just
about everyone else is of the opinion the same as you are - "screw them". From
what I hear, and I've had the pleasure of doing a few beta tests, is that the
"leaks" of this software doesn't come from the employees of the company - but
rather from beta testers who "just can't keep it in their computer". You get one
of these people who passes it off to a "friend" and that friend passes it off to
someone else and pretty soon it's all over the place. And even if it did come
from an employee, where is it written that any company's employees are 100%
loyal. Just the other day I had a friend call me up and tell me about the firm
where he works, which got a letter from Autodesk's lawyer and were expecting a
visit from them. Apparently one of the firm's "employees" got mad at someone and
called into Autodesk and reported that they were using "pirated" software -
which apparently they were according to my friend. This resulted in the firm
shutting down a for a few days while the management went out and bought enough
legal copies to cover the number of workstations that they were currently using.
As for the ISP remark (warze newsgroups), it's my understanding that they're
kind of in the same boat that Napster was in. They claim that they can't be
"responsible" for what their customers put on these newsgroups. I bet given
time, the software companies will get the courts to go after these newsgroups
just like the record industry did with Napster. If an industry who's typical
product costs under $15 gets mad at the bootlegging of their product and wins in
court, don't you think the software industry who's products range from under
$100 to over $10,000 might just get made enough and take their case to the same
courts? It should at least be as interesting to watch as the government trying
to break up Microsoft.
Like I said, I was bored. And like you said - the world isn't perfect - so I
keep typing (it's actually good practice, reading over what I've written on a
few of these post I really need the practice).
Martin
Kooter
totally missed is that I'm sick of the never-ending warez discussion. I
DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THIS OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT THREAD.
Talking about pot is more interesting than warez. Talking about anal
probing aliens is more interesting than talking about warez. Talking about
my 80 y/o grandmother's untimely dead while making hot monkey love to a
visiting plumber is more interesting than talking about warez.
And for those who missed my point, the warez discussion has been going on
since DARPA first went into action. If those geniuses couldn't figure out a
solution to the problem then you beating the skin off a dead horse sure as
hell isn't going to solve the problem so why not just talk about something
interesting or gawd forbid something on topic.
"Dan" <d...@nan.au> wrote in message
news:kThZ6.10503$qJ4.4...@ozemail.com.au...
Martin Rowley
> No. I'm not missing the point. The point that I made, and which you
> totally missed is that I'm sick of the never-ending warez discussion. I
> DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THIS OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT THREAD.
Hey, thanks for keeping the thread going, it was starting to drop off there for
a moment.
> Talking about pot is more interesting than warez. Talking about anal
> probing aliens is more interesting than talking about warez. Talking about
> my 80 y/o grandmother's untimely dead while making hot monkey love to a
> visiting plumber is more interesting than talking about warez.
I'll leave these topics for you, as I really don't have the background to give
any insightful thoughts on any of these and could probably go either way on the
subject. I'm not much into the X-File show, but I am however a believer of
Elaine Morgan's theories.
> And for those who missed my point, the warez discussion has been going on
> since DARPA first went into action. If those geniuses couldn't figure out a
> solution to the problem then you beating the skin off a dead horse sure as
> hell isn't going to solve the problem so why not just talk about something
> interesting or gawd forbid something on topic.
Ok, what topic would you consider "on topic" and would be willing to discuss?
Any suggestions?
Martin
Denakhan
Man, that sure is a long one. I'll snip a lot here...
Martin Rowley <kmro...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B3645BC...@swbell.net...
> Comments below.
> Martin
>
> Denakhan wrote:
>
> > Hiya.
<<snip student / future gainful employment; cost of software>>
The thing that starts to make me edgy is actually the whole "price of
education" thing. Basically, I would hate to see (even more so than it is) a
situation where the only people who could "learn 3d computer animation" were
those with the most money. If you are poor...too bad; go work at McD's where
you belong. This is *really* scary to me. As I said, software, I dont' care
*what* it does...should NEVER cost more than $10...and that better be
something life-saving. For 3d software...I think $1000 should be the top
limit (My price levels: MAX4 = $350 / SoftimageXSI = $600 / Maya3 = $650 /
etc..etc..etc... You get my point). If prices were nice and "low", then
anyone would at least be able to have a good shot at learning/entering the
job they want to do.
Now, when you get the 16 year old high school kid, who loves Unreal
Tornament (lets say); and he thinks "That's cool! I want to do that!", do
you really think it is a good thing to restrict his learning and exploring
the possabilities based on how much money his parents (or he) can make?
Sure, cost of materials is expected...and just how much does one or two
plastic CD's cost? 10¢ total? Ok, add in shipping, handleing, cost of
production at the factory; [just a guess], but we could be at around the $50
mark or so? Right; So why does SoftimageXSI want to charge you $1000? Yes,
they want to make money. Great...but do they really need a 2,000% return? I
don't think so. This is just greed; pure and simple (well, and maybe some
twisted superiority thing...) The thing with software is, once the
development is done, the actual material cost is virtually insignificant.
This is not so with, say, manufacturing a car. But, as you say below, 1's
and 0's....easy to duplicate with no loss of quality and no significant
material cost.
> > > 2) Say we take a famous painting - lets say the Mona Lisa (only thing
I
> > > could think of and spell).
> As I was just told on another newsgoup - these software programs are
nothing but
> "ones" and "zeros", granted those are arranged in a particular pattern,
but sill
> nothing but 1's and 0's. Now what is the difference between the 1's & 0's
that I
> take off the CD that comes in the box that autodesk sells me and the 1's &
0's
> that the bootlegger downloads off the internet? (Not taking into account
any
> "missing" files or "added" virus 1's and 0"s). There is no difference, if
you
> decomplied the the files and compared them you would find the dl'd ones
> identical to the one on the legal CD. So what exactly makes one "legal"
and one
> "illegal"? Is it the box? The bit of plastic that we call a CD? Maybe it's
the
> manual. None of these things. It's the license that makes the difference.
Hehe. License. Now you are getting into a whole other can-o-worms.
>With
> one you are buying the license from the company to be able to use that
software
> based on the rules of that license.
The catch with some of these "licenses" is that the basically boil down
to this:
"You are at our mercy. You have no rights, as you just gave them all up.
If this software casuses you computer to catch fire and explode, killing
your entier family, it isn't our fault...even if we built that into the
system with or without our knowledge. You are screwed in every way, so just
bend over and take it like a man. Oh, and enjoy the software for as long as
it amuses us. If it fails to amuse us, or you piss us off, we will order you
to delete and never again use our software..and we keep your money too.
Thanks!"
;-)
In short, hardly a "equitable agreement". It's not like you can
negotiate with the piece of paper for a differnt license agreement, right?
;)
<<snip flower pot duplication scenario>>
> > This is now in my realm of "no-no".
>
> And again, I will go back to my argument that just because a "student"
doesn't
> receive cash money for his use of Max, he is receiving "value" from it.
I agree with you. It doesn't change my opinion, but I do agree that
there is "value" being gained by using the software. But, learning (while
valuable) isn't going to affect the companies bottem line unless the learner
gains employment...in which case the bottem line is increased. Always a good
thing for a company. :) Basically, it's only good for people to learn a
companies software. However, as I said, if the person who learned on a warez
version then makes money with it, and never even attempts to buy a ligit
copy...*that* is the person the company/law should go after (well, right
after they go get the penis-wipe that decided to burn multiple copies and
sell them; the way I figure, if you are going to "get into" the warez scene,
you should be doing it because of any reason -other- than to make money).
>So
> I say the student DOES get paid for "using / learning" the software and as
such
> the software company should get paid for the license that the student is
using
> to learn on.
Agree. But, not neccissarily in the ordre of Pay-->Use... ;-)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
PS: I'm moving, so I won't be able to reply for a good week or so.
Kooter
> Kooter wrote:
<snip>
> > And for those who missed my point, the warez discussion has been going
on
> > since DARPA first went into action. If those geniuses couldn't figure
out a
> > solution to the problem then you beating the skin off a dead horse sure
as
> > hell isn't going to solve the problem so why not just talk about
something
> > interesting or gawd forbid something on topic.
>
> Ok, what topic would you consider "on topic" and would be willing to
discuss?
> Any suggestions?
Personally, I was pretty interested in the texturing thread but it sounds
like it's having a problem staying alive.
As to -topics- in general, Max is a complex enough application that the
range of topics that could be discussed is pretty big. I think that all of
those topics have been discussed at one time or another. Usually these
threads are generated as the result of someone asking a question and others
trying to answer.
I don't think that it would be very easy to generate an ongoing thread just
by saying "what's a good topic to discuss?" or "What technique do you use
for texturing?". This kind of question will probably get you a list of
topics or techniques and very little else. If, OTOH, you ask for help on a
controversial problem then you're likely to get more response than you
really wanted.
Many people here will be glad to answer a question or give an opinion. But,
IMO, the dynamics of an informative thread are usually generated as the
result of problem solving by interested parties with differing views.
Care to solve a problem?
John Smith
>
> The thing that starts to make me edgy is actually the whole "price of
> education" thing. Basically, I would hate to see (even more so than it is)
a
> situation where the only people who could "learn 3d computer animation"
were
> those with the most money. If you are poor...too bad; go work at McD's
where
> you belong. This is *really* scary to me. As I said, software, I dont'
care
> *what* it does...should NEVER cost more than $10...and that better be
> something life-saving. For 3d software...I think $1000 should be the top
> limit (My price levels: MAX4 = $350 / SoftimageXSI = $600 / Maya3 = $650 /
> etc..etc..etc... You get my point). If prices were nice and "low", then
> anyone would at least be able to have a good shot at learning/entering the
> job they want to do.
I agree here, if the software is to be used for learning, it should be free
and distributed like linux. Buy on CD for the cost of the cd and postage,
or register and download if for free.
> Now, when you get the 16 year old high school kid, who loves Unreal
> Tornament (lets say); and he thinks "That's cool! I want to do that!", do
> you really think it is a good thing to restrict his learning and exploring
> the possabilities based on how much money his parents (or he) can make?
> Sure, cost of materials is expected...and just how much does one or two
> plastic CD's cost? 10¢ total? Ok, add in shipping, handleing, cost of
> production at the factory; [just a guess], but we could be at around the
$50
> mark or so? Right; So why does SoftimageXSI want to charge you $1000? Yes,
> they want to make money. Great...but do they really need a 2,000% return?
I
> don't think so. This is just greed; pure and simple (well, and maybe some
> twisted superiority thing...) The thing with software is, once the
> development is done, the actual material cost is virtually insignificant.
> This is not so with, say, manufacturing a car. But, as you say below, 1's
> and 0's....easy to duplicate with no loss of quality and no significant
> material cost.
>
Here I do not agree. The companies are not greedy. I'm setting up a couple
of companies, and there is huge investment... This investment has to be
recovered somehow... Software development is not cheap... There are
development teams of perhaps 30 or 40, each needs a top of the range
computer that has to be kept up to date, so that's about £6000 minimum per
head. Then there's the development software, Windows NT for 5 computers
costs about £1200, so that's another £8500... Programming tools and so on,
everyone needs to be paid a wage... the costs mount. These costs are on
going too, there is the cost to upgrade computers and software, to keep
working on new versions and new tools. Premises and overheads then have to
be included, in fact if you look at a balance sheet for a company like avid
you probably see they are making only a modest profit, which probably goes
straight back into the company to expand and further invest. You also have
to look at the target market, there are only so many companies that buy top
end 3D software.
However, Education should be open and free for everyone.
Martin Rowley
1) Yes a lot of these topics have been covered. Yesterday, last week, last
month, last year, etc. - But there are always new people just joining these ngs
& starting to use Max, and just beginning to have the exact same problems that
was discussed back when. So these topics do have a habit of going around in
circles at times. The way I look at it, if you have something to share to one -
then jump in, if not then ignore it. Just because a certain topic has no
interest to you doesn't mean that everyone else shares that thought. As with the
broad request to talk about several topics - and I never meant for anyone to
talk about all of them at once, just sorta seeding a few that I myself would be
interested in - it did generate a bit of interest and still is. One of the main
reasons that it seems to dying on the vine is that it doesn't seem to be
attracting anyone with answers - just more questions.
2) As for the never-ending discussion on "warze", that was originally started by
Henry with his first post of the thread "shit stiring, warez!!", where he asked
a question and invited discussion on the topic of the "acceptability of using
bootlegged (warze) software for educational purposes". Which as you have
probably seen I have some strong feelings about. You apparently don't - and you
shared those feelings with the people of that particular discussion just as I
have. You just didn't take the time that I put into the effort. So basically
that whole thread was originally based on someone asking a question and others
(me) trying to answer. A lot of people seem to disagree with what I think and
said so, I in turn responded back to them and they to me. There WERE a few
others that supported my take on the subject.
3) "Care to solve a problem?", yes I do, but it's apparently not one that you
care much for people trying to solve.
Sorry you dislike the stuff I've posted lately, if it will make you any happier
- I'll be out of town the next few days, so you can have this ng all to
yourself. I look forward to seeing what you do with it while I'm gone.
Martin
Martin Rowley
myself a lot here - but I will try to keep it brief. promise.
Martin
John Smith wrote:
> Hi!
Hi, back at you.
> > The thing that starts to make me edgy is actually the whole "price of
> > education" thing. Basically, I would hate to see (even more so than it is)
> a
> > situation where the only people who could "learn 3d computer animation"
> were
> > those with the most money. If you are poor...too bad; go work at McD's
> where
> > you belong. This is *really* scary to me. As I said, software, I dont'
> care
> > *what* it does...should NEVER cost more than $10...and that better be
> > something life-saving. For 3d software...I think $1000 should be the top
> > limit (My price levels: MAX4 = $350 / SoftimageXSI = $600 / Maya3 = $650 /
> > etc..etc..etc... You get my point). If prices were nice and "low", then
> > anyone would at least be able to have a good shot at learning/entering the
> > job they want to do.
>
> I agree here, if the software is to be used for learning, it should be free
> and distributed like linux. Buy on CD for the cost of the cd and postage,
> or register and download if for free.
And just how well are the companies that make and distribute linux doing today?
How many of the firms that started marketing this operating system back when it
first came out are still around today. How many have closed up shop? And just
how close is linux to replacing the "for pay" operating systems that Microsoft
or Apple sells? Is either company really that worried about linux?
If you think the practice of charging students cash money for the software is
wrong, then do something about it. Start your own company and do just that. Take
a look at the shareware industry, the try-it before you buy-it software sellers.
Most of those don't go very far and most don't make squat in the way of any
actual money (when compared to a company like autodesk). There are many
exceptions to this, but they are few.
> > Now, when you get the 16 year old high school kid, who loves Unreal
> > Tornament (lets say); and he thinks "That's cool! I want to do that!", do
> > you really think it is a good thing to restrict his learning and exploring
> > the possabilities based on how much money his parents (or he) can make?
Fine the 16 year old want to learn, what's keeping him from using any of the
actually free programs that are currently being offered for such use? Why is he
using a pirated bootlegged copy of Max, when he could be using a copy of
Strata3D, Blender, Softy 3D, Anim8or, Terragan, POV-Ray, just to name a few. All
of these are free as can be and that 16 year old can learn just as much about 3D
using them as he would using a bootlegged copy of Max.
My suggestion would be for such a 16 year old to check out a free copy of OpenFX
at:
http://www.openfx.org/about/index.php
> > Sure, cost of materials is expected...and just how much does one or two
> > plastic CD's cost? 10¢ total? Ok, add in shipping, handleing, cost of
> > production at the factory; [just a guess], but we could be at around the
> $50
> > mark or so? Right; So why does SoftimageXSI want to charge you $1000? Yes,
[responding to the original poster of the above.]
No, softimage xsi doesn't want to charge you $1000 - they want to charge the
animation company that it's marketed at $1000, you on the other hand they could
care less about. Students on the other hand, they want to charge $495 for the
academic student version of the software (which is exactly like the commercial
version, it just has a different licensing agreement).
The problem you and these other people have is that you don't comprehend what
you are "buying" when you buy software. You are not just paying for the actual
physical materials that come in the box, you are really paying for what's on the
one piece of paper in that box, the licensing agreement. You are paying the
company for the right for one installation of that software onto one computer.
Period. Get out any of the software that you actually did go buy and read one of
these agreements. You might learn something (and it will not cost you anything).
> > they want to make money. Great...but do they really need a 2,000% return?
[responding to the original poster of the above.]
I really challenge you to show where they are getting a 2,000% return on their
investment in bring this product to market. Autodesk is a publicly traded stock
Look on the NASDAQ and look for ADSK and you will see that it is currently at
$34,25 (+0.79%) today. That doesn't seem to golden to me. And just how much do
you think (in your expert opinion) that it takes to operate a global corporation
like Autodesk? max is sold worldwide, and it cost a lot (I bet) to run a
business like that. So show me where they made this 2,000% return.
> I
> > don't think so. This is just greed; pure and simple (well, and maybe some
> > twisted superiority thing...) The thing with software is, once the
> > development is done, the actual material cost is virtually insignificant.
> > This is not so with, say, manufacturing a car. But, as you say below, 1's
> > and 0's....easy to duplicate with no loss of quality and no significant
> > material cost.
> >
>
> Here I do not agree. The companies are not greedy. I'm setting up a couple
> of companies, and there is huge investment... This investment has to be
> recovered somehow... Software development is not cheap... There are
> development teams of perhaps 30 or 40, each needs a top of the range
> computer that has to be kept up to date, so that's about £6000 minimum per
> head. Then there's the development software, Windows NT for 5 computers
> costs about £1200, so that's another £8500... Programming tools and so on,
> everyone needs to be paid a wage... the costs mount. These costs are on
> going too, there is the cost to upgrade computers and software, to keep
> working on new versions and new tools. Premises and overheads then have to
> be included, in fact if you look at a balance sheet for a company like avid
> you probably see they are making only a modest profit, which probably goes
> straight back into the company to expand and further invest. You also have
> to look at the target market, there are only so many companies that buy top
> end 3D software.
>
> However, Education should be open and free for everyone.
And as someone setting up a couple of companies are you going to give away any
of your products for "educational purposes"? As for "Education should be open
and free for everyone." I'm a teacher (high school - grades 9-12th), it
currently cost our district several MILLION dollars to operate our local school
campuses. We get the revenue for this via taxing property owners and business
owners (I live in the district and pay the same property taxes as everyone
else). We also get some funding from the state of Texas and a little from the
federal government. The majority comes from the local taxes. This money goes to
building / maintaining buildings (the major cost of running most schools),
personnel salaries (and there are more people than just teachers who work for a
school district), equipment, supplies, and a lot of other things. So far does
any of this sound "free"? Just like running a business, the work of doing
education costs money. So you meant the "student" not the school - well we don't
directly charge the student for his education, but we do tax his parents and his
neighbors (and remember me too) for the money to pay for it. This is just public
grade school - after this then it is the student's responsibility to provide the
means for his or her education (not society, we've done our bit by paying for
grades k-12).
Now from what I've heard in the UK college students do not have to pay for their
textbooks, but rather can check any of these books out of the library to use as
they need. Here in the US we require the student to buy their textbooks (usually
at great cost). Question, where did the books in your libraries come from? Did
the book publishers give them to the school free for the purpose of educating
the students or did the school have to purchase them? So far, I've yet to see
where "free" comes into the picture. I'm also hearing that university students
in the UK ARE paying to go to what ever school that they go too. Why are they
not free like you seem to wish them to be?
As I have pointed out time again, what makes the software more acceptable for
people to yell, "it should be free to learn on" - but I've yet to see anyone
apply the same logic to hardware. It takes both the software and the hardware to
run it on to make up a workstation. Yet, I've never seen even one hardware
company offer any of their products at a reduce price to students for
educational purposes. I'm right now reading about the new GeForce3 video cards
and I really can't afford getting one - since I do want to use it in my machine
with my educational versions, show me where I can get one of these for "free" or
even at the 75% discount that most software vendors typically sell their
academic licensed products for. Just one.
Martin
(ok, so I was mistaken about keeping it brief, and I went back over stuff I've
covered before - but hey it's this guy's fault as he apparently didn't read any
of my earlier posts.)
Kooter
"Martin Rowley" <kmro...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B377345...@swbell.net...
Once again I think you've missed my point. And, as if that weren't enough,
you seem to be pouting over it.
The focus of my entire commentary in this thread is the discussion of warez.
Not rehashing old topics, not motivating people to discuss different aspects
of Max. In fact, there is very little in the way of discussion that I would
object to in this ng - with the exception of warez and maybe porn. Unless,
of course, it's porn related to 3D work.
My point is that there are ng's that are appropriate for the discussion of
warez. This is not one of them. Probably 90% of the ng's that are
application specific have ongoing warez discussions that result in
absolutely nothing beyond a waste of bandwidth and some pretty decent
flames.
It's like watching some retarded dog chase his tail. It's funny for a few
minutes and you laugh. After ten minutes goes by you get tired of watching
and try to ignore it. After half an hour you want to kick the dumb bastard
in the nuts just so that he'll have another reason to run around besides his
tail.
Martin Rowley
I somehow find myself agreeing to some extent. However, the one problem I do see
with that is that people that use legitimate licensed packages of software (like
myself) don't hang out in those groups, whereas there are people who use and ask
for illegal-cracked-bootlegged-pirated-counterfeited (ie: warze) versions of
this software here on this newsgroup. Even with this thread quite visible going
on, there were still several request for this stuff just in the past few days. I
guess if you can convince all of these other people to move over there it would
help eliminate these types of threads.
But, what's to keep them from claiming someone like me is being "off topic" as
I'm advocating legal usage and I'm basically anti-warze? They would have just a
valid point as you seem to do.
Martin
Kooter
> Discussing "warze" use on the "warze" newsgroups.......... interesting
thought.
> I somehow find myself agreeing to some extent. However, the one problem I
do see
> with that is that people that use legitimate licensed packages of software
(like
> myself) don't hang out in those groups,
If you're not concerned enough to discuss the subject in ng's where it's on
topic then what is your reasoning for discussing it in a group where it's
off topic? You don't have to d/l binaries from a warez group to hang out
there. Besides, I'm pretty sure discussion of warez would be perfectly
acceptable in groups devoted to ethics, morality, legal issues.
> whereas there are people who use and ask
> for illegal-cracked-bootlegged-pirated-counterfeited (ie: warze) versions
of
> this software here on this newsgroup. Even with this thread quite visible
going
> on, there were still several request for this stuff just in the past few
days. I
> guess if you can convince all of these other people to move over there it
would
> help eliminate these types of threads.
Stupid people are everywhere. You waving a flag around that says "no stupid
people allowed" will have very little effect and will only serve to clutter
the group with off topic chatter.
> But, what's to keep them from claiming someone like me is being "off
topic" as
> I'm advocating legal usage and I'm basically anti-warze? They would have
just a
> valid point as you seem to do.
You would also have a valid argument for pointing out that discussion of
problems related to illegal activities such as installing software without
dongles, cracks, attempts to d/l licensed software, etc., are off topic and
should be taken elsewhere. The offending party should be notified of this
in email if possible so as to avoid clutter. Speaking of which, if you want
to continue this conversation I'll be happy to oblige. However, I would
prefer to do so in email since the subject is off topic and I don't want to
run the risk of driving bored participants away whist watching us chase our
tails.
cad3d
possibly make this a private discussion?
cad3d
"John Smith" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9h7gqp$gl5$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Slacker Deluxe
I find this thread interesting to read, and besides, you dont have to read it,
do you?
:)
rgds.
/ Andreas
cad3d
cad3d
"Slacker Deluxe" <nos...@whatsoever.com> wrote in message
news:3B3848FE...@whatsoever.com...
Martin Rowley
Oh my gosh!, you're right - totally right. I HAVE been making a horrible
mistake. I'm so sorry. All this time I've been going on and on (and on) about
MAX and all this time this newsgroup was for 3D Studio. The old dos based
visualization and rendering program. Well of course someone needed to point this
out to us, thak you so very much for doing so. I personally don't own a copy of
3D Studio 4 for DOS, so there isn't any point of me talking about it. Now if
someone could kindly point me in the direction of the newsgroup
"comp.graphics.packages.3dstudio.MAX" or even
"comp.graphics.packages.3dstudio.VIZ", I'll be more than happy to mosey over to
one of those groups and bother someone there.
According to one of the books I have "Mastering AutoCAD 3D" , by GeorgeOmura
(great book, great author) - In appendix C, he discusses the fact that 3D Studio
and 3D Studio Max are totally different programs. Max was completely designed
and built from the ground up to be a different program than 3D Studio, however
they did put in some tools that are similar but that is to be expected of two
programs that do basically the same function. There similar tools in Maya as
Max, but that doesn't make them the same program.
As for bootlegging copy's of 3D Studio 4 for DOS, well I don't agree with the
doing of that - in general, but since it's no longer a current product for
Autodesk and there are huge problems with getting it to run on any of the newer
machines / operating systems, I guess it doesn't bother me as much as the
bootlegging Max.
My apologies to everyone for discussing a Max related problem.
Martin
gruhn
the
> > fact that some people see no harm in using something if they are not
making
> > a profit out of it.
>boom< suddenly all games are free.