The Anti-Piracy Alliance - Fighting Software Piracy Worldwide
Chris Campbell
Azmodeus wrote in message <6hd4ie$6lt$1...@ns2.dialnet.net>...
>In article <3538d...@206.58.168.251>, rg...@polbox.com says...
<snip>
> Bullshit. it doesn't drive up prices. The main argument that software
>developers have is that Pirates deprive them of sales; for example, if
someone
>pirated 300 copy's of adobe photoshop, then adobe would say "We just lost
300
>sales!" But that's busllshit. I mean, if they have to pirate, are they
really
>going to buy it int he first place? They're not losing sales at all.
<rant>
I hear this argument all the time, and personally I think it's pure
bullshit.
theft of intellectual property is still theft. For those that pirate it, use
it once, then never use it again, then there was no reason for them to
pirate it in the first place. For those that pirate it, then use it all the
time, then it IS theft. No way around it. But the fact is still this -
intellectual property is still property. If I write a book, copyright it,
sell it, and someone steals it off a shelf, but never reads it, that is
theft. If I write a program, copyright it, sell it, have someone steal it
someway, but never use it....by your definition, that isn't theft. WRONG. It
IS theft. The program is my property. My copyright. You never, ever buy the
program. You buy a license to use a copy of it. If I sell my copyright to
Microsoft, then it is MS's property. If you steal a copy of it, without
paying for the license to use your copy, then it IS theft, no matter whether
you use it once, all the time, or never at all.
</rant>
>
<snip>
> it figures. They make you shell out money for something that shouldn't
>even be there.
>
> Remember, h/p/c/v/a isn't just a crime; It's survival training.
>
Desperado
Chris Campbell <camp...@citizenet.com> wrote in article
<6hdfoe$5nl$1...@nw001t.infi.net>...
Chris
Your argument is valid, but so is Azmodeus'. He was trying to say that the
typical warez pup and software pirate would NEVER have purchased the
program they are using the pirated version of, mostly because the
commercial version is so overpriced in the first place.
I think Adobe Photoshop (don't quote me) retails for about $600.00. What
private individual, especially a 14 year old kid, can afford something like
that. Paint Shop Pro does nearly everything Adobe does, and only costs, I
think, about 30 bucks.
Did the kid using a cracked version of Adobe cost them a sale? No, he would
have NEVER bought it anyway. Did he STEAL it, yes, but it did NOT cost
Adobe the sale.
Stealing a book is different. If someone goes to a LIBRARY, and READS your
book, have they STOLEN your intellectual property? No. They didn't PAY for
it, and they have benefited from it, and perhaps even disseminated it, but
they didn't STEAL it. Removing the book from the library would be STEALING.
Also, in MY view, programs with 30 day eval periods should mean just that.
There are 24 hours in a day, so 30 days equals 720 hours of use you should
be entitled to. I don't have time to evaluate a program 24 hours a day for
30 days. Sometimes I only get 1 hour a day, and only use the program a few
minutes of that, or maybe once a week. If I extend the evaluation period
with a crack, I'm not STEALING it, I'm only getting what the license
agreement said I was entitled to.
Desperado
Chris Campbell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Only a couple comments in response.
Desperado wrote in message <01bd6be6$326d0ea0$ed5160ce@kfvtjuml>...
>
>
>Chris Campbell <camp...@citizenet.com> wrote in article
><6hdfoe$5nl$1...@nw001t.infi.net>...
<snipped all original and my follow up>
>Chris
>
>Your argument is valid, but so is Azmodeus'. He was trying to say
that the
>typical warez pup and software pirate would NEVER have purchased the
>program they are using the pirated version of, mostly because the
>commercial version is so overpriced in the first place.
>
>I think Adobe Photoshop (don't quote me) retails for about $600.00.
What
>private individual, especially a 14 year old kid, can afford
something like
>that. Paint Shop Pro does nearly everything Adobe does, and only
costs, I
>think, about 30 bucks.
Yes, that's about right. A 14 year old pup cannot afford to buy Adobe
Photoshop at full retail. But any 14yo can afford the registration
price of PSP. Save your allowance for a couple weeks or whatever. My
point was if a warezer steals Photoshop, but never uses it, then I
agree, there is no crime. But if said warezer steals Photoshop, and
then uses it to create brilliant pieces of art for a web page, then it
is theft. You can't say there is still no crime, since he/she wouldn't
have used it anyway, because he/she IS using it.
>
>Did the kid using a cracked version of Adobe cost them a sale? No, he
would
>have NEVER bought it anyway. Did he STEAL it, yes, but it did NOT
cost
>Adobe the sale.
This is false reasoning. Yes, it did cost Adobe the sale. The thief IS
using it, which means he would have bought it. He did steal it. AND he
cost Adobe the sale.
(Mind you, this argument isn't about the overpricing of software, or
the merits of any software. It only pertains to the theft or not theft
of any software.)
>
>Stealing a book is different. If someone goes to a LIBRARY, and READS
your
>book, have they STOLEN your intellectual property? No. They didn't
PAY for
>it, and they have benefited from it, and perhaps even disseminated
it, but
>they didn't STEAL it. Removing the book from the library would be
STEALING.
Again, I have a problem with this. I view a library as an archive of
shareware. If you go to a library and check out a book, you are then
responsible for returning said product after use. This is (almost) the
same as shareware. The only difference is, if you read it and return
it, no harm no foul. You got full use of the product for a limited
time period. If you liked it so much that you know you will want to
read it (use it) again, you return it and then upgrade it. (Go to a
book store and buy it) If you steal the book from the library, you
have committed a theft. If you use shareware beyond the trial period
you have comited theft. If you copy the product and then keep it, you
have commited a theft.
>
>Also, in MY view, programs with 30 day eval periods should mean just
that.
>There are 24 hours in a day, so 30 days equals 720 hours of use you
should
>be entitled to. I don't have time to evaluate a program 24 hours a
day for
>30 days. Sometimes I only get 1 hour a day, and only use the program
a few
>minutes of that, or maybe once a week. If I extend the evaluation
period
>with a crack, I'm not STEALING it, I'm only getting what the license
>agreement said I was entitled to.
Your view is invalid. Your license to use the software is just as it
is stated. If the license is for 30 days, then it's for thirty days.
If you rent a car for $1000, and must return it in thirty days, do you
think the rental agency will buy your explanation of I only used it
for 10 hours a day, So I felt like keeping it until I had used it for
30daysX24hours. They will say, "hey, now there's a thought. and please
pay us all the usage time you kept the car over thirty days."
>
>Desperado
Desperado,
I love to argue. This isn't meant as a personal attack on you. It's
only a devil's advocate argument. the number one problem the software
industry has as far as piracy goes, is that no one, or almost no one
equates intellectual property (software) as equally entitled to
protection from theft as real property is. A software package should
be treated just as any other real property, be it a book, or a car, or
whatever.
I should point out that I pay for all my software, eventually. I won't
be dumb enough to try and say I have never pirated software, because I
have. So has 98% of all of the other computer users out there. Now
that I make a decent living, I pay for as much as I can. I wonder how
many people who use winzip, or better yet, pkzip have paid the fee? Or
paid Mirabilis for ICQ. Or paid for Agent. Or whatever.
sorry about the ranting.
Tech33
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNTqskHK3fzPOStIeEQLneQCfSXoY1ceh4bigB8UcUjQyemRyKtQAoIHZ
XFTVpZA0XSU4SXo6pXKiPaSV
=UBiQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
POLITICO
There´s something you are not taking in consideration:
Software licence's are THE ONLY LEGALLY SOPPOSED CONTRACTS where a client accepts unconditionally the said contract WITHOUT EVEN READ IT. As soon as you open the envelope it means that you accept the contract therein. It does not matter if you like it or not, or if there's something inside that can put you in jail by an un-itentional mistake de part from you.
One more thing: These are the only contracts UNABLE TO BE MODIFIED by one of the parts (the one putting the money) and why you don't call it illegal?
There's also no claim against any damage that occurs by the developer's mistake to your system or your data, and YOU ARE PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT SHOULD OFFER, LIKE EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD, A WARRANTY FOR YOUR MONEY.
Desperado
Chris Campbell <camp...@citizenet.com> wrote in article
<6heafs$n10$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>
>
> Desperado,
> I love to argue. This isn't meant as a personal attack on you. It's
> only a devil's advocate argument. the number one problem the software
> industry has as far as piracy goes, is that no one, or almost no one
> equates intellectual property (software) as equally entitled to
> protection from theft as real property is. A software package should
> be treated just as any other real property, be it a book, or a car, or
> whatever.
> I should point out that I pay for all my software, eventually. I won't
> be dumb enough to try and say I have never pirated software, because I
> have. So has 98% of all of the other computer users out there. Now
> that I make a decent living, I pay for as much as I can. I wonder how
> many people who use winzip, or better yet, pkzip have paid the fee? Or
> paid Mirabilis for ICQ. Or paid for Agent. Or whatever.
> sorry about the ranting.
> Tech33
Chris,
I knew exactly what you meant, and where you were coming from. That was the
way I replied to you also, not to criticize, but just to present a
different view point. It's really nice to have someone as mature as
yourself to have a SENSIBLE, INTELLIGENT, discussion/disagreement/argument
with. Perhaps others ill see that two people can disagree on something in
one thread, totally agree with each other in another, and not take it
personally or get pissed at each other, and start name calling.
Like I said all the way back in the original post, you have valid points,
and I don't entirely disagree with them, I just think there are other
issues.
I stand by my book analogy. It's not the PACKAGE in question, it's the
INFORMATION inside. If you read a book, and remember the info, then you now
POSSESS it, it's YOURS. You didn't pay for the book, you used it, and kept
the info. That is what is copyrighted, not the materials it's printed on,
so in essence, you have gained possession (I won't say stolen) the authors
ideas and words, but not PAID for them.
I'll stick by saying that ALMOST no sales are lost due to pirating also.
Even if a kid used Adobe every day, and made great web pages or what ever,
few INDIVIDUALS purchase that product. Only professionals and commercial
accounts pay that kind of money for software. If he couldn't pirate it
somewhere, he would just find something more reasonably priced, like PSP.
HOWEVER, that somewhat validates your argument, because sales ARE lost I
guess. Not the Adobe sale, he would never have bought that anyway, but PSP
looses it's sale, because he has pirated a program that is slightly (but
not much) better than the reasonably priced shareware.
You nailed me dead to rights on my 30 days equals 720 hours. Bad argument
on my part.
Desperado
Desperado
I spam my enemies <bmil...@solidoak.com> wrote in article
<353e1a99...@206.184.139.132>...
> "Chris Campbell" <camp...@citizenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Azmodeus wrote in message <6hd4ie$6lt$1...@ns2.dialnet.net>...
> >>In article <3538d...@206.58.168.251>, rg...@polbox.com says...
> ><snip>
> >> Bullshit. it doesn't drive up prices. The main argument that software
> >>developers have is that Pirates deprive them of sales; for example, if
> >someone
> >>pirated 300 copy's of adobe photoshop, then adobe would say "We just
lost
> >300
> >>sales!" But that's busllshit. I mean, if they have to pirate, are they
> >really
> >>going to buy it int he first place? They're not losing sales at all.
>
> ><rant>
> >I hear this argument all the time, and personally I think it's pure
> >bullshit.
> >theft of intellectual property is still theft.
>
> You are a liar. If I make 300 copies of a program, I have not stolen
> it 300 times.
>
Whoa.....
He's NOT a LIAR, just because he has a different opinion.
Secondly, you're right, making 300 copies of ONE program (as long as they
are in YOUR possession) is only ONE act of piracy, however, distribute
them, and it IS 300 individual counts that you could be charged with.
Desperado
Terry Smith
I spam my enemies wrote:
> "Chris Campbell" <camp...@citizenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Azmodeus wrote in message <6hd4ie$6lt$1...@ns2.dialnet.net>...
> >>In article <3538d...@206.58.168.251>, rg...@polbox.com says...
> ><snip>
> >> Bullshit. it doesn't drive up prices. The main argument that software
> >>developers have is that Pirates deprive them of sales; for example, if
> >someone
> >>pirated 300 copy's of adobe photoshop, then adobe would say "We just lost
> >300
> >>sales!" But that's busllshit. I mean, if they have to pirate, are they
> >really
> >>going to buy it int he first place? They're not losing sales at all.
>
> ><rant>
> >I hear this argument all the time, and personally I think it's pure
> >bullshit.
> >theft of intellectual property is still theft.
>
> You are a liar. If I make 300 copies of a program, I have not stolen
> it 300 times.
> --
True, you have only stolen it once. But theft is still theft. It is too easy to
sit back and say that the big software companies are somehow screwing over the
public, and deserve to have their stuff pirated. I don't like a lot of what
goes on with MS, or Symantec, or Hewlett-Packard, but I can't condone stealing.
Stealing is wrong. Not a question of degree. When I steal stuff (and I have in
the past), I use other people's property without permission. I deprive them of
the legitimate use of their money, property, or ideas.It isn;t rocket science.
I have decided there are better ways to protest the big companies
insensitivity. I can boycott their products, write letters, turn myself and
others on to alternatives like freeware or shareware. Let's just not pretend
that theft is somehow a community service
Terry
Whatever
Terry,
Nice quotes, but it just doesn't blend in with the locals here.
I liked your parting words...
> Let's just not pretend that theft is somehow a community service.
Funny, but Robin Hood & his merry men seemed to.
The issues regarding 'stealing' Intellectual property... a weak defense.
I'd imagine that you'd want us to have sleepless nights over use of
photocopies from the local library too...
For now, WE KEEP CRACKING. And beleive it or not, we DO purchase some of
the stuff we do like, and we acutally even go as far as recommending these
products to those institutions we work, play and educate ourselves. In
parting, think of it this way. From an economics point of view, we tend to
be the REGULATORS of supply and demand within the software business and
will be for many years to come.
Regards,
Grindor.
Terry Smith <mong...@netaxs.com> wrote in article
<353FDAF0...@netaxs.com>...
Azmodeus
>> True, you have only stolen it once. But theft is still theft. It is too
>easy to
>> sit back and say that the big software companies are somehow screwing
>over the
>> public, and deserve to have their stuff pirated. I don't like a lot of
>what
>> goes on with MS, or Symantec, or Hewlett-Packard, but I can't condone
>stealing.
>> Stealing is wrong. Not a question of degree. When I steal stuff (and I
>have in
>> the past), I use other people's property without permission. I deprive
>them of
>> the legitimate use of their money, property, or ideas.It isn;t rocket
>science.
>> I have decided there are better ways to protest the big companies
>> insensitivity. I can boycott their products, write letters, turn myself
>and
>> others on to alternatives like freeware or shareware. Let's just not
>pretend
>> that theft is somehow a community service
>> Terry
he hasn't stolen it at all! (Assuming he downloaded it from a
newsgroup or FTP server.) Ok, in order to steal, you have to TAKE. You
don't TAKE electronuic pulses from FTP servers and websites, you just
make copies of thema nd bring themt o your local machine! Therefore IT
IS NOT STEALING!!!!
I'm too tired fr this. I've already debated one egotists flame
against me & the points I made, I don't have the strength to make any
more arguments.
Jennifer "Jassyfer" Martino
Azmodeus wrote:
> he hasn't stolen it at all! (Assuming he downloaded it from a
> newsgroup or FTP server.) Ok, in order to steal, you have to TAKE. You
> don't TAKE electronuic pulses from FTP servers and websites, you just
> make copies of thema nd bring themt o your local machine! Therefore IT
> IS NOT STEALING!!!!
Oh geez, Azmodeus (or however you spell it.) Lets say.. I have this idea
to make these nifty things that will change the face of the world as we
know it. And.. ummm.. let's say that some dude was like spying on me er
something and took my idea and ran with it and made like millionsor
trillions of dollars. With your logic, that isn't stealing since you
can't touch it.
My point? Something doesn't have to be tangible to be stolen.
> I'm too tired fr this. I've already debated one egotists flame
> against me & the points I made, I don't have the strength to make any
> more arguments.
--
NOTE: E-mail address ROT-13 encypted to foil evil spammers.
"The Web Page You Have Reached"
http://www.ameritech.net/users/jmartino/index.html
Telephone sounds/recordings
No annoying ads, banners or pop-ups!
Who is that guy Archangel whose name is all over alt.2600?
http://newbie.darkridge.com/
Azmodeus
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:45:56 -0500, "Jennifer \"Jassyfer\" Martino"
<wzne...@nzrevgrpu.arg> wrote:
>Oh geez, Azmodeus (or however you spell it.) Lets say.. I have this idea
>to make these nifty things that will change the face of the world as we
>know it. And.. ummm.. let's say that some dude was like spying on me er
>something and took my idea and ran with it and made like millionsor
>trillions of dollars. With your logic, that isn't stealing since you
>can't touch it.
>
>My point? Something doesn't have to be tangible to be stolen.
Now stealing ideas is touchy. See since the idea wasn't turned
into a product and copyrighted on physical media first, it wasn't
stealing. Just beating you to the punchline.
Jennifer "Jassyfer" Martino
Oh geez. But they were spying on my to get MY idea. they didn't beat me
to it.
--
Anti-Archangel #4
Brian Ring
> > he hasn't stolen it at all! (Assuming he downloaded it from a
> > newsgroup or FTP server.) Ok, in order to steal, you have to TAKE. You
> > don't TAKE electronuic pulses from FTP servers and websites, you just
> > make copies of thema nd bring themt o your local machine! Therefore IT
> > IS NOT STEALING!!!!
This is probably the most ignorant argument against intellectual property
laws that I've ever heard. Following this guy's logic we would have no
basis for copyrighting or patents at all. If there's no way of protecting
ideas from copying then the profit of ideas will go away. Without the
profit from coming up with an idea, people will cease to be incented to
develop ideas, becausee it will always be cheaper to copy someone else's
than to develop your own.
Big picture here -- not bits and bytes to justify bullshit.
========================
Brian Ring
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9715/
Desperado
Brian Ring <bria...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<354349E7...@geocities.com>...
I agree 100%. If someone downloads software, and applies a crack, and
continues to use it past the evaluation period, they have STOLEN it.
Period. It is STOLEN software.
Did stealing this software COST the distributor/author a sale? That's the
point for debate. I contend that it probably DIDN'T. The person that used
the cracked program would most likely have NEVER purchased it anyway.
Was any DAMAGE incurred by the distributor because some person that would
have never purchased their product anyway is using a cracked version?
Probably not.
If there were no such things as cracks, and someone needed a graphics
program, would a 15 year old kid save up his money and shell out $600.00
bucks for Adobe, when PSP would do just as well, for only $29.00 ?
Now if a commercial enterprise, say a web page designer, was using a
cracked Adobe for his business, and was making a profit, then HE is the one
that is depriving Adobe of what should be a legitimate sale.
Desperado
Brian Ring
Desperado wrote:
This is a very good point. MS always overstates their "loss" to piracy in
Greater China because they count every pirated copy as being equal to a lost
sale. I would challenge them on that point. In a country with a GDP of
$400/person, MS is not really losing 1 Billion customers even if 1 Billion
copies of MS Windows 98 were actually distributed -- and I'm sure that the
black market already has MS Windows out.
So Desp, you're absolutey right that there is no direct cost to the SW
publisher in the case of piracy, but there is an opportunity cost. Will
opportunity costs ever drive a company out of business? No, unless true
revenue potential is actually lost to opportunity cost (I realize this isn't
the idiomatic use of the term opportunity cost, but it suffices for our needs
in this discussion.)
So it sounds like what I'm saying is that, "If you're in the market to buy the
software, but decide to copy it, then you're guilty of piracy, but if you're
not in the market, then you can copy it without being guilty of piracy." But
it is not, because I'm advocating a policy position here. As policy decisions
are made, they must be considered from the macrolevel. Clearly, such a
position as I stated above for the case by case situation incents people to
free load -- even those who would purchase the software. If those
would-be-purchasers free load, then the software companies are seriously hurt.
Hence in the policy decision making process, the policy makers have to
ascertain the difficulty of differentiating between people who are in the
market for the software but pirating it versus those who are pirating it for
shits and giggles. The empirical evidence of this: who gets busted? The
little guy who copied/cracked his buddy's program or the company with a CD
press?
(If there are any lawyers out there, I'd love to hear the legalist critique of
a defence structured around, "I would never have paid for that piece of
software. I just wanted it for home use.")
Hackwatcher (the leading candidate so far)
--
Ringworm
Desperado wrote:
> I agree 100%. If someone downloads software, and applies a crack, and
> continues to use it past the evaluation period, they have STOLEN it.
> Period. It is STOLEN software.
>
> Did stealing this software COST the distributor/author a sale? That's the
> point for debate. I contend that it probably DIDN'T. The person that used
> the cracked program would most likely have NEVER purchased it anyway.
>
> Was any DAMAGE incurred by the distributor because some person that would
> have never purchased their product anyway is using a cracked version?
> Probably not.
>
> If there were no such things as cracks, and someone needed a graphics
> program, would a 15 year old kid save up his money and shell out $600.00
> bucks for Adobe, when PSP would do just as well, for only $29.00 ?
>
> Now if a commercial enterprise, say a web page designer, was using a
> cracked Adobe for his business, and was making a profit, then HE is the one
> that is depriving Adobe of what should be a legitimate sale.
>
> Desperado
To build further on this point, why not go w/ the PGP model? Just throw a
perfectly good fully functional program out there, and let people have it. The
only catch is that if a user wants the manuals or any kind of technical
support, then they have to buy the registered version.
What happens when all software piracy is based on printed manuals? There are
costs involved (paper, ink/toner) so no one would just give them away, and who
the hell is going to sit through a 100MB pdf download (or store it, or bother
to scan the thing in for that matter)? The big companies w/ all the resources
could sell manuals more cheaply (and w/ better quality) than 200 competing
pirate groups Also, no pirate group is ever going to set up a toll free
support line. Just a few thoughts, worth what you paid for 'em.
--
Ringworm
antiarchangel11
http://newbie.darkridge.com
Desperado
Brian Ring <bria...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<35437855...@geocities.com>...
I understand what you say.
I compare software to video tapes.
What's the difference between copying a computer application to use for
individual home use, and copying a movie for individual home use?
Most people think copying a video from a rented tape is video piracy. It
IS. But these SAME people have NO PROBLEM recording the same movie from
HBO. What's the difference?
Also, little or no damage or loss has been incurred by the distributor, so
they don't gripe about people recording movies from HBO, unless the
distribute them for profit.
Same with software. Most people think bringing home a copy of Adobe (don't
know why I keep picking on them) home from work is piracy. It IS. Many of
the same people don't think it's nearly as wrong if they downloaded it from
some warez site.
Again, in either instance, little loss or damage has resulted. Now if
you're talking about RESELLING the pirated software, that's a different
ballgame all together.
Anyway, I was just wondering how many of the anti-piracy(software division)
people out there have no problem watching their pirated video tapes? (or
ever even thought about it)
I don't know if anyone else ever dealt with THIS situation, but several
years ago, in San Diego Ca, there was a SOFTWARE RENTAL company. Like a
video store for applications. You could rent Lotus123 for 3 bucks a day. Of
course, one day was always enough, because you had it installed by that
time. I always wondered what the legality of an enterprise like that was?
Desperado
Nema
agree...
this is called market segmentation (those who have give, and those who don't
don't)
nema
Pen...@riverstyx.com
On 26 Apr 1998 20:47:56 GMT, "Desperado" <the_de...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>I don't know if anyone else ever dealt with THIS situation, but several
>years ago, in San Diego Ca, there was a SOFTWARE RENTAL company. Like a
>video store for applications. You could rent Lotus123 for 3 bucks a day. Of
>course, one day was always enough, because you had it installed by that
>time. I always wondered what the legality of an enterprise like that was?
>
>Desperado
That is how I got started in computing and they (the software rental
stores) knew full well what they were doing was highly questionable.
As the word got out they were all sued and shut down unilaterally. The
next progression was Wal-Mart where they used to have a "no questions
asked" policy on software returns and you can believe me it all got
returned! This policy was so abused that they quickly had a company
wide directive to stop that practice. Ah the good old days.....
Which brings me to my opinion that just like the porno industry "made"
the VCR cheaper and attainable to the masses, the "pirates" brought
down the cost of high speed modems and did a lot of the free beta
testing/advertising for the major software developers.
Pen...@riverstyx.com
AntiArchAngel #10
Anti dAn gArstecki #1
See the list http://newbie.darkridge.com/list.html
Midnight Rider
Desperado wrote:
> Most people think copying a video from a rented tape is video piracy.
> It IS. But these SAME people have NO PROBLEM recording the same movie
> from HBO. What's the difference?
Oddly enough, under U.S. Copyright laws, the courts have decided that in
this case the difference is that it is *legal* to copy a movie to tape
for home use *if* you copy it from a broadcast (airwaves or TV).
This is largely due to the fact that a supposed key use of a VCR is time
shifting. HBO shows a movie while you're at work. You record it for
later viewing. Totally legal.
> years ago, in San Diego Ca, there was a SOFTWARE RENTAL company. Like
> a video store for applications. You could rent Lotus123 for 3 bucks a
> day. Of course, one day was always enough, because you had it
> installed by that time. I always wondered what the legality of an
> enterprise like that was?
Most current software license agreements specifically include software
rental as illegal under the terms of the agreement. There is a way
around this particular detail - you (the store) can sell the software
for full retail and then accept "returns" minus a small "restocking fee"
provided they return all original packaging, software & docs.
Where there's a way, there's a way around it! :-)
--
MR
-]011001100110[-
Desperado
Midnight Rider <M...@nunyabiznes.com> wrote in article
<3544B73A...@nunyabiznes.com>...
> Desperado wrote:
>
> > Most people think copying a video from a rented tape is video piracy.
> > It IS. But these SAME people have NO PROBLEM recording the same movie
> > from HBO. What's the difference?
>
> Oddly enough, under U.S. Copyright laws, the courts have decided that in
> this case the difference is that it is *legal* to copy a movie to tape
> for home use *if* you copy it from a broadcast (airwaves or TV).
>
> This is largely due to the fact that a supposed key use of a VCR is time
> shifting. HBO shows a movie while you're at work. You record it for
> later viewing. Totally legal.
>
Yes, BUT... HBO is NOT broadcast over public AIR waves, it is a
SUBSCRIPTION service. The Federal Communications Act of (some stinking
year) declared all transmissions over airwaves to be public property. This
was when police scanners were first gaining popularity. The only priviso
was that you could "use" the information received for your own personal
use, but could not repeat, publish, or profit from it. They are now trying
to flip flop on this, and exclude cellular phones from the public domain,
however, I believe it is up to the originator to encrypt anything they
don't want publicly received.
Anyway, since HBO is not PUBLIC, but a PAY service, it's still PIRACY to
record a movie from there.
Desperado
Bullet
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:51:48 GMT, "POLITICO" <poli...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
blah blahblah <snip>
What about using software that's not even available in your country???
And wont be for a very long time (according to the chaps who sell
software!!)
Pen...@riverstyx.com
On 27 Apr 1998 17:10:18 GMT, "Desperado" <the_de...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Midnight Rider <M...@nunyabiznes.com> wrote in article
><3544B73A...@nunyabiznes.com>...
>> Desperado wrote:
>>
>> > Most people think copying a video from a rented tape is video piracy.
>> > It IS. But these SAME people have NO PROBLEM recording the same movie
>> > from HBO. What's the difference?
>>
>> Oddly enough, under U.S. Copyright laws, the courts have decided that in
>> this case the difference is that it is *legal* to copy a movie to tape
>> for home use *if* you copy it from a broadcast (airwaves or TV).
>>
>> This is largely due to the fact that a supposed key use of a VCR is time
>> shifting. HBO shows a movie while you're at work. You record it for
>> later viewing. Totally legal.
>>
>Yes, BUT... HBO is NOT broadcast over public AIR waves, it is a
>SUBSCRIPTION service. The Federal Communications Act of (some stinking
>year) declared all transmissions over airwaves to be public property. This
>was when police scanners were first gaining popularity. The only priviso
>was that you could "use" the information received for your own personal
>use, but could not repeat, publish, or profit from it. They are now trying
>to flip flop on this, and exclude cellular phones from the public domain,
>however, I believe it is up to the originator to encrypt anything they
>don't want publicly received.
>
>Anyway, since HBO is not PUBLIC, but a PAY service, it's still PIRACY to
>record a movie from there.
>
>
>Desperado
I'm not sure of that. Cinemax has an advertisement along the lines of
" set your VCR to record every night from midnight till six am and get
three complete movies to view at your leisure" It was a "summer of a
thousand movies promotion" or something. Anyway my take on the whole
piracy issue is that we (the average American) don't give a fuck if it
is right or wrong anymore. We cheat on our taxes, don't register
shareware, lie to the cop that stops us when we speed, buy lottery
tickets even though the odds are 15,000,000 + to 1, and are generally
apathetic about everything except that rascal Archangel!
Desperado
Pen...@riverstyx.com wrote in article
<3546d68a...@news.deltech.net>...
> Anyway my take on the whole
> piracy issue is that we (the average American) don't give a fuck if it
> is right or wrong anymore. We cheat on our taxes, don't register
> shareware, lie to the cop that stops us when we speed, buy lottery
> tickets even though the odds are 15,000,000 + to 1, and are generally
> apathetic about everything except that rascal Archangel!
>
>
Damn Penult,
That's the most insightful post I have seen in a long time.
Truth is, I don't care about apathy :-)
Desp
Chris Campbell
Desperado wrote in message <01bd721d$280b7720$e35160ce@kfvtjuml>...
>
<snip>
>>
>Damn Penult,
>That's the most insightful post I have seen in a long time.
>
>Truth is, I don't care about apathy :-)
>
>Desp
huh? oh. who cares.
:c)
Tech33
ThePsyko
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:13:28 GMT, Pen...@riverstyx.com somehow managed
to post the following:
<whole bunch snipped>
>and are generally
>apathetic about everything except that rascal Archangel!
>
and beer... don't forget we care about our beer :-)
>
>Pen...@riverstyx.com
>AntiArchAngel #10
>Anti dAn gArstecki #1
>See the list http://newbie.darkridge.com/list.html
ThePsyko
Aspiring Public Enemy
http://thepsyko.home.ml.org
ICQ# 9240214
GRieFX
GRieFX- "It's Only Stealing If You Get Caught!!"
Other Than That.... It Should Be Free....