To pirate XP or not to pirate Xp?

[Vater Araignee]

The future has imploded into the present. With no nuclear war, the new battlefields are people’s minds and souls. Megacorporations are the new government. The computer generated info-domains are the new frontiers. Though there is better living through science and chemistry, we are all becoming cyborgs.

The computer is the new “cool tool,” and though we say “all information should be free,” it is not. Information is power and currency in the virtual world we inhabit, so mistrust authority.

Cyberpunks are the true rebels. Cyberculture is coming in under the radar of ordinary society. An unholy alliance of the tech world, and the world of organized dissent.

Welcome to the cybercorporation.

Cyberpunks.

#1 access to computers should be unlimited and total.

#2 all information should be free.

#3 mistrust authority - promote decentralization.

#4 hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position.

#5 you create art and beauty on a computer.

#6 computers can change your life for the better.

steven levy (1984). hackers: heroes of the computer revolution.

You see with it's ease of use for the average user it is basically a must have if you can afford a mac or you hate the proprietary of mac also. But why is home so bloated unsafe and over powered?

Because the bastards are to lazy tight fisted and secretive.

Lets say that the sorce code for win98 became public. What would happen?

All the bugs would be fixed it would natively support ntfs quickly become 64 bit and vastly over shadow its and nt's bastard offspring.

So I say if you need the junk known as xp steal barrow it and let the corporate movers and shakers pay for it.

But honestly what do you think and why?

Even if you agree with me it must be for different reasons.

[Marblez]

Piracy is stealing and part of the declining moral fabric of our culture/world.

Why should all information be free? Just like the secret recipe for KFC Chicken, Windows is a product, it is not just information. It costs money to invent, develop, to advertise, to improve. The money that is being lost through piracy is the money that is necessary for this company to make the newer better product.

Microsoft is not a state owned entity, not controlled by the community. They are in business, it is their business not OURS. Hack it/figure out the recipe - work with it to improve upon it for your own products. Don't expect KFC to provide a recipe to The Chicken Shack just because their chicken is preferred by the masses.

Another example of this would be the generic drug companies. Sure it is cheap to produce these drugs, but who has to pay the scientists and researchers for a decade to come up with a new drug? They don't do it for free.

[Black Sunday]

But Marblez I take issue with Microsoft on some things....

Apple let's you instal their OS on more than one computer if you own them.....not Microsoft.

So if you have 2 computers you have to buy 2 os's? that is just sick, considering how much money bill gates has.

Plus they pretty much have a monopoly, for most computers you use their OS or nothing. Getting a linux or Apple is another venture altogether.

I try not to hate microsoft but they make it difficult.

[Marblez]

But Marblez I take issue with Microsoft on some things....

Apple let's you instal their OS on more than one computer if you own them.....not Microsoft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The two companies do not have to do everything similarly. I believe that you stated that you could not afford a Mac? Does the cost not aid in offsetting this issue? Additionally, I know that certain softwares and hardwares do not work well with different operating systems. I am sure that it helps keep the cost down on the PCs when as much as possible can be static instead of planning for every possibility.

So if you have 2 computers you have to buy 2 os's?  that is just sick, considering how much money bill gates has. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I have to buy 2 cars, I have to pay for insurance on both. I won't be driving them both at the same time. Why can't I just get insurance once and drive whatever I want?

What does it matter how much money he has? Get your own money, stop worrying about his.

Plus they pretty much have a monopoly, for most computers you use their OS or nothing.    Getting a linux or Apple is another venture altogether. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They put together the best product that they can. They please masses of people with their product. If you prefer to use different, then it is your preference and your decision. I don't tell domino's pizza to give me all the ingredients so I can make and sell a better pizza...I just buy a better pizza or make it at home. And I sure as heck don't steal their recipes, ideas or force them to provide them by using federal bullying tactics.

[Marblez]

Thou shalt not steal.

[Daniel]

Piracy is stealing and part of the declining moral fabric of our culture/world.

No it isn't. In fact, labeling the downloading of unauthorized software as "pirating" is painting a false picture. It isn't stealing, it is copyright infringement. It can't be stealing, because you aren't depriving anyone of property. If I download a song, the person I downloaded it from isn't deprived of their copy, so it is not stealing. The only thing lost is "value", and causing something to depreciate in value is neither unethical or a crime. If it were, a boycott, or simply electing to not buy anything, would be illegal, but it is not. If causing something to depreciate in value were illegal, writing a bad review in a publication about someone's product would be illegal. Hell, not liking a product would be illegal.

What is taking place when you download unauthorized software/music/etc is copyright infringement, not theft. It is also worth noting that copyright laws need serious revision. The whole idea behind them was to encourage growth. All they do now is hinder it. But that is a different discussion altogether.

Also, these business that "suffer" because of unauthorized downloading need to come up with a new business model. Information does want to be free, and it will continue to be so. It has nothing to do with whether it should be free or not, it simply has a way of being so. This isn't going to change. They can either adapt, or go extinct. Either way is fine by me. I've seen a number of successful business that exploit the free flow of information. There are ways of making money if people are interested in what you have. Downloading is just the tide that is changing the market. Change, or get out!

[Marblez]

No it isn't. In fact, labeling the downloading of unauthorized software as "pirating" is painting a false picture. It isn't stealing, it is copyright infringement. It can't be stealing, because you aren't depriving anyone of property. If I download a song, the person I downloaded it from isn't deprived of their copy, so it is not stealing. The only thing lost is "value", and causing something to depreciate in value is neither unethical or a crime. If it were, a boycott, or simply electing to not buy anything, would be illegal, but it is not. If causing something to depreciate in value were illegal, writing a bad review in a publication about someone's product would be illegal. Hell, not liking a product would be illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pi·ra·cy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pr-s)

n. pl. pi·ra·cies

Robbery committed at sea.

A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.

The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.

[Marblez]

When you purchase a CD, data or audio - the product that you are purchasing is not simply the media it is recorded on, otherwise, you would pick up a blank CDR for much cheaper. The "product" that you are purchading is the program or audio contained within. This is why Copyrights exist, to make stealing of these works illegal since is it not a tangible item.

To think otherwise is selfserving.

[soothsayer]

If I could interject here, and I do not wish to debate about the legalities or morals about "pirate" software. I only want to say I have heard that Microsoft has installed something in their os that is checked by Microsoft website (if you're online) and if it is detected that two computers are using the same os software (i.e. the code numbers match ect.) it will automatically shut down the os and render it usless. So it might not be a good idea to do this if their gonna shut your system down. Assuming this is true of course. That is all.

[TomCat]

Stealing was still bad, the last time I checked, anyway.

[Black Sunday]

The two companies do not have to do everything similarly. I believe that you stated that you could not afford a Mac? Does the cost not aid in offsetting this issue?  Additionally, I know that certain softwares and hardwares do not work well with different operating systems. I am sure that it helps keep the cost down on the PCs when as much as possible can be static instead of planning for every possibility.

If I have to buy 2 cars, I have to pay for insurance on both.  I won't be driving them both at the same time.  Why can't I just get insurance once and drive whatever I want?

What does it matter how much money he has? Get your own money, stop worrying about his.

They put together the best product that they can. They please masses of people with their product.  If you prefer to use different, then it is your preference and your decision. I don't tell domino's pizza to give me all the ingredients so I can make and sell a better pizza...I just buy a better pizza or make it at home.  And I sure as heck don't steal their recipes, ideas or force them to provide them by using federal bullying tactics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your analogies are a bit strange.

anyway i never said i couldn't afford a mac. in fact i now wish i had just bought the mac mini.

if you ever used linux or mac and then used windows you would see how ridiculous windows is. the two computer thing is really stupid. if i pay $100 for a disc i should be able to use it how i like if I am the one using it. there is a reason why everyone hates microsoft.

but as it turns out, microsoft not only dictates that they have the only product i can use on this computer but they tell me how to use it even after it was purchased. fuck these bitches.

[Daevion]

Sorry I'm not rich enough to side with the multi-billion dollar coporations....trust me those people do NOT follow the same set of rules that they make for the rest us to follow. Their interests are not our interests, and most of them do not have much in moral fiber. So we can take the moral high ground and preach all we want it will make zero impact, the powerfull WILL do whatever they want and the rest us will have to follow most of thier rules.

No matter what anyone says it is a vicous circle since its a known fact that everytime Bill Gates takes a crap, god kills a kitten. J/K!!

[Daniel]

When you purchase a CD, data or audio - the product that you are purchasing is not simply the media it is recorded on, otherwise, you would pick up a blank CDR for much cheaper.  The "product" that you are purchading is the program or audio contained within.  This is why Copyrights exist, to make stealing of these works illegal since is it not a tangible item. 

To think otherwise is selfserving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your quoted defition of piracy is blantantly fallicious, and has only become accepted because of common misuse in the media. Making an unauthorized copy is not theft. Without theft, there is no piracy. No matter how you approach it, this cannot be justified. If it were stealing, it would be a crime to do so. Theft is a criminal charge. Copyright infringement is a civil charge. People don't get locked up for downloading shit, but they can be sued. Your dictionary is wrong (and this happens from time-to-time, dictionaries aren't 'official' documents).

Now, yes, when you buy a CD, be it software, music, or whatever, you purchased data. You can do what you want with things you purchased. If I want to duplicate it, I have a right to. See the Betamax case from the 80's. Want to talk about selfish? What if I bought some nutritious food, and found a way to duplicate it in endless supply, using no resources, and send it to everyone in the world? Everyone would be well fed, but whoever made the original food wouldn't benefit. Which is worse, having a world full of starving people, or one person who didn't get rich making the original food? This is closer to the reality of the situation than saying someone downloading stuff is a thief. We aren't thieves, we are sharing information which is in infinite supply. We aren't "stealing" anything, as the original owner still has their goods.

I think you misunderstand the legal purpose of copyright. Copyright owners don't actually have any "rights". What they have are privileges, granted

by congress based on a mandate to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

It may be some of the privileges granted to copyright owners may be in the best interests of promoting the useful arts and sciences; but if we begin to fall into the misconception that the copyright system exists for the copyright owners' benefit, we are making a big

mistake.

Copyright is taken for granted in modern society; everyone assumes information must be restricted to retain value. This is a very recent change. Shakespeare had no copyright, and throughout human history art was produced without the "protection" of copyright.

Now consider the original purpose of copyright. It was not developed to bring profit to those who distrubute content. The founding fathers, and others around the world who introduced copyright, intended it to be a legal mechanism to shut down people who pass off the work of others as their own for commercial gain. Copyright periods were very short-only a few years-and typical cases involved large operations that mass produced works without permission.

A modern example of true copyright violation can be found in the movie bootleggers of Hong Kong. Take a walk down the street, and you'll see a variety of dirt cheap dvd's with good enough quality that only the most sophisticated consumers can spot the fakes. The pirates reap massive profit and gain control over how the work is presented while the creators are marginalized. This is what copyright was created to stop.

Like I said before, there are ways to make money when you have a product people want. Plus, it is foolish to say that depriving corporation exclusive rights to distribute their product is going to stiffle anything. The open source software circles prove this, since many free, open source programs are nearly peer to their multi-hundred dollar equivilents. And those free softwares would become even more user oriented if they were the only alternative. For now they remain "geek only" because people would rather stick with MS, et al.

The purpose of copyright is not for individual people, but for the benefit of society. That is the most common mistake made regarding copyright. And again, this is all drivel anyway. You can call it stealing or a blessing, the fact is, it is unavoidable, and if people don't adapt their business models to the changing climate, they will fail. There are ways to make money off of the phenomenon, it just requires updating the business model. It is no different than what some businesses have to do with changing seasons. An autoshop stops ordering air conditioners when it gets close to winter. You simply have to update your business plan when the enviornment changes. Consider the enviornment irreversibly changed. It is fruitless to make an act illegal that the majority of the population partakes in, and there is no way to stop it. Look at the alcohol prohibition in the 20's as a fantastic example. I think you'd have better luck banning alcohol again than you will policing unauthorized software downloading.

[The_Dark]

Whole lot of justification for somethibng that isn't "wrong". Pirating is stealing. you can say it's not all you want, doesn;t change the law at all.

[Scary Guy]

On windows piracy http://www.freebsd.org is completely free. Windows is an inferrior product and therefore I won't pay for something that is worthless.

Microsoft has over 9 billion dollars and the only time they give any of it to charity is when it makes them look better (for good PR).

"I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway. Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

- Ian Clarke"

Piracy in general is bad though. Programmers do need ot make money when it is their main/sole job to program. Same with the people who create the media (music/movies/etc...). There are also many costs involved in the production, marketing, and distrobution. Not to mention the fees of everyone involved leaving the band/the programmers/etc... with a fraction of a fraction of what they should get. The companies are bigger crooks paying crap out to those too stupid to read a contract properly before they sign it. If they have a good agent then they have a chance.

Movie and sports stars are the only people who get paid well, but they get paid too well, overpaid IMO.

Companies are also outsourcing most of the programming jobs to India and Asia because it's cheap labor. Meaning companies make even more money off you.

It's all a huge money grab and people want to take as much as they can. In life no one gives you any breaks anymore and you have to work harder than ever. The gap between the upper 10% and the lower "commoners" is larger than it has ever been.

So is right to pirate data? no

Do I care? also no

I pay for things if I make money off/from them that is equal or greater than the cost of the product to begin with. I won't cry if some faceless greedy corporation doesn't ge their money. I support all the local bands and indipendant artists as much as I can because they get drown out by the bigger guys and need the support. They in turn usually support me (at least the musicians) by letting me buy their CD for less since I DJ and allow me to purchace it for cost of materials (or just give me a copy hoping I'll play it at the club).

I like to think of myself as an ethical pirate, or robbin hood of sorts.

EDIT:

I also forgot to mention that people only care about major piracy. The people who actually copy and redistribute the product (especially those who do it in exchange for money). This is why you see a bunch of kids at universities get sued at the same time, since it's more cost effective that way.

[Black Sunday]

Well a few points here:

- After reading some pretty dishonest responses I am now against pirating XP when only yesterday I was on board!

- Copyright holders do have rights, when a copyright has been broken property has been violated, it is intellectual property but a legal property nonetheless. You can look at US code 17107 for the list of rights a copyright owner has.

- Bill Gates has actually given somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 billion dollars to charity. Recently he gave 750 million dollars to a worldwide childrens vaccination program.

I was leaning more towards Scarey Guy's "It ain't right but I don't care" sort of sentiment on this one, mostly because Microsoft makes you jump thru hoops to use their inferior product, which is the only choice I have to run my computer.

[Daniel]

Whole lot of justification for somethibng that isn't "wrong". Pirating is stealing. you can say it's not all you want, doesn;t change the law at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for that illogical reply, The Dark. I expect better of you. My reply is a lenghty reply, so it must be wrong!

Point to me a law that says downloading unauthorized works is stealing, and punishable as a crime. Certainly people are pushing to make it a crime, but as it stands now, it is not. Keeping in mind the idea behind copyright in the law, it isn't terribly likely any laws that make unauthorized downloading a criminal offence will pass as constitutional. It will likely always remain a civil affair, which stealing is not. Stealing is a crime.

I am explaining a lot because you are grossly misinformed about the law, the history of the law and how things got to the point they have. It takes a bit of work to iron out to long chain of misinformation that has perpetuated on this topic. I recommend actually doing some research on copyright history, law and why it is necessary before engaging in this sort of discussion. I have done an enormace amount of research, and follow all of the cases on this subject, as I am huge advocate for copyright reform. Copyright, these days, stiffles creativity on a huge social scale, which defeats the purpose of why copyright exists to begin with.

Copyright holders do have rights, when a copyright has been broken property has been violated

Not really. The property remains perfectly in tact. As supply becomes closer to infinity, the value gets reduced appropriately. That is an inescapable fact. Now, causing something to lose value is not illegal, and isn't the point of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to allow the creator the exclusive right to profit from their works. By sharing information, we are not stripping them of this right, we are simply lowering the value of the work. Of course, are we causing that, or is it just an unchangable condition of the market? Any data is infinitely reproducable at close to zero cost. If your only product is data and you are really suffering loses because of its reproducability, it is time to change your business model. And many companies are, and are truly reaping the benefits. The companies spending millions on copy protection and other ways of fighting unauthorized distribution are just digging their own graves.

[LuluVox]

I find all this arguing morally offensive.

[Daniel]

I find all this arguing morally offensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shit, my whole existence is morally offensive! I just show up places and people become offended. Oh no!

[LuluVox]

It's okay, I'm only being morally offended for fun.

[TomCat]

It's okay, I'm only being morally offended for fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taking it on the chin for the team. That's noble. I'm going to go hide in the corner. :fear

[Vater Araignee]

For those of you that say "I use microsoft 'cause I have no other choice" what about BeOS, the baskin robins of os's Linux, their king Linspire (formerly known as Lindows) or UNIX? I left out a lot. Saying forced to use windows is simply untrue. Now saying that you should not have to pay for inferiority...

Oh do you know why Lindows got renamed Linspire?

After Microsoft lost their case against Lindows over COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT here in the USA,They brought suite against Lindows in six countries simultaneously. Lindows not being able to afford so many defense teams consigned and changed the name.

Sneaky rotten and dirty don't you think?

[Marblez]

Oh do you know why Lindows got renamed Linspire?

After Microsoft lost their case against Lindows over COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT here in the USA,They brought suite against Lindows in six countries simultaneously. Lindows not being able to afford so many defense teams consigned and changed the name.

Sneaky rotten and dirty don't you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Were they marketing their product in each of these countries? Nothing Sneaky Rotten or Dirty about it.

[Soulrev]

Sooth - Yeah they did have some shit like that in XP that would record your hardware config, etc and the cd-key for XP that you entered and send it off to Microsoft..

Only problem is, they didn't do that on Windows XP Pro Corporate Edition, because it's for business application. Meant to be installed on many different systems, you just had to purchase that many licenses and get 1 CD.. That version doesn't check shit. That's the one that's floating all over the net.

[Daevion]

Sooth - Yeah they did have some shit like that in XP that would record your hardware config, etc and the cd-key for XP that you entered and send it off to Microsoft..

Only problem is, they didn't do that on Windows XP Pro Corporate Edition, because it's for business application. Meant to be installed on many different systems, you just had to purchase that many licenses and get 1 CD.. That version doesn't check shit. That's the one that's floating all over the net.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats a problem? :pirate

Its so easy to get a copy, pretty much everyone I know has one or knows someone who does. Every place I've worked theres always some IT guy that'll burn you off a copy. Heh, for a large peperoni, theres two guys that work down the hall from me that'll burn anything i want, assuming they have it.