read about the new so called piracy laws SOPA and PIPA that are being pushed current

[G27]

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone piracy, but turning the internet into a virtual police-state isn't the answer.

First, I think that's a mis-characterization of SOPA.

That said, I've not read enough on it yet to form a valid opinion.

What's sad is there's an outcry over this, yet never a peep from anyone about this rampant thievery. It's no problem until it lands in their back yard.

He makes a good point here: Quit Whining About SOPA and PIPA. Where's the Public Outrage Over Internet Piracy? - Seattle Music - Reverb

Again, I'm not saying I support SOPA - I'm saying it's a good thing we're talking about it as I'm sick to death of dirtbag thieves taking food of the table of my friends and clients.

[Garufa]

An innocent question for crimson and Steelharp: is the theivery of music any worse now than when cassette recorders where invented, or CD burners? I would wager you both have bootleg CD's, tapes, etc. in your collections, just like everyone else in this country.

If I am wrong my sincerest apologies.

[Steelharp]

I don't have bootleg anything. I refuse to have, because it's not right. The only "homemade CD's" I have are from artists that gave them to me to learn their material for performances.

[G27]

An innocent question for crimson and Steelharp: is the theivery of music any worse now than when cassette recorders where invented, or CD burners? I would wager you both have bootleg CD's, tapes, etc. in your collections, just like everyone else in this country.

If I am wrong my sincerest apologies.

First, I have zero bootlegs or illegal copies of anything, period.

But to answer the former question - it's far, far worse than it's ever been before. Think about the ease of theft now - you don't have to copy it in real time, you aren't getting a 'generation down' copy like you would via analog - the copy is an exact clone of the original and can be distributed to literally anyone and everyone (with internet access) on earth in seconds.

I cut a single for a band last year that was one of the top selling songs of the year. The numbers we're hearing right now is that there's an approximate 10:1 ratio of illegal copies to legal ones (based on a sampling questionnaire of who has the song vs the number sold). 10x as many illegal copies - the same exact song as the one you may have purchased - out there illegally.

It's a massive problem, without question. All you have to do is look beneath the surface at sales numbers and it's plainly obvious. A couple of years ago, Nickelback had a smash hit record - they literally released eight singles off the record, which is astonishing success - yet the last time I checked they had sold 2 million copies. 10 years ago, any record that had two successive #1's in the pop music market would go Diamond, at least (that's 10M copies sold), much less a record so successful they could go eight singles deep...

Now for the numbers:

In the decade of the 90's (91-00) there were 48 records which achieved Diamond sales status in the US

In the decade of the 00's (01-10) there were five records that achieved Diamond sales Status, and there have been none since 2004.

If a band as successful as Nickelback is hurt by this, imagine the legions of artists, engineers, and support staff that have had to close shop because people have no problem stealing their property...

[Guest WyattEarp]

SOMETHING has to be done about the rampant theft of IP on the internet. People are losing their jobs - entire industries are being undermined to dangerous levels, all because people thinks it's 'ok' to be a low life thief.

And yeah, if you download a song, movie or software you didn't pay for you're no different than any other scumbag thief.

really? let me give you another perspective my friend. As a college student majoring in Digital Media Comm, I have been learning programs like Adobe Master Suite CS5, Autodesk Maya 3D Animation, Final Cut Studio 3, and the like, and there's others.

I'll give creedence to Autodesk, if you're a student, you can sign up for an account, and you can use some of their software for 3 years, download it at home on to your computer, and use it at home while you're in school. Some of their higher end stuff is hands off, and many of their programs, are over $3000. Autodesk Smoke 2012, is a $14,995. that program better make some badass 3d graphics, and I better feel like I just had the best virtual reality sex of my life with Charlize Theron, that I actually thought she was real and my experience was real after i used that program, because that's as much as a friggin' car costs.

Autodesk Smoke 2012 for Mac OS X Product Information - Autodesk eStore Online Store

Companies like Apple (designers of Final Cut Pro video editing software), and Adobe, can kiss my ass. I can't afford a $1200 price tag for every piece of software that I have to learn. When Adobe Master Suite CS5 came out, it was $2600. That's a semesters worth of Pell Grant money. I also can't sit around for 5 or 6 hours waiting for a computer spot to open up at the lab to get my work done, which may take another several hours to get it done, which means it's 3 or 4 am before I get home to bed, and I have to be at class at 8 am. I'm not talking about me specifically here, I'm just saying students in general, because I'm fortunate that V.A. Voc Rehab buys all my software that I need, and I spend most of my time at home doing my homework quietly, in a no distraction environment, when I'm not in class.

For the amount of money a student pays in tuition, books, supplies, dorm fees and/or cost of living off campus, you'd think the Universities could at least work out a deal to where students in related degree programs, could get the software to use for 3 years, or the software could be included in the price of tuition. If the only time something a student is learning is available to them in restricted times, that student isn't going to end up learning too much.

When the rich become more greedy, and things are so overpriced, people begin to steal, because they have no option, because they're being gouged by every company out there looking to get rich, and then consumers also get ripped off by scams, and pyramid schemes, a

and if I hear another Lars Ulrich going before congress, to complain about music being traded and how much money he's losing and his family can't eat bull****, im going to puke. it's never enough for those people. there's never enough money to make them happy. It especially irks me when I wait for a much anticipated album to be released by an artist, it comes out I go buy it, and there's 2 songs out of 15 that are good, and the rest of the tracks suck! You pay $16.99 for a new release, and it's not worth a damn! so i quit buying cd's! but now I custom select my own songs that I like to buy, and download them I'm totally fine with that, $.99 a song is reasonable.

but to me, the mp3 sharing thing is a farce anyways. I always used to, and still do, swap DVD's with a buddy. They might have something I haven't seen, and vice versa. Same thing with music.

read this. illegal mp3 downloading doesn't cost those musicians ****.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt

I don't condone stealing, but price gouging people for things is the same thing as stealing in my opinion. the biggest crooks of all? Doctors!

First, I think that's a mis-characterization of SOPA.

That said, I've not read enough on it yet to form a valid opinion.

What's sad is there's an outcry over this, yet never a peep from anyone about this rampant thievery. It's no problem until it lands in their back yard.

He makes a good point here: Quit Whining About SOPA and PIPA. Where's the Public Outrage Over Internet Piracy? - Seattle Music - Reverb

Again, I'm not saying I support SOPA - I'm saying it's a good thing we're talking about it as I'm sick to death of dirtbag thieves taking food of the table of my friends and clients.

do you really think the average citizen give's a rat's ass that some multi-billion $$$ profit generating Fortune 500 company, didn't meet their profit expectations from the last year, because they choose to overcharge for a piece of software, when there's people out there losing their homes, can't feed their kids or pay their bills? no one gives a rip if Joe CEO Fancy pants in his Ferrari Testarosa didn't get his $5,000,000 annual bonus.

[Steelharp]

Wyatt, you need an attitude adjustment. While you have some good points, you're wrong in a lot of ways. Maybe you should be pumping gas.

The scenario you give regarding the major labels vs. musicians is correct. This is why many acts now have their own labels, make their own product, etc. In THAT scenario, which is becoming more common, the artist stands to be the primary income receiver, hence they become the primary loser in piracy. No, "the average citizen give's a rat's ass that some multi-billion $$$ profit generating Fortune 500 company, didn't meet their profit expectations from the last year." Overcharging for software, doctor visit's, etc. happens because of deadbeats that don't pay anything at all (i.e. software, music thieves, etc.) and those losses have to be made up, or the company ceases to exist, and you don't have your precious software to steal. When my wife had a $30,000 hospital stay, we informed them we were uninsured and would be self-pay. We received an 89% discount, making it affordable. So, we were relieved from the responsibility of making up for the slugs that just vanish.

I understand where you're coming from, but... you need to do some reevaluating.

Edit: I see you are a photographer. How much photo software have you purchased, and how much have you stolen? Mind if I and a few of my friends steal some of your images for use? It's just because we like them, and besides, you're just a money whore. You don't need or want what you should have for your creative work.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Steelharp

[Guest WyattEarp]

I see your point, but I can't say I'm going to agree with you Steelsharp. And as I said, the V.A. bought my software, to include my photo editing software. When I'm done with school and out earning my keep, I'll be purchasing any new photo packages that come out just like anyone else. I haven't pushed my photography business yet, I've had a few gigs, but if I had to rely on it to eat right now, i'd be hurting pretty badly, lol, but school is more important than making money right now. and in case you didn't notice, my galleries are all protected, and my images are watermarked. you can't right click my images, you can't save them, you can screen shot them, but they'll be watermarked and editing a watermark out of a photo, while not impossible, is extremely time consuming.

Master Suite CS5 has come down substantially in price, you can get it for $700, but take the girl in my Graphic Design Technology class, she's 19, she gets zero Pell Grant because the government says her parents make too much money and are expected to contribute to her tuition, but they don't realistically make enough money to do so (according to her, don't know her full story), all she gets is student loans, and she has to use that to pay tuition, books, and anything that might be left over goes to living expenses. she's trying to learn a trade, but she can't learn it as well as someone else who might have more financial resources, or is lucky like me to have been injured during military training and placed into a voc rehab program that provides those tools. can you tell me that's right? or that's fair?

when I hear the news report "XYZ Company lost $3 billion last year", i cringe at how erroneous that statement really is. They didn't really lose it. That's a comparison between the prior year's profits, and the year's profits.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

really? let me give you another perspective my friend. As a college student majoring in Digital Media Comm, I have been learning programs like Adobe Master Suite CS5, Autodesk Maya 3D Animation, Final Cut Studio 3, and the like, and there's others.

I'll give creedence to Autodesk, if you're a student, you can sign up for an account, and you can use some of their software for 3 years, download it at home on to your computer, and use it at home while you're in school. Some of their higher end stuff is hands off, and many of their programs, are over $3000. Autodesk Smoke 2012, is a $14,995. that program better make some badass 3d graphics, and I better feel like I just had the best virtual reality sex of my life with Charlize Theron, that I actually thought she was real and my experience was real after i used that program, because that's as much as a friggin' car costs.

Autodesk Smoke 2012 for Mac OS X Product Information - Autodesk eStore Online Store

Companies like Apple (designers of Final Cut Pro video editing software), and Adobe, can kiss my ass. I can't afford a $1200 price tag for every piece of software that I have to learn. When Adobe Master Suite CS5 came out, it was $2600. That's a semesters worth of Pell Grant money. I also can't sit around for 5 or 6 hours waiting for a computer spot to open up at the lab to get my work done, which may take another several hours to get it done, which means it's 3 or 4 am before I get home to bed, and I have to be at class at 8 am. I'm not talking about me specifically here, I'm just saying students in general, because I'm fortunate that V.A. Voc Rehab buys all my software that I need, and I spend most of my time at home doing my homework quietly, in a no distraction environment, when I'm not in class.

For the amount of money a student pays in tuition, books, supplies, dorm fees and/or cost of living off campus, you'd think the Universities could at least work out a deal to where students in related degree programs, could get the software to use for 3 years, or the software could be included in the price of tuition. If the only time something a student is learning is available to them in restricted times, that student isn't going to end up learning too much.

When the rich become more greedy, and things are so overpriced, people begin to steal, because they have no option, because they're being gouged by every company out there looking to get rich, and then consumers also get ripped off by scams, and pyramid schemes, a

and if I hear another Lars Ulrich going before congress, to complain about music being traded and how much money he's losing and his family can't eat bull****, im going to puke. it's never enough for those people. there's never enough money to make them happy. It especially irks me when I wait for a much anticipated album to be released by an artist, it comes out I go buy it, and there's 2 songs out of 15 that are good, and the rest of the tracks suck! You pay $16.99 for a new release, and it's not worth a damn! so i quit buying cd's! but now I custom select my own songs that I like to buy, and download them I'm totally fine with that, $.99 a song is reasonable.

but to me, the mp3 sharing thing is a farce anyways. I always used to, and still do, swap DVD's with a buddy. They might have something I haven't seen, and vice versa. Same thing with music.

read this. illegal mp3 downloading doesn't cost those musicians ****.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt

I don't condone stealing, but price gouging people for things is the same thing as stealing in my opinion. the biggest crooks of all? Doctors!

do you really think the average citizen give's a rat's ass that some multi-billion $$$ profit generating Fortune 500 company, didn't meet their profit expectations from the last year, because they choose to overcharge for a piece of software, when there's people out there losing their homes, can't feed their kids or pay their bills? no one gives a rip if Joe CEO Fancy pants in his Ferrari Testarosa didn't get his $5,000,000 annual bonus.

Well said.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, I may not be "right" but after 30 years as a fulltime musician (40 plus year musicians union member) and 30+ years (overlapping) writing software at least I have at least marginally righteous claim to an opinion.

Am pretty sure that nothing in this bill would ever make me any more money. And am pretty sure the side-effects of this bill will be bad news.

CORPORATISM-- Simultaneously, sometimes the gov runs the corps, and sometimes the corps run the gov.

The movie industry is ponying up more bucks for this bill than RIAA. I'm just a degenerate old codger, but the movie industry hasn't made anything I would pay to see in many years. Similarly the major labels haven't made any music I'd pay money to buy for a long time. I have spent a few bucks on music the last few years, but it is all ancient stuff.

Along the same lines, the big primarily liberal-commie internet conglomerates are against the bill because it would hurt the bottom line and make more hoops to jump thru.

So the movie moguls will be pissed and withdraw political contributions if the bill doesn't pass, and the internet moguls will be pissed and withdraw political contributions if the bill does pass. Neither interests are relevant to the small-time intellectual property creator or the average IP consumer.

I don't believe in piracy. If it is worth the money I will buy it. If it ain't worth the money to me I won't. I refuse to use stolen property.

The company I work with has not yet implemented copy protection. We've wasted a fair amount of effort "almost" copy protecting our products over several years. There are likely 10X illegal copies of our stuff compared to legal. But most of those folks probably wouldn't have bought our stuff anyway if they had no other choice. Most of the illegal owners are software collector dilletantes, not software users. A software user needs support, regardless of how bug-free the product.

The goodwill and ease of use for legit customers of non-protected software, up to this point in time, over-rides the animosity and hair-tearing torture of legit customers being treated like criminals. The pirate customers get viruses, bugs, lack of support and not the latest release versions. You can release the most mind-baffling infuriating copy-protected stuff in the universe and 10 hours later somebody somewhere will release a crack.

Customers want to back up their honest paid-for property. Customers don't want to be out on the road in Galesburg IL or Harlingen TX and suffer a hard drive crash and knash teeth over copy protection insanity. Things should be EASIER for the paying customer, not HARDER. I also avoid buying copy-protected stuff unless there is no viable alternative.

There was a case a few years ago, apologies being too lazy to provide a link. In Russia it is law that lawful owners of software have a right to back it up on their own media. Copy protection is technically illegal in Russia. A Russian citizen wrote a very popular program to ease backup of a person's software. That feller later visited a convention in the USA and got arrested for publishing a program from Russia!!! That was under the OLD IP law.

Imagine if you make a picture unpopular to the Chinese and publish it on the internet, then you happen to visit China and get thrown in jail for breaking their law? Or you write an article critical of Kenyans, then visit Kenya and get tossed in jail for breaking their law? The internet just needs to be hands-off globally, even if there are downsides. There are always downsides.

IMO the movie and record industry are working out-moded models that are doomed to failure in an internet world. Am not saying that is bad or good. Its just a fact. Doesn't matter even if they could shut down the internet. The genie is out of the bottle.

It is like outlawing guns in an era where people have CNC machine shops.

They can make the best of a bad situation, either adapt or at least postpone the end, by making stuff good enough quality that at least 1 out of 100 are willing to pay good money for. The other 99 out of 100 won't suffer if such IP creators go out of biz, because the IP wasn't high enough quality for the 99 out of 100 to even consider paying money for in the first place.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Lester Weevils
dang, you't think I'd eventually learn to spell

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Steelharp,

Well, why don't we just throw the Constitution away because you think this will help? How

much legislation in the past 20-30 years has helped anything in our economy? It sounds good

to you and your emotions make your judgement concerning it acceptable, when reason and

logic would say otherwise.

First: The legislation should be constitutional. Where does the federal government of the US

have any right or jurisdiction over the internet? I guess they must have taken it, like every

other act they seem to like to do.

Second: What the Hell is passing a law that increases a police state have to do with software

piracy going to do to the cost of goods in everything else? Remember ethanol? Raised food

prices. Did nothing to gasoline except the additional cost for a bureacracy and those little

e-85 stickers on pumps. Oh! Increased car costs, also.

I doubt you will see any benefit from SOPA, like everything else. Just more control that a private

company can already deal with on their own.

Congress could do with a moratorium on legislation for a hundred years and nullify most of the crap

on the books, already, and you and I would be much better off. Personally, I think the paranoia you

suggest I have is part of what is wrong with this country. You call it paranoia. I call it concern for

the country when all you get is something else for the government to jail you over every time you

turn around when the government should keep its damned hands off of private activity between

individuals.

What ever happened to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Didn't it cure all those woes?

How much more of this do you really need?

Assault Weapons Ban?

No Child Left Behind?

Obamacare?

Dodd-Frank?

Patriot Act/Homeland Security(don'tcha love that one?)

Want me to drag a few more here?

How many more? I'm tired of paying for other people's problems, aren't you?

Do you really like your police state? I don't, but I'm paranoid.

Edited January 20, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest WyattEarp]

Well, I may not be "right" but after 30 years as a fulltime musicisn (40 plus year musicians union member) and 30+ years (overlapping) writing software at least I have at least marginally righteous claim to an opinion.

Am pretty sure that nothing in this bill would ever make me any more money. And am pretty sure the side-effects of this bill will be bad news.

CORPORATISM-- Simultaneously, sometimes the gov runs the corps, and sometimes the corps run the gov.

The movie industry is ponying up more bucks for this bill than RIAA. I'm just a degenerate old codger, but the movie industry hasn't made anything I would pay to see in many years. Similarly the major labels haven't made any music I'd pay money to buy for a long time. I have spent a few bucks on music the last few years, but it is all ancient stuff.

Along the same lines, the big primarily liberal-commie internet conglomerates are against the bill because it would hurt the bottom line and make more hoops to jump thru.

So the movie moguls will be pissed and withdraw political contributions if the bill doesn't pass, and the internet moguls will be pissed and withdraw political contributions if the bill does pass. Neither interests are relevant to the small-time intellectual property creator or the average IP consumer.

I don't believe in piracy. If it is worth the money I will buy it. If it ain't worth the money to me I won't. I refuse to use stolen property.

The company I work with has not yet implemented copy protection. We've wasted a fair amount of effort "almost" copy protecting our products over several years. There are likely 10X illegal copies of our stuff compared to legal. But most of those folks probably wouldn't have bought our stuff anyway if they had no other choice. Most of the illegal owners are software collector dilletantes, not software users. A software user needs support, regardless of how bug-free the product.

The goodwill and ease of use for legit customers of non-protected software, up to this point in time, over-rides the animosity and hair-tearing torture of legit customers being treated like criminals. The pirate customers get viruses, bugs, lack of support and not the latest release versions. You can release the most mind-baffling infuriating copy-protected stuff in the universe and 10 hours later somebody somewhere will release a crack.

Customers want to back up their honest paid-for property. Customers don't want to be out on the road in Galesburg IL or Harlingen TX and suffer a hard drive crash and knash teeth over copy protection insanity. Things should be EASIER for the paying customer, not HARDER. I also avoid buying copy-protected stuff unless there is no viable alternative.

There was a case a few years ago, apologies being too lazy to provide a link. In Russia it is law that lawful owners of software have a right to back it up on their own media. Copy protection is technically illegal in Russia. A Russian citizen wrote a very popular program to ease backup of a person's software. That feller later visited a convention in the USA and got arrested for publishing a program from Russia!!! That was under the OLD IP law.

Imagine if you make a picture unpopular to the Chinese and publish it on the internet, then you happen to visit China and get thrown in jail for breaking their law? Or you write an article critical of Kenyans, then visit Kenya and get tossed in jail for breaking their law? The internet just needs to be hands-off globally, even if there are downsides. There are always downsides.

IMO the movie and record industry are working out-moded models that are doomed to failure in an internet world. Am not saying that is bad or good. Its just a fact. Doesn't matter even if they could shut down the internet. The genie is out of the bottle.

It is like outlawing guns in an era where people have CNC machine shops.

They can make the best of a bad situation, either adapt or at least postpone the end, by making stuff good enough quality that at least 1 out of 100 are willing to pay good money for. The other 99 out of 100 won't suffer if such IP creators go out of biz, because the IP wasn't high enough quality for the 99 out of 100 to even consider paying money for it.

excellent post Lester.

Im not sure what Hollywood is waiting on anyhow. they can remove 99% of the piracy, by doing away with Film Projection, and going to digitally encrypted and streamed, secure data transfer protocols, straight from Hollywood, to the movie theaters, the drive in or to people's homes on their big screens. After that, the only piracy they would have to worry about is coming from within their own employees because only they would have access to it.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Steelharp,

Well, why don't we just throw the Constitution away because you think this will help? How

much legislation in the past 20-30 years has helped anything in our economy? It sounds good

to you and your emotions make your judgement concerning it acceptable, when reason and

logic would say otherwise.

First: The legislation should be constitutional. Where does the federal government of the US

have any right or jurisdiction over the internet? I guess they must have taken it, like every

other act they seem to like to do.

Second: What the Hell is passing a law that increases a police state have to do with software

piracy going to do to the cost of goods in everything else? Remember ethanol? Raised food

prices. Did nothing to gasoline except the additional cost for a bureacracy and those little

e-85 stickers on pumps. Oh! Increased car costs, also.

I doubt you will see any benefit from SOPA, like everything else. Just more control that a private

company can already deal with on their own.

Congress could do with a moratorium on legislation for a hundred years and nullify most of the crap

on the books, already, and you and I would be much better off. Personally, I think the paranoia you

suggest I have is part of what is wrong with this country. You call it paranoia. I call it concern for

the country when all you get is something else for the government to jail you over every time you

turn around when the government should keep its damned hands off of private activity between

individuals.

What ever happened to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Didn't it cure all those woes?

How much more of this do you really need?

Assault Weapons Ban?

No Child Left Behind?

Obamacare?

Dodd-Frank?

Patriot Act/Homeland Security(don'tcha love that one?)

Want me to drag a few more here?

How many more? I'm tired of paying for other people's problems, aren't you?

Do you really like your police state? I don't, but I'm paranoid.

Absolutely spot on! I agree 100%

[Guest WyattEarp]

First: The legislation should be constitutional. Where does the federal government of the US

have any right or jurisdiction over the internet? I guess they must have taken it, like every

other act they seem to like to do.

I loved all of your post, but I have to correct you on one thing.

The federal government has ALL of the jurisdiction over the internet so long as it pertains to an American citizen committing a computer crime, and it doesn't even have to be committed on American soil ( U.S. Pedophiles Nabbed in Cambodia Sex-Tourist Sting | Fox News ), and it can even pertain to a foreign national committing a computer/internet crime on American soil. They have just as much jurisdiction as they do to anything they overhear you say that is illegal when you're out in public. the internet is considered a public place where anyone can communicate, send data, receive data, and just as in public, you have no expectation to privacy on the internet because it's available for all to see.

Get a load of this, I almost **** myself when I read it.

FBI's Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats

[Guest nicemac]

SOMETHING has to be done about the rampant theft of IP on the internet. People are losing their jobs - entire industries are being undermined to dangerous levels, all because people thinks it's 'ok' to be a low life thief.

And yeah, if you download a song, movie or software you didn't pay for you're no different than any other scumbag thief.

+1

[Guest nicemac]

Companies like Apple (designers of Final Cut Pro video editing software), and Adobe, can kiss my ass. I can't afford a $1200 price tag for every piece of software that I have to learn. When Adobe Master Suite CS5 came out, it was $2600. That's a semesters worth of Pell Grant money. I also can't sit around for 5 or 6 hours waiting for a computer spot to open up at the lab to get my work done, which may take another several hours to get it done, which means it's 3 or 4 am before I get home to bed, and I have to be at class at 8 am. I'm not talking about me specifically here, I'm just saying students in general, because I'm fortunate that V.A. Voc Rehab buys all my software that I need, and I spend most of my time at home doing my homework quietly, in a no distraction environment, when I'm not in class.

For the amount of money a student pays in tuition, books, supplies, dorm fees and/or cost of living off campus, you'd think the Universities could at least work out a deal to where students in related degree programs, could get the software to use for 3 years, or the software could be included in the price of tuition. If the only time something a student is learning is available to them in restricted times, that student isn't going to end up learning too much.

When the rich become more greedy, and things are so overpriced, people begin to steal, because they have no option, because they're being gouged by every company out there looking to get rich, and then consumers also get ripped off by scams, and pyramid schemes,

and if I hear another Lars Ulrich going before congress, to complain about music being traded and how much money he's losing and his family can't eat bull****, im going to puke. it's never enough for those people. there's never enough money to make them happy. It especially irks me when I wait for a much anticipated album to be released by an artist, it comes out I go buy it, and there's 2 songs out of 15 that are good, and the rest of the tracks suck! You pay $16.99 for a new release, and it's not worth a damn! so i quit buying cd's! but now I custom select my own songs that I like to buy, and download them I'm totally fine with that, $.99 a song is reasonable.

but to me, the mp3 sharing thing is a farce anyways. I always used to, and still do, swap DVD's with a buddy. They might have something I haven't seen, and vice versa. Same thing with music.

read this. illegal mp3 downloading doesn't cost those musicians ****.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt

I don't condone stealing, but price gouging people for things is the same thing as stealing in my opinion. the biggest crooks of all? Doctors!

do you really think the average citizen give's a rat's ass that some multi-billion $$$ profit generating Fortune 500 company, didn't meet their profit expectations from the last year, because they choose to overcharge for a piece of software, when there's people out there losing their homes, can't feed their kids or pay their bills? no one gives a rip if Joe CEO Fancy pants in his Ferrari Testarosa didn't get his $5,000,000 annual bonus.

First, Adobe gives anyone that wants to try their software 30 days to evaluate it for free.

Second, as a student, if you decide after 30 days you want it, you can buy it for a tiny percentage of the retail cost.

Third, in an open free-market economy, there is no such thing as price gouging. You are free to go to a competitor (Photoshop>Gimp) which is actually FREE, or you can choose not to buy at all. You are not being forced to buy anything that is overpriced.

Fourth, you always have a choice not to steal.

Fifth, if you knew the development time that went in to developing a piece of software like the Creative Suite, you would wonder how it can be sold as cheap as it is. A minimal single free-lance job easily covers the cost of the entire suite…

Finally, while you say you don't condone stealing, you are certainly rationalizing it (and admitting to it). What if I published some of your photos without permission and then made a profit off of your work? I mean, it's just a photo…

[G27]

rI can't afford a $1200 price tag for every piece of software that I have to learn. When Adobe Master Suite CS5 came out, it was $2600. That's a semesters worth of Pell Grant money. I also can't sit around for 5 or 6 hours waiting for a computer spot to open up at the lab to get my work done, which may take another several hours to get it done, which means it's 3 or 4 am before I get home to bed, and I have to be at class at 8 am. I'm not talking about me specifically here, I'm just saying students in general, because I'm fortunate that V.A. Voc Rehab buys all my software that I need, and I spend most of my time at home doing my homework quietly, in a no distraction environment, when I'm not in class.

Oh boo-hoo - you're really going to rationalize theft because of YOUR choices?

Good grief.

When the rich become more greedy, and things are so overpriced, people begin to steal, because they have no option, because they're being gouged by every company out there looking to get rich, and then consumers also get ripped off by scams, and pyramid schemes

It's called the free-market - if they cannot survive under their current model, they'll go away. Just because you cannot afford the software doesn't mean it's over-priced. Your thievery only helps undermine the free market, congratulations.

and if I hear another Lars Ulrich going before congress, to complain about music being traded and how much money he's losing and his family can't eat bull****, im going to puke. it's never enough for those people. there's never enough money to make them happy. It especially irks me when I wait for a much anticipated album to be released by an artist, it comes out I go buy it, and there's 2 songs out of 15 that are good, and the rest of the tracks suck! You pay $16.99 for a new release, and it's not worth a damn! so i quit buying cd's! but now I custom select my own songs that I like to buy, and download them I'm totally fine with that, $.99 a song is reasonable.

So if a person makes >$x, they don't deserve to paid any more for their work? Have you really thought that through or are you just feeling sorry for yourself and rationalizing your own behavior?

but to me, the mp3 sharing thing is a farce anyways. I always used to, and still do, swap DVD's with a buddy. They might have something I haven't seen, and vice versa. Same thing with music.

(snip)

I don't condone stealing, but price gouging people for things is the same thing as stealing in my opinion.

If you're simply swapping DVD's, no copies kept on your machine, then it's no problem.

Otherwise you're not only condoning stealing, you're a thief, regardless of what your 'opinion' is.

do you really think the average citizen give's a rat's ass that some multi-billion $$$ profit generating Fortune 500 company, didn't meet their profit expectations from the last year, because they choose to overcharge for a piece of software, when there's people out there losing their homes, can't feed their kids or pay their bills? no one gives a rip if Joe CEO Fancy pants in his Ferrari Testarosa didn't get his $5,000,000 annual bonus.

And here we go with more class warfare.

You think the multi-millionaire CEO type is more affected / worried by this or the guy who had to close his studio because the label budgets have dropped due to lack of sales? The percentage of industry folks who can't feed their kids based on your 'model' is pretty large.

You can rationalize being a scumbag thief all you want, but it won't change the facts.

[Steelharp]

Just want to say, there is some excellent discussion here. It truly is showing both sides of this issue; and the passion on both.

[Guest uofmeet]

And they have been both scrapped for now......

[Steelharp]

And they have been both scrapped for now......

Hadn't seen that.

[Capbyrd]

I didn't read anything past Wyatt's first post. Using his logic, its okay to steal a ferrari because you can't afford to buy it. I mean, you aren't taking money out of Ferrari's pockets because someone else already had to buy the car and Ferrari is already rich anyways.

[TMF]

You don't burn down the house to deal with the cockroaches.

Good articulation of the point. I haven't heard that one before but I'm gonna use it in the future. I agree, regardless of whether the intentions here are good, the compromise isn't worth it. This treads way too close to regulating information.

[Guest WyattEarp]

First, Adobe gives anyone that wants to try their software 30 days to evaluate it for free.

Second, as a student, if you decide after 30 days you want it, you can buy it for a tiny percentage of the retail cost.

Third, in an open free-market economy, there is no such thing as price gouging. You are free to go to a competitor (Photoshop>Gimp) which is actually FREE, or you can choose not to buy at all. You are not being forced to buy anything that is overpriced.

Fourth, you always have a choice not to steal.

Fifth, if you knew the development time that went in to developing a piece of software like the Creative Suite, you would wonder how it can be sold as cheap as it is. A minimal single free-lance job easily covers the cost of the entire suite…

Finally, while you say you don't condone stealing, you are certainly rationalizing it (and admitting to it). What if I published some of your photos without permission and then made a profit off of your work? I mean, it's just a photo…

where I have admitted to stealing anything? Everything i have is legally owned, and used.

The comparison between PShop and Gimp is laughable, because Gimp does not even come close in any means to what Pshop can do.30 day trial.....Wow, impressive. All software companies have a 15 - 30 day trial, and you can spout free-market economy and there is no price gouging, but yes there is price gouging whether you choose to believe that or not.

I'd like to see where you can buy it for a TINY percentage, I've never seen that anywhere, offered anywhere to students, and if it's out there I certainly wasn't told about it, and the professors have not said anything to us.

if you publish my photos and make a profit, you're in trouble, but nowhere did I ever say anything about anyone making a profit off of trading some mp3's, or downloading an overpriced piece of software for one's own personal use (i.e. to learn, and advance knowledge). Now if Joe Schmo starts using a 3D Animation program he got off the internet, and makes a movie and it hits the big screen, and he makes money off of it, then yes I have an issue with that. But if it's for personal use and you're not reaping financial gain from it, then there shouldnt be an issue.

[Guest nicemac]

where I have admitted to stealing anything? Everything i have is legally owned, and used.

The comparison between PShop and Gimp is laughable, because Gimp does not even come close in any means to what Pshop can do.30 day trial.....Wow, impressive. All software companies have a 15 - 30 day trial, and you can spout free-market economy and there is no price gouging, but yes there is price gouging whether you choose to believe that or not.

I'd like to see where you can buy it for a TINY percentage, I've never seen that anywhere, offered anywhere to students, and if it's out there I certainly wasn't told about it, and the professors have not said anything to us.

if you publish my photos and make a profit, you're in trouble, but nowhere did I ever say anything about anyone making a profit off of trading some mp3's, or downloading an overpriced piece of software for one's own personal use (i.e. to learn, and advance knowledge). Now if Joe Schmo starts using a 3D Animation program he got off the internet, and makes a movie and it hits the big screen, and he makes money off of it, then yes I have an issue with that. But if it's for personal use and you're not reaping financial gain from it, then there shouldnt be an issue.

How is it price gouging if you are not forced to buy it? It isn't. You have a choice.

Adobe has no obligation to help you " advance knowledge". 30 days is plenty of time to see if you want to buy software. And if you do–as a student– you can get it cheap. Despite what your all-knowing professor tells you (or doesn't tell you)

From Google. Searched for "Creative Suite Student Pricing"

Adobe 65121347 CS5.5 Design Std Student & Teacher Mac Academic – $272.00:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?client=safari&rls=en&q=creative+suite+student+pricing&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=1916001322616937669&sa=X&ei=86EZT8GqD6XW0QGTwtipCw&ved=0CHsQ8wIwBg#ps-sellers

Where I have admitted to stealing anything? Everything i have is legally owned, and used.

Yes, you admitted to it: "but to me, the mp3 sharing thing is a farce anyways. I always used to, and still do, swap DVD's with a buddy. They might have something I haven't seen, and vice versa. Same thing with music."

You were clear that some (corporations maybe) have made too much and are greedy so why not take what you need… ("people begin to steal because they have no option") Suppose a starving photog thought he had no choice and took your images? Would it be OK if he felt he had no option? Of course not…

"But if it's for personal use and you're not reaping financial gain from it, then there shouldnt be an issue."

Somebody (actually teams of somebody's) worked hard to make a commercial product and you think it is OK to steal it if it is only for personal use?

Just wow.

Edited January 20, 2012 by nicemac
fixed link

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Good articulation of the point. I haven't heard that one before but I'm gonna use it in the future. I agree, regardless of whether the intentions here are good, the compromise isn't worth it. This treads way too close to regulating information.

I agree with you 100%. Thankfully, some of us see the true issues here.

I'm amazed....well, not really. Nothing amazes me anymore where people and common sense (or lack of) are concerned...don't see how these bills can and will stretch far beyond piracy of music/movies/software.

Now excuse me while I go watch my bootleg dvd's of Red Tails, Haywire, Contraband, Underworld, Mission Impossible and Sherlock Holmes. Best spent $30 I could think of. Will be busy all weekend

Edited January 20, 2012 by NYCrulesU

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I loved all of your post, but I have to correct you on one thing.

The federal government has ALL of the jurisdiction over the internet so long as it pertains to an American citizen committing a computer crime, and it doesn't even have to be committed on American soil ( U.S. Pedophiles Nabbed in Cambodia Sex-Tourist Sting | Fox News ), and it can even pertain to a foreign national committing a computer/internet crime on American soil. They have just as much jurisdiction as they do to anything they overhear you say that is illegal when you're out in public. the internet is considered a public place where anyone can communicate, send data, receive data, and just as in public, you have no expectation to privacy on the internet because it's available for all to see.

Get a load of this, I almost **** myself when I read it.

FBI's Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats

I'll concede that, but actually they took that, when they didn't have any right to do that, either. Just

because one may commit a crime on the internet doesn't mean the internet is theirs to control, unless

you subscribe to the claim that Al Gore created the internet. The internet is a communication tool.

what's done with it may be lawful or not, determined by legitimate laws that control man's behaviour.

By the same token, I guess you could say the government controls fire, thereby controlling smoke

signals. Who maintains the internet? Who operates the internet?

Something was even taken in your evidence, but not control, but for a lawful purpose. If you equate

police work as absolute control, then we'll see what happens when they have nothing to control.