# OS X Trojan activated



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Hi folks.

Those of you out there who may have illegally downloaded either Photoshop CS4 or iWork 09 may be at risk of unwittingly installing a Trojan on your Mac. Reports have been posted that this Trojan has been activated. Article here:

First Mac OS X botnet activated - Business - Macworld UK

There is a link in the article to a free removal tool supplied by SecureMac.

Again, this is a Trojan, not a worm or anything that can propagate itself automatically from Mac to Mac, and the only way it can get onto your Mac is if YOU install certain stolen copies of certain applications. As these installers require you to input your admin password, once you do you become this Trojan's bitch. It preys upon human weakness and not a weakness of Mac OS X.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Gee Macaholic, I thought you lived here.  We were already talking about this three months ago...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

While it may be news that it was "activated" the news of this Trojan was all over the place in January, so if downloaders of the infected iWork and CS4 haven't removed it from their systems by now, they deserve to become zombies or already are.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

screature said:


> While it may be news that it was "activated" the news of this Trojan was all over the place in January, so if downloaders of the infected iWork and CS4 haven't removed it from their systems by now, they deserve to become zombies or already are.


agreed! I love how people think that downloading software that they did not pay for is some how not stealing!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I know this story started a couple of months ago. What I am posting is that the Trojan has NOW kicked in... and that there is NOW a removal tool for it.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I don't like to laugh at people's misfortunes but if you illegally download something that includes a virus or whatnot... :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

screature said:


> While it may be news that it was "activated" the news of this Trojan was all over the place in January, so if downloaders of the infected iWork and CS4 haven't removed it from their systems by now, they deserve to become zombies or already are.


Zombie machines are in my opinion, everyone's concern, not just those infected.

They can spam, they can continually hound other sites affecting everyone in some sort of way.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I don't like to laugh at people's misfortunes but if you illegally download something that includes a virus or whatnot... :lmao::lmao::lmao:


oh i have had calls where people except the warranty to cover this problem too.
LOL


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

jicon said:


> Zombie machines are in my opinion, everyone's concern, not just those infected.
> 
> They can spam, they can continually hound other sites affecting everyone in some sort of way.


I'm so glad somebody brought up that point.

All of the people talking about how the pirates got what they deserved don't seem to be clued in to the fact that the victims here are the targets of the DDoS.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Somebody bothered downloading iWork?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

*Yawn* ..


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jicon said:


> Zombie machines are in my opinion, everyone's concern, not just those infected.
> 
> They can spam, they can continually hound other sites affecting everyone in some sort of way.


Never said they weren't of concern. Simply stated that if you download illegal software, then don't take action on the ample warnings that were posted all over the net for weeks and didn't do anything about being infected and your machine has become a zombie, you have gotten what you deserved. Because if you didn't take action to avoid it (your machine becoming a zombie), you pretty much are already are a zombie yourself.  (Night of the Living Brain Dead!!)


----------



## Craigger (Aug 8, 2005)

thank god I downloaded from apple and just used another serial to activate it...

I kid.

Seriously. good luck to all those affected who purchased a legitmate copy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Craigger said:


> ...good luck to all those affected who purchased a legitmate copy.


And how would this have happened?


----------



## Craigger (Aug 8, 2005)

screature said:


> And how would this have happened?





> All of the people talking about how the pirates got what they deserved don't seem to be clued in to the fact that the victims here are the targets of the DDoS.


That led me to believe others outside of pirates could be affected...no?


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*What happens?*

Hi All:

I don't have any illegal downloads. I have a few apps that were put on my system by a legit copy from a legit user: it was a favor from the friend to me. I was thinking about purchasing a copy of CANVAS X through a website. How do I know that these are not 'bad' websites? I've asked this question before but no one has yet replied. I'm also curious: what happens when a mac gets a Trojan virus? Just wondering.
Thanks for your responses.
Ciaochiao


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

ciaochiao said:


> Hi All:
> 
> I don't have any illegal downloads. I have a few apps that were put on my system by a legit copy from a legit user: it was a favor from the friend to me. I was thinking about purchasing a copy of CANVAS X through a website. How do I know that these are not 'bad' websites? I've asked this question before but no one has yet replied. I'm also curious: what happens when a mac gets a Trojan virus? Just wondering.
> Thanks for your responses.
> Ciaochiao


only buy software downloads from the manufacture or just buy retail copies from your local store.

If you see a deal that is too good to be true, guess what...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Craigger said:


> That led me to believe others outside of pirates could be affected...no?



Yes, but not legitimate purchasers of iWork or CS4 who install those legitimate products on their systems. The others that are *affected* are the targets of the DDoS attacks, i.e. the rest of us but, particularly enterprise level servers.

Denial-of-service attack


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

biovizier said:


> I'm so glad somebody brought up that point.
> 
> All of the people talking about how the pirates got what they deserved don't seem to be clued in to the fact that the victims here are the targets of the DDoS.


And what would lead you to that conclusion? How does the fact that the rest of us are potential victims discount that the those who downloaded the the illegal software are getting what they deserve? The two are not mutually exclusive.

What are we supposed to say? "Poor illegal downloaders, their machines have become zombies, but it is the rest of us who are really the potential victims..."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ciaochiao said:


> I'm also curious: what happens when a mac gets a Trojan virus? Just wondering.
> Thanks for your responses.
> Ciaochiao


Hi Ciaochiao, it all depends on what it the Trojan was written to do. If you read the article at Macworld (the link is provided at the beginning of this thread) you will see what this particular one was written to do.

If you are paying for your software either through the original software developer's site or a reputable third party dealer you have no worries at all. You really need to be going to the "underbelly" of the net and looking for unscrupulous means of obtaining your software for contracting a Trojan to be of concern.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*Whew!*



screature said:


> Hi Ciaochiao, it all depends on what it the Trojan was written to do. If you read the article at Macworld (the link is provided at the beginning of this thread) you will see what this particular one was written to do.
> 
> If you are paying for your software either through the original software developer's site or a reputable third party dealer you have no worries at all. You really need to be going to the "underbelly" of the net and looking for unscrupulous means of obtaining your software for contracting a Trojan to be of concern.


Thanks so much for the info/lesson Screature. I didn't look at the link but I shall do so immediately following this reply. I also know that all my software is either mine or belongs - legit as in 'hard copy', to friends. For that reason, I'm no longer stressed out about the virus as you guys all describe it. Thank you for that as well. I'm not that well versed in what constitutes pirating. I have purchased software from other owners, but that's legal isn't it? I assumed it was a transfer of title and property. Maybe I'm wrong. But any time I've done that and installed, there is an 'agreement' button and after reading, I usually click, 'Agree'. Please don't hesitate to edify me, I appreciate the knowledge.
Ciaochiao


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

You can buy used software, not a problem at all. So long as you obtain the *original * disc or license and the software is removed from the original owners machine (unless you are buying the original owners machine as well, which then makes it OK) then you are kosher.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Macaholic - thanks for the update. I had not heard that it was activated. I elect _not_ to shoot the messenger.

I don't have sympathy for the infected, but it's good to remain up to date with this stuff.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Pelao said:


> Macaholic - thanks for the update. I had not heard that it was activated. I elect _not_ to shoot the messenger.


Thanks for sparing me the bullet 



> I don't have sympathy for the infected, but it's good to remain up to date with this stuff.


I agree, and those who steal software or A/V media should get their just desserts. As others have posted, the other aspect we have to keep in mind regarding the nature of this malware's payload is that, while Keyloggers may only impact the user of a compromised computer, the rest of us regardless of OS platform are negatively impacted by systems enslaved for DDOS attacks and the relentless torrent of spam compromised systems impose upon us all.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Can this trojan be spread to other macs who do not have any illegal software?

I was wondering, because if I share a files with amac that does become infected, could my mac become infected, or does this trojan only directly affect those who download the illegal iwork etc.?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> Can this trojan be spread to other macs who do not have any illegal software?
> 
> I was wondering, because if I share a files with amac that does become infected, could my mac become infected, or does this trojan only directly affect those who download the illegal iwork etc.?


You need to download the infected software.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ertman said:


> Can this trojan be spread to other macs who do not have any illegal software?


Re-read my original post.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macaholic said:


> Thanks for sparing me the bullet
> I agree, and those who steal software or A/V media should get their just desserts. As others have posted, the other aspect we have to keep in mind regarding the nature of this malware's payload is that, while Keyloggers may only impact the user of a compromised computer, the rest of us regardless of OS platform are negatively impacted by systems enslaved for DDOS attacks and the relentless torrent of spam compromised systems impose upon us all.


This is very true and my apologies if I came across as shooting the messenger, it wasn't my intention. Only meant to point out that the illegal downloaders who *still* had the software on their systems upon the Trojan activation, despite the numerous warnings, are zombies and deserve to have matching computers.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

screature said:


> You can buy used software, not a problem at all. So long as you obtain the *original * disc or license and the software is removed from the original owners machine (unless you are buying the original owners machine as well, which then makes it OK) then you are kosher.


Not true in all cases. There are some that will not allow you to resell a used piece of software. 

Remember that you don't 'own' software, you own a license to use a piece of software that is owned by the original developer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ok, if you know of some cases where this isn't true. Can you cite particular examples? Not doubting you just wonder what the cases are.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Trevor... said:


> Somebody bothered downloading iWork?


When OpenOffice accomplishes the same task for free? I know! Strange world...


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Ok, if you know of some cases where this isn't true. Can you cite particular examples? Not doubting you just wonder what the cases are.


Steam. This is a Windows program that lets you buy games and download them. Valve makes it. It's great.

But you CANNOT resell your games. Once purchased, the license is yours forever. Selling your whole account is against the ToS and will get it banned if they notice.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

screature said:


> Ok, if you know of some cases where this isn't true. Can you cite particular examples? Not doubting you just wonder what the cases are.


Many if not most brands of software Educational versions are prohibited from resale

Software purchased through corporate site license or volume license arrangements

IIRC AutoCAD and some other higher end architectural / engineering software

Software and OS's that were provided along with hardware in 'bundling' arrangements with the hardware manufacturer - most notably Microsoft Windows pre-installed versions. 

A variety of companies, including Digidesign allow resale but have a mandatory (and $$) re-registration fee payable to the developer before the new owner can use it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Well, I stand corrected. In my defence I have never used these types of software so I had not encountered these restrictions. Learn something new every day.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*Second that!*



kevleviathan said:


> Steam. This is a Windows program that lets you buy games and download them. Valve makes it. It's great.
> 
> But you CANNOT resell your games. Once purchased, the license is yours forever. Selling your whole account is against the ToS and will get it banned if they notice.


Huh. I second Screature's comment: I did not know that either. It's good to know although I'm pretty sure that this is broken, constantly. What about companies such as Blockbuster/Rogers video, that re-sell used games? Is this a form of software as well?



CanadaRAM said:


> Many if not most brands of software Educational versions are prohibited from resale
> 
> Software purchased through corporate site license or volume license arrangements
> 
> ...


I didn't know that either. So when people sell the 'system specific' discs, such as Tiger, Panther, etc., they are breaking the agreement? I hope I'm making myself clear - I think they're called 'system specific' discs. And does that also mean that selling one's system must include the original software? For example, if I were to purchase a 15" G4 pb, it must come with the original install discs?


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

ciaochiao said:


> What about companies such as Blockbuster/Rogers video, that re-sell used games? Is this a form of software as well?


Yes, and companies such as Nintendo are taking measures to try and stop people from selling their used games, citing they do not render a good "experience" for the player. 

Of course, we all know this is bullcrap because we all know that a used, 4-year-old copy of MarioKart DS will give you the same results as a brand new one, and we all know that Nintendo is just doing this to milk consumers. Bastards.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CanadaRAM said:


> Many if not most brands of software Educational versions are prohibited from resale.


In this case the purchase is often a site license and when it is an individual license, there is usually a substantial discount as compared to the regular product.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*Won't matter*

I didn't realize they were trying to stop the sales. It won't matter anyway, since there's so much internet advertising such as CL, Kijiji, eBay, etc. Sooooo, does that mean they'll be getting a ruling against eBay as well?? i'd love to see THAT battle.
CC


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

ciaochiao said:


> I didn't realize they were trying to stop the sales. It won't matter anyway, since there's so much internet advertising such as CL, Kijiji, eBay, etc. Sooooo, does that mean they'll be getting a ruling against eBay as well?? i'd love to see THAT battle.
> CC


Actually, they are not going to be embattled against eBay in the courts. Nintendo will actually start programming games to either severely limit their appeal in the resale market or will actually make it impossible to resell a functioning game. So if people want to sell "Super Mario Time Traveler: only first world works, keeps flashing little mushroom that blocks screen, Hitler replaced with smiley face" on eBay, that is fine. Nobody would buy it though.

Being one of the evil corporate types myself, I must say that the management in charge of Nintendo and EA is completely out of touch with their customer base. They are obviously too stupid to realize that the consumer backlash from their arcane DRM policies would far outweigh any benefits brought on from limiting the sale of used games in order to increase profits. 

*IF* Nintendo implements this strategy, I guarantee you that the personal computer will come to completely dominate the gaming world.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Well, it's actually illegal to record hockey games too, but that's not going to stop people from doing it, and they're not going to knock your door down and demand to see your videotaped hockey collection. Bottom line is, you have to be careful when you buy used stuff, whether it's furniture, baby car seats, or software. When in doubt, I prefer to the pay the extra for an uncorrupted item, especially with respect to computer software. A sizeable chunk of the population, however, like half of China, prefers to pirate whenever possible and then these same people have the audacity to wonder why they have problems. Apparently a large segment of the Chinese population is trying to sue MicroSoft for building hourly reminders to purchase into its Windows software because pirating is such a problem.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

broken_g3 said:


> Yes, and companies such as Nintendo are taking measures to try and stop people from selling their used games, citing they do not render a good "experience" for the player.
> 
> Of course, we all know this is bullcrap because we all know that a used, 4-year-old copy of MarioKart DS will give you the same results as a brand new one, *and we all know that Nintendo is just doing this to milk consumers.* Bastards.


Thank-you for mentioning that.

That is one example of why Piracy exists.

The other part is pure greed which we are all guilty of to various degrees.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Thank-you for mentioning that.
> 
> That is one example of why Piracy exists.
> 
> The other part is pure greed which we are all guilty of to various degrees.


There are as many of these examples as there are species of insects. And still people continue to buy into the entire "piracy is evil" and "piracy is communism" BS. 95% of piracy is the direct result of a lack of consumer demand for a product at the publisher's supply curve. This could be due to a number of reasons; too high a price set by the publisher, too many arcane restrictions forced on the licensee, not enough new functionality over previous software, etc.

However, this is not to say that some people will pirate simply because they can, and I do not support that either. People who do that _are_ in fact stealing software, and are just as evil as publishers who pull all sorts of anti-competitive and anti-consumer moves.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*True*



broken_g3 said:


> There are as many of these examples as there are species of insects. And still people continue to buy into the entire "piracy is evil" and "piracy is communism" BS. 95% of piracy is the direct result of a lack of consumer demand for a product at the publisher's supply curve.
> 
> However, this is not to say that some people will pirate simply because they can, and I do not support that either. People who do that _are_ in fact stealing software, and are just as evil as publishers who pull all sorts of anti-competitive and anti-consumer moves.


This is true, especially of the text book/publisher's comment you've made. I don't know how many $1000s of $$ I spent on my own education and now, one of my kid's. And what really annoys is that for a greater part of the material, NO NEW TEXTS ARE NECESSARY. At least not at the exponential rates universities change texts and editions. When you think about it, calculus was developed by Newton WHEN?? It hasn't changed. There are a few subjects whose content has changed such as genetics. For that, I can understand updates. For the rest, uh, no.

Just a comment on piracy in China. I am not providing an excuse because as pointed out, some people will pirate and hoard 'just because'. And I don't know what the cost of Vista is in China but i do know that their monthly wage amounts to about $150. There are those who are exceptionally wealthy but there is an extreme number of those who are living well below any comfort level, period. Again, I don't condone abuse of any system, including copies of Vista-should anyone really need it...I'm curious however, why is it that Windows produces so many pirated copies while in my understanding, Mac OS' have not?
CC


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

Because 90+% of the computers in China are PCs.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*And here in NA?*



kevleviathan said:


> Because 90+% of the computers in China are PCs.


Hi K:
I didn't mean just China. I meant in general. Here, in NA, windows pirating is apparently a huge issue. i've never used nor ever intend to use a pc. I've never seen nor used a pirated copy of any MacOS. In fact, I've never used a pirated copy of any Mac software, come to think of it. If I have the app, it was installed by a 'real owner' or was re-sold to me in original disc form. Hmmm, now you guys have me wondering how i'd tell a pirated copy from the real thing, if they're anything like pirated DVDs. The quality is good as are the designs on the DVDs. Anyway, here in NA, where the avg wage is around $12/hr, why are windows os' pirated - aside from the 'because I can' mentality?
CC


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

Windows pirating isn't a huge issue in North America - the vast majority of people running windows have legit copies that came with their computer. VERY few people buy a retail copy of windows.

The big problems with piracy are in China and very poor countries.

People who pirate windows in NA do so because they are cheap bastards. It's really a hassle though... I'd rather pay for a legit copy and get Windows updates properly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kevleviathan said:


> People who pirate windows in NA do so because they are cheap bastards...


Or because they don't want to pay $200+ for a piece of crap OS.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kevleviathan said:


> Windows pirating isn't a huge issue in North America - the vast majority of people running windows have legit copies that came with their computer. VERY few people buy a retail copy of windows.
> 
> The big problems with piracy are in China and very poor countries.
> 
> People who pirate windows in NA do so because they are cheap bastards. It's really a hassle though... I'd rather pay for a legit copy and get Windows updates properly.


Based on a very limited sample, I also have the impression that the Chinese culture simply does not recognize Software, Music or video piracy as being wrong. IOW it is accepted as the normal way to aquire these things.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*Smile*



screature said:


> Or because they don't want to pay $200 + for a piece of crap OS.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

screature said:


> Or because they don't want to pay $200+ for a piece of crap OS.


Watch it!


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

ciaochiao said:


> Hi K:
> Anyway, here in NA, where the avg wage is around $12/hr, why are windows os' pirated - aside from the 'because I can' mentality?
> CC


I think the average wage is closer to $16 or so per hour, but that is debatable. 

The reason is the same because of the perceived value that consumers see in the product. Consumers will buy a product up to the point that their marginal benefit from obtaining it exceeds the marginal cost. People may have thought about buying Microsoft Word, but at $399 thought it was ridiculous for a Word Processor. Personally, I would say "to hell with it- go with WordPerfect", but most people would download OpenOffice. 

Upon discovering that most open-source software sucks, they would develop this sort of "I gotta get Word" syndrome, but still unwilling to pay for it, they will instead download a pirated copy. The phenomenon is interesting , and here's why:

Think about this hypothetical scenario: had it been completely impossible to copy software, then that copy would have never existed. They simply would not have spent the money on Word because they did not think it was "worth it" and would rather put up with the BS in OpenOffice. However, in our world, they still hate OpenOffice, they are still unwilling to buy Word, however they have the ability to obtain a copy of Word for free. The pirates, essentially, created a copy of software that would not have existed in the first place!


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

Bingo.

Sounds like you've been studying economics


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broken_g3 said:


> Watch it!


What?!! Did I say something wrong?


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

screature said:


> What?!! Did I say something wrong?


Nothing, lol. As overpriced as I think Windows is, I'm still hesitant to label it as a piece of crap. A "troubled child" would be a more suiting description.

After all, Windows is now the only real platform that can run WordPerfect, and I woudld stick to it for a long time for that reason alone.



kevleviathan said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Sounds like you've been studying economics


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*Wp*



broken_g3 said:


> After all, Windows is now the only real platform that can run WordPerfect, and I woudld stick to it for a long time for that reason alone.


Having never used WP, i'm curious as to why you think it's superior to Word. i was under the impression that WP was extremely tough to learn. Everyone said that Corel - the company (right?) didn't make it user-friendly enough or interface-friendly for everyone. I recall many teachers using WP because it was included in their teaching kits. I was extremely involved (still am to a degree) at the political level of public education. For that reason, many people who were in the education system sent me WP docs. This was back in 2001-2004. I couldn't ever open any of them unless they were saved as /rtf files. Has this changed? Does Corel still own/make the program? What about Painter? I have the original discs for P4 and 5 but have never tried using them. They came with HUGE WACOM tablet that i purchased several years ago used. So please let me know the low-down on Corel and educate me. Thanks!
CC


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

ciaochiao said:


> Having never used WP, i'm curious as to why you think it's superior to Word. i was under the impression that WP was extremely tough to learn. Everyone said that Corel - the company (right?) didn't make it user-friendly enough or interface-friendly for everyone. I recall many teachers using WP because it was included in their teaching kits. I was extremely involved (still am to a degree) at the political level of public education. For that reason, many people who were in the education system sent me WP docs. This was back in 2001-2004. I couldn't ever open any of them unless they were saved as /rtf files. Has this changed? Does Corel still own/make the program? What about Painter? I have the original discs for P4 and 5 but have never tried using them. They came with HUGE WACOM tablet that i purchased several years ago used. So please let me know the low-down on Corel and educate me. Thanks!
> CC


I was a WP user for years - there were a number of advantages - though I don't know that I would blame many of them on Corel specifically they have just happened to be the owner most recently. Some of the advantages have evaporated in recent years as Word has improved though (sad to say, but nothing remains the same for long)

There are still niche groups of users (Law offices seem to like it a lot - or they have a lot invested in templates and macros)

For quite some time it was a better coded product (by which I mean tighter more effective). You could (and I did) write large documents (150 pages +) in an emulator on another system (In this case a DOS emulator on an Amiga system) and the software would function without any issues at all - this was in a period when Word running under windows would choke and die when your page count got above 40. Word was designed by focus groups that surveyed their users and decided that <irritating paper clip on>"*It looks like you're writing a letter*!"<irritating paper clip off> WordPerfect was designed based on what people *did* when they wrote, Word was based on what people might *buy* - at least that was how it felt from 1987 to 1995 to me. (and friends of mine who worked at MS in Redmond in those days have told me that the marketing angle and emphasis I read into this was correct - "don't believe the lie on the box - we had to put that there because <competing product name> only needs...")

I didn't find WP tough to learn - once you learned how to work "Reveal Codes" then everything became clear (literally too!) ... there are still times when I'm working with Word that that feature would come in handy.

I still have fond memories of the actual customer service I got from the old Orem Utah WordPerfect and their 1-800 number - real people on the phone, trying to help with an issue... actual disks in the mail for an upgrade - for only the cost of the disks and the postage!

Some of the history (and the advantages experienced by others) are listed here:

WordPerfect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP was good software - it did what it was supposed to do effectively and well with a minimum of code (for a while... then it got ported to later Windows architectures and became much less than it was)

I shared your frustration with people sending me documents I couldn't read! - though in my case it was Word docs! Why they couldn't just email me an .rtf or a .txt I can only guess (my usual guess, and it was usually right - was that the author just felt it was absolutely necessary to their document to have some idiotic/irritating/no- information-added WYSIWYG formatting along with their meaningful text - and that could be a pain in any word processor.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go chase some punk kids outta my jello tree... (I feel old now)


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

broken_g3 said:


> The pirates, essentially, created a copy of software that would not have existed in the first place!


Which is precisely why piracy is not stealing.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> Based on a very limited sample, I also have the impression that the Chinese culture simply does not recognize Software, Music or video piracy as being wrong. IOW it is accepted as the normal way to aquire these things.


I have Canadian friends who lived in China for several years. Their experiences seem to show pretty much what you are saying here. When buying a DVD, it's practically impossible to find a legitimate copy. All they sell in the stores are very well pirated copies for the equivalent of less than a dollar. And software? Even the Apple dealer who sold my friend his Macbook Pro just gave him cracked versions whatever software titles he needed.


----------



## MacGenius24 (Mar 4, 2008)

bsenka said:


> I have Canadian friends who lived in China for several years. Their experiences seem to show pretty much what you are saying here. When buying a DVD, it's practically impossible to find a legitimate copy. All they sell in the stores are very well pirated copies for the equivalent of less than a dollar. And software? Even the Apple dealer who sold my friend his Macbook Pro just gave him cracked versions whatever software titles he needed.


Wow, I didn't know that! That shows you how much China is a world on it's on own.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bsenka said:


> I have Canadian friends who lived in China for several years. Their experiences seem to show pretty much what you are saying here. When buying a DVD, it's practically impossible to find a legitimate copy. All they sell in the stores are very well pirated copies for the equivalent of less than a dollar. And software? Even the Apple dealer who sold my friend his Macbook Pro just gave him cracked versions whatever software titles he needed.


My experience relates to a few recent immigrants from China. In other ways they were honest to a fault.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

I read this post on the CBC website the other day and it really rang true for me:
It was in response to the story:
"*Pirate Bay co-founder to Swedish court: 'We can't pay and we won't pay'*
Pirate Bay co-founder to Swedish court: 'We can't pay and we won't pay'

_This is a travesty of justice!!! I AM DISGUSTED with the Swedish legal system!

How about we now throw the owners of Google in jail, and YouTube? They both provide search engines and links and files that facilitate theft of copyrighted materials!

I'm being totally serious here!

All you dinosaurs need to wake up and smell the paradigm shift! The days of intellectual property, copyrights, and owning your ideas after publication are OVER!!

They died with the invention of the both file sharing AND the internet.

If you don't like this, don't believe it, or don't want to accept it - you should spend more than a few minutes with your kids.

It's the new reality. Face up to it and get over it!

You can't prevent it, it's here.
You can't change it, it's over already.
The horse has not only left the barn, it's like down the road, and living in sin with a cow! And you want to close the barn door....huh?_

I thought this made sense to me. I agree that the days of copyright are over. Good or Bad, right or wrong. It's just a plain fact now. Every kid I talk to sees nothing wrong with it (after they realize you're not going to lecture them - they tell you this). Most young folks have more music and movies that they didn't pay for than I have toilet paper.

I'm not sure how much longer my generation can sit and deny piracy and file sharing of copyrighted materials, etc. I mean, I'm not stupid, I know when we're beat, and no amount of steadfastness is going to change it.

I think the horse is indeed living in sin with a cow, as we try to swing that barn door shut.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

ciaochiao said:


> Having never used WP, i'm curious as to why you think it's superior to Word. i was under the impression that WP was extremely tough to learn. Everyone said that Corel - the company (right?) didn't make it user-friendly enough or interface-friendly for everyone.


Lies. Lies and propaganda. WordPerfect _is_ easy to learn, and it is far more simplistic and down-to-earth than Word could ever be. After all, look at the latest version of Word- 2007- and the interface screwup that Microsoft made. Everyone hated it. If they wanted their "old" Word style back, they were out of luck. Then, on the Mac, instead of giving it a feature to switch to a classic interface, what do they do? Give only the stupid ribbons again! Meanwhile, WordPerfect X4 is clean, concise, and logical. Menus continue to exist at the top of the screen, and it offers 4 different "modes" (interface themes, choosing toolbars and menus) to operate in for you to find the ideal interface. It has WordPerfect mode, Legal Mode, Microsoft Word XP mode, and even WordPerfect for DOS mode!




ciaochiao said:


> Has this changed? Does Corel still own/make the program? What about Painter? I have the original discs for P4 and 5 but have never tried using them. They came with HUGE WACOM tablet that i purchased several years ago used. So please let me know the low-down on Corel and educate me. Thanks!
> CC


Yes, Corel still makes the program. WordPerfect is up to version 14. Painter is up to version 11. But only Painter is available on the Mac. Corel is actually a pretty healthy company, just at the moment they are not expanding, since they appeal mostly to niche markets. If only everyone knew how much better their office suite was compared to Microsoft...



eggman said:


> I didn't find WP tough to learn - once you learned how to work "Reveal Codes" then everything became clear (literally too!) ... there are still times when I'm working with Word that that feature would come in handy.


I love Reveal Codes. This is arguably one of the best features in WordPerfect, and *NO* Office suite has since matched it. In Microsoft Word or iWork, the document is formatted according to how the program thinks it will look best. In WordPerfect, you can easily force the program to format the way you want. 



eggman said:


> I shared your frustration with people sending me documents I couldn't read! - though in my case it was Word docs! Why they couldn't just email me an .rtf or a .txt I can only guess (my usual guess, and it was usually right - was that the author just felt it was absolutely necessary to their document to have some idiotic/irritating/no- information-added WYSIWYG formatting along with their meaningful text - and that could be a pain in any word processor.


Wow, this must have been a *long* time ago. Even WordPerfect 3.5 on my beige G3 could (and still can) open Word documents. And that was from 1997. In WordPerfect X4, I believe over 60 formats are now supported; Corel even supports some Word formats that Microsoft has long since abandoned (Word for DOS, anyone?). Convesion is instantaneous and, unlike WordPerfect 10, I have yet to see a formatting error. 

To all the WordPerfect users still out there: don't give up. If Microsoft screws up enough, we may even see it return to the Mac. Its a long shot, but keep your fingers crossed.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

bsenka said:


> Which is precisely why piracy is not stealing.


Well, in most cases, at least. As I said, there are still some people who choose to pirate even though they believe the software to be a good package.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*But what if...*

Hi:

Thanks for the info on Corel people. I'm wondering however, how a person would do with WP if they DON'T know anything about computer languages? I have NO IDEA as to how to use DOS or the other programming languages you guys do. How would someone like me, adapt to using WP? I had NO IDEA that WP was EVER made for Mac. i've always used Word so I do have some understanding as to what annoyances have crept forward over the last revision. I also hated that Office Assistant. I don't see it any more but either they took it out or I inadvertently disabled it. As for how long ago it was when I couldn't open WP docs, that was as recently as 2003. I couldn't understand why the sender, after me telling him that I was a mac user, couldn't just have saved the doc as an .rtf or yes, txt. 

Since this thread was basically started about the Trojan and pirating, I'd like to raise the following questions. 
1) is WP used prevalently in China?
2) if it is, then am I to assume that there are WP copies out there in China as well?
3) is there a lot of pirating of WP in NA as well?
4) i have never found Word to 'revamp' my writing into a 'format' or form that they think it should look like. Could you expand a bit on that? I have been known to write epic documents of 500 pp but never found anything formatted for me unless i unwittingly allowed a specific formatting style to remain enabled.
5) can WP be run on an intel Mac that has Vista installed? if not, then what type of OS does WP run on?
6) why did Corel stop making WP for Mac? In particular, why would they not continue mac interface development when Mac is the leader in graphics quality and thus, I would assume that many Mac users know exactly what they'd like their final product to look like. 

Thanks again for your info. Incidentally, how much does it cost to purchase a legit copy of WP? 
CC


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

ciaochiao said:


> Hi:
> 
> Thanks for the info on Corel people. I'm wondering however, how a person would do with WP if they DON'T know anything about computer languages? I have NO IDEA as to how to use DOS or the other programming languages you guys do. How would someone like me, adapt to using WP?


Well, you don't have to use DOS mode. And you wouldn't have to use reveal codes either. The whole "modes" thing I was talking about just enables WordPerfect to behave similarly to the word processing environment you're used to. It will take a very short time, like 3 or 4 days, before you become comfortable with WordPerfect, but once you get used to it everything will seem very natural. 



ciaochiao said:


> I had NO IDEA that WP was EVER made for Mac.


Yup, it was, but it was discontinued in 1997 or therabouts. The latest version is 3.5e, which Corel has actually release as freeware back in 2004 or something like that. If you have a Classic Mac, it can be downloaded from System 7 Today:

System 7 Today - Word Perfect 3.5



ciaochiao said:


> I also hated that Office Assistant.


I just keep the little cat on the side in the few remaining MS Office apps on my Thinkpad. He makes me happy.




ciaochiao said:


> I don't see it any more but either they took it out or I inadvertently disabled it. As for how long ago it was when I couldn't open WP docs, that was as recently as 2003. I couldn't understand why the sender, after me telling him that I was a mac user, couldn't just have saved the doc as an .rtf or yes, txt.


They're too damn lazy. Until I bought WordPerfect X4, I told people with Word 2007 to save in the 97/2000/XP/2003 format all the time, and they just wouldn't listen. Thankfully version X4 has built-in support for Office 2007, so I no longer have to put up with their stupidity. 



ciaochiao said:


> Since this thread was basically started about the Trojan and pirating, I'd like to raise the following questions.
> 1) is WP used prevalently in China?
> 2) if it is, then am I to assume that there are WP copies out there in China as well?
> 3) is there a lot of pirating of WP in NA as well?
> ...


1. No idea. I think the Chinese just pirate whatever gets the job done.
2. Again, no idea.
3. Hardly. Everyone uses Word, and by and large the only users of WordPerfect left are the government, the education sector and the vast majority of law firms. And renegade accountants who just can't stand word 
4. If you have complex documents, with lots of charts and pictures and crap like that, then Word does not play nice with them. That's why Publisher exists. WordPerfect performs a lot better with complex formatting, and handles very long documents (in excess of 50 pages) much better than Word does. 
5. Unfortunately, Corel has re-iterated that they have no plans to develop a Mac OS X-native version of WordPerfect. However, version X4 will run on both 32-bit editions of XP and the 32-bit / 64-bit editions of Windows Vista. 
6. This is almost like a little mini conspiracy theory. In the late 1990s, Corel was up ****s creek, and Microsoft offered to help them out to keep them out of hot water with the US government (this ultimately failed). So they slipped Corel some money. The invested in Corel. And then WordPerfect for Mac disappeared. A few years later, WordPerfect for Linux also disappeared. You can put the pieces together. Although I think with the disaster that is Word 2008, Corel may re-think their strategy.



ciaochiao said:


> Thanks again for your info. Incidentally, how much does it cost to purchase a legit copy of WP?
> CC


As I said before, the latest version of WordPerfect for Mac OS Classic is *free! yay!* Direct from Corel, WordPerfect Office X4 (Includes WordPerfect, Quattro pro, Presentations, Mail, a virtual intelligence thing, and this weird but interesting program called Lightning) costs $319 for a license, but $169 for the upgrade (guess which one I got?). You can get it from Amazon for $285. This may sound expensive, but it's a freakin' bargain considering the comparable Microsoft Office bundle is *$539*, or $477.99 from Amazon. You pay less for a superior product, essentially.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Wordperfect this... Wordperfect that...

What the hell happened to my thread?!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Re: pirating.

P2P is theft and the act of "swapping" files itself validates this argument. People download via P2P for one reason alone: the thing they're downloading has VALUE TO THEM. _At that very moment_ they are taking something created by another and not paying an appropriate value in return in order to use it. If we could P2P automobiles or houses or a loaf of bread would the justification that "just because you can" make it fine to not pay for it?

Iran and North Korea _can_ make nukes. Is it right for the world to allow them to do so just because _they can_? Remember Spiderman, kids: with great power comes great responsibility.

If something is of no value to you then you won't acquire it. Like, why download something you see no value in? If otoh something is of value to you then you should pay the creator of it whether it's a musician, General Motors or The Hershey Candy Bar Company.

And, if those who support online theft don't agree with this argument, if you indeed feel that all the software and media content you download does not deserve to be paid for... then delete it all off your hard drive right now. After all, it's worthless. Right?

There's the other argument about the creators being paid once to have created the "thing" (whatever it is) and that they should not be paid again. Well -- again -- it's not all about what the work was worth for the creator at the time; it's about what the creation is worth _to you_. Like, can you imagine your life without all the music you associate to the various experiences you personally have had? What song was playing when you lost your virginity, for example? How about that tune that always calms you down after a stressful experience... or revs you up in advance of a challenge? That "thing"... say, some tune created by a bunch of dudes in the 1960's or whatever (for example), means something _to you_. That tune is around forty years old... and yet it is NOT worthless.

Just stop and think about all the specific songs created before that get licensed for use in TV commercials. You think those advertisers are dummies? NU-UH! They choose specific songs _to associate a particular feeling to the product in question. They do this in order to manipulate your emotions into buying the product and it WORKS_. Like that gross crackers commercial that was on Canadian TV last year? You know, the one with the crackers falling into bowls of soup, causing a torrential VOMIT of soup to fly heavenward? What did they use for music? Hire some guy to create a new track? Nope. They used THIS SONG. And this commercial is FAR from the only one.

Food, once consumed, is indeed worthless... but even an old pair of jeans will fetch some money at your local Value Village because -- wait for it -- it is of value to someone! And yet, the creators of those jeans were paid loooooong ago. Why pay again?! Right? Well, just _try_ using the convenient philosophy about online file swapping in the physical world. See how far THAT gets ya.

So, if you think once a thing like a song has been paid for and therefore has no value, I'd be happy to puke up this morning's breakfast for you to reuse -- _free!_


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Which is precisely why piracy is not stealing.


That rationale is just plain stupid. Sorry, but it is.


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

I don't think blanket statements apply when it comes to piracy. Some people download tons of stuff just for the hell of it. If you snuck onto their computer and deleted it, they wouldn't notice. This piracy isn't hurting anyone.

Some piracy is stealing. People download all their music for free even though they are perfectly capable and willing to pay. This is stealing.

Some people download "to try" and pay later or buy other merchandise to make up for it. Is this stealing? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

This is why people do not like to associate the word piracy with theft because it is ambiguous and can mean many things. Some piracy is theft and some isn't. Which is why piracy is piracy and theft is theft.

Here's a handy diagram.

More on this reasoning:

"Piracy Is Not Theft" graphic by Patri Friedman | QuestionCopyright.org


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

lol you don't think that diagram's gonna convince me. Do ya? 

That "copy" is also a sale denied to those who created something you value enough to "copy".

Say, hit the Art Gallery of Ontario and, with paint and canvas, stand in front of a Jackson Pollack and copy it, exactly. But be quick about it. You won't have much time! Then, once you've painted it and evaded the cops, put YOUR name on the bottom and try to even give it away. See if anybody places any "value" on it.


----------



## bitshiftr (Nov 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> lol you don't think that diagram's gonna convince me. Do ya?
> 
> That "copy" is also a sale denied to those who created something you value enough to "copy".
> 
> Say, hit the Art Gallery of Ontario and, with paint and canvas, stand in front of a Jackson Pollack and copy it, exactly. But be quick about it. You won't have much time! Then, once you've painted it and evaded the cops, put YOUR name on the bottom and try to even give it away. See if anybody places any "value" on it.


I think Leviathan covered himself in saying that some people get copies of it but place no value on it.

What you're talking about in the bottom section is acting as a distributor for pirated material. THIS is definitely theft if you're catering to a market that would otherwise purchase the software.

I don't think your example holds much water, because what you're suggesting is that someone would PRODUCE THEIR OWN CODE which emulates a program and then tries to distribute it under their own name. As far as I know, replicating functions (copying code) is illegal, but writing something to perform a function in a different manner as the patented function is fine.

I believe the example that you're thinking of is photocopying a Jackson Pollack work in incredibly high detail and then distributing it under your own name.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

bitshiftr said:


> I think Leviathan covered himself in saying that some people get copies of it but place no value on it.


Then why download it? To make his disk blocks feel more useful?



> I don't think your example holds much water, because what you're suggesting is that someone would PRODUCE THEIR OWN CODE which emulates a program and then tries to distribute it under their own name. As far as I know, replicating functions (copying code) is illegal, but writing something to perform a function in a different manner as the patented function is fine.


Maybe THAT example of mine wasn't my best... but I also posted a gajillion other examples to support my argument.



> I believe the example that you're thinking of is photocopying a Jackson Pollack work in incredibly high detail and then distributing it under your own name.


No. I'm not trying to talk about a business model of distribution; my painting example shows to illustrate that ONLY a Jackson Pollack would be of value. It is of value because _it is a Jackson Pollack_. The price of a reproduction of a Jackson Pollack styled painting sold at Wal Mart or IKEA is nowhere near the perceived value of an original... and yet, even THOSE knockoffs *have to* be paid for and paid-for they are by consumers who see sufficient value in taking them home and putting them on their walls. I suppose the only thing that keeps those lithos created by anonymous "whoevers" from being ripped off is that IKEA has doors, locks, hovering staff and alarms. The fact that acquiring works via P2P is easy and somewhat anonymous does not negate the element of theft from the scenario.

Like, come _on_, people; if you could download a house via P2P would you also not pay for it? Do you look at the cashier at the Esso station when you buy gas as being an unfair person for requiring that you pay for the gas you just acquired? The "convenience" of the arguments trying to support P2P theft is unbelievable!


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> lol you don't think that diagram's gonna convince me. Do ya?
> 
> That "copy" is also a sale denied to those who created something you value enough to "copy".


My point is that the copy is not always a lost sale. That is the fundamental reason why piracy cannot be completely equated to theft. We need to be careful with our definitions.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

broken_g3 said:


> As I said, there are still some people who choose to pirate even though they believe the software to be a good package.


Amen


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

kevleviathan said:


> My point is that the copy is not always a lost sale. That is the fundamental reason why piracy cannot be completely equated to theft. We need to be careful with our definitions.


How can a copy not be a lost sale?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macaholic said:


> How can a copy not be a lost sale?


When that copy is in the hands of someone who would have never bought the item in the first place.

Have you ever test driven a car that you had no realistic expectation of buying? Yes, you wasted the salesperson's time - but was that a lost sale? There was never going to be a sale in the first place!

I'm not saying that it is right, or that this kind of "test drive" should be acceptable with software (or media) but it is not accurate to say that every copy = a lost sale.

Same way for every "non-copy": A few years ago I sat through a lecture from a MicroSoft rep who touted the companies education program and anti-piracy measures as having decreased the level of piracy of Windows XP. After they'd finished I mentioned that there might be another reason for the decrease in piracy - it might be that the item wasn't worth stealing.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> That rationale is just plain stupid. Sorry, but it is.


No, this rationale is logical and bases itself on a solid foundation of economic principles. IDC (the firm that does all the studies for the BSA) estimates that only 1 in 10 pirated copies of software constitute a real loss for the publisher. The other 90% is just the result of weak consumer demand. However, unlike tangible goods, consumers who are unwilling to buy at a certain price point on the publishers' supply curve can move down to the pirate supply curve, though the majority of people would prefer to pay for the satisfaction of receiving a legitimate copy. 

Barring the people who would buy at the software publisher's curve but still chose to pirate for the hell of it, most piracy cannot be equated to theft. 

The prevailing rationale and outlook on piracy, however, is derived from the propaganda of the software publishers, who still think that the total value of pirated software represents their losses. This rationale is the dumbest of all.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

eggman: Yes, the P2P downloading of an application, to be "tested" to see if the downloader likes the software -- a la a test driving a car. I saw this theory explained in this thread. If the world was filled with people who would HONESTLY delete a program they liked, and then turn around and buy it, that would be sweet. Unfortunately, I don't have faith in most people doing that.

There's all sorts of other resources on the internet about software, movies and music that just might suffice to not require software being illegally downloaded to "try it out". They're called "reviews".

Most software has demo versions, even Photoshop (thirty days, fully functional). And yet, the iServices Trojan was hacked into an installer of Photoshop, WHY? Because Photoshop is stolen more often than most other applications. That's a no-brainer. And hell, while there's GIMP, Pixelmator and a few other and weaker alternatives, Photoshop IS the de facto standard for professional photo editing. If someone wants to edit photos beyond what iPhoto or Graphic Convertor can do, they don't need to read a review of or "test" Photoshop to know that they need it. lol




> broken_g3:
> 
> However, unlike tangible goods, consumers who are unwilling to buy at a certain price point on the publishers' supply curve can move down to the pirate supply curve, though the majority of people would prefer to pay for the satisfaction of receiving a legitimate copy.
> 
> Barring the people who would buy at the software publisher's curve but still chose to pirate for the hell of it, most piracy cannot be equated to theft.


The amount of convenient logic in this post astounds me. It borders on moral corruption. Like, you're describing it with such nonchalance, it's amazing.

First off, I hope the makers of tangible goods realize how truly lucky they are.

Second, reread that line, "the majority of people would prefer to pay for the satisfaction of receiving a legitimate copy". It's the use of the words "prefer" and "satisfaction" that's disturbing, inferring that the end-user only has to answer to his or her own expectations and all others be damned. What about this instead: "the majority of people understand the moral obligation of paying for services rendered through the permission of the end-user in that said end-user is USING the software"? The sentence is a little clumsy, perhaps -- not quite as slick as yours -- but I believe that the point is made.

And third, has anyone who has stolen software because they were "unwilling to buy at a certain price point on the publishers' supply curve" (wow. How conveeeenient) ever mail in a cheque for _whatever *value* they *did* think the software was worth?_ Has there been any restless nights of sleep for them, worrying over the fact that they didn't send Microsoft the $65.94 *they* deemed to be the worth of MS Office? I'll not hold my breath while IDC collates the data on _that_ one.

btw, what that would be is donationware. That's not the biz M$ got into, nor should they be obliged to get into just because they can't slap a pair of handcuffs on an online thief very easily.

If you download something of value, use it and never pay for it, that's stealing. End of story.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macaholic said:


> If you download something of value, use it and never pay for it, that's stealing. End of story.


As good a definition as I've seen.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macaholic said:


> eggman: Yes, the P2P downloading of an application, to be "tested" to see if the downloader likes the software -- a la a test driving a car. I saw this theory explained in this thread. If the world was filled with people who would HONESTLY delete a program they liked, and then turn around and buy it, that would be sweet. Unfortunately, I don't have faith in most people doing that.
> 
> There's all sorts of other resources on the internet about software, movies and music that just might suffice to not require software being illegally downloaded to "try it out". They're called "reviews".
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with your evaluation of the act of piracy as "theft" - theft of services, functionality the user has no legal right to etc.

I am just saying that your interpretation of EACH act of piracy as an actual "lost sale" is incorrect and misleading. This becomes important in discussions like this because sooner or later the circling lawyers converge and someone tries to calculate "damages" and put some accountants to work... and the logic just doesn't work smoothly with non-tangible items like intellectual property.

I knew my "test drive" comparison was the wrong one to make because it could naturally lead to this - but it was early and I was insufficiently caffeinated. 

My point isn't what happens to the car after the test drive, that is a separate issue and a separate moral question. My point was that you didn't have the means or the genuine desire to buy that car in the first place so it cannot be counted as an actual lost sale. 

To see how absurd the comparison can be - now imagine that if we treat the physical like the digital and destroy the car after you've evaluated it.

I won't argue then that under those conditions you've deprived the car dealer of an *actual *sale.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Eggman, I understand the concept of a test drive. I'd maybe bend my thinking a little bit for the "download, try-and-delete/try-then-buy" (whichever the case may be from person to person), but even most software authors understand the notion of trying before buying. As I'm sure you know, Adobe's stuff has 30 day unlimited demos -- fully functional. As I'm sure you also know, Microsoft even calls their demo of Office/Mac "Office _Test Drive_". And then, there are reviews upon reviews upon reviews, both from publications and end-users, for people to learn about software before buying.

Thankfully, for those that cannot afford to purchase software -- or who have a moral objection to some manufacturer's ethics -- there are usually shareware and open source alternatives. Right? Right.

EDIT:
Rereading my post and your reply, I have repeated myself unnessesarily in this post. But this question still remains: what is the ratio of those who "download, try-and-buy" compared to those who "download, try-and-keep"? Very small, I'm sure.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

While, I agree software piracy is theft, the whole question is a social quagmire. I don't believe it is right or fair for some to take without paying of software, music, or video, there is however a problem with a pur black and white issue.

How about students who need to use a few programs for a course, but cannot afford to. I am just saying a $7000 a program for homework use, where any student version would be considered unacceptable as it watermarks everything everywhere, is a bit ridiculous.

While I do understand the problems with software piracy, I also understand those who cannot afford to do anything else. In no way does this condone piracy of things like iwork, or cheap things like that, I do empathize with those that kind of have to do it.

I like what Adobe did. Students often have no ability to pay 1000+ for their programs, and they offer a fully functioning version fro aroung $300-$400. This is affordable, and people will still illegally download this software, which I then consider wrong.

The whole idea of software piracy from a black and white standpoint, piracy is wrong, but one you start introducing shades of grey, it becomes more difficult. This then becomes a question of morality and while people agree on some things they dont agree on everything.


EDIT:


Macaholic said:


> Thankfully, for those that cannot afford to purchase software -- or who have a moral objection to some manufacturer's ethics -- there are usually shareware and open source alternatives. Right? Right.


Yes, for Office Totally... Open Office etc. However, not for every program.



Macaholic said:


> EDIT:
> Rereading my post and your reply, I have repeated myself unnessesarily in this post. But this question still remains: what is the ratio of those who "download, try-and-buy" compared to those who "download, try-and-keep"? Very small, I'm sure.


I own every piece of software on my computer and I am proud of it. I have done the try and buy, and the adobe and microsoft things have been very good for that. However, I believe that the ratio is very small is because, most people are already familiar with a product and just buy it straight, and the other reason is that people are greedy, where if they can have it for free, they would rather then stealing it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I do know that MS Office is probably one of the most heavily pirated pieces of software. I suspect that if you examined it closely, you would find that a lot of people use it ONLY to open .doc or .ppc files that have been passed along via eMail. If M$ still made free readers for these 2 apps I suspect the incidents of so-called pirating would plummet.

Obviously if an individual has no need or desire to use M$ Office to actually generate documents he is not going to pay for the app and there is no way to consider that a lost sale.

FWIW I prefer a trip to the library to open those files that Neo-Office or Keystone can't handle, but I really can't find fault with those that choose to clutter their HD with an otherwise unwanted pirated copy of M$ Office.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

You mentioned the Adobe student deal which is great. Even non-students can shop around for a decent price on CS4.

And MS has a student teacher edition of Office which, frankly, is easy for ANYBODY to buy.

There are not a lot of software titles costing SEVEN GRAND. They are so rare you're grabbing at straws if you're trying to rationalize the extent of theft going on 

eMacMan and all others, don't assume that I believe the developers and publishers are angels, nor are being fully responsive to the market (although the record labels are trending towards lifting DRM on downloadable music). Readers for ubiquitous Office file formats should be made available, as Adobe has done with the PDF file format. But AGAIN is this the only instance of piracy? Those who just need to "read" Office files?? of course not, and the % of people who steal Office for such purposes ONLY are absolutely infinitesimal. These... what, 10,000 or so copies of Office, worldwide, I suspect are but a sliver of total revenues lost.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kevleviathan said:


> My point is that the copy is not always a lost sale. That is the fundamental reason why piracy cannot be completely equated to theft. We need to be careful with our definitions.


I agree with you. However, piracy *is* an illegal activity *but* strictly speaking it isn't theft as we know it. Semantically and pragmatically it is a different beast.

I also agree with you that every illegal copy acquired does not translate into a lost sale, especially with higher priced software such as the Adobe family of products.

These products are essentially for professional use (with a component being educational for later professional use). The vast majority of illegal copies of Abobe products are used by amateurs who may aspire to be professionals, but are not. They acquire the software that they otherwise would *not be able to afford* (no lost sale) to play with it, to learn from it and in many cases with the hopes that they will eventually be good enough at using these programs to somehow (either through employment, freelancing, etc.) make money from their acquired knowledge.

How do I know this? Well because in my poor student days I was one of those illegals and so were many of my friends. No justification or rationalization here for it, I should have bought those early copies of Photoshop and Illustrator.

However, I will say this, that as soon as I had the money and I was actually making money from my acquired knowledge and skills, the first thing I did was buy a copy of Photoshop and Illustrator and have been paying for upgrades ever since.

I am in no way trying to justify piracy, just relate part of the reality of it, beyond the black and white, right and wrong of it. It is clearly illegal and ethically wrong, however the reality is that not every illegal copy deprives the publisher of revenue and in some cases an illegally obtained copy can actually lead to future sales.


----------



## ciaochiao (Apr 21, 2005)

*Students*



screature said:


> How do I know this? Well because in my poor student days I was one of these illegals and so were many of my friends. No justification or rationalization here for it, I should have bought those early copies of Photoshop and Illustrator.
> 
> However, I will say this, that as soon as I had the money and I was actually making money from my acquired knowledge and skills, the first thing I did was buy a copy of Photoshop and Illustrator and have been paying for upgrades ever since..


What Screature has just said sums up almost every student's app collection i've known. While I've actually, and thankfully, never had to use illegal copies of software, I have used software in which the copy is not mine. At the institutes I attended for grad school, the profs/supervisors had legit and extra copies of any graphics or Word apps needed. They generally had no more than 10 students and staff in any given lab and were therefore, generous in allowing their students to load the apps onto their personal systems. I still have an app from 1999 that I use on all but my Leopard mac. It's on a fw external and there it sits until i need it. As for 'student versions' of software, Word puts out a Student/Teacher edition for a very reasonable price and for anyone who would like to learn 'how to' use PS or Illustrator, one can purchase a used copy of PS or Elements. CS4 is prohibitively expensive for someone like me but I'm not a graphics artist. I have my own thoughts on what constitutes theft and there certainly is a very murky line between what is truly malicious pirating and what is not. For me, the main reason i don't have the same fervent opposition for 'borrowing' or downloading apps is due to my 1st profession as a musician. Quite honestly, it would be nice if Bach or his subsequent descendants were able to benefit from the use of his written work. In this case, the only person who truly makes the profit are publishing houses who then turn and charge a struggling performer $100+ for a small volume of Bach's original work. Then, the work is played by a plethora of performers, none of whom pay any monies/kickbacks to Bach or the publishing company. So what do you call that type of intellectual property theft? I'd be interested to know how everyone incorporates this into the issue of pirating. So let's put it in context of this thread: what if all publishers decided to put the entire volume of Bach or Beethoven sonatas on a CD/DVD. The buyer is then permitted to make ONE copy of the selected piece of music, say - Sonata in G. What do you think would happen if the publisher programmed the CD to never print out more than one copy of that piece? What would happen if then, if the player loses his original print out and needs a new one? in that case, they'd have to re-apply to the publisher and pay a price for a new 'download' key. Anyone care to carry this forward and comment?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macaholic said:


> And MS has a student teacher edition of Office which, frankly, is easy for ANYBODY to buy.


$175-$200+ is obscenely expensive for a file reader. My point remains M$ needs to provide free readers!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> $175-$200+ is obscenely expensive for a file reader. My point remains M$ needs to provide free readers!


I didn;t connect using the student/teacher edition as a reader and I actually said that MS SHOULD offer a reader again, as it has worked out quite well for Adobe's PDF format.

I mentioned the Student Teacher edition for people to CREATE documents as well as read them. If you need an Office reader download open or NeoOffice.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macaholic said:


> I didn;t connect using the student/teacher edition as a reader and I actually said that MS SHOULD offer a reader again, as it has worked out quite well for Adobe's PDF format.
> 
> I mentioned the Student Teacher edition for people to CREATE documents as well as read them. If you need an Office reader download open or NeoOffice.


Sadly NeoOffice will usually *create *documents that can be easily read by M$ Office but often fails to correctly *read *documents created by M$ Office. Hence the occasional trip to the library.


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

I was discussing this with a friend last night and I came to the conclusion that if piracy were magically eradicated and completely impossible, people wouldn't suddenly be going out and buying the stuff they are pirating. There would be a huge boom in open source and free software!

Adobe should be GLAD students are pirating their programs so much. It helps them learn and get hooked on their app ecosystem early.

Here's why not even copy is a lost sale:

Let's create a persona. A poor starving student. He has $100/month to do with what he pleases, the rest is rent, tuition, gas, etc.

For this student, buying the Master Collection or the Design Suite (or whatever it's called) is not possible. Too expensive.

So this student decides to pirate the master collection. 

Adobe has not lost any money here. Let's say that *poof* we evaporate this illegal copy and make it 100% impossible for the student to pirate another copy. Guess what? He's not going to buy it still. He's going to go use Gimp or work at school.

Now let's say we did this for everybody. Nobody could pirate things. Students wouldn't be getting hooked on Photoshop or learning advanced techniques (the best learning happens at home when you tinker, not in the classroom). Gimp is a pale alternative but since everybody needs an alternative now, the open source community would suddenly be a lot more active and make some great options.

So like I said before: yes some piracy is pure theft. If you have the money to pay for software but you choose not to, *and if you use it to profit* (eg for your business), then you are plain stealing. But lots of pirates just horde things for no reason. They download mass amounts of movies "just because". They really couldn't care less if half of it disappeared tomorrow. Other people pirate to try things out first. Others because they can't afford the real version but they really, really need a copy.

But in many cases the pirate would never have purchased it to begin with because they simply cannot afford it or do not find the value in the asking price of the software.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Seeing as we're using magic powder _-- poof! --_, I'd use it to indeed eradicate piracy and would MUCH more prefer a thriving open source world of developers along with the commercial ones. If we had no piracy, we'd have no need for DRM and PITA frickin authorizations, serial numbers, challenge-response hassles, dongles etc. etc. etc. If all us honest Earthlings could only use our licence once at a time BUT be able to use it and have it installed on several machines (your home tower, laptop and work system, for example), that too would be part of the perfect world.

But, unfortunately, such a seamless and unencumbered experience is impossible to expect given the state of human nature.

As for students and the expense, Office Student/Win costs about $150.00 which seems reasonable. The full-blown CS is STILL expensive for a student, however and I can see why that one gets ripped off by students _studying for a career in professional graphics_. But, if you're using magic powder I would make Adobe offer full versions with time-limited functionality. This functionality could be renewable every semester or school year... and maybe they'd be nice and give them an extra year to get their career going? Something like that would be nice use of magic powder... Or, if there was no stealing, revenues would definitely be higher, R&D would be lower which means net corporate income would be higher therefore tax revenues would be higher and possibly better tax credits or rebates might be offered by different levels of government. Like, we can go on and on with the magic powder, here.

Meanwhile, one argument about one suite of software (CS) does not negate the larger problem. People are ripping off more than just CS4.


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

I agree, I'd much rather have open source alternatives than see mass piracy.


----------



## bitshiftr (Nov 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> I can see why that one gets ripped off by students _studying for a career in professional graphics_.


What a nice double standard you promote. Just a little bit hypocritical on your part to legitimize the motives of a design student but not, say, a geology student?

Fact of the matter is, until we all have 6-figure jobs or rely on this software for primary income, very few can rationalize the purchase of this software. So piracy exists. It's simply out of necessity.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

bitshiftr said:


> What a nice double standard you promote. Just a little bit hypocritical on your part to legitimize the motives of a design student but not, say, a geology student?
> 
> 
> > oh GOD. The use of a design student was merely an example -- and I didn't say I agree with it, giving the design student my blessing; I said I could see how difficult it would be to afford it and could see how they would be forced to pirate.
> ...


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

screature said:


> I agree with you. However, piracy *is* an illegal activity *but* strictly speaking it isn't theft as we know it. Semantically and pragmatically it is a different beast.
> 
> I also agree with you that every illegal copy acquired does not translate into a lost sale, especially with higher priced software such as the Adobe family of products.
> 
> ...


Lesson #1

When you're young and poor you may find yourself pirating software to "get ahead" (whatever that means may vary from individual to individual).

Lesson #2

Once you're ahead and can afford stuff - don't continue pirating software.

Lesson #3

Don't "get ahead" ever and continue enjoying free movies, music, software etc. for the rest of your life :lmao::clap:

Class dismissed.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> eggman: Yes, the P2P downloading of an application, to be "tested" to see if the downloader likes the software -- a la a test driving a car. I saw this theory explained in this thread. If the world was filled with people who would HONESTLY delete a program they liked, and then turn around and buy it, that would be sweet. Unfortunately, I don't have faith in most people doing that.


That's what I usually do, just because the trials suck so much. If I think a program is amazing, I go out and buy it and I get rid of the pirate copy. If I think a program is lacklustre, I never use it, and eventually delete the pirate copy because it takes up my disk space. 



Macaholic said:


> Most software has demo versions, even Photoshop (thirty days, fully functional). And yet, the iServices Trojan was hacked into an installer of Photoshop, WHY? Because Photoshop is stolen more often than most other applications. That's a no-brainer. And hell, while there's GIMP, Pixelmator and a few other and weaker alternatives, Photoshop IS the de facto standard for professional photo editing.


Photoshop is not "stolen" that often. People who use photoshop professionally buy it, and people who just want to make a picture of their cat riding a bike pirate photoshop because they either do not have the means of paying $600 or do not desire the software at that pricepoint. Either way, *NO SALE WOULD HAVE OCCURED. NO MERCHANDISE WAS REMOVED. NOTHING WAS "STOLEN".* Oh, and GIMP sucks. That is a fact that is painfully obvious.



Macaholic said:


> The amount of convenient logic in this post astounds me. It borders on moral corruption. Like, you're describing it with such nonchalance, it's amazing.


I'm cold and calculating. Sosumi.



Macaholic said:


> First off, I hope the makers of tangible goods realize how truly lucky they are.


Yes- because if someone does not wish to buy their product, they are not mentally tortured when the person decides to obtain an exact copy. They sit there, in Utopia, happily content with goods that were never sold and never existed.




Macaholic said:


> Second, reread that line, "the majority of people would prefer to pay for the satisfaction of receiving a legitimate copy". It's the use of the words "prefer" and "satisfaction" that's disturbing, inferring that the end-user only has to answer to his or her own expectations and all others be damned.


Yeah. That's economics. Rational self-interest of the consumer governs everything.




Macaholic said:


> What about this instead: "the majority of people understand the moral obligation of paying for services rendered through the permission of the end-user in that said end-user is USING the software"? The sentence is a little clumsy, perhaps -- not quite as slick as yours -- but I believe that the point is made.


I think I missed the point. 

Nevertheless, while we are on the topic of moral obligation, let's talk about the publishers. Let's talk about how software manufacturers force planned obsolescence on hundreds of millions of legitimate users just for the hell of getting them to buy an upgraded product that offers little more than bloat and feature creep. Does anyone see a moral problem with that? Can you spell V-I-S-T-A? How about imposing Orwellian DRM technologies on consumers and locking them in with a single device that they purchased music for. Anyone see a problem with that? Can you spell i-T-U-N-E-S? How about making entire platforms obsolete, wasting billions of dollars that consumers invested in them? Can you spell M-A-C-O-S-9? Is there no moral obligation to the consumers? No, of course not. Very rarely do publishers listen to what consumers have to say. They just shove their garbage down our throats. So why the hell should we have moral obligations towards the publishers? 

The immoral actions of a few renegade consumers is a molehill compared to the planned destruction of the usability of products because the publishers can't bloody well come out with anything that is truly an _improvement_.




Macaholic said:


> And third, has anyone who has stolen software because they were "unwilling to buy at a certain price point on the publishers' supply curve" (wow. How conveeeenient) ever mail in a cheque for _whatever *value* they *did* think the software was worth?_ Has there been any restless nights of sleep for them, worrying over the fact that they didn't send Microsoft the $65.94 *they* deemed to be the worth of MS Office? I'll not hold my breath while IDC collates the data on _that_ one.


No idea what was inferred there. Either you missed the point, or I did again.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

eMacMan said:


> Sadly NeoOffice will usually *create *documents that can be easily read by M$ Office but often fails to correctly *read *documents created by M$ Office. Hence the occasional trip to the library.


Ooooh! Another reason why WordPerfect is better than anything Open-sourced! It's 100% literate both ways!

But, this is not what we are talking about (will start word processor thread soon). Going back on topic...



Macaholic said:


> Seeing as we're using magic powder _-- poof! --_, I'd use it to indeed eradicate piracy and would MUCH more prefer a thriving open source world of developers along with the commercial ones. If we had no piracy, we'd have no need for DRM and PITA frickin authorizations, serial numbers, challenge-response hassles, dongles etc. etc. etc. If all us honest Earthlings could only use our licence once at a time BUT be able to use it and have it installed on several machines (your home tower, laptop and work system, for example), that too would be part of the perfect world.


On the topic of DRM- most self-defeating technology ever devised. The consumer backlash from these big-brother, Orwellian, super-1984 technologies far outweighs any perceived benefit for the publisher. Look at spore. Super-tight DRM. Massive consumer backlash. Most pirated game in history. 

Publishers- its simple! Reduce your prices to a reasonable equilibrium, where you can minimize price while maximizing profits, and soon you will see far more people willing to buy legitimate software!

Remember. The consumer ALWAYS wins. Sooner or later, we always win.


----------



## t2t2 (Feb 16, 2009)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Lesson #1
> 
> When you're young and poor you may find yourself pirating software to "get ahead" (whatever that means may vary from individual to individual).
> 
> ...


Ha..lesson learned


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> But, I gotta say it pees me off when I want to watch a stream from a US broadcaster and I get the message that "it's not available in your area"! Media distribution agreements, the record labels and everyone else DO have to get with the program on this; universal, blanket licensing is required!


Big media can save themselves, but they aren't doing anything about it. Clearly people want their TV on demand so why don't they open "The TV Bay" - a torrent site with LEGIT TV shows? They can leave ads in and make money. The copies will be higher quality than anything recorded from TV. Then they hook you on the box set and they've got a sale.

Hulu is a good idea but yes, very lame about all these international agreements that must be made (or not made). Clearly we are in dire times for copyright and IP. The internet changed everything but the laws and mindset of old media haven't caught up yet.

This raises another question: if I pay for cable, why can't I torrent TV shows? 

The answer lies in advertising - if you pirate it you don't get the ads - but then again with the prevalence of VCRs and Tivo/PVRs who watches commercials these days? TV has such a terrible (read: no) way of tracking impressions and value for ads that they may as well assume 0% of people watch their ads and start coming up with internet based solutions to this problem of theirs.

And meanwhile, us consumers get screwed by splintered and incomplete distribution (Hulu, others) and draconian laws that don't really apply online. 

Why did Hulu pull itself off Boxee? Because they are terrified of what that could do to cable TV as we know it and they are going to hold on tooth and nail to their old business model.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> You mentioned the Adobe student deal which is great. Even non-students can shop around for a decent price on CS4.
> 
> And MS has a student teacher edition of Office which, frankly, is easy for ANYBODY to buy.
> 
> ...


I hapen to know a design student that has to use these pieces of software for school and they have had to use more than 3 pieces each costing more than $5k

That is why I am stating that this is not a black and white issue, and it is through this black and white approach that there is so much controversy.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Sure there are some dirty tricks played on us at times but things have to move on, too.

Mac OS vs Windows

Apple preserved backwards compatibility with Classic as long as they seemed to be able to, right up to the Intel transition. That's about five years since the debut of OS X. During that time thousands of apps went to the better architecture of OS X.

Apple was unable to utilize PPC anymore for the form factors the market demanded and had to go Intel. With their smaller userbase and Jobs' damn the torpedoes attitude, PPC -- and Classic were unceremoniously "curbed", right beside the floppy drive. I wonder just how SLOW PPC emulation would have been on the MacIntels? I'm glad we didn't have to find out. I'm glad they devoted engineers to improving the future of OS X -- and developing the iPhone -- rather than make sure you can still play Glider on an architecture that couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. And the millions of new users -- the presence of whom make the Mac platform healthier -- don't care about the fact that Conflict Catcher is dead.

MS were forced (it seems) to clawback some features because their installed base would not stand old systems being orphaned. At one time, Longhorn/Vista was planned to boot off EFI only and MS and Intel wanted to ditch that crummy BIOS anchor. But, they couldn't, and that old clunker still lurks under the hood, getting corrupted. So, who's better off? I say Mac users are. Our user experience is better. And the "walled garden"? I prefer to call it "vertical integration", and vertical integration again makes the end user experience a better one. That's why I use a Mac; not because it's pretty but because it's smooth, solid and dependable... and sure, very pretty. And that's why I use an iPhone, too. Vertically integrated, LOCKED IN, penny and pound... but holy CRAP look at the positive environment Apple created for developers to make the end user experience better. Could anyone else have done it other than Apple? I don't know because no one ever tried. Sony, Nokia, Blackberry, they all had their chance to make a paradigm shift. They chose not to.

iTunes? Sure, the executives of the labels are asses -- so are the Hollywood bigwigs -- but they're coming around. DRM is indeed being loosened as time goes by. But meanwhile,what about the rest of the production staff? Regular peeps who actually create the stuff? Guilty by association. Right?

And the consumer always wins? Really? Not when the paying ones have to pay more in order to fund the technology development to keep the non-paying ones from using the software, and not when the paying ones have to contend with the DRM clogging up their workflow, too.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

kevleviathan said:


> This raises another question: if I pay for cable, why can't I torrent TV shows?
> 
> The answer lies in advertising - if you pirate it you don't get the ads - but then again with the prevalence of VCRs and Tivo/PVRs who watches commercials these days?


I suspect that it's really about being able to track usage to pay for sync rights and royalties. You can't track that stuff via P2P -- and yet you can insert ads, that's for sure, so I don't see that as being a problem (Heck, YouTube et al have banner ads on videos now). But distribution and sync rights are, as we agree, very archaic and need a major overhaul. They're ALWAYS slow and they're DEFINITELY greedy but eventually things will evolve.


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

Sure you can track it! Well at least you know exactly how many people downloaded it from you. With TV, they don't even know THAT much. They rely on estimates and surveys. Those ratings do NOT work.


----------



## bitshiftr (Nov 27, 2008)

kevleviathan said:


> Sure you can track it! Well at least you know exactly how many people downloaded it from you. With TV, they don't even know THAT much. They rely on estimates and surveys. Those ratings do NOT work.


Big media releases the collection at the end of the season. This translates into money in their pockets. That's why downloads will never work. Shooting yourself in the foot, that is.


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

But that's old thinking. People are buying less physical media. They can go ahead and release it on Bluray for the people who want the highest quality, and they will pay. Release it on DVD too, you won't kill all your sales. But they are going to have to cope with the fact that things are changing and people are downloading their content.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

kevleviathan said:


> Sure you can track it! Well at least you know exactly how many people downloaded it from you. With TV, they don't even know THAT much. They rely on estimates and surveys. Those ratings do NOT work.


You can track the initial download, but you can't track a subsequent "pass" or burn if its DRM free -- or repeated viewing by the same person, which I frankly does not merit royalties, just like DVDs don't -- but the TV broadcasters DO factor repeats and so on into the fees paid (along with a % based on advertising revenue).


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

kevleviathan said:


> But that's old thinking. People are buying less physical media.... they are going to have to cope with the fact that things are changing and people are downloading their content.


Oh absolutely. I can't recall the last time I bought a CD. But I've purchased well over 1,000 songs on iTunes. For large content, streaming is the way it'll be and the old cable model will die.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> And the consumer always wins? Really? Not when the paying ones have to pay more in order to fund the technology development to keep the non-paying ones from using the software, and not when the paying ones have to contend with the DRM clogging up their workflow, too.


This was more of a message to software developers, and more of a cautionary warning. If you really, really tick off the consumer, he will refuse to buy your product, though he may still pirate it. Anger enough consumers, they will all refuse to buy your product. If a software company has pulled off, for lack of a more refined term, a colossal dick move, the people who continue to buy are not "rational consumers", as economics assumes. They are sheep.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Illegal downloading happens at the best of times as well as the worst of times, and it happens regardless of how much a dickhead the developer is and it happens pretty much regardless of the retail price of the item; it happens _because it can happen_. if you could bit torrent a house or a Jag it too would be done.

Here's another thought: whatever it is you do or manufacture/produce for a living, if I come into your place of work, look at its quality, thinks it sucks or you smell funny or something... then, can I take it for free? Hey, how about YOUR JOB, itself? Maybe I can offer my services to your boss to do your job _for free_? I may not be good at it at first but I'll get the hang of it -- and it'll cost him NOTHING. ZERO. I wonder how he'd react...? :heybaby: And I wonder if you'd be cool with that?  You'd get a lot of afternoons off. That's a lot of golf, man! it just better be a free golf course, though.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> Here's another thought: whatever it is you do or manufacture/produce for a living, if I come into your place of work, look at its quality, thinks it sucks or you smell funny or something... then, can I take it for free? Hey, how about YOUR JOB, itself? Maybe I can offer my services to your boss to do your job _for free_? I may not be good at it at first but I'll get the hang of it -- and it'll cost him NOTHING. ZERO. I wonder how he'd react...? :heybaby: And I wonder if you'd be cool with that?  You'd get a lot of afternoons off. That's a lot of golf, man! it just better be a free golf course, though.


Luckily, my company sells a service, so if someone doesn't pay, we have it on the books, and we send the credit department after them.

That depends. Are you a chartered accountant? Because my position requires you to be a certified chartered accountant. And you will be lost unless you have about 5 years of experience and prior training. Secondly, you would have to face my boss, who has a sh*t hemorrhage every time there's some tiny little thing that goes wrong. Unless you could do the job very, very well, you would be fired very, very quickly. Workers who do not know what they are doing are a liability to the company (unfortunately it is not allowed under the GAAP to report "Idiots" or "Incompetents" as a liability. Not saying that you're one, but it would be nice if we could do that). 

But, hey, if you could pull that off, I wouldn't care. Because there are a million other places I could make money, and many of them would not require me to take another job. I could just go and fill a similar position elsewhere. I could open my own business. Hell, I could even get into the mafia! I'd be Don G3!

What is the point we are trying to make?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

broken_g3 said:


> What is the point we are trying to make?


My point is that everything everybody does has value and should be compensated for their work.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> My point is that everything everybody does has value and should be compensated for their work.


OK, Macaholic, you win. 

I'm not going to bother arguing anymore. I just won't. I'm sick of arguing. All the time I spend on this forum is spent arguing. I don't feel like it anymore. Screw it. I'm just going to agree with everything. 

Piracy is bad. Fine. End of story. Be sure to buy your copy of software. Pay the pretty penny for it or put up with OpenOffice. I concede defeat.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broken_g3 said:


> OK, Macaholic, you win.
> 
> I'm not going to bother arguing anymore. I just won't. I'm sick of arguing. All the time I spend on this forum is spent arguing. I don't feel like it anymore. Screw it. I'm just going to agree with everything.
> 
> Piracy is bad. Fine. End of story. Be sure to buy your copy of software. Pay the pretty penny for it or put up with OpenOffice. I concede defeat.


I hear ya broken_g3, this place can be EXHAUSTING at times. Have a good sleep and/or a stiff drink and you will be right as rain tomorrow, full of vim and vigour and ready to go a few more rounds.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

No it isn't.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> My point is that everything everybody does has value and should be compensated for their work.


Excellent idea.

So for the thousands of software, music and movie creators we should all make a firm stance against piracy so that these people are fairly compensated (whatever that means may vary from person to person, region to region, country to country ) for the work that they do.

As for the remaining *billions of people on this planet* whom the vast majority of the well-to-dos seem to care a less about, we'll just not mention their lack of compensation since it would make this ongoing, never-ending, self-indulgent discussion seem pathetic and trivial in comparison. 

mmmm-kay?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> As for the remaining *billions of people on this planet* whom the vast majority of the well-to-dos seem to care a less about, we'll just not mention their lack of compensation since it would make this ongoing, never-ending, self-indulgent discussion seem pathetic and trivial in comparison.
> 
> mmmm-kay?


Wow. Doncha think that's a discussion for another thread? Like, let's expand this thread originally about a Trojan and... oh, I don't know... CURE CANCER! Or... let's get green, people!

Sheesh.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> Wow. Doncha think that's a discussion for another thread? Like, let's expand this thread originally about a Trojan and... oh, I don't know... CURE CANCER! Or... let's get green, people!
> 
> Sheesh.




Well, let's look at the general statement that you and so many other individuals like to constantly chant every time a piracy thread gets dragged out of the old folks home:



> My point is that everything everybody does has value and should be compensated for their work.


All I did was apply your general statement to people in general which makes this whole piracy discussion look ridiculous. Yeah, lots of people don't receive proper compensation for their work. But the people you're most concerned with aren't the ones who need the most consideration.

Now excuse me, I have to go download a movie and find a cure for cancer


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> All I did was apply your general statement to people in general which makes this whole piracy discussion look ridiculous. Yeah, lots of people don't receive proper compensation for their work. But the people you're most concerned with aren't the ones who need the most consideration.


Child slave labour
Third world hunger
Global economic imperialism
Domestic poverty and homelessness
Ethnic or religious repression and cleansing (Africa is messed up)
Communism (but not so much socialism, because...)
High priced education (some countries offer FREE post-secondary education. WOW! Others forbid women from going to school. DOUBLE-WOW!)
No universal health care in some countries (wtf is with the USA??)
The environment (Why not. I'll throw that in, too.)

You're right. I am so shallow! I shouldn't have even started this thread in the first place. There are so many more important things to concern ourselves with, like... _FREE COMICS!_

Thanks for determining whose rights are more important, dude. So glad you cleared that up -- despite me suggesting in a post that software companies and the governments should be making access to software for educational purposes easier and more affordable. After all, if we're discussing solutions... why settle for wrong ones like justifying theft and simply leaving it at that? Maybe my thinking up some solutions was too subtle a hint that I understand the problem?

But, in what appears to be reality, while you and the other altruistic folks in this thread harp over the need for piracy -- software for poor students -- and probably think I'm rooting for the greedy, the vast *majority* of bit torrents are very VERY non-educational music, movies, TV shows and games. _Harumph!_

I think I'm done with this thread. It's been nothing but a pain in the ass (I'm sure I'm not alone in this assessment, knowing how stubborn or "black+white" I can be at times), and the people on both sides of the piracy issue never ever EVER swing folks over to their side of the argument... it's almost as pointless as Mac and PC zealots arguing.

See y'all at the next anti-G20 riot!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> All I did was apply your general statement to people in general which makes this whole piracy discussion look ridiculous. Yeah, lots of people don't receive proper compensation for their work. But the people you're most concerned with aren't the ones who need the most consideration.


I don't see anyone advocating that running a sweatshop is okay because the cheap labour is right there. I don't hear anyone saying that it's the fault of folks working in a sweatshop for not picking up and moving somewhere else.

What I do hear, though, is folks saying that if software developers don't kowtow to every whim and fancy of their customers then they deserve to have their work stolen.

So yes, there are many kinds of injustice in the world that arguably deserve more attention than whether developers are property recognized for their work. It's just that a lot of folks here seem to think this particular kind of injustice is a-okay.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

jfpoole said:


> I don't see anyone advocating that running a sweatshop is okay because the cheap labour is right there. I don't hear anyone saying that it's the fault of folks working in a sweatshop for not picking up and moving somewhere else.
> 
> What I do hear, though, is folks saying that if software developers don't kowtow to every whim and fancy of their customers then they deserve to have their work stolen.


That's "law of the jungle", isn't it?



> So yes, there are many kinds of injustice in the world that arguably deserve more attention than whether developers are property recognized for their work. It's just that a lot of folks here seem to think this particular kind of injustice is a-okay.


And all I wanted to do with this thread was to keep a couple of Macs safe from adding MORE SPAM to all of our inboxes or used in DDOS attacks.


----------



## bitshiftr (Nov 27, 2008)

jfpoole said:


> I don't see anyone advocating that running a sweatshop is okay because the cheap labour is right there. I don't hear anyone saying that it's the fault of folks working in a sweatshop for not picking up and moving somewhere else.
> 
> What I do hear, though, is folks saying that if software developers don't kowtow to every whim and fancy of their customers then they deserve to have their work stolen.
> 
> So yes, there are many kinds of injustice in the world that arguably deserve more attention than whether developers are property recognized for their work. It's just that a lot of folks here seem to think this particular kind of injustice is a-okay.


Well, it really is only self-interest. I mean, we are consumers by our upbringing and social norms and we are born to want what we can't have. There is a means to obtain what we can't have so it is employed. Plain and simple.

I don't advocate that piracy is a good thing, however, there are some business models that I disagree with and feel that the company is either unworthy of the price tag of their product or have done me some sort of harm.

Here's an interesting tidbit, think what you will about it.

I bought a license of Kaspersky Antivirus 2009 in lieu of the Conficker outbreak (silly me...). For the past 4 days it has told me I have an invalid key and that my definitions are out-of-date. I've so far launched 3 requests with Kaspersky to fix this problem, however I have heard nothing back from them. To be clear, this license cost me $69.99 (or somewhere in that ballpark, and as a student this was a huge splurge on my part), to the effect of some $80 after taxes. I've lost about a buck because of this.

As far as I know, I could have pirated the software and changed the key daily after it was blacklisted or banned or whatever. Should I have? It appears that Kaspersky doesn't give two ****s about me as a paying customer. I deserve priority over their other operations (sure, try prevent piracy, but fix my damn key first!). Does this give me any valid motive to disrespect the company and refuse to pay for their product? I'd say this gives me a valid motive to not recommend the product to others and pursue a different A/V client after this one runs out (assuming it is fixed).


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

bitshiftr said:


> Well, it really is only self-interest. I mean, we are consumers by our upbringing and social norms and we are born to want what we can't have. There is a means to obtain what we can't have so it is employed. Plain and simple.


Yup. Definitely law of the jungle.



> I don't advocate that piracy is a good thing, however, there are some business models that I disagree with and feel that the company is either unworthy of the price tag of their product or have done me some sort of harm. Here's an interesting tidbit


--SNIP--

I don't understand you relating your dissatisfaction with Kapersky and theft (here I am, posting again  )?

The following is a general reply not meant specifically to bitshiftr:

Dissatisfaction with a product STILL does not justify stealing it. Aside from the old adage, "thou shalt not steal", there's the old adage, "vote with your wallet" -- which means don't buy the product and does NOT mean steal it instead.

I utterly fail to see the logic in comparing a big, piggy manufacturer whose product just happens to be downloadable, and those products of a big, piggy manufacturer whose product is NOT downloadable, and that two sets of moral laws apply. It's insane. It's anarchy. And it can come back and bite the whole society on the ass.

If your Big Mac was haphazardly stacked (I've got some like that before... come on! You're McDonalds! Burgers are ALL you do!) and it was a spilling mess sitting in that box, you should complain. If they don't offer a replacement (and they probably would), or a coupon or a refund, if the manager said "tough luck" or "Sorry, but that Big Mac was stacked to corporate specifications, sir", if you were to apply the same logic to that scenario as downloading you would jump over the till, walk up to the warming trays and take SIX Big Macs.

What do you think would happen? We'd see you on the eleven o'clock news, that's what would happen. And do you, dear reader, think it be right of you to do that in the first place?

Chances are, you'd get pissed and yell, "I'm taking my business elsewhere! I'm never going to spend a red cent in a McDonalds, again, and I'm going to tell all my friends about it!" And that's probably worse to the manager than stealing those six Big Macs! A general rule of business states, "A satisfied customer tells three people within the first month after the sale, while a dissatisfied customer tells seven people about you during the first week."

Vote with your wallet and make your dissatisfaction known. In a free-market society, you have the choice to spend your money elsewhere.

But I digress.

If you think it's OK to steal or act improperly with impunity -- no matter how you rationalize it -- then, to be fair, you should think it's OK for anybody to steal or act improperly. Some poorer nation people can steal software or some poor student can. Well, what about food? Is it ok for a hungry student to come into one's house and raid the icebox?

Some day, such attitudes will break down your front door. You'll be under siege by animals acting with impunity as they take your $h17 and steal your women.

Ok. Maybe now I'm done with this thread?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

jfpoole said:


> I don't see anyone advocating that running a sweatshop is okay because the cheap labour is right there. I don't hear anyone saying that it's the fault of folks working in a sweatshop for not picking up and moving somewhere else.
> 
> What I do hear, though, is folks saying that if software developers don't kowtow to every whim and fancy of their customers then they deserve to have their work stolen.
> 
> So yes, there are many kinds of injustice in the world that arguably deserve more attention than whether developers are property recognized for their work. *It's just that a lot of folks here seem to think this particular kind of injustice is a-okay.*


Yeah, and what about it? :lmao:



Sorry if I'm not playing fair but when the elitist whiners take every chance they can get to slam piracy from their positions of privilege I can't help but to remind them that the ONLY reason they can is because an obscene number of others can't.

Now, here's how the discussion should go, if people were being honest:

MACenstein'sMonster ehMac Players Presents 

*Getting Real About The Anit-Piracy Movement*


_Anti-pirate: "Piracy is wrong, unjust, and against God. These people who spend countless hours working to make money for their own personal gain should get as much out of their effort as they can. After-all that's what being one of the biggest pigs at the trough is all about. Anyone who tries to butt in and take the excessive food from our mouths should be dealt with harshly."

Pirate: "Wait a minute, didn't you pirate software and at times use unscrupulous tactics to get where you are?"

Anti-pirate: "Yes. But now I see that there's a lot of competition amongst the big pigs and so I gotta keep as many of you little pigs down as possible. Otherwise it'll cut into my profits."

Pirate: "You're my hero." :clap:

Anti-pirate: "I know. Let's keep it that way - SNORT! SNORT!"_

FIN


----------



## bitshiftr (Nov 27, 2008)

I'm surprised you of all people didn't get it. I tried to make it black and white as possible. I asked the question, given that I paid money for the product and was given sub-par customer service and a non-functioning product, does the company "owe me" anything? If they don't care about me as a paying customer, should I care about them as a company and software distributor? Piracy would essentially be taking back what they owe me, even though the copy would not have given me the years worth of full service I paid for. I mean, I brought the issue to Kaspersky's attention and they're doing nothing to address it. What value does this place on the paying customer?

I did not pirate it because I wanted the most reliable and fully functioning product on the market. Now, Kaspersky is giving me the same if not _less_ function of a pirated copy. What does this entitle me to?

I paid for a years worth of services and, therefore, demand that I get my years worth. It's like ordering a Big Mac and they only give you one patty. It's not the product that you paid for.

Answer this question: What does Kaspersky owe me now that they have taken my money and given me nothing for it? What would Adobe owe me if they did much of the same? What would McDonald's owe me if they gave me the single-patty Big Mac?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> Some day, such attitudes will break down your front door. You'll be under siege by animals acting with impunity as they take your $h17 and steal your women.


Oh my 

You mean to say that you're afraid of the very type of attitude that has made this planet what it is - people taking by force from others? :lmao:


Isn't it great that we are the ones who are experiencing such a great place in time with best of everything and "laws" to help protect us from having to share it with others? Yes, hopefully we can successfully keep at bay the hordes of invaders who want what we have. Hate to see history repeat itself until I'm done living large :greedy:

Now, let's get back to the discussion at hand - how to keep profits up and sharing down.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Yeah, and what about it? :lmao:
> 
> *Getting Real About The Anit-Piracy Movement*
> 
> ...


_

_Yeah. You nailed it. It's called WORKING and providing for yourself and those you care for.



> After-all that's what being one of the biggest pigs at the trough is all about. Anyone who tries to butt in and take the excessive food from our mouths should be dealt with _harshly_."


Faulty logic. A pig trough is a scenario where something is _given_, such as the farmer _giving_ slop for the pigs to eat. That's not the way it works in our world. In our world, you gain skills, refine your talent, compete for the work, win the work, render your service and get paid in kind. If that fails you try try again. If it doesn't work at all for you then you consider another career.



> Pirate: "Wait a minute, didn't you pirate software and at times use unscrupulous tactics to get where you are?"
> 
> Anti-pirate: "Yes.


Erroneous assumption, making an unfair and *fatal* generalization. If it's ok to flail the tarbrush around like that then it's ok to for anybody to flail the tarbrush around regarding ANYTHING.



> Pirate: "You're my hero." :clap:
> 
> Anti-pirate: "I know. Let's keep it that way - SNORT! SNORT!"[/I]


If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

bitshiftr said:


> Answer this question: What does Kaspersky owe me now that they have taken my money and given me nothing for it? What would Adobe owe me if they did much of the same? What would McDonald's owe me if they gave me the single-patty Big Mac?


I already answered the question, and there are additional ways to effect a remedy.

Here's an interesting page I just found:

KEEPING THE CUSTOMER SATISFIED


----------



## bitshiftr (Nov 27, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> I already answered the question, and there are additional ways to effect a remedy.


They still have my money. I still have a non-functioning product. I have voiced my concerns twice. I still have heard nothing back from the company. What does this disrespect entitle me to? You just say "let it be known that you're pissed off and vote with your wallet". Sure, if my wallet was bottomless I'd jump ship and use another product. But, in this land of scarcity, I can't.

I guess I'll go burn down their headquarters then.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> Yeah. You nailed it. It's called WORKING and providing for yourself and those you care for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right. Nobody gave you anything. You worked for everything you got. I'll bet you come from the ghettos. While being fair and just to everyone you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and made something of yourself. The American Dream 

BTW, what heat?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Right. Nobody gave you anything. You worked for everything you got. I'll bet you come from the ghettos. While being fair and just to everyone you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and made something of yourself. The American Dream


Your sarcasm is ridiculous.



> BTW, what heat?


Free market economy, a competitive work world -- but note that in a previous post I inferred that I believe everyone should have a chance to MAKE IT. I would be happy if we had cheap post-secondary education and better support for students and pray we can sustain universal health care. So, does the corporate piggy tarbrush apply to me? No.

That's it. I'm done. The noose to hang yourself is all yours.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> Your sarcasm is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Free market economy. Competitive work world.


Obviously you know nothing about the free market economy then. If you did then you'd be real quiet about "right and wrong" with regards to earning a living and use doublespeak while stating "doing whatever it takes to make a buck". That's the reality of the free market economy.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macaholic said:


> Free market economy, a competitive work world -- but note that in a previous post I inferred that I believe everyone should have a chance to MAKE IT. I would be happy if we had cheap post-secondary education and better support for students and pray we can sustain universal health care. So, does the corporate piggy tarbrush apply to me? No.
> 
> That's it. I'm done. The noose to hang yourself is all yours.


Oops - didn't see your edited version.

Ah yes, I believe in fairy tales too. And since I'm so much better off than the majority of people on this planet it's real easy talking about how nice it'd be if we could all just get along (without lowering my standard of living and causing me any great discomfort, of course ).

Yep, talk is cheap.

As for the rope? You're currently using it and I'm not interested. That's one thing you have that you don't have to worry about sharing. :lmao:


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> As for the rope? You're currently using it and I'm not interested. That's one thing you have that you don't have to worry about sharing. :lmao:


Now _THAT's_ a good one! Honestly, tip-of-the-hat for a well placed barb. Your sentence, however, does illustrate how perverted your sensibilities are.


----------

