Shyly wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think protecting the concept and application of copyright is very important, and I'm just as "high and mighty" face to face, and have had several heated discussions about it.  Stealing isn't cool.  Period. 

"Character is manifested in the way you behave when you are alone in someone else's house." - my Mama

Think about it.

I don't need anyone to explain to me the purpose of copywriting, downloading legally, and why it's wrong to not ALWAYS comply with those rules and regulations.

I understand perfectly ALL of what has been said, and while I see why it makes sense I simply don't always agree with the circumstances. To say "if you can't afford it, learn to live without it" isn't relevant. I don't think anyone who has an internet connection has the problem of not being able to afford music.

I'm being honest about how I feel about this situation and there are MILLIONS who agree with me. Like it or not, good or bad, that's the way it is. We're tired of the whining rich a**holes complaining about piracy. Why should $25 for a re-released of a CD I already have just because it has 4 new songs on it? Why should I pay $25 for a dual-disc of a CD I already have to see 30 minutes of so-called "behind the scenes footage".

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that I'd completely stopped buying music. I buy it 90% of the time. But, like I said before people are fed up with the music industry, and we're cutting through the BS. Like it or not, hate it or love it, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

As for the person I quoted, I'm sorry that I can't bring myself to be as upstanding and ethical as you are on this subject. Stealing ISN'T cool, but I just can't bring myself to be all that remorseful about this.

And trust me my "Mama" taught me the same as yours did, and whether you believe it or not, it stuck for the most part. If downloading a few songs without paying is the worst thing I've got going for me then I think I'm doing just fine.

David Linke wrote:
I feel your pain, I have three computers with photoshop loaded on then, that means three purchases.  Costly, yes, but ethical.

Actually, IIRC Photoshop license allows you to install it on TWO systems owned by yourself, typically your workstation and a laptop. I don't see why it cold not be two workstations, unless that is specifically frowned on in the licence.

So you might only need TWO licences. Don't take my word for it though, read the entire click wrap.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Like it or not, this is a capsule version of what most consumers feel about digital copyright issues.  Until manufacturers are willing to address this perception in a constructive manner [no, threats and fines and rockstars whining isn't constructive], people will continue to have an "us v. them" construct.

Except it's not "manufacturers" that the law was designed to protect; it's creators.

That it's a widespread belief that ripping off a huge music corporation is OK doesn't mean the smaller authors, writers, singers, photographers, and so-on can survive

Authors who earn their livelihood writing books and articles;
Photographers who earn their living creating photographs
Musicians who earn their income from royalties
Software developers who earn their income from sales (VueScan, for example, is written by one person. BreezeBrowser is also [or used to be, at least])

Sure, The Big Companies can get more than their "fair" share--distribution, business practices, whatever--but if there's no protection for creators, the ability to create is reduced to what can be done in ones "spare time" while earning a living doing something else.

Personally, I try to avoid doing business with people who deliberately violate this law, whether it's photographers "stealing" music and putting it on slideshows they sell; models who steal photos; photographers who steal software; software developers who steal music; musicians who steal photos for their advertising; or any other kind of violation. I won't turn them in, but I have refused to work with them.

But that's merely me. (Yes, all the software, music, and videos I own was obtained legitimately.)

Devana wrote:
I'm being honest about how I feel about this situation and there are MILLIONS who agree with me. Like it or not, good or bad, that's the way it is. We're tired of the whining rich a**holes complaining about piracy. Why should $25 for a re-released of a CD I already have just because it has 4 new songs on it? Why should I pay $25 for a dual-disc of a CD I already have to see 30 minutes of so-called "behind the scenes footage".

I think that people thinking this way are for the most part responsible for the state of music today.  The cycle goes like this:

   >>>  People don't like the variety or quality of today's music.
   >>>  People feel justifed in obtaining music illegally.
   >>>  Illegal music means that the creators of the music aren't compensated.
   >>>  Fewer albums break even or make a profit.
   >>>  The advant garde / high quality music is less likely to make a profit.
   >>>  Smaller record labels, the ones who care the most about the music,
          go out of business.
   >>>  Leaving the Big 3 record labels, who have to make a profit.
   >>>  Meaning that only "safe" & "cheap" albums are released.
   >>>  Meaning that the quality of music declines.
   >>>  Meaning that more people aren't willing to pay for music.
   >>>  Leading to more music piracy.

   And the cycle starts anew.

Sorry, but my stance is that if you don't like the music, don't buy it.  If the $25 package you referenced in your post isn't worth it to you, don't buy it.  If there are only one or two songs on an album that you like, you can buy those songs individually on legal download sites.

But if you want to complain about the terrible state of music today, you need only look into a mirror to find the cause.

Just don't be surprised when the music industry reacts & defends their copyrights, with lawsuits, with encrypted music, with more legislation, and with other tactics that you might find offensive (especially since these tactics will make your 10% illegal music more difficult to obtain & more painful to keep.

David (6of7) wrote:
It's OK to have MP3's on your computer or iPod.
I make MP3's from the CD's I buy for my own use (I don't share them)

Yes, that's fair use & is covered in the law.  That is perfectly legal as long as you don't share either the MP3 files or you don't give away the CD.

David Linke wrote:
I feel your pain, I have three computers with photoshop loaded on then, that means three purchases.  Costly, yes, but ethical.

I applaud you.

When I first got into filmmaking, I bought Final Cut Pro (the software in question, though Photoshop theft is also common) - which used to cost 10x what it does now. I had to take a loan to get it. It was a painful purchase.

But it did lead to Apple inviting me to screen my work and help demo the product.

Joe Kozlowski wrote:
Well, we now know why I'm still using PS 6.0 ... it does everything I need it to do ... not always the easiest way but it gets the job done.

Yes, I am still using 6.0 also.
It does cost less to upgrade than to buy a full version, and I'm sure sooner or later I will get around to upgrading.

Ian Weintraub wrote:
So, companies that create commercials depicting people making party mixes and burning them to cd's are in effect encouraging criminal behavior.  Shouldn't they be liable somehow?
How about if you burn the cd to your computer and listen to it there while your wife is listening to the original cd in the car?  How come no one worried too much about this in the 70's when you could make a cassette of an LP to listen to in your car... or when you made a "mix" tape for your girlfriend/boyfriend for valentine's day?
How come it was the RIAA who lobbied for music copyright protections and not BMI or ASCAP??  RIAA represents the recording industry, not artists.

Further question:
If we aren't supposed to copy a CD. . .why does practically every computer sold now have a CD burner???  "Here's this great feature that will land you a minimum $10,000 fine and a little jail time if you use it."  That's a great marketing tool.

Intensity wrote:
I know I might get alot of people  going to yelled at me for this. But you are just jealous that you had to pay and they didn't. admit it! lol

No.
This is unequivocally not the case with me.
I could have gotten an illegal copy. I did not.

What does get me is that in the midwest, it's hard enough to make a living doing this. Then when professional ad agencies are stealing when you're playing by the rules makes the hardship even worse. Even on this board we have seen that some of the pro photographers who have stolen the program live in NYC and industry centers where work is not nearly as hard to come by.

jac3950 wrote:
There is something ironic in this discussion of copyright as it applies to software et al, that no one has mention photography. I mean, if 1 photographer on MM took a really great photo, could 5 of us copy it and put it up on our portfolios and clain that it belonged to us? hmmmm...

Exactly my original point. Well put.

Ian Weintraub wrote:
So, companies that create commercials depicting people making party mixes and burning them to cd's are in effect encouraging criminal behavior.  Shouldn't they be liable somehow?
How about if you burn the cd to your computer and listen to it there while your wife is listening to the original cd in the car?  How come no one worried too much about this in the 70's when you could make a cassette of an LP to listen to in your car... or when you made a "mix" tape for your girlfriend/boyfriend for valentine's day?

That's fair use & legal.  You are enjoying the music you purchased, not giving it to strangers who just don't want to purchase their music legally.

Ian Weintraub wrote:
How come it was the RIAA who lobbied for music copyright protections and not BMI or ASCAP??  RIAA represents the recording industry, not artists.

Well, both BMI & ASCAP are PROs -- Performance Rights Organizations, and their charter is tracking & facilitating performance royalties.  For example, when a song is played on the radio, ASCAP & BMI are the ones who make sure that the music owners are compensated with performance royalties.

Music piracy is a crime against Mechanical Royalties, which are those royalties collected when audio that is reproduced via mechanical means (LP, CDs, MP3) are sold.  BMI & ASCAP are not concerned about mechanical royalties -- record labels are.  The record labels have banded together to form the RIAA to address this, and I know that the RIAA has the support of not only the record labels but also performers, song writers, and publishers.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Further question:
If we aren't supposed to copy a CD. . .why does practically every computer sold now have a CD burner???  "Here's this great feature that will land you a minimum $10,000 fine and a little jail time if you use it."  That's a great marketing tool.

Copying CDs is not a crime.  You can even copy your music CDs, for your own use.  What is illegal is making copies of that music (or software or images) available to others without permission from the copyright owners.

Jayne Jones wrote:
If we aren't supposed to copy a CD. . .why does practically every computer sold now have a CD burner???

So you can save your own documents, perhaps? Your bank information, your photographs, your articles, your videos, illustrations, spreadsheet information, resumes, your website backups,  your general system backups.....

AO Photo and Design wrote:
I've always wondered why they can make movies for hundreds of millions of dollars and sell the DVD for $10-$20, but music albums cost a tiny fraction of that to make and the are sold for the same price.  Hmm...

Because...
   ...  A typical album can cost $350,000 or more to produce,
   ...  90% of the albums produced fail to break even,
   ...  Albums are not played in movie theaters for $5-$10 a seat,
   ...  Albums are not licensed to play on cable TV after its initial theater run,
   ...  Albums are not licensed to play on broadcast TV after its cable TV run,
   ...  It is much more difficult for a music album to find its audience,
   ...  music albums are easier to pirate,
   ...  etc.

No, I don't wonder at all about this.  By the time a movie is released to DVD, it has already made a significant amount of profit.  If it hasn't yet made a profit, it is unlikely that it'll ever get released to DVD.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Because...
   ...  A typical album can cost $350,000 or more to produce,
   ...  90% of the albums produced fail to break even,
   ...  Albums are not played in movie theaters for $5-$10 a seat,
   ...  Albums are not licensed to play on cable TV after its initial theater run,
   ...  Albums are not licensed to play on broadcast TV after its cable TV run,
   ...  It is much more difficult for a music album to find its audience,
   ...  music albums are easier to pirate,
   ...  etc.

No, I don't wonder at all about this.  By the time a movie is released to DVD, it has already made a significant amount of profit.  If it hasn't yet made a profit, it is unlikely that it'll ever get released to DVD.

Fair enought arguement.

About the movies making money in the theaters and on TV, think of how much you pay to go to a concert multiply that by however many people are there and then again by how many shows are played on a tour.  Now I know some of that goes to the venue, etc.  Thats still a lot of money.

Also, don't most shitty movies go straight to DVD?

(very nice work by the way!)

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Because...
   ...  A typical album can cost $350,000 or more to produce,
   ...  90% of the albums produced fail to break even,
   ...  Albums are not played in movie theaters for $5-$10 a seat,
   ...  Albums are not licensed to play on cable TV after its initial theater run,
   ...  Albums are not licensed to play on broadcast TV after its cable TV run,
   ...  It is much more difficult for a music album to find its audience,
   ...  music albums are easier to pirate,
   ...  etc.

No, I don't wonder at all about this.  By the time a movie is released to DVD, it has already made a significant amount of profit.  If it hasn't yet made a profit, it is unlikely that it'll ever get released to DVD.

AO Photo and Design wrote:
Fair enought arguement.

About the movies making money in the theaters and on TV, think of how much you pay to go to a concert multiply that by however many people are there and then again by how many shows are played on a tour.  Now I know some of that goes to the venue, etc.  Thats still a lot of money.

I wonder how many performances a touring group does.  I wonder how many times a movie is shown, multiplied by the number of theaters in which it is shown.  I think a movie is shown a few orders of magnatude more often, or more importantly, despite the different in seat price, my money's on movies bringing in much much more revenue & profit.

Further, I wonder how much it costs to put on a single live concert.  Then I wonder how much it costs to show a movie once.  Again, the relative costs are several orders of magnatude different.

I think we are comparing apples & oranges.

AO Photo and Design wrote:
Also, don't most shitty movies go straight to DVD?

(very nice work by the way!)

Well, yes.  Do those crappy movies that do go straight to DVD make a profit?  And thanks for taking the time to view my portfolio.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I think we are comparing apples & oranges.

I believe so. 

Have a good one.

Christopher Bush wrote:
i have a front row seat to a lawsuit brought by the riaa against an attorney friend of mine.  she is innocent, as the real perp was pinching her wireless network to download a bunch of crappy preteen garbage. 

the tactics used by the riaa in their suits are absolutely reprehensible.  they make false technical claims about networks, etc., hoping that neither the defendants nor judge are tech-savvy enough to refute it.  they try to wear down the defendants by a protracted and expensive discovery process, and try to take possesion of your computer for analysis by their "in-house" forensics geeks.  real impartial, i'm sure. 

i will never, ever, ever purchase a new cd or record released by any label affiliated with the riaa.  i pretty much only buy used vinyl anyway, so it's no biggie for me.  but out of principle, they will not see a single dime from me. 

does anyone have any factual data about how they collect user information to begin with, and why it is not considered hacking or invasion of privacy?

Well, lawyers.  Ever wonder why there wasn't much of an outrage over Cheney's hunting accident?  It's because he shot a lawyer.  I'm not going to comment on any courtroom tactics -- I find all such tactics to be reprehensible, on all sides.

Buying used records (vinyl or CDs) is perfectly legal.  Go for it.  Boycott new albums -- that's legal & perfectly fine, too.

Sounds like this is one of those P2P illegal file sharing lawsuits.  P2P networks are open to anyone, and the RIAA surfs them just like anyone else.  They notice patterns.  They can note the IP address of the more active participants.  They can then obtain a subpoena to require ISPs to identify their users.  The trick about P2P is that you specify a portion of your hard drive to be open to your peers, thus looking that those areas can't be considered an invasion of privacy.  Further, since the RIAA obtain subpoenas to identify the alleged violators, I don't see how the RIAA investigations can be considered an invasion of privacy.

They bring civil suits.  Most people settle, for about $3000.  Some fight, but to date, excuses like "It wasn't me" don't fly because the RIAA is armed with proof that the user's computer obtained the copyrighted materials illegally.  I suppose a defendent can claim that someone used their wireless network, but since this is a civil suit, the burden of proof for that would be on the defendent -- all the RIAA has to show is that the defendent's computer received the illegal copies. 


Another note:  we are drifting a bit, into an area more suited for the Off Topic forum.  The original premise was something like:  how can we, as photographers who create intellectual property, be in violation of copyrights with regards to the software we use to edit digital images?

MMDesign wrote:
/rant

I feel your pain, I have three computers with photoshop loaded on then, that means three purchases.  Costly, yes, but ethical.

Actually, you're allowed to put the program(s) on two computers as long as you own and operate both of them.

I was guilty for quite awhile, ten I got paranoid and had to buy all of my software...

If you look at the new Adobe liscense, you can put a copy of Adobe Production Studio on two computers, BUT not two computers which run the software at the same time. So in an office you must have a seperate copy for each system it runs on.


EXSPENSIVE!  I Have four new systems coming in!

Looknsee Photography wrote:
-- all the RIAA has to show is that the defendent's computer received the illegal copies.

but with unsecured wireless networks, they cannot do this with certainty.  add to that the fact that my friend only owns a mac, and the files in question were downloaded via kazaa (incompatible), they should have dropped the case.  they are out to make examples of people regardless of whether or not they have a legitimate case.  they are bullies and must be stopped.  the only way that will happen is if they sue some billionaire activist who can out-spend them in court.

as far as software goes, stop price-gouging, reduce piracy.  period.

ReallyRandy wrote:
Actually, there is an organisation called the Business Software Alliance (BSA) that tracks and tries to enforce pirating laws. Pirating mp3s and functional software are 2 different things.

The music business brought it upon themselves by being dishonest and greedy. As a 20 year veteran of the music industry I can tell you that you're not getting the full story. So don't feel sorry for them for 1 second.

Most people believe that if you make money from a software product, you should buy it.
At least they believe that in theory, maybe not in practice. As far as registration, activation, etc. and all the stuff to keep you from stealing well, that just keeps the good guys out. Lots of folks can crack anything in no time flat.

The price of software is NOT driven by piracy. 90% of the people who pirate would NOT buy the software if it was un-crackable. Therefore piracy doesn't really affect the bottom line even though both the music and software industry would like their bosses to believe that. What does drive the price is what people will pay, just like real estate. If no one buys, prices will drop.

i love you.

Christopher Bush wrote:
but with unsecured wireless networks, they cannot do this with certainty.  add to that the fact that my friend only owns a mac, and the files in question were downloaded via kazaa (incompatible), they should have dropped the case.  they are out to make examples of people regardless of whether or not they have a legitimate case.  they are bullies and must be stopped.  the only way that will happen is if they sue some billionaire activist who can out-spend them in court.

as far as software goes, stop price-gouging, reduce piracy.  period.

Sorry, I don't know that particulars of your case, and we are only hearing one side of the story.  All I'm saying is that the RIAA uses IP addresses to find violators, and that in a civil suit, the burden of proof is less stringent than in a criminal case.  Is there proof that your friend didn't have a PC at the time of the illegal downloads, or are we simply to take their word for it?  What culpability should be assigned your friend for facilitating the copyright violations by having an unsecured network?  I don't think it's as simple as you describe it, hence the court case, where each side gets to present their side of the story.

"stop price-gouging, reduce piracy.  period." 

Ian Weintraub wrote:
OMG... professional photographers are a bunch of whiney babies.

You have been on mm how long and you just figured this out NOW?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Sorry, I don't know that particulars of your case, and we are only hearing one side of the story.  All I'm saying is that the RIAA uses IP addresses to find violators, and that in a civil suit, the burden of proof is less stringent than in a criminal case.  Is there proof that your friend didn't have a PC at the time of the illegal downloads, or are we simply to take their word for it?  What culpability should be assigned your friend for facilitating the copyright violations by having an unsecured network?  I don't think it's as simple as you describe it, hence the court case, where each side gets to present their side of the story.

"stop price-gouging, reduce piracy.  period." 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
What culpability should be assigned your friend for facilitating the copyright violations by having an unsecured network?

zero.  she is an attorney, not an i.t. tech.

Christopher Bush wrote:
the bottom line is that they are trying to financially intimidate the defendants into settling.  if they do not have any merit to their suit, they make up erroneous facts about ip addresses and what not, and try to slip them by.  they do not fight clean.

an ip address is not proof of jack shit in the wireless age.

the software comment meant that if companies like adobe want to reduce piracy, they should stop slapping $700 price tags on software for the masses.

Again, we are not hearing both sides of the story, reported in an unbiased manner.  I don't know whether there is merit to their suit, nor am I prepared to take your word for it.  I presume that if there was no merit, the suit would have been dismissed.  I don't know whether the RIAA have made up erroneous facts about IP addresses, and I presume neither do you.  I don't know whether an IP address is or is not proof of copyright violation; I don't even know whether an IP address is central to the RIAA's argument.  And I certainly don't know whether the RIAA is trying to financially intimidate the defendant into settling, and neither do you.  In fact, I doubt the RIAA cares whether the defendent settles or not -- a settlement is not necessarily to outcome the RIAA most desires.  Why do you want to debate this here?

Regardless, a software company can set the price for their product wherever they want, and the public are free to buy it or to do without.  There is no price that they can set that would justify copyright violation.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
What culpability should be assigned your friend for facilitating the copyright violations by having an unsecured network?

Christopher Bush wrote:
zero.  she is an attorney, not an i.t. tech.

What does her occupation have to do with whether she violated copyrights, facilitated the violation of copyrights, or is innocent of copyright violation?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
What culpability should be assigned your friend for facilitating the copyright violations by having an unsecured network?

What does her occupation have to do with whether she violated copyrights, facilitated the violation of copyrights, or is innocent of copyright violation?

because that is obscure knowledge that the average citizen should not be held responsible for.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Again, we are not hearing both sides of the story, reported in an unbiased manner.  I don't know whether there is merit to their suit, nor am I prepared to take your word for it.  I presume that if there was no merit, the suit would have been dismissed.  I don't know whether the RIAA have made up erroneous facts about IP addresses, and I presume neither do you.  I don't know whether an IP address is or is not proof of copyright violation; I don't even know whether an IP address is central to the RIAA's argument.  And I certainly don't know whether the RIAA is trying to financially intimidate the defendant into settling, and neither do you.  In fact, I doubt the RIAA cares whether the defendent settles or not -- a settlement is not necessarily to outcome the RIAA most desires.  Why do you want to debate this here?

Regardless, a software company can set the price for their product wherever they want, and the public are free to buy it or to do without.  There is no price that they can set that would justify copyright violation.

well, i'm not the one debating - just laying out the events of the last few months.  i have heard the facts of this case, not all of which i've laid out here, as that would be time consuming.  you can choose not to believe the tactics they use, but i've been in on strategic discussions with this attorney and forensic/network experts (i forgot to mention that my day job in is the field of electronic discovery), and the 'evidence' presented by the riaa attorneys were underhanded attempts to 'slip-in' erroneous conceptions about the nature of ip addresses.  they were called out in court by an expert.  that's an unbiased fact.

Christopher Bush wrote:
because that is obscure knowledge that the average citizen should not be held responsible for.   ...

well, i'm not the one debating - just laying out the events of the last few months.  i have heard the facts of this case, not all of which i've laid out here, as that would be time consuming.  you can choose not to believe the tactics they use, but i've been in on strategic discussions with this attorney and forensic/network experts (i forgot to mention that my day job in is the field of electronic discovery), and the 'evidence' presented by the riaa attorneys were underhanded attempts to 'slip-in' erroneous conceptions about the nature of ip addresses.  they were called out in court by an expert.  that's an unbiased fact.

Look, it sounds like you're becoming upset, & I apologize for anything I have done (or am doing) to contribute to that.  But, being a stubborn son-of-a-gun, I will point out the following:

>>>  We still don't have both sides of the case, we haven't had the evidence presented to us, we haven't heard the arguments, we haven't seen the rulings, and we aren't in a position to judge.

>>>  If you want to continue to report on this particular case, it would be of more interest to me (us?) if you reported the rulings of the court and not the tactics of one & only one side.  All I know is that of the thousands of cases brought by the RIAA, all have been either settled, won by the RIAA, or are pending; to date, no one has one any of these copyright violation suits that the RIAA has brought.

>>>  Lawyers!  By their nature, lawyers are not fair, sweet, unbiased, and/or easy to get along with.  I agree that being involved in a legal dispute can be quite upsetting, but lawyer tactics is quite off topic, for this thread & this forum.

>>>  Suppose you support yourself with your photography.  Suppose you are hired to produce a fashion layout, and you hire a model, buy cameras, rent studio space, hire MUA, get a computer & software, edit the images, work in the darkroom, and produce exceptional images.  Suppose further that at the last minute, your client decides not to pay you because they can obtain your images for free from someone who stole them from you.  What do you do? 

The point of this thread is this:  as a person who creates copyrighted materials, why aren't you inclined to be sympathetic to other copyright owners whose copyrights are being violated?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Look, it sounds like you're becoming upset, & I apologize for anything I have done (or am doing) to contribute to that.  But, being a stubborn son-of-a-gun, I will point out the following:

>>>  We still don't have both sides of the case, we haven't had the evidence presented to us, we haven't heard the arguments, we haven't seen the rulings, and we aren't in a position to judge.

>>>  If you want to continue to report on this particular case, it would be of more interest to me (us?) if you reported the rulings of the court and not the tactics of one & only one side.  All I know is that of the thousands of cases brought by the RIAA, all have been either settled, won by the RIAA, or are pending; to date, no one has one any of these copyright violation suits that the RIAA has brought.

>>>  Lawyers!  By their nature, lawyers are not fair, sweet, unbiased, and/or easy to get along with.  I agree that being involved in a legal dispute can be quite upsetting, but lawyer tactics is quite off topic, for this thread & this forum.

>>>  Suppose you support yourself with your photography.  Suppose you are hired to produce a fashion layout, and you hire a model, buy cameras, rent studio space, hire MUA, get a computer & software, edit the images, work in the darkroom, and produce exceptional images.  Suppose further that at the last minute, your client decides not to pay you because they can obtain your images for free from someone who stole them from you.  What do you do? 

The point of this thread is this:  as a person who creates copyrighted materials, why aren't you inclined to be sympathetic to other copyright owners whose copyrights are being violated?

consumer movies, music, and software are very different from fashion photography.  if i publish a photo, i get paid.  if joe consumer scans it and distributes it to his friends, i don't care, i still get paid, and i get free publicity.  if joe corporation steals my image and uses it for profit, that's another story. 

i'm not saying that piracy is justified, but there are many factors to consider.  musicians benefit from piracy to some extent.  i've discovered ALOT of music i would not have heard otherwise through file-sharing.  those artists got my money when i went to buy their records and saw them live (i go to a quite a few shows). 

i'm not upset with you at all, but i am a bit upset about my friend's situation.  it's probably not worth going on about it anymore here.  there are other ways for me to vent today

Moraxian wrote:
They're not laws, they're contracts you agree to when you break the seal on the package and then when you install the software.  When you install something new, you get a screen that lays out the licensing for the product and you need to click "I Agree" before going any further with the installation.  Most people don't read that, but the entire licensing for the software is spelled out there.

Other than that, it is up to the software licensor to enforce the rules.  They can enforce it any number of ways (encryption, passwords) or, in most cases, the licensors use the honor system.  It is also spelled out in the license for most products that they can contact you at any time to produce the license for the product (which comes in the box).

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Not exactly true -- it is a law.  See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … 1_17.html.  Violaters are most commonly subject to fines, and depending on the copyright violation, those fines can be hefty, up to $250,000 per violation.  Someone with an illegal copy of PS would probably a) not be caught & b) if caught, be subject to a modest fine.  People if caught are also subject to civil suits.

But then again, if they knowingly have an illegal copy, they are collecting bad karma.

Indeed there are laws, but enforcement is pretty much up to the software vendor (I work for one in my 9-5 job, so I know it's up to the vendors).  The civil suits are the main way people get found on this because unless there is a major pirating ring out there, the police have more important things to deal with (murder, etc.)

That said, for obvious reasons, I am very much against pirating software/hacking/etc. because it does have a direct impact on me and my livelihood.