Christopher Bush wrote:
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.

Like most analogy, my analogy is flawed.  But the point is that the owners of a copyright have the exclusive right to determine how their product is copied, and when someone copies their product without their permission (and without compensation), the impact can be enormous.  In the case of illegal music sharing, many of the owners of the copyright feel that they are not getting paid and that the "free" copies of their music are unfairly competing with their own product.

Christopher Bush wrote:
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).

Still, it is the decision of the copyright owner, not the consumer.  If they want to, the copyright owners can release free copies onto the Internet, but most choose not to.

It is an interesting problem/challenge for music people -- how to get the word out about their product (and how to do so without being accused of payola).  Radio stations have disappeared & have become homogenious, Internet radio hasn't arrived, P2P is under attack -- it is a big, big problem for the music industry.

Christopher Bush wrote:
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

Well, I just wanted to say that I'm very glad that I didn't upset you -- I certainly didn't mean to.  And I understand how difficult legal disputes can be, even if you are innocent.  While I don't know of a better judical system in the world, it is very unfortunate that people are subject to unpleasant times (at best) & financial ruin (and worst), just by being accused.  When I rule the world, making that better would be near the top of my list.

Star wrote:
Why is it wrong to steal software, but no one here has a problem with how many people log in to MM from work and than spend time chatting, browsing, etc...

That is theft as much as anything else. Your employer is paying you to work, not to play online. I think that is much more hypocritical than my Mom and I sharing a copy of photoshop,

Star

We're photographers and models, we work for ourselves.

David Young USA wrote:
Actually, what's burning you up is the people who weren't caught

I see that as one of the greatest sources of jealousy and resentment in the world, the perception that somebody else is cheating and winning. I don't buy into it. What gets me is how good people trick themselves into selling their integrity so cheap. Makes me sad; I'll get over it.

MM Jen wrote:
It's disgusting that programs should cost so much. $999? Come on.

Last I checked you can't pay rent or buy food with morals or ethics. When we try to cut corners, it's stealing. When fatcats cut corners, it's business. Still smells like bullshit to me.

More cheating and winning BS, as justification for turning a fairly black and white issue grey. Photoshop costs $649, not $999, Photoshop LE or whatever they call it now costs >$100, and will do 99% of what anyone not prepared to pay for CS2 needs it to do. Photoshop CS is a professional program, designed for people who will make their investment back using it as quickly as a carpenter pays for his hammer (and overpriced truck); if that doesn't describe you, there are plenty of alternatives from Adobe and others.

Look, please believe you don't despise large corporations more than I do, but your analogy is weak. "Fat cats" cut corners to raise profits, because corporations are inherently amoral. Not immoral, as in "out to screw you", amoral, as in: if they make a decision for any reason other than the bottom line, the shareholders will lynch them.

You and I, however, are individuals. We cannot expect to make amoral decisions with impunity, though we can and do try. We have to pass mirrors, try to sleep at night, look people in the eye...

Christopher Bush wrote:
as far as software goes, stop price-gouging, reduce piracy.  period.

I just checked: Photoshop Elements is $79 at Amazon. That's a great deal for what you get, even compared to the GIMP.

full disclosure: I've already confessed to being a hypocrite in a previous thread... extrapolate whatever you like from that, but I don't lose sleep over what you think of me...