I'm quite amazed and surprised at your view of intellectual property. Especially if you truly are an architecture student as your name implies.
I'm surprised (I won't stretch the hyperbole to amazed), that you can judge my view of intellectual property without hearing it! One line on a BBS can be interpreted in many ways I would say, and certainly does not give you the wherewithal to claim expertise on the subject of my views regarding intellectual property. If you really want a discussion of intellectual property I am always open to discuss, debate etc - but it seems to me like you want to react to what I write, and to jump to conclusions!
I'm surprised (I won't stretch the hyperbole to amazed), that you can judge my view of intellectual property without hearing it! One line on a BBS can be interpreted in many ways I would say, and certainly does not give you the wherewithal to claim expertise on the subject of my views regarding intellectual property. If you really want a discussion of intellectual property I am always open to discuss, debate etc - but it seems to me like you want to react to what I write, and to jump to conclusions!
I read the threads above. I think I've got an idea about how you respect IP.
Again I'm surprised at your position. You'll be a producer of IP one day and will depend on others to respect it and governments to enforce laws to protect it.
I read the threads above. I think I've got an idea about how you respect IP.
Again I'm surprised at your position. You'll be a producer of IP one day and will depend on others to respect it and governments to enforce laws to protect it.
That's just patronising. I'm afraid I won't bow to your "wisdom". I'd like to hear how you define theft of IP backtomac.
Leopard is cheap enough considering what you're getting...if you can't afford it stick with Tiger until you can. Now paying $200 or $300 for Microsoft office when they hardly develop it at all....feel free to torrent that to your heart's content!!!
I'll just know that when your construction foreman takes a copy of your blueprints and makes his home from them that you won't take issue. "I can photocopy whatever I please for my own use," he'll say. "Piracy is distributing it."
so what? Architects get paid for a service. Once you've been paid for that service you've been paid. On the other hand, if he went around taking money from people using my blueprint, I can take him to court.
I'd like to hear how you define theft of IP backtomac.
Using bittorrent to download leopard is IP theft in my view. I'm sure there are other forms of IP theft, but I'm not a legal expert in the field.
A little story for you. A few years back I built the home I live in now. I purchased blueprints from an architectural firm in Atlanta. How would you feel if I moved to another city and decided build the first home again? I still have the prints. Actually I purchased the sepias so they photocopy nicely. Maybe I could do a little spec building on the side. After you build it a couple of times I'm sure it gets easy.
Using bittorrent to download leopard is IP theft in my view. I'm sure there are other forms of IP theft, but I'm not a legal expert in the field.
A little story for you. A few years back I built the home I live in now. I purchased blueprints from an architectural firm in Atlanta. How would you feel if I moved to another city and decided build the first home again? I still have the prints. Actually I purchased the sepias so they photocopy nicely. Maybe I could do a little spec building on the side. After you build it a couple of times I'm sure it gets easy.
Would that be fair to the original architect?
Hint. I only have the rights to build one home.
1) I don't use bittorrent. Why? because it is internet filesharing. I don't fileshare on the internet. Period.
2) Actually unless you are an architect I suspect you would have some difficulty with this plan. Architecture is generally site specific. The same drawings won't work necessarily work on any site.
3) If you made business out of it you could face a jail sentence.
Archstudent, I welcome your debate. I hope you are willing to conitinue.
Surely you realise that posting that you have downloaded Leopard from the internet (and yes, that is piracy), you realise that this must say something about your attitude towards IP?
1.) Do you agree that Leopard is IP?
2.) Do you agree that downloading it for free when you are expected to pay for it shows disrespect for said IP?
3.) Do you agree that if you could buy from Apple a Leopard box that contained a blank, non-usable (for anything) DVD, that no-one in their right mind would pay for it? And that probably, no one would steal it, either?
4.) Do you agree that Apple employs many hundred (at least) programmers who work exclusively on OS X?
Archstudent, I welcome your debate. I hope you are willing to conitinue.
Surely you realise that posting that you have downloaded Leopard from the internet (and yes, that is piracy), you realise that this most say something about your attitude towards IP?
1.) Do you agree that Leopard is IP?
2.) Do you agree that downloading it for free when you are expected to pay for it shows disrespect for said IP?
3.) Do you agree that if you could buy from Apple a Leopard box that contained a blank, non-usable (for anything) DVD, that no-one in their right mind would pay for it? And that probably, no one would steal it, either.
4.) Do you agree that Apple employs (at least) many hundred programmers who work exclusively on OS X?
1) I agree that leopard is IP.
2) I have to pick apart this question slightly. You're "expected" to pay for a retail copy of leopard. I don't think you're expected to pay for a downloaded copy. That would be stupid. Also, you are assuming that I will never pay for leopard. It isn't possible to get a "demo" version or "trial" version of leopard from Apple. If you want to try before you buy, you have to download the stuff. I'd feel pretty stupid if I paid for leopard and then realised it offered me no more functionality than tiger. With regard to respect it's kind of difficult to discuss since we are talking about a relationship between an individual and a corporation. But since I am a loyal customer of Apple, who has spent a lot of money on their products, yea I'd say I respect their IP.
3) No-one would pay for it in their right minds, I've seen people do pretty stupid things in the past though. How is this revelation supposed to help us?
4) I'm not sure how many programmers Apple has employed working exclusively on osX, because I have not checked. I'd imagine they have over a 100 sure. Would any of those people lose money if I were to download it? NO. If I choose to purchase a retail copy of leopard, that is irrespective of any of this other discussion. - it's consumer choice. If I want to pay for it, I'll pay for it, if I don't I won't.
I purchased super duper as a download. Why is that 'stupid'?
.
thats not stupid, because it is a different condition. The "retail" version of superduper could be the download - and is therefore legitimate. I was making the point that it would be stupid to pay for an illegitimate copy of something, especially when you could be legally required to stop using it. In other words, when you pay for software, you are paying for the ownership of certain legal rights. If I paid for something and then didn't gain any legal rights to aforesaid IP it would be stupid.
3) No-one would pay for it in their right minds, I've seen people do pretty stupid things in the past though. How is this revelation supposed to help us?
This question actually helps us quite a lot. No backtracking for you. It demonstrates that you agree that all the value of a retail box of Leopard lies in the data stored on the DVD. (Although actually I've just realised that I did not get you to confirm that you think it is sane behaviour to pay for a normal retail copy of Leopard).
When you download for free that data over the internet, you have taken something for free that Apple expect you to pay for.
I would be happy if I could get you to agree that what you have done is nothing better than stealing. Whether stealing is justifiable or not is entirely another matter, but one can't help suspecting that the reason that you wish to insist that the two are entirely dissimilar is because you know/believe that stealing is "wrong".
Two things, just in case you are wondering:
1.) My own personal view of the morality of this situation is that if you have downloaded Leopard in order to evaluate it, that this is acceptable behaviour. 30 days seems reasonable, after this period of time you should delete it or buy it, but of course that is entirely my own opinion.
2.) I am a Humanist. (i.e., a non-religious nut-job on a part-time morality crusade as opposed to a religious nut-job on a part-time morality crusade )
This question actually helps us quite a lot. No backtracking for you. It demonstrates that you agree that all the value of a retail box of Leopard lies in the data stored on the DVD.
When you download for free that data over the internet, you have taken something for free that Apple expect you to pay for.
I would be happy if I could get you to agree that what you have done is nothing better than stealing. Whether stealing is justfyable or not is entirely another matter, but one can't help suspecting that the reason that you wish to insist that the two are entirely dissimilar is because you know/believe that stealing is "wrong".
Two things, just in case you are wondering:
1.) My own personal view of the morality of this situation is that if you have downloaded Leopard in order to evaluate it, that this is acceptable behaviour. 30 days seems reasonable, after this period of time you should delete it or buy it, but of course that is entirely my own opinion.
2.) I am a Humanist. (i.e., a non-religious nut-job on a part-time morality crusade as opposed to a religious nut-job on a morality crusade )
Apple expect you to pay for legal rights. You aren't paying for data.
Interesting that you are a humanist. There are many aspects of humanism that I believe in. I don't believe in universal, black and white, wrong/right scenarios though.
In any case, I'm not here to debate right and wrong. I am merely debating what the difference is between different actions. I was mainly opposing the view that stealing someone's personal effect is very different from downloading data, to which a corporation holds copyright.
Anyway. I definately did not download leopard! I've never even used it. End of my debate on this.
Apple expect you to pay for legal rights. You aren't paying for data.
If Apple didn't create the data or sell it to anyone, they wouldn't be able to impart those rights. The two are inter-twined. But the fact still stands that Apple (the creator of the data and the issuer of the rights to use the data) are expecting you to pay for the use of the data that you are using and you have not done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent
Interesting that you are a humanist. There are many aspects of humanism that I believe in. I don't believe in universal, black and white, wrong/right scenarios though.
I'm not a philosopher so the intricacies of moral philosophies really start to hurt my head. As I understand it, Moral Universalism states that morality applies equally to all people irrespective of their race, sexuality, gender etc. etc. it does not imply black or white, right or wrong though. For example, I believe that both shoplifting and genocide are "wrong", but to simply leave it at that would be ridiculous. There is a sliding scale here, with genocide being several orders of magnitude more "wrong" than shoplifting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent
Anyway. I definately did not download leopard! I've never even used it. End of my debate on this.
Digital theft is still theft. We should buy the products we use. However, are all people who steal bad people? You say this on the internet, but if/when some poor college kid or 3rd world mud-hut hopeful downloads leopard, should they really burn in hell? Aside from that, everyone and their brother is stealing leopard and stealing cs3. Everyone "knows a guy" so why are you surprised?
For me the moral dilemma is the following: would I buy it if I didnt get it for free. Most often, the answer is no. I won't listen to "Superman" more than twice, so I would not buy the track under any circumstances. I suck at photoshop, and basically use it to tool around and make things color/black & white. It costs almost $1000, so I would never comprehensibly buy it. Adobe isn't losing money because I would never buy cs3 under any circumstances.
Leopard is something I would probably buy if I didnt have free access to it. So I will buy it probably. Movies are things I typically do buy. But if they're not going to make any money off of me otherwise, I don't feel bad for downloading/using, etc. Feel free to crucify me. I hope every third world apple user steals leopard...and the socially conscious probably agree with me. Don't let the man get you down.
I'm not a philosopher so the intricacies of moral philosophies really start to hurt my head. As I understand it, Moral Universalism states that morality applies equally to all people irrespective of their race, sexuality, gender etc. etc. it does not imply black or white, right or wrong though. For example, I believe that both shoplifting and genocide are "wrong", but to simply leave it at that would be ridiculous. There is a sliding scale here, with genocide being several orders of magnitude more "wrong" than shoplifting.
sorry instead of universal, I should have written absolute, but it was late and I was tired. What I meant was a view of morality whereby an action can be necessarily wrong irrespective of circumstance. So things considered wrong would always be wrong, in any situation - a starving child who steals food to survive would still be wrong - because the idea of theft is viewed by some unshakeable standard. I guess the "philosopic" term for this is moral absolutism. On reflection, moral universalism is a somewhat different debate, although it seems to be somewhat of a truism.
but if/when some poor college kid or 3rd world mud-hut hopeful downloads leopard, should they really burn in hell?
That would be somewhat excessive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blingem
I suck at photoshop, and basically use it to tool around and make things color/black & white. It costs almost $1000, so I would never comprehensibly buy it.
Why don't you buy something much cheaper then? Like Graphic Converter that costs $35?
What I meant was a view of morality whereby an action can be necessarily wrong irrespective of circumstance. So things considered wrong would always be wrong, in any situation - a starving child who steals food to survive would still be wrong - because the idea of theft is viewed by some unshakeable standard. I guess the "philosopic" term for this is moral absolutism.
It's not entirely clear to me where universalism stops and absolutism starts, but I would agree that absolutism isn't palatable. The morality of a situation can depend on the means available to those involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archstudent
never heard of playing the devil's advocate?
Of course. It is a good game to play. But when I do it I'm careful not to strictly imply my actual position. I.e., I wouldn't imply that I myself had stolen Leopard.
My actions are irrelevant to this discussion. Noone is here to defend themselves. As an aside, the book catch-22 has an insightful perspective on moral absolutism (mot necessarily relevant to internet piracy - but what the hell)
Comments
I'm quite amazed and surprised at your view of intellectual property. Especially if you truly are an architecture student as your name implies.
I'm surprised (I won't stretch the hyperbole to amazed), that you can judge my view of intellectual property without hearing it! One line on a BBS can be interpreted in many ways I would say, and certainly does not give you the wherewithal to claim expertise on the subject of my views regarding intellectual property. If you really want a discussion of intellectual property I am always open to discuss, debate etc - but it seems to me like you want to react to what I write, and to jump to conclusions!
I'm surprised (I won't stretch the hyperbole to amazed), that you can judge my view of intellectual property without hearing it! One line on a BBS can be interpreted in many ways I would say, and certainly does not give you the wherewithal to claim expertise on the subject of my views regarding intellectual property. If you really want a discussion of intellectual property I am always open to discuss, debate etc - but it seems to me like you want to react to what I write, and to jump to conclusions!
I read the threads above. I think I've got an idea about how you respect IP.
Again I'm surprised at your position. You'll be a producer of IP one day and will depend on others to respect it and governments to enforce laws to protect it.
I read the threads above. I think I've got an idea about how you respect IP.
Again I'm surprised at your position. You'll be a producer of IP one day and will depend on others to respect it and governments to enforce laws to protect it.
That's just patronising. I'm afraid I won't bow to your "wisdom". I'd like to hear how you define theft of IP backtomac.
I'll just know that when your construction foreman takes a copy of your blueprints and makes his home from them that you won't take issue. "I can photocopy whatever I please for my own use," he'll say. "Piracy is distributing it."
so what? Architects get paid for a service. Once you've been paid for that service you've been paid. On the other hand, if he went around taking money from people using my blueprint, I can take him to court.
I'd like to hear how you define theft of IP backtomac.
Using bittorrent to download leopard is IP theft in my view. I'm sure there are other forms of IP theft, but I'm not a legal expert in the field.
A little story for you. A few years back I built the home I live in now. I purchased blueprints from an architectural firm in Atlanta. How would you feel if I moved to another city and decided build the first home again? I still have the prints. Actually I purchased the sepias so they photocopy nicely. Maybe I could do a little spec building on the side. After you build it a couple of times I'm sure it gets easy.
Would that be fair to the original architect?
Hint. I only have the rights to build one home.
Using bittorrent to download leopard is IP theft in my view. I'm sure there are other forms of IP theft, but I'm not a legal expert in the field.
A little story for you. A few years back I built the home I live in now. I purchased blueprints from an architectural firm in Atlanta. How would you feel if I moved to another city and decided build the first home again? I still have the prints. Actually I purchased the sepias so they photocopy nicely. Maybe I could do a little spec building on the side. After you build it a couple of times I'm sure it gets easy.
Would that be fair to the original architect?
Hint. I only have the rights to build one home.
1) I don't use bittorrent. Why? because it is internet filesharing. I don't fileshare on the internet. Period.
2) Actually unless you are an architect I suspect you would have some difficulty with this plan. Architecture is generally site specific. The same drawings won't work necessarily work on any site.
3) If you made business out of it you could face a jail sentence.
Surely you realise that posting that you have downloaded Leopard from the internet (and yes, that is piracy), you realise that this must say something about your attitude towards IP?
1.) Do you agree that Leopard is IP?
2.) Do you agree that downloading it for free when you are expected to pay for it shows disrespect for said IP?
3.) Do you agree that if you could buy from Apple a Leopard box that contained a blank, non-usable (for anything) DVD, that no-one in their right mind would pay for it? And that probably, no one would steal it, either?
4.) Do you agree that Apple employs many hundred (at least) programmers who work exclusively on OS X?
Archstudent, I welcome your debate. I hope you are willing to conitinue.
Surely you realise that posting that you have downloaded Leopard from the internet (and yes, that is piracy), you realise that this most say something about your attitude towards IP?
1.) Do you agree that Leopard is IP?
2.) Do you agree that downloading it for free when you are expected to pay for it shows disrespect for said IP?
3.) Do you agree that if you could buy from Apple a Leopard box that contained a blank, non-usable (for anything) DVD, that no-one in their right mind would pay for it? And that probably, no one would steal it, either.
4.) Do you agree that Apple employs (at least) many hundred programmers who work exclusively on OS X?
1) I agree that leopard is IP.
2) I have to pick apart this question slightly. You're "expected" to pay for a retail copy of leopard. I don't think you're expected to pay for a downloaded copy. That would be stupid. Also, you are assuming that I will never pay for leopard. It isn't possible to get a "demo" version or "trial" version of leopard from Apple. If you want to try before you buy, you have to download the stuff. I'd feel pretty stupid if I paid for leopard and then realised it offered me no more functionality than tiger. With regard to respect it's kind of difficult to discuss since we are talking about a relationship between an individual and a corporation. But since I am a loyal customer of Apple, who has spent a lot of money on their products, yea I'd say I respect their IP.
3) No-one would pay for it in their right minds, I've seen people do pretty stupid things in the past though. How is this revelation supposed to help us?
4) I'm not sure how many programmers Apple has employed working exclusively on osX, because I have not checked. I'd imagine they have over a 100 sure. Would any of those people lose money if I were to download it? NO. If I choose to purchase a retail copy of leopard, that is irrespective of any of this other discussion. - it's consumer choice. If I want to pay for it, I'll pay for it, if I don't I won't.
You're "expected" to pay for a retail copy of leopard. I don't think you're expected to pay for a downloaded copy. That would be stupid.
I purchased super duper as a download. Why is that 'stupid'?
I think that it's debatable that downloaded software should cost less than software on physical media. But it is worth *something*.
I purchased super duper as a download. Why is that 'stupid'?
.
thats not stupid, because it is a different condition. The "retail" version of superduper could be the download - and is therefore legitimate. I was making the point that it would be stupid to pay for an illegitimate copy of something, especially when you could be legally required to stop using it. In other words, when you pay for software, you are paying for the ownership of certain legal rights. If I paid for something and then didn't gain any legal rights to aforesaid IP it would be stupid.
3) No-one would pay for it in their right minds, I've seen people do pretty stupid things in the past though. How is this revelation supposed to help us?
This question actually helps us quite a lot. No backtracking for you. It demonstrates that you agree that all the value of a retail box of Leopard lies in the data stored on the DVD. (Although actually I've just realised that I did not get you to confirm that you think it is sane behaviour to pay for a normal retail copy of Leopard).
When you download for free that data over the internet, you have taken something for free that Apple expect you to pay for.
I would be happy if I could get you to agree that what you have done is nothing better than stealing. Whether stealing is justifiable or not is entirely another matter, but one can't help suspecting that the reason that you wish to insist that the two are entirely dissimilar is because you know/believe that stealing is "wrong".
Two things, just in case you are wondering:
1.) My own personal view of the morality of this situation is that if you have downloaded Leopard in order to evaluate it, that this is acceptable behaviour. 30 days seems reasonable, after this period of time you should delete it or buy it, but of course that is entirely my own opinion.
2.) I am a Humanist. (i.e., a non-religious nut-job on a part-time morality crusade as opposed to a religious nut-job on a part-time morality crusade
This question actually helps us quite a lot. No backtracking for you. It demonstrates that you agree that all the value of a retail box of Leopard lies in the data stored on the DVD.
When you download for free that data over the internet, you have taken something for free that Apple expect you to pay for.
I would be happy if I could get you to agree that what you have done is nothing better than stealing. Whether stealing is justfyable or not is entirely another matter, but one can't help suspecting that the reason that you wish to insist that the two are entirely dissimilar is because you know/believe that stealing is "wrong".
Two things, just in case you are wondering:
1.) My own personal view of the morality of this situation is that if you have downloaded Leopard in order to evaluate it, that this is acceptable behaviour. 30 days seems reasonable, after this period of time you should delete it or buy it, but of course that is entirely my own opinion.
2.) I am a Humanist. (i.e., a non-religious nut-job on a part-time morality crusade as opposed to a religious nut-job on a morality crusade
Apple expect you to pay for legal rights. You aren't paying for data.
Interesting that you are a humanist. There are many aspects of humanism that I believe in. I don't believe in universal, black and white, wrong/right scenarios though.
In any case, I'm not here to debate right and wrong. I am merely debating what the difference is between different actions. I was mainly opposing the view that stealing someone's personal effect is very different from downloading data, to which a corporation holds copyright.
Anyway. I definately did not download leopard! I've never even used it. End of my debate on this.
Apple expect you to pay for legal rights. You aren't paying for data.
If Apple didn't create the data or sell it to anyone, they wouldn't be able to impart those rights. The two are inter-twined. But the fact still stands that Apple (the creator of the data and the issuer of the rights to use the data) are expecting you to pay for the use of the data that you are using and you have not done so.
Interesting that you are a humanist. There are many aspects of humanism that I believe in. I don't believe in universal, black and white, wrong/right scenarios though.
I'm not a philosopher so the intricacies of moral philosophies really start to hurt my head. As I understand it, Moral Universalism states that morality applies equally to all people irrespective of their race, sexuality, gender etc. etc. it does not imply black or white, right or wrong though. For example, I believe that both shoplifting and genocide are "wrong", but to simply leave it at that would be ridiculous. There is a sliding scale here, with genocide being several orders of magnitude more "wrong" than shoplifting.
Anyway. I definately did not download leopard! I've never even used it. End of my debate on this.
Huh? Then why did you say you did?
Digital theft is still theft. We should buy the products we use. However, are all people who steal bad people? You say this on the internet, but if/when some poor college kid or 3rd world mud-hut hopeful downloads leopard, should they really burn in hell? Aside from that, everyone and their brother is stealing leopard and stealing cs3. Everyone "knows a guy" so why are you surprised?
For me the moral dilemma is the following: would I buy it if I didnt get it for free. Most often, the answer is no. I won't listen to "Superman" more than twice, so I would not buy the track under any circumstances. I suck at photoshop, and basically use it to tool around and make things color/black & white. It costs almost $1000, so I would never comprehensibly buy it. Adobe isn't losing money because I would never buy cs3 under any circumstances.
Leopard is something I would probably buy if I didnt have free access to it. So I will buy it probably. Movies are things I typically do buy. But if they're not going to make any money off of me otherwise, I don't feel bad for downloading/using, etc. Feel free to crucify me. I hope every third world apple user steals leopard...and the socially conscious probably agree with me. Don't let the man get you down.
I'm not a philosopher so the intricacies of moral philosophies really start to hurt my head. As I understand it, Moral Universalism states that morality applies equally to all people irrespective of their race, sexuality, gender etc. etc. it does not imply black or white, right or wrong though. For example, I believe that both shoplifting and genocide are "wrong", but to simply leave it at that would be ridiculous. There is a sliding scale here, with genocide being several orders of magnitude more "wrong" than shoplifting.
sorry instead of universal, I should have written absolute, but it was late and I was tired. What I meant was a view of morality whereby an action can be necessarily wrong irrespective of circumstance. So things considered wrong would always be wrong, in any situation - a starving child who steals food to survive would still be wrong - because the idea of theft is viewed by some unshakeable standard. I guess the "philosopic" term for this is moral absolutism. On reflection, moral universalism is a somewhat different debate, although it seems to be somewhat of a truism.
Huh? Then why did you say you did?
never heard of playing the devil's advocate?
Digital theft is still theft.
At least you agree on that.
However, are all people who steal bad people?
Not necessarily.
but if/when some poor college kid or 3rd world mud-hut hopeful downloads leopard, should they really burn in hell?
That would be somewhat excessive.
I suck at photoshop, and basically use it to tool around and make things color/black & white. It costs almost $1000, so I would never comprehensibly buy it.
Why don't you buy something much cheaper then? Like Graphic Converter that costs $35?
What I meant was a view of morality whereby an action can be necessarily wrong irrespective of circumstance. So things considered wrong would always be wrong, in any situation - a starving child who steals food to survive would still be wrong - because the idea of theft is viewed by some unshakeable standard. I guess the "philosopic" term for this is moral absolutism.
It's not entirely clear to me where universalism stops and absolutism starts, but I would agree that absolutism isn't palatable. The morality of a situation can depend on the means available to those involved.
never heard of playing the devil's advocate?
Of course. It is a good game to play. But when I do it I'm careful not to strictly imply my actual position. I.e., I wouldn't imply that I myself had stolen Leopard.