purchasing software

[weedalis]

how many of yall actually purchase software, especially high end ones like
flash, dreamweaver, maya, lightwave, photoshop, corel, windows, microsoft offices etc

personally i dont see the point of paying 500 US dollars for a software that i might get board using , or dislike,
(despise the GIU\FUNCTIONALLITY\MENU SCREENS)when i can download it of kazaa or imesh, or link my bredrin for a copy.

plus with the dollar devaluting rapid, my attempts of supporting them also devalute rapidly ;D, kazaa, imesh and the other downloading mediums are becoming my best friends.

dont get it twisted , if you have the money support them, but if your pockets are financially constraint,(like my self) :'( download them.

but how many of you think that lending your friend a copy of your (legally purchase software) is illegal.

cause some people dont wanna lend me there software because they say they are following us federal laws.
(in jamaica) star ..........................please

holla back

[Collin]

Law is Law !
Legal is Legal!

The terms under which you purchase a license to use the software says that you are allowed to install it on one pc (most times)....

So yes it is illegal to "loan" software

I am sure there a a lot of persons who will tell you that there is a CHOICE !! OPEN SOURCE!!

While I would not tell you what to do I could point out some available options...

Sure kazaa and others like it are very viable options to some people.... but again be prepared to deal with whatever consequences that may befall you (if any )

[jamrock]

I always wonder what other friends are being downloaded when people download stuff from Kazaa.

How do you ensure that you don't get trojans, virus code etc?

Like the man says, open source is a good alternative. I just downloaded open office (Windows version) for someone. She bought a computer and couldn't afford Microsoft Office.

Open source on the desktop is not completely there yet, but you can find a lot of solutions.

[deakie]

i agree. if you 'need' it and can afford it. buy it the way you would a car.

[Ropy]

Who reads the find prints, or the legal notice??? I never read stuff like that... In this great land of yours’, the answer to your question is very obvious...

[Xenocrates]

Actually, on the contrary, if you read the fine print, there are a million and one ways to argue against and overthrow it in court. Take this for example:

Theoretically, once I have paid for a good, it belongs to me and I can do with it as I so please. But if that is not the case, then why should I pay for it in the first place, if I cannot do with it as I please? I have exchanged my blood sweat and tears for it. I bartered my wealth for it. If you have my wealth and I have your good, then there's nothing to be held on it - right? To arrest me afterward, would constitute a negation of that trade, which requires a refund of my wealth since you still want to have an handle on it, even after I've lawfully exchanged my wealth for your good! Can you see how STUPID that is?

In short, How many software companies would give you a refund for the original copy of the software you legally bought and illegally copied, AFTER they arrest you? Think about that for a second...

So in effect, if I were to follow the fine print to the 't', not only will I be following the law, but I will be breaking it at the same time! If my backup copy is replaced by another, I break the law, even though I have paid for it. For some software, if I install it on a NEW computer, after the old one was sold, I break the law, even though it was uninstalled from that computer, and even though I have paid for it. If I install that software both at home and at work, I break the law, even though I have paid for it. How can I break the law when I have already paid for it? It's absolutely preposterous, but true!!

This is yet another paradox this element of law has provided us with. There's no logically air-tight way to defend such a law in court, since it is based on greed and not the logic of fair trade. That's why the RIAA and so many other associated firms are having such a hell of a time nailing down entities like Kazaa. There just isn't sufficient evidence to logically defend their claims in a court of law. What good is a law if it is not reasonably and logically sustainable according to the simple principle of fair trade?

In light of the recent debate over software piracy versus moral obligations, I've noticed some rather interesting opinions on the matter. Morality seems to be the issue at stake, not software piracy. While I do not condone software piracy, at the same time, the term piracy is irrelevant and misconstrued in this case. Because the only way software can be pirated, is if someone bought it first - This essentially tosses a stick into the spokes of the wheel for the law against piracy.....the word is being improperly used. But who cares, that is also irrelevant.

Enough of the conundrums. Let's move on to something more fun.

I'd like you all to evaluate the following story. I'd like you to answer truthfully and to explain WHY and HOW you arrive at your answers. This should give all of us here at www.techjamaica.com something to really contemplate and contemplate well....

In 19th Century Stockholm Germany, there originated a story that is commonly used by psychologists to measure moral development.

A man named Heinz had a wife that is dying from a rare form of cancer. A doctor had recently made discoveries into how the radioactive element Radium can be used to cure this form of cancer. Heinz petitioned the doctor to help him as his wife was dying.

Heinz was his first customer for the drug, so the doctor set the price of the drug to 2000 franks, even though the drug only cost 200 franks to make. Heinz rallied around his community to come up with the money. Even after numerous fund raising events and charitable donations, Heinz was only able to come up with a little over 1000 franks.

Heinz presented the 1000 odd franks to the doctor as a down payment, promising to pay the rest as soon as he could since time was not on his side, and his wife was dying. The doctor refused to accept partial payment, demanding 2000 franks up front. No more, no less.

Out of a last act of desperation, Heinz broke into the doctor's office and stole the drug to save his wife's life.


Now my question to you is this: Was Heinz wrong to steal the drug, and why?

The why part of your answer is what is most important. Remember to also state how you came to your why answers.

I'm kindly soliciting responses from all members of TechJamaica.com (or as many people that have read this post). I'm interested in hearing your point of view.

Don't worry, I will not comment on your answers (unless you ask me to) nor try to sway your line of reasoning. I just want all of us to see how each other thinks. After a significant number of posts have been made, I could put in my 2 dollars......um, I mean my two cents, upon request. Thanks.

- Xenocrates

[GodKid]

I'll be the first to bite Xeno.. as I have issues ;D

Heinz was undeniably WRONG in breaking in and taking what was not rightfully his. However, his actions were perfectly RATIONAL/JUSTIFIABLE

Now, whether justifiable or not, that does not remove the OFFENSIVE NATURE of the deed. This is where I think morality (and those with the power to define and redefine such concepts) has exhibited its greatest weakness over the years. Rightness and wrongness have come to lose their objectivity in the face of liberalism and pop culture.

In other words Xeno.. for me, the only contention I have seen over the past few posts is really the question of "how guilty (shoukd) I feel afterwards." The problem with that philosophy is that it is ahistorical... ignoring the fact that the individual must have first acknowledged that an offense was committed in order to tassle with "was what I did wrong?" or "i don't have to feel bad because piracy is the root of progress"....

Morality versus Piracy is less of an argument about Guilt versus Innocence, which tends to succumb to the frailties of subjective or existential thought, but instead about an argument of the objective right and wrong.

If at anytime you as a user can come to the point where you have to tassle with the question of whether what you're doing is right or wrong, you've most likely ALREADY past the point of acknowledging the offense, and instead of tackling whether or not what you did was right/wrong, have entered the realm of can I rationalize what I did / is there a good reason for what I did

So.. going back to Heinz.... YUP he committed an offense, with good reason... but one MUST acknowledge the commission of the offense

bless

[jamrock]

I am not even going to enter the whole morality discussion. I will leave that to others who are more qualified.

In many cases, it is not necessary to pirate software since open source alternatives exist.

I just loaded Open Office on someone's brand new Windows XP machine and they are quite happy. They don't need to pirate Microsoft Office.

Pirating software for individual use is one thing. Pirating for the office is another. Again, my argument is not a moral one.

I have heard that Microsoft's local office has taken legal action against companies found to be in breach. I am told that a computer company in New Kingston was shut down because they were installing a single copy of Office on new machines.

I know of a few cases where Microsoft has written to companies stating that they have installed more copies of Office than they are legally supposed to.

[Chris]

* Hmmm...should I chip in? Think ... think. Ok, just a little bit. But be careful though :P *

Regarding the Heinz case:
Heinz was wrong for stealing the medication, but the doctor was also wrong for denying treatment (rooted in the hypocratic oath). I'm not suggesting that "two wrongs makes a right", I'm merely highlighting the possibility that Heinz was not the only wrong-doer in the case

Regarding software piracy vs buying
... touchy topic :-X.

Xeno, I must confess that I don't read the fine print of the s/ware licences. I have the strongest suspicion though that embedded within these licences and agreements is the suggestion that s/ware is intellectual property and that what you're paying for is not the product itself, but rights/permission to use the product .

I will close by sharing some experiences that I had.

A couple of years ago I had the priviledge of visiting Singapore and Malaysia. In both countries software piracy is illegal. However, there are many places openly selling "illegal" software. These places aren't back street/lane type operations or men in vans always on the move. These places were established stores in malls. As a matter of fact, in each country I was able to visit a well established mall (several floors, air-conditioned, etc.) with many stores openly selling boot-leg CDs, VCDs, CD games. There were other stores selling hardware and legit s/ware as well. Bear in mind that drug trafficking is punsihable by death in these countries .

Apart from the boot-leg CDs, I got the distinct impression that these countries were into IT big-time, not the lip-service that we're accustomed to. I could go into numerous examples to illustrate my point, but I'll stay on topic. Just to give you a teaser ... as a professional in Singapore, the Govt will pay for part or all of an IT training course that you would like to do. As a matter of fact, the Govt will loan $$ for the purchase of computers by University students and if I'm not mistaken, this loan can be written off when the student works for a certain number of years in the country.

There I go, getting off topic. Actually, I may not be off topic. You might ask the question - so how come these countries outlaw s/ware piracy, yet boot-leg s/ware is sold openly? I also had that question and asked some citizens that question. Their answer - simple. The Govt. has to outlaw illegal s/ware becasue of all the international copyright laws etc. But on the other hand, they recognise that if it were not for these "affordably priced" s/ware products, they would never accomplish the HIGH computer-literacy levels that they have. To illustrate the point. On one occasion I was just observing the wares sold at one of these stores when an old lady who could easily be my Grandmother (or older) came up to me with a boot-leg MS Office training CD in her hand asking me if I think the CDs will help her learn MS Office . How often do you come across a similar desire to learn computers at that age?

Please note: I am merely sharing my factual experiences. I'm not implying or suggesting what should or shouldn't be done personally, Governmentally or in society regarding software piracy.

Here endeth my JM$0.02 contribution.

[Chris]

[quote author=jamrock link=board=5;threadid=780;start=0#msg6305 date=1053784061]I have heard that Microsoft's local office has taken legal action against companies found to be in breach. I am told that a computer company in New Kingston was shut down because they were installing a single copy of Office on new machines.

I know of a few cases where Microsoft has written to companies stating that they have installed more copies of Office than they are legally supposed to.[/quote]

I'm not contradicting your facts jamrock because I don't have any facts myself. But I wouldn't be surprised that if you asked the local Microsoft office they'll deny such actions. Remember the BSA is the organization used by software developers to do most of the dirty work of targeting the illegal software users and vendors. BSA members include Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Avid, Bentley Systems, Borland, CNC Software/Mastercam, Internet Security Systems, Macromedia, Microsoft, Network Associates and Symantec.