Warez: A discussion

[Cyanide]

Ah yes, I'm the semi-literate fuckstick. But you're the one who can't come up with a more civilized adjective than "fuck" or some derivative of it. You need to calm down son.

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it. And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody. If Ferrari spent years making a car that only 1 person could afford, then they deserve to lose money because that would be stupid and that is bad business. Who cares if a bunch of people copied it. They could only have sold one of the cars anyway. I don't think pirating software that they can afford is right, and I never said I did, so using that scenario to argue with me is pointless.

The bottom line is that people who can buy software usually do. Only a very small percentage pirate software they can afford. Software developers are making more money now than they ever have in the past, dispite P2P technology. So all this about piracy putting companies out of business and keeping them from making profits is just BS. Software companies go under because of bad business practices, over saturation of the market, and poor quality software. Those are the major threats to a software developer. Piracy is not a major threat to any company that makes quality software, has good business practices, and is not in a market that is over saturated. The reason most software developers don't last very long is market saturation. There are simply too many developers out there for all of them to survive.

[Phaelon]

Further more Cyanide, when the market saturation occurs, those company's make poor business descisions and fail to branch out and reach in new directiosn to keep thier loyal customers.

Warez is wrong, i doubt anyone on this thread is disagreeing with that, however the piracy issue is not the biggest issue the industry should have at this present time. If these company's got 1 ounce of an idea and a hint off how the world is evolving, they would be sitting fine, but because these company's, production company's, are more concerned with ANY money they could/might/maybe/not even are losing, they are freaking out because they are greedy. Because it is capitalism at it's best, The free market and economy.

[Zodiac]

Thread sucks. warez are bad mmmkay.

[Happy lil Elf]

Originally Posted by Cyanide

Ah yes, I'm the semi-literate fuckstick.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

But you're the one who can't come up with a more civilized adjective than "fuck" or some derivative of it.

My apologies, but I wasn't sure you'd be able to comprehend anything more complicated than that so I kept it simple. Afterall, what's the fun in beating a retard if they can't feel it?

Originally Posted by Cyanide

You need to calm down son.

Please, don't call me "son". The very thought of containing any of your genetic material is enough to make me feel ill.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed.

Nice attempt at a dodge, the question however still stands. If you produced something with intent to sell it to make a comfortable living, and the product was stolen instead of bought, would you be pissed? Yes.

As to the above quote: Good for you. This is not a relevant to the argument at hand. Software companies do not operate on the theory that they're good samaritans freely giving their time to improve a bunch of random peoples lives.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

You are not entitled to software, any more than you're entitled to a plasma TV. Because you can not afford it does not make it "Ok" to pirate it any more than it would make it ok to steal a TV. My point is if you're going to steal, great. But save the lame excuses because, in the end, you're still a thief. I personally don't care if you're a theif, I really really don't. What bothers me if someone stealing something and then trying to justify it and say it was ok because [bullshitargument_001]. Stealing=illegal. Stealing because you can't afford to have something that is inarguably a luxury item=illegal. Trying to justify it with lame excuses=Really dumb.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

It hurts the businesses that produce it. They employ people and therefore it can indeed hurt those people. Does anyone die from it? No. Can it cause people to get laid off? Yes.

Please tell me your not trying to argue that piracy doesn't hurt any businesses/professionals. If you are, I strongly suggest you do the world a favor and at the bare minimum have yourself steralized or, preferably, go play a game of chicken with a Mac truck and don't puss out.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

If Ferrari spent years making a car that only 1 person could afford, then they deserve to lose money because that would be stupid and that is bad business. Who cares if a bunch of people copied it. They could only have sold one of the cars anyway. I don't think pirating software that they can afford is right, and I never said I did, so using that scenario to argue with me is pointless.

You still don't seem to get it. You are not entitled to someone elses hard work for free simply because you can't afford to buy it.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

The bottom line is that people who can buy software usually do. Only a very small percentage pirate software they can afford.

This is entirely possible, but post some numbers or shut the hell up. Wait, there's no numbers to post. Ah well, at least we can "take your word for it" all common sense and knowedge of human nature to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

Software developers are making more money now than they ever have in the past, dispite P2P technology.

Possibly true, but irrelevant to the argument at hand. Not only that but please, back this up. Oh and try not to forget that gaming has become appealing to a larger audience than ever in recent years, please factor that in to your figures.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

So all this about piracy putting companies out of business and keeping them from making profits is just BS.

Faulty argument. I never said it was putting companies out of business. I gave Black Isle as an example of a company that had been adversely affected by piracy. You can not argue piracy has no impact on software sales. Actually let me clarify my statment since I'm pretty sure there were some other people who failed to comprehend what I was saying. Here's what I said:

Originally Posted by Happy lil' Elf

Don't believe that can happen? Do some research on Black Isle. Blatant copying is cited as one of the major reasons they went under.

Now this could have been a little more clear but if you note I said "Blatant copying is cited as one of the major reasons they went under.". That is not "Black Isle went under because of piracy". That is not "Black Isle would be the number one software company in the world, if not for piracy. That is "Black Isle went under and one of the primary reasons cited was piracy". If you fail to see the difference, stop posting or attempting to respond immediately, at least until your reading comprehension skills are a little more up to par.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

Software companies go under because of bad business practices, over saturation of the market, and poor quality software.

Yes those are often contributing factors. This is true of any business and is common sense. Are you going to tell me the sky is blue on clear days next?

Originally Posted by Cyanide

Those are the major threats to a software developer. Piracy is not a major threat to any company that makes quality software, has good business practices, and is not in a market that is over saturated.

This is true at this time. However as piracy becomes easier to do, this could easily change.

Originally Posted by Cyanide

The reason most software developers don't last very long is market saturation. There are simply too many developers out there for all of them to survive.

This is part of it, but it is only one of many problems that contribute to the problems that nearly all software developers face. Piracy is a relatively small problem now but one that could bloom into something far bigger as technology advances.

Now honestly, that wouldn't bother me a whole lot. I don't ever plan on getting into the business of making video games for various reasons. Eventually, however, it will reach a point where the government is forced to do something, which is something I can promise you will fuck over everyone. There are ways to stop file sharing over the web. It would completely fuck ISPs and internet users as far as speeds, but it is possible. Right now piracy's not a large issue, at least not as large as those affected by it make it out to be. But in ten years? Or even five? Look at the kind of crap that has come as a result of the governmet getting involved in the regulation of other industries. Is it wise to hand them a reason to over regulate this one on a silver platter because you don't want to save up for photoshop, a CD or a video game? Probably not.

[_-Gunslinger-_]

Happy what is your occupation? Or you intended occupation? Honestly givin a viable option I would rather argue against a feminazi than debate against you in written form (Or a verbal form that allowed more than 5 minuits of deliberation). You took what he said and then stated he was wrong because of key parts of his arguments. Any argument as complex as this one is can be "proven" flase if you seperate supporting premises.

Cyanide said this:
I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it. And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

You broke it up into this:

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

And you responded to them seperatly. But you see the second statment was directly tied to the first. It would be unfair to break them appart and attack them seperatly without the other arguments support.

If you are in college (or if your High school has this class), I strongly suggest you take logic (or whatever the debate course is called). Not that you are an inadept debat(er?) but rather that you refuse to follow simple protocoll to how arguments are constructed. The reason they were established was because when arguing from the standpoint of which I previously stated, you argue from fallicy (as I just showed you).

Allow me to restate that portion of the paragraph into a seperate statment:

My previous scenario in mind you have yet to give any reason that warez hurts anyone.

Warez can also benifit a company: EG, When I downloaded C&C Generals, just to say I had tried it, I would never have thought that I would acually buy the game AND its expasion pack. I thougt that a game with no population limit and only one recourse was idiotic and far to simple. However after playing this game I came to realise that the game was still challenging and, more importantly, entertaining. I then purchased condition zero the day it was released. That totals $90 that EA recieved as a RUSULT of piracy.

Now if you were to say

Cyinide The bottom line is that people who can buy software usually do. Only a very small percentage pirate software they can afford.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy This is entirely possible, but post some numbers or shut the hell up. Wait, there's no numbers to post.

Happy has a small point. There are no numbers to support EITHER argument. As such lets do what Happy asks and declare this point moot (or stfu as he put it). Niether side "wins" this point however due to the fact that we cannot assume either side is right about whether or not people would buy the software either.

Now to reply to Madcow

I enjoy editing video. It's just one of those things I enjoy personally. Unfortunately, it's something that costs an awful lot of money to do well. To put together an editing suite that is capable of doing a good job costs an awful lot of money. Obviously, I have the ability of renting time at a company which makes these editing suites available which would in turn cost significantly less than the up-front money that buying the equipment would cost me. I also have the option of doing a worse job using the equipment that I have available to me. Now let's say theoretically that I knew of an editing suite somewhere in my city that was left unlocked on the weekends. Not only that, I knew for a fact that there was no security at the building. Rather than making my crappy videos with the equipment I have available, I should go ahead and use that editing suite that I know I can get access too, right? As an added bonus, even if I somehow end up with the money to buy equivalent equipment I really won't need to and can spend the money elsewhere and buy other things since the access to the equipment has eliminated the need to actually purchase it. Are you having trouble drawing the correlation? It's actually pretty simple. You know where the building is, you know security is gone, you're happy to take something that others worked hard to create.

Ok so you are going to the studio, and using thier equipment for free. First off I would like to congratulate you for drawing the FIRST non-fallacious argument for your side that involves material goods, on top of that it only has two ****** in the armor, bravo; 1) that you still amassed enough money to buy the equipment and therefor this example does not apply to my scenario. And 2) assuming that you didnt gross enough capital to rent/purchase your own suite you still are not harming anyone else. I am also assuming you are going to be using this suite every weekend. With this in mind you have to consider that A) You will wearout equipment, B) This is technically not "theft" as again you arent taking anything from them. I would be perfictly ok if I were the owner of those facilities and you, a person who could never (key point: NEVER) afford those equipments, would use them if point A) wasnt true. So basically if you left no change with your use I wouldnt mind.

[CorDharel]

@Cyanide
You are right with the fact that copying isn't stealing. But you also know that you're not right

I think I would really hate warez if I would produce a game. But computers are weird. And you can't do anything against it :P

[Madcow]

Originally Posted by _-Gunslinger-_

Ok so you are going to the studio, and using thier equipment for free. First off I would like to congratulate you for drawing the FIRST non-fallacious argument for your side that involves material goods, on top of that it only has two ****** in the armor, bravo; 1) that you still amassed enough money to buy the equipment and therefor this example does not apply to my scenario. And 2) assuming that you didnt gross enough capital to rent/purchase your own suite you still are not harming anyone else. I am also assuming you are going to be using this suite every weekend. With this in mind you have to consider that A) You will wearout equipment, B) This is technically not "theft" as again you arent taking anything from them. I would be perfictly ok if I were the owner of those facilities and you, a person who could never (key point: NEVER) afford those equipments, would use them if point A) wasnt true. So basically if you left no change with your use I wouldnt mind.

Actually, I never said that I amassed enough money to buy my own suite. I said that on the off-chance that I did get the funds that I could actually spend them elsewhere, that because I had easy access it would be much easier to ignore the moral aspects and continue with my free ride.
By the way, I never said that I had the owner's permission. I think it pretty well goes without saying that the owner of the equipment isn't going to allow some random schmoe to use the equipment when he isn't actively using it. To say that you would allow random people to use your goods if you didn't need them at the moment is really a weak attempt at validating your argument. Can I borrow your car? How about your computer once you log off? Of course I can't, you'd be a fool to allow people access to items which you worked hard to earn. Unfortunately, you're busy validating the idea that you aren't hurting people so swiping their stuff is kosher. It isn't.

[_-Gunslinger-_]

Originally Posted by Madcow

Actually, I never said that I amassed enough money to buy my own suite. I said that on the off-chance that I did get the funds that I could actually spend them elsewhere, that because I had easy access it would be much easier to ignore the moral aspects and continue with my free ride.
By the way, I never said that I had the owner's permission. I think it pretty well goes without saying that the owner of the equipment isn't going to allow some random schmoe to use the equipment when he isn't actively using it. To say that you would allow random people to use your goods if you didn't need them at the moment is really a weak attempt at validating your argument. Can I borrow your car? How about your computer once you log off? Of course I can't, you'd be a fool to allow people access to items which you worked hard to earn. Unfortunately, you're busy validating the idea that you aren't hurting people so swiping their stuff is kosher. It isn't.

Ok you do have a point about the money issue, I require more time to deliberate on that. The point is that I would not buy any of that technology, the only reason I would be using it is that it is there for free.

[1024]

(I'm just going to step in and give my contribuition. if it's already been stated, excuse me, as i got bored after reading the first 10 sentences of this thread.)

Companies are addressing warez in the wrong way. Theres no way they're going to stop it. People will find a way. They need to just find a different way of approaching the problem.

[Happy lil Elf]

First of all a request, Gun, please use quotes. It really helps to seperate what you're saying form what you're quoting.

Now to dive headlong into a bit of a derailment.

Originally Posted by _-Gunslinger-_

Happy what is your occupation? Or you intended occupation? Honestly givin a viable option I would rather argue against a feminazi than debate against you in written form (Or a verbal form that allowed more than 5 minuits of deliberation). You took what he said and then stated he was wrong because of key parts of his arguments. Any argument as complex as this one is can be "proven" flase if you seperate supporting premises.

What do I do for a living? Irrelevant, but I work as a CSR, which probably explains why I go after idiotic things with a large bat. Most people would rather argue with people other than me, because I'm really good at picking apart arguments and destroying them piece by piece, which allows for less bullshit.

Yes, I took apart his argument and destroyed each supporting point. Because an argument based on points that are easily countered isn't much of an argument. If your argument is based upon bullshit, you need to find a new way to prove/support it. It's not an issue of the complexity of the issue, it's an issue of the validity of the supporting arguments.

You broke it up into this:

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

And you responded to them seperately. But you see the second statment was directly tied to the first. It would be unfair to break them appart and attack them seperatly without the other arguments support.

Acutally no, I broke it up even more than that, because he is mushing mulitple points into a single grouping and while they are semi-related, in that they are all attempting to support his view of piracy, they do not support each other on their own merits. They flow nicely into one another, but they do not directly support each other.

If anything the way I broken them up is simply a different writing style, not an issue with debate. I countered each of his arguments individually and seperated a few out to pound home various things, such as putting "And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody." by itself and reiterateing a counter. In the end, the arguments are countered. That I chose to seperate out my counter arguments instead of mushing them into a single paragraph makes no difference.

Feel free to take issue with my style of writing, but I find it much preferable to mushing all points into a single over sized paragraph, because not only is it easier to read and understand but it is also generally easier to counter individual points coherently. There is nothing in debate that makes it wrong to destroy your opponents arguments one by one. If you form an argument out of 5 easily counterable points, your argument can be proven false, at least in the sense that there is no longer anything supporting it. If the original points you're basing your argument on are faulty, then you need to find a better way to support it. This is also why it's generally easier to argue than it is to present. It's much easier, and usually more fun, to find the holes than it is to fill them.


Ok, on with the Warez discussion.

Warez can also benifit a company: EG, When I downloaded C&C Generals, just to say I had tried it, I would never have thought that I would acually buy the game AND its expasion pack. I thougt that a game with no population limit and only one recourse was idiotic and far to simple. However after playing this game I came to realise that the game was still challenging and, more importantly, entertaining. I then purchased condition zero the day it was released. That totals $90 that EA recieved as a RUSULT of piracy.

You seem to be arguing that piracy helps sales and while in a few cases that could very well be true, in a broader sense chances are it is not. If you are trying to use it as an argument to support piracy I'm afraid I have to tell you it's a faulty argument. You in no way represent the whole, or even the majority of those downloading warez. Although I suppose technically you're not even presenting an argument, only an antecdote. However this argument (that warez help sales) is yet another argument that can't really be "won" since there is currently no way to accurately track any of this.

I will say this though, sure there are those that go out and buy a CD after listening to it off of Kazaa. Those people, however, are not the problem that we're talking about.

[Phaelon]

Now honestly, that wouldn't bother me a whole lot. I don't ever plan on getting into the business of making video games for various reasons. Eventually, however, it will reach a point where the government is forced to do something, which is something I can promise you will fuck over everyone. There are ways to stop file sharing over the web. It would completely fuck ISPs and internet users as far as speeds, but it is possible. Right now piracy's not a large issue, at least not as large as those affected by it make it out to be. But in ten years? Or even five? Look at the kind of crap that has come as a result of the governmet getting involved in the regulation of other industries. Is it wise to hand them a reason to over regulate this one on a silver platter because you don't want to save up for photoshop, a CD or a video game? Probably not.

Let me ask you something Happy, what do you do for a Living? Do you know ANYTHING about how the internet works? DO you know what BGP stands for or OSPF? DO you know how MAC address tables work, how packet fragmentation is broken apart and re-assembled? DO you even know what CIDR means? I mean SHIT since CIDR was implemented nothing that at all pertains to IP addresses is even relevant when it comes to the internet. Seriously Kid, shut up and sit down. When you get a degree in Network Engineering and get your CCIE then come and talk about this and that that can be accomplished over a medium that was developed in the 60's.

IF you honestly think that they can stop File sharing you are seriously overstating your boundaries.

Today, I came into the office, Booted my laptop with my Linux shell, and ran a nifty little program, Called a switch sniffer. I Poisoned the ARP cache on all the switches at my corporate network. I have Two Cisco 6509 Backbone switches at work in additions to a bunch of 3550's and 2950's. These backbone switches DENY packets to be passed on port 22(SSH) - they are layer 2/3 switches. Within 1 minute of poisoning thier arp tables, I saw an administrator log onto the switch. I took his user name and password. I was able to compromise the switch, and give myself access through port 22 to anywhere I wanted. Within 15 minutes I got a call from one of my Support techs that said the IDS boxes were getting angry at an invalid ARP table being passed. 5 Minutes after that my Pager started going, because my IDS boxes paged me with a 0 codec for red alert breach.

Now if the Switch implicitly states in its Access Control List that it will NEVER pass port 22 traffic, How did I get through? DO you SEE the hole? ISP'S Cannot stop it, Because I could get around it in the blink of any eye. You can't stop what you don't see. Furthermore All it would take is for me to Sit down and perform a "man in the middle" attack on some exec who isn't paying attention and gain access through the ISP's network, then I would be on the inside and could easily allow myself to file share.

Think before you post next time. Again we aren't arguing whether File sharing is wrong, we all agree it is wrong, but your points are just horribly constructed and your misguided ways have clouded the freedom of others.

[Happy lil Elf]

I'll forgive you the bullshit, Phae, and respond to you in a civil manner, mostly because you seem to just be misnderstanding me and I'm all flamed out for today:




Does the average file sharer have any idea what you're talking about any more than I do though, Phaelon? I think it's safe to say no. It's an interesting read and while I follow the gist of what you're saying, there's not much I could do to exploit it. This is probably safe to say about most of the people who spent hours downloading music off of Napster for example. Getting through what you're talking about takes knowledge and rather specific knowledge at that.

Would draconic requirements on ISPs hurt your average internet user? Bet your ass. For someone who is so obviously educated on the subject you don't seem to grasp that. It's great that you could get around all of the theorectical bullshit with ease. The problem with that is that not everyone has the knowledge to do so. Would they stop file sharing by doing so? They could put a slowdown on it, but I don't think it would be a total stop no.

If you'll read the quote you posted you might understand that whether they could stop it or not is rather irrelevant to the argument I was making. Giving the government an excuse to get involved with policing the internet even more than they already do (which is very, very minimal at this time) because someone doesn't want to shell out some cash for a product is a foolish thing to do.

Now I am more than ready to admit this: "There are ways to stop file sharing over the web." should have been left out. Honestly I thought I had deleted it before posting but, oh well, damage done. I will readily agree that currently there is no way to stop it. Theoretically speaking though, there are ways. It would involve a lot of research and more importantly money to do so, so It will probably not happen. However will that stop the government from trying? Probably not

but your points are just horribly constructed and your misguided ways have clouded the freedom of others.

Then by all means, please, counter them instead of writing a flame or rather if you're going to write a page long flame, try tackling more than one if they're all "horribly constructed". I don't think I'll hold my breath though. And while you're at it, please, elaborate on how my "misguided ways have clouded the freedom of others". This statement makes no sense at all.

[Phaelon]

It wasn't meant as a flame, I was pissed because a machine I was playing with was not happy about the Ram I used for it.

I guess that was all I was argueing about, I dislike it when people use Extremes to explain something. You admitted there was a way around it, like with everything in Life, that is cool by me.

My reasoning behind the freedoms things is pointless at best. I don't know what I was trying to get at there. I suppose it deals with the fact that the Industry needs to change, big time. And to me you seem to be avoiding that issue, and talking more about how users should stop or there should be government regulation when the people who need to act are the developers, not the production companies.

Nice attempt at a dodge, the question however still stands. If you produced something with intent to sell it to make a comfortable living, and the product was stolen instead of bought, would you be pissed? Yes.

As to the above quote: Good for you. This is not a relevant to the argument at hand. Software companies do not operate on the theory that they're good samaritans freely giving their time to improve a bunch of random peoples lives.

Lets see :
www.webmin.com
www.nagios.org
www.phpnuke.org
www.mandrake.com
http://fedora.redhat.com/
www.gentoo.org
http://www.debian.org/

Shall I go on? All of those company's make FREE software BASED on the fact that people will use it to better thier lives. Fedora from Red hat is free. Mandrake is free. Gentoo is free. Debian is free.

There are HUGE amounts of company's that offer free software. For every company that charges, there is a company that gives it away.

[Happy lil Elf]

That's cool Phae, today wasn't the best day I've had in awhile either, and it's just another in a long string lately. It's rather amazing how quiet life can be and suddenly the shit hits the fan seemingly overnight >_<

Honestly I'm suprised I manged to keep that post anything near civil

Shall I go on? All of those company's make FREE software BASED on the fact that people will use it to better thier lives. Fedora from Red hat is free. Mandrake is free. Gentoo is free. Debian is free.

There are HUGE amounts of company's that offer free software. For every company that charges, there is a company that gives it away.

That's still beside the point though. If you made something, with the intent to sell it to provide yourself and your employees with a comfortalbe living, and it was stolen and rather rampantly at that, would you be pissed? Obviously it's a rehtorical question since I really don't think anyone could answer "No" truthfully.

It's great that there are companies that want to put out software for free. I don't have any problem with them wanting to do that, in fact I'm all for it. But the fact that those companies simply exist doesn't justify pirating software from a company that isn't giving their software away. Obviously this isn't a perfect example but isn't that a lot like saying it's ok to shoplift food because there are soup kitchens?

[_-Gunslinger-_]

Ok happy you clearly didnt notice how in my example you ignored a portion of his supporting arguments. Ok so let me use the nifty quote feature:

Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

That is the poriton in whitch you ignored. I believe this because you responded this way to this comment:

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It hurts the businesses that produce it. They employ people and therefore it can indeed hurt those people. Does anyone die from it? No. Can it cause people to get laid off? Yes.

Please tell me your not trying to argue that piracy doesn't hurt any businesses/professionals. If you are, I strongly suggest you do the world a favor and at the bare minimum have yourself steralized or, preferably, go play a game of chicken with a Mac truck and don't puss out.

Now how does it hurt a company if they would not have gotten the money anyhow? I realise that this is not always 100% of the time in warezing, however this is the way that I use it. Because niether side can acuratly claim that a certain percentage of warez are future customers from whatever company they steal from, we must stick to what I do.