Is downloading programs from Kazaa wrong?

[tileman]

It's not like they have one less if you do. And considering say Autocad2002 costs several thousand dollars, I'm not likely to buy it untill I'm at least somewhat proficient at using it. How better than to practice on a "borrowed" program?

Now obviously once proficiency IS obtained, I'd want a fully registered, purchased version to make use of all of it's web functionality.

And there are many other programs that would be in the same boat. Doesn't it pomote comparison on a real scale, as well as allow a person to REALLY check it out before shelling out some major bucks?

Or how about when you buy version 5 of x program and a few months later they come out with version 6 with the prospect of having to cough up a grand to have the latest and greatest that you thought you had just purchased? Don't you feel semi-justified in a little download upgrade?

Could it be that Kazaa et al are benefitial to the better programs, and help us weed out crap? And possibly give lessor known products a shot at competing that they might not otherwise have?

[The Guardian]

tileman: I do see what you are getting at and that is what the shareware model is supposed to be. In other words if you use the software, you pay for it.

Here is the problem. Now bear in mind that I am coming at this as a software developer as that is what my profession is.

Yes, software is expensive. And the more it does, usually the more expensive it is. The problem in this is that it takes high-priced people to create this software and the money to do so comes from sales. If people do not buy it and pirate it (which is what technically is happening here), then you are depriving the company of revenue to operate. Which means it makes it harder to develop said software.

I also realize there are companies that put out cr*p software. Microsoft comes to mind in that they tend to release software before its completely tested. There are others that are equally guilty. And it galls people to have to pay for stuff that does not work.

Probably the happy medium are those companies that freely allow evaluation copies. What typically happens there is that you can use some or all features of the program, but the ability to save or do something "commercial" with it is crippled.

I do see your point. But do remember that something like Autocad probably takes a team of 100+ people to develop. Or more.

[Moonchild]

Yes, I always use Direct Connect ;D

[tileman]

tileman: I do see what you are getting at and that is what the shareware model is supposed to be. In other words if you use the software, you pay for it.

Here is the problem. Now bear in mind that I am coming at this as a software developer as that is what my profession is.

Yes, software is expensive. And the more it does, usually the more expensive it is. The problem in this is that it takes high-priced people to create this software and the money to do so comes from sales. If people do not buy it and pirate it (which is what technically is happening here), then you are depriving the company of revenue to operate. Which means it makes it harder to develop said software.

I also realize there are companies that put out cr*p software. Microsoft comes to mind in that they tend to release software before its completely tested. There are others that are equally guilty. And it galls people to have to pay for stuff that does not work.

Probably the happy medium are those companies that freely allow evaluation copies. What typically happens there is that you can use some or all features of the program, but the ability to save or do something "commercial" with it is crippled.


This is all hypothetical of course.........and I'm using autocad as an example of a higher dollar program only.
I'd bet that kazaa creates more sales than it costs autodesk though.

To someone who knows how to use it, it's definitely worth the money to get full functionality thru registration, updates, downloads, and whatever. Not to mention the need to compare so as to be sure which program best suits your particular needs.

[nickg]

QUOTE:
"Is downloading programs from Kazaa wrong?"

only if you are lars ulrich from metallica and feel that downloading is taking money out of your pocket so you can't buy more blow and heineken.

QUOTE:
"Is downloading programs from Kazaa wrong?"

only if you are lars ulrich from metallica and feel that downloading is taking money out of your pocket so you can't buy more blow and heineken.


I don't think that helped him much in the "popularity" contest with the fans. I wonder what the stats are on people that said "Screw Metallica" because of it?

[nickg]

the thing that gets me is that the musicians that have made the most money over the years are the ones that bitch the most about downloaded files.

f**k them and the limos they ride in!!

the thing that gets me is that the musicians that have made the most money over the years are the ones that bitch the most about downloaded files.

f**k them and the limos they ride in!!


Not to appear sympathetic to Mr. Ulrich and his ilk, but I can certainly understand his point of view. I am in the same situation on a daily basis. We report depositions for attorneys and opposing counsel gets the original. They photocopy it in lieu of ordering a copy to save some bucks. Sounds reasonable, right? Saving a little money for your client? One problemo...it's WORK PRODUCT that, in effect, you are stealing from an officer of the court. I would say, conservatively, that I am "ripped off" almost 100k per year by attorneys doing this. Am I pissed? You bet. Do I do something about it? Yep.

We have some "special" paper that is not able to be photocopied. When we "hear" that the attorneys are "No, I don't want a copy, I'll just copy the original," ::) I put it on that "special" paper. They get irate! Furious!! Saber rattling "I'm gonna sue you." I kid you not. Because I am NOT allowing them to steal work product, they are going to sue me?

I can't believe in 25 years one of those cases hasn't made it to court. I think they realize how intelligent their argument would sound to the Judge.

[Thunder Bay]

Whoa up here, Bad;

Metallica created their music; the music industry is responsible for that fiasco. The depositions you record are not your material; that would be like a translator selling audio tapes of the translation to the people that missed it. If you're losing 100k a year, how much do the freakin' photocopies cost out there? You shouldn't be surprised lawyers want to sue you; that's what they do. You're hangin' out with them, aren't you?

Whoa up here, Bad;

The depositions you record are not your material; that would be like a translator selling audio tapes of the translation to the people that missed it. If you're losing 100k a year, how much do the freakin' photocopies cost out there? You shouldn't be surprised lawyers want to sue you; that's what they do. You're hangin' out with them, aren't you?


The material I "report" MOST definately is my material. It is called "work product." It is not copyrighted, but there are reporters who are doing so with each transcript. If "they" want to sit there and have someone tape the damn depo and then have someone transcribe it from that tape, they are more than free to do so. Of course, it would not be admissible in a court of law because *I* am the only authorized person who can "certify" that what was said was what was said.

Now, "Why," you may ask, "don't they just video the proceedings?" Well, sir, that's been tried hundreds of times. Uno prolemo. The judges don't want to watch the video. They want to read the transcript. You can scan a typed transcript about 50 times faster than watching the video.

I don't mind the "work product" being partially photocopied in bits and pieces, but to avoid having to pay for it is unethical under the Business and Professions Code. Further, under the Code of Civil Procedure, only a CERTIFIED or ORIGINAL copy may be used in a court of law unless by stipulation, which stipulation is given by the court reporter...and guess what? I would NEVER do that, ergo, if a photocopied transcript shows up in court without a "wet signature," the Court knows that the attorney has "stolen" the work product of the court reporter...and further, further, that young lady sitting in front of the Judge with her stenomachine? She's also a court reporter who is most likely a personal friend of the Judge and even MORE most likely, the Judge is sympathetic to the court reporter vs. the attorney who is stealing another person's livelihood.

To answer your question on how much photocopies cost...approximately .03 per page if you do it in bulk. I sell those pages for $2.50 per page to the attorneys. They aren't paying for the page. They are paying for the "work product" and the "certification." In other words, I am putting MY signature on that transcript and, in effect, betting my ass that what I wrote is accurate. If it is NOT accurate, I am liable and exposed to great damages via suit.

Enough said.

[Persephone]

They're lawyers. If they had a leg to stand on, they would have kicked your ass years ago. Your work is your property. That's the law.

I have some of this stuff to contend with in things I create for my job. I think there is some question about whether my creations belong to me or to the school. If I went to another school, there might be some question about whether I could take them with me. I say yes.

They're lawyers. If they had a leg to stand on, they would have kicked your ass years ago. Your work is your property. That's the law.

I have some of this stuff to contend with in things I create for my job. I think their is some question about whether my creations belong to me or to the school. If I went to another school, there might be some question about whether I could take them with me. I say yes.

If they paid you for the work that you did, the answer is "no."

[Persephone]

They're lawyers. If they had a leg to stand on, they would have kicked your ass years ago. Your work is your property. That's the law.

I have some of this stuff to contend with in things I create for my job. I think there is some question about whether my creations belong to me or to the school. If I went to another school, there might be some question about whether I could take them with me. I say yes.

If they paid you for the work that you did, the answer is "no."






Party pooper. :)

I've put in many uncompensated summer hours making web pages and the like. I've been paid for using those web pages to teach the classes. Whether I was paid to make them is probably a point of contention.

I've put in many uncompensated summer hours making web pages and the like. I've been paid for using those web pages to teach the classes. Whether I was paid to make them is probably a point of contention.


That would be a legal issue, then. If you were to leave and took your "uncompensated" work with you, they would have the opportunity to pay you for it, which, in my opinion, you should have already charged them for to begin with.

Here we enter the world of "proprietary."

[tileman]

There you are...........I was getting worried about ya bud.

[Thunder Bay]

Wow, Bad;

That's like, 238 of your normal posts; glad you found a photo-loophole to cut your losses. Average loss rates indicate you make a ton of dough, eh? Yeah, it's hard to feel bad for Metallica; go Kazaa! ;D

[PackerFan]

No!
you pay for what you get, which in most cases isn't very good audio from a p2p site.

[tileman]

No!
you pay for what you get, which in most cases isn't very good audio from a p2p site.


Yep, same with programs.......they work, but not as good without the updates, web functionality, and whatnot you don't get without registration.

[Meshuga Mikey]

It's not like they have one less if you do. And considering say Autocad2002 costs several thousand dollars, I'm not likely to buy it untill I'm at least somewhat proficient at using it. How better than to practice on a "borrowed" program?

Now obviously once proficiency IS obtained, I'd want a fully registered, purchased version to make use of all of it's web functionality.

And there are many other programs that would be in the same boat. Doesn't it pomote comparison on a real scale, as well as allow a person to REALLY check it out before shelling out some major bucks?

Or how about when you buy version 5 of x program and a few months later they come out with version 6 with the prospect of having to cough up a grand to have the latest and greatest that you thought you had just purchased? Don't you feel semi-justified in a little download upgrade?

Could it be that Kazaa et al are benefitial to the better programs, and help us weed out crap? And possibly give lessor known products a shot at competing that they might not otherwise have?


My Landlords office which my Interbal office sits in the middle of owns several autocad authorized copies of autocad. They make a very good living using it. Why would anyone not doing so need autocad to begin with.? There are a plethora of beginning and far less expensive cad programs available to learn on~!

[PackerFan]

Well here goes my fun! ::)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7283

[tileman]

My Landlords office which my Interbal office sits in the middle of owns several autocad authorized copies of autocad. They make a very good living using it. Why would anyone not doing so need autocad to begin with.? There are a plethora of beginning and far less expensive cad programs available to learn on~!


Why would you buy PhotoImpact if you wanted to learn Photoshop? They probably have more in common than say a cheapie version of TurboCad compared to AutoCad or Architectural Desktop.

It's more of a game for me anyway....Just to play with it.