Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures

File Swapping isn't as bad as wife swapping!

Published on July 22, 2005 By lifehappens In Current Events

Draginol recently posted an article about file-swapping, Kazza. Rather than hijack his thread, I decided to post my lengthy thoughts here.

I agree that stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you walk out of the store with a box or download a program from the internet. No arguments there.

That being said, I am publicly confessing. I have used LimeWire, Kazza and pirated copies of various programs throughout the years. I am guilty. I have stolen ideas from other people's websites, by copying the codes and using them myself. I have used software, copied Disney movies (for my own use), copied tapes, downloaded music, burned CDs and more....all because I was too selfish to be honest.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, I was just "checking the music out" and that I would buy some songs later on. But honestly, I would listen to a song for a week or two and then discard it. But by doing that, I'm still stealing.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, "I was just watching tv shows that I missed." I didn't pay for premium cable and I don't intend on paying an extra $80 for one show. I did rent it from blockbuster, but Season 2 wasn't out yet....so I downloaded it from Kazza. It's still stealing. I didn't pay for it.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, "She had to load a program so they could finish a project on my computer (her's crashed)....but I left it on my computer and continued to use it. That's illegal.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, "I just used my friend's copy of Photoshop to see if I liked it." But it wasn't honest to do that. (I did eventually buy it) It was still stealing.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, I just used the trial copy of WindowBlinds indefinetely. Oh, wait, I AM still using the trial copy and it's LEGAL. I still feel a little guilty for not buying it. but I am broke and I can't afford it right now. BUT thanks to the smart guys over at WinCustomize. I have a FREE trial copy that I can use it indefinetely. A lot of the features that look really cool are disabled until I pay for it, but that's okay. The longer I use it and test it, the more likely I am to buy it (which I plan to)

I know that pirating stuff is wrong. I'm not stupid. I've justified it in the past but Draginol has made a good point that people tend to ignore. They change the subject or point fingers at "the system" but the fact remains....Stealing is wrong. It was wrong in the 80s when your buddy made a mixed tape for you. It was wrong in the 90s when you bought a pirated DVD and it is wrong when you download pirated material now.

On the other side, we have WinZip trial version and the free WindowBlinds. It allows casual users the chance to test it out, legally. I sacrifice the high-end cool features for the chance to play around with it, but I don't have to steal to do it. Maybe other companies would have more success if they followed this lead. MS is now offering free trial versions of Office etc. The trials are time based instead of feature based, so maybe that will not encourage honesty. Someone who has used a program for 90 days may not want to run out and give someone $300 for the privilage of using the same stuff. But paying to get features enabled? Maybe that will work. But I doubt it.

It boils down to this. Stealing is wrong. Excuses don't change the truth. Stealing is wrong. People won't stop being dishonest, but that doesn't mean you should do it too. Because... (repeat after me....) STEALING IS WRONG.
"

Comments (Page 3)

drmiler

on Jul 27, 2005

If you buy a print of a photo from an artist, you don't have the right to make copies of it and sell them OR GIVE THEM AWAY FOR FREE! Only the person who OWNS the original image can do that. If you pay for the copyright, you then have the right to do anything you want with it. I think a lot of people misunderstand the idea that IF you can copy it, you should be allowed to. You pay for one copy of an item, not the rights to distribute. for money or not.

Wrong! If the image is of you and you hired them to take the picture, you damn well do own it! And as such if you want to make copies to "send" to your relatives it's your right to do so. If I "hire" someone to take the picture, guess what......I own it. Buy a picture package, 99% of the time you get the negs along with the pics! And an FYI, medical records are a totally different story. The reason they are kept by the doctor is for legal purposes. A person has cancer, Dr operates and removes same. Person sues Dr and says you didn't get it all. Guess what? Doc has record to prove otherwise. And on top of all that you did NOT hire the doctor to write that record did you? No, you hired him to treat your illness.

bakerstreet

on Jul 28, 2005

"Wrong! If the image is of you and you hired them to take the picture, you damn well do own it! "

No one differs with that, Doc. No one ever said that, though. What was said was:

"Try this example and tell me you are not stealing....As a photographer, I make my living with my photographs. You buy ONE picture from me and then copy it 47 times to send to family and friends. Is this stealing? You are taking my work and not paying for it. You stealing my income by copying the pictures without paying."

He didn't mention work-for-hire, or portraits, or whatever. He also said "my photographs" which I took to mean artistic photos.

Texas Wahine

on Jul 28, 2005

Wrong! If the image is of you and you hired them to take the picture, you damn well do own it!

Wrong!

You have no legal rights to reproduce the photograph without permission of the studio/photographer from whom you bought it (doesn't matter if it's a photo of you or little cousin Jimmy, or whoever). This is why the photo kiosks will not reproduce professional photos for you.

Of course, there's no way for the studio or anyone else to stop you from using your personal scanner to make copies of your portraits.

AngelaMarie88

on Aug 02, 2005

Hi Dana, I'm making a belated cameo appearance. I haven't read the previous 34 comments, so maybe my point has already been made, but I agree:

Downloading, copying, etc is stealing. Stealing is wrong (but I do it anyway).

Something I heard recently really spelled the issue out for me:

Movies and music are PRODUCTS. People put their talent, time, and effort into making these things. They get compensated when WE PAY for their products. If we don't pay for it, they don't get paid as much as they ought to.

But I'm still a stealer. Let's see, would I rather: 1) Fork out a chunk of change to see a movie in an uncomfortable theatre with tons of noisy people and cell phones, too scared to miss part of the movie to take a potty break ...or 2) download the movie for free at home and watch it at my convenience, going potty as many times as I want, with the ability to pause and rewind the movie, with the freedom to wear anything I want or sit or lay in any position I want, not have to fight traffic, listen to annoying theatre-goers carry on conversations, their cell phones ringing?

Wait, then there's option 3, closely associated with option 2: Would I like to do some time in jail? That would suck.

Chaos Manager

on Aug 02, 2005

Here's another twist:

I am a programmer (by trade/inclination). Any work that I do for my employer becomes the property of my employer (work for hire). Any programming that I do on my own time belongs to me. If I then contract out to Joe Snuffy to do some database work. This work belongs to Joe Snuffy (again, as work for hire).

If I write an application (say, a library management package) that turn around and donate a copy to a local organization (a seminary's library, say). Would this pass the copyright of the application to the seminary or would I keep it?

My answer (as I understand copyright law): I would retain all copyright to the application. If the receiving organization installs it on multiple computers, then it becomes a violation of that copyright. If they make a copy of the CD, that makes it a copyright violation.

Same with music, movies, books, etc.

In fact, I went through this recently w/ my employer. I have copies of my music CDs on the hard drive here at work. Since I use the CDROM and DVD for official uses consistently throughout the day, it makes it more convenient. The company asked me to prove that I owned legitimate copies of all the music on the drive. They were more than a little shocked when I showed up the next morning with a box full of 50+ CD's ... in the original jewel cases and the original discs were actually in the case.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!