4 ms·
> Price is a barrier to entry for many users who wouldn't have paid for the software. This is what demos, student licenses, etc. are for. I don't care what you
by 23B1 2y ago
> Price is a barrier to entry for many users who wouldn't have paid for the software.
This is what demos, student licenses, etc. are for. I don't care what your justification is, property theft is wrong.
- ChumpGPT 2y ago1st world opinion.......
- 23B1 2y ago3rd world entitlement......
- mdaniel 2y ago> property theft is wrong. It sure is, and those people should promptly return their stolen Photoshop bits to the front door of any local fire station so Adobe can put them back into their bit warehouse and ship them to paying customers next day air
- 23B1 2y agoIt's about character as much as it is about value.
- akoboldfrying 2y agoIt's not property theft by most definitions, but it's still harmful in much the same way as property theft is harmful -- and in exactly the same way that me watching you type in your password is harmful, even though afterwards you still know your own password.
- mdaniel 2y agoOne of our two mental models of property theft is incorrect: someone downloading Photoshop does not deprive Adobe of its ability to sell the Photoshop it manufactured to someone else And I adamantly disagree with your password analogy if for no other reason than your password scenario creates temporal harm (assuming I do not change my password, of course) in a way that someone pirating version 1.0 does not automatically give them access to 1.1 or other product lines. In fact, I'll see your temporal factor and raise you: if someone pirates a product on Monday, and then buys the product on Tuesday, should they be jailed on Wednesday? I'm eventually going to be sorry that I waded into this discussion, but I found the stolen bits == property theft so absurd I wanted to mock it, and now it seems this thread is somehow doubling down on false equivalences. Piracy can be morally wrong for taking food out of software engineer's mouths, but one should not lump it into breaking-and-entering just to ratchet up the "look at how bad it is" factor
- 23B1 2y agoNo, I think they're the same. Probably they feel different to you, depending on who you're stealing from, but ripping a DVD and putting it up on the internet during the theatrical window can really hurt filmmakers – who already make peanuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_distribution#Shrinking_of_the_theatrical_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_distribution#Shrinking_of... One person breaking and entering is bad. But in my example, this person broke-and-entered and then gave all of my future earnings away to literally everyone on the planet, thanks to the multiplicative power of technology – that's an outrageous violation.
- topato 2y agoHaha, yeah, I'm pretty sure there would be a hell of a lot less working professionals using the Adobe suite today if we had all used Adobe's generous 14-day trial to get to grips with Photoshop or Flash or Dreamweaver when we were 12 or 13 years old. Or enrolled in University, I guess? I would expect Adobe would be nothing but a forgotten brand name list to the annals of time at this point, considering their Suite has been the most pirated application every year since the early days of Windows 95... And yet....
- 23B1 2y agoYeah Adobe sucks which is why I use alternatives.
- 123pie123 2y agoit is NOT 'property theft', since nothing has been stolen, just copied the term you want is Copyright infringement
- throw10920 2y agoI wouldn't use the term "property theft", as even though there's a very clear analogue to IP and digital economics for anyone who cares to think about it, pro-piracy pedants will gladly jump on the term (which is strongly tied to physical property) to avoid addressing the problem itself. This problem doesn't happen as much with other terms like "theft", "IP theft", and "piracy".
- pbhjpbhj 2y agoYou don't have to be "pro-piracy" to be anti media propaganda that tries to equate duplication with denial of a person's right to their own property. They're very different things. If you think copyright infringement and theft are synonymous then presumably you'd be happy with people paying for copyrighted goods with a picture of some money, because a copy that doesn't involve a transference of control is identical with the actual item, right?!
- akoboldfrying 2y agoIf I watch you type in your bank password, I haven't stolen it from you, because you still know your bank password. No theft occurred, so everything's fine, right?
- pbhjpbhj 2y agoYou're right, you didn't steal my bank password, you can use that to commit fraud, deceiving the bank systems to then enable stealing. Some might says you did steal the password, because you made it unusable for me, but that's a pretty subtle position I'm content with either side of. Perhaps you'd understand better if you consider a physical key - if you take it then I cannot open the lock (with that key at least). If you only copy it, I can still open the lock, so you didn't steal it from me; but the possibility of use allowed you to deny me the use of whatever the lock protects. Not so with most copyright works. If you copy my music I can still listen to my copy as often a I like. Maybe you understand the distinction now?
- 23B1 2y ago