khunsanuk Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Hi, "Now you address my questions about the reselling of print media, second hand book stores etc, and answer my question, why do software manufactures want all these oppressive restrictions on the use of their products that don't exist/aren't enforced for other media?" It seems you still do not get the distinction between sharing a book and making a copy of a piece of software. Second hand book stores sell books that the previous owners no longer have (since they sold it to the bookstore). Each book can also only be sold once. Shops selling pirated DVDs/CDs sell *copies* of the original, which means that the original owner still has his copy; and the DVD/CD can be sold multiple times. I really cannot understand that you cannot see the difference between these two things. Maybe you are just trying to justify the theft to yourself? As for the same restrictions not being imposed on books, try buying a book and then photocopying it 1000 times and sell it. My guess is that you'll have to cops knocking on your door rather quickly. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 OK, to KS and Weird, Print is only 1 example. I am talking about ALL copy righted stuff! As for books...ever been to Cambodia? Almost impossible to by a book that is NOT pirated. Again, ALL Copyrighted items, t-shirt logos, football/sports shirts/jerseys that have a licensed copyrighted logo, watches, pens, all the "copies" they sell on Sukhumvit. High ground...at least one guy here was advocating a stiff prison sentence, deportation etc for a woman selling DVD and what ever other pirated items...yet this guy said nothing should happen to the buyers...aren't they/we part of the problem. My question is why don't the people who consider this as stealing also consider the use/purchase of other copy righted items as stealing also? Why doesn't anyone get so impassioned about say the selling of "copied" Rolexs? Should the sellers of these items also be given stiff sentences and deportation? If the theft of intellectual property is so awful, then why do you engage in it? Be it with games ans software, movies, music, or other items? Why is 1 o.k. and not others...? And No, I honestly don't see *Some* of this as stealing at all (Peer to peer sharing etc...). Once I buy something, what I do with it is my business, including making a copy for a friend. Not Theft in my book, I paid for it. Weird, Belligerent in my views? Moi? I'll say the same applies to you and yours. We're not going to convince each other here...fun trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Hi, "Again, ALL Copyrighted items, t-shirt logos, football/sports shirts/jerseys that have a licensed copyrighted logo, watches, pens, all the "copies" they sell on Sukhumvit." Yes, and it is all illegal. Why do you think these items get confiscated if you try to import them into your own country? There is a slight difference between those items and software though. Those items are usually inferior to the real thing, while software is identical. "If the theft of intellectual property is so awful, then why do you engage in it?" Easy. It is much cheaper and very easy to get away with. The difference between us is that I accept that I am stealing, while you try to justify it. "And No, I honestly don't see *Some* of this as stealing at all (Peer to peer sharing etc...). Once I buy something, what I do with it is my business, including making a copy for a friend. Not Theft in my book, I paid for it." So, say you make a kick ass photo. You sell it to a guy for $50. He then starts mass producing them, charging $10 each for them and makes a couple $100K. You wouldn't be upset or pissed off? Now tell me how that is different from copying software. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 "...So, say you make a kick ass photo. You sell it to a guy for $50. He then starts mass producing them, charging $10 each for them and makes a couple $100K. You wouldn't be upset or pissed off? Now tell me how that is different from copying software...." AH, EXACTLY my argument about used book stores and Used CD shops. Yet if you try and resell *certain* software, look the fuck out! As for selling my kick ass photos and having someone make more off of them than I did, this is more less the norm. Again, I sold it to the guy, knowing he could/would do that. It is what publishers do. Sure I could get pissed, but at the end of the day, karma/tic for tac...I bought a copied Rolex, someone else bought a copy of my photographic work. I got paid, where is my complaint? But go back to my original theory here. say the person was NOT going to buy my photos at $50, I won't get his money. But that person might buy it for $10, from someone else. I still don't get his money, so what is the difference, and how did the buyer "steal from me, or hurt me financially?" I wasn't going to get his cash anyway. My choice in that scenario is to offer my photo work at a cheaper price, hoping more people will buy it from me and not the other party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Hi, "AH, EXACTLY my argument about used book stores and Used CD shops." Not at all the same thing. In the case of book stores and used CD shops, you DON'T have your book / CD anymore after you sell it. And it can only be sold ONCE. The photo in my example above can be sold an infinite number of times by just printing it again and again. "But go back to my original theory here. say the person was NOT going to buy my photos at $50, I won't get his money. But that person might buy it for $10, from someone else. I still don't get his money, so what is the difference, and how did the buyer "steal from me, or hurt me financially?" I wasn't going to get his cash anyway." The problem is that you also won't get the money from those who would be willing to pay $50, but buy the $10 instead so they can save money. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Hi, BTW, what would you call it if you took a Ferrari from a dealer? No payment, you just drive it out, because you were not intending to pay that much money for a car anyway. What do you think the owner of the dealership call it? How about the police? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weird Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 It's naive to think that everybody who paid $10 for an item would never have paid $50. There's no way to prove it, hence why it's not a viable arguement. As for punishing the buyers, they can't always tell the difference between real and fake (yes ignorance is hardly a good excuse but it seems to stand). The seller on the other hand who made the copies is directly guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 "...Hi, BTW, what would you call it if you took a Ferrari from a dealer? No payment, you just drive it out, because you were not intending to pay that much money for a car anyway. What do you think the owner of the dealership call it? How about the police? Sanuk!..." When I took a dodge 30 years ago, it was called Grand Theft Auto. However, if you sell me the car, and I then sell it to someone, or let you use it, I/you don't have to pay any fees to Ferrarri do you? All the crap associated with Software is part of what pisses me off about it. Which is why I don't buy a lot of it. Correct me if I am wrong, but when you buy software, it is supposedly only for your use. Any additional use, professional use, transfer of ownership etc in many cases requires that you pay a fee for that or so I recall Adobe telling me. In many cases, I am limited as to how many of my own machines I can put it on. Ridicules. Giving you a copy of a disk I bought is not stealing to me, nor is letting you use it "without express written permission of...." Yet it seems the industry does consider it stealing. I consider stealing going in and actually taking it off the shelf...but again, one I pay for it, MINE. "..."AH, EXACTLY my argument about used book stores and Used CD shops." Not at all the same thing. In the case of book stores and used CD shops, you DON'T have your book / CD anymore after you sell it. And it can only be sold ONCE..." Sort of is the same thing...very similar to your photo analogy. The argument raised by the recording industry is/was, the reseller could ultimately make more off the cd than they did. The disk can be sold and resold many times over. NO royalties or license fees etc paid to the artists...big law suit on that a few years back, not sure how it ended. Same reason *some* radio stations can't broadcast on the internet, record indusrty wants a cut of royalties/usage fees for the music played. "...The problem is that you also won't get the money from those who would be willing to pay $50, but buy the $10 instead so they can save money..." Yes, but again, I wasn't going to get their money anyway, so no measurable loss to me. I could of course sell the photo for $10, and maybe get their money. At some point it isn't really profitable to copy things. Anyway, I'll agree that we disagree, and go at that, you are not going to convince me this is really stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Hi, "However, if you sell me the car, and I then sell it to someone, or let you use it, I/you don't have to pay any fees to Ferrarri do you?" Once again ... the difference is that if you give me the car, you CAN'T use it at the same time! I am really confused that you refuse to see this point. I know you are not that stupid "I consider stealing going in and actually taking it off the shelf...but again, one I pay for it, MINE." So, how is that different than you grabbing a copy of the Internet? You don't pay for it that way either. Oh, right, I forgot, you are 'borrowing' it from someone who 'bought' it. Right "The argument raised by the recording industry is/was, the reseller could ultimately make more off the cd than they did. The disk can be sold and resold many times over. NO royalties or license fees etc paid to the artists..." Okay, I accept that point. Still not completely the same as outright copying a CD though. "Anyway, I'll agree that we disagree, and go at that, you are not going to convince me this is really stealing." Certainly looks that way Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 "..."However, if you sell me the car, and I then sell it to someone, or let you use it, I/you don't have to pay any fees to Ferrarri do you?" Once again ... the difference is that if you give me the car, you CAN'T use it at the same time! I am really confused that you refuse to see this point. I know you are not that stupid ..." the idea of the car is, there is NO fee demanded from the manufacturer for me loaning it to you. There is also no resell/reactivation fee when I sell the car to another person, the manufacturer got their money and that is all...NOT the case with a lot of software/dvds etc if you read the fine print. In *some* case, you aren't even supposed to loan it to someone on your computer. Anyway, still love you...in a very gay way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.