Verrrry interesting how long this thread has lasted, enough posts to stir my typing fingers . . .
* Alot of the debate has focused on the legal details, but I'd rather instead tackle the ethical issues. I'm not too keen on following rules simply because the rules exist . . . I'd rather look at what effect my actions have on others than how my actions conform to those rules. Too often rules fail to address the underlying ethical issues. People usually make ethical decisions based on values meaningful to themselves. I have arrived at a system which works for, and has meaning to me - the principle of not taking anything from others. That is, will my action materially harm someone else in _any_ way? I'd sooner break a rule than hurt someone, even if following the rule meant I was acting "lawfully". And alternatively, if breaking a rule hurts _noone_, then where's the moral and ethical imperative which addresses such "lawlessness"? * As a content creator (photographer) I'm extremely well aware of the concept of being paid for use of one's creations. However, I can see no harm in _some_ instances of intellectual property (eg: SW, music) "piracy". I'll readily confess to having used _many_ SW titles for which I didn't pay, titles I would have never purchased at their going price. I've sampled some of the most expensive, costly, un-freakin'-believable apps available for the Mac. Cool stuff, fun with which to play . . . * But when I use SW to make a living, I make damn well sure I have paid the software's creators for the privilege of using such wonderful tools. I regularly use Photoshop, Xpress, Illustrator, etc., all for which I've got legal, paid-for licenses. I advise clients on SW purchases, and frequently I'll give them a copy of an app which they are considering to try out. In such all cases, I strictly insist if they use the app to make money, then they must purchase their own license. So I guess, some uses are more equal than others. Basically, I think that if the content would be purchased in any case, then the content _should_ be purchased. And that often seems to be related to using the content to make money. Here's some cases: * Apple's licensing terms apply to every SW product they've ever shipped, including those of 2 decades ago . . . so the only way to legally install a copy of 7.6 on, say, a Quadra 700 is to buy _another_ OEM 7.6 CD? Pshaw, that's a preposterous notion, even if strictly legal it makes no real world sense. You cannot purchase a copy of 7.6 from Apple, not can you get anything earlier than 10.2 AFAIK. So based on what I think is a practical notion that old, no-longer-supported/no-longer-sold SW titles should not be held to such strict legal interpretations, where does one draw this ethical line? I have zero doubt that using the same 7.6 SW installer, over and over and over for many different _old_ Macs hurts Apple not at all. BTW, Apple has in the past been pretty good about replacing original media for Macs I've purchased second-hand. A call to Apple has gotten a new set shipped out _at_no_charge_ the next day. Pretty damn spiffy, if you ask me. Not so great if your Mac came with 8.0 and you _really_ wanted 9.1 instead, but hey, get over it. <G> Another angle: * The copy of Adobe's After Effects Pro with which I play took nothing away from its creator and vendor because I'd have never purchased a copy anyway. It just "popped up" but I never would have bought it. Adobe isn't out any money, even though I may spend some of my time trying/testing/playing with it. Adobe sells tools to do work, in this example I'm not doing "work". My playing with their tool takes nothing away from Adobe. In fact, I might even argue Adobe could potentially benefit as I may now perhaps purchase myself or recommend purchase to a client if the tool fit a job. And yet another angle: * With intellectual property you purchase content, not media . . . so why should I pay full price for replacement media (eg: music??) Should I really need to pay for ANOTHER "license" when all I really need is to replace a damaged CD or an inconvenienty analog LP?? Geez! I think the music companies should allow vinyl owners to purchase identical-title CDs for production cost. LOL, yeah that's gonna happen! <G> I regularly borrow CDs from others - with the same songs I have on vinyl - for the express purpose of ripping that music to MP3s. Does that cause me the least little guilt? Hell no, I paid for privilege of having those songs on an LP record ages ago. It's just a whole lot easier to rip from a CD than from my LP player. My iPod is my only music playback system these days, so I really don't feel badly for the record Co.s not getting another chunk of my change for the same content I supposedly already "own". K, I'm done with this rant. Sorry to take up so much space, <G> Dan K ................................. http://macdan.n3.net/ carracho://dankephoto.dhs.org:9700 hotline://dankephoto.dhs.org:9500 ................................. -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
