INSANE!! FL Academic Version Price Increase

[Reverse Engineer]

I know this is music forum, but my Mercury Tracer is looking older and becoming less useful lately. If anybody has a link to a warezed Lexus, I'd appreciate it.....

Take care,

GreyLion

As you know, we get everything berfore everyone else, so here's a nice lexus concept for ya....
Remember, don't make money using warezed automobiles.

[GreyLion]

Oh, Hell, yes!

I believe that I could complete my travel-related projects much more gracefully in that Lexus than in my Tracer.

Of course, I'll buy it if I end up finding that it meets my needs.

[rbet]

But that lexus is not professionell.

[Hink]

But that lexus is not professionell.

I don't like the GUI

[Meffy]

Please click on thumbnail below.

Feh! Pretty face but she sings not, even when the mouse clicketh. Thanks for trying though.

[rbet]

Please click on thumbnail below.

Feh! Pretty face but she sings not, even when the mouse clicketh. Thanks for trying though.

It is hardwarez, it doesn't need a mouse, stupid.

[play]

I wonder if you lost your gear like I did if you'd be singing the same song about different levels of stealing...

To chime in (maybe): it would be quite interesting to hear what constitutes the act of stealing. If you possess hardware and I take it away from you, that's stealing, obviously. The reason is: after the fact you can't use it anymore, it's gone. Whereas I have it now and can use it. Also, you got nothing in return and you didn't agree to the change of ownership.

That's quite different from making a copy of a program because afterwards there are now two items where previously was just one (kinda like the Jesus/fish/bread thing). So, actually you're not stealing but (re)producing something, so that afterwards two people can use it.

Thus, stealing in this case can only mean, you're preventing a *potential* sale for the owner of the program. Maybe you define that as stealing as well. But there's another aspect to this - one that seems insigificant for smaller developers but is extremly important for huge software companies. When you buy a piece of software, you (usually) pay with money that has been earned exploting either resources or labour (your own, most of the time). So when a software company sells product X for 299,- they receive the power to buy new resources or labour worth 299,-. But if they make a copy of the program and sell that too, they now have the power to buy labour or resources worth 598,-. In order to get into this more powerful position they didn't give invest anything remotely as valuable, be it resources or labour - they just made a copy! I think this alone is a very questionable process considering that labour and resources are finite while you can create virtually unlimited numbers of digital copies with almost no additional cost. But it gets much worse when essentially the owner of a company makes copies of a program that an employee created for him and keeps the multiplied revenues to himself. This may well be legal (with the programmers forced consent) but something tells me that it shouldn't be.

I've tried to put this idea across numerous times in related disucssions, inevitably killing the respective thread, so you might as well consider this thread closed now...

[pj geerlings]

bla bla ... I've tried to put this idea across numerous times in related disucssions, inevitably killing the respective thread, so you might as well consider this thread closed now...

Keep trying to rationalize theft there sparky - fact is: it is still theft.

A software company (big or small) bases the price of their software based on the FACT that it can be distributed and sold a particular number of times.

[Muff Wiggler]

which is why you can get the world's best Hammond emulation for a mere $28 if you really hurry

[play]

Keep trying to rationalize theft there sparky

What gives you the idea that I'm rationalizing theft, sparky? Did you even try to understand the issue?

[pj geerlings]

Keep trying to rationalize theft there sparky

What gives you the idea that I'm rationalizing theft, sparky? Did you even try to understand the issue?

No, you misunderstand, you are sparky, my name is PJ

[pj geerlings]

which is why you can get the world's best Hammond emulation for a mere $28 if you really hurry

Yo Muff! The Hammond emulation is free, if you want a Leslie emulation with that you gotta pay...

[play]

Keep trying to rationalize theft there sparky

What gives you the idea that I'm rationalizing theft, sparky? Did you even try to understand the issue?

No, you misunderstand, you are sparky, my name is PJ ;)

Aha, so just a little abuse and no actual interest in the issue. Thought so...

[birrbits]

But it gets much worse when essentially the owner of a company makes copies of a program that an employee created for him and keeps the multiplied revenues to himself. This may well be legal (with the programmers forced consent) but something tells me that it shouldn't be.

This would only SEEM illegal if say the company STOPPED paying the employee...
But
a) every job is not a contract job
b) in many cases (in this market) the employee IS the company
c) get a job
d) theft is theft
e) the farmer doesnt pay the chickens to lay eggs, should we pay the farmer?

I want eggs, not jail

[Hink]

Keep trying to rationalize theft there sparky

What gives you the idea that I'm rationalizing theft, sparky? Did you even try to understand the issue?

no, you're not doing that at all...I see the point quite clear...sure there are degrees of stealing. degrees of lying, whatever...but in the long run they are all dishonest, that's just the bottom line. To except some dishonesty and condemn other dishonesty is a bit hypocritical imo, no matter what you base it on. Now don't get me wrong I'm npt calling you names, I am saying how I look at it.

The guy that stole my gear was dishonest, if I behave dishonestly as well, that doesn't speak well for the standard I believe in so if I would have to accept it as I would be no better. Dishonest is dishonest, that's all it takes for me, that's where I draw my line in the sand. Just like when it was said that there are different degrees of murder...yes there is, but dead is still dead...