• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Have/Would you use pirated software?

Have/Would you use pirated software

  • Yes, all the time

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Yes, only if necessary (No money, unsure of program)

    Votes: 29 41.4%
  • No, I'm a good samaritan 0:)

    Votes: 15 21.4%

  • Total voters
    70
The majority of people don't pirate out of choice.

I question how factual this statement is. I have no concrete evidence, but I think it is a safe bet that the majority of pirated "digital product" is music/movies/other media. There are few jobs that REQUIRE anything like this, at least that I can think of. I do welcome discussion though. I am sure I can learn something here!
 
Indeed ... but one that would be a lot less messy with a little application of common sense (IMO).

Sure - but in the face of opposing greed and the heavy hand of the RIAA and other paramilitary (oops, I mean lobbyist) organizations, as well as the congress-critters we have writing laws - where is this common sense of which you speak?

;)

I question how factual this statement is.

Uh, yes, illegally copied media occurs through volition.
 
The majority of people pirate to get free stuff!

Simple explanation to describe 98% of people. No one is forced to get pirated stuff. That's a very cheap way out. It goes to show that the concept of "choice" is VERY blurred for some people.
 
I'm not sure how individual songs should be free and how they would be able to make a profit off it them if they were all free.

Easily. Through ads. It is the future of digital money making. I have seen statistics that many music companies are making a good chumk of their money through youtube and vimeo ad revenue. IMO, this is how it should be, especially considering how poorly (relatively speaking) the actual artist is paid per song/album purchase.
 
Easily. Through ads. It is the future of digital money making. I have seen statistics that many music companies are making a good chumk of their money through youtube and vimeo ad revenue. IMO, this is how it should be, especially considering how poorly (relatively speaking) the actual artist is paid per song/album purchase.

So instead of just purchasing the song that people worked to create... you'd prefer ads everywhere? Also... what would the ads be about? It certainly wouldn't be about purchasing the album. Also... how would ads support an entire industry? This isn't Google we're talking about. Ads can only do so much, especially on Youtube because they take a chunk of the ad revenue as Youtube is supported by ads. Keep in mind that the ads barely make Youtube profitable.
 
So instead of just purchasing the song that people worked to create... you'd prefer ads everywhere? Also... what would the ads be about? It certainly wouldn't be about purchasing the album.

I'd prefer that to copyright infringement - and it works just like free vs. paid apps - pay for it and the ads go away.

And with Magnatune - they do in fact give ads for Magnatune and the artist, not Bing Bang at the Speedway!! - tastefully and not at all intrusively, imo.

And that's a good lead-in to another Photoshop thing I thought I'd mention -

Adobe Photoshop Express - Android app on AppBrain

I'm not sure how individual songs should be free and how they would be able to make a profit off it them if they were all free.

As mentioned above - check out the discussion behind the scenes at http://jamendo.com

I used to set my browser UA to desktop and listen there, too.
 
I'd prefer that to copyright infringement - and it works just like free vs. paid apps - pay for it and the ads go away.

I don't see that working at all for music. If you have the music for free... why would you pay for it? Exactly how would the ads work out for MP3 players? Once you have your music on an MP3 player... 0 ads. How does that work for CDs?
 
You also have to keep in mind that a lot of people invest a lot of time and effort in making photoshop as slick as it is and really its up to them to decide how much their effort is worth.

I am certainly not trying to undervalue them. The point of the matter is, I didn't actually use the product for what they are trying to sell it for. I played with it, checked it out, and didn't want it. Most of these companies don't offer a refund. Even stores like Best Buy, that will let you take things back for almost any reason, won't take back software because of piracy? REALLY? It is more convenient for me to download something than to go out, buy it, pirate it, and return it for a refund.
 
Sure - but in the face of opposing greed and the heavy hand of the RIAA and other paramilitary (oops, I mean lobbyist) organizations, as well as the congress-critters we have writing laws - where is this common sense of which you speak?

Its an under valued commodity these days, I'm hoarding a stash of it as an investment ;)
 
I don't see that working at all for music. If you have the music for free... why would you pay for it? Exactly how would the ads work out for MP3 players? Once you have your music on an MP3 player... 0 ads.

My bad, maybe we're talking about two different things - I was referring to streaming sources.

In the case of jamendo.com - you simply don't pay, there's a world of artists happy to distribute under the Creative Commons license. That can be streamed or downloaded.

Other stuff - you pay (anyway, sounds like you and I do).

I'm just trying to raise awareness that there's a whole non-RIAA world out there with great music, not just moose-drinks-at-dawn treehugger stuff.
 
I don't see that working at all for music. If you have the music for free... why would you pay for it? Exactly how would the ads work out for MP3 players? Once you have your music on an MP3 player... 0 ads.

Simply make LEGAL FREE downloads available, where the download provides an add that you have to either watch, listen to, etc. before the music is considered "yours". Some bands are even doing this with allowing downloads straight from their website, but you are "stuck" watching an ad or two prior. As I said a few posts above, youtube and vimeo are already making a killing off of ad revenue for music. Very similar concept.

The only reason these companies NEED to make money per download, and when the tracksplay on the radio, and when you stream it, and this list goes on... is because of greed. How many times SHOULD these companies be able to make a buck off you?
 
My bad, maybe we're talking about two different things - I was referring to streaming sources.

In the case of jamendo.com - you simply don't pay, there's a world of artists happy to distribute under the Creative Commons license. That can be streamed or downloaded.

Other stuff - you pay (anyway, sounds like you and I do).

I'm just trying to raise awareness that there's a whole non-RIAA world out there with great music, not just moose-drinks-at-dawn treehugger stuff.

Yeah I think we are talking about different things. lol

I was looking around the jamendo website and am not sure if that method can support a whole industry that is filled with different labels and such. I commend jamendo for what they're doing to give an outlet to artists trying to get out there or are just against the RIAA. I looked at their Top 100 and haven't heard of any of the songs. I just can't see it supporting the entire music industry.

In this capitalist country... a fully funded music industry by ads would cause a host of issues... primarily in the form of payment. It's highly unrealistic to have all songs for free and just be on ads.
 
Have I? Yes, when an app was not available in the market I reverted to nefarious methods of acquiring it that I'm not proud of.

Would I? No, I'm a firm believer that if you support the devs the end user experience will be that much better.

My post was stolen, almost exactly how I was going to phrase it as well.
Did you read my mind by any chance?

So yes, I have. Would I anymore? Nope.
 
It is more convenient for me to download something than to go out, buy it, pirate it, and return it for a refund.

30 day trial downloads?

But again, back to my grey area, with some of the big expensive packages like 3DS Max, I suspect they get some benefit from piracy through an increased base of expert users without any real loss of sales, since its priced out of most casual users reach anyway. Oracle have a pretty enlightened attitude, their products are expensive for commercial use, but free for non-commercial/educational use.
 
Simply make LEGAL FREE downloads available, where the download provides an add that you have to either watch, listen to, etc. before the music is considered "yours". Some bands are even doing this with allowing downloads straight from their website, but you are "stuck" watching an ad or two prior. As I said a few posts above, youtube and vimeo are already making a killing off of ad revenue for music. Very similar concept.

I wish you would have clarified that earlier. All I was thinking about was the way Youtube has their site. Ads, ads, ads everywhere. That's an idea... that supports the artists... the select number of artists that would actually do it. Can it support everyone behind the scenes? Exactly how much money can it bring in? How will the job market in the music industry be affected? How many ads can a company pay for on the website? This isn't just a "simple" kind of thing. There are a LOT of questions that have to be answered by experts in the industry.

Can you give some examples of bands that are doing this? Are they big name bands? What is their purpose for doing it (if they're doing it just in spite of the RIAA for example)?

Also exactly how do you know that Youtube is making a "killing" from ad revenue for music considering that Google does not even release revenue info for Youtube. :confused:
 
I wish you would have clarified that earlier. All I was thinking about was the way Youtube has their site. Ads, ads, ads everywhere. That's an idea... that supports the artists. Can it support everyone behind the scenes?

Also exactly how do you know that Youtube is making a "killing" from ad revenue for music considering that Google does not even release revenue info for Youtube. :confused:

Well, I was a partner, got a (small) fraction of the views per month that a single popular track does (without any actual live ads that MUST be watched before anything plays), and I made about $500 a month (not supposed to say, but who cares). This was all with maybe 10-15 clicks per day. So, I know through inference, basically.
 
I was looking around the jamendo website and am not sure if that method can support a whole industry that is filled with different labels and such. I commend jamendo for what they're doing to give an outlet to artists trying to get out there or are just against the RIAA. I looked at their Top 100 and haven't heard of any of the songs. I just can't see it supporting the entire music industry.

Neither am I suggesting that - that would be utopian.

It does give outlet to something few people have seen in their lifetimes, popular in my youth -- we had a LOT more record labels and therefore more artistic variety. Back then, the RIAA was all about helping people get their equipment working - having a stereo or mono stylus or ceramic or magnetic cartridges for a turntable were ultra-high-tech issues and tissues! :eek:

First few times I listened to some jamendo artists, I thought - uh, yeah, ok, they do this because they're crappy musicians. After hunting around - and not very hard - I found a lot of great music, performed very well, that I'd have not found any other way.

Once upon a time, an RIAA seal on a vinyl's jacket meant it would be playable on your gear.

Today, folks would consider that home-timey old tech. And so, too many people think the RIAA-santioned labels are their only option to great music.

I just say - listen and decide. But the jamendo approach removes this argument in its entirety - I cannot afford good music.

OBTW - while the industry is crediting Steve Jobs for making it all happen with the sale of inexpensive music by the song - uh, uh ... we used to call them 45s.
 
What's a 45?

Single (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 7", 45 rpm record with a big hole in it - required an adapter to play on a turntable, usually.

We have had portable music players. A little suitcase that opened up, plugged into the wall, and let you put on a stack of 45s (stacks of wax) for impromptu dances in your socks (sock hops).

Mine had vacuum tubes and I could fix it myself when the tubes died.

If a song was a chartbuster, both sides of the 45 would have the same song. Although there were exceptions, each side of a 45 would be one song only (same or different song, but usually just one). You'd play a stack, unload the stack and turn it over to play the other side - and the really big hits would play either way.

Affordable by teens, LPs (long-playing record albums) were typically not.

This is pretty close to my first personal music player:

il_fullxfull.120889727.jpg

You'd replace the stubby spindle with the tall changer spindle, and then you put a big doo-dad on the changer spinder for a 45 changer. On this model, the black disk in center likely had a 1/4 turn that would make it pop up to hold a 45.

A 33 rpm LP would simply hang out over the edges of the case for this sort of model.

The dials were more elegant on mine, but this was the best I could find.

That switch in the back: 16, 33 and 1/3, 45, 78 rpm settings, as I recall.

And yes - I had Edison 78s.
 
while the industry is crediting Steve Jobs for making it all happen with the sale of inexpensive music by the song - uh, uh ... we used to call them 45s.

LOL, still got my old revolver turntable in the living room, plus all my old albums and quite a few of my old 45's.

Which also reminds me of a BPI (British Phonographic Industry) slogan from the 80s - "Home taping is killing music"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music
 
I only pirate porn movies...just to teach them a lesson! :p jk

A lot of people have this "Robin Hood" mentality when it comes to pirating software, movies, and music. Rob from the rich give to the poor (mainly themselves). But in actuality, no one really benefits from piracy except for the pirate.
 
I only pirate porn movies...just to teach them a lesson! :p jk

A lot of people have this "Robin Hood" mentality when it comes to pirating software, movies, and music. Rob from the rich give to the poor (mainly themselves). But in actuality, no one really benefits from piracy except for the pirate.

Quite true for the most part. There have been cases where an artist would actually benefit due to the exposure... but again... they're cases. It seems to only happen to "no-name" artists too. It would be understandable for an artist to give away his or her music for free just to get the name out there. I have 2 musician friends who are doing that. I should tell them about the creative license stuff.
 
I only pirate porn movies...just to teach them a lesson! :p jk

A lot of people have this "Robin Hood" mentality when it comes to pirating software, movies, and music. Rob from the rich give to the poor (mainly themselves). But in actuality, no one really benefits from piracy except for the pirate.

So if I made mass copies onto discs and the likeand handed them out, would I be morally just like Mr Hood? ;)
 
So if I made mass copies onto discs and the likeand handed them out, would I be morally just like Mr Hood? ;)

There's a difference though. Robin Hood stole things for people in need or to survive... not for your best buds. Having a pirated CD or movie isn't going to help you at all whatsoever.

By the way... I know that you were joking. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom