Warez free and loving it!

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: GonzoDaGr8

ACDSee --> IrfanView

Mitzi, How does this IrfanView proggie compare to ACDSee?

I find IrfanView better than ACDSee...granted ACDSee has tons of additional features i.e. screensaver maker etc etc but they are of no interest to me so if you just want a small lean image viewer capable of batch converts, small scale edits (colour/cropping etc) I see no reason to pay for something like ACDSee. Download it and try it out...its only a couple of Mb and if you don't like it then you've lost nothing.

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: DopeFiend

Mitzi: So having a NAT router precludes using a firewall? I'm behind my own ADSL NAT router myself, so maybe Zonealarm can be uninstalled...?

a NAT router will block incoming connections on any ports that you don't have forwarded. So you are safe from attacks from the internet. However, it doesn't stop outgoing access. I find it very happy to know what programs are "phoning home" which is why I still use zonealarm on my computers, even when they are behind a NAT router.

It also doesn't protect you from stuff on the LAN. If you buddy comes over for a mini lan party, and has blaster, you'll get it to, without a software firewall. (That does assume that you haven't patched for blaster, but you get the picture).

I'd rather have the extra layer of protection.

What you say it true but I'm a pretty savvy user and run a virus scanner constantly and do regular spyware/adware scans and regularly patch my Windows install...I've decided to take my chances and just stick with the NAT router...besides, its one less application running in the background.

It's funny but I always recommend to other people to run a firewall in addition to a router....do as I say and not as I do

 

[KF]

> am now 100% warez free- it's a weird feeling after all this time

Maybe the people that never got your money, and still aren't, are pleased, athough I can't imagine why. The function of the law was to get your money. Otherwise it is quite pointless. They are no better off now that you are "legal."

To me it illustrates the basic fallacy of the belief that copyright holders are losing huge amounts of revenue to piracy. Not that many more people would pay the going rate. If they have to pay the set price, they will do without, or switch. Not many home users with a warez version of Photoshop would pay the market price.

How many people would have thousands of mp3s if they had to pay for them all? Not many. On the opposite side, I only wish I could get some money back for the songs on CDs I have bought which are total trash. Being able to clip the one song off the CD that is worth hearing, through computer technology, has brought new life to my accumulation of 90% duds.

 

[drag]

The way I look at it is:

A person created a product. They put the effort into creating it and distributing it. Then they let people use it in accordance with a agreement that everyone has to find equitable.

If MS want's to sell Windows and not let people modify it, or change it to make it more usefull. That's their progitive. If they want to make it hard to steal and want to spy on it's users, there is nothing wrong with that, just as long as that is disclosed in the beginning.

If a large company makes crappy music and only alows people to listen to the 10% of what they produce that actualy worth listening to unless they pay large amounts of money for the full 100%.

So what's the point of stealing it? First off it's immoral, and the continious and collective theft of software is threatening the internet itself.

There is plenty of great music put out there by artists that are considured unprofitable by the large record industry. Many of them put out free samples and tracks of their music with the hope of people buying there full albums and going to their concerts. Lots of it is amaturish and irritating, but lots of it is realy realy good? Why depend on MTV or top 20 charts to tell you what you should like or not like? You think that RIAA has a monopoly on talent?

There is plenty of software that people WANT you to use for free. They want you to help out in the developement and they want you to give it out to your friends. And for a large part it is actually very high quality stuff.

 

[KF]

>What's the big deal about free software anyway?
What's the big deal about pay-for software? It is amost always garbage. At least when I get garbage for free, I don't feel like a fool. And not being out the price of the garbage, I can get another in the hope that it will be OK.

I can't tell you how many free trials I've tried, and said " They want people to pay for this?" Then they come out with the next full number version which still has the same bugs and usablity problems, and they want people to pay again for the upgrade.

>I like to get paid for my work. In fact, I have to, since I have to pay rent, buy food, etc.

If people aren't paying you, get into another line of work.

But one way to become rich is to invent a way to write programs that aren't trash. Have programs do what they are supposed to do and do it easily; and don't put any bugs into it. That is evidently impossible with currently known technology.

 

[KF]

>So what's the point of stealing it? First off it's immoral ....

This is something I utterly reject. Since this has become so controversial in the last few years, I have given it a lot of thought. There is nothing immoral about copying software. It is not theft in the moral sense because in actual theft the person no long has what you have taken. That's what made theft "theft" in the Biblical sense. That was the significant part. That aspect is missing in copying. In copying software, I will have done nothing worse than if I had heard a tune, and later recalled it, and possibly sung or hummed the tune.

It is the people who own the copyrights that are more like thieves. They have accumulated immense quantities of concepts and knowledge which were the creation of countless individuals, the whole accumulation of human history, for which they have never paid anything. Then they make relatively minor alterations to produce derivations, and claim ownership, when virtually the whole thing was taken from elsewhere. It is like going into a park, moving a park bench, and claiming ownership of the park.

A copyright (the right to copy) was meant to be an inducement for people to produce derivations. It should not be interpreted as literal ownership of the software involved, almost all of which is a variant of something the author got from somewhere else. There is nothing immoral about copying something, regardless of the legalities. If it were immoral, then in a practical sense all copyright holders are immoral because they have copied most of what they have done from somewhere else. Yet, no one is pointing a finger at them saying they are immoral. Why is that? It is because the claim of immorality is total nonsense.

To me all this seems so fundamental that it is hard to explain. What people are doing is using the same words in different senses, and claiming they are the same thing. Not true. Stealing software does not mean the same thing as stealing a car. Intellectual property is not property, and has nothing much in common with physical property. (A person still has his intellectual property after some one has stolen it. How could a person still have his car after some one has stolen it? He can't. That should tell you something.)

>they want to make it hard to steal and want to spy on it's users, there is nothing wrong
>with that, just as long as that is disclosed in the beginning.

I agree. And there is nothing wrong with people finding a way around copy protection, and copying it anyway. And there is nothing wrong with people circumventing the ability to spy.

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: KF Maybe the people that never got your money, and still aren't, are pleased, athough I can't imagine why. The function of the law was to get your money. Otherwise it is quite pointless. They are no better off now that you are "legal."

To me it illustrates the basic fallacy of the belief that copyright holders are losing huge amounts of revenue to piracy.

My reason to switch to freeware/OSS software where possible has nothing to do with copyright, piracy blah blah blah

I like to support the small guy developers who write software for the love of writing software rather than just to make money....besides their stuff is usually better than commercial stuff anyway.

Where no freeware/OSS solution is available I'll happily use a commercial piece of software (i.e. I still use DreamweaverMX at home).

 

[imported_Phil]

Okay.... so, back on track then....
Mitzi: I'm looking at Gentoo myself, what with the LG CDROM bugs in MDK9.2; it looks good, but also complicated, and probably a lot more difficult to get working than Redhat or Mandrake? What's your thoughts on it, seeing as my knowledge of linux involves things like installing RPMs and mounting FAT32 partitions

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: dragYou think that RIAA has a monopoly on talent?

Actually I tend to think the exact opposite.

 

[drag]

There is nothing immoral about copying software. It is not theft in the moral sense because in actual theft the person no long has what you have taken. That's what made theft "theft" in the Biblical sense.

Well.. If you want to get all biblical on my ass, I'll just have to educate you to the meaning to liberty and what it fundamentally means to "own" something.

For instance take a apple (red apple, not a computer), it fell from a tree in the wilderness (not grown or cultivated by man) and some guy walked over to it and picked it up and ate it. At what point morally does that apple belong to him?

When it was growing? When it fell out of the tree? When he picked it up? When he ate it?

Well the answer is of course when he picked it up. The actuall act that made the apple his is when he put forth the work and effort to retreive the apple.

Now if somebody took that apple, does that apple belong to the new person? No it does not. He did not hurt the man, there are plenty of apples, but morally it is still wrong.

It is the same with software. THE WORK that went into the creation of a product is what makes it a person's. NOT the potential profit off of it.

That's what liberty is. It's the ablity to control and use the results of your work as you see fit.

Software is the results of a person or a bunch of people sitting down together and producing a new program from their effort.

diversion to GPL/OSS land:
The same goes for GPL'd software like Linux. If I produced a peice of software and release it for free under the GPL, it is still my software in every sense of the word. I can if I want stop my personal distribution of that software and release it and develope it under a commercial liscence. That's all within my right. I created the software, without my work it would of never existed.

Of course if somebody had already contributed to my software under the GPL, I would be forced to honor his code and my modified code as still pure GPL. Since then he put work into it ceases to be mine alone.

By your reasoning if MS stolen code from Linux and stuck it in the NT kernel to improve performance and stability. Just as long as they thought that it wouldn't harm Linux finacially (after all Linux is such a minority)

Now back to closed source stuff:
Also you would be violating the agreement and contractual obligation you originally agree to when you purchased the software. You said that you would not copy it and distribute it. If you did do that you would be breaking your word, since if you declined the agreement you would of never obtained the software in the first place.

If you didn't purchase it initially you would be aiding someone in there breaking of their agreements.

This is immoral.

What makes it immoral is NOT the potential finacial loss or damage to the person who you are violating by stealing software.

It's that he/they put forth the work to create it and by violating their wishes you are violating their liberty. That's what makes it immoral.

Now you could (and did) argue that companies like MS originally stole much of the software that it uses.
My response is that:

1. (for all forms IP) True they did. However most of it still did orginate from MS. That is why I don't get pissed when people in turn steal MS products. However, like moms always say: Two wrongs don't make a right.

2. (for MS mostly) People stealing MS software are in turn supporting MS efforts. MS remains dominate thru force of numbers. Their software is inferior, but they still own 92 or so of the Desktop market. Many people who buy games and purchase hardware to run with/on stolen MS software. This incourages hardware manufacturers to support MS and not support other alternative OSes such as OS X or Linux.

You are helping MS, and rewarding there orignall theft of IP.

Proof:

Corporate version XP. Why didn't they use a proven method of software liscencing servers like every other closed software producer?

How many people complained that they never would use XP due to the restrictions. What was the general answer: Corporate Edition.

I believe this was a calculated move on MS's part(<-edit):
Because then a large number of computer enthusists would be forced to run older versions of win98/winME/win2k. Thus reducing the impact that XP would have on the market place.

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: DopeFiend
Okay.... so, back on track then....
Mitzi: I'm looking at Gentoo myself, what with the LG CDROM bugs in MDK9.2; it looks good, but also complicated, and probably a lot more difficult to get working than Redhat or Mandrake? What's your thoughts on it, seeing as my knowledge of linux involves things like installing RPMs and mounting FAT32 partitions

Okay guys...its DopeFiends thread...I've think we've sh!t in it enough...continue your moral discussion in OT or something.

DopeFiend: I've only been playing with Gentoo for less than a week..in fact I intent to have another go at reinstalling it tonight because I managed to screw up my current install. My knowledge stems back from when I used to build my entire Linux system from scratch so I'm not really familiar with recent distros though armed with a good book I get by (I recommend O'Reilly Running Linux )

From what I've seen of Gentoo, I really like it...its package management is nice and simply and works well, especially if you have broadband (it configured DHCP correctly so was able to connect to the net immediately). The install is pretty easy and Gentoo provide excellent install documentation. Once you have the base system installed follow - I managed to install the base system and get X and KDE working with little effort.these instructions to get your choice of Window Manager on. Print the instructions out and you can't really go wrong thb though if I can help just let me know.

Thats about as far as I've got so can't really comment further at this point in time.

Good luck!

<-- Fellow Gentoo n00b

Edit: I can't comment on Mandrake or Red Hat...I've never used them...the only other distro I've used is Suse which I started to use at version 6.4.

Edit 2: If you do decide to try Gentoo I'd recommend downloading BOTH ISO images before you start...disc 1 contains the base system and X, disc 2 contains KDE, Gnome and tons of other apps. If you only download the first disc you'll be sitting round for ages when you go to install KDE (or whatever) because it'll need to grab the sources from the net.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: KF
>So what's the point of stealing it? First off it's immoral ....

This is something I utterly reject. Since this has become so controversial in the last few years, I have given it a lot of thought. There is nothing immoral about copying software. It is not theft in the moral sense because in actual theft the person no long has what you have taken. That's what made theft "theft" in the Biblical sense. That was the significant part. That aspect is missing in copying. In copying software, I will have done nothing worse than if I had heard a tune, and later recalled it, and possibly sung or hummed the tune.

It is the people who own the copyrights that are more like thieves. They have accumulated immense quantities of concepts and knowledge which were the creation of countless individuals, the whole accumulation of human history, for which they have never paid anything. Then they make relatively minor alterations to produce derivations, and claim ownership, when virtually the whole thing was taken from elsewhere. It is like going into a park, moving a park bench, and claiming ownership of the park.

A copyright (the right to copy) was meant to be an inducement for people to produce derivations. It should not be interpreted as literal ownership of the software involved, almost all of which is a variant of something the author got from somewhere else. There is nothing immoral about copying something, regardless of the legalities. If it were immoral, then in a practical sense all copyright holders are immoral because they have copied most of what they have done from somewhere else. Yet, no one is pointing a finger at them saying they are immoral. Why is that? It is because the claim of immorality is total nonsense.

To me all this seems so fundamental that it is hard to explain. What people are doing is using the same words in different senses, and claiming they are the same thing. Not true. Stealing software does not mean the same thing as stealing a car. Intellectual property is not property, and has nothing much in common with physical property. (A person still has his intellectual property after some one has stolen it. How could a person still have his car after some one has stolen it? He can't. That should tell you something.)

>they want to make it hard to steal and want to spy on it's users, there is nothing wrong
>with that, just as long as that is disclosed in the beginning.

I agree. And there is nothing wrong with people finding a way around copy protection, and copying it anyway. And there is nothing wrong with people circumventing the ability to spy.

This is really about the most clueless, ignorant, ass backwards post I have ever read. You have no clue whatsoever about copyrights, morals, property rights or ethics. You are truly clueless and that post was truly ignorant.

 

[imported_Phil]

Mitzi: Thanks, I think I'll give it a go sometime soon

 

[dnuggett]

It is the people who own the copyrights that are more like thieves. They have accumulated immense quantities of concepts and knowledge which were the creation of countless individuals, the whole accumulation of human history, for which they have never paid anything. Then they make relatively minor alterations to produce derivations, and claim ownership, when virtually the whole thing was taken from elsewhere. It is like going into a park, moving a park bench, and claiming ownership of the park.

WTF are you talking about??? Really. The whole accumulation of human history is in your Windows CD? You really need to get a clue about what products are, and what the true defenition of property is. Go to dictionary.com and read definition 1c. After you are done with that write to the publisher and tell them they have the definition wrong.

A copyright (the right to copy) was meant to be an inducement for people to produce derivations. It should not be interpreted as literal ownership of the software involved, almost all of which is a variant of something the author got from somewhere else. There is nothing immoral about copying something, regardless of the legalities. If it were immoral, then in a practical sense all copyright holders are immoral because they have copied most of what they have done from somewhere else. Yet, no one is pointing a finger at them saying they are immoral. Why is that? It is because the claim of immorality is total nonsense.

You are really dispalying your ignorance of copyright law and history here. Have you read the Constitution? If you had you would realize that what you are saying is retarded. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, "the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain."

Stealing software does not mean the same thing as stealing a car. Intellectual property is not property, and has nothing much in common with physical property. (A person still has his intellectual property after some one has stolen it. How could a person still have his car after some one has stolen it? He can't. That should tell you something.)

It sure the hell does. Go back and learn what the definition of property is. Ever heard of English Common Law? That is what our law system is based upon. Learn what a copyright is. You can carry your own defenitions if you like to try to justify stealing .... but your arguments suck and have no validity behind them. You have alot to learn, son. BTW are you even educated? What level? What type of degree?

I agree. And there is nothing wrong with people finding a way around copy protection, and copying it anyway.

OK, so copy a ton of CD's books, tapes, and music and continue it until you get caught. When you do please tell the judge the garbage you told us. Society disagrees with your idea that there is nothing wrong. There is this little thing called a law that we created to punish morons who want to make their own defenitions and act on them. The best thing I can think of to say to you is that at least if you act on your ass backwards beliefs and continue them long enough you can be forcibly removed from the general population.

 

[Mitzi]

FFS dnuggett, take your mindless trolling into another thread please.....

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: DopeFiend
Mitzi: Thanks, I think I'll give it a go sometime soon

No probs mate, let me know how you get on. I'll let you know how my re-install goes tonight.

 

[dnuggett]

FFS dnuggett, take your mindless trolling into another thread please.....

Mindless huh? You are another that apparently can't read. Sorry your "I'm clean now" thread was wrecked.... oh wait no I'm not. I'll let you thiefs get back to your trolling.

 

[imported_Phil]

Stop crapping on my thread, goddamnit!

 

[imported_Phil]

Mitzi, meant to ask something- with Gentoo, does it install a bit like Mandrake & Redhat? Or have to actually got to install everything yourself by hand?

(BTW, just worked out what your nickname means )

 

[Nothinman]

Mitzi, meant to ask something- with Gentoo, does it install a bit like Mandrake & Redhat? Or have to actually got to install everything yourself by hand?

Look at the Gentoo install instructions.

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: DopeFiend
Mitzi, meant to ask something- with Gentoo, does it install a bit like Mandrake & Redhat? Or have to actually got to install everything yourself by hand?

(BTW, just worked out what your nickname means )

I've never used Mandrake or Redhat so can't comment but the standard Gentoo install only includes a base command line system, you can then install additional packages using their portage package management system. To finish with a standard KDE install...

Install the base system

then install XFree and KDE

(I've actually already linked to those to pages earlier in this thread.)

Edit: What does my nickname mean?? *confused*!

 

[drag]

Gentoo has a step by step guide to install it. Follow it exactly and you can't go wrong.

Redhat and other commercial Linux versions have nice graphical installs. Better then windows, at least much preittier.

I don't know about Gentoo sometimes.

If you realy want to have a distro to learn with, go with Slackware.

Slackware is the BOMB when it comes to a learning OS.

It is kept as simple as possible. No portage to figure out, no apt-get to trip over, no frills. And a much nicer (IMO) init scripts.

It's something that you can just hack away at and not have to worry about it.

Now portage and especially apt-get are VERY GOOD things, however if you want to learn you might as well start off with something simple and clean. You can realy get a good chance to learn how Linux works deep down if you want.

That way once you understand the fundamentals then you can move onto learning package management.

The trouble with Redhat and stuff is that they just have to much junk going on for a newbie to get a real good conceptial hold on it.

 

[imported_Phil]

I've just been reading the Gentoo docs, and yikes, this looks a bit scarey
However, I have a Celeron 400 w/ 300Mb RAM box sitting down here, plugged into my router and a spare monitor, so it's time to give it a go. At least, once the CDs are downloaded <taps fingers on desk>.

As for your nickname, don't worry, it's a common name for a certain something you can buy in certain clubs

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: DopeFiend
As for your nickname, don't worry, it's a common name for a certain something you can buy in certain clubs

God damn! What is it with my name lately?!?

First I find out Confused has a female cat called 'Mitzi', next I find out its the name of some illicit drug...


Psst...got any Mitzi??

 

[lowtech1]

Slackware is the BOMB when it comes to a learning OS.

It is kept as simple as possible. No portage to figure out, no apt-get to trip over, no frills. And a much nicer (IMO) init scripts.

Slack is nice & there is nothing wrong with apt-get. You only have to remember apt-get update, upgrade & install. And, then there are such thing as dselect, aptitude & synaptic.