# Mac guy wants to buy a PC, has no idea whatsoever



## chris klee (Feb 5, 2008)

So I can run my current version of autocad 2004 on a Mac doing it this way? That is one big reasons keeping me from going to a Mac


----------



## RobertCDF (Aug 18, 2005)

moorewarner said:


> I wasn't referring to differences in the comparison to uninsured competitors, but to the the comparison to theft of goods which copy-right infringement is often equated.
> 
> http://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright-infringement-a-kind-of-theft
> 
> ...


Just because they are more successful? How does it make it ok to steal from someone just because they are better off? Then in that case it's ok for a homeless man to steal from you because you are WAY better off then he is? 

I wouldn't say that Microsoft has a monopoly, there are other choices available. Just because they make a product that is superior to their competition does not make them a monopoly.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

RobertCDF said:


> Just because they are more successful? How does it make it ok to steal from someone just because they are better off? Then in that case it's ok for a homeless man to steal from you because you are WAY better off then he is?


For starters I always like you tech posts, don't always agree with them, but you are always willing to mix it up and argue your case. Tip of the hat to you for that. :thumbsup:

Now on with the pogrom. :laughing:

I know you have been around the tech block a few times so I shouldn't have to rehash a bunch of points that I am sure you have heard before. Your statement above has two dimensions, one legal and the other ethical. I don't believe that those two are always one and the same, do you?

Firstly the equating of copyright infringement with theft in the material world is not 1 to 1 for reasons I am sure you are familiar with. The link above summarizes it very well;

_No. Infringement and theft are not the same thing. Infringement of intellectual property rights, such as the unauthorized copying of copyrighted works, gives rise to money damages, based on theoretical lost sales (which can be the subject of vigorous debate), and injunctive relief (i.e., stop copying). Theft is depriving a person (or company) of possession of an item of value, often to "fence" or sell it for cash.

The difference is obvious: If I steal your car, you no longer have it, and are deprived of the value of owning it. If I rip a copy of your CD, I haven't stolen it from you, nor have I stolen it from the record company. What I have done is made an unauthorized copy, depriving everyone in the value chain of the music business of a potential sale, generating potential income for everyone from the songwriter to the retail store owner.

Most thoughtful people immediately see through RIAA and MPAA's damages arguments that every unauthorized copy of a CD or DVD represents a lost sale. Trying to claim that amount of damages is disingenuous, and frankly hurts the labels' and studios' causes because it appears greedy and overreaching to the public. In economic terms, every unauthorized copy is causing financial damage equal to the product of:
The lowest actual sale price available to the consumer (Amazon, iTunes, etc.), times
The probability that the consumer would actually buy an authorized copy (taking into account budget constraints and competing priorities), which could be extremely low for certain types of pirated goods (e.g., $800 software packages traded by 7th-graders), and
Some kind of multiplier taking into account the possibility that copies-of-copies may be made illegally.

I'm sure economists and lawyers have put a lot of thought into this, but the bottom line is that making an illegal copy of something is clearly not equivalent to stealing it. I think this explains why for generations, otherwise law-abiding people haven't felt particularly guilty about making copies of everything from chapters out of books to sheet music to MP3 tracks. Copyright infringement is clearly unlawful, but its morality or immorality is more of a gray area in which "where you stand depends on where you sit."_

That saved me a lot of typing. :clap:

Let's move on to the mechanics of it. How many times have you paid for Windows XP? Even though you are only one guy, using one computer at a time, have you paid for XP more than once? I know I have, both OEM and retail. Do you really want to argue that because the system with XP OEM died to a degree determined by MS, or that COA that came with XP retail (or OEM in a custom build) got eaten by the dog or thrown out by the wife or lost by the co-worker, or that you would rather run your Win7 Home Virtualized instead of bare-metal, or someone passes on to you an old system with an OEM COA but a wiped hard drive that you are cheating MS if you download an image to run your system instead of going out and paying them *again*?



> I wouldn't say that Microsoft has a monopoly, there are other choices available. Just because they make a product that is superior to their competition does not make them a monopoly.


MS does have a monopoly (multiple actually), whether you say it or not; by classical terms, by historical terms, known and acknowledged in the industry and judged by the courts of the land. That's not a debate, determined and settled long ago.

Your last sentence is a straw man built on top of the "MS's market share=quality" fallacy that is held onto by very few in the industry.

I know you believe it with all your heart.

And I have barely scratched any the points I actually made in my response.

Do we get booted down to P&R at some point? :jester:


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

Chris G said:


> Wallmaxx
> 
> I hereby present evidence of my problem:


You need to max out your memory.


----------



## RobertCDF (Aug 18, 2005)

Moore, 

We're not talking about a guy who OWNS win 7 and LOST it or LOST the CD. The point I was making has to do with someone who DOES NOT own win 7 and the suggestions of downloading a pirated copy are just tossed around like it's no big deal. I agree with you on a lot of points on copyright, infringement, etc. They try to take it WAY too far, a copy of a song, cd, program, etc does not necessarily mean a lost sale HOWEVER in many cases it does. In this particular case it does, the individual would like to use a piece of software that he has not bought, many feel it's just fine to steal a copy.

Just because a company is a large giant and makes a ton of money does not mean it's ok to steal from them, if they were so overpriced there would be suitable competitive alternatives and many feel there are, so then use those. Many feel it's not worth purchasing the office suite and choose to use open office, that's GREAT! But it does not give someone the right to say "It's overpriced, I'll just download a pirated copy" 

What if you get to the end of a project and the client feels you were overpriced and decided not to pay you the final payment?


----------



## RobertCDF (Aug 18, 2005)

People often feel that created content or digital copies are not the same as tangible items. None of us would walk into a store and steal a tangible item why? 

How is digital content any different? At one time it was all tangible, at one time all music was on tangible media, at one time all books were on tangible media. The delivery of the media has changed but there is still work involved with the creating of it, therefore if someone is working they deserve to be paid.


----------



## wallmaxx (Jun 18, 2007)

Chris G said:


> Wallmaxx
> 
> I hereby present evidence of my problem:


Roger. Got it.

If a new mac is out of the question......Costco has some pretty good deals on some pretty tough HPs, Dells or whatever......for under $1000


----------



## mike86 (May 30, 2011)

RobertCDF said:


> Moore,
> 
> We're not talking about a guy who OWNS win 7 and LOST it or LOST the CD. The point I was making has to do with someone who DOES NOT own win 7 and the suggestions of downloading a pirated copy are just tossed around like it's no big deal. I agree with you on a lot of points on copyright, infringement, etc. They try to take it WAY too far, a copy of a song, cd, program, etc does not necessarily mean a lost sale HOWEVER in many cases it does. In this particular case it does, the individual would like to use a piece of software that he has not bought, many feel it's just fine to steal a copy.
> 
> ...


Its hard for me to feel bad for billion dollar corporations:no:

But morally your right you shouldn't steal not even from billion dollar corporations.:sad:


----------



## RobertCDF (Aug 18, 2005)

mike86 said:


> Its hard for me to feel bad for billion dollar corporations:no:
> 
> But morally your right you shouldn't steal not even from billion dollar corporations.:sad:


I understand where you are coming from, and a major problem our society today is that large corporations have been painted as evil, however it doesn't make it ok to steal from them. In the beginning of every large corporation was one person with an idea, plan, ambition, etc just like each of us running our businesses. just like each of us feels we deserve a fair wage based upon how much we manage so do large corporate execs. If we feel we are worth 100k a year for managing a few construction projects and a few employees, how much more is someone worth that manages 10,000 people?


----------

