"well i can either not have the program and give them no money or i can have it and give them no money, so either way they aren't losing, but if i have it then i've gained someting so it's not a hard choice..."

The product is offered in the hopes that it will sell. Basic economy. If you don't want to buy it, it is hoped that wanting the program will eventually lead to you changing your mind about buying it. That's how developers make a living, know what I mean? That's why copying it is illegal, yes, even if you "weren't going to buy it."

There's no ands, ifs, or buts: You can agree to the sales terms offered by the software publisher, or you can do without the program. What you're NOT allowed to do is make yourself a copy because you "weren't gonna buy it." Nope, it's not legal, or right. Please stop making excuses. The "I wasn't gonna get it anyway" is a popular argument, but it's flawed. You can't say with all certainty that you wouldn't have bought the program at any point in the future if you hadn't copied it.

Guy's, like I've said before: He's justified it in his mind, so nothing is going to change it. This is probably how he goes thru life. I can use this, let me take it, let me borrow it, I wasn't going to buy it anyway. I just need it for a while. I wonder how much he has that he didn't pay for. I guess he paid for his car because thats different.

Vanilla,

Let's just assume for a moment that you code programs for living. Your spouse and children depend on your income to eat and live. Some idiot hacks into your server and downloads your program to "try it out". The next thing you know it's floating all over the internet and now everyone is "trying it out". Sales naturally drop. You lose your job because the company can't afford to pay you. If you don't think it can happen, you've been in a black hole the past few years.

How about this, you hack into a bank's server and transfer a million dollars into a bank account you have set up in the Caymans. You call Martha Stewart's stock broker who has a hot tip for you. You do some serious day trading and make a killing. You then hack back into the bank before the end of the day and transfer the million back in. Does the bank really lose anything, not really. Is this ethicly wrong or illegal? You better start running buddy...

actually i do code programs. not for a living yet as i just made my first program a week or two ago, but now i do know what it's like being on the other end and it still doesn't bother me. that's because i know that anyone who will take the time to search for a crack for my program probably wouldn't have bought it anyways. in fact i've given out a few serials for some people on a warez forum i goto because i know they won't buy it but would like to have it anyways. most software sales goto businesses, not people who have a normal job and just use the software as entertainment or as kind of a hobby, like me for example.

and since you all like making up scenarious how about this one: a new cd comes out that you want to buy, but you also want the new shirt for that artist too. well you've only got enough money for one or the other and they both cost about the same. so do you buy one of them and do without the other or do you download the cd and buy the shirt? well, that's what i did not too long ago cause i figure by buying the shirt instead i am promoting the artist like a walking advertisement and therefore the artist sells more copies of the cd. my name Vanilla Ice is taken from the artist and as most of you probably know he's a has-been joke that nobody likes, and i didn't liked him either... until i actually listened to the music one day. but not thinking i would like it a whole lot i downloaded the cd. now he's one of my favorite artists and i've bought his new cd as well as two shirts, i run a sorta-popular fansite, and i'm a member of the street team. my point is that when i don't buy something and it turns out to be worth it i make up for it. ther have been cds that i've downloaded weeks before they come out in stores and then later i delete the mp3s and buy the cd.

so say i'm wrong or whatever you want, i couldn't care less.

one last thing, you do know that some artist actually support file-sharing services don't you? well, how do you explain that one?

Vanilla Ice.

This is a heads-up.

Firstly, the 'promotion' of Warez use on this site is not acceptable, no matter what 'justification' you may think you have.

Either desist, or leave.

This site is by and for Artists, both skinning and wallpaper varieties, and we take copyright abuse and/or theft quite personally.

Kazaa, just like Napster, and all the others is predominantly being abused by the on-line Warez mentality who have absolutly no regard for, or are totally ignorant of, property theft issues and those pertaining to the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Private Property.

Consider this a polite warning...

"one last thing, you do know that some artist actually support file-sharing services don't you? well, how do you explain that one?"

If they own the rights to the music, they can do whatever they want with it. But that doesn't mean all artists feel the same way about THEIR work.

If I take a program I wrote and make it freeware, that doesn't mean you can go and download Jafo's program, for example. Every author has the right to do with their work as they see fit.

alright, no problem. i'm not trying to promote anything or whatever i've just been trying to explain how i personally feel that there's nothing wrong with it under certain cirumstances, but if you all don't agree or if there's a rule about mentioning warez then i won't mention it anymore.

Yes, there IS a 'rule', and it's one of the sorts of 'rules' that isn't to be broken.

i'll say one more thing before i go and that's that it seems hypocritical to me for a site to outlaw the mentioning of warez when it benifits so much from it. i remember not too long ago the poll asked something about who has object desktop or windowblinds or something and i think around 10% of people admitted to having a pirated copy. and i guarantee you that at least 10% of the themes on this website are made with pirated software. i alone have five skins available now with total downloads nearing 8,000, plus another theme i had for desktop x which made it into the top 10 themes and was downloaded a few thousand times in the week or so that it was available (it was removed for breaking some rule). my themes were made with a pirated copy of a graphics program and i know lots of other themes on this site are too. so then you all have a subscription service which gives people access to these skins, and you all make money off of them, not to mention the ads at the top of the pages. stardock makes more money because with the skins made from pirated software because there are more skins and so more reasons for people to buy stardock products.

the subscriptions are not a money making thing.. it'd be nice if they were.. lol.. but they're not. it's just one more element working toward the site supporting itself. the kind of bandwidth in use here is verrrry pricey.

yeah i can imagine it is.

If someone wants to debate warez that's okay with me. Just don't give links or tell people where to get them.

Similarly, if someone wants to argue that doing drugs is a good thing, that's fine too, just don't tell people where you get yours.

Vanilla Ice's point is valid: If he wouldn't buy the software anyway, how is he hurting anyone? That is the case with any intellectual property.

No reasonable person will claim that piracy in which someone who might have purchased something chooses not is harmful.

My assertion is that people who say they would "never" buy something often do when they have to. The guy who claims they would "never" buy WindowBlinds, for instance, very well MIGHT buy WindowBlinds if they could not obtain it via a warez means.

The statistics bear this out. Contrary to what most pirate claims, registrations of software INCREASE as the restrictions on the free version increase. The people who try to say that no nag shareware is a better route for shareware authors are full of crap. While some people do purchase things they have the full version of if they deem it "worth it", statistically, most people only pay money because they have no other choice.

Therefore, statistically, warez DOES hurt because most people who claim they would "never" buy a given thing would in reality do so if they could not get it via a warez method.

Put another way:
Vanilla Ice's point of view is valid in the purist form. But in the real world, warez does hurt.

And stealing is still stealing and is morally wrong. It doesn't matter whether you can prove no one would be hurt or not, it's still wrong.

Er:

"No reasonable person will claim that piracy in which someone who might have purchased something chooses not is harmful."

I mean "chooses not to is NOT harmful"

yeah i admit there are some things that i have downloaded that i would buy if i hadn't downloaded them, but that is a very small percent. and most of that stuff is because i don't have the cash to buy them or else i would. for the most part though i wouldn't buy things i download, or if i had bought them i would've wished i hadn't. for example WindowBlinds, if i couldn't get it for download and i had cash i might would buy it (that is if it's about $20, otherwise i don't think it's worth the price), but if i had bnought it i'd've been screwed cause i found out after using it that my computer is too slow to handle it very well and my video card causes several problems with certain skins.

i totaally agree with you that it should be okay to talk about or debate as long as no links are given out, just the same way we could talk about drugs like you said or if we were talking about porn, as long as we didn't post pictures...

Windowblinds is not a good example. There is a freely downloadable shareware version to try out and see if it will cause problems.

WindowsBlinds are not very expensive, specially if you purchase Object Desktop! i don't make propaganda for Stardock. surelly i don't pay Window Blinds, but OD haves more addons than WindowBlinds. DesktopX himself haves all the value of OD!
Sincerelly i downloaded all 3D modern programs!! I tried them (there's some programs without trial version on the web), and finally i use always the 3d program that i purchased, A:M. Why? Because is the first 3d program i used and i leraned 3D with it; the other programs are very time expensive to learn. But there's a difficult with A:M... there's no demo version on the Internet... you can find some version in p2p programs, but the program uses original CD Rom to run (like some video games).
There's no reason to download warez 3d programs... always are mastodonticus programs with very high learning curve! and there's other programs less expensives, commercial and shareware with them you can reach the same results.
In 3D studio case, i don't like this program: because the renderer are poor (exceptuating displacement maps ). There's other commercials programs that costs 1/10 fraction price of 3d Studio with better renders, also with more plugins included
Take a look at free limited versions of the mastodonticous 3d programs Maya PLE and XSI Softimage

Money is usually a cop out of a reason that one pirates something. The same people who can afford to pay for a cable modem and go to the movies and buy Pizza suddenly can't claim poverty for paying $20 for a program.

3D Studio, however, does cost thousands of dollars. That gets to be a bit tougher of an argument since $1000 is beyond "incidental costs".

Regardless though, there is no moral acceptability about piracy whether you can afford it or not. If you pirate something, it's still stealing.

it's not ok to steal a porsche, but when there's one in the parking lot everyone goes over and looks at. my point is it's not really stealing if you don't keep it and use it. for example 3d studio max is several thousand dollars and maya 4 i think it is is like $40,000. i guess that's a reasonable price for movie stuios who have million dollar budgets, but i downloaded 3ds max just to see what it's like and what they use to make some of these animated movies, i just looked at it. i fiddled around for 20 minutes and quickly found out that i had no idea how to even do anything in it and that i'm not gonna be making any movies anytime soon and i deleted it. what's wrong with that?

Vanilla...it's the equivalent of a 'joy-ride' in a car....not 'really' gonna 'take' it, just borrow it for a while to see how it goes, then I'll bring it back...no 'harm' done.
But....it's NOT 'yours' to take.
Me being an evil, cynical bastard, whenever I see a news report of someone crashing and burning in 'their' stolen car while out for a joy-ride, I cheer...but hope, too, that the owner of the car sues the joy-riders' parents for damages.
No 'compassion'? Perhaps not, but then, Crime and Punishment is a 'failed' industry....

Vanilla, it is definitely stealing. It doesn't matter whether you can prove it wouldn't hurt anyone.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that you're not stealing, it's a dead end. You get onto a very bad slippery slope.

Causing harm has nothing to do with whether something is stealing or not.

alright then, i steal my software. i'm a thief. oh well.... those companies have a lot more money than i do so i don't feel bad about it.

There you go.
As long as you are aware that it's indeed theft and that you don't try to kid yourself.

Having said that, I personaly think it's acceptable to try a software with a warez version, Still ileegal, sure, but in my mind and conscience, acceptable, as long as the software is bought in the end if it's kept.
I do that often with games. Not every game has a trial version, and 75$ is a lot of money to throw by the window if I don't like the game in the end. I usually downoad, try it out, if I like it, I go buy it.

Note that one thing I often do with games, and it's perfectly legal, is group-buy it. 3 or 4 friends get together, split the money, then one plays it, when he's done, he gives it to the next friend, etc. It's legal, because we don't make copies of the CD and at no time is the game installed simultaneously on different computers. Since a lot of games are played once during 2 to 3 weeks, then never touch it again when it's been completed, this is a cheaper and fair solution.

paxx, don't forget that most of the high priced games need the cd to play it. It will load toma point but you still have to put the cd in to play. So it doesn't mater how many people pay, only one can play at a time.

you could always get a no-cd crack... and like paxx does with games i've done with audio cds, i download them befeor they even come out and then when they do i go buy em.