the city stole a design from my old office once...they paid for one building then copied it 11 times. it cost him a great deal of money if considered in terms of lost fees...and it created an image of him as an architect who makes huge estates of identical buildings, when in fact he is entirely against that...really pissed him off, and took ages to get it resolved....
anyway, not having money is not an excuse for stealing. pretending that you are the victim when you are stealing is just nonsense. just owe up to it and be a man (woman) for fkuc's sake. i find it very unlikely that anyone here is that poor frankly, but rationalizing that behaviour as though you are forced into it is just not right. i would be kind of worried to hire anyone that thought that way, to be honest.
quizzical is perfectly correct to expect moral maturity from young architects.
What magically happens to a student after graduation that makes them want to actually pay for the software that they stole in order to get through school? Are these the same people that "borrow heavily" from someone else's work in order to satisfy their own design issues in practice? Are these the same people that take credit for others' work?
Supposedly there are rules against plagiarism in school (I've seen blatant theft of built work get rewarded) and yet there are schools that apparently condone and enable students to steal software (I am unaware of any software agreement that allows schools to load copies on individual students' machines). If you are taught that it's OK to steal things that you need, where do you draw the line when you get into practice? When do you decide to stop stealing someone's work? Why would you? It's only a problem if you get caught…
I have bought all of the software that I use(or use open source), even during school. I expect to be paid for the work that I do so I feel it's my obligation to pay others for their work.
What magically happens to a student after graduation that makes them want to actually pay for the software that they stole in order to get through school?
One word: lawsuits.
If autodesk was really concerned with students pirating their software, they'd stop it. I'm not saying I use/don't use pirated software, but what I am saying is that you'd have to be mad to use pirated software once your a professional architect. Autodesk is extremely rigorous about suing companies they even remotely suspect use pirated copies of AutoCAD. I have never heard of autodesk suing a student. If autodesk is fine with students pirating their software, then I'm fine with it. I do take issue with architects who stamp dwgs that were drawn with bootleg software.
You also have to realize that many of the current generation of architecture students have a much different view about "property" than previous generations, specifically in regards to information. We grew up with the internet in our homes. We went to school with bootleg MP3s on our ipods. Many of us are aware of the beauty of open source software. We use google to organize our lives instead of outlook and we surf on Firefox instead of IE. We're used to information being free and easily disseminated.
We can also be extremely focused on personal "success" and doing whatever it takes to get there, more so than previous generations. Recent surveys of highschool students indicate that many of them don't believe cheating to be morally wrong, just another way of getting ahead. Back during the boomer generation kids talked about the power of the free-love movement and Karl Marx was more prevalent than Ayn Rand. Now what you have is a mix of that same hippie mentality left over from our parents of a world without rules and property mixed together with the exact opposite of Randian objectivism. The end result is a strange mentality in which its OK to steal, lie and cheat to get ahead, because it should all be free anyway. At least that seems to be reflect in the actions and mindset of alot of members of my generation and it seems to be the future.
^ You expect to be paid for the work that you do in school?
You guys need to get off your high horse. Why would someone stop stealing software once they are out of school? Because they are in a paid position representing a group of individuals, whether client, partner or coworker, stealing software at this point puts other people at risk and for me this is when a serious moral objection is raised.
As for stealing software while you are in school, I'm whole heartedly for it. You have an obligation to yourself to gain as much knowledge as possible and if you don’t take advantage of these opportunities then you will suffer when you get into the "real world". Not knowing adobe software or Auto cad will be a big problem when you’re trying to find a job. This is the reason many software packages have student versions, these should be free not a small fee. people stealing software in school are ultimately doing the software company a big favor, once these people are in the real world working and know this software then they will be the ones dictating which software to buy and implement when there IS an actual moral obligation to others. for ever seat stolen there are probably three or more that are purchased later in life. It’s a win win situation for both parties.
As for peoples argument that there are other ways to do things, sure but if your going to be in an environment such as a studio where students collectively help each other then your going to have a hard time when you are not speaking the same language as other students. Why not take advantage of the collaboration by learning new tricks, and ways to increase productivity that will be immensely valuable in practice.
Apply your harsh moral code and be left in the dust by those who are willing to adapt and change with the new technology of the digital age.
being willing to adapt and change with new technology is not the same as being willing to steal.
yes, it is extremely easy to copy digital media and use them without paying--I will admit to using cracking tools in the mid eighties (I was a minor) in order use a copy of my friend's software more than once. The tools are available to crack just about anything you need, but does that make it right?
I don't crack software anymore because I choose to pay; I choose to compensate the developers because I believe that people should be paid for their work. I want to use Adobe products so I pay for the commercial license instead of using a cracked copy or if I'm fed up with paying their prices I decide to use another tool that happens to be open source and free (GIMP, Blender, etc.)
The fallacy of all of this is that people think that they have to use certain tools; that a particular tool will make them a better designer. Tools by themselves won't make the design (creating your own tools is another matter entirely).
The sad fact is that you truly won't learn a program until you're in a production environment--AutoCAD classes won't prepare you all that well for the day-to-day reality of being a CAD monkey; so using the "I need to steal this software for school so that I'll know how to use it in the real world" argument is delusional.
You don't need to steal in order to learn, chances are that you can find legal, free demos or your school has them available in the computer lab. You're (I mean this generally to all the thieves) stealing because it's more convenient for you than working in the lab or dealing with a watermark.
I belive if im going to take the time to learn a software package, while im in school and then bring that knowledge to the market where that software will be commercialy used and companies will make a profit from this then i deserve to be compensated or at least not penalized, why should any form of advertisment be free? bootlegging software for educational purposes is just this, a form of advertisment, you should not pay them to advertise for them.
I believe if I’m going to take the time to learn a software package, while I’m in school and then bring that knowledge to the market where that software will be commercially used and companies will make a profit from this then I deserve to be compensated or at least not penalized, why should any form of advertisement be free? Bootlegging software for educational purposes is just this, a form of advertisement; you should not pay them to advertise for them.
kanu ... by that same logic, you also should be paid to attend school. hell, after all, those wonderful skills you're obtaining in school will be used by your employer down the road to make a profit.
your schooling is an investment in your own future. if you're paying your rent and your tuition and your grocery bills while in school, why should the software developer get screwed out of his sale because you need to use a tool he developed as part of your education.
I would love to meet a student (who is not working their way through school a la the BAC) that is "commercially viable" on a particular software package…they may know their way around a program but I highly doubt they're productive enough to be worthy of additional compensation.
So, if you're not actually making yourself commercially viable, how do you justify the theft of a given program; especially when educational versions are available (and perfectly functional, save for possibly a different file format or watermark). You can still use the educational version to learn the software which; incidentally, is put out by the company as an advertisement and enticement to learn their software.
If the software companies were OK with students stealing their software in order to learn it, then why do they put out educational versions (which are usually free)??
If the software companies weren't OK with students stealing their software in order to learn it, then why don't they sue students with the same enthusiasm they sue professionals?
There’s a difference. You don’t have a choice about buying food, or paying rent and those companies take it as a given that they will always have a market to make money on you in the future. As for your education, yes employers do subsidize your education because they expect to profit from it in the future, while this may not traditionally happen through companies paying for schooling (still happens in many industries) it happens through hiring young inexperienced interns and teaching them in the office.
The software developer gets shorted on student licenses because it results in more future licenses being bought. This is why student licenses exist. If there are completely free versions available to students then they should by all means use those and you would not see bootleg versions available. But this is not the case. Expecting to be paid a small fee for a student license is nonsense.
The point is that all software packages should make a point of trying to take advantage of free student advertising instead of being greedy and trying to scrape a few more dollars out of poor student’s pockets. You should not have to pay for a student version… ever. And if those companies are going to act in such a fashion then it is justified to use bootleg versions and they have no room to complain, this is why students don’t get sued.
ethics being enforced on anybody is the next persons lie
to each their own.
this is a battle of human rights of life vs lifeless, and it is nice that architecture as a profession is in this debate.
the excuses of all the scared people here who conform to usa copyrights law makes me sick
do as you will and the world will and it's 'laws' will eventually change based on our use, just as words do.
pirate party is at the forefront of the next human rights battle past the any gender marriage issue the way i see it, no body shall ever heed before the self created monster that is the corporation unless they suffered abuse and brainwashing.
property as violence, Pierre Joseph Proudhon
how much are you willing to do to protect your privileged world view is what i often ask a conservative. kill, jail, spin your wheels pointlessly and get all emotion?
There’s a difference. You don’t have a choice about buying food, or paying rent and those companies take it as a given that they will always have a market to make money on you in the future.
be a farmer or build your own log cabin then. your argument about the structure of today's society doesn't apply to merely the pirating of software. if you are looking to buck certain conventions, stealing may not be the answer. by your same argument, if you use less of the conventional software packages and move towards open source software, then profits and use of commercial software will dip, and they will no longer be conventions. at a certain tipping point then and only then will the convention of tomorrow be that which is unconventional today.
microsoft became a monopoly not because of initial monopolistic practices but because everyone saw the benefit of using their software (and, once they became "proficient" in the use of this OS, were not inclined to look for alternatives due to cost considerations, laziness, etc). basically everyone used windows, and it spread. THEN they leveraged that large-scale adoption. NOT the other way around.
The software developer gets shorted on student licenses because it results in more future licenses being bought. This is why student licenses exist. If there are completely free versions available to students then they should by all means use those and you would not see bootleg versions available. But this is not the case. Expecting to be paid a small fee for a student license is nonsense.
funny, I don't remember having to pay for the software licenses in my computer lab...granted, it was part of my tuition and thereby an extension of my education, but the option was there. at this point, you are practically talking about the matter of student convenience rather than need. the labs at my school were open all the time, armed with all the software packages (adobe, autodesk) to get by, and when we asked for other titles, we were provided with them (revit, sketchup). why does the student necessarily need these packages on his/her computer also?
Apurimac -
If the software companies weren't OK with students stealing their software in order to learn it, then why don't they sue students with the same enthusiasm they sue professionals?
there is no commensurate gain in investigating and prosecuting this level of theft. it is akin to settling a lawsuit out of court when you are innocent; it is just cheaper to operate that way. as much as I hate to admit it, on one thing I agree with kanu - allowing students to pirate software extends the benefit of use from the student population eventually out into the commercial world. but, so do trial packages, and so do shareware/freeware packages.
large companies that make money are pretty predictable though...if they were really hurting and believed it would help, they would prosecute on these issues.
Antisthenes -
the excuses of all the scared people here who conform to usa copyrights law makes me sick
seriously? and here I thought it was about people who expected to get paid for what they do actually getting paid for what they do, just like architects, just like lawyers, like like software developers. you know, life really isn't a conspiracy (don't tell anyone, it's a secret). I appreciate open source, because if people want to develop software for free, that is their choice. but if people want to turn software development into a business, that is fine too. this isn't about dmca so much as the morality of stealing.
if people weren't getting paid to do something, they would probably stop. if the consumer changes their mind on products, then there is a new convention. if you think that a certain software package makes you a more viable employee for your eventual commencement into the workforce, then learn it...just don't steal it. generally, if you think the current model sucks, stop bitching and stealing and propose something different. email sfotware vendors of your choice about a possible freeware or shareware program for students. WHO ON THIS THREAD IS CAPABLE OF GIVING YOU THE ANSWER?!?
my favorite part of all of this is the invalidity of it. most of the people who claim the higher moral authority and are completely opposed to the entire scenario of "stealing" software are those that were not in the situation to understand the validity of the other sides' argument. i understand you cracked software in the eighties and you put kids through school but you cannot claim that you would not have stolen given the opportunity and the situation that students are currently in. you cant and you wont because you were never there and never will be. you buy programs now because you make bank and can afford it.
i would almost guarantee given the opportunity twenty some odd years ago when you were in school- if technology were as prevalent (and implied) as it is today, you would choose to do what you had to do.
students do get sued if they get caught, just like companies; a friend of mine from school had a run-in with a software company…I think he's still paying them off, as well as being banned from purchasing their software and on some sort of "black list" to boot (which is a bit counter intuitive as it would seem to only promote piracy).
Anti--did you pay for Rhino?
Comparing Nazism to stealing what amounts to a luxury item (especially when alternatives are available to CHOOSE from) is a little over-the-top to say the least.
software is not a necessary survival item, nor is it a human-rights issue (especially in light of the snowballing open source movement); therefore stealing it can not be justified. Stealing software won't make the software companies change their ways--only by not using them at all by using open source programs instead will.
i would almost guarantee given the opportunity twenty some odd years ago when you were in school- if technology were as prevalent (and implied) as it is today, you would choose to do what you had to
do.
go steal a computer, you need that before you need the software. make sure it's a good one, though...the specs for some of the titles mentioned here are pretty high-end.
oh wait...that's not as easy and transparent as stealing software? but, you do need to do what you have to do, right? then it must not be the right and acceptable thing to do.
I see a lot more cowardice than courage and moral high-ground here. seriously, if no one could find out you killed someone, would you do that to? this isn't about "ethics being enforced on anybody is the next persons lie" as Antisthenes said, it is about what are YOUR ethics, and in which situations will you stand by them (when you are forced to be accountable) and which situations will you abandon them (when you can get away with it).
or would you then define this conundrum as "shades of grey," in moral tones? Since the software is not a haptic, physical presence, is it more acceptable to steal?
sounds like a lot of people wanna fight da man, but only if the man has a real hard time of catching them. I'm sure every true revolutionary would be very proud.
I'm not as old as you think I am: I graduated in 2004, so yes, I was in the same position but I made the choice to not sacrifice my integrity by stealing--I used my loans and credit cards to finance my "need" unfortunately I'm still paying some of it off today because I couldn't afford it then, and still can't.
of course i payed for Rhinoceros they have a philosophy that i can agree with and are worked owned, listen to user drive wishes. (even autodesk made an attempt to bite them today)
comparing what major software corporations do today when they try to monopolize and deny choice and their loyal cogs, quizzy, the usa government, lobby institutions speak in 'their' defense it sure seems like fascism to me and if they could checkmate the populous they would. If not for people seeking fairness, dignity and access we would be in a much worse off position than that of witch we are today and today's situation is dire where a 'company' can own an idea thus violating the laws of mathematics and most people simply comply and don't question this illogic?
rehiggins being gamed by the corporate agenda, i feel for you man. the false 'need' they put before you was only a strategy to meet real needs like knowledge, support, inclusion, understanding, ease.
i bet you make better choices today because of it.
comparing what major software corporations do today when they try to monopolize and deny choice and their loyal cogs, quizzy, the usa government, lobby institutions speak in 'their' defense it sure seems like fascism to me and if they could checkmate the populous they would. If not for people seeking fairness, dignity and access we would be in a much worse off position than that of witch we are today and today's situation is dire where a 'company' can own an idea thus violating the laws of mathematics and most people simply comply and don't question this illogic?
totally fair to question the way things are, always. I not only encourage this practice, but I defend and engage in it. however, the alternatives exist for you out there to actually avoid the situation of software piracy. so why not engage in those as both a student and a professional (freeware, shareware, opensource) and NOT pirate software? the greatest tool for changing systemic practice is to engage in OTHER practices...it is not necessary to violate laws and certain moral codes to do so, especially when there are alternatives.
now, if the argument is that these software titles are far too entrenched in the current marketplace to do so, that's another story with different solutions. but the question here is whether or not to steal software (when I haven't heard anyone trying to steal anything else) because someone deems it acceptable. that's ridiculous.
case in point: Microsoft in China--Bill Gates was quoted (I'm paraphrasing) as saying that the only way they can compete with Linux (free in the majority of cases) is by tacitly allowing piracy of their products.
If you really want to change things, take away the demand. You don't have to agree with major software corporations (remember I'm an avid Rhino user for much of the same reasons as you Anti) because there is choice. There are alternatives to the major players, stealing someone else's work only makes you less of a human being and puts you on equal footing with the corporations you're supposedly railing against.
today's situation is dire where a 'company' can own an idea ... and most people simply comply and don't question this illogic
where is the line between an "idea" and a "product" ?
ok, say i conceive of an idea for a great new tool -- so great, in fact, that it's patentable -- after much hard work and sweat and creativity, i develop this idea into a viable, workable, marketable new tool and start to manufacture it and place it in stores. it's now a product, based on an original idea.
are you suggesting that i just ignore my economic rights with respect to this tool -- that i just let anybody who wants to manufacture the same identical tool do so without me protesting that act?
in my view, software is not an "idea" -- it's a product that involved a lot of ingenuity and investment and risk to bring to market. for that reason, the owner of that product has the right to expect people to pay for a license to use that product. otherwise, who's going to want to take the risk to bring new products to market in the future?
these philosophies were tried and tested in communist societies for most of the last century - and they failed miserably as a way to provide for the citizenry.
working for autodesk in the first place makes you a little less human i feel. I feel assured the employees would agree and are underpaid often out sourced, why else wouldn't they hear the clamor for change for so many years at least copy the good ideas of the competitors.
and i am also sure they do not any longer own the ideas or work they do once they sign the contract.
stone if you were your own employer of course you would get more respect and if not you just make the same wage as everybody else regardless of your 'idea/product'
this has nothing to do with communism it is the open source movement the pirate movement. a political force that is new asking for a renegotiation of the contracts their states have signed with major corporations. this is capitalisms weakness in fact, accumulation by dispossession.
all i can really say is connect to your inner altruistic empathetic self.
I feel assured the employees would agree and are underpaid often out sourced, why else wouldn't they hear the clamor for change for so many years at least copy the good ideas of the competitors.
and i am also sure they do not any longer own the ideas or work they do once they sign the contract.
right, they do not own that because part of the agreement of employment they had (and I am guessing here) is that they got PAID TO DO SOMETHING - they didn't steal the money from the corporation. they were not forced to work there, they probably could have left (depending on their contractual obligation which, again, is the coice of the employee to sign or not sign), but they certainly didn't decide it was ok to take something that was not their own to begin with.
in a global world, again, outsourcing came about because someone will do the same job as someone else for less money. it is the consumer ever scrambling for a better deal, regardless of the supporting circumstances, that moves this.
wal mart exists because people want cheap, disposable american dreams. people steal software because they feel it is their god given right to do so (and because they get caught less often than when they steal computers and try to walk out of a store with them).
also, what is your problem with outsourcing? I hope that you are not (as you railed against earlier) suggesting that, "...ethics being enforced on anybody is the next persons lie."
I don’t not believe it is my god given right to steal. I just don’t understand why we are calling it stealing when both parties benefit from pirated software used for educational purposes?
this is not about altruism or empathy -- it's about who has the creativity to make new ideas and who has the gumption to develop those new ideas and make them available -- at remarkably low cost -- to society.
you just want something valuable for free - something that you had no hand in creating or developing into a workable tool - you couldn't care less about the risk or effort that others undertook to bring that tool to the table so you could benefit from their efforts.
I don’t not believe it is my god given right to steal. I just don’t understand why we are calling it stealing when both parties benefit from pirated software used for educational purposes?
I see your point; however, the marketplace does not dictate this as anything but stealing just because on the surface you can't make sense of it. if these were fledgling products looking to take hold in the marketplace, then perhaps the software developer would feel more inclined to offer these for free to students in order to propogate the titles in the marketplace.
HOWEVER, the market has dictated that most of the titles mentioned in this thread are industry standards. the market, the wants of the people, have pushed good, stable products that eveyone is using because of their functionality and reliability to the point of adoption and use that they are required. if someone comes along and makes something better that more people use, god bless them. there are software title there that are not industry standard that cost significantly less, if they cost anything at all, and they exist right now. complaining that the industry leader in one software title does not give it away for free to students OR that those same students should steal it just because you think it's right and that they won't get caught is NUTZ.
the point is this - these manufacturers are trying to recoup their investment in the product - the research, design, development, support and innovation of these products by charging people, students and professionals alike, for their use. if this model does not suit you, not only are their viable (from a certain vantage point) alternatives, there is a distinct audience for your complaints - the manufacturers of these titles.
if you don't believe that the economic relationship between the licensing of software to students in exchange for a fee is viable, test the money side. and try asking autodesk about this then...I am sure they have a host of reasons for charging for their software.
To the discussion subject: less than legal software for Vista
You must excuse me for such tardy entry in this Archinect discussion. My line of work constitutes creating technology and offering this service to the vast majority of the priveleged public. When I refer to "priveleged" I do not refer to it in the financial sense but rather in the intellectual sense. The reason for which I post in this thread is not for the intent of informing the users of demoralizing actions -that is more than present here and I cannot add insult to injury- but to offer what has not been discussed.
Since it is more than clear, by the majority, that software (be it for whatever occupation or lack thereof) should be readily made to the most necessitated public and offered at no expense perhaps you can indulge me in this one question of mine. What of public information? Has it occured to anyone that perhaps there is a method of prosecution which is aided by public information. Perhaps it hasn't occured to you all on this discussion that you may be at risk by such confessions from the majority of you.
How does it feel to be scrutinized in such manner and have it all be legal? Large corporations do not have to subject themselves in matters of stealing information to serve on their behalf because it is all well spelled here. Has that redefined anyone's moral code, yet?
se7en, are you joking with us? Your profile reads as follows but was created today before you posted here on this subject.
"Since 1982, Autodesk has ushered in state-of-the-art 2D and 3D technologies that let customers visualize, simulate, and analyze the real-world performance of their ideas early in the design process.
This gives our customers the flexibility to optimize and improve designs before actually executing them.
Autodesk customers not only see, but experience, their designs before they are real, empowering them to save time and money, improve quality, and foster innovation.
It has been my pleasure to work 26 years in this company and have the opportunity to build a reputation for creating the technology of tomorrow for minds today. Autodesk is proud to work towards improving technology and remains fortified in such endeavor. "
While i have not committed a crime or admitted to one, i feel that we are entitled to argue in defense of one. Why would you want to condone or scare people from conducting a conversation such as this? If anything it only serves to clarify your position in the public view.
So now that we have someone here who is obviously involved with one of the major corporations that are being discussed I would really like to hear more about what you think of this subject.
"If you don't believe that the economic relationship between the licensing of software to students in exchange for a fee is viable, test the money side. and try asking autodesk about this then...I am sure they have a host of reasons for charging for their software."
I think it’s a little like asking the king of England what’s with the tea tax but here it goes.
Why are their not free student versions of Autodesk products available to students?
Do you believe that pirated software has helped to spread the use and sales of your product by taking away market share from open source alternatives?
Since you obviously see an advantage to getting students to learn your product before they hit the market, I assume this is why student licenses are offered at a cheaper rate, why do you believe you need to charge them at all? Is it because it’s one more opportunity to make money? Do you worry that your greed is causing you to lose market share to other more available products? For instance your 3-D modeling programs have I assume taken a huge hit because sketch up and other programs have free versions? Can you see any benefit to you in students bootlegging your software and so that they can learn it and create demand for you?
forced sharing of knowledge, to prevent us from being trapped by greedy oligarchs
even if i don't use it i want to make sure it is well cracked so the rights of all persons with out economic abilities can also benefit from tools
cry me a river if you think you are entitled as a rights holder to any 'information'
secrecy is a problem we all work together against to keep things transparent, it is in our founding
look at the violence they is perpetuated to protect this 'property' pointless to say the least, and look at all the people lied to who Obey and have their tits in a twist.
this debate will never end as long as somebody wants power over another person.
just to clarify, while I do develop software, I don't work for autodesk. I assum you were talking to se7en...perhaps I should, though...
Why are their not free student versions of Autodesk products available to students?
that certainly isn't my decision to make. Like I said, I am sure autodesk has reasons for that.
Do you believe that pirated software has helped to spread the use and sales of your product by taking away market share from open source alternatives?
perhaps...and so has freeware and shareware and open source software of all kinds. so has "word of mouth" on software that is being paid for. just because something can possibly work doesn't make it right, and pirating software is no exception. however, open source has such a small market share in specific applications and general adoption that to claim anything is "taking market share" away from open source software is a stretch.
cry me a river if you think you are entitled as a rights holder to any 'information'
you make this distinction between physical and idealogical property...why? why should knowledge be universally shared, something that doesn't hold as much physical space and material in the world, like software, while something concrete has this tangible value to you? I find in your speech a contradiction of sorts, in that if something physical has value we can assign it to the individual yet if something ideological has value we need to give it to everyone, even the people (as King Thamus once opined), those without the wisdom to implement and utilize it.
this debate will never end as long as somebody wants power over another person.
it has nothing to do with power over another person. it has to do with recapturing the expense (labor, money, general resources) you put IN to making something...I believe people are entitled to recapture the risks they took and the opportunities they lost while pursuing these endeavors. clearly these companies make something of value to eveyone here, so why do you feel so strongly that they are not entitled to recompensation for developing those products?
I just wanted to say i really appreciate your comments and insight.
My comments were directed at Se7en, since he claims to be Vice President of Operations at Autodesk and seems to be threatening people engaged in a conversation in defense of something illegal with prosecution.
I don’t believe anybody who has admitted to pirating software in this discussion has anything to worry about. But exploring your moral reasoning is a good thing to do and you should not feel threatened. This is a scare tactic used by someone who does not care to engage the opposition and has left l8rpeace to do it for him.
Ultimately those who engage in this practice have to make a moral decision of their own based on their beliefs’ and how much they stand to lose based on the risk of their actions.
se7en, i hate your product, and despise your corporation for force-feeding us an endless series of useless updates to an already cumbersome program.
AutoCAD 09? Seriously, do you guys actually have customers come to you and DEMAND slower software? ACAD 08 was fine, 07 was fine, they were all fine so why did you guys go fuck up a perfectly fine program (cumbersome as it was) and add a whole bunch of stuff no one ever uses?
Coming onto a public forum and threatening people is exactly what I would expect of a company like Autodesk, btw.
Even if you are a troll, I hope you realize you guys make garbage products and I hope McNeel and Associates buys you out someday.
Oh, and l8r, I agree with pretty much everything you say. I believe people should pay for software, movies, and all digital media. I seriously believe however, that by allowing their products to be so easily pirated Autodesk is bringing up the next generation of CAD monkeys.
i have acad 2000 and still works great for everything i have to do. plans, sections, elevations, perspectives, everything. my friends who paid a full price for it let me download it free. same friend also let me download photoshop 6.0 it does everything i need too. only license i have is architectural. i am getting a driver license too. i am not ancient, just savvy and do residential work. i know how to draw by hand too but puhleez!
I don't condone pirating software, but seeing the thug from Autodesk trying to intimidate people here makes me want to reconsider my position.
Maybe this time next year we'll have US Attorney General who won't have any qualms about enforcing antitrust laws and smacking Autodesk with some massive fines and/or forcing a breakup of the company.
I hope your 401(k) is sufficiently diversified, Mr. Se7en. Our entire profession will be laughing hysterically when your company gets what's coming.
OF, i dont know how big your firm is, but do you think that none of your employees have ever stolen music, or downloaded movies, or installed illegal software on their personal computers? This discussion has been based solely on stealing software and how this seems to be the sole judge for someone's integrity or personal character. I hate that people are so quick to judge based on one situation where someone screwed up and broke a law. Whats the difference between stealing software and having kazaa on your computer downloading movies? What about the intern who casually uses ILLEGAL substances or constantly runs red lights?
less than legal software for Vista
the city stole a design from my old office once...they paid for one building then copied it 11 times. it cost him a great deal of money if considered in terms of lost fees...and it created an image of him as an architect who makes huge estates of identical buildings, when in fact he is entirely against that...really pissed him off, and took ages to get it resolved....
anyway, not having money is not an excuse for stealing. pretending that you are the victim when you are stealing is just nonsense. just owe up to it and be a man (woman) for fkuc's sake. i find it very unlikely that anyone here is that poor frankly, but rationalizing that behaviour as though you are forced into it is just not right. i would be kind of worried to hire anyone that thought that way, to be honest.
quizzical is perfectly correct to expect moral maturity from young architects.
What magically happens to a student after graduation that makes them want to actually pay for the software that they stole in order to get through school? Are these the same people that "borrow heavily" from someone else's work in order to satisfy their own design issues in practice? Are these the same people that take credit for others' work?
Supposedly there are rules against plagiarism in school (I've seen blatant theft of built work get rewarded) and yet there are schools that apparently condone and enable students to steal software (I am unaware of any software agreement that allows schools to load copies on individual students' machines). If you are taught that it's OK to steal things that you need, where do you draw the line when you get into practice? When do you decide to stop stealing someone's work? Why would you? It's only a problem if you get caught…
I have bought all of the software that I use(or use open source), even during school. I expect to be paid for the work that I do so I feel it's my obligation to pay others for their work.
One word: lawsuits.
If autodesk was really concerned with students pirating their software, they'd stop it. I'm not saying I use/don't use pirated software, but what I am saying is that you'd have to be mad to use pirated software once your a professional architect. Autodesk is extremely rigorous about suing companies they even remotely suspect use pirated copies of AutoCAD. I have never heard of autodesk suing a student. If autodesk is fine with students pirating their software, then I'm fine with it. I do take issue with architects who stamp dwgs that were drawn with bootleg software.
You also have to realize that many of the current generation of architecture students have a much different view about "property" than previous generations, specifically in regards to information. We grew up with the internet in our homes. We went to school with bootleg MP3s on our ipods. Many of us are aware of the beauty of open source software. We use google to organize our lives instead of outlook and we surf on Firefox instead of IE. We're used to information being free and easily disseminated.
We can also be extremely focused on personal "success" and doing whatever it takes to get there, more so than previous generations. Recent surveys of highschool students indicate that many of them don't believe cheating to be morally wrong, just another way of getting ahead. Back during the boomer generation kids talked about the power of the free-love movement and Karl Marx was more prevalent than Ayn Rand. Now what you have is a mix of that same hippie mentality left over from our parents of a world without rules and property mixed together with the exact opposite of Randian objectivism. The end result is a strange mentality in which its OK to steal, lie and cheat to get ahead, because it should all be free anyway. At least that seems to be reflect in the actions and mindset of alot of members of my generation and it seems to be the future.
^ You expect to be paid for the work that you do in school?
You guys need to get off your high horse. Why would someone stop stealing software once they are out of school? Because they are in a paid position representing a group of individuals, whether client, partner or coworker, stealing software at this point puts other people at risk and for me this is when a serious moral objection is raised.
As for stealing software while you are in school, I'm whole heartedly for it. You have an obligation to yourself to gain as much knowledge as possible and if you don’t take advantage of these opportunities then you will suffer when you get into the "real world". Not knowing adobe software or Auto cad will be a big problem when you’re trying to find a job. This is the reason many software packages have student versions, these should be free not a small fee. people stealing software in school are ultimately doing the software company a big favor, once these people are in the real world working and know this software then they will be the ones dictating which software to buy and implement when there IS an actual moral obligation to others. for ever seat stolen there are probably three or more that are purchased later in life. It’s a win win situation for both parties.
As for peoples argument that there are other ways to do things, sure but if your going to be in an environment such as a studio where students collectively help each other then your going to have a hard time when you are not speaking the same language as other students. Why not take advantage of the collaboration by learning new tricks, and ways to increase productivity that will be immensely valuable in practice.
Apply your harsh moral code and be left in the dust by those who are willing to adapt and change with the new technology of the digital age.
fucking vista... looks like it's time to upgrade to CS3.
I think fiestarch is an adobe spy.
kanu--
being willing to adapt and change with new technology is not the same as being willing to steal.
yes, it is extremely easy to copy digital media and use them without paying--I will admit to using cracking tools in the mid eighties (I was a minor) in order use a copy of my friend's software more than once. The tools are available to crack just about anything you need, but does that make it right?
I don't crack software anymore because I choose to pay; I choose to compensate the developers because I believe that people should be paid for their work. I want to use Adobe products so I pay for the commercial license instead of using a cracked copy or if I'm fed up with paying their prices I decide to use another tool that happens to be open source and free (GIMP, Blender, etc.)
The fallacy of all of this is that people think that they have to use certain tools; that a particular tool will make them a better designer. Tools by themselves won't make the design (creating your own tools is another matter entirely).
The sad fact is that you truly won't learn a program until you're in a production environment--AutoCAD classes won't prepare you all that well for the day-to-day reality of being a CAD monkey; so using the "I need to steal this software for school so that I'll know how to use it in the real world" argument is delusional.
You don't need to steal in order to learn, chances are that you can find legal, free demos or your school has them available in the computer lab. You're (I mean this generally to all the thieves) stealing because it's more convenient for you than working in the lab or dealing with a watermark.
I belive if im going to take the time to learn a software package, while im in school and then bring that knowledge to the market where that software will be commercialy used and companies will make a profit from this then i deserve to be compensated or at least not penalized, why should any form of advertisment be free? bootlegging software for educational purposes is just this, a form of advertisment, you should not pay them to advertise for them.
I believe if I’m going to take the time to learn a software package, while I’m in school and then bring that knowledge to the market where that software will be commercially used and companies will make a profit from this then I deserve to be compensated or at least not penalized, why should any form of advertisement be free? Bootlegging software for educational purposes is just this, a form of advertisement; you should not pay them to advertise for them.
kanu ... by that same logic, you also should be paid to attend school. hell, after all, those wonderful skills you're obtaining in school will be used by your employer down the road to make a profit.
your schooling is an investment in your own future. if you're paying your rent and your tuition and your grocery bills while in school, why should the software developer get screwed out of his sale because you need to use a tool he developed as part of your education.
you pay for your school books, don't you?
I would love to meet a student (who is not working their way through school a la the BAC) that is "commercially viable" on a particular software package…they may know their way around a program but I highly doubt they're productive enough to be worthy of additional compensation.
So, if you're not actually making yourself commercially viable, how do you justify the theft of a given program; especially when educational versions are available (and perfectly functional, save for possibly a different file format or watermark). You can still use the educational version to learn the software which; incidentally, is put out by the company as an advertisement and enticement to learn their software.
If the software companies were OK with students stealing their software in order to learn it, then why do they put out educational versions (which are usually free)??
If the software companies weren't OK with students stealing their software in order to learn it, then why don't they sue students with the same enthusiasm they sue professionals?
There’s a difference. You don’t have a choice about buying food, or paying rent and those companies take it as a given that they will always have a market to make money on you in the future. As for your education, yes employers do subsidize your education because they expect to profit from it in the future, while this may not traditionally happen through companies paying for schooling (still happens in many industries) it happens through hiring young inexperienced interns and teaching them in the office.
The software developer gets shorted on student licenses because it results in more future licenses being bought. This is why student licenses exist. If there are completely free versions available to students then they should by all means use those and you would not see bootleg versions available. But this is not the case. Expecting to be paid a small fee for a student license is nonsense.
The point is that all software packages should make a point of trying to take advantage of free student advertising instead of being greedy and trying to scrape a few more dollars out of poor student’s pockets. You should not have to pay for a student version… ever. And if those companies are going to act in such a fashion then it is justified to use bootleg versions and they have no room to complain, this is why students don’t get sued.
ethics being enforced on anybody is the next persons lie
to each their own.
this is a battle of human rights of life vs lifeless, and it is nice that architecture as a profession is in this debate.
the excuses of all the scared people here who conform to usa copyrights law makes me sick
do as you will and the world will and it's 'laws' will eventually change based on our use, just as words do.
pirate party is at the forefront of the next human rights battle past the any gender marriage issue the way i see it, no body shall ever heed before the self created monster that is the corporation unless they suffered abuse and brainwashing.
property as violence, Pierre Joseph Proudhon
how much are you willing to do to protect your privileged world view is what i often ask a conservative. kill, jail, spin your wheels pointlessly and get all emotion?
if i have to read 'should got to need to have to must' one more time i feel like smashing a nazi's face in. you know what i mean?
that is their language that denies choice and they used to kill millions
choice is what makes us human, don't let any religion corporation or government deny you that or we are all fuct
kanu -
There’s a difference. You don’t have a choice about buying food, or paying rent and those companies take it as a given that they will always have a market to make money on you in the future.
be a farmer or build your own log cabin then. your argument about the structure of today's society doesn't apply to merely the pirating of software. if you are looking to buck certain conventions, stealing may not be the answer. by your same argument, if you use less of the conventional software packages and move towards open source software, then profits and use of commercial software will dip, and they will no longer be conventions. at a certain tipping point then and only then will the convention of tomorrow be that which is unconventional today.
microsoft became a monopoly not because of initial monopolistic practices but because everyone saw the benefit of using their software (and, once they became "proficient" in the use of this OS, were not inclined to look for alternatives due to cost considerations, laziness, etc). basically everyone used windows, and it spread. THEN they leveraged that large-scale adoption. NOT the other way around.
The software developer gets shorted on student licenses because it results in more future licenses being bought. This is why student licenses exist. If there are completely free versions available to students then they should by all means use those and you would not see bootleg versions available. But this is not the case. Expecting to be paid a small fee for a student license is nonsense.
funny, I don't remember having to pay for the software licenses in my computer lab...granted, it was part of my tuition and thereby an extension of my education, but the option was there. at this point, you are practically talking about the matter of student convenience rather than need. the labs at my school were open all the time, armed with all the software packages (adobe, autodesk) to get by, and when we asked for other titles, we were provided with them (revit, sketchup). why does the student necessarily need these packages on his/her computer also?
Apurimac -
If the software companies weren't OK with students stealing their software in order to learn it, then why don't they sue students with the same enthusiasm they sue professionals?
there is no commensurate gain in investigating and prosecuting this level of theft. it is akin to settling a lawsuit out of court when you are innocent; it is just cheaper to operate that way. as much as I hate to admit it, on one thing I agree with kanu - allowing students to pirate software extends the benefit of use from the student population eventually out into the commercial world. but, so do trial packages, and so do shareware/freeware packages.
large companies that make money are pretty predictable though...if they were really hurting and believed it would help, they would prosecute on these issues.
Antisthenes -
the excuses of all the scared people here who conform to usa copyrights law makes me sick
seriously? and here I thought it was about people who expected to get paid for what they do actually getting paid for what they do, just like architects, just like lawyers, like like software developers. you know, life really isn't a conspiracy (don't tell anyone, it's a secret). I appreciate open source, because if people want to develop software for free, that is their choice. but if people want to turn software development into a business, that is fine too. this isn't about dmca so much as the morality of stealing.
if people weren't getting paid to do something, they would probably stop. if the consumer changes their mind on products, then there is a new convention. if you think that a certain software package makes you a more viable employee for your eventual commencement into the workforce, then learn it...just don't steal it. generally, if you think the current model sucks, stop bitching and stealing and propose something different. email sfotware vendors of your choice about a possible freeware or shareware program for students. WHO ON THIS THREAD IS CAPABLE OF GIVING YOU THE ANSWER?!?
my favorite part of all of this is the invalidity of it. most of the people who claim the higher moral authority and are completely opposed to the entire scenario of "stealing" software are those that were not in the situation to understand the validity of the other sides' argument. i understand you cracked software in the eighties and you put kids through school but you cannot claim that you would not have stolen given the opportunity and the situation that students are currently in. you cant and you wont because you were never there and never will be. you buy programs now because you make bank and can afford it.
i would almost guarantee given the opportunity twenty some odd years ago when you were in school- if technology were as prevalent (and implied) as it is today, you would choose to do what you had to do.
students do get sued if they get caught, just like companies; a friend of mine from school had a run-in with a software company…I think he's still paying them off, as well as being banned from purchasing their software and on some sort of "black list" to boot (which is a bit counter intuitive as it would seem to only promote piracy).
Anti--did you pay for Rhino?
Comparing Nazism to stealing what amounts to a luxury item (especially when alternatives are available to CHOOSE from) is a little over-the-top to say the least.
software is not a necessary survival item, nor is it a human-rights issue (especially in light of the snowballing open source movement); therefore stealing it can not be justified. Stealing software won't make the software companies change their ways--only by not using them at all by using open source programs instead will.
rehiggins, you've had a friend get sued? By what company?
do.
go steal a computer, you need that before you need the software. make sure it's a good one, though...the specs for some of the titles mentioned here are pretty high-end.
oh wait...that's not as easy and transparent as stealing software? but, you do need to do what you have to do, right? then it must not be the right and acceptable thing to do.
I see a lot more cowardice than courage and moral high-ground here. seriously, if no one could find out you killed someone, would you do that to? this isn't about "ethics being enforced on anybody is the next persons lie" as Antisthenes said, it is about what are YOUR ethics, and in which situations will you stand by them (when you are forced to be accountable) and which situations will you abandon them (when you can get away with it).
or would you then define this conundrum as "shades of grey," in moral tones? Since the software is not a haptic, physical presence, is it more acceptable to steal?
sounds like a lot of people wanna fight da man, but only if the man has a real hard time of catching them. I'm sure every true revolutionary would be very proud.
I'm not as old as you think I am: I graduated in 2004, so yes, I was in the same position but I made the choice to not sacrifice my integrity by stealing--I used my loans and credit cards to finance my "need" unfortunately I'm still paying some of it off today because I couldn't afford it then, and still can't.
I'm not even close to "making bank" these days
Apurimac--
I think it was AutoDesk; he didn't talk about it much and was horribly embarrassed and worried that he'd be deported
of course i payed for Rhinoceros they have a philosophy that i can agree with and are worked owned, listen to user drive wishes. (even autodesk made an attempt to bite them today)
comparing what major software corporations do today when they try to monopolize and deny choice and their loyal cogs, quizzy, the usa government, lobby institutions speak in 'their' defense it sure seems like fascism to me and if they could checkmate the populous they would. If not for people seeking fairness, dignity and access we would be in a much worse off position than that of witch we are today and today's situation is dire where a 'company' can own an idea thus violating the laws of mathematics and most people simply comply and don't question this illogic?
rehiggins being gamed by the corporate agenda, i feel for you man. the false 'need' they put before you was only a strategy to meet real needs like knowledge, support, inclusion, understanding, ease.
i bet you make better choices today because of it.
we all learn from mistakes of the past, like letting a corporation have more power and rights than any human being.
totally fair to question the way things are, always. I not only encourage this practice, but I defend and engage in it. however, the alternatives exist for you out there to actually avoid the situation of software piracy. so why not engage in those as both a student and a professional (freeware, shareware, opensource) and NOT pirate software? the greatest tool for changing systemic practice is to engage in OTHER practices...it is not necessary to violate laws and certain moral codes to do so, especially when there are alternatives.
now, if the argument is that these software titles are far too entrenched in the current marketplace to do so, that's another story with different solutions. but the question here is whether or not to steal software (when I haven't heard anyone trying to steal anything else) because someone deems it acceptable. that's ridiculous.
piracy/theft=demand
case in point: Microsoft in China--Bill Gates was quoted (I'm paraphrasing) as saying that the only way they can compete with Linux (free in the majority of cases) is by tacitly allowing piracy of their products.
If you really want to change things, take away the demand. You don't have to agree with major software corporations (remember I'm an avid Rhino user for much of the same reasons as you Anti) because there is choice. There are alternatives to the major players, stealing someone else's work only makes you less of a human being and puts you on equal footing with the corporations you're supposedly railing against.
that’s what I’m saying, why should it be a problem when its a mutually beneficial situation?
where is the line between an "idea" and a "product" ?
ok, say i conceive of an idea for a great new tool -- so great, in fact, that it's patentable -- after much hard work and sweat and creativity, i develop this idea into a viable, workable, marketable new tool and start to manufacture it and place it in stores. it's now a product, based on an original idea.
are you suggesting that i just ignore my economic rights with respect to this tool -- that i just let anybody who wants to manufacture the same identical tool do so without me protesting that act?
in my view, software is not an "idea" -- it's a product that involved a lot of ingenuity and investment and risk to bring to market. for that reason, the owner of that product has the right to expect people to pay for a license to use that product. otherwise, who's going to want to take the risk to bring new products to market in the future?
these philosophies were tried and tested in communist societies for most of the last century - and they failed miserably as a way to provide for the citizenry.
working for autodesk in the first place makes you a little less human i feel. I feel assured the employees would agree and are underpaid often out sourced, why else wouldn't they hear the clamor for change for so many years at least copy the good ideas of the competitors.
and i am also sure they do not any longer own the ideas or work they do once they sign the contract.
stone if you were your own employer of course you would get more respect and if not you just make the same wage as everybody else regardless of your 'idea/product'
this has nothing to do with communism it is the open source movement the pirate movement. a political force that is new asking for a renegotiation of the contracts their states have signed with major corporations. this is capitalisms weakness in fact, accumulation by dispossession.
all i can really say is connect to your inner altruistic empathetic self.
and i am also sure they do not any longer own the ideas or work they do once they sign the contract.
right, they do not own that because part of the agreement of employment they had (and I am guessing here) is that they got PAID TO DO SOMETHING - they didn't steal the money from the corporation. they were not forced to work there, they probably could have left (depending on their contractual obligation which, again, is the coice of the employee to sign or not sign), but they certainly didn't decide it was ok to take something that was not their own to begin with.
in a global world, again, outsourcing came about because someone will do the same job as someone else for less money. it is the consumer ever scrambling for a better deal, regardless of the supporting circumstances, that moves this.
wal mart exists because people want cheap, disposable american dreams. people steal software because they feel it is their god given right to do so (and because they get caught less often than when they steal computers and try to walk out of a store with them).
also, what is your problem with outsourcing? I hope that you are not (as you railed against earlier) suggesting that, "...ethics being enforced on anybody is the next persons lie."
I don’t not believe it is my god given right to steal. I just don’t understand why we are calling it stealing when both parties benefit from pirated software used for educational purposes?
what a crock !
this is not about altruism or empathy -- it's about who has the creativity to make new ideas and who has the gumption to develop those new ideas and make them available -- at remarkably low cost -- to society.
you just want something valuable for free - something that you had no hand in creating or developing into a workable tool - you couldn't care less about the risk or effort that others undertook to bring that tool to the table so you could benefit from their efforts.
you're a freeloader
I see your point; however, the marketplace does not dictate this as anything but stealing just because on the surface you can't make sense of it. if these were fledgling products looking to take hold in the marketplace, then perhaps the software developer would feel more inclined to offer these for free to students in order to propogate the titles in the marketplace.
HOWEVER, the market has dictated that most of the titles mentioned in this thread are industry standards. the market, the wants of the people, have pushed good, stable products that eveyone is using because of their functionality and reliability to the point of adoption and use that they are required. if someone comes along and makes something better that more people use, god bless them. there are software title there that are not industry standard that cost significantly less, if they cost anything at all, and they exist right now. complaining that the industry leader in one software title does not give it away for free to students OR that those same students should steal it just because you think it's right and that they won't get caught is NUTZ.
the point is this - these manufacturers are trying to recoup their investment in the product - the research, design, development, support and innovation of these products by charging people, students and professionals alike, for their use. if this model does not suit you, not only are their viable (from a certain vantage point) alternatives, there is a distinct audience for your complaints - the manufacturers of these titles.
if you don't believe that the economic relationship between the licensing of software to students in exchange for a fee is viable, test the money side. and try asking autodesk about this then...I am sure they have a host of reasons for charging for their software.
To the discussion subject: less than legal software for Vista
You must excuse me for such tardy entry in this Archinect discussion. My line of work constitutes creating technology and offering this service to the vast majority of the priveleged public. When I refer to "priveleged" I do not refer to it in the financial sense but rather in the intellectual sense. The reason for which I post in this thread is not for the intent of informing the users of demoralizing actions -that is more than present here and I cannot add insult to injury- but to offer what has not been discussed.
Since it is more than clear, by the majority, that software (be it for whatever occupation or lack thereof) should be readily made to the most necessitated public and offered at no expense perhaps you can indulge me in this one question of mine. What of public information? Has it occured to anyone that perhaps there is a method of prosecution which is aided by public information. Perhaps it hasn't occured to you all on this discussion that you may be at risk by such confessions from the majority of you.
How does it feel to be scrutinized in such manner and have it all be legal? Large corporations do not have to subject themselves in matters of stealing information to serve on their behalf because it is all well spelled here. Has that redefined anyone's moral code, yet?
-7
se7en, are you joking with us? Your profile reads as follows but was created today before you posted here on this subject.
"Since 1982, Autodesk has ushered in state-of-the-art 2D and 3D technologies that let customers visualize, simulate, and analyze the real-world performance of their ideas early in the design process.
This gives our customers the flexibility to optimize and improve designs before actually executing them.
Autodesk customers not only see, but experience, their designs before they are real, empowering them to save time and money, improve quality, and foster innovation.
It has been my pleasure to work 26 years in this company and have the opportunity to build a reputation for creating the technology of tomorrow for minds today. Autodesk is proud to work towards improving technology and remains fortified in such endeavor. "
While i have not committed a crime or admitted to one, i feel that we are entitled to argue in defense of one. Why would you want to condone or scare people from conducting a conversation such as this? If anything it only serves to clarify your position in the public view.
So now that we have someone here who is obviously involved with one of the major corporations that are being discussed I would really like to hear more about what you think of this subject.
"If you don't believe that the economic relationship between the licensing of software to students in exchange for a fee is viable, test the money side. and try asking autodesk about this then...I am sure they have a host of reasons for charging for their software."
I think it’s a little like asking the king of England what’s with the tea tax but here it goes.
Why are their not free student versions of Autodesk products available to students?
Do you believe that pirated software has helped to spread the use and sales of your product by taking away market share from open source alternatives?
Since you obviously see an advantage to getting students to learn your product before they hit the market, I assume this is why student licenses are offered at a cheaper rate, why do you believe you need to charge them at all? Is it because it’s one more opportunity to make money? Do you worry that your greed is causing you to lose market share to other more available products? For instance your 3-D modeling programs have I assume taken a huge hit because sketch up and other programs have free versions? Can you see any benefit to you in students bootlegging your software and so that they can learn it and create demand for you?
forced sharing of knowledge, to prevent us from being trapped by greedy oligarchs
even if i don't use it i want to make sure it is well cracked so the rights of all persons with out economic abilities can also benefit from tools
cry me a river if you think you are entitled as a rights holder to any 'information'
secrecy is a problem we all work together against to keep things transparent, it is in our founding
look at the violence they is perpetuated to protect this 'property' pointless to say the least, and look at all the people lied to who Obey and have their tits in a twist.
this debate will never end as long as somebody wants power over another person.
just to clarify, while I do develop software, I don't work for autodesk. I assum you were talking to se7en...perhaps I should, though...
Why are their not free student versions of Autodesk products available to students?
that certainly isn't my decision to make. Like I said, I am sure autodesk has reasons for that.
Do you believe that pirated software has helped to spread the use and sales of your product by taking away market share from open source alternatives?
perhaps...and so has freeware and shareware and open source software of all kinds. so has "word of mouth" on software that is being paid for. just because something can possibly work doesn't make it right, and pirating software is no exception. however, open source has such a small market share in specific applications and general adoption that to claim anything is "taking market share" away from open source software is a stretch.
cry me a river if you think you are entitled as a rights holder to any 'information'
you make this distinction between physical and idealogical property...why? why should knowledge be universally shared, something that doesn't hold as much physical space and material in the world, like software, while something concrete has this tangible value to you? I find in your speech a contradiction of sorts, in that if something physical has value we can assign it to the individual yet if something ideological has value we need to give it to everyone, even the people (as King Thamus once opined), those without the wisdom to implement and utilize it.
this debate will never end as long as somebody wants power over another person.
it has nothing to do with power over another person. it has to do with recapturing the expense (labor, money, general resources) you put IN to making something...I believe people are entitled to recapture the risks they took and the opportunities they lost while pursuing these endeavors. clearly these companies make something of value to eveyone here, so why do you feel so strongly that they are not entitled to recompensation for developing those products?
l8rpeace,
I just wanted to say i really appreciate your comments and insight.
My comments were directed at Se7en, since he claims to be Vice President of Operations at Autodesk and seems to be threatening people engaged in a conversation in defense of something illegal with prosecution.
I don’t believe anybody who has admitted to pirating software in this discussion has anything to worry about. But exploring your moral reasoning is a good thing to do and you should not feel threatened. This is a scare tactic used by someone who does not care to engage the opposition and has left l8rpeace to do it for him.
Ultimately those who engage in this practice have to make a moral decision of their own based on their beliefs’ and how much they stand to lose based on the risk of their actions.
se7en, i hate your product, and despise your corporation for force-feeding us an endless series of useless updates to an already cumbersome program.
AutoCAD 09? Seriously, do you guys actually have customers come to you and DEMAND slower software? ACAD 08 was fine, 07 was fine, they were all fine so why did you guys go fuck up a perfectly fine program (cumbersome as it was) and add a whole bunch of stuff no one ever uses?
Coming onto a public forum and threatening people is exactly what I would expect of a company like Autodesk, btw.
Even if you are a troll, I hope you realize you guys make garbage products and I hope McNeel and Associates buys you out someday.
Oh, and l8r, I agree with pretty much everything you say. I believe people should pay for software, movies, and all digital media. I seriously believe however, that by allowing their products to be so easily pirated Autodesk is bringing up the next generation of CAD monkeys.
i have acad 2000 and still works great for everything i have to do. plans, sections, elevations, perspectives, everything. my friends who paid a full price for it let me download it free. same friend also let me download photoshop 6.0 it does everything i need too. only license i have is architectural. i am getting a driver license too. i am not ancient, just savvy and do residential work. i know how to draw by hand too but puhleez!
I don't condone pirating software, but seeing the thug from Autodesk trying to intimidate people here makes me want to reconsider my position.
Maybe this time next year we'll have US Attorney General who won't have any qualms about enforcing antitrust laws and smacking Autodesk with some massive fines and/or forcing a breakup of the company.
I hope your 401(k) is sufficiently diversified, Mr. Se7en. Our entire profession will be laughing hysterically when your company gets what's coming.
I know I will.
OF, you've got your own firm?
OF, i dont know how big your firm is, but do you think that none of your employees have ever stolen music, or downloaded movies, or installed illegal software on their personal computers? This discussion has been based solely on stealing software and how this seems to be the sole judge for someone's integrity or personal character. I hate that people are so quick to judge based on one situation where someone screwed up and broke a law. Whats the difference between stealing software and having kazaa on your computer downloading movies? What about the intern who casually uses ILLEGAL substances or constantly runs red lights?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.