I see nothing wrong with filesharing. In the beginning, someone paid for the program, and if they want to give it away, then it's their right to give it away. If I want to give you a cd that I bought, then I should be able to.

 

By that logic then only one person has to buy the software, everyone else in the world can leach it off of them or someone else who has it.

When you buy the software you agree to a license. I know its boring and I rarely ever read it now, but read that thing called the EULA (usually at the same screen as the "I agree" button).

Alot of people actually put time and effort into programs. They arent just some side project that some kid in a basement (not usually anyway) comes up with and gives to his friend and says "give this to whoever you want."

 

I know, but if someone sells something to me and I want to give it away, then it's my perogative. If you want to give anything away that you have bought, then that's your option. Not everyone gets the software for free, but thank God for people that do share files, and thank God for the programs that allow it. Filesharing promotes more sales in the long run, anyway, because it's essentially free advertisement for the people who see it being used. No one should be able to tell anyone else what they can do with something after they buy it. It'd be like charging someone when they heard a song on your radio. Filesharing is not wrong, and I'll never believe otherwise. Has no one ever given you anything?

 

I have never downloaded software (from a file-sharing app...I have downloaded software, after paying for it).

I do download .mp3's however (different can-o-worms IMO).

 

I'm seeing some sweeping generalizations here that simply don't hold up. I can generalize back at you

Sure, like a bar can sell you alcohol and you can give it away to children. That's your perogative. That doesn't make it illegal.

Tell me about it. I'm one of those who have to buy the software (in this instance, photoshop) I don't mind obtaining a legal copy, but I don't like the fact that the price has been inflated to cover the cost of Adobe coming up with new anti-piracy code. In essence, you're getting the software for free, plus taking money out of my pocket. I'd rather that money went to new and innovative features that make the program better.

I doubt that filesharing promotes more sales in the long run, but it probably promotes some sales, sure. Some software companies and music labels recognize this, and they choose to release shareware, demoware, or free samples in order to promote sales. That's their choice, and I'm thankful for it. Some companies choose not to do this, but instead promote through advertising or by creating new industry standards through product innovation. In the case of Adobe, they offer free trials on some of their products, and in other cases they offer heavy discounts for students who want to learn the software and hopefully in turn that will promote the sale of their product. That's the case with me, I tried an early student version of photoshop at a discounted price of around $300. After using it all through college and deciding to become a professional graphic artist, I upgraded that very same student version just a year ago to the most current pro version (valued at about $700) and I only paid for a $100 upgrade. That's impressive when you consider that they didn't mind I was switching from a student version to a pro version, plus I was skipping about 3 generations of upgrades (went from 3.0 to 7.0) In all, that probably saved me about $600. Throw in all the benefits I get as a member of the photoshop professionals association, and the fact that I'm keeping everything legit and legal, and you can see how Adobe didn't need me to steal their software to make a happy, lifelong user.

Refer to first quote. This is just a broad generalization and by that logic, Ford shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't use my nice expensive truck that I paid for myself to crash into a bus full of children. Or wait, we're talking about sharing here, so in fact Ford can't tell me that I shouldn't give my car to someone else to crash into a bus full of children.

Someone does get charged when you hear a song on the radio. The radio station has to pay for a license to play that music. In fact, if a bowling alley or a skating rink wants to play music while you visit, they also have to pay to play.

Well, in some cases filesharing isn't wrong, but unfortunately that's at the discretion of whoever owns the rights to the intellectual property being shared, and not you.

I'll put it another way, I spend a lot of time in the forum for "exterior care" of our trucks. We talk about what products we like to make our trucks look great. In several instances people send out samples of a product to another member so that they can try it, and if they like it, hopefully they will buy some. I bet the guys at Meguiar's or Zaino love this kind of free advertising, as long as it stays on a scale that doesn't rob them of more than 118,000 jobs, $5.6 billion in wages and more than $1.5 billion in tax revenue each year.

Ok, if anyone is still actually reading this far, I don't want you to think I'm picking on pickupman or trying to start a war with filesharers. I'm really not. But I do feel a need to try and educate and expose the fact that illegal filesharing is not a victimless crime.

 

Not sure here, but if pickupman meant that by "giving it away" the PREVIOUS owner no longer uses it, then that should be acceptable. one license = one user. (although you should read the EULA, incase the license isn't transferable) As far as multiple users on one license, that's a No No. Thus "givng" and "sharing" are two different things.

What if you created some software, and the person you sold it to, made copies and gave it to every one? I imagine you'd be homeless pretty quick if you didn't find a way to stop that from happening.

 

eighteen, and I've never listend to the guy.

 

ATST hit the nail on the head, one license = one user. It's the law, period. Just like a book. If you photocopy a book and pass it on you are breaking the law. There would be no incentive for people to write new programs if they could be copied and passed around freely.
Many software programs are very generous in allowing one user to install the program on computers at two different locations, such as work and home. If the copywrite or EULA isn't clear on this, you can call the software manufacturer and they will enlighten you as to situations regarding multiple installs.
Will this stop people from file sharing? NO, it will go on just as speed limits don't stop people from speeding. The honest, law abiding consumer pays more for the product to cover such piracy, just as our automobile insurance charges us more to compensate for the uninsured, under-insured and just plain stupid motorists.
By the way, not flaming anyone here, I have fit in all of the above catagories at one time or another. We must each pick our poisons in life, alcohol and a certain amount of aggressive driving is mine, although I have learned not to combine the two.

 

Thank you all for you terrific replies. I'm going to download a couple of trial versions and play with them. I believe I might not be as computer savvy as your average member on this board so ease of use may be a major consideration. :o

I have no problem plunking down $100 - $200 for a program if I like it and find it easy to use. I am a union man (CWA) and can totally apreciate the importance of a steady job. While it's true that jobs are lost and created every day the process takes on a perspective if you happen to be the sole provider for a family of 5 like I am. Can you say mortgage, how about orthodontist? I think we all have the right to voice our opinions but they vary when you are in different situations.