comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <5rnsv3dgue82mecj43hrs8if12jbgk5afa@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> >> So in your view theft is justified if the amount is small?
> >
> >No, but in the question whether one should sanction what once was
> >theft, limiting such a sanctioning based on the end result is quite
> >justifiable.
> >
> >I.e. if one would make PS free for a specific group of people that
> >before used to steal it, would make their possession of the
> >application fully legal, and promoting such an idea would not be to
> >justify theft, obviously.
>
> Wouldn't it? The giving away would be a direct result of so many
> people stealing Photoshop. This would tell people that all they need
> to do is to steal something in large enough numbers and it will become
> free.

How do you figure that "people" would translate Adobes business
choices to any other commodity? You seem to be implying that since
Adobe now (in this scenario) gives away intellectual property for
free, due to theft, that the people that would be made aware of this
would naturally assume that - for instance - stealing food would lead
to the same business choice.

I just can't see how you go from one to the other in "peoples" minds.

> Also consider that many of these people are only stealing Photoshop
> because of its position. The GIMP would suit many of these people's
> needs just fine.

I disagree with that, of course. But then again, I am one of the
professionals that actually pay for Photoshop.

> Also even the lowest priced Wacom tablet comes
> bundled with Photoshop Elements which would also fit many of these
> people's needs just fine.

No argument here.

> So they aren't stealing Photoshop because
> they have a hobby or a need that has no other way to find an outlet.
> They're stealing Photoshop purely because they want to. That's not
> something that should be rewarded unless you want more of it.

Are you equally opposed to reduced prices for specific target groups,
such as education? Logically, those pricing schemes could be one way
to tackle the theft issue, since those target groups would likely
steal the software otherwise. Is this also to "reward theft"? If not,
where do you draw the line? Where, between todays educational pricing
of Photoshop (if any) and $0 is it rewarding and where is it not?

> >Your error was when the thinking behind making it legal for these
> >people to own intellectual property should also mean that it could be
> >equally applied to actual property, when actual property has a direct
> >value attached to the item itself, as opposed to intellectual
> >property. A value the property owner would loose should he give it
> >away for free.
>
> All property has value.

But only actual property has value inherited in the property itself.
Photoshop CS3 is just a specific amount of plastic and paper, unless
you buy it online and download it. In that case, the property has no
inherited value at all, other then the value one gets from being able
to use it.

> I suspect that you actually mean cost to
> manufacture.

That, too. But also the value of the actual materials in the actual
property.

> And its not true that intellectual property has no cost
> to manufacture either.

Which is why no one has claimed otherwise. But it is true, however,
that unlike with real property, intellectual property does not cost
more per unit, when "unit" is a file.

> All of those programmers at Adobe aren't
> working for free. Neither are the people printing the packaging and
> duplicating the disks.

Let me reassure you that those pirating Adobe Photoshop is not
stealing plastic CDs from the shelves of software outlets.

But just to get this straight. Are you in fact claiming that if Adobe
sells ten thousands copies of CS3 and another hundred thousand copies
are downloaded illegally over the net is the same loss to Adobe as if
someone sold ten thousand kitchen tables and had another hundred
thousand kitchen tables stolen from the warehouse?

Do you not see a difference in the two cases? Do you see any of the
above companies that theoretically and economically COULD make it ok
for those hundred thousand of items that are currently being stolen to
be legit?

Again, I personally don't think Adobe should do this and I do not
agree with ZnU on this. I quite agree with you that Elements and such
is priced adequately for this specific group. I am merely countering
your misinformation that the logic behind such a move would be equal
to any business that deals with actual property.


--
Sandman[.net]