How much pirated Amiga software did you have?

[recidivist]

I  probably had 15+,all acquired as parts of "package deals" of Amiga computer and all accessories,programs,etc .I did not download or swap  copies at club meetings or elsewhere;actually turned down one deal for an Amiga setup because ALL the 1000+?  programs were copies (with  photocopied manuals) and it just ticked me that the seller wanted money for stolen goods.I 've warned flea marketers about the  hazarrds of selling bogus Microsoft CDs as well-one fellow no longer displays them.Too bad that my co-worker actually thinks I am stupid for not having  stolen full copies of all the latest Microsoft and Adobe software on MY laptop as he does on his.
 Stealing is just SO COOL,until you steal from the thief.

[recidivist]

Now that I've taken time to read all the comments,it sad really;a majority of Amiga users were/are comfortable with stealing someone's work.
How many  here regularly shoplift food and clothing? Game consoles?Get government welfare checks because they'd rather not work, so they steal from everyone ?
 I see abandoned property as different, just another way of passing into public domain.But stealing from existing entities hurts them.

 Commodores computers were treated as toys because the users didn't want to pay for serious software.
 
 I wonder..do  people here think buying a car entitles one to steal gas and tires?Car won't run without them;computer won't run without programs.

[recidivist]

So "takemehomegranma,and others",did  you PAY to register MorphOS? Or just  use a cracked version? And why  would stealing Piru's work  be different from stealing Jim Sachs' work?

 DO any of you perform a service job that doesn't  produce physical objects? Should not your service (time, and knowledge ) be compensated?

 And the law professor justifying IP theft is kind of scary.

 The way the free market is SUPPOSED to work is people either buy or not based on if they can afford the product or service and if the buyer perceives it has value.People who produce crap or price products too high go out of business.

 As for people  taking Mercedes if they could,I think Mercedes production would quickly end-hmmm,maybe a parallel here?
  Why didn't everyone who wanted an Amigo 3000 back in the days  of $3299 units just take one?After all it was only  a few pounds of cheap metal and plastic.

 Philosophers and prophets and governments  and I recognize many people will take anything they can get away with,and ONE of the signs of civilized people is they don't steal .I'd like to think more than 1% have  an innate sense of morality called "conscience" .I have  also found in my half-century that many people  will do what is consistently expected of them ,whether that be good or bad.

[recidivist]

NOt that I've heard of the law being used,but back in the George Bush I days,our Congress passed a law making it a very big deal to have more than 10 pirated  pieces of software.Think the  stated punishment was something  like 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine!.Reall way over the top.However,s a disgruntled employee can tell the SPA about  his boss'(company) use of unlicensed  software and the company can find itself looking at  million $ penalties to become legal.I know of a couple local computer resellers no longer in business because they placed pirated OS and office suites on their goods.(just for the record I had absolutely nothing to do with those legal actions,had even bought one of my computers there ,and never thought it might be running unlicensed OS).
 I will agree most software seems priced way too high.

[recidivist]

December 1, 1990 Computer Software Rental Admendments Act (President Bush)

October 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act President Clinton)

I couldn't find exactly what I remembered but the current  copyright lengths and punishments are extreme ,beyond draconian.Depending on which statute is invoked it seems you could be sentenced to  a maximum of either 5 or 10 years and fines up to $100,00 or $250,000.

 I think it is a crime to steal new software  or work ,but copyrights of 70 to 120 years are just ridiculous!
 Ultimately,laws are part of the social contract and I expect the laws will change again.

[recidivist]

My view  has consistently been  that the U.S. Congress and others in the pay of major studios ,extended the length of copyright protection in excess of the original intents and well in excess of custom or logic.

The U.S. laws used to recognize the right of an individual to copy many inventions,etc. as long as only one copy was made for the person's own private,non-commercial use. use,none sold or even given away.Here is where computer piracy in the workplace and at club swaps  violates even the long-accepted previous understanding.Copyright and patent protection also depended on the inventor or holder pursuing action against persons or companies making unlicensed products.


Warning!!!

Long post follows ,but I couldn't think how to cover the points shorter.

I still believe 14 or so  years is long enough for a person to profit from exclusitivity,and then ideas should become public domain.However that is not the current law.

Personally I think if  a person or company no longer makes the product available ,it should automatically become public domain.

I have electronic hardware for which the company exists but cannot provide repair or operation info,yet current law says no one can sell or copy .

Piracy in the form of copying products  currently available for purchase surely hurts companies and the people who work for them;but copying products  that are abandoned,while illegal,seems to me not so big a deal morally.

I would draw a parallel with items discarded into the trash by the previous owner in that if someone else can make use of those items that is not otherwise criminal in itself,then it is no wrong.

 Traditional public or private libraries lending of material meant that only one person could use the item at any given time,so one copy of a book might be read by a hundred people in a few years,only a few of which might have bought the book .But if the library had made copies of that one  book so that all users  got a permanent copy free,then that would have meant no one else  need purchase a copy.
  IF computer club libraries  had been able to function on that model,more software would have been  purchased.Without all software being absolutely locked down into requiring the master disk present in a drive or other physical key present,software copying is common.Some business software today still requires secure keys in USB or port "dongle" form( of course a big chunk of program code is devoted to  key or licenses verification and itself hidden ).I wonder how many lines of Windows code is used to monitor the license status?

[recidivist]

Pentad

I disagree that ANYONE should have copyright benefits for 70 years;I firmly believe the old laws from several decades ago provided a much better balance of originator's rights versus society's rights.
 14 years plus ONE renewal of another 14 should be plenty of time.
 I am reminded of Tolkien whining about  not receiving money for his LOTR books decades after the original publishing.If  the copyright laws of today  had been in effect  for the past few hundred years,perhaps Shakespeare,Milton, and others would not be classics;actually I believe excessive copyrights retard the progress of  a society.
Nothing was created in a vacumn,all build on knowledge and work of those before.

The U.S. Congress is much too easily swayed by  lobbyists and cash  donations;plus  simply feel the "need" to pass laws to show they are "earning" their legislator's pay.

 The change in copyright laws to benefit Disney which made billions customizing old fairy tales,and also protecting companies like Microsoft and Apple which have demonstrably violated the  patent or copyright laws themselves(and the blue-box  background of Apple founders) just shows that  money can have the rules of the game changed to benefit money.

 FInally,I contend that most people do have an innate sense of right and wrong and most want to do the right thing most of the time;and when their sense of rightness conflicts with any society's laws the people will do what they feel should be right weighed against the likelihood of being caught and punished.
This is a reason I oppose red-light cameras since the camera doesn't know or care that you went through the  intersection after being able to see that there is no other traffic at 3 a.m. Tuesday morning,just a suspicious person loitering  across the street(possible carjacker?).  

 The minimum number of laws and justice based on real,not imagined , injury strikes me as better for a free society.Many,of course, do not like the idea of freedom for everyone,so they insist on restrictive laws rigidly enforced except in cases of the elite.

[recidivist]

I know the digital engineers claim we can't tell the difference but I believe we,or at least many of us ,CAN tell the difference  between digitized music and analog,perhaps only subconsciously.My theory is that our brains  detect the digital  steps and the brain then processes the signal to sound "normal",i.e. analog.
 
The human brain can do amazing tricks.I happen to require glasses  ,and of course having worn glasses for years was used to  seeing  things normally with  one particular lens style. A switch to a special no- line lens whilst retaining the strength needed resulted in a weird hourglass view  TEMPORARILY;for the first  week or so wearing the new lenses ,the walls of hallways or anything not  pretty much directly ahead seemed to "bow" in shape.Then one day I realized I was no longer noticing the distortion and all looked normal shapes and angles again.A quick switch to the original brought a very momentary blurriness and then ok.
 I theorize my brain had somehow learned a new "program" for seeing and also a "sub-routine" for deciding which seeing program to use based on which glasses were being worn!

[recidivist]

Funny you should mention MiniDisk-there are six new in the wrapper beside my keyboard.Found them at a little secondhand junque store very cheap!

[recidivist]

Re: the wiki  article on loudness war.

That explains my feeling of wrongness about some of the music the last few years;music should have a wide dynamic range if the listener is to get the full experience.Anyone can make loud noises.

This is similar to the over-application or processing in the CB,ham radio and even commercial services to the point of rendering voices unidentifiable  although the gross message is delivered;that is the listener understands that "backup needed at Last National Bank" but the cues that let one recognize the other party's voice  are missing and you must rely on the stated identity.Perhaps this is why cellphone calls  so often sound so bad.