Vista, Office 2007 cracked. Kind of.

[remix17]

I'm not forgetting that fact... I know full well that they employ people to make Windows and that they have to pay them.

What you're forgetting is that it's impossible to lose something you don't have! Microsoft aren't losing Bob's money, because they never had it in the first place -- and if Bob didn't use Windows at all and used a Mac, would you still be saying Microsoft are losing money because of it? They're not losing anything!

Nothing has been gained by Microsoft because Bob didn't buy Windows. Nothing has been lost by Microsoft because Bob didn't buy Windows.

That's not true. What if piracy didn't exist? Since Bob originally intended to buy Vista but chose to pirate it instead, Microsoft lost a potential sale.

lets summarize:

Situation 1: Bob pirates Vista. But he never had intentions to buy a legal copy. No loss in profits for Microsoft.

Situation 2: Bob pirates Vista. But he would have bought a copy if pirated copy was not available. Microsoft looses a potential profit.

When talking about copyright infringment or piracy, use the terms "copyright infringment" or "piracy" - this is the point of my argument entirely. You can't go into a financial meeting and get the terms gross and net mixed up without looking like a fool, so don't get the terms pirating and stealing mixed up.

I agree with you on that.

[redfish]

Even some people who have defended piracy here have agreed to it being theft. While it is defined as theft by the law, I think its important to realize that its only defined that way because we agree to an analogy of intellectual property as being like physical property. And while we as a society may hold some importance to that analogy, to preserve the living of developers; its important to realize the way in which the analogy breaks down. For instance, its the whole reason for things such as the 'fair use' law. But the sum of these laws doesn't necessarily permanently represent the only ways in which it breaks down.

Lately, corporations and advocates have been so fierce in defending copyrights and anti-piracy actions, that they have acted as if laws like fair use are just inconveniences that they have to get around to maintain full control of every duplicate of what they sell. In many cases, its as if the corporations who decide what these laws mean, and not the public, even though they're meant to protect public rights. Many people here sound as if they would support the corporations control over deciding on what these rights mean, because, after all, its their product. Not only is this approach draconian and unproductive, but it also perverts the intent of intellectual property laws by running roughshod over public protections.

There are are good arguments as to interpret basic intellectual property rights to mean something different than how its normally treated in court. So yes, for people who believe these arguments, they are still facing the law when they pirate. But also for them, not only may it be a lack of a moral issue, but a lack of a meaningful legal issue--because they consider it civil disobedience.

As for me, I think there needs to be some intellectual property restrictions, but they need to be much looser and less draconian. I don't have illegitimate copies on my computer, but still understand people who do. I think how intellectual property law is moralized today according to strict conventions, is much the same as sex was moralized in the 60s. Just as things had to change in the 60s, things have to change now re: intellectual property laws. Its not so much they don't have moral purpose to them (and conventions about sex do have moral purpose to them also, which is something I hope people will equally realize), its that they're unrealistic, and when enforced so unequivocally and harshly they become morally perverted.

[riahc3]

Why a $20,000 car and not a $9,000 car? Why not a $1,500 moped? Why not a $70 bicycle? Because he can.

And I can bootleg too

People are under no obligation to forgo their access to comfort in the endless quest of "saving the poor" or whatever other cause you dream up.

My confort is using a OS that I can use to work and play games on. However I aquire it is my problem. Don't like it? Then I think its sad to worry about what another person is doing with his/her life than worrying about your life

Furthermore, what sort of position are you to chastise the OP for the way he exercises his wealth when you're clearly spending yours on luxuries like a personal computer and Internet access?

Who has said that I or someone from my family has bought this? AFAIK I have never stated this. What sort of position are you to judge on the choices I make?

I may have been a member of the lucky sperm club

I didnt need to read the rest of the crap you wrote there. If your lucky, your lucky. You will never know the mentality of a pirate unless you donate everything you have.

Sing it with me:

• The pot bone is connected to the black bone.
  The black bone is connected to the kettle bone.
  The kettle bones connected to the YOU bone,
  and them bones gonna dance 'round
  

...did you make this post while on drugs? :huh:

Let's just jump on this quickly. While laws vary from nation to nation, a fairly common theme is that making a copy of a recording you own is a legal use of that album.

AKAIK, its illegal to make copies of your album for your use in more than 50% of countries worldwide (this is not a fact; just a guess). Just because its like that in Canada, it doesnt make it a "fairly common theme" :rolleyes:

It's your duty as a consumer to inform yourself of the rights and responsibilities you have: do a little research, it's surprising what you'll learn about your rights.

Its my duty because you say so or because its a law? Because one is a law; the other is a stupid opinion.

In America the Doctrine of Fair Use is codified in copyright law and serves much the same purpose as the Canadian Fair Dealings exemptions. Those two documents are not identical but they serve a similar purpose. I'm reasonably sure most other nations have similar exemptions to copyright law but I'm neither a lawyer nor politician so I'm unable to point you to all of them.

I currently do not live in America so this act/law does not affect me

Edited November 13, 2006 by rIaHc3

[redfish]

That's not true. What if piracy didn't exist? Since Bob originally intended to buy Vista but chose to pirate it instead, Microsoft lost a potential sale.

lets summarize:

Situation 1: Bob pirates Vista. But he never had intentions to buy a legal copy. No loss in profits for Microsoft.

Situation 2: Bob pirates Vista. But he would have bought a copy if pirated copy was not available. Microsoft looses a potential profit.

I agree with you on that.

Situation 3: bob pirates vista. he never had intentions to buy a legal copy.

One or more of these things may occur:

a. bob pays for some vista software, adding money to the vista industry, making it profitable to create software for vista, increasing the amount of software available for vista, and making it more attractive to buy.

b. bob uses proprietary formats used in vista, establishing microsoft's lock on the market, making it easier to sell vista.

c. bob pirates vista software, by using the software he establishes the lock of that software on the market, and their proprietary formats, making an incentive for people to buy vista and use that software.

d. bob pirates vista, and he would not have bought a legal copy at that time, but later in the future decides to pay for a legal copy, to continue using the benefits of vista and its software, and maybe get updates from microsoft.

e. bob pirates vista, and would not have bought a legal copy, but decides to pay for an upgrade to the next version of windows.

Result from all these scenarios: Microsoft gains profit.

I'm not suggesting Situation 3 is the only situation and that piracy policy should be measured by that. But people who moralize piracy, don't even seem to think Situation 3 exists, let alone is prevalent. First, hey prefer to think all pirates are unprincipled scum who, for instance, wouldn't pay for a copy of Windows when they can afford it; or wouldn't pay for software they get for Windows. Second, they don't realize that Microsoft's policies (which have been criticized as monopolistic, whether it is or not) help let them sow profits even if there is piracy, because of the way the market works.

What I do think is that its obvious that there are differences when analyzing loss of physical property and violation of intellectual property, which has to be measured in 'potential sales'.

Note: Microsoft understands they can profit off of piracy, which is why they tolerate piracy in some ways, out of court---where they always attack it absolutely as if it always led to a loss.

[remix17]

Situation 3: bob pirates vista. he never had intentions to buy a legal copy.

One or more of these things may occur:

a. bob pays for some vista software, adding money to the vista industry, making it profitable to create software for vista, increasing the amount of software available for vista, and making it more attractive to buy.

b. bob uses proprietary formats used in vista, establishing microsoft's lock on the market, making it easier to sell vista.

c. bob pirates vista software, by using the software he establishes the lock of that software on the market, and their proprietary formats, making an incentive for people to buy vista and use that software.

d. bob pirates vista, and he would not have bought a legal copy at that time, but later in the future decides to pay for a legal copy, to continue using the benefits of vista and its software, and maybe get updates from microsoft.

e. bob pirates vista, and would not have bought a legal copy, but decides to pay for an upgrade to the next version of windows.

Result from all these scenarios: Microsoft gains profit.

I'm not suggesting Situation 3 is the only situation and that piracy policy should be measured by that. But people who moralize piracy, don't even seem to think Situation 3 exists, let alone is prevalent. First, hey prefer to think all pirates are unprincipled scum who, for instance, wouldn't pay for a copy of Windows when they can afford it; or wouldn't pay for software they get for Windows. Second, they don't realize that Microsoft's policies (which have been criticized as monopolistic, whether it is or not) help let them sow profits even if there is piracy, because of the way the market works.

What I do think is that its obvious that there are differences when analyzing loss of physical property and violation of intellectual property, which has to be measured in 'potential sales'.

Note: Microsoft understands they can profit off of piracy, which is why they tolerate piracy in some ways, out of court---where they always attack it absolutely as if it always led to a loss.

Obviously there is a million of different possibilities. I just provided a simplified picture. But don't forget that my initial position and response was that of defending piracy by showing that while piracy does in fact hurt the company, it is not always the case. I'm trying to fight the general opinion that every pirate is a bad guy with no morals.

I didnt need to read the rest of the crap you wrote there. If your lucky, your lucky. You will never know the mentality of a pirate unless you donate everything you have.

:yes:

[aximxp]

thats basically it.. its people that blindly follow all laws regardless of why they are conceived - lobbyists, corporate manipulation etc withstanding.

for me learning software such as illustrator, dreamweaver, photoshop, premiere, cubase, reason, 3d max, etc would not have been possible as i did not have the huge amounts of cash to spend on these. and using free alternatives is not an option if you are looking to get in the industry as these are all basically industry-standard apps. i would not have half the technical skill i possess today if it were not for the ability to download applications and not pay the business level pricing many of these suites carry with them.

they are not losing anything in this process while i would be loosing out all the information and skill i acquired through free access to these programs. i would never have paid for them as they are all way out of my budget and in the end once you get a job in the industry you are able to pay for programs like this as you now have the skills to make enough money to justifying purchasing and supporting these apps.

the problem is that if these companies want to bend the law to increase the cost/penetration of their software they have lobbyists and officials for that. we on the other have no such voice or representation so it is quite the double standard expecting everything to adhere to ridiculous music and software copyright standards. they can steal from us but it's the end of the world when we use an application without paying for it. again no packaging no material theft it is strictly intellectual -- they are not losing anything as i would have used a free, albeit crappier, alternative that is not supported by the industry..

[remix17]

thats basically it.. its people that blindly follow all laws regardless of why they are conceived - lobbyists, corporate manipulation etc withstanding.

for me learning software such as illustrator, dreamweaver, photoshop, premiere, cubase, reason, 3d max, etc would not have been possible as i did not have the huge amounts of cash to spend on these. and using free alternatives is not an option if you are looking to get in the industry as these are all basically industry-standard apps. i would not have half the technical skill i possess today if it were not for the ability to download applications and not pay the business level pricing many of these suites carry with them.

they are not losing anything in this process while i would be loosing out all the information and skill i acquired through free access to these programs. i would never have paid for them as they are all way out of my budget and in the end once you get a job in the industry you are able to pay for programs like this as you now have the skills to make enough money to justifying purchasing and supporting these apps.

the problem is that if these companies want to bend the law to increase the cost/penetration of their software they have lobbyists and officials for that. we on the other have no such voice or representation so it is quite the double standard expecting everything to adhere to ridiculous music and software copyright standards. they can steal from us but it's the end of the world when we use an application without paying for it. again no packaging no material theft it is strictly intellectual -- they are not losing anything as i would have used a free, albeit crappier, alternative that is not supported by the industry..

I completely agree with you, but companies are not bending laws. Everyone has their own agenda. You want to learn graphic design and for that you need Photoshop. Companies want to make profits and for that they need to increase prices, make piracy difficult and annoying, eliminate competition, etc. Release groups want to make software available to general public free of charge and for that they manufacture cracks, break anti-piracy measures, etc. We all have an active role and we can criticize each other all we want, but in the end all we are doing is following our agendas, our goals. You can't really blame Microsoft for making prices high and investing in anti-piracy regulations. Nor can you blame people for responding to high prices by pirating software instead of buying it. It's reality, get used to it. If you buy all your software, good for you! If you choose to pirate it, well then that's your choice and good for you as well. If you are Microsoft and you choose to increase profits by setting high prices on your software, well then get used to more people engaging in piracy. Everyone wins!

[1Frothy]

Why can't people just buy the damn software? :no:

I can only guess, but maybe the ridiculous pricing has something to do with it?

[redfish]

I completely agree with you, but companies are not bending laws. Everyone has their own agenda. You want to learn graphic design and for that you need Photoshop. Companies want to make profits and for that they need to increase prices, make piracy difficult and annoying, eliminate competition, etc. Release groups want to make software available to general public free of charge and for that they manufacture cracks, break anti-piracy measures, etc. We all have an active role and we can criticize each other all we want, but in the end all we are doing is following our agendas, our goals. You can't really blame Microsoft for making prices high and investing in anti-piracy regulations. Nor can you blame people for responding to high prices by pirating software instead of buying it. It's reality, get used to it. If you buy all your software, good for you! If you choose to pirate it, well then that's your choice and good for you as well. If you are Microsoft and you choose to increase profits by setting high prices on your software, well then get used to more people engaging in piracy. Everyone wins!

It is reality that everyone necessarily follows their own agenda, including people who argue here. Moralizing is an agenda, intellectualizing is agenda, governing and legal regulations is an agenda. In the end there are ways you can argue laws are being perverted, and I think they are. Which can be dealt with by people who have an agenda to do that. In the end good laws should help most peoples agendas as citizens :)

[macstorm]

Anyone who thinks that the price of software is a good reason to pirate any piece of software is an i***t. Same goes to anyone who thinks that it is alright to pirate software. Microsoft owns the rights to the intellectual property; if you don't want to buy it, use a free alternative.

Agreed.

[remix17]

It is reality that everyone necessarily follows their own agenda, including people who argue here. Moralizing is an agenda, intellectualizing is agenda, governing and legal regulations is an agenda. In the end there are ways you can argue laws are being perverted, and I think they are. Which can be dealt with by people who have an agenda to do that. In the end good laws should help most peoples agendas as citizens :)

I'm sorry I might be missing your point. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or expanding my point further?

[Xab]

How does it not hurt the companies? :rolleyes:

A copy of Windows Vista Ultimate costs $399. If 1000 people pirated (and that number is probably extremely conservative) then Microsoft has lost $399,000 already. That is a small number compared to how many have actually already pirated, but you get the point. It can hurt the company.

This I think is one big issue people mix up, and in no small part because companies WANT you to mix it up. Lack of gain does not constitute loss. Period.

If I have $50 in my wallet, and someone steals my wallet, I have lost $50, because that $50 was in my possession to begin with, and I previously had it.

Let's say my boss at work has usually given generous Christmas bonuses. This year, I'm expecting around $10,000 for my bonus. I'm really excited about my bonus, because it's going to let me take my family on a fantastic vacation. However when bonus time rolls around, the boss decided to make a donation to charity on everyone's behalf. I have not lost $10,000, I just didn't gain an extra $10,000. I might be upset, because I really wanted to go on that vacation, but I never lost anything.

[*John*]

When a company like Microsoft continues to make billions in profit hand over fist, they lose the right to complain about piracy, or to get my sympathy because of it. In addition, they also lose the right to use draconian methods that actually hurt their paying customers (like me :angry: ) to stop it. (Activation +WGA btw)

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I completely agree with you, but companies are not bending laws. Everyone has their own agenda. You want to learn graphic design and for that you need Photoshop. Companies want to make profits and for that they need to increase prices, make piracy difficult and annoying, eliminate competition, etc. Release groups want to make software available to general public free of charge and for that they manufacture cracks, break anti-piracy measures, etc. We all have an active role and we can criticize each other all we want, but in the end all we are doing is following our agendas, our goals. You can't really blame Microsoft for making prices high and investing in anti-piracy regulations. Nor can you blame people for responding to high prices by pirating software instead of buying it. It's reality, get used to it. If you buy all your software, good for you! If you choose to pirate it, well then that's your choice and good for you as well. If you are Microsoft and you choose to increase profits by setting high prices on your software, well then get used to more people engaging in piracy. Everyone wins!

I agree, it's impossible to ban everything, so we should, to a certain extent obviously, accept the fact that it's going to happen and move on.

When a company like Microsoft continues to make billions in profit hand over fist, they lose the right to complain about piracy, or to get my sympathy because of it. In addition, they also lose the right to use draconian methods that actually hurt their paying customers (like me :angry: ) to stop it. (Activation +WGA btw)

They have as much right to complain about piracy as you do about anti-piracy measures. They've created a product for which there is a very significant demand, and naturally some people cannot or will not abide by the law to get these via official supply channels (i.e. buying it) which is, in some cases, inevitable. However, it's in their interests to maximise profitibilty, and that means minimizing piracy.

They cannot lose their rights just because they make money, that's stupidity.

[Notum]

For me it's all about value. How much is an OS or any other program worth to me as an individual?

If I buy Vista Home Premium for $425 (2995SEK, Swedish Krona) and I use it for as long as I've have been using XP (every day for about 5 years) then Vista seems like it will be pretty good value for money at about $85 (599SEK) per year or about $0.2 (1.5SEK) per day. If I include all the free upgrades and enhancements that Microsoft has put out in those five years the value goes up even more. And if I upgrade my current XP license it's even better as the cost then comes down to $285 (1995SEK) which works out to about $56 (399SEK) per year and about $0.1 (1SEK) per day.

During the last 5 years I've spent countless hours in front of my computer, enjoying games and movies, working from home, browsing the web, creating and maintaining contacts, getting jobs and learning new software and so on. Windows XP enabled me to do these things, and I'm guessing Vista will do the same during the coming 5 years. For me Vista will be good value for my money and I have no great qualms about buying it.

It all depends on how much or what you use your computer for I guess. If you only use your computer for browsing the web and checking e-mails then you might not get much value from those dollars, but if like me you use your computer for just about everything on a daily basis it's pretty good.

[remix17]

When a company like Microsoft continues to make billions in profit hand over fist, they lose the right to complain about piracy, or to get my sympathy because of it. In addition, they also lose the right to use draconian methods that actually hurt their paying customers (like me :angry: ) to stop it. (Activation +WGA btw)

How do you figure? Just because a company makes billions does NOT take away their rights to complain about piracy or create anti-piracy measures. They are trying to increase their margin just like every other company out there and that means fighting piracy. I may not like it, you may not like it, but it is their right to do what they wish with their software and their policy. I do think however that if instead of allocating so much time and money fighting piracy, they dropped their prices instead, we would all be better off, but that is not for me or you to decide. If you choose to pirate software, prepare to get your hands dirty. Pirate away but please have a courtesy not to bitch about the fact that the company that made the software is making it too difficult for you.

[the evn show]

And I can bootleg too

I don't understand where you're going with this. Is your argument that people are free to ignore laws simply because they can?

My confort is using a OS that I can use to work and play games on. However I aquire it is my problem. Don't like it? Then I think its sad to worry about what another person is doing with his/her life than worrying about your life

What was that whole bit where you concerned yourself with what other posters were driving?

Who has said that I or someone from my family has bought this? AFAIK I have never stated this. What sort of position are you to judge on the choices I make?

I don't think it's unreasonable to scrutinize your actions and motivation after you've done the same to other posters in this thread. I don't think it will accomplish much but you seemed to think there was some value in that line of reasoning when you posted so I figured at the very least I'd follow you down that path a little.

That having been said, at the very least, the time you're spending in front of the keyboard could very well be spent working for the betterment of the underclasses: a second job to make more donations to chairty, volunteer work, etc. If you claim a selfless life is really such an important value it is hypocritical for you to condemn those that don't live up to that value when you're aren't doing so yourself.

And to save you a post: my income is higher than average both globally and even for the small part of the world that I live in. I squander my wealth on luxuries ranging from designer jeans to a home that's much more extravagant than I need with full knowledge that others are struggling for necessities of life. My monthly expenditures on latt?s exceed my charitable donations by a factor of 5. Yes, I am a selfish and greedy capitalist jerk. I could easily move to a city with a lower cost of living and make 5-figure donations to charity without sacrificing my quality of life if I was so inclined: but instead I'm going to buy another vehicle to publicly flaunt my success (among other reasons). I don't presume to have any authority to pass judgement on how anyone uses their wealth, and consequently I don't think the way I or anybody else spends their income has anything should factor in to a discussion on copyright infringement. You were the one that brought in that line of thought?I'm questioning the rational behind it while at the same time trying to hold you up to the same values you appear to expect from others.

I didnt need to read the rest of the crap you wrote there. If your lucky, your lucky. You will never know the mentality of a pirate unless you donate everything you have.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Why exactly do I have to donate all of my income (time, talent and bodily fluids too?) in order to form an argument about copyright infringement?

AKAIK, its illegal to make copies of your album for your use in more than 50% of countries worldwide (this is not a fact; just a guess). Just because its like that in Canada, it doesnt make it a "fairly common theme&quo:rolleyes:es:

Well, We've got Fair Dealings in Canada, Fair Use in the United Sates, the doctrine of Private Copy in the IPC for France. The BPI chairman made a release explicitly describing private copying as legal activity for UK citizens last summer in order to clarify confusion. The Spanish system shares similarities with the Canadian model including a tax on recordable media, the distribution of those taxes through artist societies, and the explicit allowance for private copying of recordings for non-commercial use.

That's half a dozen (admittedly western) countries on either side of the world that make explicit allocation for private copying in their copyright law. It's also worth nothing that the Copyright Law of the European Union makes specific mention of private non-commercial reproduction in the permanent limitations to the exclusive right of redistribution. Does that clear up why I said that themes in the Fair Use Doctrine of the United States appear to be fairly common?

Now as for those 50% of the countries that don't allow private copying that you suppose exist: what reason do you have for believing them to exist, and why do you suppose the number is as high as 50%? Can you rhyme off a few with the name of the legislation that forbids the act so that we can look it up?

Its my duty because you say so or because its a law? Because one is a law; the other is a stupid opinion.

The idea of an informed and attentive populace has been the foundation of democratic government since the phrase was coined. The duty for a citizen to be informed of their rights and responsibilities can never be completely deferred and so by default that responsibility must lay with the individual. In the countries I've travelled to (only about a dozen) I've found this idea to be universal in the people I've met, and it's a recurring theme in all of the written democratic political and social philosophy I've encountered.

Are you aware of any country where an individual does not shoulder the responsibility for knowing their own rights and responsibilities? I would very much like to visit such a place if it exists, I expect it would be quite a bit different from any other place I've been and I would probably learn a lot from spending some time there, even if only a couple of weeks.

[Tomi]

This is why there needs to be stiffer penalties in place for piracy.

If I can't afford a chocolate bar, I don't steal it. If I can't afford a piece of software, I don't steal that either.

It is just common sense.

People always bitch and moan about the cost of software, yet they don't realize the cost of _making_ said software. Software authors are real people with real daily lives. Just as you value your money, so do they.

When you pirate a program that even costs as little as $25, you could be stealing $25 from someone's family. I don't care how big or how small the company is. They work hard to create the software we use, and they deserve to be paid for it.

Just as you deserve to be paid for the work you do.

Mmkay, $25, yeah sure. But please go take a look at the price tag of Vista and Office. Nope, no long in the double digits anymore, is it? <$100, yeah sure, go buy it, but >$100, people are immediately going to pirate it.

[redfish]

I'm sorry I might be missing your point. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or expanding my point further?

I was agreeing with you saying that it is perfectly right that people are pursuing their own agendas. I disagreed with you saying that this never bends the law in the process. In the end it is the agenda of people who care about the law to deal with the legal process, and the agenda of people who want to define the law to talk about what makes laws legitimate, and the agenda of people who have some moral goal to defend against some interpretations getting out of hand :/ Thats what discussions like this are about.

sometimes laws get perverted, and sometimes laws get avoided.

[RaisinCain]

Just go to newegg, buy XP MCE 2005, get the Vista Premium voucher & quit whining. :no: $109.99, done.

[wase4711]

well, we might as well demand the oil companies provide free gas and oil then, becasue NO ONE makes profit like they do..

Should we force them to provide free products for the world as well?

Would they sell MORE GAS and OIL if the price was cheaper???

Just because companies picked /developed the right products at the right time, doesn't give the masses the right to have their products for free..

[»X«]

Like ive said, the question you need to ask is, is Vista worth $400? Based on its features(or lack of?)?

Granted in the future vista will become the OS to have but we are still facing the very real choice in a few months on should we fork out all that cash for something that isnt working quite right?

[redfish]

Mmkay, $25, yeah sure. But please go take a look at the price tag of Vista and Office. Nope, no long in the double digits anymore, is it? <$100, yeah sure, go buy it, but >$100, people are immediately going to pirate it.

sure, if microsoft justifies cutting the salaries of their employees based on piracy even if they don't need to, don't blame microsoft at all. don't blame investors who need to see a profit margin for speculative purposes. blame software pirates. all i'm saying is that the type of business model that is aggressive on piracy is not necessarily the best

[yourmotherisold]

Elagizy:

If yu wish to make this claim - please back it up. You have just used an open forum to randomly accuse me of piracy - so where is your basis for this? What prompts you to make sout a ridiculous claim when previously I have stated that I now tend to run legit software.

You just admitted to using pirated software. Be careful how you word your sentences.

[redfish]

well, we might as well demand the oil companies provide free gas and oil then, becasue NO ONE makes profit like they do..

Should we force them to provide free products for the world as well?

Would they sell MORE GAS and OIL if the price was cheaper???

Just because companies picked /developed the right products at the right time, doesn't give the masses the right to have their products for free..

gas companies are regulated and taxed.

nobody is forcing software companies to provide their products for free either. the issue is how far their legal protections extend.