[Ruhx]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG> Indeed, your statement that people feel powerless today is quite correct - but why are they without power? Who expropriated it?)...

One in which a few giant corporations dominate everything with their concentrated power - or one in which every human being has full access to the share of distributed power belonging to her/him...? </STRONG>

Instant gratification...

They gave it away...

if people don't buy corporations die, people don't want to be self-suficient so they live and die by the corporation.

[Andrew B.]

I am a developer, I have seen 10.1 beta in action (5f26)
The point is I'm sure that apple knows that developer builds are going around, and they probably don't care a whole lot. Go for it, but don't whine if you have to write zeros to your hard disk to get back to 10.0.x again!!
it's not a public beta 'cos Apple doesn't think it's stable enough for the public. it even says in the documentation "do not install on your main machine, this build is not meant for production environments"
So if you want to take your chances go ahead, we'll all have 10.1 in the end!

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Ruhx:
<STRONG>


Instant gratification...

They gave it away...

if people don't buy corporations die, people don't want to be self-suficient so they live and die by the corporation.</STRONG>

Yes, this is indeed one of the causes of people's powerlessness today; I would also add the lack of parallelism between individual and collective, "political" life: where is the polis, today - at McDonald's...?

Now, let's hope that there will be some growth in conscience and also in understanding of the basic "globalization" dynamics in the near future: I think this is almost inevitable, as many people are getting more and more fed up with the whole "system" of things...

Ethical consumersim (and ethical banking - see also Proudhon's "mutual banking" concepts, BTW) is actually one of the very first and easiest ways to *begin* to behave a little better than usual - of course, it's not a solution to the world's problems. And it would certainly be nice to see Apple as the first "ethical computing" company, thus being sure that workers in its Brazilian, Taiwanese, etc. (even third party, of course!) assemblation plants aren't exploited: this could also open new markets (see "alternative" and non-profit organizations, etc.) for Apple itself...

Anyway... only fully self-realized and conscient individuals - together! - can eventually agree to really change things...

P.S.: Thanks for the Hotline & Carracho explanation: indeed, peer-to-peer is the future, IMO! But that, of course, also implies peer-to-peer social relationships and non-hierarchical (i.e. *free*) individuals in a free social context...

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by &lt;the tomatohead from home&gt;:
<STRONG>So, if I get out my crystal ball, I predict the following:
Record companies are fncked in a big way. Recording artists will still have lucrative (although not as lucrative) careers through live performances, merchandise and of course the perqs such as countless young women being willing to have sex with them.</STRONG>

Sorry to take this even further off-topic, but this is just too funny.

Do you have *any* idea how hard it is just to break even when you go on tour? At least here in Europe, people hardly go to live concerts anymore, and if they do, it'll be maybe two or three *major* acts in a year, on average.

Courtney Love wrote a pretty legendary essay on Napster and the music industry. Her point was that Napster didn't matter much to the performing musician, because (s)he never made any money before, either. The asshole who gets the stick in the end is *always* the artist. Whether he loses to the music industry or to Napster doesn't really matter.

Another basic assumption was that getting some stuff via Napster will probably encourage people to go out and buy the album. For a professional recording musician, this is one of those arguments you just *have* to believe; else you might as well just go work at McDonald's.

Sorry about the rant.

-chris.

[theolein]

I would like to add my collection of Rands,Dollars,Marks and Francs here.

This discussion has been one of the few civilised ones in recent times here on MacNN, with valid points being made on both sides, if there are sides to this argument

I do find the arguments of some people here, based as they are on a moral argument that they have rights to own something , pretty naive. 5F24 or whatever doesn't matter that much as the upgrade will be free and Apple doesn't stand to gain anything by pursuing any poster here, but try the same trick with say, Final Cut Pro 2.5 or 3.0 or something, and post about it here and see how quickly it takes apple to contact you. I'm sure your argument of "Well, I bought FCP1.0, so I'm entitled to a free upgrade of FCP3.0, because I was expecting telepathic DV capture and it wasn't there and now it is" will not impress anyone here, at Apple or in the court.


Due to frustration up til the release two days ago of Painter7.0, and due to my curiosity of Cocoa and ObjC I actually had the idea that I could possibly write my own image editor for OSX based on Quicktime. I've started to learn a bit of ObjC and it seems similar enough to Java to make it a shallow learning curve. I thought that as Quicktime already supports layers and compositing and alpha-channels etc. It would be fairly easy to implement some sort of routines to paint into the image with various brushes, edit masks etc, and due to the power of Quicktime, export to a myriad of formats and read the same.

I then thought about the consequences of writing something like this and then trying to sell it as shareware. It would be copied all over the place in no time and I wouldn't make a cent. I thought about the GPL and then realised that I have no Idea how this applies in the case where you have a proprietry technology like Quicktime as part of your application.

I have used in the past(albeit only for a short while, years ago at school) cracks of some Image editors as I'm pretty sure just about everyone who has ever heard of hackers helper or surfers serials has. I wouldn't dare to use cracks in a commercial environment for the simple reason that the legal ramifications are horrendously expensive.

I know full well that in most east block and asian countries you can buy the entire adobe collection of software in moscow or Hong Kong on the street for $20 on a pressed CD, but this is the west and I'ld like to keep my computer thank you. In those days when I was at school there was absolutely no way that I could afford to pay $900 + for any Adobe programms. And this is in my mind also a large problem for anyone outside the US (or in the US for that matter) or western Europe or Japan. They simply cannot afford the high prices of Adobe software.These same software houses charging exactly the same price for Software in South Africa, where I grew up, as in the US is a joke. It almost begs for piracy. $600 for Photoshop is about 2 to 3 times the average monthly wage in South Africa.

I'm pretty sure that most software houses lose an enourmous amount of cash due to piracy and my little thought experiment was no different. As much as I support open source I also recognise that programmers have to live. However the model of closed source is also not exactly a resounding success and there should be some middle ground. A different model is needed. I feel that everyone would be better off if there was a mix of opensource software and closedsource software and if these software companies would price their products in a matter more guaranteeing long term stability than short term greed. I also like the idea of actually owning a piece of software and thereafter paying for updates. The idea of software as a service will not work very well for most people and I'm sure MS will discover that pretty soon. I also think Apple is doing very well by making part of the OS Open-Source and Part Proprietry.

Any idea's on better business models.

[udecker]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>but try the same trick with say, Final Cut Pro 2.5 or 3.0 or something, and post about it here and see how quickly it takes apple to contact you. </STRONG>

This is arguably true.

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>
Due to frustration up til the release two days ago of Painter7.0, and due to my curiosity of Cocoa and ObjC I actually had the idea that I could possibly write my own image editor for OSX based on Quicktime. </STRONG>

Painter... I didn't realize that was still around. I don't know if you folks remember a little image-editing app called PixelPaint Professional, but it was an Abobe/Painter competitor from 1987 to up until around 1993. It was produced by a company called Pixel Resources, which my father owned and ran. The product was innovative, in that it predated Photoshop, and was the first color editing program on the market for the Mac. (1987 is when the Macintosh II was released).

Nonetheless, I know first hand what happened to that company - we found out that in places like France, more than 90% of people using our software had obtained it illegally. Meaning of course, that we did not recieve any compensation for those people using it. Forget that it cost less than half of what Photoshop then cost - people are simply not going to always pay for software. Watching my father's company crumble, partly because of piracy, and partly because competing with Adobe is hell, left a very strong impression in me as I was growing up.

This is one of the reasons why I am trying to not equate the use of pre-release, "free" OS software as piracy, and why I reject any claims that I have not honestly thought through the consequences of my actions, both from the perspective of the software developer, as well as the user.

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>
I'm pretty sure that most software houses lose an enourmous amount of cash due to piracy and my little thought experiment was no different. As much as I support open source I also recognise that programmers have to live. However the model of closed source is also not exactly a resounding success and there should be some middle ground. A different model is needed. I feel that everyone would be better off if there was a mix of opensource software and closedsource software and if these software companies would price their products in a matter more guaranteeing long term stability than short term greed. I also like the idea of actually owning a piece of software and thereafter paying for updates. The idea of software as a service will not work very well for most people and I'm sure MS will discover that pretty soon. I also think Apple is doing very well by making part of the OS Open-Source and Part Proprietry.

Any idea's on better business models.</STRONG>

Precisely what I was asking earlier. In realizing that enforcement is nearly impossible with regards to individual piracy, regardless of the actual ethics of the situation, it would be good to try to figure out exactly what methods of distribution will be accepted by both businesses (with which the current model seems to work fairly well) and individual consumers (with which it seemingly does not) so that compensation is possible, if not guaranteed, for the developers.

-uD

[Ruhx]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>I would like to add my collection of Rands,Dollars,Marks and Francs here. &lt;snip&gt; Apple is doing very well by making part of the OS Open-Source and Part Proprietry.

Any idea's on better business models.</STRONG>

The only really viable alternative is for there to be an online shareware publishing house. They pay the author and give him part of the royalty. However this limits the developer, you have to initially value your creation and they need to agree. They now bearing the burden of the piracy and must recoup their loses. Bringing me to my problem with this.

There is a problem beyond the unauthorized use, this is for me maybe not enough others for it to be a consideration, that being the use of my name as a commodity. I decide to pay for shareware and now my name is sold as another way to increase the profit . Now i am all for making a profit and think that you should get paid for software that i like and use. However i do not pay to have my privacy invaded.

just some thoughts.

Originally posted by udecker:
<STRONG>

PixelPaint Professional...

-uD</STRONG>

I actually used it in '92 for some stuff in the service bureau I was working in. Sorry about your Dad's company.

The point of the matter is that piracy will take place no matter what. There will always be people who just don't want to or can't pay for the software, and there will always be people who crack software for the apparent status it gives them. The companies selling software are no better in their lack of respect for their clients personal data. Actually making a living as a programmer in a small company is no easy task.

Perhaps a mixed model would be more survivable because of the simple good will fostered by the companies showing that they are willing to share some of their code with their customers.

[hyperizer]

Why on earth would you ever even consider using software update on a build you don't have the legal right to use?

I think the point of zos' post (which started this whole debate) is this: using software update on a leaked build is foolish. It's like calling Adobe for support for a pirated version of Photoshop. It's like stealing an unreleased copy of an upcoming Madonna album, then playing it on a boombox outside the record company's office...

[lenz]

some people are missing the point here. It has been mentioned a few times that we have already paid for the right to own OS X. Downloading 5f24 is not pirating since the final 10.1 release is covered by the fee that we already paid. The $20 is merely to cover the cost of the cd production and shipping. Apple is not charging it's users to upgrade.

Here's a metaphor. I order a meal at a restaurant and before it's finished I slip into the kitchen and take a wif of the tasty meal I'm entitled to, and ready to consume. Let us remember that the meal is already mine. This is exactly parallel to the situation here. The manner i choose the deliver the product to myself is irrelevant.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lenz:
<STRONG>Here's a metaphor. I order a meal at a restaurant and before it's finished I slip into the kitchen and take a wif of the tasty meal I'm entitled to, and ready to consume. Let us remember that the meal is already mine. This is exactly parallel to the situation here. The manner i choose the deliver the product to myself is irrelevant.</STRONG>

well, that's an analogy, but anyways, like all analogies it is inherently imperfect. But let me add some details to this analogy...

What if you went back to the kitchen and sniffed the meal before it was complete, before the proper herbs and spices were cooked in to their intended culmination and found it lacking? What if you then entered the restaurant and proclaimed in a loud voice that the food there smells bad, having only sniffed it before it was finished? Are you then responsible for diminishing the reputation of the restaurant, or are you doing a customer service to the other patrons? Further, since you were in fact smelling someone else's food since the seeded builds are just that, seeded to specific individuals who hopefully will assist the restaurant in assessing the taste and smell of the meal so they can continue to improve the quality of the food....And they're sitting at the next table but instead of providing useable feedback start walking around the restaurant to other patrons who have not entered into an agreement to assess the meal in return for its delivery and are instead just sniffing it and making final judgements on the meal before it was ready to be served to the general public....

well, then, you see, even your analogy helps highlight many of the ethical/legal ramifications.

I think the worst thing to do is to make simplistic analysis of a complex and changing situation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by lenz:
<STRONG>some people are missing the point here. It has been mentioned a few times that we have already paid for the right to own OS X. Downloading 5f24 is not pirating since the final 10.1 release is covered by the fee that we already paid.</STRONG>

This it false, as - once again - 5F24 is *NOT* 10.1.

Is all.

[Milio]

Two thoughts:

1. Digital dumpster diving.

2. Apple is closing CQF.