Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Software piracy?

POST REPLY

Do you support the "right" to freely copy copyright software,and,do you use it?

YES
36
80%
NO
4
9%
OTHER/INDECISIVE
5
11%
 
Total votes : 45
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 20 Dec 2011, 23:08
Krasniy_Volk wrote:
[they regard you as some kind of hacker for knowing two basic interface commands


Show them BIOS and REALLY freak them out!


Have the smelling salts ready though! LOL
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 363
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2011, 08:20
Komsomol
Post 21 Dec 2011, 01:29
I tried to use Linux but it was difficult to get used to. I guess I perpetuate the "familiarity" reasoning with using Windows. I was wondering: does Linux (or any FOS software) support/prove communism to work and how it would function?
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 21 Dec 2011, 04:05
FlairPhoenix wrote:
I tried to use Linux but it was difficult to get used to. I guess I perpetuate the "familiarity" reasoning with using Windows. I was wondering: does Linux (or any FOS software) support/prove communism to work and how it would function?


Speaking of FOSS in general, I'd say it supports communism in the sense that:

There's no artificial scarcity that prevents you from building on an idea or concept. In fact licensing such as the GPL generally limits or prevents commercial exploitation by requiring that code that originated as GPL must continue to be distributed as such

The software can be freely distributed and copied as needed

It allows groups with disparate interests to collaborate on projects out of the needs for specific projects, hardware types etc. These additions can then form the springboard for others down the road.


Now obviously there's been a lot of corporate push into linux (f.x.) as well, but that's no different from what could exist under a state enterprise of course.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 113
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Jul 2009, 21:32
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 21 Dec 2011, 21:03
Ya_Amerikanyets wrote:

Nah, didn't mean it like that. Maybe you mis-read what I wrote. What I am saying is - I take issue with the worker not being compensated for his time & labor, which is what happens under the current system. I may not have an issue if it was some other system, where the worker gets paid regardless (which would be the case under Communism). I wasn't 'comparing' software theft to Communism. There isn't even a basis to do that with, as one is a crime and the other is a governmental system. :?:

In fact what you said doesn't even make sense... How is what I was saying disrespectful to Communism at all? In fact I was saying something good about Communism - that this type of theft would be impossible under that system.


Oh man, you guys really crack me up sometimes!


In which part did you assume my post was directed at you? I never read what you posted, I simply wrote my own statement. You cracked yourself up there.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 21 Dec 2011, 21:39
Cool. Even better!
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 27 Dec 2011, 10:11
Quote:
Agreed, but does that justify theft?


ROFL. I just LOL'd irl.

Incredible.
Morality is so cute. Theft is a wonderful thing! It's also the basis of all Marxist revolutionary strategy, so it's really funny that you'd use this argument against Marxists. We like theft. We want to steal all the factories, you know.

The underlying philosophy is fragging disgusting, too:

Quote:
You are still taking something that you didn't pay for.


OH NOES. I'm not allowed to have anything except what I earn for myself by busting my ass, right? God I'm so glad it doesn't work that way.

Quote:
If there are no anti-piracy laws, then anyone can copy anything & not pay, which means there's no reason to make the product & no one is getting paid.


Yes, isn't that awesome?

Quote:
Mac OS X hasn't fared to well either, it is BSD based at the kernel level after all, which almost all Linux distros are built upon.


lol no. The Linux kernel is not BSD.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 27 Dec 2011, 16:33
Mabool wrote:
The Linux kernel is not BSD.


I did not say that the Linux kernel is BSD all of the time. I said, a majority of Linux distros are BSD based. There are a lot of distros that are not BSD, I do not deny that at all.
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 27 Dec 2011, 16:46
Afaik they aren't really. The linux kernel was made from scratch.
Back in white
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 27 Dec 2011, 16:49
Krasniy_Volk wrote:
Afaik they aren't really. The linux kernel was made from scratch.


With true Linux, yes, that is correct. The Linux name however is used for any Unix-based or Unix-like OS as a generalization.
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 27 Dec 2011, 17:42
I've never seen it used like that. I think most BSD distros are distinctly labelled as such. At least the ones I checked were. I lost interest in giving them a try, as apparently they have a much smaller community, which translates in less programs, and, more importantly, drivers.

They don't really work the same way, either. For what I've read, there's some compatibility for linux software in BSD, but not the other way around. The terminal syntax is different, too.
Back in white
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 27 Dec 2011, 20:28
Debian is the basis for a lot of the distros. And the kernel of Debian (I'm not 100% how to word this following bit, bare with me) is built upon Linux and FreeBSD code.

Like I said relier too, Mac OS X is based on BSD from it's kernel. Apple does not need to say that it is, I think they do somewhere though.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jul 2011, 11:37
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 10 Jan 2012, 09:17
runequester, let families starve to WAKE UP yeah?I don't fragging care about supporting monopoly capital, I care about my welfare. You are supporting "monopoly capital" by every fragging action you do. I don't care, I am not a communist because of moralism. As long as it is not murder, fraud or REAL theft, I don't care what people in a capitalist society pirate or buy. I am not one of those retarded fairtrade folks who feel really warmy fuzzy because they think they are going to change the world by it.

How does pirating software support monopoly capital anyway?

I don't fragging base my actions on what is "right" but what is decent and practical. Your deluded moralistic bullshit would lead to the starvation of my entire country as EVERY fragging KID WITH A PLAYSTATION pirates games. NOBODY GIVES A frag about piracy here. It is the issue of retarded western airheads who think it is immoral to rip off Bill Gates. He would be million times richer than the average person even if he hadn't made a cent in his whole life again. The anti-piracy campaigns make it seems as if people like him would starve cause of piracy - I WISH.

And frag this trendy hipster Linux shit. For somebody who likes to play games like me it is an useless pile of crap. Even if Windows was made by sacraficing 3rd world kids to Satan himself I would use it, why? Because being a Linux hipster woldn't change a fragging thing.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Jan 2012, 18:10
Neuron wrote:
I don't fragging care about supporting monopoly capital, I care about my welfare.


If that's your stance as a communist, I guess you've made your peace with that.

Quote:
How does pirating software support monopoly capital anyway?


It creates and perpetuates demand for monopolistic products. By using windows and windows software (for example) you show developers that the way for them to earn money is to support the monopoly. By pirating monopolist software, you are encouraging others to use it.

It's simple: Why do you think microsoft never really makes a serious effort at curtailing piracy? Because pirates still generate sales for them.
They could shut down piracy far more effectively than they do currently, but it would create a backlash from people that still perpetuate their product and ensure their monopoly dominance.

Monopoly destroys competition and results in inferior products.

Quote:
I don't fragging base my actions on what is "right" but what is decent and practical. Your deluded moralistic bullshit would lead to the starvation of my entire country as EVERY fragging KID WITH A PLAYSTATION pirates games. NOBODY GIVES A frag about piracy here. It is the issue of retarded western airheads who think it is immoral to rip off Bill Gates. He would be million times richer than the average person even if he hadn't made a cent in his whole life again. The anti-piracy campaigns make it seems as if people like him would starve cause of piracy - I WISH.


As explained above, I don't care about their wealth. I wish for microsoft to be destroyed, just like any other capitalist monopoly. But that doesn't happen by using their products and sucking on their tits.


Quote:
And frag this trendy hipster Linux shit. For somebody who likes to play games like me it is an useless pile of crap. Even if Windows was made by sacraficing 3rd world kids to Satan himself I would use it, why? Because being a Linux hipster woldn't change a fragging thing.


Since when was linux a hipster thing? Ever seen a hipster in an internet cafe whip out a linux laptop? Kids nowadays don't want to think for themselves, they want someone to make all the choices for them, and give them a safe, pre-selected world to live in.
Can't have people thinking they actually have choices in life, or they'll stop giving the glorious corporations money and free advertising.

Your post reminds me of the kids on revleft. Always crying about how they want to be communists, but they also want their dad to drive them to school, because walking 4 blocks is so not cool.

But life's easier that way: Shop at walmart, get an iphone, play skyrim on windows 7, get some designer shoes. Corporations are good for you.


"where do you want to go today?" indeed.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Jan 2012, 21:49
You're making a lot of errors here runequester. Since I'm on my dastardly iPhone I'll have to keep this brief:
1. Corporations like Microsoft do not go after pirates vigorously because the cost drastically outweighs the gain. Trying to stop software piracy is just a capital black hole. Plus the people they stop most likely never would have purchased the software anyways even if piracy was somehow magically stopped.
2. Piracy has never made a significant dent in Microsoft sales as most people will just buy their products either because torrenting is unknown to them or they just would rather not have a cracked version.
3. Monopolies are more "progressive" than smaller corporations. All this anti-monopoly shit is just the whining of petite-bourgeoisie envious of the haute bourgeoisie. Monopolies are the truest expression of capitalism's trend toward centralization (what we intend to do as well).
4. Participating in capitalist consumerism does not perpetuate consumerism. Mass participation perpetuates it, not the individual. Only revolutionary overthrow of capitalism can adequately address the issue of consumerism. This is why boycotts are idiotic for anything other than a very small business. Not drinking coke doesn't stop them from hiring goons to keep their sweatshops going. It doesn't uplift those workers either. Things just keep on going as they always have.
5. I just noticed you said piracy perpetuates and creates demand for Microsoft products. If you can't see the inherant error in that statement I don't really feel like pointing it out.
6. Finally, refraining from buying apple products or whatever other company's products which are trendy does not make someone a communist and it certainly does not solve any real-world problems. The entire idea here stems from reform of capitalism which is an extremely reactionary concept.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20
Ideology: Other
Pioneer
Post 10 Jan 2012, 23:06
__________


This may be OFF TOPIC since this post doesn't adress Software piracy but was written in response to some posts in this thread referring to Open Software in general and LINUX in particular.


Just a short post on this very important topic.

1. IMO Linux is the People's OS (of the people and for the people), open source and free - if you don't like it: Learn to program in C/C++ and code the features as you please. Make your own version as you please. (no offense intended)

2. OSF, the Open Group and GNU have been around for over a decade - providing a platform for free and open software

3. The LINUX kernel is not the BSD kernel. As it has been pointed out: The LINUX kernel was written from scratch. (Beginning with Linus Torvalds 'playing around' with the MINIX kernel)

4. LINUX is not 'hip' - most LINUX users/programmers are considered 'nerds'.

5. As a person who has actively contributed in developing the LINUX kernel and various LINUX based software for half a decade - I feel a little bit offended by the remark:

Neuron wrote:
And frag this trendy hipster Linux shit. For somebody who likes to play games like me it is an useless pile of crap. Even if Windows was made by sacraficing 3rd world kids to Satan himself I would use it, why? Because being a Linux hipster woldn't change a fragging thing.


6. As to games: Yes, you are right. Most of the best and newest games are requiring Windows as OS. But there is a trend now among the big video-game companies to port their
products to LINUX too.

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License


___
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 10 Jan 2012, 23:14
Code: Select all
 I just noticed you said piracy perpetuates and creates demand for Microsoft products. If you can't see the inherant error in that statement I don't really feel like pointing it out.


TBH he has a point. It has been pointed out that piracy not only doesn't cause significant revenue losses, but that at least in regards to artists, it can make them sell more by making them more known. (I doubt this is a significant factor for giants like Microsoft, though).
Quote:

6. Finally, refraining from buying apple products or whatever other company's products which are trendy does not make someone a communist and it certainly does not solve any real-world problems. The entire idea here stems from reform of capitalism which is an extremely reactionary concept.

That we eventually want to do away with the old system as a whole doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) address more limited problems before that point. Struggling to promote open source is a good thing, just like fighting for better workers' rights is a good thing, even if by itself it doesn't directly lead to a revolution.
Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Jan 2012, 01:29
Quote:
1. Corporations like Microsoft do not go after pirates vigorously because the cost drastically outweighs the gain. Trying to stop software piracy is just a capital black hole. Plus the people they stop most likely never would have purchased the software anyways even if piracy was somehow magically stopped.


This depends. They may not buy it now, but they may buy a later version. Them using it will serve as recommendation to other people who may buy it. Microsoft would rather have you use a pirated version of windows than going elsewhere. That much has been made clear.

Quote:
2. Piracy has never made a significant dent in Microsoft sales as most people will just buy their products either because torrenting is unknown to them or they just would rather not have a cracked version.


Of course it does. It doesn't mean they'll go bankrupt but they are well aware of the amount of pirated versions out there. It's included in their annual reviews.

Quote:
3. Monopolies are more "progressive" than smaller corporations. All this anti-monopoly shit is just the whining of petite-bourgeoisie envious of the haute bourgeoisie. Monopolies are the truest expression of capitalism's trend toward centralization (what we intend to do as well).


Since you tend to have strange meanings of words, could you define what you mean by progressive before we progress with this specific argument?

Quote:
4. Participating in capitalist consumerism does not perpetuate consumerism. Mass participation perpetuates it, not the individual. Only revolutionary overthrow of capitalism can adequately address the issue of consumerism. This is why boycotts are idiotic for anything other than a very small business. Not drinking coke doesn't stop them from hiring goons to keep their sweatshops going. It doesn't uplift those workers either. Things just keep on going as they always have.


What I hear you say is "I like capitalism". Fair enough if that works for you.
I don't see any reason to give money to companies that are performing acts I disagree with. If I wanted to do so, I'd just mail my money to Ron Paul or something.

Quote:
5. I just noticed you said piracy perpetuates and creates demand for Microsoft products. If you can't see the inherant error in that statement I don't really feel like pointing it out.


Of course it does. Microsoft has acknowledged this themselves.

If Dagoth Ur is using windows 7, whether its pirated or not, when it comes time for one of his friends to upgrade their OS, Dagoth serves as free advertisement, influencing other people towards the product. It's like people "boycotting" a game by pirating it. They still talk about how amazing it is, and play the game online.
People see that thousands are playing the game online, so they go out and buy it.

Its marketing 101. Get people talking about your product and it WILL generate sales.

Quote:
6. Finally, refraining from buying apple products or whatever other company's products which are trendy does not make someone a communist and it certainly does not solve any real-world problems. The entire idea here stems from reform of capitalism which is an extremely reactionary concept.


You are over-reading. Not being a consumerist doesn't make you a communist. But I fail to see why a communist should give money to the corporations that are directly perpetuating imperialism.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Jan 2012, 01:55
@KV: This is one of the many situations though that would be very difficult to achieve without any real benefits (ie movement towards socialism). Open source software is nowhere close to being on the agenda of the working class. There are just far too many other areas that need our political attention that will actually lead somewhere.

@rune: I'll address your post when I get home.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20
Ideology: Other
Pioneer
Post 11 Jan 2012, 02:40
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Open source software is nowhere close to being on the agenda of the working class. There are just far too many other areas that need our political attention that will actually lead somewhere.

I think you underestimate the working class. Why do I have the feeling that you consider IT-skills as a privilege of the bourgeoise? I may be wrong - but you haven't given a reason why Open and Free software is 'nowhere close to being on the aganda of the working class'.

___
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Jan 2012, 06:08
@runequester: I don't mean this to be ordered like this but because I've been reduced to phone posting, quotes don't work so well. So the numbers will correspond to your various responses.
1. That's a silly premise. That someone is lame enough to brag about their OS has no connection to piracy. What you should be arguing against is promoting products, not their "theft".
2. Microsoft is not harmed by cracked releases. They are not really loosing any business as I've already explained. The existence of pirates copies has probably lessened physical theft.
3. I tend to have strange meanings? Have I really become this disconnected from normal discourse? Because what I'm saying is standard marxism. The haute bourgeoisie are more progressive (although still entirely reactionary) than the petite-bourgeoisie. The latter like to bitch and moan about the evils of monopoly but thus is a tendency in capitalism that aids the proletariat. There are less owners and more workers that way, bigger army, smaller target.
4.
Purchasing products from a company does not constitute (active) support. Advertising for them does though. I intend to dispossess every private owner. It's not like one owner is better than any other. They're all oppressors and participants in cultural suppression of the proletariat. The analogy to Ron Paul is particularly bad. Sending money to any liberal candidate is like paying someone to kill you.
5. I don't advertise for corporations. I tell people my iPhone is a piece of shit (which it is), vista clearly sucked, I don't wear shits with company logos, etc. If I hate a guy but he has a sandwich and I'm hungry, I'll pay him for it. My contribution to mega-corporation coffers is so insignificant as to be nonexistent. This goes back to my point about consumerism being a matter of the masses rather than the personal choices of independently insignificant individuals. If you think otherwise you should go join a commune because you're participation in any corporation is as bad as the most efficient ones.
6. Because all corporations perpetuate imperialism. Their contribution to the maintenance of capitalism through political and cultural hegemony can't be called anything less than direct participation in imperialism.

@P S: I do not underestimate the working class. We just have far bigger fish to fry than our operating systems. Mass starvation, homelessness, the fuсking dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, etc.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.