Originally Posted by attila77

Actually, the analogy works pretty well if you add just one tiny presumption to the mix - that you have no idea how much money there is on your bank account. So you're withdrawing money still, but you don't know how much you have lost by others tapping in. The 'righteous' crowd will of course say they have not taken a single dollar/pound/dinar/etc (or that they would even put it back with interest after checking how the bills look like), but have rather used the card just for avoiding verification purposes on the Internet - thus claiming that even though they broke a few terms of use, you have not actually suffered financial damage. None of the potential scenarios is truly measurable so it's difficult to determine the actual damage - the only clear cut scenario is if you stay away (which many apparently can't bring themselves to).

Originally Posted by nbosch1

Not at all, in this case the only harm you suffered by copying the data on your card is (maybe) a loss of your personal feeling of well being. The real damage is caused when they take the money from your account. After they transfer the money you no longer have it, so your example does not parallel the copy vs steal argument.

Originally Posted by HumanPenguin

When you copy software you do so to avoid buying it. So again you are removing revenue from the accounts of the person creating software.

This in the long run means that the cost of developing updating and maintaining that software is devided between a smaller number of paying customers. Each of them ends up paying more to use the software. Encuraging them to do the same thing.

until the eventual outcome is that company X has to charge so much for its software that no one is willing to pay that for it use.

They fire their developers as the cost of updating and fixing bugs is no longer viable. Everyones bank account is empty.

Its more complicated but the result is the same.

You can argue that the cost of software vs the cost of producing and maintaining it is invalid. But having worked for a large software orgainisation The cost of testing maintaining updates fixing bugs inproving features, is all very very labour intensive.

If you consider the cost of the software to high for the work you beleaive went into it. Do not use it. If you think they have given you to many barriers to use. Then do not use it.

If you feel you need the software then it has value and pay for it.

It may not be theft but it is a reduction in the value of of people work against their will. IE copyright infringment.

If you do not like it do not use it. Any thing else is simply an excuse to make you feel better and ********

There are plenty of open source projects out there. Many of them extreamly good (better then charge for). There is no excuse to use software developed by people who have dicided not to donate it to the rest of us. Respect there choice and time

Originally Posted by Fargus

So maybe this is why the French market is avoided by some companies?

So basically research and development are worth nothing? Way to remove innovation!

So basically you think that developers of any item shoud do so for free? Who is going to provide the food they need during this time and the other services you obviously take for granted?

Originally Posted by ysss

I think he's a troll. No one can be that ignorant/unsmart.

Originally Posted by attila77

Because you agreed to something else (that's the license agreement and terms-of-use part many conveniently skip). It's like saying, yeah, I have an agreement with the bank that I'll return the money plus interest in a year, but they have so much money anyway, so I don't see what's the fuss if I return it in two years, it's not like I said I don't owe them...

Originally Posted by azorni

...
Not at all. The difference of price between a branded product and a copy still exists. First there is the reputation of the firm, which gives more value to the original product. Second, the innovative firm has time precedence in the market, which is quite a commercial advantage.
...

Originally Posted by azorni

...
No, once again a developer doesn't have to live on selling his programs, but for instance he can do any job where his ability to develop will have value on labour market and would be included in his salary. This job can be "developer", and in that case all his production helps for the general functioning of the firm, and will be paid for that.