Hahaha. Sorry, I have to laugh. You are here in a technology forum and you are using an argument from the 80's. Look back-in-the-day when people didn't know what this new fangled electric box was for I can see the argument, but this is the year 2010 and we understand computers and digital assets like software and music and images have value.

The fact that you are on this forum and use this argument well... sad really. You should really try harder.

As for your new business models, why do you think everything is going toward advertising. Because it is increasingly difficult to pay for content and software so the only way to make money is ads to convert to hard goods.

Is that the world you really want, where everything is about ads?

Look, software is like your phone or your car or your clothes. If you want it, you save up for it and buy it. Are there poor people? Sure, but they save up for food, cars and everything else.

Isn't it convenient that the one thing people never seem to have money for is the one thing they can most easily steal?

What a coincidence.

No, it's not ok. Copyright is copyright regardless of anyone's financial means. Let me turn that around a bit: is it ok for a developer with limited financial resources to violate the GPL?

I don't see why, aren't people allowed to change their mind? I did "share" some 8bit games back in the early eighties (well, sneakernet rather than download) but I know better now.

An excellent point. Also, is it ok for another student with limited time/financial resources/etc to copy your coursework without your consent?

Right - wrong
Ethical - unethical
Moral - immoral
Legal - Illegal

Which of these are 'flexible'?
In the way that, the situation and condition of the actor affects the judgement?

Does it matter if the offender is: poor, not as smart, comes from 'lesser' country/tribes/academic organization, not lucky, etc?

Does it matter if the 'target' is: of different race, 'richer', happier, smarter, bigger, etc?

The question uses a loaded word with a variable meaning ("pirate"), and can't satisfactorily be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

But the student with limited financial resources might want to read this article:

"Yorkshire vicar advises hard-pressed parishioners to shoplift"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6964050.ece

I voted 'no' because in principle it's wrong. It's not theft as in "stealing lunch", right, but it's still not morally right. There's another party that has something to offer and asks for money in return. If you don't have the money, you won't get it. It's as simple as that. Nobody has a right to have the software and especially in this case, not being able to afford something is not an excuse to simply take it. (I would rather say it's OK for poor people to steal food. Software is luxury. And those who 'pirate' it do have more than enough to afford it. Come on!)

So that was my answer to the question about not being able to afford it... lame excuse.

I have to admit, though, that I support so-called "pirating" (we shouldn't use the word, it supports them) as a reaction to the IP mafia. The more they influence our politicians to make laws against their own people, the more I'm inclined to hurt them the only way they understand.

The industry has managed to come up with customers who pay, partly with threats. This is perfectly fine -- it's how the legal system works. Many software companies make most of their money from businesses that purchase their software. This is primarily because businesses have money and can be sued for illegal use of software.

I personally am not pirating any software at this time that I can think of. I have pirated software in the past, and many of my purchasing decisions have been made because I was familiar with products, having pirated them in the past. If I hadn't pirated them I would never have purchased them.

You seem to be under the impression that I am saying that no one should pay for software and that everything should be pirated. That is not the case -- not even close.

I have purchased LOTS of software that I have subsequently found USELESS. You don't seem to be crying about that. I have NEVER HEARD of a software company taking a survey about people who have bought their software and got no value from it and have THEN CONTACTED THOSE PEOPLE, APOLOGIZED, AND REFUNDED THE MONEY THEY PAID.

I think that hoodwinking people into buying something from you and delivering no value is immoral. Why don't I see any campaigns against that?

The reason is that people take it for granted -- software companies want your money for nothing, if they can get it, and customers want the software for free, if they can get it.

And that's the way it is.

Oh, by the way -- I don't HAVE Photoshop. Too expensive.

It depends on the company whose software you're about to pirate. MS for instance who have been convicted numerous times of stealing other companies' software/technology are fair game. MS will continue to steal unless executives get jail time.

It all depends on your situation. why should some rich kid get his college paid for and have spending money and a car and all the best software to do his work...and you just want some software so you can at least compete academically.

to me it is nothing like stealing something like someones wallet.

to me it is only moral that you should have sufficient tools to compete on an even ground.

Because of the way Microsoft forces you to buy software with a computer, I'm sure I have specifically bought quite a few copies of Windows I never used. No one seems to be concerned about that.