DONT DO IT !!!!

the answer is in limited use date stamping or whatever you want to call it. I use some very expensive CAD Modeling software that could be copied or loaded on more computers than i am licensed to equip. But it all turns into pumpkins if I don't re-up when the day to pay comes around.

Just curious- how many here think that an older version of photoshop is OK to use without pay because it is so outdated it doesn't matter?

What if all of those people that didn't upgrade to the latest version got to see their software go to mush? Anyone using an older version is one less customer for the new one, why not protect copyrighted material by shortening the time that it can be misused before someone has to buy another copy?

it could be the future- CD's that only play 100 times, software you can only use for a year, pictures that pixilate after being opened a certain number of times.

mikeinctown wrote in post #14986714
A brewing supply house I used to go to had a separate place for brews and music and they clearly had a large sign posted at the door saying if you were a member of the ASCAP or whatever it is called, you weren't welcome and you would be considered trespassing. Because they don't care if you have a live band, or are playing the jukebox.

There is a nice cafe in S.F. where lots of musicians come to play. Big letters NO ASCAP MUSIC ALLOWED HERE. They got hit with lawyers threatening them. It works. It's how the mob came into power. It's fair too because ASCAP is responsible for tracking how music is distributed and paying royalties to owners. So it's a mixed bag for sure.

RDKirk wrote in post #14990955
RDKirk's Iron Law of Copyright Discourse:

"As any discussion about any facet of copyright grows longer, the probability of the RIAA being used as an example in arguments opposing copyright and then dominating the discussion approaches 1."

hahaha ... gospel truth right there.

birdfromboat wrote in post #14993740
the answer is in limited use date stamping or whatever you want to call it. I use some very expensive CAD Modeling software that could be copied or loaded on more computers than i am licensed to equip. But it all turns into pumpkins if I don't re-up when the day to pay comes around.

Just curious- how many here think that an older version of photoshop is OK to use without pay because it is so outdated it doesn't matter?

What if all of those people that didn't upgrade to the latest version got to see their software go to mush? Anyone using an older version is one less customer for the new one, why not protect copyrighted material by shortening the time that it can be misused before someone has to buy another copy?

it could be the future- CD's that only play 100 times, software you can only use for a year, pictures that pixilate after being opened a certain number of times.

That's an extremely narrow-minded approach, and would just lead to more reverse-engineering, cracks, etc. People don't like being backed into a corner... especially if it's unwarranted(ie. they're on the up and up)

onona wrote in post #14987434
If you'll kindly indulge me in a spot of pointless pedantry for the sake of random trivia, the commandment given to Moses is actually translated as a directive to not steal people; in other words, not to kidnap citizens or to steal slaves, crimes which were considered capital crimes at the time, along with murder and adultery, hence its inclusion in the commandments. Theft of property was not considered a capital crime at the time, and was therefore not included, even though today we consider that particular commandment to mean theft in this sense.

/random trivia <insert nerdy face here>

Very nicely put. And true.

But, of course, you'll have to duck when passing Fundamentalists.

1Tanker wrote in post #14993814
That's an extremely narrow-minded approach, and would just lead to more reverse-engineering, cracks, etc. People don't like being backed into a corner... especially if it's unwarranted(ie. they're on the up and up)

Yeah, I know. But it would work.

They tell us we can't record a live music concert with"any recording device" as we enter, but at every show I see hundreds of smart phones and whatever being held up to record the show and post it on face book or youtube.

Joe Walsh was the best, he had the house turn up the lights so he could get us all on camera and post it to his face book page and tomorrow we could all go on and link ourselves to his picture of us. Then he sang Analog Man, typical Joe. Pee Wee Hendrix.

This is becoming a serious problem as more people are realising that the old methods for making money from the recording arts (photography, movies, recorded music) just aren't going to apply when anyone with an internet connection can pretty much do whatever they want with the 1's and 0's they can get their hands on. It's an old problem that hasn't been solved in the thirty years since some major music performers started to build their own cottage industry to replace their contracts with the big record companies. The fact is, the same music companies that want us to pay to have a copy of one of their recordings were guilty on many occasions of not paying the artists what they were due. Now they want the federal government to protect them and make us pay them what they think they are due.

Frank Zappa- (I know, you all probably think his potato baked a little too long)- had some very interesting and informed opinions on the subject, he started his own record label after doing some research and finding his artistic product was being sold without any benefit coming his way. Big swifty and associates were most definitely guilty of exactly the same thing they don't want us to do now.Great googly moogly.