Salaam Alaikum,
If someone wanted to buy the latest Photoshop CS5 or a new game/movie.. it is okay to download it instead rather than having to pay A LOT of money for it? If it was that 'bad' downloading things, then officials could've just put a ban to the sites that users use.. but they don't.
Suppose you went to a store, and wanted to buy a game. Found out it cost £40, and didn't want to pay so much for it and left. Then you see a guy outside the store selling that same game for free.
Thats how I see it and I don't find it wrong.. please could someone clarify this.
you have come to the right place madame!....i have free software and movies, to register with me i need a few details...like bank account number and sort code
please dont feel frightened the process is totally innocent madame
Last edited by Cabdullahi; 01-24-2011 at 11:51 AM.
You dont need to think about it much. There's been always an alternative. For softwares, use open-source softwares rather than paying much for proprietary softwares. Even if i have to use any of the proprietary softwares I use softwares with the end of life/end of support. For example a better alternative for Photoshop is GIMP, and so on...
As far as movies are concerned, I dont watch movies much but even if a good movie is released with a really good critique rating I watch it in theater, in that way I am entitled to have a copy of the movie in my mind or in my HD and then download it from the torrents.
I've heard that 'they' are trying to put a ban on the torrent protocol.
You can justify it however you want but at the end of the day it IS illegal and it IS a form of theft. Your analogy is apt, but is also a form of theft (or technically it is knowingly purchasing black market goods). So if you want to be truly on the straight and narrow and subservient to the law, you ARE violating that with this.
That said, I too download illegally, and I think there are some very good reasons too, and some good reasons against. It would be an interesting investigation into why we feel this is right/wrong and why we may feel other forms of theft differ. The fact that by making a copy you don't destroy the original is one thing to consider (but you do lower the value of the original).
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 01-24-2011 at 02:09 PM.
It takes so much energy to develop software like photoshop you can hardly imagine... As already mentioned, there is always an alternative, so if you cant afford photoshop it doesnt give you the right to steal it instead or download it without official license.
It takes so much energy to develop software like photoshop you can hardly imagine... As already mentioned, there is always an alternative, so if you cant afford photoshop it doesnt give you the right to steal it instead or download it without official license.
well, on the other hand I must admit that illegal downloads or hacking keeps up the business of developing security items ...
madame do you want to register for my online database of movies and software ....all you need to do is give me your bank account details...its totally free
I doubt it's ok but some developers do put stupid prices on software, and usually the people who download are the people who are using the application for home use.
I feel there is a big difference between someone using Photoshop a few times a year to edit 50 personal photo's and a graphic designer using it everyday for business. Unfortunately the price does not reflect these differences.
It's true that it takes a lot of time, money and effort to develop a nice productive software and Operating systems.
The estimated building cost of Fedora Linux 9 was $10.5 bn, but the essence of Open source, it's all free!
The estimated building cost of Fedora Linux 9 was $10.5 bn, but the essence of Open source, it's all free!
Dear Ubuntu user :thankyou:
Open source is great and freeware like gimp is perfect for someone who wants to edit pictures once in a while - there is no reason to buy expensive software which was mainly created for professionals...
I dont like the system of money and materialism, actually I really hate it. But somehow we have to ensure our exsistence and eat, sleep, buy a bus ticket or whatever. Even this board rely on google ads... What would you think if someone simply picks the logo of IB to create his own forum? And suppose in the end he would get design honours for it...
hope no one feels offended..
Yes Pygoscelis, I agree that the value of the original software decreases when we're downloading the free versions.. I would feel bad if someone downloaded my hard earned work for free :L Creators of such software should be credited for their work.. ok I'm gonna try to stop downloading so much now !
Certainly if John is poor and cannot afford to buy photoshop and he decides to download it instead, we cannot call John a thief in the material sense since John has not taken anything that physically belongs to Adobe nor has John cost Adobe any money since he would not have bought the product anyway. So in the consequentalist account I don't think pirating is necessarily immoral...
The issue is whether or not an idea or other non-material things can be a piece of property that has a price-tag. If I make a movie and I am the first to use a particular literary theme does that mean I now own that particular theme and all future movie-producers ought to pay me royalties if he wants to use that theme? At what point do we draw the line and say 'that idea is universal and general to all humans and belongs to no-one in particular'? Similarly, when Adobe writes the code to photoshop Adobe has created a mathematical theorem that proves a particular code can be computed; how much of that code is original the programmers and general mathematical/logical academic knowledge? I don't think there are any clear-cut answers to these questions but I personally will continue to download my precious pirated material and not feel too-guilty that I am using someone's ideas without their consent
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
-Plato
Salaam Alaikum,
If someone wanted to buy the latest Photoshop CS5 or a new game/movie.. it is okay to download it instead rather than having to pay A LOT of money for it? If it was that 'bad' downloading things, then officials could've just put a ban to the sites that users use.. but they don't.
No. It is not okay to download games and movies. Some programs are expensive because I assume it takes a very long time to develop and costs a lot of money.
I'm sure it's illegal to download copyright material but the government will have difficultly enforcing such laws.
Suppose you went to a store, and wanted to buy a game. Found out it cost £40, and didn't want to pay so much for it and left. Then you see a guy outside the store selling that same game for free.
Thats how I see it and I don't find it wrong.. please could someone clarify this.
Jazak'Allah
I doubt someone would sell a new game for free. How would they have gotten this new game in the first place? If it is by unlawful means, that it does not belong to you, even if you pay for it.
Most of the time illegally downloading something amounts to theft. There are rare instances in which the law is unreasonable. For instance, it is illegal (at least here in America) to download any video game you don't own a physical copy of, even if it's no longer in production and therefore the only people you could be sapping sales figures from are private parties selling used copies. There is no good reason for this. However, we are commanded by the Prophet (P) to always follow the laws of the country where we live as long as they don't directly contradict scriptural mandate. Therefore, it is against our religion to download things illegally.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
Certainly if John is poor and cannot afford to buy photoshop and he decides to download it instead, we cannot call John a thief in the material sense since John has not taken anything that physically belongs to Adobe nor has John cost Adobe any money since he would not have bought the product anyway. So in the consequentalist account I don't think pirating is necessarily immoral...
The issue is whether or not an idea or other non-material things can be a piece of property that has a price-tag. If I make a movie and I am the first to use a particular literary theme does that mean I now own that particular theme and all future movie-producers ought to pay me royalties if he wants to use that theme? At what point do we draw the line and say 'that idea is universal and general to all humans and belongs to no-one in particular'? Similarly, when Adobe writes the code to photoshop Adobe has created a mathematical theorem that proves a particular code can be computed; how much of that code is original the programmers and general mathematical/logical academic knowledge? I don't think there are any clear-cut answers to these questions but I personally will continue to download my precious pirated material and not feel too-guilty that I am using someone's ideas without their consent
If you think about it, the very idea of ownership itself is an illogical fabrication with no basis in reality. There really is nothing that it's any more sensible to say anyone "owns" than anything else: objects, ideas, animals, people--everything is equally impossible to genuinely own in any meaningful sense of the word, unless you're God Himself. However, ownership does seem to be an essential illusion to human society (at least as it currently operates) and therefore the illusion, like law itself, must be respected.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
ok. Just use Thepiratebay.org
They have everything you need, with minimal viruses. For faster downloads press the "se" button after a search. If ya' need any help just tell me :]
With love,
Xena
If you think about it, the very idea of ownership itself is an illogical fabrication with no basis in reality. There really is nothing that it's any more sensible to say anyone "owns" than anything else: objects, ideas, animals, people--everything is equally impossible to genuinely own in any meaningful sense of the word, unless you're God Himself. However, ownership does seem to be an essential illusion to human society (at least as it currently operates) and therefore the illusion, like law itself, must be respected.
How is ownership illogical? Do you mean the concept of ownership is somehow inherently inconsistent? If so, in what manner? I don't really see anything logically inconsistent with the notion that X can own Y so long as the conditions for that ownership are sound. Also I am not sure what you mean by ownership is an illusion; ownership is the word we describe a particular relationship between two things; do you claim that this relationship does not exist? Do you think it's an illusion because it's an abstract concept that has no physical embodiment? Do you also think math theorems are illusions? Even if the relationship is defined solely through a societal medium, I am not sure how you can draw the conclusion that this somehow makes it an illusion anymore than either marriage or friendship for example. Finally, why is God the only being capable of 'owning' something? Perhaps you can outline some of reasons you have for believing the claims you've made.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
-Plato
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks