Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
I pirate
Things I can't afford 6%
Everything I need for my Art 5%
Everything I can lay my hands on and trade with others 11%
For reasons of being broke 10%
For political reasons 10%
I don't pirate 22%
I turn people in who pirate 8%
Piracy is un-American! 11%
Piracy is patriotic! 13%

Votes: 59

 Something Patriotic that The Geeks Can Do Right Now

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 08, 2001
For those of you who consider geek news the be all and end all of relevant information, here's something you might have seen during your Star Trek Marathon on TNN this week.

I have seen these ads on television for automobiles that say "Keep America Rolling." The car ads wrap themselves in the flag, imploring, in a nearly desperate tone, that Americans should buy cars in order to stimulate the economy and keep American workers employed.

The last time there were ads like this was during the Great Depression. We have had the worst fiscal quarter since 1929.

This is all just to preface the main point of this essay:

Will you geeks PLEASE stop pirating things?!?!?!


More stories about Consumerism
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Eric Raymond - Open Source hero ? or Environmental Pariah ?
SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
One More Mouth to Feed
Stunned Beef: Dangerous Compassion?
How to Lose Your Name by Succeeding
My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
The End of Hacking: A Holiday Un-Buyer's Guide
Baby Seal Skinning Factories: Has Their Time Come?
An Adequate Look at Insider Trading
Review: Gran Turismo 3

More stories by

Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The cultural and economic benefits of smoking
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Philip Morris Is Right
In Praise of Censorware
what now for US Israel-Palestinan policy?
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom
Why They Should Abolish the World Series
Looking For A Few Good Crusaders
Welcome to the Third World
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
An Adequate Look at Insider Trading
Google Needs a Winston Smith
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Koleen Brooks Has Got The Right Stuff
Shit or Get Off the Pot
I sit here on a piece of shit computer because I can't afford anything else, and because of the crappiness of my hardware and software (I write this on an ancient 486 wearing an ancient version of America Online) I can't enjoy the world of pirated multimedia like many of you can.

But I have.

In countless free hours spent in the hermetically sealed geek-caves of my alma mater, I enjoyed burned DVDs of Hollywood movies, anime and independent films, and live campus radio mixes composed of pirated music.

My band even made music with stolen copies of advanced production software. We took over the campus studio and installed a computer, which eclipsed the mixer as the focal point of the room.

It fucking rocked.

Unfortunately, that blossom of creativity, copied millions of times over around the world, has played a vital role in the downturn of the world's technology industry.

Anybody who makes software must do so knowing that many of the most lucrative class of users, the members of the computer culture itself, will pirate that software. Many of the best types software are restricted by subscription and lease. The actual software in these cases is hidden from the public and deeply regulated. Microsoft's .NET system, a platform where any licensed corporation can develop and deploy such "limited software," has flourished among industry due to fears provoked by a sustained hack attack.

For years, popular media felt that little could be done to change this trend in computer culture. Creativity in the computer industry, once the domain of conservative defense and university technicians, was gradually taken over by militant libertarians who simultaneously praise the power of computers while opposing any conceivable interest that the public might have in regulating their use. In the light of recent events, I am confident that many more people can now see how untenable and absurd that position is.

Unfortunately for artists (including me), a change in this culture of piracy is a big part of what's needed to get the economy back on track. Consider some of the statistics on piracy loss. More importantly, consider that piracy is an added risk factor for every software company on earth.

Remember, also, that the federal government will be imposing added security burdens on most industries now. Although businesses have worked for years to increase security at all levels of hardware and software design, the federal government will now be imposing added security (and financial) burdens on most computer businesses.

I believe that, when it comes down to it, most pirates and hackers want to be a part of American society. Many donated money on the Web to aid relief efforts. But they, more than anyone else, must understand how vital the software industry is to the national economy!

With this in mind, I would like to add my voice to that of the Federal Government in calling for a resurgence of patriotic behavior among the 1337.

Enamored with security holes? Quit damaging the economy by forcing downtime on hapless corporate machines. Let corporations spend their $100/hr technicians' time on defending themselves from terrorists, not from your lame ass. Go find Al-Qaeda's security holes, as a few brave souls have already done.

And, go out there and buy that CD, computer program, or movie. Consider it giving your own fair share to the rest of America.

America's investors, who have believed in you in the last 15 years, have made you great!

With this in mind, I'd like to propose a "Keep America Clicking" campaign.

In the spirit of Keep America Rolling, software and hardware companies should deeply discount prices and financing for technology.

Pirates would actually benefit from such a program; the discounted software, plus the added value of living a more risk-free lifestyle without piracy, would more than balance the benefits of free software and media.

I propose that anyone who is interested in becoming a non-pirating patriot post below. Perhaps we can network with each other and spread the word!


Count Me In (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by FifthVandal on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 12:02:41 PM PST
And another good reason not to pirate:

What do you think impresses the babes more - a stack of crappy CDRs with handwriting on the front, or a nice shelf full of shiny original boxes of real software, DVDs etc?

And having an original copy of Windows ME is worth it for the shiny holographic CD alone!

--- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

No, babes love leetness!! (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by egg troll on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:36:55 AM PST
I can't count how many times I've had some hot chick over at my place and I'm not getting anywhere with her. I hear all the bullshit excuses: "Lets just be friends", "I've already got a boyfriend", "I'm only 13!"

However, when I show her my piles of juar3z, its like Egg Troll's Patented Panty Peeler. When I tell her about my FTP dumps, my IRC bots and my Hotline servers, her toes just start to curl and then I'm in like Flynn baby. Women appreciate a man who can provide for them, and having a ton of warez shows that you can, indeed, provide.

I've also found that a disgustingly large amount of porn works well for similar reasons, plus it shows your virality.

Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

Oh dear... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by FifthVandal on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 02:16:07 PM PST
I guess you haven't heard about the BSA using undercover female operatives to trap pirates then...

Hope you like bread and water.

--- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

I have indeed! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by egg troll on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 03:06:36 PM PST
Yes I have heard of them. Of course I'm such a smooth playah that none of them can resist me. It works out in a Jennifer Lopez - George Clooney - Out of Sight kinda way.

Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

WinME (none / 0) (#38)
by Husaria on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:07:12 PM PST
You've got problems..
first: if you think a cd of WinME would impress a girl, you're on crack, because winME is a inferior operating syste.
Win2k is a sure bet.
Not some bloated OS that crashes every hour.

Sig sigger

In addition: (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Hunter on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 12:17:42 PM PST
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed in this article. It is incumbent upon each and every American to his or her part in keeping our country strong, in both the military and economic sense.

Piracy robs legitimate corporations of their profits, no one can argue that. While it may be distasteful for many in the Open Source/Piracy crowd, they must put aside their fanatical belief that they are entitled to all sorts of free entertainment and such. They must stand beside normal Americans in checkout lines across the country and hand over their (possibly ill earned) dollars to grease the wheels of the economy. Thankfully there are many organizations out there that are reaching out to support them.

Though important, ending their addiciton to piracy is not the only step we must force them to take. It will also be necessary for them to begin paying for any software they choose to use. While Free As In Speech is a great feel-good mantra, it does nothing to stimulate the economy. Be it a tax on internet downloads or a simple ban on all of this Free software, we must arrive at a way to extract some sort of economic benefit from these transactions. Personally, I support the latter solution as it will free countless hours of programmers' time that would be otherwise be wasted in futile attempts to get their software to work properly! These hours could well be used to actually accomplish something of merit.

Yes.... (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:52:43 AM PST
...All must work for the good of the collective. State your designation, 5 of 12!

computers were not created to boost the economy (none / 0) (#79)
by dotKAMbot on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 01:38:38 PM PST
"Piracy robs legitimate corporations of their profits, no one can argue that."

I'll argue that. Like I said above, pirates would not pay $400 for a piece of software if piracy wasn't an option. Everyone seems to think that every piece of software that is pirated would normally be paid for if that was the only way to obtain it. For all we know, if there was no piracy, less software would sell... It may whet people's appetite for the software causing more people to buy. You can't tell me for sure what really happens... all these numbers that corps report due to piracy are very bloated.

Putting the open source community and the pirates into one group is ridiculous. One (the open source community) is a hard working group of individuals that sacrifices their free time for the good of the community without any pay. The other is nothing more than a group of criminals that put no work into what they do and help nobody but other pirates often making money from their practices.

"While Free As In Speech is a great feel-good mantra, it does nothing to stimulate the economy."

so? does everything I do have to stimulate the economy or be outlawed? That is dumb.

Just because the economy doesn't appear to be boosted by open and free software doesn't mean we should get rid of it. I don't think anyone posting on this board is boosting the economy with their posts. I think we should instead force anyone on here that wants to post a message to instead write a book and sell it. Then maybe all these hours could well be used to actually accomplish something of merit.

If you would like a good argument for free and open software please consult the GNU Philosophy.

My software works properly maybe you don't work properly.

What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.

Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.

And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is ``piracy'', they pollute our society's civic spirit.

This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price.

daniel j. wharton

It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

Dangerously mistaken assumptions (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by moriveth on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 12:41:30 PM PST
I strongly agree that patriots should only buy American cars. While they may be inferior works of engineering (due largely to the abandonment of our auto industry by our own citizens), the auto industry provides real jobs for real Americans. To buy a foreign car is to say, "I don't care if jobs leave America. I care more about having my shiny new Honda."

By contrast, software is primarily written by foreigners in our great nation on H1-B visas, stealing valuable jobs from qualified but less pliable American coders. Purchasing American software in this day and age is saying, "I don't care if you only employ fresh-of-the-boat Indians instead of hard-working American programmers you would have to pay fair wages. I'll still buy your software."

Additionally, all these foreigners are a huge security risk; remember that some of the terroists in the 9/11 attacks had Electrical Engineering degrees.

Eventually, of course, the boycott of American software will force software companies to lay off the foreign programmers and hire our recent college graduates. In the meantime, however, I recommend buying American manufactured products, but pirating your software.

American cars (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 04:24:56 PM PST
But sir, most American-branded cars are built outside of the US, and most foreign-branded cars are built right here, by American Union Workers, no less!

because you can't count (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 08:42:16 AM PST
I used to work on H1B visa in the states, and am now very happy to be back home.

The USA hires foreigners on H1B visas because the education system is too crappy to provide enough home grown competence. Instead you have to import it from socialist countries like India which can somehow afford to turn out 100000s of decent engineers while the US has trouble educating enough people to a level where they're qualified to count ballot papers.

The situation is perfect for rich shareholders who have huge profits and low taxes (don't waste anything on education) while still able to hire enough people to keep the wheels turning. This leaves the average American living as trailer trash, but who gives a fuck about that.

Foreigners should stay out of US from their own sense of patriotism, but since their own countries have been milked of resources by the west they have an economic incentive to work in USA.

Oh really? (none / 0) (#35)
by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:33:22 AM PST
So to buy a foreign car is to say you don't care enough about America, eh? I doubt that all the workers at Honda in Marysville, OH would agree with you. Or the BMW workers in South Carolina, or the Toyota workers in Indiana...

Shall I continue?

And sometimes, buying an American car says, "Look at my Japanese engine on top of an American design!"

While we're at it, let's stop buying all those American flags that are being cranked out from factories in China. 'Cause it's pretty damn' un-American to wave the flag...

Trying to roll the clock back on globalization is not going to be more patriotic, hurt the terrorist networks, or help American workers.

Dumbass. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 12:51:24 PM PST
I'm in Russia right now, and we have laws that protect software pirates. (Well, pretty much.) That means that for all intents and purposes it is legal to pirate software. It may surprise you, but this only had a positive effect on the economy. Basically, it made computers and software a cheap commodity item -- I mean, here they sell software on every street corner along with hot dogs and flowers. This means that software companies (i.e. programmers) have an easy and almost immediate distribution market. No need to advertise, since anybody can buy your crap on any street corner. The downside is, obviously, the competition -- without monopolistic "shelving" practices your product has to compete on quality alone. Another benefit is a market of cheap and abundant hardware. My European aqcuaintances ask me to buy hardware here and fly it to them by airplane because hardware here is much cheaper, and certain things you just can't buy in Europe.

The moral -- Americans, welcome to 1984. "Back to the future", indeed. Oh, well -- this is just the "NIH" (Not Invented Here) syndrome showing its ugly head. We already had totalitarinism, and it sucks; you seem stubbornly intent on falling into old traps.

Peace and much love...

Pure Soviet BS (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by MessiahWWKD on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 03:11:02 PM PST
Yeah, and Russia is ran by the Mafia too. I guess we should let the Mafia rule the world now 'cause according to this guy, Russia never made stupid ass mistakes.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

What? (none / 0) (#18)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:45:25 PM PST
All I'm saying is that you're now making the exact same mistakes we did. Stop trying to control the software market using totalitarian methods, and let capitalism work its magic. I mean, if the big software houses can't compete with kids in a basement burning CD-R's, then they shouldn't have a reason for existing in a capitalist society. Grow up, communism has been shown to be a fialure. Even the Chinese understand this now.

Peace and much love...

Not "totalitarianism" but "rule of (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 02:59:04 PM PST
Dude, the mistakes we're making don't begin to approach the idiocy achieved on a routine basis by your former and current governments. It's not a mistake to have laws that inform the function of capitalism. We don't explicitly or tacitly protect software pirates, and we don't condone hiring some piss-poor displaced factory worker to kidnap or off a competitive rival for $20 in hard currency. One just happens to be a little harder to police for the time being.

Don't worry, though, I'm sure it's all about to change. Soon, we won't be able to install a copy of MS Office on a desktop and a laptop without paying for it twice. Hopefully the fantastic brain trust that gave us Stalinism will find some way to crack the protection scheme and restore freedom to the criminal world once more.

Never take lessons in economic policy from a geek who hails from a country that took Engels and Marx seriously.

Huh? (none / 0) (#56)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 09:46:29 PM PST
Are you going to tell me that economists in the U.S. do not take Marx seriously? Somehow I have a feeling you know even less about economics than I do. Marx was a tremendous influence on economic science, (key word here is "science") his moronic social and cultural theories aside.

P.S. Unless you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion, please don't spew offensive rubbish here. Posts like that belong on slashdot.

Peace and much love...

'positive effect on the economy' (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 04:17:55 PM PST
So in terms of the Russian economy, what does that mean? That hopefully by this time next year, "Who wants to eat a meal?" will not be the most popular gameshow on Russian TV?

Sure, USians need to overcome our prejudice against ideas not invented by us, but shouldn't we concentrate on importing ideas from economies we would like to imitate? So let's copy say, the Germans or the Swedes, who get their friends to send them cheap hardware bought on Russian street corners (I like that idea) but stick with the idea of not allowing valuable IP to be stolen and sold by everybody with a modem.

After all, Dmitry Skylab (or Mir, whatever) had to come to the US to find customers for his E-Book cracking tool. How much can a Russian afford to pay you for your software?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You're missing a point. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:42:00 PM PST
The point is that when you protect the pirates, software and hardware sales go up, not down. Look, this is just capitalism; the pirates are the real venture capitalists. They need to know the market intimately to make any money, and since the competition is so fierce, you need to be really good to keep afloat. For example, look at all the failing Linux ventures in the U.S. -- how come these guys whine that "you can't make money on Linux" because you you need Big Brother to protect your software lincense, when here the pirates when faced with the same situation (the crap they sell you can download for free anyways) manage the make big, big bucks?

The answer is that totalitarianism just does not work. Any totalitarian economy is doomed for failure. That is the real lesson of the "dot-bomb" crash; trying to comptrol the software market with communist-style strongarm tactics is just plain stupid, especially since communism has been empirically shown to be a failure.

Peace and much love...

All sorts of thieves are capitalistic. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 11:20:16 PM PST
Just because they have to compete in a tough market with small margins to sell their stolen wares is not enough reason to consider software pirates paragons of anything good or useful. The problem with them is that they are eating someone else's lunch. They are a kind of parasite, like a tapeworm. The tapeworm can do quite well so long as it doesn't drain too much from its host, but that doesn't mean the host is better off with a tapeworm than without. And it also doesn't mean that the it is better to be a tapeworm than a host.

The most you can say is that if you are stuck in a intestine, then sure, I guess all you are ever going to be is a tapeworm, and so make the best of it. But if the chance ever comes up to be something else (anything would be better than a tapeworm, in fact), or if you are the host, to rid yourselves of tapeworms, wouldn't you take it?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You're wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 11:42:47 PM PST
Software pirates are not thieves. Here in Russia, there is no pirated domestic software. None. This is because you can buy a licensed, legal CD-ROM for less than you'd pay a pirate. Plus, the quality of the packaging will be much better. Large companies have smaller production costs and better quality control. In a normal, functioning economy (I emphasise normal here) pirates working out of their parent's garage simply cannot compete.

The problem is that the U.S. government has effectively created a software "black market" with their communist (or state capitalist, same thing) tactics.

P.S. Before you reply that software companies need 10000% price markups because software production is expensive -- that makes sense from a communist perspective, (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) but this point of view has been completely disproven. The real world simply does not work that way; software companies survive only when they sell software in huge bulk quantities, with tiny markups.

Peace and much love...

I'm quite dismayed. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 09:35:45 AM PST
Clearly what began as a civil discussion (asided from your "dumbass" headline) has now devolved into a classic Internet "flame war." Once the epithets began flying, it was inevitable that the next step would be minor quibbles over terminology and grammar (communist/COMMUNIST/state capitali$t, Skylab/Mir, etc.). It makes me sad that it always comes to this.

However, I will try to ignore the playpen behavior and try to stick to something substantive. It seems to me the heart of the issue is that you beleive that free markets work by magic, and that the magic is spoilt by any attempt to mitigate the more extreme effects of an unregulated market. One such effect is that without some protection for property, gangsters will take over and no those who actually produce new goods will become extinct. This is why we use the state to enforce some copyright protection.

There is no principle that the magic aura of the free market will fade because there is a little legal protection for basic property rights. It isn't like turning on a TV during a seance and disrupting the ectoplasm of the spirits or whatever. Without law and order, in fact, no capitalism can exist.

Furthermore, there is no ultimate principle of capitalism that says that margins must be small. Larger profit margins can lead to a more affluent society, and pull an economy out of the mire of thrid-world low-rent, low-wage undercapitalization. Rich people sell to each other at high margins. It works as long as you have decently protectionist trade policies.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

Jesus Christ, tell me I'm dreaming... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:02:39 AM PST
Why am I explaining the basics of capitalism to an American?! Look, I'll go slowly, since I tend to ramble.

The basic point of capitalism is that economic systems are supposed to be self-sustaining when there is no outside influence. That means that the system stabilises itself without government regulation. Unless you absolutely trust your government to manage all of the U.S. economy (not) it's better to let the market stabilise by yourself. Unless you know exactly what you're doing, chances are you're going to seriously screw up the economics.

In fact, this is exactly what happened in the U.S. -- by employing communist regulations, the government has created an artificial black market for software. (No other country in the world has warez trading groups.) Remember back in the '80s when demand for toilet paper couldn't be met in the Soviet Union? The "developed" world used to laugh at the Soviets for waiting in lines just to buy toilet paper. Well, guess what? The rest of the world is now laughing at the U.S. and the insane measures taken to fight software piracy.

You're also confused on the matter of "property". When a software pirate sells a copy of your software he isn't stealing anything from you. You still have your intellectual property, it didn't magically disappear all of a sudden. The only thing he is stealing from you is your marketshare. However, stealing marketshare is only a crime in a communist society.

The former Soviet Union had a developed system for punishing those who "stole" marketshare. The Soviet government just took your logic and extended it to commodity goods. For example, why should some dirty hick sell peaches on a roadside -- he probably just picked them from a nearby tree without expending any effort, while professional farmers need to develop land and buy expensive equipment to get the same result. By your logic, we should round up all the people who sell stuff in streetside booths and put them in jail. The problem is, we already tried something like that in the Soviet Union. It didn't work; the Soviet Union simply ran out of food and toilet paper, while gigantic state-run corporations collapsed under their own weight and mismanagement.

P.S. One small point: the U.S. is the only country that is undergoing a crisis in the computer industry. The U.S. is the only country that has unemployed programmers. Even in dirty third-world coutries like India and Pakistan programmers have no problem finding good-paying jobs.

Just think about these facts for a moment; be a little more open-minded and don't be afraid to think outside of the official American AgitProp.

Peace and much love...

On self-regulating systems. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:17:57 AM PST
You have repeated again your belief that capitalilsm has a kind of magic to it that must not be disturbed, just with fancier terminology.

There are lots of self-regulating systems, and it is true that they all will eventually stabilize at some level, generally. Your body temperature is an example of this. Your body tries to regulate its temperature and will stabilize somewhere without you needing to do anything about it. So if you are in a freezing environment, your body might just stabilize at a temperature that is at freezing. Thus you would be dead, and the fact that your body sank to this stable temperature naturally would be your consolation.

Is it a crime to put on a coat when it's cold? If you did, your body would still attempt to find a stable temperature, but it would be a temperature which would be able to sustain life.

So getting back to capitalism, you are correct in saying that the market will naturally move towards one level or another, and so is self-regulating. But where do you get the belief that it will always move towards a point that we find desireable? What is to stop it from stabilizing at an unhappy place? And what God-given principle forbids us from nudging the market into a different stable place?

The USSR is one data point suggesting that you shouldn't try to control the direction of the market. But what about the dozens of healthy mixed economies around the world? Why not counter the one example of the USSR with all those other successful economies? Taken as a whole, we have many instances of wealthy countries with high standards of living that exercise some degree of market control.

And what country would you hold up as an example of the success of laissez faire? Russia? That country is poor and unstable. Surely you must know of some other country that leaves the market completely alone. How are they doing?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

OK. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:40:09 AM PST
So, basically this is what your argument boils down to:

"Communism has failed in the Soviet Union, but that doesn't mean it is unworkable here in the U.S.; I believe the software industry should immplement some sort of communism to protect failing software companies."

That's fine. I have no problem with communism -- it's just one of the many possible ways of managing the economy. Like you said, there is nothing intrinsically better in capitalism. Fine, but personally I don't believe in communism because I experienced it first-hand. I have a unique advantage of being able to compare the two systems first-hand.

You also make the fallacy of confusing economic prosperity and political stability. Economically, Russia has advanced by leaps and bounds. (Just like any other nation with a truly capitalist economy). Politically, Russia has underwent a complete and utter collapse. Those two things are really orthogonal to each other. (Virtually everybody I know of is living much, much better since the fall of communism. Psychologically, though, it is very difficult because you're basically living in a nation without a government.)

Peace and much love...

Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:43:20 PM PST
Just because a country is poor is no reason to think that it is unstable. It just seems that way when you see so many poor countries changing governments or having civil disorder all the time. It is probably just some kind of funny coincidence.

I had no idea that by having copyright protection the US had become a communist country. I always thought it was fair to call our economy "mixed," becuase I figured we lacked sufficient conditions to be accurately described as communist. So is is just copyright alone that makes us communist, or is it other stuff to, like social security, or having publicly financed wastewater treatment?

I have to say, I really like knowing that the sewage treatment plant is going to be there no matter what the local market conditions are. I guess I just have to start loving COMMUNISM...

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

Copyright? (2.66 / 3) (#55)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 09:41:20 PM PST
Copyright infringement isn't really related to software piracy; copyright is a system designed for stopping plagiarism. As long as I label my pirated disks with all appropriate copyrights I'm not actually doing any copyright infringement. Who is the person selling the media really makes no difference as far as copyrights are concerned.

P.S. "Communism" isn't a bad word or anything; in fact, for things like sewage treatment plants and such communism might be the only viable way to go. All I'm saying is that you should realise that the anti-piracy measures in the U.S. really amount to communism for a single given industry.

Peace and much love...

You seem to spend a lot of time defining words. (4.66 / 3) (#57)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:27:34 PM PST
Does it matter to you if other people use those words too, and the way we use them is different than you?

For example, "property" can be tangible and directly measurable, like some bricks, or it can be intangible, like some timely information, or the experience of being exposed to some information. The rest of the world got used to this idea a long time ago! Now you want to come along and reveal to all of us that when you copy and re-distribute my information, I haven't lost anything. I'm sorry, but we have chosen to define the word "property" differently than that. We think of many things as being kinds of property, not just solid, heavy objects that go "thud" when you drop them.

You have other special words, like communism, piracy, copyright, or plagiarism that you have decided to give your own personal definitons to. Knock yourself out. Define cheese to be gold if you like.

But realize that when you get exasperated with the rest of the human race because we appear stupid to you for failing to adhere to your special definitions, well, we just don't care. Get exasperated all you want.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You're the confused one. (3.00 / 2) (#59)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 04:36:54 AM PST
Piracy does not infringe on your intellectual property. I specifically said that in an above post. Pirates don't distribute information, they distribute physical media. A typical pirate doesn't generate any intellectual product, he simply distributes other people's information. (Key word here is "distribute".) The pirate doesn't care what is on that CD-ROM he is selling; (or giving away) it could be blank or corrupted for all he cares.

Peace and much love...

Yes, you said that is what piracy is. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by elenchos on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 08:44:28 AM PST
In your own private language. Good for you. The defintion of piracy (and more importantly, property) that everyone else is using is different. So yes, you are completely right, as long as your own special words are used. The problem is, you are the only one who uses your special words, and so the only one who thinks you are right.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

elen ur wrong (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 09:02:48 PM PST
Why do u hate piracy so much anyway? open ur mind to different possibilities. I mean, the software you DONT have, causes the same loss as pirated that software. If u don't have WinME, then the industry dont gain profit. If u pirate WinME then the industry dont gain profit. So, by NOT buying the software, u are in fact in the same class as pirates. Now don't try belittle pirates, as you are the same as them. Everyone is, its just the stereotype in people's head that makes people think it is bad. - by me "Piracy robs legitimate corporations of their profits, no one can argue that." pirates would not pay $400 for a piece of software if piracy wasn't an option. Everyone seems to think that every piece of software that is pirated would normally be paid for if that was the only way to obtain it. For all we know, if there was no piracy, less software would sell... It may whet people's appetite for the software causing more people to buy. You can't tell me for sure what really happens... all these numbers that corps report due to piracy are very bloated. - from another post.

reasons for the fall of communism (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 10:15:30 AM PST
The REAL reason why communism failed is that PEOPLE cannot except the stages you must go through. Now I in know way am a supporter of Communism but I am a historian, theologian, among many other things.

The basic idea of communism:

Overthrow of government by the people
the PEOPLE establish a government
abolish social classes
diffuse government
no government (everyone works for the good of the country)

Pay close attention to the last line. I was watching a Star Trek Movie (the ones with Pickard, not Kirk) and the economy of Earth's future seems to be based on this idea.

Missing ingredient for Star Trek society (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 06:34:10 PM PST
The Star Trek economy has the benefit of a practically limitless, safe, clean, zero-cost energy source that is available everywhere and easily useable by anyone.

bulk (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by poltroon on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 08:26:00 PM PST
The real world simply does not work that way; software companies survive only when they sell software in huge bulk quantities, with tiny markups.

Just want to interject, you seem to presume that all software has huge demand, like fast food or something. In the world I live in, a reasonably small development group can survive if they make a product for a specialized consumer, in which case distribution and advertising aren't very expensive anyway. Of course the price of such software will probably be higher than mass market software, but there's a demand. The overhead for large companies to compete in the same niche would be too much.

True. (none / 0) (#54)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 09:35:23 PM PST
But pirates don't bother with niche software. There is no way a pirate could compete in a niche market without inside knowledge and clout. The only software which makes sense to pirate is indeed software which has huge demand. (Like fast food.)

Peace and much love...

the dot-bomb crash and pirates are not related (none / 0) (#78)
by dotKAMbot on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 12:32:20 PM PST
The crash of the dot-coms has little to do with software piracy. That is one thing you and the poster of this article got wrong. Most of the companies that went south didn't even sell software. They sold services on a webpage that couldn't really be pirated.

What makes anyone here think that if there was NO pirating that the software companies would be doing any better? Just because someone pirates Adobe Photoshop it doesn't mean that they would normally shell out the $400 if pirating wasn't an option. That is why all these figures of billions of dollars lost can't be trusted at all.

I am in no way for pirating software, I think it isn't a very ethical practice. I also think paying for software is for suckers and large corporations. That is why I choose free and open software.


daniel j. wharton

It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

Something better for geeks to do (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by alprazolam on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 01:29:06 PM PST
Jump off a fucking bridge.


I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:46:37 PM PST
Just a little post of support. The human race doesn't deserve g**ks.

Peace and much love...

Yeah... (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:18:07 PM PST
...I agree. In fact, let's choke them out of society by ceasing to use the crap they invented the past 50 years. Please post all replies to the lamppost on 10th and Burnside, Portland, OR, in stickynote form. We'll show 'em!!!

geeks haven't invented shit (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by alprazolam on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 02:24:28 PM PST
keep the engineers, dump the geeks in the bay.

something better for geeks... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 09:47:47 AM PST
don't forget that the geeks invented stickynotes...
use paper and paste instead...

oh wait... geeks invented that too...

American companies can do their part... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Ruri on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 05:10:46 PM PST
By producing something worth buying for once.

So are you saying... (4.00 / 2) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 05:27:36 PM PST
...that economic prosperity for your country is not worth paying for?

Thanks to people like you is that America is heading to a repression.

What your saying... (none / 0) (#12)
by Ruri on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 06:17:11 PM PST
... Is that I should idiotically just pay corporations tons of my money for inferior products that I don't need "for my country."

If you're using their products then... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by MessiahWWKD on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:11:35 PM PST
Of course!
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

It is your peace and war-time duty (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 01:02:46 AM PST
America's economy is based on trade and consumption. If you do not consume, you are an economic zero. Not only have you failed your nation, you have failed yourself, and made yourself irrelevant in the modern world. Your miserly arrogance is a drain on the economy.

Abandon all your false notions of self-worth, derived almost certainly from high-school guidance counsellor wishful thinking. Your major contribution to this nation and society is based purely in buying, and helping our corporations grow to dominate the world. It is pure self-indulgence to ignore this fact.

By establishing factories in third world nations to supply demand back home, companies forestall terrorist threats, not only by bringing prosperity to potentiall terroristic, undeveloped nations, but also by providing work for idle hands, which might otherwise be put to bomb manufacturing uses. If you do not buy Nike products manufactured in Mexico and Thailand, you let our nation down militarily and economically.

America finds itself in the path of an oncoming recession that may well be as bad as the 1930s. The only way to help rescue the economy is to buy. I say to you, any American who has money left in his bank account by the time the next pay-packet arrives is a traitor to our nation, and an accomplice to terror. If our nation does not consume, we cannot grow. If we do not grow, we may never be safe again. It is your patriotic duty to buy strictly American, to support our ailing industry. Every SUV you buy from GM and Ford is one step forward, towards the prosperity we once enjoyed in the fifties. Help save America by buying American.

Banks are professiona Americans (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Coward on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 05:31:00 PM PST
We are but amateurs. Money left in the bank account is taken by the bank and used to loan to corporations building factories overseas. By saving, you sacrifice (gat a piddling interest rate) so that banks can help corporations expand.
So spend not. Leave that to the professionals.
-- Support the home page homeless.

Just as an aside... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by sdem on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 07:54:41 PM PST
Have you read Brave New World?


every SUV you buy from GM... (none / 0) (#77)
by dotKAMbot on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 12:18:44 PM PST
... is one step forward, towards no ozone layer and an energy crisis.

do you actually believe this crap about Nike keeping bombs out of the hands of children? Please, this is a sorry excuse to buy Nike. Nike is there because they will put a pair of $200 sneakers together for $.50. Why? Because if they refuse their ass will be beaten and tortured. How about this! Instead of spending money on sneakers put together by slave labor, how about you buy a shoe put together in the USA by some AMERICAN making atleast minumum wage! That might boost the economy a little.

help save america by buying american

daniel j. wharton

It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

Pirates Arrr Matey (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 06:42:00 PM PST
:) Theres a program called Morpheus that blows napster outta the water. You can get it at aka,

It file sharing with fast searches, and all media formats - mpgs mp3, divx etc, as well as good old ripped software with keygens and reg hacks.

God Bless Piracy,


downloads (none / 0) (#21)
by THC 1138 on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 11:15:37 PM PST
I like audiogalaxy for music downloads. It supports download resume in case the downloader, or loadee. is interrupted. And it seeks out the fastest, closest connection. I find it to be faster than Morpheus, but you can only download music with it.

How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

Full Circle (4.00 / 1) (#14)
by Observer on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 07:32:58 PM PST
All across the board, there is nothing here but ignorance and zealotry.

Take a look at a greater picture. Corporations today are of such monolithic proportions that they have resorted to highly damaging practices just to keep their weight from collapsing. In addition, they are omnipresent and threaded tightly within the ranks of the United States government. George W. Bush is a perfect example, as he is completely transparent in his willingness to submit to corporate interests.

The real danger lies in the upper echelons of the financial community. Venture capitalists literally decimated the economy with their blindness, along with the glitz and glamour Dotcom front which sought to make a quick buck. People of the major nations today are held under the thumbs of mega-corporations and select individuals with bankrolls in the billions. The high horse of anti-piracy needs to be dismounted. Take a look at those raking in six figures while out on the golf course before you chastize people downloading software. Most of the software is not worth the money it costs and the financial situation for many in the tech industry whom would be downloading software is so abysmal that spending close to two hundred would mean more late bill payments. While those seated up on high look for more ways to squeeze money from the citizens, the citizens grow upset. The United States seems quite similar to ancient Rome.

Before Bill Gates, the concept of software licensing was not held in high regard, as hardware needs to be present for software to work on. Hardware was where money was made, while software needed to be available to provide a purpose for said hardware. Playing on ignorance and greed, Bill Gates was able to make direct financial compensation for software a predominant mentality. He is still an unrelenting demagogue.

The groundword has been laid for an Orwellian nightmare. When looking at software piracy, there are two sides to take. However, software piracy alone is far from the entire picture. Currently, no balance exists. Corporations are milking that fact for all it's worth, and the ones to benefit will be those in power, yet again.

Software piracy is the revolt of the citizens. Revolution starts gradually, travelling through the segments of the population which have the most foresight. It then progresses to larger parts of the mainstream, whereupon those in power begin to realize what is going on. By this time, it is too late. They must either change or fall. Currently, the situation is beyond the point of no return. The only way the currently entrenched hegemony can maintain is through force and actions of totalitarianism. This is already taking place and has been for years, most recently with security suggestions which would not significantly help, but are rallied behind in light of recent events.

You who say the economy is bad because of software pirates can stick your heads back in the sand and wait for another scapegoat. This economy has been fucked for a long time. If it were based on merit, as honor would dictate, then honorable auto mechanics, farmers and techies would have millions in their bank accounts. I'm not talking about utopia. However, not all would be bright and rosy in the aforementioned scenario either. Greed would rise again, and we'd be stuck with arrogant engineers with questionable moral principles, not entirely unlike society today. Simply replace engineers with greedy bankers and politicians and we're back to reality.

The United States government has become a corporation. Corporations are the epitome of everything bad in human nature; greed, arrogance, fear, etc... They are above the law. Bad things happen, people die, money is lost. Change takes time, so all that can be done is pull together and keep plodding along. Just don't be blinded by the likes of Microsoft.

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by dmg on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 07:59:18 PM PST
You should check out david icke's website he has a lot to say on this phenomenon. When asked which pill to take, try the blue one first :-)

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Insightful post. (3.00 / 2) (#20)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:52:19 PM PST
Just wanted to add that "state capitalism" is the same as "communism". So if you support commercial software, you're really supporting Stalin. Way to go.

Peace and much love...

Piracy (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Logical Analysis on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:01:22 AM PST
While I always enjoy a good attack on the corporate world, I found that I disagree with some points of your otherwise enjoyable post.

[..] The high horse of anti-piracy needs to be dismounted. Take a look at those raking in six figures while out on the golf course before you chastize people downloading software. Most of the software is not worth the money it costs and the financial situation for many in the tech industry whom would be downloading software is so abysmal that spending close to two hundred would mean more late bill payments. While those seated up on high look for more ways to squeeze money from the citizens, the citizens grow upset. The United States seems quite similar to ancient Rome.

Pirates point to Copyright as being the enemy and the reason that there is a huge disparity of wealth in this country (US). While it is true copyright protection has been made too powerful, their alternative, no copyright protections, is just as bad.

Who is it that creates most of the copyrighted work in this country? I'll give you a hint -- it's not "Buffy" or "Lance" out there on the golf course, its Joe Blow programmer and John Q. Author.

The real problem is the method of distribution. In the internet age, there is really no need for middlemen like record companies, software distribution companies, and the managing & distribution class as a whole. We have the most powerful distribution tool in history, the internet. Who needs CompUSA when the same software can be downloaded off the net?

Yes, I said downloaded. Up to this point, the internet has been used mainly for transmitting free (as in costing no $) and pirated software. However there is no reason commercial software, music, and books cannot be distributed legitimately via the same system. Such a system would allow authors to bypass the middlemen and get paid directly. And if the middlemen are bypassed, then Buffy and Lance aren't going to get their paycheck and *gasp* will actually have to do some useful work for a change.

The internet has a chance of being the great equalizer, the land of equal opportunity, etc. but only if we stop using it for pirating and start using it for legitimate commerce.

The debate has been framed by the software communists as a war against copyright, but this is entirely wrong. It must be a war against the middlemen... A war against the No-Value Added Reseller.

Copyright Protection (none / 0) (#51)
by Observer on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 05:53:54 PM PST
You're pretty much dead on in regard to the copyright laws and complete lack thereof.

I slacked off with elaboration on "However, software piracy alone is far from the entire picture. Currently, no balance exists. Corporations are milking that fact for all it's worth, and the ones to benefit will be those in power, yet again.". By that, I was referring to the control of software by corporations in general, from copyright controls to distribution and author compensation. At present, there are either free programs or those which some form of payment or licensing. Now, if there are critical components of a computer which are absolutely essential to its operation, that might be something which could be expected to come with the system, not unlike software drivers from the manufacturer of a piece of hardware. I would strongly encourage software classes, as in placing operating systems under a regulated system for distribution. From there, another class of software could be on the productivity and design level, whereupon the likes of MS Office and Adobe Photoshop would be allowed their free reign as is currently in place. The venerable entertainment category is a necessity, of course, along with a class of scientific programs. It also comes back to the struggle to eliminate the middle-man, as you'd noted. Keeping the costs at commodity levels is essential (though it seems that literally everything in the modern world is becoming a commodity, including people - good or bad? tough question, but likely an inevitable societal progression).

I certainly realize that the classification and subclassification of software would raise issues of its own, but at least it would assist in prevention of price gouging for critical components. Everything which is higher level becomes fair game. Microsoft's monopoly on the end user desktop is appalling, and as such, the company is free to rape consumers at will. As others have pointed out, if Microsoft were to simply price their software at a point which makes one pause to think about a 10 hour download, the software would sell far more easily, resulting in as much, if not more revenue. This is the scenario playing out with DVDs, wherein the reproduction costs for mass distribution are mere dollars, while pirating the disks includes the cost of the media, which is too expensive even in moderate bulk to make piracy truly worthwhile. The only major exceptions here which make piracy appealing would be releases delayed by geographic location that can be obtained through illegal channels, and the oppressive region codes which would be bypassed and deemed a pirate act. Capitalism at its finest, really; give the people what they want (then there's the masterful art of creating a perceived want, which is a discussion in and of itself). Back to having classifications, Microsoft would likely concentrate more on their productivity software and other ventures, allowing the operating system to be extended by other companies as opposed to being dominated and jealously guarded by the behemoth. I'm not even saying that Microsoft would need to open the source for the Windows operating system, simply that they be prevented from using their monopoly status. We can create our own operating systems, or filter our own water for drinking (or our own urine, through charcoal... I'll pass while I've got a faucet, thanks). Would it be worth it if water and sewage services cost an average middle-class income wage earner's entire paycheck? Good luck with rent.

Please, feel free to poke holes or plug them with fortifications of your own, as ideas come together as a communal effort in many cases. Besides, I believe that the current internet is a model for the next half-century in real life. National borders will begin to blur and the majority of the world with progress from the nation-state to a plethora of communities the size of cities, at least in general. Each will likely be predominantly independent and self-sufficient (small hydro or aeroponic farms in each community, capable of supporting most of the locals whereas other communities will be predominantly technology or manufacturing based and so on...), yet still interdependent upon each other enough that they are mostly inseperable and can quickly assist those communities which might encounter mishaps. Not quite a hive society, but far more reliable and less volatile than the over-zealous patriotism present in many nations today.

Back to the matter at hand; I had wondered, during the anti-trust trial proceedings, if the concept of forcing Microsoft to shift to an educational institute would be an effective course of action. Granted, many universities have become not unlike corporations themselves, but they still have more integrity than those with the sole drive of financial gain. Xerox has PARC, IBM has their research departments and Microsoft of course has their own research division. What are the differences between all of these? Microsoft does not produce any tangible product. Xerox and IBM have manufacturing facilities. Microsoft outsources all of their hardware manufacturing, at least to my knowledge. I've never seen a single mouse, keyboard, joystick or speaker system from the giant which wasn't tagged with other companies on the internal components. Would a university be able to charge exorbitant monetary sums for an operating system? Microsoft already strives to suck students dry, as is evident with the myriad of Microsoft Certified Semantics-Zombie courses and tests. I say complete the transformation and allow the industry to progress.

I protest what Microsoft stands for (as exemplified by its actions as a whole - i do not consider any collection of beneficial advances enough to offset its vile nature and refusal to find a place in the industry) by using only free software, operating systems and avoiding employment at the campus or otherwise. Of course, that makes it difficult, being in the lion's den, but it's the principle that matters. Well, enough spewing; sorry for the long-windedness. Hopefully this'll simply provoke more of the thus far engaging discussion :)

I think it's a tragedy that we let the people we call protectors inflict and oppress us. ~Ozomatli

Disturbing lack of journalistic integrity. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:26:53 AM PST
Although I agree with the facts of this article, there's one serious error that needs to be addressed: "turn people in." Some people will tell you that split infinitives are perfectly legal, but these are the same people who claim they smoke pot for medicinal reasons. Please change the poll to "turn in people;" in addition to being gramatically correct, it will also flow better.

Thank you.

You, sir, are an intellectual idiot. (3.00 / 2) (#26)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 02:18:39 AM PST
If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me[1]. The "no split infinitives" rule was made up out of thin air in order to bring English grammer closer to Latin grammer. I don't know about you, but I don't give two shits about Latin grammar. (Non gratum anus rodentum.) Please stop this pseudo-intellectual snobbery. You're just showing your lower-class upbringing when you make comments like that[2].


[1] Shakespeare used split infinitives. In fact, split infinitives have pretty much always been an integral part of the modern English language.

[2] In reality, any American could be considered to be of lower-class upbrining, but I won't quibble over trivialities here.

Peace and much love...

You're both illiterate. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 02:38:52 PM PST
That isn't a split infinitive in the first place, you morons.

As the other AR in this thread mentions... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by em on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 04:37:09 PM PST
...there is no infinitive there-- it's a verb-particle construction. Not only has it always been fine to "split" them, when the object is a pronoun you are at best almost forced to split them. Turn it in is perfect English; the "unsplit" *Turn in it is ungrammatical.

God, you made even a bigger fool of yourself than you can grasp.
Associate Editor,

Hooked on econ (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by slaytanic killer on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 05:12:15 AM PST
Sure, I'd buy more if things were cheaper. In the future, I envision mundane places, even grocery stores, discounting the costs of their merchandise, to increase buyer demand.

In the future, we will even have a word for that.

i still like Linux (none / 0) (#33)
by THC 1138 on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:53:48 AM PST
better than windows. Microsoft = the devil worshipping, immoral, infidels in the middle east Linux = the God fearing, religious right of America

How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

You're damn right! (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:00:37 PM PST
I am one of the geeks that you speak of. Now I see the error of my ways and I'm determined to stop pirating stuff as of right now. No more unethical pirating for me!

Er, wait a minute, I take that back. What is it that I should stop pirating again? I only use Free Software and listen only to classical music which, to the best of my knowledge, is long since out of copyright. I don't have a TV and I won't be caught dead watching American movies, much less pirating them. Now that I think of it, I'm not even American. What the heck am I doing posting in this thread?

And who will buy classical musicians their heroin? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:21:51 PM PST
You think only rock stars have drug habits and illegitimate babies to support? Flautists and violinists live on what? Air? Love?

You might also want to come out of the basement some time and see if any new classical has been written in the last century. You're in for a shock.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

wats wrong with music piracy? (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 08:51:50 PM PST
whats wrong with music piracy anyway? I haven't bought a CD for 2 years, and if MP3s didnt exist, I STILL wouldnt have bought one for 2 years. I find it stupid if you just like 1 song on an album to buy a whole album, even the singles are ridiculously over priced. So I just don't buy them.

Copywrong (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by twodot72 on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 01:27:25 PM PST
listen only to classical music which, to the best of my knowledge, is long since out of copyright
You pirate!

The copyright for the actual score has lapsed, but the copyright for the performances you can find recorded certainly has not. So by all means, if you perform the classical music yourself, good for you. But if you are copying recordings of the performances of our fine orchestras, shame on you pirate!

But that's exactly the problem (4.00 / 1) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:31:27 AM PST
What merit do the fat and greedy record companies have on music that has been composed ages ago? That merit should barely go to the orchestra that performed the piece. But when people go buy that music they don't buy works performed by their "favorite" orchestra, or recorded by their "favorite" record company (which by the way make the most profit out ot it anyway). They instead are interested in the music itself which is mostly the merit of the composer. How would you like it if I found a long lost classical piece and made millions of dollars on it as if it was my own creation?

So if piracy is even to just rob only record companies out of their "well earned" (NOT!) money, then LONG LIVE PIRACY!

On behalf of the geeks (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 01:47:17 PM PST
We "geeks" are not software pirates. Tru some software pirates are geeks but NOT ALL. There are more distributors out there that sell illegal software and more copies of it than there are geeks. My advice "Learn to spot a fake".

Anyone with a CD burner can pirate software (including Playstation games) and you don't have to be overly intelligent to do it.

Hell go to China, Indiia, Saudia Arabia, and get "low cost" software that's really just pirated (and usually virus ridden).

<<Microsoft's .NET system , a platform where any licensed corporation can develop and deploy such "limited software," has flourished among industry due to fears provoked by a sustained hack attack.>>

How can .NET really flourish if it is really not all that wide spread? It's not exactly popular. Niether is Microsoft's licesning plans with force companies to upgade every 2 years.

Do your research before you place blame or put anyone person or give any company a medal.

Say it how it is!!! (none / 0) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:26:35 PM PST
Say it how it is!!!!

Check this out (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 02:27:52 AM PST
So I need new jerk-off material, yeah? So I walk down to the Korean liquor store on the corner to buy a porn vid, and get this, the old lady who runs the place has her grandson sitting there, doing his homework, NOT THREE FEET AWAY form the goddamn porn rack! Blew my fuckin' mind. How am I supposed to peruse pornos with a little kid sitting right next to me? I just bought a Mountain Dew and got the hell outa there. Way to go, grandma-san, that's twenty bucks of MY money you won't be seeing today.

That's shame, son (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 06:21:59 AM PST
and proof in your own mind that you consider porm shameful and sinful. Why don't you just donate that $20 to the Church and say 5 Hail Mary's.

A. Rightmann

I doubt it. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 07:02:13 AM PST
I don't think the Hail Mary's are going to have an effect on him, since he's most likely not a Catholic.

Peace and much love...

Miracles happen (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 07:05:50 AM PST
and if he reflects enough upon the Immaculate Conception, he may feel God within and return to the Church.

A. Rightmann

I doubt it. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 07:17:23 AM PST
Most people are to callous to "feel the God within" nowadays. Although music or poetry sometimes does that to you. (Seriously.)

Peace and much love...

And many of those that do are drugged (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 07:43:02 AM PST
I'm not repeating the dangerous information that psychedelics make you see God, but rather people with real visions are often misdiagnosed by the establishment as being insane, and given lots of expensive medication. If the pharmacuetical-medical complex had been around at the time of Saul, he would have been locked up, sedated and give thorazine until he disavowed his Damascene experience.

A. Rightmann

Just be careful. (none / 0) (#65)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 08:22:44 AM PST
Psychedelics/visions make you see something that beyond our material world. Whether that's God or something more sinister/malignant is an open question. Just be careful, this is dangerous ground you're walking on.

Peace and much love...

God on Acid (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 08:33:57 PM PST
I'm a devout atheist, if God himself were to appear before me I would deny his existance. Imagine my surprise on my first ever LSD trip to hear a voice telling me I should be nice to everyone, that the world is a really nice place to be, reality rocks and that we should all work together for a better world. If that voice wasnt God, who was it? Why would God create substances that cause hallucinations which proclaim the same basic message that he's been putting out all these millenia? Not that I disagree with that message at all (things like peace, compassion and all that other stuff that Jesus seemed to be into), I think that we should all work to make the world a better place. I just dont think that spending time worshipping a God makes any difference, if there really is a judgement day and God decides to send me to hell even if I spend all my life trying to be good to other people, then I dont want any part of it. Some Christians tell me that its not like that at all, that I'm saved anyway because Jesus died for our sins. Well whoop de doo, that means I dont have to believe in him then doesnt it?

As for the medication of people who believe they are talking to God, the diagnostic criteria for illness such as schizophrenia specifically excludes any religious experiences. If there is a definate element of religion involved then any doctor worth their diploma should tell the "patient" to go seek religious advice, and I would agree that anyone who is being treated for such an illness simply for having a religious vision is indeed being severly mistreated.

I still dont believe in God, yet all the times I've done LSD I've always come away with the sense of being in contact with some god figure of some form. Its probably due to the ego breakdown, but the sense that its amused by my continued disbelief is mildly irritating...

I see... (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:00:39 AM PST
So when you see a mother hugging her child, you say "This is not happening, it must be some drugs messing with my head".

One's worst enemy is one's self.

Who still pays for porn? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by egg troll on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 09:15:16 AM PST
In this day and age of electronic delights, who on earth still goes to a store and buys porn? And a liquor store at that!! The whole purpose of the Internet seems to be facillitating the transfer of porn from one computer to another (with MP3s an extremely close second.) Having to go out and face another person with whatever your selection of porn is as antiquated as beating your laundry against a rock.

Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

FUCK SCOOP! (0.66 / 3) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 01:22:22 PM PST
The guys at should invest in a new message board layout. There are a lot of great, funny, and FUCKING STUPID things being posted and it's a BITCH to find all the newest stuff.

Here's a GREAT example:

It's a PC board (specifically this one is about hardware) so all you self proclaimed non-geeks that like to act like you know something can go their and post. Oh wait sorry you actually have to be smart and know SOMETHING beyond point-and-click.

Pirate all you want (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:51:35 PM PST
I'm putting my investments in Health care, Finance, and Biotech (a hitech industry where people have brains and markets). Everyone's got a fucking computer running a crappy OS which will only get worse. They don't need to buy any more. The fucking comp stocks are still bloated. They need to loose more money beore they are safe to buy.

Is piracy really that bad? Does anyone REALLY lose (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 08:47:56 PM PST
With piracy, nobody really loses. The only thing that people don't like about it, is that people GAIN things. Yet the software companies dont lose Piracy 99% of the time is not STEALING, and is also does not make the industry lose much money at all, as the exaggerated figures would like you to think. When software is 'pirated', nobody loses anything, except maybe, rarely, the company might lose a customer. But they don't LOSE anything, they just don't GAIN anything. The majority of the time anyway, people aren't intending on buying the software, and if it is unavailable in pirated version, they just won't get it. I mean, the software companies suffer the same loss from people who don't buy the software, and from people who pirate it. Adobe Photoshop is expensive. Just because someone gets a pirate of it, doesn't mean that if piracy didn't exist they would get it legally. If piracy didn't exist, they just probably would not buy it. Either way, the market still suffers the same 'loss', whether it is pirated, or the customer just doesn't buy it OR pirate it. Isn't it better anyway to have a pirated copy of Photoshop, than to not have a copy at all? The pirated copy didn't cause the market any loss. But if they didn't pirate it, it still is the same situation. Think about it.

I'm not AMERICAN!!!! (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:23:07 PM PST
Fine. You americans do that. Us non americans'll continue doing what we do every day.



All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to