I agree with you , i was just trying make my ideas more objective with that comparation i belive that someday the prices will be more lower but if that time doesnt come we are going to leave a place for our old friend piracy.

A lot of you have been debating whether pirating software is morally right or wrong, but you forgot one critical piece of it...

Everyone on this forum who has access to the Advanced Member usergroup and the FTP Server and downloads and uploads software to and from the FTP Server.........is a software pirate because such distribution of software almost always is in violation with the end user license agreements.

Most people on earth with a computer will have pirated some form of media or software, so nobody can escape it.

Although approximately 40% of all users (As shown by numerous studies) have at least one pirated copy of software, not nearly as many are guilty of software piracy on the basis that most users don't knowingly and willfully possess, use, or distribute pirated software. As a result, the element of mens rea can't be established, thus making most of these users not guilty of software piracy by mistake of fact.

Mens rea is only really applicable to criminal law - Copyright law predominantly falls under civil or common law in most countries. Here in the UK, just simply pirating a DVD would be solely a civil case in court, and therefore no proof of intent or understanding is needed to secure a favourable ruling. Proving intent may increase the penalties, but failing to prove intent can and does still lead to a ruling against the accused.

In the United States of America, there are both, criminal and civil statutes for copyright violations.

In regards to civil cases, the ruling/verdict usually depends on whether or not the defendant can be reasonably expected to know under law that the copy is pirated. So for example, if a defendant makes absolutely no effort to validate authenticity of the software (although they might honestly and reasonably believe that the copy is genuine as defined by criminal copyright statutes), the defendant would in such a case be civilly liable, but criminally inculpable.

On the other hand, if the defendant obtains a copy of copyrighted software legally, obtains the license legally, uses it in accordance with the corresponding license agreement, and makes all of the required effort to validate authenticity (For example via Windows Product Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage, as well as installing all updates designed to protect the user from piracy), and if the defendant later finds out that the copy is pirated and follows the proper procedure to obtain a genuine copy, then the defendant is not liable and criminally inculpable.

The later case you describe doesn't make up that big a portion of piracy, and is the exact thing MS target WGA at. People who have been unknowingly provided with pirate media, etc. I believe they also do a cut-price "Get Genuine Kit", which replaces their pirate windows with a legit copy, for a reduced price, as long as they provide evidence (ie, receipts) from where they bought it.

Most piracy cases are dealt with civilly, even when there are both options available, because that route has more benefits for the copyright holder, and getting a criminal case through court is substantially harder. The only "piracy" cases pushed through criminal courts, at least here in the UK, are those that involve large-scale commercial piracy, and then, generally only those that involve distributing pirated goods physically - ones that involve online distribution have been notably less successful so far.

Now, in regards to piracy of pre-release builds of copyrighted software (Such as the distribution that occurs here).

Although no court has ever ruled on this issue, fair use might apply here to some extent. Most, if not all sites on the beta scene research pre-release builds and properly archive them without causing any financial damage and without infringing on the copyright owner's right to profit from the product.

Considering the fact that here on Beta Archive pre-release builds are properly researched and archived, by the time the copyright expires builds of this software will be obsolete, no copyright-free alternative exists, and the copyright owner's right to profit is not infringed, it could be considered fair use.

Apart from the fact that fair-use doesn't exist in most countries - the US and Israel are the only countries with comprehensive fair-use exceptions in their copyright law - even in the US and Israel, the distribution of copyrighted software, even with no modification and the lack of any alternative, is still just plain illegal. The idea that fair use would cover such an action is simply naive.

I wish people would stop trying to dress up the legality of sharing betas - it is not a grey area, there is no possible exception that would make it legitimate, it would never hold up in court any better than any other software piracy case. I personally have no qualms about breaking copyright law when I see no other practical option, such as when the item in question is not commercially available, but I see no point in denying what it is.

Well considering the fact that in most pre-release build distributions there's no damage caused and no infringement on copyright owners' rights to profit, there's no civil liability. As for criminal culpability, there's a grey area there.

I also don't see what makes you think that such an argument would never hold up in court.

Oh, I forgot. Copyright law was invented to protect profit...

...by ensuring that the copyright owner remains in control of the content. Just because it doesn't directly affect their profit, does not affect their ability to claim successfully. It might affect the damages they can claim, but realistically, that's it. Microsoft do not provide an exemption for non-commercial use, which is unsurprising.

And then, even assuming you foxed your way around copyright law, there's still contractual law that you have to resolve - you did, after all, agree to the end-user licence agreement...

OK you can't legally agree to an end-user license agreement if the product isn't legally licensed to you. Furthermore, a lot of these agreements are in many ways legally invalid. For example, Microsoft End-User License Agreements for MS-DOS 6.00 and MS-DOS 6.20 are unenforceable on the grounds that both of these versions include DoubleSpace Disk Compression Software, which was found to be an infringement on Stac Electronics Stacker Disk Compression in Stac Electronics v. Microsoft Corporation. Additionally, some versions of Microsoft Windows included the Java Virtual Machine, was was found to infringe Sun Microsystem's patent, thus making the Microsoft End-User License Agreement for all versions between Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 1 unenforceable.

As for your argument that although certain uses might not directly infringe on the copyright owner's right to profit it is nonetheless prohibited, Ummm.....Researching and properly archiving pre-release builds DOES NOT indirectly infringe on the copyright owner's right to profit either.

Microsoft Products Are never yours or mine it will always belong to microsoft as it was said on EULA. So you cant sell any microsoft product without their authorization. And you can't modify any source code, if you modify any of that you might be putting yourself in line for an juridic process.

goingawaytomatt: There are some exceptions.

i pay for good software but some publishers are very money hungry. in the current days the software is made for money and not for the users. my opinion.

What MBL did to disconnect the people torrenting his software was interesting to read, since that's exactly how I got caught. It seems the 20th Century Fox regularly hooks up to torrents of their latest movies, and emails the ISPs of all the IPs connected. Fortunatly, my ISP is cool, and I just got a warning. One way to keep from getting caught like that is to not torrent the latest and greatest.

If I was MBL, and I had a piece of software that I saw was being torrented, i would think:


I can't afford anything, having a low-paying job and no real income of money, I am forced to pirate the occasional piece of software, usually an OS or something along the lines of Photoshop that is needed for me to complete certian 'things' that I am keeping to myself for now...

Just my 4 cents (inflation).

In most, if not all Microsoft End User License Agreements, there are some sections that state that users are allowed to do something that would otherwise be a violation "to the extent to which it is permitted by law."

In fact, copyright and contract laws within the jurisdiction in which the software was licensed overrides the Microsoft End User License Agreement.

In the event that a court rules that distribution and use of pre-release builds of copyrighted software in the way that they are distributed and used here is fair use, that would make certain sections of the Microsoft End User License Agreement inapplicable.

OK, that's one good thing about my ISP's NATing of people:
I don't have a public IP address

Well, with all the piracy going on today, a bunch of countries, including the United States, have formed a trade agreement called ACTA (Anit-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). Just search it up on Wikipedia. Looks like these companies are really aggressive now huh?