pokertracker question

[Herr Mensch 0]

Moreover, if you don't have 55$ to spare for PT, you should not be playing poker.

You had credibility right up to there.The elitism of the wealthier people on this forum is repulsive. My bankroll, when I started, was fifty dollars. Hmmm.... can't afford a 2+2 book, much less PT.You know, there are one- and two- cent and nickle-and-dime tables for a reason.Snob.MenschEDIT: incidentally, once I can afford to drop fifty-five dollars and not miss it, I intend to purchase the most up-to-date version of PokerTracker. It's a wonderful tool, and the writers deserve support. But until then, I will use the cracked, outdated version that I found. If you can show, given that information, how anyone (except the people sitting across the tables from me) have lost a cent on my actions, go right ahead.

[CoolHandLaw 0]

Stealing something which would be refunded to you in one day is really pathetic.

So downloading pirated music, movies and other software is not pathetic then?

[sholden 0]

But I download music to listen to at work which helps me focus on work. In essence, it helps me make money as well.

Then you are a theiving scum.

why? because i download music? I never said that I didn't pay for it.

Well obviously if you get it in a way sanctioned by the copyright owner you aren't stealing it. However, why would you bother mentioning that in this topic - you were replying to my post talking about pirating software in a thread about pirating software and music?

[KappaKid83 0]

pay for it you cheap censored

JEFF

[Tevin 0]

There is a major difference : Even at low stakes, PT will reimburse itself in one day. It will earn you money. Stealing something which would be refunded to you in one day is really pathetic.

Legally there is absolutely no differance. Weather the product aids in financial reimbursement has no bearing on the fact that it is still copywrited, and still illeagle to use if it has not been paid for.Also, PT will not "reimburse" itself. Using poker tracker does not guarentee success nor failure by using it. It only gives you statistics, and possibly an advantage if those statistics are properly applied.So drawing a line of saying "downloading music is ok, because it doesn't make me money" is the lame excuse. Not that you actually said that. But I sense many people do feel that way.Pirating is pirating. Copywrite infringement is c.i. No lines. No gray areas. No differances.The End.Now if people want to blantantly disregard the law. Is that up to us to tell them how evil they are? I don't think so. They know it's illegle. And if the administrators of this forum think it's nessicary they'll stop the action.But what good does it do us to jump in and start a round of name-calling?

[CobaltBlue 662]

Years ago, I came across an interesting argument in favor of software piracy:

A Few Hard Truths...Software Piracy Is A Good Thing (Seriously)GOOD AS IN Mom, apple pie, and that quality which many Americans consider the highest of all virtues - sales volume.Take a minute to think about it. You've undoubtedly seen the figuresput out by industry mouthpieces like the Software Business Alliance, which recently claimed that $2.4 billion was lost to software piracy last year in the United States alone.Frankly, this figure is pure hogwash, as about 10 seconds of study reveals. First of all, SBA has no hard data on the amount of software piracy taking place. Therefore it estimates piracy based on how many software titles it believes an individual is likely to purchase in a year, which is four.Thus, if you only buy a couple software packages, you will be credited in the SBA's calculations as having pirated a couple more - even if you have never pirated anything in your life!This sort of reasoning offers computer users a bizarre choice: either buy as much software as the industry believes appropriate, or be judged statistically guilty of piracy.It also leads industry groups to make the preposterous claim that well over one third of all software used in North America is pirated. Like Jimmy Buffet in A Pirate Looks At 40, "I've done a bit of smugglin'," but I don't know anyone who is using 35% to 59% pirated software, as the SBA claims is the average for in the U.S. and Canada.Then there's the matter of how much piracy subtracts from sales, if anything. Industry groups like the SBA and the Software Publishers Association assume that every piece of pirated software represents a lost sale.Fact is, the vast majority of pirated software does not represent lost sales because most bootlegs are unneeded or useless. Without access to a bootleg copy, most people would never spend 10 seconds with these programs - let alone buy them.And this brings us to a very important point that is entirely overlooked by the software industry. Piracy sells software - perhaps more than anything else. That is to say, instead of SUBTRACTING from software sales, it actually INCREASES them.Let me put this in personal terms. I am the registered owner of thousands of dollars of Windows software (including CorelDraw, Adobe PageMaker, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Intuit Quicken, Calera WordScan, Claris FileMaker, Fauve Matisse, Aldus PhotoStyler, Delrina WinFax Pro, Dvorak NavCis Pro), and I've rarely bought a program that I didn't have as a bootleg first.The thing that sells me on software is working with it. That's what shows me if it's well designed, and meets a real need. If it's truly useful, I will buy it, no matter what it costs. And if it is a turkey, I want it out of here, no matter what it's supposedly worth.I mean, seriously, how much hard disk space does the S.B.A think I have? A gigabyte for myself, and then another couple gigabytes to load up on pirated programs just for the illicit thrill of it?I think not - nor am I unusual in this respect. If an average user has a pirated copy of an app they use regularly enough for it to become an important part of their work (or play), they will eventually need to buy it - for a full manual, for tech support, for new features in the upgraded version, or for simple shrinkwrap lust.Although there may have been time when it was possible to get by with only a set of bootleg disks and a cheat sheet, today's complex programs (and what Windows program isn't complex?) make the manuals, technical support, and bug fixes essential to getting the program to work well.But what about the morality of the thing, you ask? Isn't piracy simply stealing? The industry's answer is yes, but again let's take a closer look. The California penal code, for example, states a person is guilty of theft if they "take, carry, lead or drive away the personal property of another." That is, theft is fundamentally subtractive. A victim of theft must have had something taken from them: a car, a necklace, etc.So what does software piracy take from the software manufacturer? Because the disks are copied, not purloined, the software manufacturer suffers no physical removal of property. The only thing that software pubishers can claim to have lost is the opportunity for profit.But since software piracy actually increases sales and profits, where is the theft? The answer - there isn't any. Software piracy is a good thing, and good for business too.The solution? The industry's hired watchdogs should chill out, and spend their time worrying about real problems, like making software perform as advertised.In fact, if the industry really wants to help sales, it should take some of the money that goes into piracy propaganda, and hire more tech support people. Heck, it might even bring back toll-free tech support! Now there's a concept that would REALLY influence buying decisions.-BB

[Tevin 0]

Years ago, I came across an interesting argument in favor of software piracy:

But what about the morality of the thing, you ask? Isn't piracy simply stealing? The industry's answer is yes, but again let's take a closer look. The California penal code, for example, states a person is guilty of theft if they "take, carry, lead or drive away the personal property of another." That is, theft is fundamentally subtractive. A victim of theft must have had something taken from them: a car, a necklace, etc.

That is probably the worst arguement I have ever read. The "I can steal it before I buy it" argument is terrible. Because for almost every piece of software there is a trial version to find out if you like it or not. But I want to point out this quote specifically--and at how moronic this guy is. First off, under California state law, piracy WOULD be theft. You ARE taking personal property. Intelectual property is property. And you are taking. It does not have to be a physical object for you to take. Code that some one else created, and that you now have by not paying for it is taking. Duh. Beyond that. Under FEDERAL law, copywrite infringement is illegle! Jesus. It's LAW. I could just as easily say, "under Washington state law, going over the speed limit is illegle. Therefore pirating software is not covered in that law. So therefore it isn't illegle." Just because one law may not explicitly state that something may be legal or illegal (as the one he posted). Doesn't mean there isn't another law that does statethat it is a criminal act.There is a specific FEDERAL law that makes pirating illegle, and states that it is theft of Intelectual Property. Enough said. Now can we get back to poker?Tev

[CobaltBlue 662]

That is probably the worst arguement I have ever read.

I'm sorry, but I wrote that specific sentence a number of years ago. You need to pay me for the right to use my intellectual property.Intellectual property rights are a controversial topic because the line is blurry. You've tried to make the issue black and white, but it's not.The article didn't say that piracy isn't illegal. It's obviously copyright infringement. The article is arguing that copyright infringement isn't the same thing as theft.Let's look at a hypothetical example...I hear "Ring of Fire" by Johnny Cash. I like the song. I want to hear it again. I may not go out and spend the money on a full album just for that song, but I go download the single. Then, one of two things happens...1) I like it, but I decide that I don't like Cash's music enough to purchase the album. I never claimed that I created the song. I never made a profit from possessing the song. This doesn't represent a lost sale for Cash's estate. Had I not been able to download it, I would've just gone without it.2) On the other hand, I may decide that I really like Cash's music. Being able to listen to some more songs convinces me to buy an album. It represents a found sale for Cash's estate.