Thanks for the reply. We both agree to the principals outlined in the AUA but as you have pointed out many of the realities are different. However I do have a couple of points to throw in here.
The first is the success of an open source product against the biggest of the software suppliers. Open Office is a great success story. The adoption across Europe by major government departments, councils etc. The adoption by the schools of NSW of open office. There are alternatives, they can be used, they do work. This model CAN WORK.

The second example that leaps to mind is MAYA the 3d development platform. Maya releases the fully featured product in its PLE edition (Personal learning edition) The products producted here are watermarked with a PLE label.

I would raise a question too about the learning institutions that are essentially pushing students to break the law (Piracy is theft after all) by specifiying that you must use this tool, and then not supplying realistic timelines, availablity, or outcomes. It is a grey area. its also patently unfair.

Macromedia (now part of adobe) had a great program that had cheap liciencing available to education. This I believe lead to dreamweaver and flash becoming industry standards. If this was more widely adopted would it work?

You are right that the model for compensation currently in play does not work. We only have to look at china & microsoft as an example. The huge levels of piracy in China led MS to taking a different approach to how it licences and sells Software in this huge market.

But in the end… No matter what justifications we can put on why people will pirate software, how unfair the costs are, these are simply justifications or excuses for what is an illegal, unethical and immoral act. I do understand the “why” it happens but the act is still wrong however understandable.

But as others have mentioned, I feel #5 should be under #6.

As a student interested in digital art, I find myself working with high level software that is simply not accessible to lower income (read: most) students. While there are open source and free alternatives available (I love what’s going on with GIMP, and use it as much as I can), these are not the programs used in the “real world”, let alone what is being taught in the classroom. As a result, I am afraid that I have to use unofficial copies of this software in order to complete coursework and in order to appear competent in the field. If I were in fact to purchase every piece of software that I have used to complete my undergraduate education, I would have spent enough (over $10,000 USD, even under student pricing) to finance another whole year of higher education at a public university (tuition, room & board, books, etc).

It is an undocumented truth that it is these pirated copies of software are what future practitioners and purchasers cut their teeth upon. Much like the textbook sharing programs that have sustained lower income students in the world of academia, unofficial sharing of expensive software is but another form of this.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe and will fight for the right for creators of software to be justly compensated. As a producer of digital art and software, I am well aware of the abuses and inequity that are attached to piracy. Stealing and Abuse are NOT concepts of an old world that will be eclipsed in the digital era. On the other hand, In regards to mainstream commercial software, I understand that there are student & bulk/institutional licensing discounts, yet they still remain outside the means of a university student, let alone a person without the means to even own their own computer. But I believe participation in the means of production of digital works is as much of a right as it is with analog works. This is a need that must be addressed and acknowledged by all software creators, and will require a great change in the way that we look at the compensatory model of digital works.

As long as there is such an overwhelming “grey area” in regards to the utilization of such software and the teaching and training of it (especially in academia), no student, faculty or staff will be able to agree to this AUA in good, honest faith. The copy fight is messy & includes many unknowns, but it is a fight that must be fought in order to maintain the advocacy and freedom of the individual.

The current models that we have are being pushed beyond their breaking points. This is a complicated conversation that is in progress, and is one in which the rights of content creators AND users must be addressed and respected.

I would love to hear what you all think, and to continue this dialogue.

If this is useful please use it.

Cheers

A

I appreciate your input and I love the “I will act with integrity” statement

cheers

A