Cultural Centre Sued For Software Piracy

[Mulboyne]

Yomiuri: Cultural center pirated 327 copies of software
A cultural organization funded by the Osaka prefectural government has made 327 illegal copies of software and used them for about seven years, it has been learned. Three software companies have sought tens of millions of yen in compensation from the Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage in Sakai, Osaka Prefecture. The center, which has admitted to the piracy, is holding settlement negotiations with the firms and considering paying copyright fees. According to the center, it made copies of 275 software of seven types developed by Microsoft Corp., Adobe Systems Inc. and Autodesk Inc. between February 1999 and June 2006. The software, including Adobe Illustrator and Microsoft Office, were copied onto computers of some employees to prepare reports.

[Visitor K]

somebody needs to tell them about linux.

..makes sense that it was in kansai, where all the cheap bastards live (i always had to laugh when a tight-ass tokyoite would make this claim).

[ttjereth]

somebody needs to tell them about linux.

..makes sense that it was in kansai, where all the cheap bastards live (i always had to laugh when a tight-ass tokyoite would make this claim).

Every company I've worked at in Tokyo so far has pirated software. Every last one of them. Some of them didn't even have a single piece of legal software other than the OS that came with the PCs...

[Visitor K]

Every company I've worked at in Tokyo so far has pirated software. Every last one of them. Some of them didn't even have a single piece of legal software other than the OS that came with the PCs...

oh, i know.. before moving to japan i was a network administrator, and one of the biggest pains was keeping the microsoft registration shit in order, but when i went to japan, it seemed every school i worked for used just one copy of the software for each computer.. at some schools, i was tempted to call the software cops on them, but im not against software piracy, in fact i think in most cases software should be free (ive used linux for about ten years now).
i will never understand why government, educational, and non-profit organizations continue to pay for licenses for software when linux is out there for free.

[ttjereth]

oh, i know.. before moving to japan i was a network administrator, and one of the biggest pains was keeping the microsoft registration shit in order, but when i went to japan, it seemed every school i worked for used just one copy of the software for each computer.. at some schools, i was tempted to call the software cops on them, but im not against software piracy, in fact i think in most cases software should be free (ive used linux for about ten years now).
i will never understand why government, educational, and non-profit organizations continue to pay for licenses for software when linux is out there for free.

I think part of it is that Linux requires more skill and knowledge than most of the people doing computer administration in the smaller to mid-size companies in Japan possess (myself included).

Another part of it is just lack of knowledge I think. I've had clients try to pressure me into buying a Mac and repurchasing licenses for MS Word (for Mac!) and all of my Adobe software, because the clients used Macs and thought it would be "safer" than having me work on those files with Windows versions of the same software... and I know companies which have literally 10's of thousands of U.S. $$$ worth (or would be if it was real, most isn't) of software and versions just to be able to use the same versions as clients (whether at the request of clients or decided on their own). Software isn't cheap at the best of times, but when you would need to spend a significant percentage of company profits on it, you might be more slightly more inclined not to pay for it/get it cheaper where you can (most of the pirated software used in the companies I've had experience with was actually purchased, albeit at steep discounts...).

[Charles]

...I've had clients try to pressure me into buying a Mac and repurchasing licenses for MS Word (for Mac!) and all of my Adobe software, because the clients used Macs and thought it would be "safer" than having me work on those files with Windows versions of the same software... and I know companies which have literally 10's of thousands of U.S. $$$ worth (or would be if it was real, most isn't) of software and versions just to be able to use the same versions as clients (whether at the request of clients or decided on their own). Software isn't cheap at the best of times, but when you would need to spend a significant percentage of company profits on it, you might be more slightly more inclined not to pay for it/get it cheaper where you can (most of the pirated software used in the companies I've had experience with was actually purchased, albeit at steep discounts...).

They could be right.. sort of. Let me point out:

1. Windows is notorious for poor color management. Mac rules.
2. Powerpoint is notoriously poor at Mac/Win compatibility.
3. You can run your Windows software versions on Macs now.

[ttjereth]

They could be right.. sort of. Let me point out:

1. Windows is notorious for poor color management. Mac rules.
2. Powerpoint is notoriously poor at Mac/Win compatibility.
3. You can run your Windows software versions on Macs now.

1. Adobe has it's own color management software/settings for Windows versions of it's software making them identical to those on Adobe products on Mac.
2. I don't generally work with PowerPoint. It's a piece of shit no matter what the platform. There are severe incompatibilities between versions on windows!
3. Under Windows with boot camp you mean? That doesn't really provide me with any incentive to purchase an entirely new (overpriced) piece of hardware.

[Charles]

1. Adobe has it's own color management software/settings for Windows versions of it's software making them identical to those on Adobe products on Mac.
2. I don't generally work with PowerPoint. It's a piece of shit no matter what the platform. There are severe incompatibilities between versions on windows!
3. Under Windows with boot camp you mean? That doesn't really provide me with any incentive to purchase an entirely new (overpriced) piece of hardware.

1. Except that it a) doesn't work as well and b) isn't systemwide like Colorsync. I could go on and on (as this is my area of professional expertise) but the short shrift is that Windows color management sucks. Using the Adobe CMM system will put you right on the same level as the Mac OS (as it was in 1990).
2. Oh don't I know it. I've personally had better PPT compatibility using Apple Keynote. But I know corporations that live or die by PPT. You are lucky to not have to use it.
3. No, not Boot Camp. There are seamless apps like Parallels that run Windows apps right inside MacOS X. You know we're on Intel processors now, right? But still, native Mac apps run better.

Anyway, this isn't the place for a lengthy Mac/PC debate but it seemed like you didn't know you could run PC apps on a Mac so this is not a dealbreaker anymore. I know someone who does this because they have some stupid Adobe PC app used for subtitling, they'd rather run Final Cut Pro but they have to use the PC crap to work with their company's files.

[ttjereth]

1. Except that it a) doesn't work as well and b) isn't systemwide like Colorsync. I could go on and on (as this is my area of professional expertise) but the short shrift is that Windows color management sucks. Using the Adobe CMM system will put you right on the same level as the Mac OS (as it was in 1990).
2. Oh don't I know it. I've personally had better PPT compatibility using Apple Keynote. But I know corporations that live or die by PPT. You are lucky to not have to use it.
3. No, not Boot Camp. There are seamless apps like Parallels that run Windows apps right inside MacOS X. You know we're on Intel processors now, right? But still, native Mac apps run better.

Anyway, this isn't the place for a lengthy Mac/PC debate but it seemed like you didn't know you could run PC apps on a Mac so this is not a dealbreaker anymore. I know someone who does this because they have some stupid Adobe PC app used for subtitling, they'd rather run Final Cut Pro but they have to use the PC crap to work with their company's files.

Mac/PC debate would be pointless because I'm not anti Mac. The only reasons I don't own one is 1. they are overpriced, 2. Apple's customer service sucks (speaking from experience with iPod issues) and 3. upgrading as well as replacing or adding parts is entirely too expensive and troublesome.

1. I'm not sure what experience you've had, but I've never had a single issue using Adobe's color management on Windows, even with the same file/projects going back and forth between various Windows/Mac OS versions. I don't need it to be systemwide, just for the Adobe apps.
2. Fortunately I don't run across PPT for translation very often (really occasionally, but it's seriously less than 10 times a year) and I don't have to deal with it in any of my other various little endeavors either. Three of the biggest joys of working for yourself, 1. no meetings, 2. no dresscode 3. no powerpoint.
3. Parallels is just another virtual PC desktop. I've seen plenty of them, and none work as well as the real thing (on any OS be it Mac, Windows or Linux) and there are always lots of irritating little showstoppers and bugs. Just glancing at parrels descriptions I've already noted two that would preclude me from using it (incorrect or nonexistant pressure sensitivity with tablets and poor ability/inability to run some 3D apps).

I'm well aware of the Intel chipsets (I mentioned bootcamp, yes?), but it's still not worthwhile for me to switch to a Mac. Switching would provide with less than 1% more work per year, and the expense involved in switching would more than eliminate any profit from that completely.

[Visitor K]

I think part of it is that Linux requires more skill and knowledge than most of the people doing computer administration in the smaller to mid-size companies in Japan possess (myself included).

when was the last time you tried out linux? ubuntu is really easy to install and use, if you are at all interested, you might want to try that next time you have to upgrade.
i realize that linux isnt perfect and might not have some specific aspect of an operating system that you need, but for most people's everyday office use it works just fine.. and its free. also, you dont have to upgrade the hardware all the time to run the latest/most secure operating system.. just download it and burn a disk.

[ttjereth]

when was the last time you tried out linux? ubuntu is really easy to install and use, if you are at all interested, you might want to try that next time you have to upgrade.
i realize that linux isnt perfect and might not have some specific aspect of an operating system that you need, but for most people's everyday office use it works just fine.. and its free. also, you dont have to upgrade the hardware all the time to run the latest/most secure operating system.. just download it and burn a disk.

I've used Ubuntu, most recently to play with Gnome and Beryl, and while it's quite good, it's still not enough take the place of my main machine, so I won't be switching if I ever upgrade (Windows Vista has absolutely 0 appeal to me, the only reason I have it installed anywhere is for software testing work...). I am planning on setting up a linux box or two once we move into our new house (and I have the space for yet another PC to be up and running) to use for server and routing purposes (I hate my generic NTT router with it's extraordinarily limited/buggy NAT capability).