Wrong forum, remember that you're on ehMac, not stealsuff dot whatever.

 

Considering that you don't just purchase Keynote, but you also purchase Pages (part of the iWork suite), for $89 + tax, it's a good deal. Also, consider that Keynote is much more versatile than Powerpoint, and a good deal cheaper.

Also, when comparing iWork and Office, consider the price points:

$89 for iWork gets you Pages and Keynote, approx. $45/per app.
$599.95 for Office 2004 gets you PowerPoint, Excel, Word, Entourage. Per app, Office costs approx. $150.

So let me recap: For a third of the price of PowerPoint, you get a superior presentation application, with better integration into the system, and the iLife suite of applications.

 

So I decided yesterday to take the plunge and purchase Keynote, instead of using Powerpoint, but I simply could not justify the cost of $100 for a serial key.

How do the rest of you justify it?

I've tried searching for key generator's but have not been able to find any.

I guess when you work for minimum wage at McDonalds, $100 is a tad expensive.

You'll have to find something else to do presentation for your friends in your parent's basement.

 

Also consider that iWork '07 will come along at some point in the next 2-3months probably. (it should be a good update -- supposed to include a Spreadsheet app, as well as enhancements to Pages) So... iWork '06 may not be the best investment right now.

 

I personally find Keynote to be suppior to Powerpoint. The only thing I like better in Powerpoint is be able to edit a powerpoint presentation while its running. Keynote looks better, handles all sorts of files, even photoshop, eps, etc without a problem (tha includes photoshop layers!). I also find it easier to set up a show with Keynote. How do I justify $100 for Keynote? Its a fantastic peice of software, for little money in my mind.

 

so its ok to steal music? but not ok to steal programs?

 

so its ok to steal music? but not ok to steal programs?

Except that downloading music is NOT stealing, but rather copyright infringement. The downloading of music is currently in a grey area of Canadian law. As far as I know, there is no confusion on the legality of software piracy.

 

In any case, someone who has been on ehMac since October 2006, and presumably has been on the web since then, or longer, should have figured out whether or not this was an appropriate thread topic.

btw students can purchase the Office suite including PowerPoint for dirt cheap in comparison to the usual retail price, for what it's worth--although "for what it's worth" may not be the correct expression in this case.

 

Except that downloading music is NOT stealing, but rather copyright infringement. The downloading of music is currently in a grey area of Canadian law. As far as I know, there is no confusion on the legality of software piracy.

That was a joke, right? Theft is theft is theft. You're taking something without paying that you are intended to be paying for. And yes, it is illegal to download music in Canada. Our privacy laws simply protect us (thus far) from being exposed, so the record companies have no one to sue.

I too would like to know why stealing music and TV programs (since I'm sure everyone here has watched at least one copyrighted clip on YouTube) is allright, but stealing software is suddenly such a terrible thing...

RE: keynote. It works with the Apple Remote. Not having to buy a third-party controller for Powerpoint is worth something right there!

 

Demosthenes X,

Do you watch pirated tv with a VCR or a PVR, or an HDD recorder, or some other device?

That was a joke, right? Theft is theft is theft. You're taking something without paying that you are intended to be paying for. And yes, it is illegal to download music in Canada. Our privacy laws simply protect us (thus far) from being exposed, so the record companies have no one to sue.

I too would like to know why stealing music and TV programs (since I'm sure everyone here has watched at least one copyrighted clip on YouTube) is allright, but stealing software is suddenly such a terrible thing...

RE: keynote. It works with the Apple Remote. Not having to buy a third-party controller for Powerpoint is worth something right there!

 

Back to whether or not Keynote is worth the price, 100 times "yes" if you are a professional.

I've NEVER had a compliment on how good my PowerPoint presentations looked. With Keynote, I get them all the time. Keynote gives better results with no extra effort (perhaps less effort). I also note that most people who comment on my Keynote presentations don't realize that I'm not using PowerPoint. They often enquire on how to make their PowerPoint presentations look as good. Then they are amazed & disappointed when I explain I wasn't using PowerPoint and that they'd have to get a Mac to do what I do.

I am not artistically minded, either. Keynote just levels the playing field so that I can put together something with good graphic design without me understanding why it looks good.

Coming from PowerPoint there is a jarring adjustment in how to use the app, mostly for the better in the long-run.

edit: I forgot to add, Keynote is not expensive! It is unbelievably cheap for what you get (and in comparison to PowerPoint) AND you get Pages for free when you buy it.

 

I can also vouch for Keynote -- It's really easy to use, has great themes and I find it so much better than Powerpoint. The other plus is that Powerpoint is so ubiquitous these days -- when you use Keynote, it looks different and people notice (as sinjin noted). For me, Keynote helps students in my classes pay attention -- instead of drifting off or going on YouTube.

 

Also consider that iWork '07 will come along at some point in the next 2-3months probably. (it should be a good update -- supposed to include a Spreadsheet app, as well as enhancements to Pages) So... iWork '06 may not be the best investment right now.

i hope so
i tried the pages demo and didn't find it easy to use at all compared to word

 

Hey Firefly, where do you teach? What do you teach?

 

so its ok to steal music? but not ok to steal programs?

If owning music and lending your CD to a friend to listen to is "stealing music", then you've got a point.

Except that downloading music is NOT stealing, but rather copyright infringement.

Except downloading music is NOT copyright infringement.
If you send your friend (or enemy) music that you own, and your friend listens to it, you have shared legally purchased and copyright protected music, just as you might lend a friend an album, or let them listen to your MP3 player, or "squirt" :lmao: a song to someone.

When we start accepting that we cannot share our legally purchased possessions due to copyright, we start/already have started on a slippery slope.

Would you accept going to the video rental store, and paying a fee based on the number of people who will be present in the room where the video will be played?
When you purchase a video from the iTunes Store, do you intend to watch the video alone, or pay for the video as many times as there are people in the room watching it with you?

You own it, you can show it to as many people as you like, unless you are receiving compensation. Profiting from someone else's copyright is where infringement takes place.

Macmac on the other hand, has given me no indication that he merely intends to look at or even try out the software before legally paying for it.
In his first post, Macmac indicated that he wanted a serial number without paying for the software. That, my friends, is theft.

(And theft is theft whether stolen software is deemed to be worth the money or not, so the arguments posted here about the value of iWork are, I believe, irrelevant.)

I'm glad Macmac posted this question as I feel the debate over theft and copyright should be kept fresh. I hope someone will disagree with what I've posted here. This debate is healthy and I think this is a very important issue.

 

If owning music and lending your CD to a friend to listen to is "stealing music", then you've got a point.

Except downloading music is NOT copyright infringement.
If you send your friend (or enemy) music that you own, and your friend listens to it, you have shared legally purchased and copyright protected music, just as you might lend a friend an album, or let them listen to your MP3 player, or "squirt" :lmao: a song to someone.

When we start accepting that we cannot share our legally purchased possessions due to copyright, we start/already have started on a slippery slope.

Would you accept going to the video rental store, and paying a fee based on the number of people who will be present in the room where the video will be played?
When you purchase a video from the iTunes Store, do you intend to watch the video alone, or pay for the video as many times as there are people in the room watching it with you?

You own it, you can show it to as many people as you like, unless you are receiving compensation. Profiting from someone else's copyright is where infringement takes place.

Macmac on the other hand, has given me no indication that he merely intends to look at or even try out the software before legally paying for it.
In his first post, Macmac indicated that he wanted a serial number without paying for the software. That, my friends, is theft.

(And theft is theft whether stolen software is deemed to be worth the money or not, so the arguments posted here about the value of iWork are, I believe, irrelevant.)

I'm glad Macmac posted this question as I feel the debate over theft and copyright should be kept fresh. I hope someone will disagree with what I've posted here. This debate is healthy and I think this is a very important issue.

This does better reflect my views (your post)...

 

If owning music and lending your CD to a friend to listen to is "stealing music", then you've got a point.

Except downloading music is NOT copyright infringement.
If you send your friend (or enemy) music that you own, and your friend listens to it, you have shared legally purchased and copyright protected music, just as you might lend a friend an album, or let them listen to your MP3 player, or "squirt" :lmao: a song to someone.

When we start accepting that we cannot share our legally purchased possessions due to copyright, we start/already have started on a slippery slope.

Would you accept going to the video rental store, and paying a fee based on the number of people who will be present in the room where the video will be played?
When you purchase a video from the iTunes Store, do you intend to watch the video alone, or pay for the video as many times as there are people in the room watching it with you?

You own it, you can show it to as many people as you like, unless you are receiving compensation. Profiting from someone else's copyright is where infringement takes place.

Macmac on the other hand, has given me no indication that he merely intends to look at or even try out the software before legally paying for it.
In his first post, Macmac indicated that he wanted a serial number without paying for the software. That, my friends, is theft.

(And theft is theft whether stolen software is deemed to be worth the money or not, so the arguments posted here about the value of iWork are, I believe, irrelevant.)

I'm glad Macmac posted this question as I feel the debate over theft and copyright should be kept fresh. I hope someone will disagree with what I've posted here. This debate is healthy and I think this is a very important issue.

Very well stated, except possibly one thing. I'm going from memory of the "this broadcast of this NFL/NHL/MLB game is the... yada yada yada... may not be redistributed in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the NFL/NHL/MLB."

I believe that this same "may not be redistributed" goes for music. Let someone listen to a song or watch a video that you have is one thing. Allowing them to make a copy is distribution.

Now the line gets gray and very fuzzy. This is where the two little guys/girls sitting on our respective shoulders comes into play. The one in red is saying "do it, do it, everyone else is" and the one in white with the halo is saying "it is wrong". All depends on which one has the convincing argument, and which one you flick off your shoulder.

For me? It is a case by case basis. Music is one thing that I have said no to. Gave my kids Nanos for Christmas and have set up monthly iTunes allowances for them. They live with Mom so I don't control the rules. All I can do is set an example.

However if they want to load a copy of a song that I have purchased, I'm going to be okay with that. They are my kids and I could make the argument that while they don't reside in my residence full time, they are my children. And I believe that most artists would agree and accept my logic. They have received revenues from my purchase of their work.

Possibly you could look at it from a degrees of separation. My daughter will be 17 in March. In less than two years she'll be heading off to a post secondary education. I buy her a MacBook. Leopard is replaced by Lion or whatever the next cat will be and there is iLife 09. Do I purchase the family packs of each and am I right to install one of the licenses on her machine? Even though she may be away at school?

I don't think that Apple would have a problem with that. However it is technically not within the agreement for purchasing a family pack of software.

And btw, you never 'own' a piece of music, or a piece of software. You purchase a license for a copy of it.

 

That was a joke, right? Theft is theft is theft. You're taking something without paying that you are intended to be paying for.

So I assume you sent a cheque to Warner Brothers for the use of the Daffy Duck avatar - right?

 

This entire thread is copyrighted by "ehMac, 2007." You agreed to it when signing up for an account.

If you want to repeat anything you read, or said, here, you will need permission from a moderator.

 

Demosthenes X,

Do you watch pirated tv with a VCR or a PVR, or an HDD recorder, or some other device?

So I assume you sent a cheque to Warner Brothers for the use of the Daffy Duck avatar - right?

As fascinating as both these questions are, neither is at all relevent to the discussion at hand. Rather, they are rather thinly disguised attacks against my person as opposed to a relevent attack against my argument.

Theft is theft. I would argue that using a copyrighted image as an avatar is not as bad as stealing software, but on that fundamental level it is still theft. But that's neither here nor there, because my actions are not the debate here. The right and wrong of theft is what is being debated.

And I simply questioned how one could seemingly condone one form of theft (downloading music) and be opposed to another (stealing software). Both are illegal, why is one socially acceptable and one is not?

 

Sorry for the attack being "thinly disguised." I'm kidding, but you are taking this way too personally.

Welcome to the interweb, where people are free to point out what they think is hypocritical and obtuse. Nothing against you, of course. If this wasn't a grey area, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But there is absolutely no question that asking for a software key generator advertises an imminent theft.

Drawing moral lines between one kind of theft or another may justify such actions or rebuke them, but it's still quite reasonable to draw attention to an argument's discrepancies.

As fascinating as both these questions are, neither is at all relevent to the discussion at hand. Rather, they are rather thinly disguised attacks against my person as opposed to a relevent attack against my argument.

Theft is theft. I would argue that using a copyrighted image as an avatar is not as bad as stealing software, but on that fundamental level it is still theft. But that's neither here nor there, because my actions are not the debate here. The right and wrong of theft is what is being debated.

And I simply questioned how one could seemingly condone one form of theft (downloading music) and be opposed to another (stealing software). Both are illegal, why is one socially acceptable and one is not?

 

How to afford Keynote!

Staying away from ethics. If you want most of the features of Keynote & MS Office and don't wish to pay $100 then Neo Office http://www.planamesa.com/neojava/en/download.php
may be your route. If you like it, make a donation.

 

Use NeoOffice if you can't afford anything else. It's a pretty powerful albeit a bit slow application but hey it's free and does 90% what MS Office does.

 

Surprised

I would be extremely surprised if even one person on all of ehMac has at some point since computers became mainstream, copied, pirated, infringed, or whatever you want to call it, something.

I think that asking for a serial generator on ehMac was probably the wrong idea.

 

It's not like he posted and said "hey, does anyone have a serial for Keynote". He just mentioned that he had looked for them and didn't find anything...

Evidently he didn't look very hard - there are plenty of sites based in Eurasia that provide keys.

*shrug*


HowEver: I'm aware you were kidding. However, the point stands that in debate it is the argument, and not the arguer, that needs to be addressed. I've seen enough debates get nasty because of jokes, and it becomes even harder to differentiate between what is a joke and what is not in a text-based medium like this one. At any rate, no hard feelings.