This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
2/5 of All Software is Pirated
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.
This is where I logout (Score:1)
Part of it may be that the thing I'm pirating is already out of a store and in my friend's hands, so it doesn't feel like stealing. Maybe it's because it's a bunch of 1's and 0's on a CD. It's not a physical item I'm stealing. Or maybe I think Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Macromedia are making too much money already, and this is my little protest against them. I dunno.
At any rate, I do it, and I don't feel guilty about it. However, I DO BUY some software if I feel like I'm supporting a group of hard working upstarts. I pay shareware fees. Maybe if I felt that bigger software houses were trying hard to produce good software instead of squeezing money out of consumers, I'd be more inclined to pay for shrink-wrapped software.
At least he's not hurting society. (Score:1)
Secondly, I don't know why people like you presist in using the term "piracy". This is much worse than the hacker/cracker debate. Do you really think that illegally copying proprietary programs is the same as raping and murdering people on the seas? If not, stop using that offensive term.
Ad I heard on the radio (Score:1)
I heard an ad on the radio, KCBS in SF, this morning for (888) NO Piracy. It started with a father coming to a software store where his son had been apprehended shoplifting software. Confronted with his crime the son says that it is the same as when his father copies software fom one machine to another. Dad disagrees, but the security officer sets him straight. It is stealling to copy software from one machine to another!!!
I get the unmistakable feeling that they just called me a theif because I copied Perl onto all of my machines. The idea that it is only bad to copy SOME software was NOT included in any way shape or form in this ad. If I didn't know that I CAN copy this software legally then I might refrain from using it ( ie the uninformed are being indoctrinated against the use of *Free Software* ). What message is this for my children.
Why pirating doesn't feel like stealing (Score:1)
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Do you let firends hear your CDs or watch a movie? (Score:1)
Watch me put my head in the sand (Score:1)
You cannot justify your statements in any way. The car analogy is bogus: a car has intrinsic value (metal, glass, etc.), software has almost none (a CD and some paper).
Who cares if 100 people spent 2000 hours making the WizBang(TM) word processor? If it isn't any good, no one will buy it. You can't justify your loss because you're a moron.
In short, software, just like everything else in a properly functioning economy, is only worth what consumers are willing to pay for it.
Just because you want a return for your efforts doesn't mean that you are *entitled* to it. It's part of the risk involved in doing business.
Software piracy is a direct result of overpriced/low-quality software and easy access to duplication facilities.
Do you really believe that if it were impossible to pirate software, that everyone in violation would still buy a legit copy? Get a clue and get your head out of the sand. The point the original poster was trying to make was that the "piracy losses" reported by large software companies borders on fraud because they make that assumption -- not that it's okay to illegally duplicate someone's hard work.
Get a grip and try some logic.
Re:To stop piracy, lower your damned prices... (Score:1)
Re:This is where I logout (Score:1)
When I got a pirated copy of Strata Studio Pro, it doesn't mean that Strata lost $800. I was never going to buy it anyway. I wasn't going to buy MS Office either, Nor was I going to buy NT Server, nor whatever I happened to pirate.
If you view the issue in terms of legality, you're operating from a position which can be easily attacked as well. In the USA it was illegal to aid a slave in his/her attempt to escape. Was it the right thing to do? I think that it was.
In the State of Pennsylvania as recently as 10 years ago a man couldn't be charged with raping a woman if he was living with or married to her. Legal, but not right.
More than any other type of software, I have spent mucho dinero on video games. I got an "Unauthorized copy" of Windows9x from a friend, but I bought Clost Combat I & II. I have never paid for a copy of the MacOS (except shipping on a free copy that I was eligible for). I have paid for Redhat Linux 4.2, 5.0, and 5.2 because I found them to be useful, affordable and worth the money.
Boo-freaking-hoo poor M$ has had another copy of it's software copied. If they charged reasonable prices to begin with, their software would be copied less often.
But the bottom line is this Piracy is NOT the same as shoplifting. If I take something that you have, I have stolen it, I have it and you no longer do. If I copy something, I have not stolen it, you still have it and I have a copy of it. Shoplifting can cause higher prices, but then so do the arseholes who buy something break it and then take it back. Piracy doesn't cause higher prices, corporate greed does. If M$ decided to quadruple their fees for their software some people (namely businesses would be forced to pay up) the rest of us would simply ramp up production of copying.
Re:You really don't get it, do you? (Score:1)
All you have pointed out is the utter stupidity of software licensing. When I buy a "regular" product, I may do with it basically whatever I want, including taking it apart and giving different pieces to my friends. But, when it comes to software or CDs or other large numbers (think of binary, now translate it into a base 10 number), I do not actually buy it, I'm given permission to ues it according to how the company wants me to. Then the company usually puts in a clause about the product not being suitable for any specific application.
This just goes to show how idiotic proprietary software licensing laws are. And all you have accomplished is illustrating that point perfectly.
Oh really? (Score:1)
Software is not simply information. It was written by a group of people and published by a larger group of people. Whatever you say, these people have paychecks that come from the sale of software. That CD and that manual did not take $44.95 to manufacture, the rest goes to those people. Also, if people are entitled to information, specifically information that makes their computer run, then maybe they should be entitled to hardware that makes their computer run.
"Big Difference" you say? Why? Just because one CAN be copied by you doesn't mean one is inferior. If I started manufacturing EXACT replicas of an Intel PentiumIII processor and selling them half price, Intel would slap me with a patent violation.
You can photo copy a book and sell it, but that is a copyright violation.
And shouldn't these things be illegal? Intel put up the R&D and the author wrote the book, and YES, these people need to eat and YES these people live off the money from the sale of these products.
Ok, so you wouldn't have bought the software in the first place, too expensive. Well, why didn't you say the same about your computer itself? At what point does the software become important enough for you to pay for?
True, information CAN be free. No one may be hurt. But what do you want from us? If every piece of software that was released only sold a few copies which were then copied to everyone that wanted it, software would either quickly cost thousands of dollars or the companies would go out of business. Suddenly, programmers are not employed to write better software. All we have left is the freeware crap on the internet. (Name one freeware game that provided the graphics of Half-Life or Quake3) If people are not paid to innovate, then they will innovate as a hobby while they are working on an assembly line making CD Burners wondering where their much higher paying programming job went.
That's my two cents.
Piracy (Score:2)
It seems that most software vendors simply translate the cost of the software in US dollars into the equal amount in the native currency, without taking into any consideration the fact that annual wages/salaries in those countries are considerably less than the United States equivalent. Then they express shock and surprise that the software is pirated. Is it any wonder why some Vietnamese college student or businessman "steals" a copy of Windows 98, which might be weeks or months of work?
Microsoft is one of the larger offenders, as their multi-hundred-dollar programs sell for virtually unchanged prices in foreign economies. Anything to maintain those fat profit margins...
(I'm confessing my ignorance of non-US culture, so please don't take this as an insult to non-US peoples.)
I don't generally support pirated software, and while I may try out a pirated program to see if it's worth buying, usually I dump it after a few days or weeks. I support vendors with my wallet - when I find a useful piece of software, I will pay for it. Microsoft, however, has earned my direct ire. I will never willing purchase another piece of Microsoft software again, and I will do all in my power to promote the rampant piracy of their software.
You may call me a hypocrite, you may call me a bastard, but I refuse to support a company that is actively seeking to control every single aspect of my computing experience. I may be forced to use their products (e.g., games), and I may wind up contributing indirectly to their monopoly, but I'm certainly not going to contribute to it directly, and I certainly will not give them monetary support.
There aren't many pirates left. (Score:2)
Don't buy into the idea of software piracy. This is one of the concepts that the FSF is trying to stamp out. Believe it or not. Why should anyone accept that lousy piracy paradigm?
If people would quit supporting the piracy misnomer, I would appreciate it.
Your 'piracy' is not OK, though (Score:2)
Plain and simple, software piracy is theft. Nowhere does it say you have the right to do as you please with my software. I have the right to do as I please with my software, including selling it. You have no rights, and what you've done is not moral or justifiable in any sense.
My software is not for free use, even if you don't intend to pay for it. No, I didn't lose revenue per se, but once again, it's not your decision, it's mine!!!
Article neglects legality of piracy where surveyed (Score:3)
Re:This is where I logout (Score:1)
Unfortunatly.. I don't think piracy harms the companies like you want it to. Think of it this way..
If MS-Office had never been pirated, do you think it would be the de facto standard for documents in the workplace?
Copying and theft are *NOT* the same! (Score:1)
Obviously, I'll have to spell it out for you. If I rob a bank and steal a million dollars, the bank is short a million dollars and I'm up a million dollars. With me so far? If I copy a million bytes of information, the software company *doesn't* lose a million bytes of information, but I'm up a million bytes.
In fact, the government (in the US at least) discourages the reference of unauthorised copying as "theft." (I found that info somewhere ona) the company is not loosing money (which is not correct by the way) gnu.org).
Even better, no one can "give away" software, because "giving away" something implies that you don't have it anymore. Of course, if you're providing it in a boxed set with a manual and not charging, you are giving it away. What you are giving away is a boxed set, manual, and CD ethed in such a way as to provide useful information to someone's computer. "Giving away" software should really be referred to as "providing free access to" software or something.
> a) the company is not loosing money (which is not correct by the way)
As far as I can see, the company is not losing money by having its software copied by people who are too poor to pay for it. If you have anything that that back up your own statement, I'd love to hear it.
what really bothers me.... (Score:1)
Re:Linux/OSS (Score:2)
SW piracy myths and reality (Score:1)
While software piracy has real economic effects, the methods and conclusions stated by the BSA, SIIA (formerly the SPA) and other software industry groups are grossly overstated. Moreover, piracy actually reduces the cost of consumer software -- this is just simple economics at work. Yes, piracy also reduces software revenues, but the consumer impact is often either misstated or unstated.
I wrote a response [deja.com] to last year's SPA report. As the SIIA is repeating its rediculous revenue loss figures [siia.net], I will continue to promote the piece. Specifically, SIIA's definitions of "supply" and "demand" have absolutely no relationship to the same terms as used in economics, and the "loss" estimates are merely the street value of pirated softare, not the lost business opportunity.
Here's a point to ponder. If software companies are booking these losses as tax writeoffs, this is a tremendous fraud being practiced to the cost of US taxpayers.
Karsten M. Self
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:SW piracy myths and reality (Score:1)
Huh? I've taken quite a few economics courses in my day, but I don't get this statement, unless of course you are saying something similar to car theft reduces auto prices, because thieves get free cars.
The earlier respondant points in the general direction, and my earlier essay discusses this in depth, but to reiterate:
Software piracy is not the same as theft of real property -- rather than redistributing a fixed quantity of goods (theft), piracy introduces a new supply of goods (the pirated goods) with a lower production curve (the production costs are lower). In a market sense, you've created a larger supply with a lower cost -- in an S-D (supply-demand) diagram, the pirate supply curve is to the south-west (lower and to the left) of the legitimate supply.
Assuming demand (economic sense, not SIIA's) doesn't change, the price must be lower. Depending on the shape of the pirate supply curve, either more or fewer copies of the software will be distributed. The only way (in a free market) the legitimate distributer can increase his own sales and profits is to lower his price (moving down on his supply curve). Result: fewer legitimate SW sales, lower cost.
Other alternatives are to affect market demand (make piracy a less attractive option) or pirate supply (make the cost of business for a pirate too high). Interestingly, one option is to periodically undercut the pirates -- presumably they're out to make money, so by removing their profit incentive, piracy is reduced.
Logic, and pointers to references (this is all standard microeconomics) are in the previously referenced essay.
WRT business deductions for losses -- what is the logic that says piracy losses are not a deductable business loss?
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:1)
So either the student pirates it, and Borland gets no money, or the student doesn't pirate it, and Borland still gets no money. I don't see how it affects them either way.
Re: But when is a law wrong enough to break it? (Score:1)
True. However, I would say that unless a law is outright evil, it should not be broken. If it became illegal to hire Jews or to hide them from the police in order to keep them from getting killed, I hope I would have the courage to break such laws. Now compare that with having to pay $XXX amount of dollars in order to have a legal copy of Mathematica. Vast difference in importance, no? Intellectual property laws may be inconvenient (certainly), questionable (maybe), moronic (maybe), artificial (*definitely*), or whatever, but outright evil? Have some perspective here.
If you truly consider proprietary software evil, then avoid it entirely. Pirated software is about as encumbered as proprietary software that's been paid for. You still can't see the source and fix bugs, or find programmers who could fix the bugs. And if you had even a whisper of a prayer for support of the legally bought product, you most definitely have no chance of support for a pirated product. If you wish to be consistent with the stance that all software should be open source, then avoid proprietary software and accept the privations.
Re:Do you let firends hear your CDs or watch a mov (Score:1)
Except that's not true. Generally, what you are not allowed to do with CDs and VHS movies is to make copies of them or use them for commercial purposes. Have friends over to listen to CDs and/or watch a movie--OK. Show a movie on a big screen, and charge others for the privilege of seeing it--not OK. The rules are not quite as restrictive as they are for software.
Re:This is where I logout (Score:1)
>Hehe, an overwhelming majority of my software is >pirated. The strange thing is that I don't feel >guilty at all about it.
>$20 part from a store,
I am underwhelmed by your values.
Re:There aren't many pirates left. (Score:1)
So, let's just call it theft.
Re:there is an exception to every rule (Law) (Score:1)
in that case you are arguing for the stealing of food from the local store, medicines from the drugstore (or hospital) and maybe even bypassing the electric meter so that you can have heat without paying!! Where would it end if everyone took that attitude? Gun law, the one with the biggest gun survives. "Dont steal" was a rule given to us about 4000 years ago, and we still argue about keeping it? We seem to be no more civilised than they were then.
Re:Hershey owns their chocolate bar formula (Score:1)
Actually they don't own the formula, it's just a mixture of different stuff and mixtures can't be patented. That's why companies hold their recipes so secret. The only restriction that would apply is trademark law. You could copy Hershey Bars all day long, as long as you didn't call ita Hershey Bar
Re:Okay, so here's the damm comment (Score:1)
At least in theory, the GPL is more "Free speech, not free beer." Pirated software doesn't come with source...
Re:New math for figuring losses (Score:1)
Last I checked, we had an ever-increasing number of senior citizens. So even if the overall budget goes up, it's quite possible that the amounts for each individual go down. I'm not saying this *is* the case in this case -- I don't know -- but remember the bit about "lies, damned lies, and statistics." A good healthy dose of skepticism is always justified.
Re:Linux/OSS (Score:1)
A bit tough to steal that which is given away free.
Piracy is a Bad Term for the copying of software. That is unless you weild a cutlass and wear an eye patch with a parrot on your shoulder.
M33P
Re:What If.... (Score:1)
You have to take into account that computers would use a lot of energy and have operating costs. So, when ever you "copy" something, you pay royalties to the
"replicator service".
This "service" would supply the "original media," and pay royalties on them to the companies that designed the software.
In the future if you wanted to copy a program, you would select the item, transfer payment to the "John Doe Replication Service", and then the computer would
recieve the original medium, produce the copy, then delete it's memory. JDRS would also pay the energy costs of operating the device.
Illegally copying items would be possible, but only if someone re-engineered their computer and had lots of money for the "disk drives".
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:1)
Proprietary software as it's sold today is the simple _right_ to route your own electrons (for which you do pay a fee; you're buying mass) through your own computer (for which you paid; it's real-world matter) in a pattern _like_ the original. There is a whole system of laws in place to tell _you_ what order your bits are _prohibited_ from being routed through hardware you already own!
Imagine if you owned your own Abacus Super Turbo 2000, and your local government enforced laws which required you pay a fee to use the integers 1 through 100. Imagine if the license fees doubled as you reached 200! They're just numbers!
Why are certain companies and individuals afforded these "rights" by the government, to reserve an idea for licensed use only by those who can afford it? I don't know.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! (Score:1)
The act of software production is a single-time cost. It is written, tested--but for that single pattern (release) of software, there is no inherent cost to copy which is directly transfered to the author.
"Lost projected revenue" or "sales I could have had" or "maybe I would have paid for it" are all irrelevent. Software can be effortlessly copied at _no_cost_ to the original holder. Maybe "cost" is the wrong word. People are great at complaining about what they "could have had" or what "might have been" or how they were "cheated by destiny." Why not complain about how we "might have been rich" while we're at it?
The author never hears, feels, smeels, knows, sees, or tastes the copy happening, and there's no reason he should. The laws of physics don't provide for instant notification of the source upon the recognition and automated reproduction of a pattern of numbers at the destination. The "copy" is the simple sharing of a _pattern_ of bits through a machine really good at counting really fast.
Re:Copying software = counterfeiting money (Score:1)
Still, the system itself is purely abstract (via electronic banking; we can even leave hard cash out of this since inflation can happen without it and does all the time). A government produces currency to the extent the country can "afford" it. If you inflate the system each unit of the system is worth less compared to the whole--prices go up.
This is a simplified situation, but currency exists to represent a real-world material (the United States follows a gold standard). At any time you can convert your cash to gold, or gold to cash, at a standard and specific rate. These two systems, monetary and gold, are linked at their limits, and one is only good when there is an adequate quantity and value of the other. Software isn't like this at all.
If software were like the monetary system, for each copy you made, all the other copies would then be worth less, in a utilitarian sense. Maybe some bits would fall off?
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! (Score:1)
Where do laws come from? Sometimes society, which generally condemns murder, stealing, etc. And most people won't break these laws because they might get caught -- they won't break these laws because they are immoral. If murder was legal almost all people would still not murder.
But a lot of laws come from the government and the powers that control it. Tax laws, subsidies, copyright... These are nondemocratic laws -- when you understand that democracy is not about process (e.g., voting) but about rule by the people (demos people, kratia rule). This isn't to say the laws are meant to disempower people (they may or may not), and it isn't to say that democracy is inherently moral and good (the United States founding fathers had no love for the term).
Copyright is where the law is clearly undemocratic -- not just neutral, but in opposition to the social standards by which people live. Why do I say this? Because so many people violate copyright. In fact, most people have violated copyright laws. Few of them feel bad about it. Many would do so freely and constantly if it weren't for copyright protections (including difficulties of support) and the risk of getting caught. Maybe they are all wrong and immoral -- not impossible -- but that is how people are.
So call copyright violation illegal -- that's certainly true -- but don't equate it with stealing from a bank. And think about what it means when you so vigorously condemn one person for being brave enough to say what everyone else believes (as shown by their actions).
Is your position tenable? Is it pragmatic? And when you take away all the laws, is it right?
How do you account for civil disobedience? (Score:1)
I agree that some sort of law is necessary which can mediate between individual morals, but what happens when the law conflicts with the morals of a large group of people (for simplification)? At what point is it acceptable for them to protest against that law?
Certainly in the USA there is historical precedent for civil disobedience -- and in other parts of the world, for civil revolts and deposition of governments -- when large groups have been morally opposed to laws.
This issue seems to be a grey area to me.
In the speficic domain of software, what if one is morally opposed to the current corporate world order, and chooses to protest by not financing it further? That's certainly not the motivation of many who copy software illegally, but it *is* a consideration for others.
--
Re:In addition... (Score:1)
Now, I'll tell you what's "included" in that full version: the only office suite to promote macro viruses.
That's right, folks, the dumbest security hole of the '90s award goes to... Microsoft! No surprise there. The Goodtimes virus used to be a joke until they came along.
Also, I believe if I wanted to try Wordperfect for Linux, it would cost me... nothing. And what about Word for Linux? Oh, I'm sorry, it isn't supported. Well, that's okay, since Internet Explorer on a SPARC runs better under *SoftWindows* than it does natively! It's more stable, too, which just goes to show that Microsoft can't port anything properly either!
I think I'll just stick to StarOffice and Linux. Even if it is free, I'd rather support what I believe in, good free software with open standards, and people who care about quality and helping their fellow man. If I thought Microsoft cared about their customers, or produced superior software, then maybe I'd pay for or seriously use one of their products. The only use I've found for Windows so far is for playing videos recorded with proprietary CODECs, and hopefully MPEG video and DVD's will make this nearly obselete.
Re:In addition... (Score:1)
However, Office wants you to have all the other Microsoft programs you can get to comfortably integrate together...
Code-signing is no excuse, anyone can *sign* code, and I'm sure people will forge signatures next. And "you're stupid enough to run a macro-ridden file" when you have a Word document that *needs* Macros! It's a feature Office provides, and some people actually use it for something other than viruses. If you want to add a feature into a product, and not implement it properly, and think that your users are *stupid* for trying to use the features YOU gave them, then you deserve everything you get.
I *know* Microsoft doesn't care about their customers. Either that, or they can't identify properly written software, or have no qualms about shipping bad software, charging for the fixes, and adding new bugs. If that's your definition of caring for the customer, then Microsoft must REALLY care.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:1)
You are exactly right. I don't like pirating really. I used to do it quite a bit, but often I would download a program that I thought might come in handy at some point in time, stick in a directory somewhere on my drive and never see it again. What did the company that wrote the software lose in this case? Nothing. Not a cent. Yet by their methodology, I would be included in the grand total sum of their losses due to piracy.
Re:So What? (Score:1)
Basically what you're example says is that if I have the means to find out how something is made, and make one for myself, I am cheating the designers, fabricators, salesmen, etc, out of the money they could have made if I had bought one. I don't know that I buy this line of thinking. I can look at a bicycle and figure out how it works and how to make one. If I then proceed to make one on my own, just like the one I used for a reference, is it stealing? I wouldn't think so.
Ideas are free. If I understand how a good bicycle is made, why would I intentionally make it differently and probably inferior if I have the ability to make it just as good as the original? Just to satisfy someone's notion that they should own the knowledge of how to make a good bicycle? I don't think so.
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though (Score:1)
You missed the point. What is the point you ask? The point is that he wasn't causing any loss of revenue as the software industry is claiming. The software industry is lying to us. They aren't losing anywhere near the amount they are claiming. They are playing the creative accounting game to their benefit. Maybe they'll claim it justifies astronomical prices. Maybe they'll use these figures to justify new and even more restrictive laws. Who knows. The fact is that their calculations are badly flawed and they know it. You won't catch them admitting that though. Heck, you won't even find them trying to refute the claims that many people have made here. They simply won't talk about it except to say that everyone else is wrong and they are right.
Re: stealing a candy bar (Score:1)
There surely is *some* loss of revenue. What I (and apparently many others are as well) am upset about is the fact that the software industry is lying through its teeth about the amount of the loss they are incurring. They know their studies are flawed. They did it intentionally to inflate the numbers to unbelievable (to anyone with a clue) amounts. This has nothing to do with them trying to get rid of piracy or make people aware of it. It's a ploy. They are after something. Perhaps they want more power to enforce harsh license agreements. Perhaps they want to justify higher prices. I don't know what they are after, but it must be something, otherwise why would they make a big deal out of it and throw out the inflated numbers?
Re:So What? (Score:1)
So make your own bicycle, i.e. write your own program.
How can I make my own bicycle? They would most likely have a legal lock on the ideas involved. What if I like the ideas, but not the materials they used or their fabrication process? Is it immoral or illegal to make my own? Actually it would be illegal if I used their ideas. It doesn't matter to them that I can do it better. It prohibits me from creating a better product for myself.
If your version would be "probably inferior" as you say then isn't it possible that you owe the author something for doing it better than you could have?
I wasn't saying that the bicycle I made would be inferior because I don't know how to do it as well, I was saying it would be inferior because the law forbids me to use my knowledge of how to do something if someone else has done it first. I would have to deliberately do it differently than I would if I used the ideas I know to be best. That is why it would probably be inferior.
The problem is that software is not just an idea, it's an expression of an idea. The comparison is to books or records, not to bicycles and cars.
I still think there is some merit to the discussion of bicycles and cars. The software industry is trying to equate copying software with theft and piracy which have been terms used almost exclusively with physical property. They chose to use these words due to the immediate negative cannotations. I think using physical objects as an example is worth doing as a way of refuting their claims.
On the other hand, once we get past their claims and really start to look at the issues, we do have to start comparing apples with apples in order to get anywhere. So in this way, I agree with you that we should compare it with copying books and records and such.
I'll leave that debate for later, because frankly I need to get at least *some* work done today :)
Re:You're confusing issues (Score:2)
You do have a point here. Perhaps what we should be arguing is whether or not it should be illegal to copy software. As the previous poster said, "Slavery was once legal in the United States, too; do you consider slavery to be acceptable practice?" The laws that permitted slavery were eventually changed and slavery was prohibited. We should be arguing in favor of changing the laws if we think they are unjust.
However, that hasn't really been the primary focus that I've seen in the posts here. The focus has been on how badly the software industry is lying to us. They have knowingly exaggerated their losses beyond comprehension. I say they did this knowingly because I believe that if a bunch of people from /. picked up on all the problems with their studies, then the professionals who conducted them must have known about them as well. Sure, copying software is illegal right now. Does that make it ok for them to lie to everyone about how much they lose because of it?
The mathematics of "piracy" (Score:4)
Say a company is selling a software program. They calculate that a reasonable price for the program, based on the expenses incurrend and potential market, is about $40. Then, they look at this study. If only two out of every five people will use theur software, they'll need to charge more to recoup their losses. To make the same amount of money, they'll need to charge $100 per copy. (Assuming that the higher price doesn't chase off more people.) Then, they can point back to that 2/5 study and claim that they're losing 3/5 of their possible income, or $300 for every five people using their software!
Maybe no one's that drastic, but the claim that "piracy makes software prices higher" should immediately indicate that multiplying "pirated" copies by product cost is nowhere near an accurate calculation for "losses". Throw, ans many other comments have, in the fact that many "piraters" wouldn't buy to full version anyway, and you have virtually meaningless numbers.
--Phil (I once illicitly copied software. The world of Free Software has shown me another way.)
Re:So What? (Score:1)
Copyright is all about protecting a specific _instance_ or _manifestation_ of a set of intellectual works. This protects the work PUT IN to creating those works, effectively giving economic incentive.
Such is the case with "clean room" software. For instance, it's VERY clear that StarOffice 5.0 is a clean-room redoing of Microsoft Office, yet they have not been charged with copyright infringement (look 'n' feel is still a shady area).
Several Bootlegging Issues (Score:3)
Bootlegging spreads bad software. It's true that Microsoft encourages, or at least tolerates, bootlegging in order to gain mindshare and installed base. Every system running MS-Windows, and every system running MS-Office, is a gain for Microsoft. It's a bigger gain if it's paid for, but even if it isn't, it increases the general atmosphere of lock-in.
Those who believe that it's ethically okay to bootleg software one wouldn't buy should take this to heart. When a friend emails you an MS-Word document and you haven't licensed Word, you have a choice: You can bootleg Word, or you can ask your friend to send you the document in an open format, like HTML, PDF, PostScript, or straight ASCII text. If you bootleg Word, you are increasing the acceptability of the Word format as "standard".
I recommend that if you don't have to accept Word documents (e.g. for work) that you refuse them. Don't support a proprietary, closed, pseudo-standard.
Bootlegging often means participating in an ugly underground. If you download bootleg software from warez d00d FTP/FSP/Hotline sites, you're promulgating the warez culture, even if you don't regard yourself as a warez d00d. (Naturally, not all bootleg software is distributed this way. Here, I'm only addressing that which is.)
The warez culture is uncreative, often intolerant, and (unlike the free-software culture) has little respect for the creation of original works. (If warez d00dz were interested in originality, they wouldn't all want to be running the latest, greatest version of Windows.)
Because their critique of "intellectual property" goes no deeper than "I will copy this because I can, nyah nyah!" d00dz don't tend to be interested in actually improving the world through the reform of IP laws. They're rebelling; if IP laws went away, they'd lose something to rebel against.
What warez d00dz do value is status. One earns status by making bootlegged software available: running a popular Hotline site, for instance. If you patronize a particular warez site, you may well be boosting its operator's status among other warez d00dz.
Further, warez d00dz and script kiddies often go hand in hand. The culture's largely the same: both value doing unoriginal, illegal things for the sake of doing them, regardless of damage caused. And script kiddies we could all certainly do without.
If this ugly culture is not reinforced, it will die out. If you participate in it by using warez sites, you are promulgating it.
Bootlegging discourages participation in the writing of free software. If you have an option between using a bootleg program and using a free-software program which does substantially the same thing, and you pick the bootleg program, then you're harming the improvement of the free program.
If you use a free program, you will learn more about it; you may be able to help its development by making bug reports, feature suggestions, documentation, or even patches and improvements; and you will increase its mindshare and installed base.
If you distribute bootleg software instead of distributing free software, you are losing the opportunity to promulgate the latter. You're also increasing the world's dependency on proprietary software (see the first point, above).
Even if there is no free-software equivalent to a particular piece of closed software, if the closed software is widely disseminated, it may well reduce the perceived need for that functionality in free software. This would decrease the chance of someone writing it.
Bootlegging at work exposes your employer to risks. Many workplaces, mine included, casually bootleg software. The common reasons for this are that software licenses are too expensive, and that it is impractical to keep track of the number of copies installed.
However, this is a great risk. A few years ago, my workplace's parent organization was audited by a software-industry group (the SPA, I believe), and found to have a great deal of unlicensed software. They ended up spending a great deal of money getting out of that hole.
If your workplace bootlegs software, you should consider drawing this risk to your employers' attention. Audits do happen. Audits have been used by Microsoft to coerce businesses into adopting expensive, MS-exclusive licenses in order to avoid lawsuits.
And if your employer isn't interested in spending the huge sums of money that license-compliance would cost, or in keeping track of installed copies
Re:Off-topic, but fun: Quebec & Canada (Score:1)
... excuse me... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Right. It's been said many times before that the natives in Quebec want to stay part of Canada and will fight to keep it that way. There are a LOT of natives in Northern Quebec. If Quebec does seperate, it will be a little dime-sized section of the province with no G7 status, infrastructure, military, currency or population. Bouchard knows it, too. I think he's just power tripping to see how far he can take it.
Every time he raises a stink about seperating, more businesses move out of the province. Quebec has all but declared abortion illegal and pay huge bonuses to families having children, with even more incentives for those giving French names to their children. Their "Bilingual everywhere except Quebec, where it MUST be French only" bullshit stinks (businesses have been terrorized if they have ANY English on their business signs in Quebec!) and I love how Bouchard sucks up to France, while France couldn't give a shit about his little campaign.
Personally if they do seperate I would LOVE to see the US move in, declare it all-English and ONLY English and oust that little prick Bouchard. I would laugh for days on end.
... that is, after I cry for days at the country seperating. I don't think it'll happen, though.
... wtf is this "lameness filter enocuntered, post aborted?" I don't think the script liked all my "haha"'s
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:1)
Please please PLEASE don't tell me you're using software "keys" to register your software. I too am a software developer but that method of "registering" is the lamest excuse for protection ever invented. When I was a kid I held special status on the BBS' I frequented by cracking online games and utilities. And if I could have done it with debug, sourcer and a few homebrew utils, imagine what people with pir8 copies of Soft-Ice et. al. could do. If you're losing revenue due to people cracking your serial numbers, I have no pity.
Have a shareware version with all the limited features in it (i.e. leave the print function completely out of the build, not a lame check) and ship them a disk/CD/email with the full version. Or the "registered" DLL without the lack of functions. Something to that effect. Yes your costs are a little higher (shipping a CD or disk) but if someone is going to buy your software because they like it or need it, paying $55 instead of $50 is NOT a big stretch.
That's another big point I feel I should make. People who sell their software for $1.99 or $5 or some small price like that are actually losing sales! Nobody, and I repeat, NOBODY is gonna mail you a cheque or swipe their card for $1.99 to get your registration code. Put the price at $20 or $40 and I bet you'll actually get more sales since people will feel that it is "worth" more. Did you ever think, "It's only $2, why should I pay for something so cheap?"
Stand up for yourself. You worked damn hard to get this piece of software done. Make it work, make it pretty, DOCUMENT it, and charge a fair price. Fair to both you and the customer.
Re:In addition... (Score:1)
Wasn't there some kind of ActiveX control which allowed a macro to turn off macro alerts before the dialog even came up in Word97? I don't have hard facts here so I may be blowing smoke up your ass but I seem to remember something to this effect.
If it is true, then you can scream and holler all you want about unsigned macros. If the check is disabled or magically signed just before the check through some other control, it's as useful as tits on a bull.
Re:Get your head out of your arse. (Score:1)
I'd lvoe to see REAL figures, not just we found X pirated copies so we lost X * $50.
Make sense?
--
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:1)
The phrase "might need it someday" was meant to identify those people who copy the software so they can say they have a copy, not because they use it or ever intend to use it.
Comparing software theft with auto theft in this way is pointless. If I take your car, you don't have it anymore. If I copy your program, you might never know it.
Once again, I am not making an agrument for piracy, I am simply asking that the companies quit trying to portray losses that are unrealistic.
--
"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:3)
Just because someone valued a piece of software enough to make a pirated copy does not mean they would have bought it otherwise.
Even if piracy were impossible, not everyone that does pirate software would purchase that same software. Some can't justify the cost; others couldn't even afford the cost. There are also those who make a pirated copy just because they "might need it someday".
Companies whining about all the money they lost are ignoring thses facts to distort the situation.
There are even some cases (at least for me) where I wouldn't have pruchased or been able to purchase a piece of software if I hadn't split the cost witha friend (and then made a copy).
I'm not trying to advocate piracy here, but I'm tired of the corporate whining by those whose loses to piracy (even if adjusted for these factors) is several times my total potential lifetime income.
--
Relative price of software (Score:1)
What about... (Score:3)
It kinda' irks me that most software can't be taken back to the place of purchase for a refund once it's been opened, so I copy stuff on occasion & try it out first. If I don't like it, I remove it, if I do like it, I buy it.
I think it's fair to do that, after all, I wouldn't buy a car without test-driving it first. Buying cars would be quite an ordeal if you had to pay for them first & were required to return them to Detroit if you didn't like them.
-Rev. Randy
Re:Actually, no (Score:1)
We should remember that MP3 is a file format. As to whether or not a particular instance of a file conforming to the MP3 format is or is not a copyright violation, that depends on the copyright associated with that instance.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:1)
If a good company goes out of business because everyone used their software but didn't pay, can you say nothing was taken? (and Netscape didn't even charge for private use just corporate)
Your using the fact that copying software is not bound by normal supply and demand to steal.
How about going to a movie for free..... is that stealing? The movie is still there? Just watch George Lucas stop making movies because he's not losing money.
Re:other location for story (Score:1)
Civil Disobedience (Score:1)
Nevertheless, if a law is immoral, as IP law is increasingly shown to be, then it is justifiable in some higher sense to break the law in the name of morality: this is called civil disobedience, and it has a long and honorable tradition. Just don't be suprised at your punishment if you are caught.
Personally, I prefer RMS's solution to this problem - avoid legal entanglements by creating/using free software/OSS. Looked at in this light, not only creating by also using free software is a radical, subversive act - a rejection of the whole piracy/sharing debate, shrinkwrap licences, legal mumbo-jumbo and all the other BS that the "Establishment" wishes to impose on one:
Re:Linux - wean off warez (Score:1)
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! (Score:1)
Short conclusion: if all of us stop dealing with those warez, we would all benefit from it. My system contains only one propretary product, and that's Warp 4. The rest is free, GPL:ed - whatever. Why not join the good guys?
Re:Okay, so here's the damm comment (Score:1)
You're confusing issues (Score:1)
I would think most people consider murder to be wrong because it has real consequences -- someone dies. With unauthorised software copying, however, the consequences are effectively impossible to determine. It helps the author of the software in some ways (as brought up by the previous poster), and it can be argued that it costs them in revenue. I would think that the reason most people don't feel guilty about illegally copying information is because they have no way of telling whether it will do much harm or not.
Re:Piracy (Score:1)
Should actively try to steal water without paying for it?
Think about this for a moment. Is there something about the phrase "steal water" that doesn't make sense?
Get used to it (Score:1)
Re: stealing a candy bar (Score:2)
Oh fsck yeah! And you think they don't know this? I read an article on Israeli software piracy (it's very widespread, apparently due to poor support) which pointed out that if MS can't sell their software legally, it's very important to them for their software to be the most heavily pirated. The idea is that eventually the country will be brought into the company of 'civilized' nonpirating nations, and will start to pay for their software, already having standardized on MS.
Personally, the handful of Israelis _I_ know are all totally crazy. Probably not a representative sample, but I don't see them planning to go and pay retail for sw if it can be had for less. I try to buy stuff, and now that I'm making enough money to live a little comfortably, I can afford to get certain things. The big ticket items are still out of my reach (Photoshop, Quark) but I'm getting there.
Semantic shifts win minds (Score:2)
Quite true. However, words still cary a lot of semantic baggage from their original meanings for a very long time. Of course the third meaning of "piracy" is accepted now, but that doesn't mean it doesnt inherit a significant amount of meaning from the older definitions.
People hear "piracy", they automatically think of things in terms of property crimes. Unauthorized copying, although wrong, is not a property crime.
However, thanks to this shift in usage, every time someone tries to make that point, when they propose a (more) neutral term be used instead, they're accused of trying to subvert the language.
The use of a neutral term in such a discussion is however necessary because the association between "piracy" (as in unauthorized copying) and "piracy" (as in material theft) is reinforced every time the word is used in that fashion. (It just so happens that the idea of unauthorized copying as "property crime" is extremely favorable to the arguments of organizations like the SPA, who initiated the use of the term in the first place.)
Capitalizing on semantic shifts is a great way to get people thinking in terms favorable to your case without them being aware of it, or even being able to rationally discount them. It's not always intentional, but it's something you have to be extremely careful about when choosing words, regardless.
Like it or not, your language has a substantial effect on the way you think. You really learn a new language, you learn a new way of thinking, quite literally. If you can effect a semantic shift, you CAN alter people's view of reality.
---
Re:Piracy Stats (Score:2)
Whatever Stallman may have said, it's no excuse, people. Yes, I agree, everything could have been a lot cheaper, but there's still no excuse. I know all the arguments `pirates' (excuse the term) use (I'm an ex-`pirate' myself), and I know how silly they all are. And the absolutely most stupid thing I can ever think of is people who determine your `coolness' by the amount of `WaReZ' or MP3 you have. Come on, get lost. Or even: Grow up.
I know I'm pissing off a lot of people here, but I don't care. Face reality.
/* Steinar */
So What? (Score:2)
Let's assume this statistic is true (which it probably isn't; the SPA has a vested interest in demonizing "piracy").
So what?
No. Seriously. Think about it: So what?
The computer industry is growing at a monsterous rate. Like they said in that PBS special Nerds 2.0.1, "Outside of a petri dish, I've never seen anything grow that fast."
Clearly, the computer industry can support a 40% "piracy" rate. Clearly, illicit copying of software is not a serious detriment to the success of the industry, its workers, or its executive staffs who are rushing to the IPO bar like it's 1999...
No company has ever gone out of business as a result of software "piracy". The industry should stop flogging this dead horse. It's not a problem, and never has been. Fuggeddabouddit.
Schwab
THANK YOU! (Score:2)
You have described precisely the scenario that exists in the memories of our computers, in which the economics are fundamentally different from the market economy of the "real world".
I wrote an essay on this subject some time back, Digital Sculptures [best.com], which attempts to explain the true nature of The New Economy awaiting us, foretold by our computers.
Schwab
Re:There aren't many pirates left. (Score:2)
As a software developer I can honestly say that software developers don't care if you pirate or not. The people who care about that are in the other wing in their large window offices and expensive suits... and they don't know how to program.
"Losses" (Score:3)
My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! (Score:3)
I surf the newsgroups, warez sites, and trade with friends on a daily basis. I try out every piece of software that I can get my hands on that sounds like it might be remotely useful for something, regardless of whether or not I have a use for it right now.
Why is all this 'illegal' material on my computer? I am a full-time college student. What I am doing is becoming familiar with as many different programs used for as many different applications as I can. This makes me highly knowledgable, highly productive, and a much sought after commodity in the marketplace. This is good for the industry because when I am put on a job I already know what software is the best solution for the job, and I can tell my boss outright what they should buy without them having to spend any money researching the many different product lines. Widespread knowledge about the faults, down falls, limitations, etc of different products leads to the elimination of the products that are hard to use, or don't do what you need them to do. Without a doubt, this is a good thing. Granted, there are many educational discounts available, but for the most part, a lot of software is crap! How do you find this out, except by trying it out? Demo's and non-timeout software is pointless. If you don't get to try all the features, how do you know if the other features are good enough to warrant purchasing the software?
I don't have a copy of the letter handy, but there is a letter that has been floating around in the warez newsgroups for a year or so. This letter was supposedly written by the author of a piece of software on why he thought that cracking his software was a good idea! Obviously, since I don't have a copy I don't remember all his points, but I remember a couple. He said that it was very flattering to have his software cracked, because that meant that people actually liked it, and that he was doing something right with his software.
The software industry isn't even losing any money on me, because I never had, nor intend to buy the software. Just because I have a copy of it does not mean that there is a chance in hell of me purchasing it, it might mean that I tried it out, and found it to be the buggiest piece of software I had ever used. How do they come up with the statistics anyway? The people that pirate software aren't just sitting around tallying up every piece of software they have, and give it to the proper authorities so it can be put in their nice little spreadsheet are they? No way! So how can they say with a straight face that they are losing all this money, and give an actual dollar amount, when prices for products sold through different venues is vastly varied, they don't know what software is being stolen, and they don't know exactly who is doing it (or we would all have been fined by now).
Food for thought. Anyone want to try to refute me?
RMS disagrees with that principle, and so do I (Score:2)
If I think up a funny joke, and tell it to some friends, or even do a stand up show where people come and pay to hear the joke, it is none of my business if they want to retell that joke to their friends, as long as they don't claim to be that joke's originator.
Anything else is extortion. If i copy some software, i did the work of copying. True, it was not much work, and the creation of the sofware in the first place was most likely a great deal of work, but as the developer is not providing me with any services, he has no right to extort money for some imaginary debt I owe him.
You can't truly believe in property rights if you believe in intellectual property rights. I did the work to earn money for my hard drive. I did the work to earn the money for buying the disk the software came in. No one disputes that if I buy software at a store I own the physical media it came on. As both the original cdrom and the hard drive are my undisputed personal private property, it is my business and my business alone if I want to make full use of this property, including making copies and distributing them. By saying I can't put my cdrom burner into full use by opening up a small software publishing company, you are depriving me of MY fundamental human rights. I am harming no one, using only my property. It is true that developers ought to be paid for their work, but paying for software is not the same thing as paying for work. If a carpenter builds a house with an innovative new design, and he invites people over to take a look at it, someone may or may not buy it. If instead of buying it
someone decides to build their own house with a design like yours instead of simply buying yours, that is too bad for you, but you have not been harmed or wronged. if you never sell the house you will have learned your lesson, and next time you will not put the work into building it until somebody is there to pay you to build it specifically for them.
No one is forcing programmers to write software. If they can't make money selling something that has no scarcity, as you of course can't, they ought to find a business model that does work, instead of violating the rights of the entire world.
Re:In addition... (Score:2)
Absolutely - Recall the great copy protection battles of the 1980s, where commercial software companies essentially admitted that piracy was an acceptable loss.
As the software market has gone international, and it turns out that 90% of the software in some places is pirated, guess what? Microsoft and others *still* think its an acceptable loss. If they didn't, they'd be copy protecting the stuff up to the hilt. (They even considered this seriously for Office 2000, but dropped the idea, if I heard correctly.)
Microsoft has the all the cost and benifits of being the standard. This includes being able to charge US customers $1000 for the full version of MS Office 2000, but also implys mass piracy. Lotus and Corel already have their prices down to $200 or so - busting the 3rd world pirates puts the fastest growing parts of the world economy right into their hands. No piracy means MS has to be price competitive.
Don't forget the free advertising factor either. I wish I had the reference handy, but in the old days when WordPerfect had 80% market share, someone from Microsoft essentially admitted that each pirated copy of MS Word was acceptable because it was meant an additonal Windows and Office user.
--
Re:"Losses" (Score:2)
Plagiarism is necessary - progress demands it.
--
Re: stealing a candy bar (Score:2)
This applys in the US also. As a college student, I liberally pirated software. As a computer professional, the companies and products have been payed back many times through my recommendations, support, etc. Some companies such as Netscape even make it easy for the unlicenced use of their products by hosting the "warez" right on their own FTP servers.
You're right about this being an artifact of the proprietary software industry, but face it, that's what businesses run on. This involves quite a bit of hypocracy on the software vendors part - they're saying one thing to the government, and another to the (paying and not paying) user base.
--
Re:The mathematics of "piracy" (Score:2)
Maybe the shrinkwrap market needs to get over their model of one price = unlimited use.
For example, I know people who do Photoshop work all day, every day. Their company would probably pay $5000 for Photoshop, because they need it. One the other hand, some people use Photoshop to touch up little web graphics (which admittedly they could do with gimp or shareware). Yet Adobe charges both crowds the same $600. This is obviously unacceptable for the low-end of the market, so the honest people scramble to produce free or low-cost alternatives (like the gimp), and the dishonest people just pirate.
Perhaps some sort of CPU-usage accounting model needs to be resurrected. I'd love to have Photoshop as a tool if it only cost me a few dollars now and again. As it is, I'm forced to learn and use other software which is not as good.
--
Re:The mathematics of "piracy" (Score:2)
Actually I should reply to myself and say that Gimp is really a bad example because (1) it exists, and (2) I don't really think it's substandard - it's more of a learning curve issue for me.
Just consider one of the many software types for which there is no open source alternative. Unless you are docternal about open source only, there's probably some price you'd be willing to pay for just about everything you'd use.
--
Re:In addition... (Score:2)
Anyway, thanks for providing a runtime-only version of Access. That will make management much easier.
--
Re:In addition... (Score:2)
Do you have a certificate infrastructure for this, or is that Win2000 only?
Being more of a Word 6.0 person myself, I haven't tried the Office 2000 betas, but all of this stuff, plus the Office Server Extentions, plus the upcoming knowledge management server is enough to give me deployment nightmares.
--
it's simple differential pricing (Score:2)
A company like Microsoft wants to get their products onto as many desktops as possible and to extract as much money from any customer as possible. So, at the one end, they have full price versions that just install, then they have "upgrades" with all sorts of cumbersome legal or software requirements (home users may bother, corporate users often don't), and they have "low cost" versions for universities ("hey, buddy, the first one is on me" comes to mind).
Tolerating some degree of piracy among people who couldn't otherwise afford their software would actually make sense for them. Of course, piracy needs to be curtailed among people who could otherwise pay for their products.
Another common example of "piracy" involving Microsoft products is MSDN. Even though the $2500/year MSDN subscription includes Office and a lot of other applications, you are not (in principle) permitted to use that software for anything other than development. If you actually want to write, you need to shell out more money. Of course, many (most?) developers who couldn't afford separate full versions seem to ignore this requirement, while big corporations dutifully license Office and all the other software.
I very much hope software companies will crack down more on piracy. That will make the true cost of their products much clearer to people who right now are getting the impression that something like Windows is "cheap".
I stick religiously to software licensing terms, and I personally simply avoid most of this unpleasant business by just using free software whenever I can. I recommend you do the same...
Re:Linux/OSS (Score:2)
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! (Score:2)
But lets flesh out the issue. Lets say the world got together and decided software piracy should end today. Nevermind the implimentation and enforcement, let us just assume the world went along with it. Also, for the sake of my argument, let us assume that of the 40% of software users who are engaging in software piracy, only 15% would actually buy a given product if piracy were no longer possible.
Now, in a world with no piracy, one has four options if one is looking to use a computer to do an arbitrary task:
1) buy software to complete the task
2) write the software one's self
3) find open sourced or free software
4) find an alternative to using a computer
So what do you think might happen to the software industry? Would the once pirates sart buying expensive software? If you accpeted my assumption about software pirates purchasing software if piracy ended, then we already know the answer; 25% of the world's consumers of software would be left with options 2, 3, and 4. I believe it is safe to say options 2 and 4 are impractical in most cases, but maybe a fifth of our remaining 25% of software users would explore such options, leaving 20% of all software users with only option 3.
Ok. To recap:
Piracy has ended
75% of people buy software
5% of people write there own software or stopped using computers
20% of people are now exploring the option of free/opensourced software
Between you and me, I believe such a scenario would lead to a bolstering in opensourced software. The increase in use of such software might even be enough to create a massive cascading effect, whereby software buyers would begin to flock to the costless software option. Those software publishers who cheered when piracy was eliminated weep quietly as they watch their markets dwindle.
Ok then, which industry do you prefer? Do you prefer a software industry with piracy and a large software market, or an industry characterized by opensourced and free software? Which might software publishers prefer?
So yes, software piracy is illegal. And no amount of rationalization will change that fact. But at least consider what I have said.
-Yek401
Actually, no (Score:2)
Linux/OSS (Score:2)
Bullsh*t. Read the license. (Score:2)
Don't try to assuage your concience with the "everyone does it" defense, that gets real old real fast. And if you are gonna use it, at least get your facts straight.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! (Score:5)
Pirating software is illegal. Period. You may not agree with this, you don't have to. But what you are effectively saying above is that it's okay to pirate software becase a) the company is not loosing money (which is not correct by the way) b) it is advantageous to you to have the software and c) it is advantageous to others for you to have the software.
Now my question is, does any of this change the fact that it is illegal? Nope. So are you telling me that it's okay to break the law because it is beneficial to me? Cool, maybe I'll go rob a bank. I mean, I need the money, and if I have the money, I can spend it which befefits the retail market. And I won't hurt anyone, plus the bank is insured, so they don't lose out either. And the government? They can always make more money! It's perfect.
As for the software industry not losing money on you, that's the common "I'm only one person" mentality. Everybody thinks, company A isn't going to be making any money on me anyway, so they aren't loosing anything on me. If everbody thinks that way, then no one will buy the software. That's loosing money. And look at the issue here, when you graduate and get a good paying job, are you going to buy new software, or keep using the old warez?
Microsoft likes piracy (just doesn't know it) (Score:2)
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:2)
Even if piracy were impossible, not everyone that does pirate software would purchase that same software. Some can't justify the cost; others couldn't even afford the cost. There are also those who make a pirated copy just because they "might need it someday".
This is total crap.
I might need a new car someday, but I'm not going to go out and steal one, just in case.
Software doesn't fall from the sky. People work at it. If they want to give it away, then that's their decision. If they want to ask for some money in return for their efforts, that's also a valid decision. You don't make that decision. The world does not revolve around you.
Software isn't a right. It is the result of someone's effort, just as making a car is, or cooking a burger or smuggling an ounce of pot through customs. And it isn't written anywhere that you are entitled to steal any of these things just because you don't want to pay for it. Grow up.
An unusual perspective (Score:2)
I am what you could call a cracker - no, not a script kiddie (mass media calls these "hackers", but I'm preaching to the converted here) or a WaReZ d00d (one who collects copied software, perhaps in lieu of stamps or whatever), but a software deprotection specialist.
To clarify things a little more, that is; I, or we, get sent original, keyed, copies of software from real users, as well as previews, beta versions, pre-installed versions, you name it. From time to time I'll take a look at this (large) pile, and pick something out that looks interesting, and sit in front of VexMon for a while, and come out with a key, or serial number, or patch, or whatever. I upload it to an FTP site, whereupon (probably) a couple of hundred leeches (including, but not exclusively, the aforementioned WaReZ d00ds) download it.
I *also* have a look at this stuff, leeching off myself as it were (as well, of course, as the authors).
I crack because I enjoy it, because I find it an intellectual challenge (although not usually as much of a challenge as I'd like). I use my cracks, because (I feel strongly about this) NO-ONE tells me what to do with my machine. It's on *my* hard-disk; I own it. After that, it's just ones and noughts, baby, ones and noughts.
Ultimately, it's just a number, or whatever. When you see source and object up close, all mystery is stripped away. Oh, it may have taken years to figure out those ones and noughts - hell, it might take a month, on and off, for me to figure out the ones and noughts I ought to be feeding it instead. Seeing a month of late nights condensed into 16 characters makes you realise how valuable information can be. Am I contradicting myself? Probably. But I can understand how being ripped off feels.
Why do I still do it? Why, in fact, do I release this stuff? Out of some moral crusade? Out of some ethical belief? No. Who am I to preach on morals and ethics, when I have none? I just... do it. Because I can, maybe. I know it isn't any kind of argument, but why argue with myself?
Anyway. A few points of mine were undoubtedly better made elsewhere. I think I have three tiers of software quality: 1. Waste of space. (WaReZ d00ds, of course, do not have this category.) 2. Used (often or from time to time), maybe worth having, certainly not worth any actual money. 3. Worth the price. I cannot speak for the ethics, or lack thereof, of others. But I buy software in category 3. I buy software I think it worth the price, to reward the authors.
Authors might like to ignore the fact that category 2 exists. They certainly don't want their software in it, because that's the stuff that gets pirated by people. (Corporate piracy is a very different thing, which I cannot lay any claim to understand.)...
OK, I'm just mindlessly rambling now. This is what happens to your brain right after 96-bit insanity, people. Don't follow in my footsteps, they're going straight to hell.
Myth of "lost revenue" (Score:2)
Why?
First, license discount for bulk.
Second, Company X has only Y amount of dollars. If they're forced to go legal, then they'll only buy as many as they can afford, not as many as can be installed.
Third, who ever pays street price for software?
If you're worried about piracy, do what the music companies have done, and charge what the local market will bear, not American price times exchange rate. (Music CDs in Europe range from $20 U.S. to $5 U.S. for the same CD.)
Re: stealing a candy bar (Score:2)
When you pirate some software, then the original owner still has his copy of the software.
The economics of physical items is very different to the economics of virtual items.
Harmed vs. wronged (Score:2)
I think everybody knows what 'harming' means. If you walk into a store and take a piece of merchandise, you've harmed the owner of the store. However, if you copy a piece of software, you haven't harmed the software company (unless you would've bought the software otherwise), since the company is no worse off for you copying it.
However, you can 'wrong' somebody without harming them. A simple example is the act of eavesdropping. Slashdot frequenters tend to be acutely vocal about their right to privacy. If telephone operators listened in on your conversations (but never acted on this information), then they wouldn't be harming you. But, you would be 'wronged', and you'd probably be pretty pissed if you ever found out about it. So certain laws are in place to prevent individuals from being wronged, even if they aren't harmed. It is in this sense that software piracy is illegal. You are wronging the developers of the software by illegally copying and using their software.
I think the reason there is so much debate on this issue is that many people simply don't think that using pirated software is 'wronging' the company. I wonder if it would be consolation to them if somebody who was spying on you (listening on your telephone conversations, watching you change through your window, etc.) didn't think it was 'wronging' you to spy. It isn't your place to decide which laws apply to you, and which don't. If you truly believe that it should be your right to use software you wouldn't normally buy or couldn't afford, then maybe you should try changing the laws.
I don't want to come off as holier-than-thou. I've certainly used my share of pirated software in my time. However, it's important to point out how software piracy is immoral, even if it isn't like shoplifting.
(And for those who don't like the term 'piracy', I think you're being a bit silly. When I talk of 'highway robbery', I don't think of a storeowner holding me up at gunpoint!)
--------
Re:Piracy Stats (Score:2)
Or, perhaps, do. But remember that pirated music doesn't really hurt the band, who usually get $1-2 per CD, and so must stay on tour.
Personally, I'm boycotting CDs, in light of the RIAA's Gestapo tactics. Come on people, there's not really a moral issue here: the RIAA is a dinosaur, it chooses what music _you_ listen to, and MP3 itself is unstoppable.
Maybe the debates are related, but MP3 doesn't make me feel like I'm cheating someone.
-Grendel Drago
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy (Score:3)
At the end of the article, he made a very good point. Most of the warez traded on the net are traded by teenage boys. They open private FTP and Hotline servers. They trade Flash4 before it's available for sale. So what. What do these kids do with them? Burn a CD. What happens to it after that? Not a damn thing in most cases. Pogue made the brilliant observation that for war3z kiddies, it's a hobby like baseball cards. You trade software worth hundreds of dollars and never even use the app. Bragging rights for dorks basically.
For a company to say that they're losing money to these kids, which arguably make up 90% of the pirated software world, is utter bullshit and should be treated as such. Take this example: you happen to get the blueprints and the parts to build an Acura NSX. Everything sits in your garage boxed up and you never put it together. In fact, one day you throw it all out. Did Acura lose money on this little clandestine act? No. Did it hurt their company overall? No. If a thousand people did the exact same thing, they still wouldn't be losing money.
The point is, to me, most applications are made to accomplish a specific task. 3dsMax renders animations. If you buy the program, use it in your 3d shop, and sell the animation you've accomplished a money-making task. If you pirate the software, install it, say 'goddamn this is crazy and complicated' and delete it, who cares. NOBODY LOSES MONEY.
Of course, there are exceptions, like the Glamour Shots lab in Oklahoma City where I used to work. Pirated software all over the place, man oh man if they ever get audited.. That's the cases in which piracy really is wrong.
Way underevaluated (Score:2)
Though it's stealing, there's one good thing about piracy : it makes computers more popular. If people had to pay for all their software most would probably not use a computer because Windows+Office+games+utils would cost way too much (way more than the computer itself). Yeah I know, Linux and free-software is "free", but most people started using computers with MS junk and games, then sometimes move to Linux or BeOS.
Some companies even take advantage of software (not only blank CDs manufacturer! ). If 3DS Max became so popular, isn't it because there are so many infographist that knows it, because they could get their on a pirated copy when they were student, learn with it and then choose it as their tool of choice when they get a job Y?
My thought : companies should pay for commercial software, individuals/student should be allowed to copy it. That's what some companies already do (StarOffice, Wordperfect, etc...).
Moral Issues and Respect (Score:2)
1. - Since the developer doesn't know that I'm receiving the fruits of their efforts for nothing, even though they specifically expect compensation, it's okay.
2. - Since there are enough honest people willing to compensate the developer for their efforts, it's okay for me not to do so.
Neither of these 'principles' (for lack of a better word) holds any strength from a moral standpoint. Parasites and perpetual mooches deserve their low reputation.
There are many people who say, with some relevance, that copying software to learn it, and later reccommend it to an employer for purchase, etc. helps the software industry. There appears to be some sort of logic to this, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't your choice, as a licensee (consumer), to do this. If I go steal a hershey bar from the 7-11 down the street, eat it, reccomend it to my friends, ten of whom buy one, does that mean that I'm not responsible for the one I took? It doesn't take the Hershey corp. a significant effort to produce the bar I took when compared to the total amount they produce, but that doesn't make stealing one okay. If the Hershey corp. wants to use this style of marketing, they're free to do so - many software companies, such as StarDivision and Netscape (way back when) do this - as the owner they can license the software however _they_ choose. The only people who have the right to make software free are those who develop it. Just because it's easier to rationalize the issue with software than it is for candy doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.
Piracy Stats (Score:3)