Slashdot Mirror
College Students Are Buying More, Warez-ing Less
Keefesis writes: "This story from a researcher at the University of Florida states that software piracy among college students dropped between the 1996-97 school year and the 2000-01 school year. One reason cited is that software makers have found 'creative' ways to entice students to purchase software(rather than the heavy-handed and largely unsuccessful tactics of the RIAA)."
Maybe because the 96-97 crop of students are industry now, and know what it's like to have to purchase software and what makes the purchase worthwhile to students.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
A lot of companies are no realising that people stick with what they know. Give a student a discount on your software and when they go on to ear big bucks they will buy the retail versions. (Hello calling macromedia)
Up until a year ago I warezed all my software(for Windows). Now, programs and games are becoming so sophisticated that it is useless to pirate something becasue you lose so many of the features that are included on the CD.
Every once in a while I will warez a program or game to try it out, and then if I like it I'll definitely go pay for it - having the CD and all the material that comes with the app. is worth the money.
~.Evanrude
It used to be that only the hackers were playing around with computers, and for them pirating presented no significant technical hurdles. Now everyone and his sister is using a computer, and they're far more likely to just go out and buy their OS, office and a couple of games to go with this nice shiny computer mom and dad bought them.
The computer nerds are probably copying just as much, its just that the nerds with computers are a smaller ratio of the user population every day.
They had the same academic pricing on software in 1996. Note that students admit less to using warez, does not mean that they are using less warez. I think with the rise of broadband, and wiring dorm room, this has to be wrong. Maybe the students got smarter and are now not admiting to commiting crimes.
Companies can succeed by selling service rather than software. It's the extras on the CD, the nifty stuff on the DVD, the nice documentation that makes the difference. And the students know it.
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
There are only a few software packages that most students would ever contemplate using ... say, the OS, an office suite, and a few specific analysis packages tailored specifically for courses. Since most software companies make most of their money off industrial users, it makes sense to tailor cheap licenses for student software users. Modern packages also tend to be large, in the hundreds of megabytes -- even with university bandwidth that's not trivial, especially if your rez has capacity limits.
By contrast, there are hundreds of songs that the average student would be interested in downloading, and students are one of the more lucrative demographics for music companies. Most songs are a few megabytes at most, making them incredibly easy to download and share. The "creative solutions" proposed for software probably won't translate well into music piracy ...
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
"In that survey, of about 700 students, Chiang and Assane found the number of students using pirated software dropped to about 40 percent, Chiang said, a 25 percent decline. The dip is all the more significant researchers, pointed out, because it occurred at a time when both the amount of software and students' use of computers increased considerably." Or it's possible that these students are following the recent copyright/piracy debates closely and are worried about getting caught, so more people are lying about what they're ripping off than in 1996. Hell, if someone came up to me and said "Hey, this is for a 'survey' - do you pirate software?" I'd lie. I mean, have you seen the microsoft piracy scare ads?
Triv
Um. Yeah. The quote, for everyone's edification:
Surveys of undergraduates at several public and private universities reveal the number of students who admit [emphasis my own] to using illegally copied "free" software remains high but dropped noticeably between 1996-97 and the 2000-01 school year.
Maybe people aren't admitting it because they're afraid that someone might actually start enforcing legislation like the NETA (No Electronic Theft Act) and DMCA against average users. Look at Sklyarov.
I'd like to think people are starting to buy stuff... but come on - do we really think the piracy norm has gone anywhere?
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
"Why buy a PhotoShop educational license when you can use GIMP for free and with no obligations? Why lock-in to properiatary apps?"
Because Photoshop supports many features REQUIRED by professional design and printing firms. Photoshop became the industry standard image editing application because it caters to the needs of the design community. Simply put, the GIMP does not.
Flash Course? In college? Where do they teach this properiatary junk? Flash is not something to be taught in an academic class that same way you won't teach about PEPSI to a food engineering student.
You seem to have a narrow realization of how broad the college experience can be. Climb out of your engineering hole. It's not CS or Software Engineering students who would take a course like Flash (usually). It's electronic arts and communications students. And flash is certainly a viable medium for art. Usually the medium is taught along with presentation and communication theory that works with it. (just what is the non-proprietary vector animation standard, anyway?)
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
If you want to warez your books, sell them to students instead of your bookstore, everyone wins in that deal. =]
What?
jgerman wrote: "Maybe because the 96-97 crop of students are industry now, and know what it's like to have to purchase software and what makes the purchase worthwhile to students."
Your reply: "If the study was comparing the piracy among students in the 96-97 school year and those same people today, you would have a point. However, it is comparing the students in the 96-97 school year and the students now, which in most cases are different people."
I emphasized the point that jgerman was trying to make. The same ppl that were the pirates are now in the industry, they know why they pirated in the 90's thus they might know what would entice someone to actually buy the software instead of pirate it. There advantages to purchasing software legally, the trick is to make these advantages desireable to your target audience.
Well, it's true, isn't it? Content companies in general (game companies, movie companies, television networks, music, etc..) can't price their products and then expect people to pay that forever. Each of these companies have a serious problem looming over them, and that is too much content.
Let's look at the game industry, for example. There are at least 6 systems furiously competing today. (DC, PS2, XBOX, GC, GBA, PC) Each of these systems are releasing games like crazy. The problem is, my paycheck in the last few years hasn't risen high enough to buy that many more games, not to mention that the number of hours in the day hasn't increased enough for me to play them. If the number of games released is greater than the amount of disposable money people have to spend, how can they expect everybody to pay the same price for games?
Lowering the price of games for college students, for example, was a great approach! It'd be cool if one day your student ID could get you a discount on games.
I hope the RIAA pays attention to this study. The harder it is to copy music, for example, the more demand there is for somebody to do it. Where there's demand, there's fame. Where there's fame, there's somebody saying "Yes, I'm willing to invest hours into acquiring fame." But if the RIAA were to open up and say "We've lowered the price of CD's, and you're free to copy them and do what you want with them!", they will likely find that going to the store to buy CD's is preferable to waiting to download them.
One idea the RIAA should consider is releasing individual songs on those 2" CD's. Price them low, and then allow people to make their own mixes. Reward the customer for buying these little CD's by letting them create their own single CD that has the songs they want on it. Don't punish the customer for having other desires with music. That's what the economics game is all about. You'll make profit if you give the customer incentive to buy your product. But if you take features away, you're punishing them, and customers don't like that.
I know I don't like being told I'm a thief because I have an MP3 player.
"Derp de derp."
Would be a shame if your "Computer Science" education only prepared your for the job market and didn't teach you any computer science though, eh? I think that's what the OP was somewhat annoyed about and I agree. Computer science isn't about learning a trade; may as well become an apprentice. It's about learning mathematics, logic, and computability. Just because many schools offer a "Computer Science" dept that actually teaches "Software Engineering" doesn't mean that "Computer Science" equates to Java-hacking or something equally inane.
Your college education in Computer Science should teach you the ins and outs of the lambda calculus, higher-order functions, the nature of the computable, algorithm design and analysis, formal logic, etc... so on and so forth. You should have no trouble adapting to any sort of computer tools after that; your skills won't be obsolete in 3 years. What in the world does Flash have to do with all that? Do yourself a favor, go to a trade school if all you care about is learning trade-tools, and save yourself some money.
(Not that I object to taking classes in such tools, but they are far, far from what your focus should be)
Those who do not know the past are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.
When I was a student, I paid (IIRC) $350 for the academic-priced Photoshop. Yes, I paid. And yes, that's a great deal -- Photoshop really is worth twice that.
But $350 was a fucking lot of money for me back in the days when a $3.50 sandwich seemed expensive.
Yes, a lot of student pirates out there have money to burn -- but a great many don't. Many students are working one or two jobs to pay their way through school, and struggling to make rent. Sure, games are cheap. But the software that students need for their education really is expensive.
I'm not necessarily defending rampant piracy, but don't get so cocky about students' spending habits. I think if you saw "an honest analysis of their lifestyle", you'd find out that a lot of them are genuinely broke.
The college classes using Photoshop are typically geared towards poeple who will in turn use the software in a professional setting. They must learn how to deal with color management, different color spaces when when touching up photographs or perhaps designing texture maps for 3D animations or games. If the industry is using Photoshop for image editing, professional design and 3D work, it makes sense to teach the students on tools they will be using in the near future.
Another example I've come across has been the use of Maya in a college setting. Why not teach 3D Studio MAX or SoftImage or use a free tool like Blender? Because Maya is an industry standard tool for 3D animation. While MAX and SoftImage are used extensively in the industry, Maya is more common and is taught because of this.
The first survey in 96-97 was of 158 students in 3 different colleges by an economics major interested in piracy. Most of these students were probably friends and/or acquaintances.
The next survey was of 700 students at only 2 universities. This was probably a lot greater spectrum of students many of whom were in less technically oriented majors. ie: Much of the population doesn't know enough or care enough about computers to even begin pirating software.
Perhaps the piracy rates have changed in the past 4 years, perhaps not, but I don't think these surveys will tell us a thing one way or the other.