Overture Search Terms Showcase Piracy Desire

swfnews guy writes: "swfnews.com (a slashcode based site) today published this article regarding how Overture's search term suggested tool can be used to see the desired piracy of a particular piece of software. I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it."

Comments

Just another Pro closed software article?

[hellfire]

The article author says they are concerned about about a search tool that allows people to search for cracks on software to make it easier to pirate tools.

Have the user read the slashdot posting about a half a dozen postings behind this one regarding intellectual property, then have him switch to open source.

This is not a "pro-open source rant." This is a comment about the complete lack of useful discussion this slashdot posting has considering slashdot's audience.

I'm not concered

[ShawnDoc]

Let's be honest. Most of the people looking for the "crack" are most likely teens and preteens w/out a job who are looking to do a bit of flash work for a friends web site or something similar. I don't believe the majority of the people looking for the crack would have bought the software had they not been able to crack the software (And if they are using Overture to search for cracks, they're not going to find them anyway). So the total number of sales lost due to piracy like this are minimal.

In fact, I've got a hunch that a lot of these guys will turn out to be great Macromedia customers in a few years once they've honed their skills on the cracked version, and enter the real world of web page design where they can A) Afford the software and B) Write it off as a tax deduction.

Now, I'm not justifying the piracy, and it doesn't make it any less illegal. I just don't think its a big deal when you look at the total picture.

Flash MX

[Mathonwy]

I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it.

Maybe there are less people who don't know how to use flash and want to than there are who already know how, but don't have $500 to fork over for the full version. (I know I certainly fall into the second catagory...)

(and to be fair, flash has one of the better built-in tutorials for learning how to use it.)

Right price point, wrong users

[mblase]

Flash, Photoshop, and even MS Office are all products not designed for ordinary consumers. They're just not. They're packed with features and tools for professionals, and those professionals are trying to make money with this software. The least they can do is ante up a few hours worth of their own fees to pay for the tools they use.

If you're a consumer, and you want a cheap product, the vendors are there for you. MS Office cost too much for your school papers? Get a copy of Works. Photoshop expensive for making web graphics and removing red-eye? Get Photoshop Elements for a fraction of the price.

Meanwhile, Macromedia Flash is the perfect example of a tool not targetted at consumers, period. The tutorial takes a couple of hours to get through, minimum, when you're starting from scratch, and ActionScript is hardly a walk in the park.

You say you'd buy Flash MX for $50. Well, what are you going to do with it? Goof around and build crappy animated interfaces for your web site? Or learn to use it properly and sell yourself as a Flash professional? If it's the latter, then take a class or pay for the full product, and justify the $50/hour your peers are charging. If it's the former, just learn JavaScript. It's still free.

Re:Right price point, wrong users

[charnov]

The problem with the theory of if someone can't afford a piece of software you don't need it is that the file formats for these products are pervasive and proprietary. If one is to function even in a non-professional (read: not getting paid for doing professional work) manner, one must have the software to even be able to communicate with ones peers. I left the graphic design busines amidst the spiraling costs of software. Every new version broke compatibility and it became a loss leader business.

Re:Right price point, wrong users

[LPetrazickis]

It is often said that 80% of users need 20% of the features. The problem with that saying is that they all need a different set of 20% of features, so making lite versions never works. The basic truth is that there are impoverished (by the NA standard) people who need Photoshop and Microsoft Office and (unfortunately) Visual Studio for their hobbies. They will always pirate even though professionals always pay up the $500 or $3000 or whatever is being charged.

Intent is all fine and good...

[2nd Post!]

But these companies do have a right to set the price they want to do a transaction at;

If that means $584 for Photoshop, then that's what you need to fork over. If you don't like it... doesn't mean you have the right or privilege to download or use it.

Then there's the $89 version of Photoshop Elements.

Or you can get an older, cheaper version of Photoshop. Photoshop 5.5, 5.0, 4.0. 3.0, all worked, and continue to work today.

Or you can use gimp.

If you can't afford to use the program, you can't afford to use the program, and that's how simple it is.

If you *need* the program, then you can afford it. If a $584 copy of Photoshop allows you to earn $30,000 a year in consultation fees, you can afford Photoshop.

If you just want to put pictures on the web... use the $89 of Photoshop.

Re:Intent is all fine and good...

[MagikSlinger]

Or you can get an older, cheaper version of Photoshop. Photoshop 5.5, 5.0, 4.0. 3.0, all worked, and continue to work today.

Not quite, Sparky. Under the EULA, those licenses are non-transferable. You can't buy those older versions new, nor is it strictly kosher to buy an older version. Although most courts won't bother to hear a case for a user-to-user transaction, that doesn't mean it's legal.

Don't believe me? Set up a used software store in Silicon Valley and advertise California wide. See how long your doors are open before the lawyers come... I dare ya'

As for your snobbish arrogant attitude of "You are a weenie, un-talented little loser" to those who want the programs cheaper, my response to that is you haven't seen what amatures do with Flash and Photoshop. Those are the only tools out there for them to do the kind of stuff they want. Not everyone who pirates the full Photoshop are just getting rid of red-eye.

One of the best Flash animations I ever saw was from a highschool student in Germany who got started with a "borrowed" copy of Flash. Luckily, his work was so good a local web design company hired him. Last I heard, Macromedia doesn't offer good student discounts (like Adobe does). Don't be so surprised at the number of student pirates out there.

One of the earlier posters said it right: drop the price, kill piracy. Photoshop Elements is a step in the right direction. Now Adobe just needs to make it easier (i.e., cheaper) for those users to graduate to the full version. $80 from a user who would have pirated is better than nothing from a user who did.

HINT TO ADOBE ET AL: Legalize the secondary market for software!

Re:Piracy could be mostly stopped

[Tazzy531]

The problem with that is this. At one point or another this "kid" that is learning is going to find out that he can make money doing some flash work or photoshop work. Is he going to say that, Oh, I have the "kids" version, I can't do that, I need to buy the full version? Or is he just going to go ahead an use it.

Secondly, you mention nominal cost (under 100). Do you think people that pirate the software will even pay that much? $100 is still a lot of money for a person that is used to receiving it for free.

I don't feel that price is the main issue/reason that piracy is so rampant. Whether a program is 500 or 50, people will still pirate it. The main issue here is that people that have been growing up with computers in recent years and in the past 20 years or so have become so accustomed to getting things for free or cheap. Most of the necessary apps come pre-installed on computers. Many of us download music (mp3s) for free. On the internet, most of the sites are free. If we are into open-source, the os, apps, and stuff are all free. How do you get it into someones head that they need to buy something if they or their friends can get it for free.