Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Goes After "Career Pirates"
Stony Stevenson writes "Microsoft has filed 21 lawsuits in US Federal courts as part of an effort to stop those who continually pirate its software. The suits span 14 states and target people and businesses that have allegedly sold pirated copies of Microsoft software. Eight of the suits target companies that Microsoft refers to as 'repeat offender software pirates.' The eight firms had already been sued by Microsoft for selling counterfeit software."
Really, that's who they should be going after. The people selling pirated software.
but this is one of the few cases where I agree with Microsoft, assuming the facts they're presenting are correct at least. If you want to argue that information should be free and pirate music/games/software/whatever for yourself, that's up to you to decide. And the same applies if you want to give away copies of whatever you've pirated to others for free. However very few things disgust me as much as people pirating someone else's work and then selling it for a profit to others.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Seriously. I think the best thing Microsoft could do to speed the adoption of Linux and Mac is crack down on those wanting its software at below market prices.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
I'd bet that the persons receiving the computers loaded with pirated software would be pretty upset to find out that they didn't have licensed software.
People still pay for pirated software? ;)
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
This story feels like a dupe (may or may not be, I haven't checked) but that's probably only because there's a story like this every few months. Microsoft (or someone else) sues a bunch of people who should be sued. I mean, is it news because Microsoft is using the courts as they should be used?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
this is the area where piracy really does hurt companies. I am against Microsoft as much as most of slashdot is, but, this is the kind of thing that copyright law is meant to prevent.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I'm all for Microsoft going after those who violate the terms of the license agreements. But what I don't want to see is Microsoft turning into the **AA and sticking it to the petty offenses and shady legal tactics. That would just be bad PR for a company that actually produced something... unlike the **AA.
The game.
Windows IT consultant here to report that yes, people BUY pirated software.
:)
They'll buy it from eBay, because it's cheaper. They'll buy it when they purchase a new "custom built" white box with cheap Office/Windows.
I run into clients over and over who don't want to pay retail price for software. They run profitable businesses and balk at spending $400 (when I charge that much they don't blink an eye).
Side note: I have recommended FOSS and get different responses. I'm everything independent. Just pay me and I'll maintain it.
Modern journalism teaches to ask "who's the Republican at fault, what can be done by Government to change it, when can we raise taxes to pay for it, where did Bush go wrong, and why didn't we listen to the left before now"
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
If Windows is harder to buy at dirt-cheap or free prices (stuff gotten under-the-table at a geek-shop), and getting it P2P is unpalatable (getting an OS that way is begging for a high-hard reaming via pre-installed trojans anyway)... what other options will there be?
Not that its likely that such a scenario would ever happen, but if MSFT had to compete on full retail (or even an actual-charged-for-OS OEM) playing field, Windows would have been seriously struggling by now. Thanks for free copies, 'promotions' and 'discounts', most people perceive (and get) Windows that is at no cost to them.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And sometimes you have to be willing to burn karma to say it. Well said, roster, well said.
damaged by dogma
I figured I could become a career pirate if I had a house boat...you know, sail around raping and pilaging yacht owners in the south pacific and eventually make it big by becoming friends with some pacific islanders who would band together and terrorize the sees around asia and india. I'd never have to worry about paying taxes or paying for anything since I could always sail away. Of course my wife mentioned we could be shot and of course attacked by pirates ourselves, but I'm sure my plan would work in the long run...
Ave Molech Setting
What's interesting to me isn't the story itself but rather the number of people posting AC to avoid the MS Troll-mods.
MS needs to come up with Windows Lite. Such a product could be their answer to the OLPC and the problem with regional pricing. If they decide to omit Direct-X they better come up with a sticker "Just for Business".
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value before the internet, when distribution was costly and the major determinant of market spread was the company's investment in stamping CD's, packaging and delivery. But now the price of shipping software is close to zero. Is this reflected in the price of Microsoft licenses?
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy. They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy).
The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
why not sell Microsoft software at affordable prices so there will be no need of Career Pirates to sell Counterfeit Microsoft software at affordable prices?
Also how about Pirate Amnesty, where people can trade in their pirated copy of Microsoft software in exchange for a discount on genuine Microsoft software?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Some of the programs targeted are referred to by the pirates as "repeat offender monopolist OSs".
... it's the year of Linux on the Desktop
Admittedly, I read that line out of context...
"Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally."
which prompted me to quickly remind people of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=compiz+linux+youtube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
And let people ask WHY vista requires soooo much RAM and CPU power to do what Linux/FOSS/Compiz-Beryl can on semi-modest hardware. I got 3D effects out of Mandriva on a 700 MHz, 256 MB RAM, but new (64MB, I think) ATI vid card in *Nov 2006*.
But, to get THAT much eye-candy out of vista, what would users have to pay? Not with vista home, that's for sure. And what with stores back then re-imaging underpowered laptops and desktops on display with vista, and barely or reasonably doing ok with XP...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who worked in the rail yards and made presents of things which "fell off a train." It gave him quite a boost -- better than any weed. I never cared much for the smell of it myself.
Well if anyone knows what a repeat offender looks like it is Microsoft.
I could list the slashdot articles but it seems like there is a hard limit to the length of a comment
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Going through the trouble of counterfeiting Microsoft products is like throught the trouble of counterfeiting a Yugo.
BTW..... I thought Microsoft was supposed to have solved the problem of pirates with server-side authentication, codes, hologram discs, codes physically imprinted on discs, and Windows Genuine Advantage.
Guess not.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Even before CD-ROMs existed there was free software. In 1991, when I lived in LA, I sometimes went to a little shop in Venice Beach where I paid $6 for each 5 1/4" diskette with free software. Linux was in version 0.01 by then, I had never heard of it. But I got several of the GNU packages, running in DJGPP, a "DOS extender".
Funny thing, I remember once I was in a meeting with some high-level managers in my company. I had that store's brochure among my papers, and a vice-president saw it before the meeting started. He was curious, so I gave him that catalog. He spent the whole meeting browsing it, giving only some distracted generic answers when anyone spoke to him. So, you see, long before "free software" became popular among geeks, there were managers who became interested in it when they got informed.
Linux is number 1, Vista is number 2! rah rah rah
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
The argument that because copying costs are now lower than before people should no longer charge for creative or intellectual works is essentially flawed. A low cost for reproduction is assumed otherwise copyright law would be unnecessary. Copyright law is a government granted monopoly to the creator of a work saying that you will be the only person who can copy it for X number of years. The government gives you this monopoly as an incentive for you to produce something of value since you know Joe down the street won't be able to set up your content on his printing press or modern equivalent and sell it too making your initial investment worthless (why not just wait for someone else to make something and then sell their thing). This is a pretty good idea and the US constitution even gives the reason for it when it grants the government the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Where this all doesn't make any sense is when the terms get beyond the original 20 or so years. In fact, extending the term is counterproductive because an author of a really good book/song/painting/program only has a greater incentive to write more if they know they will lose the income from the first one.
Copyright's fine. Open Source / Free Software is fine in that it provides other incentives for progress (recognition, communal sponsoring of something that benefits several companies in tangential businesses such as hardware, consulting, update services, etc as you mention). Each has its place and inherent pros and cons (typically open source software best serves the needs of those who write it - either the uber geeks who use emacs or IBM who sells mainframes. Commercial development typically serves best audiences who will pay the most per unit of effort of a developer).
Where you get into trouble is where a few strongly interested parties (publishers) can successfully lobby to have terms extended beyond serving what a reasonable person would understand the intent of copyright to be. They can do this because they are a small moneyed interest with strong individual motivation to see copyright terms extended. Whereas the general public sees a small benefit if the term is short as originally intended. However the amount of caring per person does not usually even hit the level of staying informed of the issues or even the reason behind having copyright (people often assume it's an ownership issue - I should own this thing I made rather than a public good issue - you get to make money off this thing exclusively so you have sufficient financial backing to produce it and more things in the future). It really doesn't reach the point where the general public is willing to hire lobbyists and since they are uninformed are unwilling to put forth the effort to organize and each contribute the $3.02 that it is worth to each person to provide lawmakers opposing views to those of Hollywood and the **AA's.
The cost of a product isn't just its marginal cost of production. You also have to cover the costs of design. Perhaps you could charge millions for the first copy, and then charge only the marginal cost for the rest. But it's much more common to amortize the cost over the production run of the product.
Making shit up and spelling Microsoft's name with a dollar sign doesn't help. Start writing to your congressman and organize grassroots efforts to change copyright law instead.
(posting AC because if you know about this then you'd probably know who I am, and I didn't get along with any of you except Derrick)
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy.
How is this insightful, and why should someone who ignores the cost of years of development be an economist?
The basic structure of a free market economy dissolves as a monopoly is introduced. If microsoft was producing QUALITY software during those "years of development", then the (free) market price would be much higher, since consumers would want the superior system to work on, and be willing to sacrifice the funds to get there. But, by forcing just about everyone, including just about every fortune 500 company, to use their product or be "cut off from the world", they feel free to develop crap, treat their employees like crap, and charge a very hefty price tag because people NEED the software in order to interact with every other person/company who is also caught in MS's monopoly on closed-source, proprietary software.
When is the last time that an employer asked you to send them a resume/CV in ANYTHING other than MS-Word format? "Please send LaTex formatted resume. Please send CSV plaintext document (as a spreadsheet)??? Nope; "Please send us your MS-overload formats or do not even enter the picture as a potential employee. kkthx!"
Linux/BSD - free, open office - free, TeX - free
OSX Leopard - $99 iWork - $79
Vista Ultimate/XP Pro - $299
MS Office - $449
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
"Then structure the product in such a way that people need to pay you for it."
You mean like copy protection or locked hardware?
"Firstly, it's stupid to sell a product that can be so easily ripped and then complain when it does get ripped (but not complain that suddenly it has become prevalent, thereby creating your market for you)."
This may work for a few very large companies, but if a small company's product is ripped and spread, they will eventually start losing sales until it drops off to 0.
"Secondly, if you had to charge millions for your first copy of a software product in the fear that your easily-rippable product will get ripped, then you need to go back and rethink your product, such as recovering costs by providing support or selling hardware that runs your product beautifully."
If the the first copy was a million dollars, the person or company that bought it would not be sharing it on the Internet.
"If the IP is music, then make money from performance or maybe printing sheet music or something else that is tangible."
performance is tangible? It's just sounds coming from an artist. Music and movies are on DVDS and CDs..how is this not tangible?
Err... You must be new here. Here all things must be free, in both meanings, or some of the vocal few will rage. They're quite obsessed and if you don't agree you are just asking to get flamed. I wish you luck.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Like making it theft when you don't pay for it? Is that the structure you crave?
I mean why not steal an old lady's credit card numbers. She is only on the hook for $50 so it's not REALLY hurting her and if she is stupid enough to go to a phishing website then she deserves it.
Then you could charge up all sorts of software on the card, maybe some CD's thrown in, and a few books and magazines as well. It's all just IP, doesn't really matter how you steal it because there shouldn't be any copyright law anyway.
Of course, in US and W. Europe Microsoft will track down software pirates - people there can afford to buy MS software.
But in developing countries the corporation actually depends on pirates - they help to capture vast amounts of marketshare and user base. And id doesn't cost them a penny to establish a close-to-absolute monopoly in said country. It is called dumping and it is illegal and forbidden. But Microsoft can act as a victim while enjoying all benefits of dumping.
Afterwards MS representatives begin to talk with the government urging them to buy the software. First for government organisations then for schools (them may even give some Starter Edition for free - let the pupils know only one OS so they can eventually buy it later in their career). Commercial organisations follow - police raids searching for counterfeit copies are conducted if needed.
Microsoft uses these tactics all over the world. It all starts with pirates. They do dirty job and are fought afterwards.
Why do you need a "popular" application? Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
Or do you mean, "popular" applications such as Microsoft Office, that deliberately sabotage compatibility with everything but themselves? Then we are already working on the right solution -- to make those applications, and especially their proprietary formats, unpopular.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I thought that was implied by the fact that this is slashdot, and my post was a comment :). Feel free to state your own opinions and justify them as you see fit.
This proves the point I've made again and again: Microsoft just gets it compared to the media industry. You don't sue nobodies who download bootlegs; you sue the people who are actively trying to profit from it. It used to be the same for media. Sueing the little guys over every "illegal" copy being used is short sighted and counter productive. You lose respect from potential costomers, provide motivation to engage in piracy on principle and turn generations against the very idea of copyrights. Microsoft on the other hand creates agreements to provide their software to programming students for free. It gives those who can't afford your software a break and gains their respect. Any preference for Microsoft software later becomes an asset as it encourages future employers to buy licenses for the software. In short, winning people's support and respect by using the laws more reasonably is a better long term solution.
Just put Ubuntu's newest on my dad's spare computer. (One that sits in the living room under my mom's desk where she uses a laptop.) He broke it within a day with the update process. Never really used it, just selected every single one of the updates that was available and it died on him - or so the story goes.
"And now, for the rest of the story..."
Unless you're a paid subscriber you probably can't see all of my comments but I am one of the few people here who is a Windows fan. From a business point I admire almost every choice Microsoft has ever made. From a moral viewpoint I can see why people are pissed off. I mean, come on now, I'd be pissy too. But, well, I also see the reality of the world and accept that it is not the role of a business to be humanistic. So I don't forgive them, I grudgingly admire their business practices. More?
I'm also one of the few here who really does use Linux in their daily job. I just opt, knowing the differences and benefits, to use Windows at home. I own a small, sort of realistically priced, webhosting company and about 90% of our servers are running CentOS. I deal with, and even like, Linux for this task. At home, and as a hobby, I use Windows. I keep it as secure as anything out there that is connected to a network and I happily deal with the quirks and silliness that comes with it. More?
You might be wondering why I am responding to your post. Well, I also get to do a lot of interaction at local businesses, schools, design shops, and the local college. I spend more time than I'd like on a Mac. To me, not for lack of trying, I don't like the interface and that's what really matters to me. But... Well... I just ordered an Air from the nice Apple people. It took me a while, I've been drooling about it for a few weeks. I ordered it on Tuesday and I'm eagerly awaiting the time when I can run XP on it. It, I hope, is worth every penny. I know I paid more for it than I needed to but I know there isn't one single other laptop of that caliber at that size and so perfectly suits my personal travel habits. So, yeah, it is expensive but I have to hand it to Jobs-and-Crew®... They make some damned nice hardware. And that was mostly my point.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, the prices are set (indirectly) by you, the consumer. After all, if you're not willing to buy, then the producer has to lower its price until you are.
The reason most people don't complain about the cost of Windows is that they never see it. Computer manufacturers include Windows in the cost of the hardware, and customers never see it when they configure their machines, so many assume that Windows is free.
Second, Microsoft is able to engage in price discrimination because of its position as a monopoly supplier. It charges OEMs like Dell, HP and Lenovo far less than it charges consumers, because OEMs are able to place large orders, guaranteeing a revenue stream.
I bet a lot more people would complain about (and perhaps even forgo) Windows if Microsoft charged OEMs the same amount it charged retail, and the federal anti-trust regulars forced computer manufacturers to offer other operating systems (like retail copies of SuSE, or Red Hat) so that people could compare prices and make an informed choice.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Why do you need a "popular" application?
Because if I you have a question there are lots of real people around that can answer it. Sure linux has great online support, but nothing beats asking your grandkids/kids/friends or being able to phone the number on the box to figure out how to do something.
And as easy as apt-get is to use, the software that comes on a disk bundled with your new ipod is even easier to find.
Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
That's a load. It is simply not remotely out of the box compatible with an ipod. There are lots of gotchas when using the newest ipods. Amarok doesn't work at all with an iPod touch or iphone unless you jailbreak it and then jump through hoops, and that has its own set of gotchas.
Sure Amarok might be a pretty robust music player, but its no substitute for itunes given that most of the people running itunes are either using a Mac, or an iPod, or both.
Because it's been 13 years since Microsoft developed anything of moderate value.
Windows XP is just 95 with a retooled engine, but to most people's eyeballs it's the same damned thing with more gradients on the UI chrome.
Vista adds ZERO value, it removes value by crippling the system with far-reaching DRM and disappointing performance. Even its revamped security model is full of holes and users are just as likely to get confused (or annoyed).
If Vista offered anything the users really wanted, we would have stood in line at 12:01 A.M. to buy it. Remember MS-Dos 6.0 ? People stood in line for that one, we all wanted to get our hands on Memmaker, Doublespace and a handful of refinements that actually made our computers work better and play harder. It was worth the money.
Remember Windows 95 ? People stood in line for that one too. It was a leap forward from Windows 3.11 (which stank). W95 was a mess, buggy and temperamental, but it was fresh and offered new opportunities for multitasking and, at long last, long file names. It, too, was worth the money.
Windows XP ? It was just a cheap consumer version of Windows 2000, minus the stability. Not until SP1 was it any usable for more than a day or two, but today it's pretty solid, after SEVEN YEARS of patches. Not really worth the money.
The main reason people upgraded from 95/98/ME to XP was for hardware support. The OS itself didn't offer much in the way of new features, which is why a lot of older computers still run Windows ME or 2000, because that's what they came with and there's no real value in upgrading.
Now with Vista, there's even less of an incentive to upgrade because the new OS has worse hardware support for _current_ equipment than the old OS it supposedly replaced. Vista (32-bit) still doesn't support more than 4gb of Ram, and 64-bit support is spotty. Why the hell anyone would want to run Vista on a non-64-bit-capable machine is beyond me, but stupid makes this world go round.
If I were dying to have blingy blurry jiggly UI chrome, I'd keep XP and load something like WindowBlinds, or whatever the gimmick-du-jour is. Cheaper, more reliable (go figure!) and I'll still be able to do the same things I do today.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
No they don't work.
Agencies require MS compatible formats so they can redact your contact information and add their own branding.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
In a free market, the price of a product is an agreed value negotiated by both buyer and seller.
In a monopoly, the seller is able to set the price much higher that the true market value. That's why they're called "monopoly rents"
Microsoft has an estimated 87% profit margin on each Windows sale. Typical profit margins in open industries range around 15%. Since most of Microsoft's profits come from OEM sales at around $50/license, I'd say the OP's offer of $35/license would be generous in a free market.
This is borne out by the cost of similar products ($0) which are available to buyers who aren't locked into the monopoly by proprietary formats.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Harper Lee has published nothing of significance since To Kill A Mockingbird in 1960.
That single book remains in print to this day. It won her the Pulitzer Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The film remains a classic. The play a staple of the festival stage.
What more would you ask of her? What greater incentive could you offer?
The incentive to create is only to be found in money or recognition - but in the certainty that you will retain ownership and control of your creation.
But let us be honest here.
When the rights agencies pursue the geek it ain't for Steamboat Willie.
It is for the movie still in first run theatrical release or new in print on DVD or Blu-Ray.
Guys, I put forward an opinion and I'm glad so many people commented (and disagreed).
Think of all the R&D that goes into programming something like an OSYes, software is labour intensive. Generating software costs money, yes. Marketing costs money, yes. It's all very expensive, yep. I am not saying there should be no way to recover costs for making software, but I am questioning the conventional method. Why has Microsoft put itself in the path of blame for all the botnets, viruses, whatever that are lurking all over the place? By selling the software for money in the first place it is, IMHO, liable for all the defects that persist out there. Instead, if they sold support for a time (eg: if Windows cost $200, and the estimated shelf life is 5 years, charge $40/year for support including software updates), then people would consider that quite reasonable. After all, that's easily how much Linux professional support costs. Those people who don't pay for support and get pwned are nobody's idiot but their own. In many respects that is the defacto status of XP now that it's gradually going out of print.
But people who say "Linux vendors are making money off the blood sweat and tears of people who did it all for nothing" are wrong. They are, by and large, providing a service contract for the software. They support the product for money. Sure, there's free support for home mum's and dads and do-it-yourselfers, (eg: Ubuntu) but we know that isn't where Canonical is hoping to get their $$.
From elsewhere:
Do you know that distributing boxed software was a major determinant in their marketshare..?Well from what I understand, getting Windows as a box set bundled with OEM computers or on PC-shop and even supermarket shelves has been a major determinant in its spread, along with piracy. Open source software is spreading because of the Internet. Microsoft also uses the Internet to spread its licenses without shipping as many physical boxes.
And elsewhere:
That's just kinda ass-backwards...give people crappy software for free...and then charge them for support to fix it...The various Linux vendors don't see it that way. And just because Microsoft's product cost them a heap of money to make (crap though it is) doesn't mean it should have cost that much. They deserve to sink for producing a dud product, just as any other enterprise would. If Windows was so fantastic, for all its bugs (nobody pretends software is perfect), people would want it on their PC's over anything else, and many do. But instead of going around with a gang of lawyers and frightening the market they depend on, they could just work with the psychology of people out there. People are used to paying for services such as telephone, or mail redirection or some other thing they need. If they are using their computer for anything that they consider to be serious, then nobody will argue with getting support for the product to ensure that it is reliable and safe.
The current situation which leaves most people somehow incriminated (eg: because the freakin OEM windows that came with someone's laptop won't validate.. WTF! so instead they install a friend's XP pro corporate edition that at least works) is broken. No wonder piracy is rife when they set the deal up this way.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Free software was also pre-PC. Most major vendors had user groups that used to distribute software., generally on half-inch mag-tape (about 80MB). You could get some GNU stuff like emacs and gcc on the tapes from DEC's user group DECUS, (the DEC VAX C compiler cost over $10K in those days) just for the cost of copying as well as lots of other stuff like the LBL tools, etc. I think around that time, there was a fuss because the US decided to export-restrict SPICE variants and they had to be removed from the tapes.
At least lower management knew about this stuff because the tapes used to cost 100$ or so (media plus copying costs) and they had to ok the purchases. They tended to see the benefit in that we were able to implement stuff faster on the back of these tools.
See my journal, I write things there
Software that is desired but not yet existing can have a large price, having some demand and a zero current supply, potential supply and therefore price being determined by the number of available programmers capable of writing it and the price they would be willing to accept to write it (being affected by the effort required). In such a case, the price would need to be determined by contract before releasing the software.
Software that already exists has an effectively unlimited supply and therefore approaches zero in price, given an unregulated market. Whether you see this as a positive or negative is subjective and dependant on your philosophy. There is evident dissatisfaction with the current regulated market, but there is no unregulated market currently existing (that I am aware of) to display a superior result.
Purely in terms of economic theory (which often has a tenuous relationship to reality) it is true the price of an already existing product that is infinitely copyable approaches zero regardless of development cost, as development cost no longer affects supply.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
iTunes is tied to iPod and tied to iTunes service - they are made deliberately incompatible with anything else ....
... debateable ... no
This is what proprietary means
Is an iPod the best MP3 player
Is iTunes the best interface for an MP3 player - many think not
Is the iTunes service ideal
Only together are they the (current) best solution
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
If you have an ipod or are around family with ipods you will have to use itunes at some point to set it up or restore it. I actually found it harder to explain to my Mum and for everyone else I just put the music on the ipods. Amarok and GTKPOD are much better because you can quite happly put four ipods in it without one being a master. You can then copy the music off the ipod and put it on another one. All legally of course ;).
Although I am an amarok/gtkpod fan I found that the itunes shop was really nice until I remembered that it would be all drmd aac and prob wouldn't run on my nokia/windows mobile/laptop. This just put me right off the whole idea as I prob wouldnt even be able to give it to another family member to listen to like I would with a book. So I would rave on about something like freakonomics and then say go and buy it yourself hmmmmm. die die die drm
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
Because in a free market, the proper cost of a product is how much someone is willing to pay for it; ask for more, and it won't get sold. This cost is clearly influenced by how difficult the product is to get; Internet makes it very easy to get software, so it makes its cost approach zero.
The one thing muddying the matter is copyright, a socialist measure to limit the actions people can take and therefore artificially drive up the price of whatever is copyrighted. I've noticed that the people who are all for globalization and preventing governments from interfering with the market are - for some strange reason - excluding copyright from this fight against interference. I suspect it's because most socialist measures benefit the people, while copyright benefits corporations.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.