2/5 of All Software is Pirated

Okay, so here's the damm comment by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:26 · Score: 0

So GPL folks aren't the only ones getting it for free ;)

Re:Okay, so here's the damm comment by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:12 · Score: 0

GNU software were not meant for free-loaders, they were meant for people who agree to share. GNU software do cost money, it is the effort that open-source developers have to contribute in return for our willingness to share. If you calculate the hours that we put in writing software, the closed source applications a ton cheaper. You could, of course seat back and do nothing and enjoy the fruits of others. And you could also choose not go to work, or be bothered with any problems in life, just seat back and have a servants do everything for you. Now you look more like a tree.
Re:Okay, so here's the damm comment by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:43 · Score: 0

It was just meant as a joke :)

As for doing anything to help out GNU, imagine my surprise when I got an email asking me about some feature in kde.

Seems I'm listed in a book over in Germany...

Talk about amazing, and undeserved. All I did was clean up some documentation.

Oh, and you can catch me just about any night helping out at Linux Coffee talk. Just in case you might need a hand with anything :) I'm good with the really easy stuff :)

Since I don't program in C (I write PLC code. Think machines, big machines :), I help out answering questions and by giving away my old copies of linux at work (and help install them, of course).

We've got a mini-LUG going in a place that the mere mention of Linux was taboo a couple of years ago (we even have some of the IT people getting into it :)

I guess that I do what I can :)

"Now you look more like a tree"

That would make me a cypress, I guess. Big around the bottom, and usually all wet. :)

John Waalkes
jwaalkes@edge.net
Re:Okay, so here's the damm comment by Eccles · 1999-06-07 01:48 · Score: 1

>So GPL folks aren't the only ones getting it for free ;)

At least in theory, the GPL is more "Free speech, not free beer." Pirated software doesn't come with source...

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:Okay, so here's the damm comment by mikpos · 1999-06-07 02:23 · Score: 1

Freedom and price are not the same thing. The two are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive. You can have free, for-fee software, free, gratis software, non-free, for-fee software, or non-free, gratis software. To say that illegal copying of software ("piracy") doesn't come with source is a grand generalisation. Perhaps you don't remember Mitnick illegally sharing the source to a certain operating system?

Well they're Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:35 · Score: 0

Well they're Canadians... what do you expect. ;)

Actually i agree, piracy is a fairly small crime in my view, just like marijuana possesion, except they both carry a heavy price.

r0b

Re: Well they're Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:35 · Score: 0

Well they're Canadians... what do you expect?

Excuse me, but what, exactly, do you mean by that?!?
Re: Well they're Canadians... by SalsaDoom · 1999-06-07 09:47 · Score: 0

He means that he is a troll, and he wants to irritate some Canadians, except, that genenerally, we are to smart to fall for a simple ploy like that =P

--
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Re:Well they're Canadians... by Restil · 1999-06-07 09:26 · Score: 1

Yes, however...

Pirated software doesn't have the same distinct smell which attracts law enforcement.

-Restil

--
Play with my webcams and lights here

60% = 500 billion by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:39 · Score: 0

Wow. If 40% of all code is nicked just think how much bill would be worth if he got paid for all his rubbish.

enter smug mode

I think people who use Microsoft code should have their personal details relaid to Microsoft HQ and have the cost of any pirated code stripped from their bank balance.

exit smug mode

I can say the above with a clean heart and a hard drive filled only with OSS code or things I have paid for (Wordperfect, OSS drivers, etc).

Arn't we all just abit smug ?

other location for story by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:42 · Score: 0

Here's a copy on zdnn:

http://www.zdnet.com/ zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2270668,00.html

Re:other location for story by Lev+Grossman · 1999-06-07 02:50 · Score: 1

And another one on TIME Digital here

--
less talk, more synthohol

Re: stealing a candy bar by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:44 · Score: 0

I'm a Canadian myself and support this point of view. Stealing a candy bar is both illegal and immoral. Illegally copying proprietary software is against the law, and I by no means advocate it, but creating proprietary software is in itself immoral. It's like comparing stealing a candy bar to stealing cigarettes or drugs. Obviously stealing a candy bar is worse.

Re:Relative price of software by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:53 · Score: 0

If I've got the economic situation right... Those who can afford a computer can afford the software. First world countries usually have a relatively low split between the rich and the poor. Other countries have a larger split. In other words the poor are really poor. The rich are very rich and the middle class dosn't exist.

Ummmm... accuracy issues? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:53 · Score: 0

Does anybody know ...

*) Whether it was a voluntary-response, self-
selected survey?
*) How many people were involved? What were
their positions, typically? (CEO? CTO? MIS
staff? Grunt?)
*) What was their exact phrasing?
*) Are they presenting *all* their results?

Basically, anybody can pull a survey out of his a** if he doesn't mention how it was conducted. Hmmmmmm. Any reputable polling organization will at least toss in +/- margins of error.

US Down == More Linux OSS? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:53 · Score: 0

The article stated that the US figures were down, I wonder free software played any part in that?

Re: stealing a candy bar by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:55 · Score: 0

Exactly. It costs Microsoft (for example) exactly $0 if I were to make a copy of my MS Office CD. If I were to steal the MS Office CD, it would cost them the amount to produce the CD, packaging, shipping, etc.

So, by saying they "lose" money because of piracy is wrong. The correct thing to say is that they "didn't gain anything" by people copying their software, but they haven't "lost" anything either (especially seeing as how 99% (or more) people who "copy" software wouldn't buy it in the first place.)

So, in this case, it's not piracy in the way of depriving the owner of his goods (such as stealing candy bars or CDs) but more along the lines of "if they woulda bought it then we woulda made gained something". Lots of if's and buts...

More BSA nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:57 · Score: 0

The Business Software Alliance (a.k.a. Bill's Big Bucks lobby) just continues to spread this kind of nonsense, even worse than before.

They assume that everyone who has a pirated copy of a certain software would also buy it, if they where honest. I seriously doubt this.
In fact pirated copies are likely to boost sales, instead of hindering them. Nobody installs crippled demos to test software, but full-featured pirated copies are more likely to be tried out.
The company may well end up buying a copy of the funky new software, although the old one would have done the job as well.

They overlook the success of free-for-private use software like StarOffice (not BSA member), and Wordperfect light.

The argument that jobs could be created, is nonsense. There is already a shortage of hundreds of thousands IT workers, so this would just become a little bigger.
And then, why should software companies employ more people when they make more money? It's just a matter of the greed of the owners...

Actually, I hope that they will be extremely tough on software pirates, esp. in the OS sector. This will make the transition to Linux/*BSD even faster...

Breakdown by Application Type by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:57 · Score: 0

I wonder what types of applications are being "pirated?" I would hypothesize that games are the least pirated because a demo is usually available. Assuming the demo gives you a reasonable view of the game, you can download the demo and play it. After playing the hell out of the demo, you realize you like the game and buy it. On the other hand, you can't demo M$ Word to see if it fits in with what you want to do with it.

I think the initial motivation for "pirating" software is not malicious. You're probably not out to "stick it to The Man" by hitting their bottom line. Instead, you're protecting yourself form a bad product or a product that doesn't fit your needs. Software return policies vary widely and usually aren't too liberal. Therefore, buying with the intent to try and return, if necessary, is not feasible. So, what do you do? You "borrow" a copy from a friend and check it out. BUT, if it works out, you say to yourself, "I already have the software, why bother buying it?".

Re:Breakdown by Application Type by Cybervoid · 1999-06-07 03:40 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be so sure about games being the least pirated. I my self don't play games, but at college last year there was a kid who would download damn near every new game (eating up network bandwidth), pirated of course, and then he would play it until he got bored with it and find a new game to play, but he would always keep the original, or at least until he ran out of space and deleted the old ones.

Anyway my point is that there was quite a network for pirated games out there, he showed me all of his little K3WL W4R3Z sites.
Re:Breakdown by Application Type by zagmar · 1999-06-07 22:22 · Score: 1

Actually, games are some of the most copied types of software on the net. My argument, though, is that most pirated software is stuff that you wouldn't necessarily buy in the first place, like high-dollar graphics apps. Most people who download warez just want to mess around with stuff they wouldn't otherwise get the chance to use. Hell, I know a couple people who waste system resources by using photoshop 5 as a picture viewer for the porn they download. On the other hand, the small number (?) of places that actually pirate software and use it to make a profit should pay for their tools.

In addition... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:16 · Score: 0

...piracy actually helps some software (e.g., MS Office) to achieve market lock-in and become the de facto standard. Of course, MS will tell you that network effects don't exist, but a lot of people buy Office only because "everyone else has it" and they need to be compatible. That "everyone else" still includes pirated copies.

Were MS to become hard core about copy protection, they would simply force most of the rest of the world to find an alternative. If all the Chinese, Mexican, etc., users had to find another alternative, they might standardize on a product which would threaten to unseat Office as the standard.

MS (and other s/w makers) have a vested interest in *everyone* using their product, even if a lot of them aren't paying for it.

Re:In addition... by pb · 1999-06-07 10:40 · Score: 1

First, admit that the only reason for 'including' all that stuff you don't *need* for an Office suite is to encourage you to buy the FULL versions of all of those nifty new expensive Microsoft products. Like everyone has already said "the first hit's free"...

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.

--
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Re:In addition... by pb · 1999-06-08 21:58 · Score: 1

Office costs somewhere around $300-$700 depending on what you purchase, and this gives you a random number of Office applications with different features depending on how much money you want to throw away.

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.

--
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Re:In addition... by tzanger · 1999-06-07 21:07 · Score: 1

Hmmm... Office 2K has code-signing for Macros now, and by default it'll jump up and down and shout loudly to get your attention if it comes across an unsigned piece of code. So Macro virii should no longer be a problem.

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:In addition... by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 03:22 · 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.

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:In addition... by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 11:26 · Score: 2

Yes, I know what's in Office Developer. True you get lots of stuff, but have you removed the macro facilities from the standard versions of Word and Excel? If you folks have, I wouldn't be suprised to see big MS Office shops buy the developer version just to keep their VBA-writing user base happy. (Most MS Office applications aren't handled by MIS, in my experience - they're built by normal users to support smaller projects.)

Anyway, thanks for providing a runtime-only version of Access. That will make management much easier.

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:In addition... by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 11:33 · Score: 2

Hmmm... Office 2K has code-signing for Macros now, and by default it'll jump up and down and shout loudly to get your attention if it comes across an unsigned piece of code. So Macro virii should no longer be a problem.

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.

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:In addition... by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 09:14 · Score: 1

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.

Why don't you tell the nice readers what's INCLUDED in that "Full Version"? Including a whole slew of developer tools, back-end stuff, database software, photo manipulation software, web page editing, publishing, etc etc etc etc?

Actually, why not compare it 1:1 with Lotus and Corel's offerings? Split it up and break it out? Then we'll see if MS is really charging too much -- because I believe that except for Word vs. WordPerfect, MS's offerings are about the same price on all fronts. So that sounds "competitive" to me.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:In addition... by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 11:04 · Score: 1

First, admit that the only reason for 'including' all that stuff you don't *need* for an Office suite is to encourage you to buy the FULL versions of all of those nifty new expensive Microsoft products. Like everyone has already said "the first hit's free"...

You already get the FULL versions of those products in the FULL version of Office - or you can buy them separately. You don't get cut down versions. The products are broken out the way they are so that people can pick and choose what's best for them.

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.

Hmmm... Office 2K has code-signing for Macros now, and by default it'll jump up and down and shout loudly to get your attention if it comes across an unsigned piece of code. So Macro virii should no longer be a problem.

Not to mention that if you're stupid enough to run a macro-ridden file when the OS shows you a dialog saying "Hey! This contains a macro - and that could be a virus! Are you SURE you want to open this with Macros turned on?" then you deserve everything you get.

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.

I know that we care about our customers. However, it would appear that you've believed the hype that other people spread.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

You don't feel guilty because PIRACY != THEFT by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:21 · Score: 0

The SPA and its ilk would have us all believe that copying something and stealing something is the same crime. It's not. Just repeat this to yourself until it sticks. Steal:Crime, Copy:NoCrime. Any questions? If I steal your car. You don't have a car anymore. If I made a copy of your car. You wouldn't care. I can hear the cries already, "When you copy software, you're stealing from the software company, not the person you copied it from." Bull. If playstation games were 100% uncopyable, I would have far fewer games than I do now. Most games suck. Most software is shoddy. If I couldn't pirate it, I cartainly wouldn't buy it. So the software sits on a shelf unsold, or I have a pirated copy. Through the magic of Accounting FUD, one is called a "loss", the other is not. Neither generates revenue for the software house and neither loses money for the software house. Any why don't the software houses come down on places that rent copyrighted materials; video stores, game rentals, libraries, the latter usually loans out copyrighted stuff for free (!). So get off your high horse and abandon the fallacy of assuming that # pirated copies x retail price = loss to campany stolen by pirates. It's just not true.

Re:You don't feel guilty because PIRACY != THEFT by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:43 · Score: 0

Whether piracy is the same as theft or not has no importance. If you use software with no respect to its license, you've committed both piracy and a crime. It does not have to be a theft. You seem to have no respect for promises. A license is just that, a promise.

Re:You are a part of the problem too by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:24 · Score: 0

Actually, I'm a Canadian and I've been living in the States for a while and notice that there are quite a few differences...
I can only think of a few off of the top of my head:

- On the east coast at least, motorists are very intolerant and inconsiderate on the freeways, I know in Ottawa and Vancouver they are a lot more considerate ( not always but on average ).

- cuturally, Americans seem to tolerate a lot of crude and obnoxious radio personalities. I've been all over Canada and have yet to hear some of the stuff these personalities spout off.

- the services industries (phone etc) seem to jack up prices on any sort of fee. Its quite tiring actually

- and tv news seem to want to keep me in ignorance. Unless the States are involved I rarely see no news about other countries.

- there are a lot of similarities as well, but you already know those :)

Sigismund

p.s. we spell flavour differently (flavor)

To stop piracy, lower your damned prices... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:25 · Score: 0

The software companies would probably make a killing if they charged only $15 for their stuff, as opposed to $60 and above. I personally have only paid for OS/2, Secret of Monkey Island 1 & 2, Loom, and Quake. I don't really believe in paying for 1s and 0s, or in the musical sense Es and B#s...I mostly buy music because it's more convenient to buy a CD than to hunt down mp3s for hours. When I buy software, its to show that the software companies made a really kick ass piece of software and i appreciate it. Sure, I'd like to show my appreciation to Adobe for Photoshop, sure I'd love to show my appreciation to Kinetix for 3d Studio, but as a home user, I don't have the hundreds (in 3d studio's case, thousands) of dollars to pay for it. Maybe software companies should introduce an aggressive 3 tier pricing strategy: education, home user/hobby, and commercial. I'm sure with market studies they could find the comfortable sum range where they turn more profit while pleasing more customers. $60 for a game? yeah right, $400 for an office suite? yeah right...give US a break...

Re:To stop piracy, lower your damned prices... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:44 · Score: 1

Ummmm.... Can I just point out the obvious and say YOU DON'T SET THE FUCKING PRICES!!!! People make software, and it's their decision to give it away or sell it for however much they please. It's not up to you to steal software whose price you disagree with. I don't care if it's just 1's and 0's, you didn't create them, someone else did! They have all the rights to their software, not you just because you don't feel like paying for it. TOUGH SHIT! All I can say is, in the spirit of open source, write your own... hypocrite!
Re:To stop piracy, lower your damned prices... by Smallest · 1999-06-07 04:27 · Score: 1

The software companies would probably make a killing if they charged only $15 for their stuff

nonsense. my software is all below $30 and it is still pirated like crazy. theives are theives, it doesn't matter what the stuff costs, they steal it because it's easy to steal.

but, it's still illegal.

-c

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Books are priced according to country !! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:25 · Score: 0

Why don't they take hints from the book publishers which routinely offer books at the local currency because otherwise no one would be able to buy books (w/ clauses for sale only in region X etc.. ). They could easily put a license clause saying for use only in country X, Y, Z so they retain the legal right to bust people for just emailing the software elsewhere... I'd bet they'd make more money this way as well as it would encourage people to go legit. Anyway, its good for the rest of us who want to see OSS kick in :) (i.e. like in mexico w/ their schools)

-avi

Re:Books are priced according to country !! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:26 · Score: 0

They actually do it, say games in the UK cost £35-39 (pounds), which is factor of 1.6 to the US list price. Marked: UK only. Conclusion: they do it only and only when they get even more money.

Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:26 · Score: 0

I have to ask: how exactly is this theft?

I have a keyboard on my desk that cost $40. If you wander in here and take it, I have lost $40 of actual, physical property.

I have a copy of Quake II on my machine that cost $40. If you wander in here and copy it, I have lost nothing.

It's a stretch, to say the least, to apply property laws to intangible items.

software co's still make $$$$ by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:29 · Score: 0

I can't see why a company like microsoft cares about XX number of pirated copies of software when they're still making billions of dollars anyway. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seems to be the big software houses that are making the most noise about piracy, not the small co.s that would need the additional income most. It's not like MS can't afford to give away software (ie. IE). Why don't they just charge less for their damn software so more people will buy legal copies instead of pirated ones and then they'll end up making even more dough.

Re:software co's still make $$$$ by Intermod · 1999-06-07 04:29 · Score: 1

For PR reasons, the big corporations like Microsoft would rather boast to investors and customers that they have a successful anti-piracy program rather than give in to piracy by lowering prices.

Also, assuming prices were cut in half, which would be a pretty drastic move for a large software co., they'd still end up making a smaller profit even if the entire 2/5 began buying legal copies.

Re:Questions begged by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:31 · Score: 0

>Would our retail prices drop by 38% if all this piracy stopped?

Sure they would. When woolly pigs were flying through an artic hell. ;)

Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:32 · Score: 0

No, let's call it knucklefish.

If you are using your computer, and I come up and take your monitor then a theft has occured.

If you want to call the act of copying software theft also, then the meaning of theft becomes diluted. You are just trying to borrow the nasty reputation of the word theft. Why don't we use a new word? Knucklefish sounds good to me. Let's let knucklefish earn its own connotations.

Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:47 · Score: 0

Ah, so I've stolen from Id? Well, I believe they still have a copy Quake II in their possession.

What I've done (or rather, what the person who copied Quake II has done) is violate the license agreement, which is substantially different than stealing a keyboard off a person's desk. It's a violation of a contract, not theft.

Vietnam's per capita income by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:48 · Score: 0

Vietnam's per capita income is about US $250.

Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:52 · Score: 0

No.

You want to fight a law, do so in the courts, in
public, in the open. To steal and sulk about it
is cowardice; to get caught and sulk is whining.

Yes, water is property. Steal it, and in some
circumstances that can/should be a capital crime.

here's my explaination to the kid. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:53 · Score: 0

Please understand that "moral", whatever it is, is not the governning force of most people's action. We make decisions after we consider the price and benefit. The truth is, the chance of getting caught stealing bits is near zero. Stealing things from the stores, on the other hand, is a high risk activity. Look at the price we pay for pirating software on the net, match the economics model,

(Expectation of punishment)= (probability:chance of getting caught) * (cost:punishment)

since cost is assumed to be the same ( actually not, normally they warn people before busting them in the case of internet crimes) the expectation of punishment is way lower if you steal it in the store.

so now, the two types of stealing, stealing in bits, or stealing in store, are competitive goods. If you stole something in one place, you won't need to steal in another place. right?

i was a major pirate for 2 years, i only heard a handful of cases where people get busted. Many of them know of its comming. In fact, microsoft knowingly let people pirate earlier version of windows in order to gain market share. On the contrary, we can tell that some authors would try a lot of things to stop piracy. I guess this doesn't work because they finally realized that too much effort is going into coding anti-piracy codes, and the product development would slow down because of this.

so the "price"= expected punishment is much much lower if you pirate digitally. that's why no one wants to steal hard copies off the stores. unless if they are reselling them.

now the comparison between whether or not to BUY software is another story.

Re:Relative price of software by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:57 · Score: 0

Those who can afford a computer can afford the software.

No. Those who can scavenge parts and hold a screwdriver can get a computer. And those who can attend a garage sale can get worse but still usable computer.

In both cases they will get usable hardware but no or inadequate software, and this is where one can either get pirated software, or free software. Without good Internet connectivity pirated software is more accessible, and until recently there was no free software that could run on low-end hardware in the first place.

All but 1 line Off-topic, but fun by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:58 · Score: 0

During the last referendum, the states said that they wouldn't allow Quebec to join. They'll most likely get tied in with France. Isn't the reform the official opposition? They defenitly represent the west.

Where else in the world but Canada is the rebellion be part of the establishment. The parti Quebecois will not want to lose their pay checks, or pensions, it'll be awhile before they seperate.

I avoid pirating software (I get it from debian.org)

New math for figuring losses by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:00 · Score: 0

>The correct thing to say is that they "didn't gain anything" by people copying their
>software, but they haven't "lost" anything either.

Exactly. Not gaining != losing. These are probably the same pundits who spread FUD about the "social security cut" the Evil Republicans (tm) were planning. The planned social security budget was actually more than the previous years, but not by the expected amount so it was called a "cut" by opponents. Consider hypothetical company X's annual profits:

year 1: $1,000,000
year 2: $2,000,000
year 3: $4,000,000
year 4: $8,000,000
year 5: $14,000,000

Don't be surprised to hear company execs talking about the $2,000,000 in revenue that they "lost" in year 5.

Re:New math for figuring losses by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:12 · Score: 0

These are probably the same pundits who spread FUD about the "social security cut" the Evil Republicans (tm) were planning. The planned social security budget was actually more than the previous years, but not by the expected amount so it was called a "cut" by opponents.

While I don't know any of the exact figures, this line of reasoning reminded me of a section from Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot by Al Franken. He mentioned this line of argument, and then said that it was bull because they were not dealing in constant dollars. Effectively, if the budget was not raised enough even to counter inflation, it is a cut.

Rush was a very funny book, I enjoyed it very much.
Re:New math for figuring losses by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:33 · Score: 0

The budget even with Republican "cuts" was still more than inflation. Inflation is currently only about 1.5-2% IIRC.
Re:New math for figuring losses by Eccles · 1999-06-07 09:33 · Score: 1

These are probably the same pundits who spread FUD about the "social security cut" the Evil Republicans (tm) were planning. The planned social security budget was actually more than the previous years, but not by the expected amount so it was called a "cut" by opponents.

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.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:New math for figuring losses by lost_it · 1999-06-07 05:16 · Score: 1

You're right...although it was probably "technically" true, it wasn't morally true. Now where have I heard that argument before...oh yeah, "That depends on your definition of 'is'". Just trying to put things in perspective.

Re:"Losses" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:00 · Score: 0

Your lack of value in anything non-fiscal is
disheartening. Consider that the casual acceptance of theft reflects a complete
disregard for property rights, for authority, and for justice.
Frankly, it's not right to take the fruits of another's labour without
his consent and exploit them; consider, say, plagiarism. Would you affirm that
plagiarism is a just and moral crime, if the original author is far enough away
never to know about it, and no money or prestige is involved? There is more at stake than
money -- or has greed blinded you to fairness? For
shame.

Some thoughts of piracy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:00 · Score: 0

Asset Management:I believe that those numbers are as high as they are because a lot of corp. dont have a clue how many PC's they own let alone how many have the proper software licenses. Try and do an OS upgrade for a fortune 1000 company some time.

Marketing: Many CEO's admit that a certian % of sales is derived from people swapping software. If companies were really trying to limit software piracy we would still have a dozen dongels (software Keys) hanging off our parrel ports.

I believe that there are reasons why software is still so easy to pirate, but I do tend to frown on it. (more based on my personal jelously of the people with cable modems that can download 200meg pirated copies of photoshop in a matter of minutes)

besides I like gimp just fine, 'caus it introduced me to Linux

Re:Why pirating doesn't feel like stealing by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:04 · Score: 0

Suppose, say, somebody stole a particularly fine essay of yours that happened to be an important part of a successful college application; he then turns around, claims it as his own, and applies to a completely different college far across the country. Neither gets published. Is it still right?

According to your logic, it is, because nothing physical happened, and you have "lost" nothing. In your materialism lies fallacy. Thy sophistry speaks volumes about yourself.

Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:06 · Score: 0

Lets try another scenario: say some time in the distant future matter replication technology becomes a reality. I can then take your $40 keyboard and pop it into my matter replicator creating a flawess copy of the original, identical in every way. You receive your keyboard back at no loss to you, but the manufacturer of the keyboard - designers, fabricators, salesmen, etc lose the revenue from the duplicated keyboard. In this case, like software piracy, nothing physical is stolen, except the intellectual knowledge required to produce the product.

Re:US vs canada drivers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:08 · Score: 0

In the little driving I've done in the US (mostly Maine, actually) I've found US drivers to be the most polite and well behaved. They don't drive too slow and stick to the right lanes when not passing.

In Toronto (where I currently live) driving on the "401" (aka autobahn north, 100Mph cruising) guarantees a very high stress level. People are generally good drivers technically, but they are almost all jerks who think it is their god-given right to be in front of you.

In Vancouver (where I have driven a lot, and am in the process of moving to) people are generally friendlier but extremely poor drivers technically. I've had way more near-death experiences in Vancouver where everyone does the speed limit than I have in Toronto where people who drive the speed limit are typically run off the road. Stupid things like turning left without checking for oncoming traffic. On top of that, the roads are very poorly delimited, and stop lights and stop signs are quite sparse in the suburbs.

It could be prevented! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:16 · Score: 0

Software piracy can be prevented (maybe not 100% but close to it) if desired. I think the software companies prefer some sort of piracy (not 90% though) vs no piracy. I think it is like marketing their product to a level.

Re:Off-topic, but fun by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:18 · Score: 0

Actually, I have heard Canadians saying this for years. I worked with a lot of them on the North Slope (Deadhorse) and they were almost uniformly of the opinion that a)socialized medicine was doomed, so saying that that was a sticking point to joining the US was a straw man, b)they were tired of the prices, c)they had a hard time feeling antagonistic towards Americans (and seriously -- can you think of anything about Canadians that is particularly annoying? No, me neither; they are sort of harmless, like Bushmen in waffle-stompers and parkas), and d)all of them felt that Canada would not recover from losing Quebec. Not that they LIKED Quebec, but they felt that they were Canadian and that them leaving would be the same thing as saying that Canada, as a concept, didn't work. And so everyone would take their toys and go home. They also felt that in a year or so, no one would really remember when Canada had existed. I found the whole experience vaguely postmodern, in a way -- they were watching their reality and history disappear and they were not that upset. Coming from Texas, where secession has been a subject of active and serious debate at least five times (the last during the Carter Administration, when Jimmy was threatening to nationalize the gas fields) and national identity is very strong, it was odd. I would be surprised if Canada is still around in ten years, and it is sort of a pity.

Sorry, this was offtopic. Just odd the way it seems to be considered by a lot of Canadians to be a foregone conclusion. In Texas, that wouldn't happen, largely because we like to shoot people and the average neighborhood here has more firepower than a Central American country, and if some people objected, then it would be a major goddamned issue. Talking about this, most Canadians have always just seemed tired ...

I'd be a Taco Hell employee if I hadnt pirated by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:21 · Score: 0

If I had never pirated s/w Id be running Windows for Workgroups and MS Works still. I think if I took my commercial, pirated software and tried to make money with it then that's immoral. But hell as a poor college student wanting to learn NT (yah ok flame me) I didnt have $1,000 for a copy and that's just one example.

Re:Off-topic, but fun by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:21 · Score: 0

Actually you ARE wrong. Canadians may not seem like they have much national pride, but it is there bubbling just under the surface.

I myself would die fighting for an independant Canada just as many many others have done before me. I for one appreciate and respect the sacrifices of World War's 1 and 2, and the war of 1812, etc. I am PROUD we burnt down the first American "white" house. :)

If you don't feel the same way then by all means, move to the US now.

BTW: I am from Toronto, my wife is from Alberta, and we live in Vancouver. We have travelled extensively from the eastcoast to the westcoast. I would also say we are not alone in these feelings of national pride. I suggest that if you haven't already done so, you do some travelling across the country and see the sights. It's quite amazing. If you're lazy, read the book "On a cold road" by Dave Bidini. :)

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:23 · Score: 0

No one will ever pay for a driver!
Ever, ever, ever, ever, ever!!

They should have realized this!

This is why every piece of hardware comes with a Windows driver for _free_ !

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:26 · Score: 0

nullsoft just got their boatload of money from everybody's favourite coffee coaster supplier, AOL.

Re:Off-topic, but fun by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:28 · Score: 0

Right. I live in fear of the Canadian hordes pouring across our northern border in human wave attacks, raping our jelly doughnuts and plundering what decent beer we have. The horror, the horror. Montana will become a wasteland ... wait, Montana is already a wasteland. Neve mind; run for your lives. The Canadians are coming and they've got extra "u"s ...

Re:It is lost income but in different ways. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:29 · Score: 0

He said DOOM had about a 1% registration rate and
that about 10 million copies had been registered.

Granted what you (or he) say(s) is true, there are estimated 1 billion (1000 million) DOOM copies used. Give me a break, we don't even have that much computers. I love DOOM but this is a clear BS.

However, I do agree with the rest of your post.

Re: stealing a candy bar by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:30 · Score: 0

It was a joke, I think. Why would he be abusing Canadians? It would be like beating up your mother ...

Re:Off-topic, but fun: Quebec & Canada by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:31 · Score: 0

As a Canadian, I view it differently than both views presented above.

We are concerned with losing Quebec. Its like a brother leaving the family and you're not entirely sure why.

As I understand it, Quebec wants special rights that it doesn't currently have. The rest of Canada feels that each province should be treated equally (that is why the western provinces are feeling concerned as well - they don't feel treated equally). So we're not sure why they want to leave. I can hazard some guesses but they don't seem to come close to a good reason for them to leave.

And assuredly they will not get all of Quebec. We can't have the country split in half, plus Quebec should pay its share of the Country's debt. If the country did split, then we would be in trouble and some of the things you mentioned above would be more likely to happen.

Also, its not that we don't like Quebec, we just not completely sure what the problem is. Thats my take on it anyway.

'Piracy'? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:33 · Score: 0

Interesting word they use. I was under the impression that 'software piracy' referred to the selling of unauthorized copies. Say I buy a copy of an app at the store for $100. I then make 100 copies, and sell them for $15 each. That would not by any real definition constitute piracy, but I believe that's the most common understanding.

But the other comments posted here give a different position. If I buy the $100 app and make a few copies to give away, though....is _that_ piracy? I wouldn't be profiting from it. Would the people to whom I gave the copies be guilty of piracy? No more than anyone who copies music from a CD to a tape, or another CD, or an MP3, and then gives it to their friends.

Ah, I see the difference here. I never purchased the app to begin with; all I purchased was a license to _use_ the app. Now it becomes clear. It was never mine to copy in the first place. So the publishers are claiming losses of hideous amounts of money for something they can't even claim anyone had in the first place.

That's what makes it so easy to make copies of programs for friends, family, whoever. A program has no weight, no height, no length, no color. You can't hold a program in your hand. You can't throw it across the room or step on it. It's just a bunch of ones and zeros.

[tangent]
Once you look at it from a mathematical perspective, the idea that someone could 'own' code is a bit warped. A program is a collection o ones and zeros, in a specific order. Therefore, a program is a really long binary string. Can you copyright a number? If that's possible, I could go file a copyright on '2'! Then I could collect royalties from every math textbook ever printed! Hey, I could sue anyone who used '2' in any way without paying me first! Think of the possibilities...McDonald's couldn't charge $2.99 for something without paying me; Microsoft would have to pay me before they could use '2' in any version numbers for their apps; every two-dollar bill printed would be a copyright infringement, and I could sue the US Treasury Dept for it....
[/tangent]

- not an AC, just lost my password again.
Chris, kevralyn@netscape.net

Re:'Piracy'? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:56 · Score: 0

You're not buying just the media; you're also buying the *right* to use it. Hence, the software license agreement, which places further restrictions on ya...
Re:'Piracy'? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 11:44 · Score: 0

>Get the picture?
Can't say that I do. Alright, let me see if I follow, the reasoning goes something like:
"Since software is a pattern of ones and zeros, and since humans are a "pattern" of amino acids, if it is moral to generate new instances of the "software" pattern then it is therefore also moral to destroy an instance of the amino acid pattern."
Seems a bit wonky, but I'm probably mistating your argument.
Re:'Piracy'? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:59 · Score: 0

Ah. But if I copy a program, I'm not altering or damaging the original in any way. If you use nerve gas on me, I wouldn't be the same collection of amino acids I was before.

Chris/kevralyn@netscape.net
Re:'Piracy'? by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 05:20 · Score: 1

tangent]
Once you look at it from a mathematical perspective, the idea that someone could 'own' code is a bit warped. A program is a collection o ones and zeros, in a specific order. Therefore, a program is a really long binary string. Can you copyright a number? If that's possible, I could go file a copyright on '2'! Then I could collect royalties from every math textbook ever printed! Hey, I could sue anyone who used '2' in any way without paying me first! Think of the possibilities...McDonald's couldn't charge $2.99 for something without paying me; Microsoft would have to pay me before they could use '2' in any version numbers for their apps; every two-dollar bill printed would be a copyright infringement, and I could sue the US Treasury Dept for it....
[/tangent]

That's just the representation of the idea. For example - you're just a collection of amino acids. Therefore, it should be perfectly allowable for me to use nerve gas on you, because afterwards, you'll be fine -- because you'll still be just a collection of amino acids.

Get the picture?

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:Off-topic, but fun by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:41 · Score: 0

I am PROUD we burnt down the first American "white" house. :)

Would you mind very much if we asked you to come back and do it again? *g*

Re:This is where I logout by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:42 · Score: 0

hehe... this is so true :)

And the cluelessness goes on... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:47 · Score: 0

>That's the exact reason why we have laws, and whether you agree with it or not,
>is is illegal to pirate software.

Read the fucking article. It lists places with high "piracy" rates like Vietnam, Singapore, China, and Taiwan. Now with me...COPYING SOFTWARE IS NOT ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE.There. In Taiwan, for example there are whole businesses, fully licensed by local gov't that sell copied music, video, and yes, software for cheap. Ever heard of SonMay Records? It's a real company, not kids in a basement, and it's operating legally. That must just get your panties in a bind, eh?

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:48 · Score: 0

The reason why they couldn't just freely include there driver with everyone's $69.00 video card is that they had to recoup their R&D expenses incurred during development of their own Mac card and driver. In this case, pirates hurt the entire Macintosh community by forcing a company to shut down all without physically stealing anything.

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:49 · Score: 0

So that gives you the right to pirate their software?

Vietnam is #1! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:51 · Score: 0

It is good to see that in Vietnam, Micro$oft is losing their dong.

Do you believe your own lies yet? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:03 · Score: 0

>Says right there on the licenses that my VHS movies are licensed for home viewing.
>No restriction on how many people are watching it in my home, just so long as I'm not
>charging them money and I'm not showing it in public.

Oh this is great! When CAUGHT and FACED with hiw own HYPOCRICY, the PIRATE abandons all his talk about morality and right and wrong and runs to the letter of the license for salvation from aevil!

By letting your friend (who does not live in your home. He *is* the public, stupid.) watch that movie, you're stealing revenue from the movie studio because he will now be less likely to purchase his own copy of the movie. Now you're just trying to rationalize it away. Wrong is wrong, isn't that what you were preaching earlier? Admit it. You a pirate. You're worse than a pirate because you delude yourself into thinking you are not.

Welcome to the next level of hell, chum.

Re:Do you believe your own lies yet? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:11 · Score: 0

I am a pirate and I don't care you see it as stealing I don't. what is your point? We have differant morrals. The law is on your side. That doesn't make you right it makes what you do leagal. Oral sex is also illeagal in my state and I am proud to say that I break that law over and over.
Re:Do you believe your own lies yet? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:39 · Score: 0

"Oral sex is also illeagal in my state and I am proud to say that I break that law over and over."

I can testify that what this guy says is true! And boy does he ever have the smoothest gums...

Re:The Term "Piracy" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:05 · Score: 0

Definitions of words CHANGE. In the latest webster's dictionary, www.dictionary.com,
the third entry for PIRATE is:
3) One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:07 · Score: 0

Definitions of words CHANGE. In the latest webster's dictionary, www.dictionary.com,

the third entry for PIRATE is:

3) One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Re:Various "laws" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:11 · Score: 0

Speaking of which: What ever happened to copy protection schemes? The C64 had some games that were a bitch to copy. What about dongles? Anything to make the road of piracy bumpier. They just make it too damn easy to pirate things nowadays.

The problem is that copy-protection (ha - nice term, that. copy hindrance would be a better one) tends to interfere with legitimate use of the software. Remember the old PC games that only let you do one install from the floppies you bought, unless/until you did an uninstall with the original floppies? If your hard drive got messed up, you were screwed. Games that make you enter a code from the manual? Better not lose that manual...unless, of course, you just xeroxed it. But then you could pass it around to your friends. Disks that don't permit themselves to be copied? Hope nothing ever goes wrong with that disk, since you can't even make any backups.

These things have been almost entirely given up...which makes me wonder: if piracy really is costing the software industry money, why don't they do something? As it is, there are almost no barriers to it.

Re:Do you let firends hear your CDs or watch a mov by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:14 · Score: 0

Check the EULA at the bottom of this message.

Not every provision in an EULA is valid. What if you don't read or agree to the EULA? Does that mean you can't use the software but you can copy it. What if later you change your mind and then accept the EULA?

EULA-Reading either part or all of this message implies that the reader agrees to tenderly and gently lick my scrotum until I deem that it is time to stop.

Tremble before our tank and airplane! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:15 · Score: 0

If you silly Americans think you are brave enough, I challenge you to visit this web site:

http://home.golden.net/~cmkerr/

Good Questions. How about: by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:20 · Score: 0

How does one make an accurate survey of illegal
(or license violating activity)?

Do they also ask those being surveyed if they
are telling the truth?

Or is this just based on a head-count of applications at places that the SPA busts, and
anyone who can't find their original disk is guilty for not being able to prove themselves otherwise?

So maybe the numbers are not really rock solid.
But they take the difference of the two bogus numbers for the past two years, and thereby deduce that piracy is up by 2.5 million in a year. Sure, plus or minus 100 million or more.

promoting piracy of MS software by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:26 · Score: 0

Promoting the use of OSS software hurts MS more than if you promote the piracy of their software.

Re:Why pirating doesn't feel like stealing by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:35 · Score: 0

That's different. If I make a copy of a computer program, I'm not claiming that I wrote it. I'm just making a copy to use for myself. If someone steals a copy of an essay I wrote and just sits at home and reads it, that's ok.

The main problem with computer software right now is that when you "buy" it, you don't own it. For example, lets say I buy a book that I think is really good. Am I doing anything illegal by letting my friends read my copy of it? No.

I think that software should use the same sort of copyright laws as literature. If I buy a book, it's mine and I can do what I want with it. I can't, however, claim that I wrote it. Also, I can't write my own book by cutting and pasting from other books without permission from those authors, or without giving due credit to those authors.

Re:Off-topic, but fun by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:37 · Score: 0

No kidding. We'll order him 27 pizzas and when he is so stuffed that he couldn't lift a finger if his life or an intern depended on it, signal the Canadian Commandos!

Re:SW piracy myths and reality by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:58 · Score: 0

>Moreover, piracy actually reduces the cost of consumer software

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, becuase thieves get free cars.

by decreasing the price gap between $x and $0, consumers are more inclined to purchase the software than steal it. recall that if, in a free market, one competitor lowers prices, the other must as well, or they will lose customers. this is the same principle.

WOW! INCREDIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:58 · Score: 0

I guess they'd better hurry up and make UCITA law then!!! Good thing this OBJECTIVE study came out just in time!!!!

Whew!!! I know I'LL sleep better when they pass that thing!

Disclaimer: The above is heavily laden with saracasm. If you are surprised by this revelation, I'm sorry.

Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:01 · Score: 0

My truck needs a new engine. I am a student. I am not going to the auto shop to have a new one put in. I just dont have ~$1000 for it. However, if there was some way to copy an engine, and i could install it into my truck i'd do it in a second.

Point is, that mechanic wont get jack shit from me because there is no way i'd pay for the cost of the engine and installation. So he isnt actually losing anything. There are many pieces of software i have that i wouldnt pay the retail price for. If software pircacy wasnt possible..i just wouldnt have those things. You could prolly add up all the retail costs of software i have and it'd likely total close to $10,000 or so. But I do not feel like i've stolen $10,000 from some starving programmers pockets.

Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:02 · Score: 0

You just refuted your own argument. If you "didn't lose revenue" then it is *not* theft. It *is* copyright violation, which is completely different. Think trespassing versus breaking and entering. The original poster may not be right, but he is not as wrong as you think he is.

Re:Linux/OSS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:08 · Score: 0

You seem to be confusing 'wrong' and 'illegal'.
Pirating software is illegal but whether it is
wrong is a matter of personal opinion, as in most
things. In my experience it's pretty unusual to
find a machine running a proprietary OS without
some pirated software on it. To recycle an old
hippy cliche, 'Intellectual property is theft'.

China by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:13 · Score: 0

So China steals more software then anywhere else on the planet. Huh. Why am I not surprised.

Get real by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:21 · Score: 0

If I've got the economic situation right... Those who can afford a computer can afford the software.

Nonsense! You haven't seen real software, man. There is soft that costs more than 20000$.
Where I come from it's about 6 times 1 year salary.

Why buy it if you can have it for free :). Anyway, noone could afford it here.

Do i know a lot of people in my country that use only official soft? NONE!! If I started buying soft someone would eventually put me in a fun house for sure :)

circular arguments by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:30 · Score: 0

Almost everyone arguing that software piracy is bad uses the argument that since it's illegal, it must be bad, but they never argue why it should be illegal in the first place. If you use this kind of argument to defend your laws, you will create a very ugly feedback-loop. You will never be able to remove bad laws since they represent the moral standards of the society.

For example, why should the chinese people be allowed to form democratic parties, it's obviously illegal. Please try to argue from a moral standpoint why software piracy is bad. Software developers not getting enough money isn't really a valid argument either. Just because you do something doesn't mean you have to get paid for it.

Johan

Re:circular arguments by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:55 · Score: 0

Almost everyone arguing that software piracy is bad uses the argument that since it's illegal, it must be bad, but they never argue why it should be illegal in the first place. If you use this kind of argument to defend your laws, you will create a very ugly feedback-loop. You will never be able to remove bad laws since they represent the moral standards of the society.

Actually, they say very simply why it's bad and illegal. Someone who creates software is not obligated to give their product away. In fact, many authors sell their software. If you choose to ignore their rights and use the product of their effort without their consent, you're violating their fundamental right to reap the benefits of their work. Now if you want to debate fundamental rights, have a go against all of the modern philosphers who agree on that point. There's no loop, it's an axiom. What you create is yours -- it's that simple!
Re:circular arguments by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:58 · Score: 0

>If you think the author is evil for wanting that >kind of arrangement, then take a LEGAL action and >boycott him by not using his software.

you're using that circular thing again. people defend the gpl because they feel it is not evil while the commercial licsences are.

saying that copying is the same as stealing because I would have paid for the software is b.s. I can't afford the software I pirate. Also its like arresting someone because of crimes they have not yet committed.
Re:circular arguments by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:02 · Score: 0

saying that copying is the same as stealing because I would have paid for the software is b.s. I can't afford the software I pirate. Also its like arresting someone because of crimes they have not yet committed.

Hrm .... i think it is more like arresting someone for a crime they have already committed... when you copy software, you are committing a crime. Btw... since you feel there is some need to say the 'stealing' is not like 'copying', then 'copying' money should be legal shouldn't it? After all, nobody is losing anything, are they?
Re:circular arguments by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-09 06:17 · Score: 0

You made the most insightful post i've seen so far. Those GPL frantics who argue that piracy is good are obvious hypocrites.
Re:circular arguments by jlloyd · 1999-06-07 07:36 · Score: 1

Almost everyone arguing that software piracy is bad uses the argument that since it's illegal, it must be bad, but they never argue why it should be illegal in the first place. If you use this kind of argument to defend your laws, you will create a very ugly feedback-loop. You will never be able to remove bad laws since they represent the moral standards of the society.

It goes both ways here, but I think you thieves are more guilty of circular logic. You say "I would never have paid for it anyway, so I didn't steal it." Never have paid anything? Then you valued it as worthless. So why do you use it at all? Clearly you aren't valuing it as worthless.

Look at it another way. You say "Hypothetically, I would never in the future value this software enough to pay to use it, so therefore it must not be worth anything. Since it isn't worth anything, then it's not stealing if I copy it. Therefore, I'm going to copy it in case I want to use it in the future. Oh look, I have this software, I think I'll use it."

Clearly you see the circular argument there.

If you want to be able to claim some moral ground, you can't use commerically licensed software without obeying the license, including paying the price specified by the author. Anything short of that is an infringement on the author's rights. If you think the author is evil for wanting that kind of arrangement, then take a legal action and boycott him by not using his software, and maybe he will learn that he's better off charging less or using a different license. If you steal from him, then you've made it harder for him to lower the price on his software, and you've lost your moral ground by breaking the law.

This post is already too long, but I have one more point. Why is it that everyone here rushes to defend the GPL, but so many here don't respect non-Free licenses? If you think it is valid to steal from a developer who sells software under a commercial license, then you've given up your right to claim hurt when a commercial developer uses GPL code in a commerical product. Both acts are theft, and neither is morally superior to the other.

You have no moral right to expect the courts to uphold the validity of the GPL if you don't also expect them to uphold commercial licenses as well.

Re:NOT! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:36 · Score: 0

The reason you don't hear from the "loonies" is because Canada's right to free speech is a lot more restrictive than our's.

Re:What If.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:39 · Score: 0

What if it wasn't like this and that the costs for reproduction were as easy as it is for software now?

Piracy Issues by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:43 · Score: 0

I notice the NSA and associated international government agencies have no problem 'pirating' transmissions from all around the world.

When these transmissions include binary proprietrary software or private information, as they undoubtedly must, then the US government is as guilty of piracy as anyone else on the planet.

And if i have to pirate the software i can't afford (theres no way i can pay for most of the packages i use), like Lightwave3D, i will. I don't make any money out of using them, the only thing i'm doing is increasing my knowledge.

And if thats illegal, then yeah i spose i'm a criminal. A repeat offender. A sociopath with no respect for the law!

Hell, if i had a choice, i'd take it. The choice is evolving, in the form of Linux and other free applications and OSes. When theres a free Lightwave-equivalent package (Blender is close, but not quite there yet, in my opinion), and a free Photoshop clone (The GIMP is real close now) then i'll happily stop using my pirated stuff. And in a few years when all the good software is free, people will wonder just what the hell all the controversy was about.

For a chinese student, the idea that a word processor costs the equivalent of a years wages is just foolish. No wonder they just pirate it. The point is that to them it's not 'wrong', regardless of the percieved legality of the situation by the BSA.

And if they really wanted to stop piracy, theyd issue their software with (practically) unbreakable encryption and key it to a fingerprint, DNA ID or retinal scan. But lets see how well their software sells when they try that.

Its like the 'War on Drugs' The more money governments spend to fight 'illegal drug use', the more people want to do them. Sure drugs have some social cost attached, but that would be covered 10 times over by the money spent on locking up the poor bastards who are tied to the drug industry as their only way of living.

I have no real solution to these problems. Perhaps thats why i feel it necessary to break the law by pirating my software. General frustration.

Free the Code! Free the Weed! and Fuck off with your Echelon project.

Re:This is where I logout by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:44 · Score: 0

When Microsoft charges $400 for an upgrade to Office 2000 from '95, that is rediculous. They'd make their money back for the development costs the first day it is released.

Re:NOT! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:53 · Score: 0

Yeah i'm Canadian and i love the fact that we're run by the left leaning liberals
I love paying most of my income to taxes
Please take away my freedom
You Americans don't realize how good you have it

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:57 · Score: 0

Just because its illegal, doesn't mean its wrong. I remanber seening on Slashdot somewhere that someone said "laws create criminals"

Heck, during a war, its legal to kill the enemy. So that is right?

I pity you.

Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 05:58 · Score: 0

most likely not. i was merely stating that although i have lots of software, hardly any purchased, the companies havnt lost that $10,000. I would not have purchased those programs.

Re:Actually, no by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:04 · Score: 0

Warez is the software company's propaganda.
MP3 is the RIAA's.

See the light?

Linux and warez by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:11 · Score: 0

I used to use only warez till I got Linux. Then I gradually stopped using them. I still have all those warez -- compressed on a bunch of floppies or hidden somewhere on my HD.

People who use Linux have no need for warez -- and they generally start using less and less of it.

Re:Linux and warez by AArthur · 1999-06-07 08:45 · Score: 1

I got to agree with that, Warez is obsolete with the event of OpenSource/FSF software. I was burned by warez a few years ago (some how Adobe Streamline for Macintosh corrupted my hard drive some how).

Finally, I found warez is 90% of the time a waste of Hard Disk space (how often do you really need that warezed copy of Adobe Streamline or that Warezed copy of [whatever] software. Not really that often.

OpenSource is the ultimate weapon against piracy, it encourages resources of students, and adults to spend energy improving software and not downloading from your favorite hotline / ftp / www server.

I am not completely against warez either but not for it either. I do not like most warez culture, most warez servers have system admins that act like 20 year old kiddies, that are stupid and ignorant. The TyPe ThIngZ lIk3 tHiZ which just looks stupid.

Come on society grow up, try out Linux and realize what you are missing!

Thanks,

Andrew B. Arthur aka AArthur
mailto:arthur99@global2000.net

_You_ are confusing issues by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:29 · Score: 0

> ...a set of rules which people agree to uphold...

Wait a jiffy! I _NEVER_ agreed to those stupid software laws. What in the world can I do? Go somewhere else and create my own country? Sorry, no space left; lame governments have already claimed the whole earth.

But I want to be allowed to live naked and reverse engineer software. Can I do that? _NO_. Why? Because of stupid laws I've never agreed to.

Let's suppose I could somehow find a country where this is allowed. Then I would live naked, reverse engineer Windows and send a copy of my work to John Doe, who lives in the States. Then USA forces their lame laws on me forbiding all my contact with the rest of the world or even sending bombs or secret agents to force me to change my behavior.

So, what's left? The net, a bit of crypto and the ability to do that covertly.

Re:_You_ are confusing issues by Aussie · 1999-06-07 13:00 · Score: 1

Why was this moderated down. It is interesting and almost on topic.

Moderators ?

Economically, Linux/OSS is the same as 100% piracy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:32 · Score: 0

lotsa unemployed software developers.

3rd world countries banking on software development to pull them out of their ruts (e.g. India, Malaysia) will be screwed by the breakdown in intellectual property.

Re:Piracy Stats by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:53 · Score: 0

>Maybe the debates are related, but MP3 doesn't >make me feel like I'm cheating someone.

no sh*t, I don't feel any more guilty about d/l-ing a mp3 than I do about taping the same song off the radio or off a friend.

License agreements? Which license agreements? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:54 · Score: 0

Have I agreed to something?

I never told them 'I will agree to this license'. Simply because I opened the package never meant that I bound my word to following the EULA.

The point is: I never broke my word, because I never promised anything. Opening a package or running a binary do not mean I promised anything. Period.

Re:License agreements? Which license agreements? by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 09:03 · Score: 1

Have I agreed to something?

I never told them 'I will agree to this license'. Simply because I opened the package never meant that I bound my word to following the EULA.

The point is: I never broke my word, because I never promised anything. Opening a package or running a binary do not mean I promised anything. Period.

Doesn't matter; it's still protected under copyright law.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 06:57 · Score: 0

I have to agree and disagree with you. Piracy is BAD for the industry. Don't kid yourself that your practices are actually "Good" for the industry. In other words you don't have the means as some rich kid to buy new software. He or she will learn the software, gain the skill, get ahead of you, then use the skill to gain jobs or brown nose the boss.

Don't paddy cake it. You want to learn for free and then get payed for it. Instead of paying for your education (as you call it) you would rather copy/pirate software so that you can make more money for yourself or brown nose the bose. Right? Excuse me, "so you can be more informative on up to date software." That is a bunch of sh*t.

If I produced a book/movie and everyone had it and only 1/2 of the people bought it, then I lost 1/2 of my profits. Software on the other hand is different. If you like it and CONTINUE to use it, you should pay me. NO IF,ANDS,or BUTS about it. I made it, I'm selling it, and if you want it, pay for it.

What I agree with you is demo software/time out software does suck. I admit, I do pirate but I have not re-sold any pirated software to anyone or made any money from pirated software. This doesn't make it right either. I don't condone it or advertise it. I do perform illegal activities. You can call me a pirate and I will agree with you. You can tell me that I am hurting the industry and I will say yes to some degree but not just myself but the pirate community, especially the ones that resell it. I don't wrap up sh*t in a nice gift wrap package and call it a mud pie.

I know it is wrong. At least, I do delete within a day or even a week (depending on the testing period) if it doesn't suit my needs. I do buy it if I like it and continue to use it a production mode(non testing). The reason I pirate software is because I can't afford to buy the programs that I want. Plain and simple. I can't shell out the money for every new game or every new version of the software that I originally paid for. I hate when companies come out with the next version right away or the next version's "New Features" could have been put into the old version but they would rather get more money instead of giving out free updates to people who have already paid.

I mean come on, how many of you people can actually afford $500 bucks per year for the new version of Microsoft Office Pro or Adobe Photoshop or whatever? They usually come out with a new version every year or yr 1/2. Without educational discounts, I would be broke from that alone. Using today's software and industry, you can't be more than 1 version behind. I don't condone piracy but software companies have too make their prices flexible. I support shareware software more then commercial because they don't candy coat it. Shareware creators simple ASK for some money/support that is around $10-$40 bucks. That is pretty darn cheap if you ask me for a good piece of software. Bill Gates didn't make his billions by pricing his software cheap. If prices were cheaper, maybe there would be less piracy but until then we will have to live with it and hopefully come up with better methods to stop it.

I didn't say or mean that I am better than you but I don't deny, justify legally, or candy coat what I do. Don't ever say copying something is not taking away from someone else's blood, sweat, and tears.

Fundamental Rights by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:04 · Score: 0

Some people on /. seem to think that software piracy (or unauthorized copying for those of you who don't like such terms) is not the same as theft and is somehow ok. Well, all your rationalization doesn't change the harm you're doing to software publishers. By using their software without paying them, and without their consent, you are violating some of their fundamental rights as human beings.

Both Neitzsche and Rawls, two well respected philosphers of Justice, both agree that every man is entitled to the benefits of their labor. Software publishers, whether they be companies or individuals have the right to do whatever they want with the software they write. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to use their software without their consent, which they will normally provide for a fee.

Does anyone disagree with this principle? Does anyone believe that you are _not_ entitled to what you create?

Re:Fundamental Rights by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 03:11 · Score: 0

Then give your money! It's just paper, right? It has no value.

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:07 · Score: 0

I (like the author of the original message) am a student and could I afford to by legitamate software? I would if I could but I can't. We are not all warez kiddies but guys and gals trying to perform a task. I try free alternatives where I can and great utils like gimp and wordperfect are helping to reduce the level of illegal software on my box's.

However as a computer science student I feel it is necessary to play with as much kit as possible.

Why should you Big Boys Support me and many others in this?

We are the future, we will be in industry competing, fixing, implimenting, improving, recommending, selling, supporting, teaching and using products. Hell, some of us may even be working for you to produce future MS products.

How can we do this if we do not know your products? To starve computer students and others willing to learn is lethal for you as we will adapt to perform tasks in other ways from other sources which we will then go on to promote in the future.

How can you fight piracy in the student culture?

Simple, rather than produce silly student offers that are still out of reach of most why not other special site license's to Educational institution that cover all machines on their premises or connected to their lan, or how about giving organisations such as the British Computer Society Student Membership copies to distribute that are time limited to course durations.

To starve the need for pirarcy here is to promote your product and to destroy the people who make a profit from warez.

I prefer 'homemade copies' by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:13 · Score: 0

.

Re:Linux/OSS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:21 · Score: 0

It is NOT your right to use it without my permission.

Sure it is. One does not really own software in the same sense one might own real property.

You're only granted a temporary distribution monopoly and even that is only in place to encourage your creativity, not necessarily to allow you to hoard possessions of some kind.

Re:Economically, Linux/OSS is the same as 100% pir by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:24 · Score: 0

OTOH: excessive licencing fees for mundane technology won't burden all of their other industries. Intellectual property is only a means to an end, not an entity unto itself.

Many computing pundits will realize this for the novice computer user and not realize that it applies to near just about everyone except a few of us Zealots.

Re:Linux/OSS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:29 · Score: 0

Apparently you don't understand what a liscense is.

A copyright is a temporary distribution monopoly, but a liscense is an contract between you and the author of the software. By using the software you agree to the liscense, and are thus legally and morally bound by that contract.

If you choose to violate it, that's the same thing as violating your personal oath. That is morally wrong.

To my knowledge, nearly all comercial liscenses say (paraphrased) "Use of this software implies acceptance of this liscenses terms".

While shrink-wrap liscenses have yet to be challenged in court, they are theoretically legal.

Perhaps if you could convince a judge that you were ignorant of the terms of the liscense, you might get off. But really, that's the same thing as saying "I never read the speed limit sign" and expecting to get a speeding ticket dismissed.

Re:"Losses" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:32 · Score: 0

US software companies alone reported $3 billion in "losses" due to piracy. They didn't actually lose that much money to piracy. That figure is assuming that for each pirated package, there was a 100% possibility of the person paying for the software if they hadn't pirated it.

Actually, I agree; that figure is absurd. I'd guess software companies losses due to piracy are more like $6 billion! It's fair to say that not every pirated copy was a potential sale. But, in the same vein it's also fair to say that income they didn't get from pirated copies could have been reinvested in the company, leading to future developments and even more income.

In an economy where money makes more money, cutting off someone's income can severly cripple their future earnings and even drive the business under. Losing actual money is not nearly as bad as losing potential money due to lost opportunity cost.

Some of the economic arguments presented in this forum have been naive at best. Whatever you want to peg the figure at, software piracy hurts software companys where it really hurts -- not at the bottom line -- but on future earnings. It's only fair to consider future economic impact if you start speculating on whether or not sales would have been made in the absence of piracy.

Re:You really don't get it, do you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:51 · Score: 0

No, when you buy software you are entitled to do whatever you want with the media. You can chop it up into little pieces and give it to anyone you like. You own that media. You do not own the concepts and intellectual property that is *ON* that medial. Use of the intellectual property is liscensed. The media is not.

Re:Linux/OSS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:03 · Score: 0

Right and wrong is not decided by individuals. It is decided by society as a whole. So it's not acceptable to weasel out of doing something 'wrong' by claiming it is 'right' for you.

Saying "In my experience it's pretty unusual to
find a machine running a proprietary OS without
some pirated software on it. says more about the kind of people you associate with than it begs off the theft of software.

I'd like to know as well... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:04 · Score: 0

*)Which countries were selected to participate in this survey? (may have left out several)
*)What percentage of the population own or use computers? (not part of the survey but can help explain how they calculated those percentages)
*)How much competition do the software companies face in those companies? (I wouldn't be surprised if M$ hold monoponies all over the planet)

Only M$ Products! I Pirate by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:11 · Score: 0

Linux is free.. I bought all kind of disti linux. I even bought Netscape when Browser was a product to sell. and whole buch of shareware stuffs too.

I never bought any M$ Software in any way, Not even bundle because i never bought a bundled PC.

Re:Only M$ Products! I Pirate by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:45 · Score: 0

" I even bought Netscape when Browser was a product to sell. "

Let me get this straight -- You are admitting that you paid Netscape for their browser?!?!?

You really screwed the pooch on that didn't you!

You should feel guilty by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:30 · Score: 0

no sh*t, I don't feel any more guilty about d/l-ing a mp3 than I do about taping the same song off the radio or off a friend

Well, I guess you shouldn't feel any more guilty doing any one of those three over any of the others. But you should feel guilty. All three are theft, pure and simple. You are getting something for nothing and depriving the legal copyright owners of their rights.

Re:You should feel guilty by ksheff · 1999-06-07 12:25 · Score: 1

How is taping a song off the radio considered theft? Does that mean my recording of a tv show is considered theft too?

Most of the mp3s that I have come from my own cd collection. The rest of them come from albums that I haven't been able to find or haven't gotten around to buying yet. I would rather buy the music directly from the band.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Re:You should feel guilty by Sesse · 1999-06-07 18:37 · Score: 1

Most of the mp3s that I have come from my own cd collection.

Come on, it's not the format (MP3) I'm after, I'm after the abuse of it. I know people who have 40 CDs of the same artist, and can't get the last 2 or 3, so they get an MP3 instead. Come on, it's not _that_ I'm after. What I'm trying to stand up against, is people who simply don't buy CDs anymore, because getting an MP3 is cheaper.

/* Steinar */

--
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Re:You should feel guilty by ufdraco · 1999-06-07 10:23 · Score: 1

Interesting...so you have never ever copied a tape that was copyrighted? wow

--
ufdraco

Hershey owns their chocolate bar formula by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:36 · Score: 0

Of course Hershey would sue for Chocolate Bar piracy. They're not just selling the physical bar, they're selling a single instance of their formula for your one-time use. You can't duplicate Chocolate Bars today and sell them on the street as duplicated Hershey Bars without getting sued by Hershey. In your hypothetical scenario it would certainly be illegal to copy Hershey Bars.

Re:Hershey owns their chocolate bar formula by gavinhall · 1999-06-07 19:47 · Score: 1

Posted by BrianDaMac:

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

Does that mean that..... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:40 · Score: 0

2/5th of software is overpriced? ;>

Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:41 · Score: 0

I never felt guilty about pirating most software I used back in my proprietary software days. I knew that using pirated software wasn't really hurting anyone and will probably benefit the industry eventually. Using the expensive, industry-standard software trains most people to work in computer-related fields and definitely doesn't hurt companies because people would never actually buy those expensive software packages.

I'd be willing to be that at least half of the web developers working now gained their skills with pirated versions of Adobe Photoshop or any of the Macromedia programs. Eventually, the kids who got a head start in using this software by pirating it may become the better developers when they are older.

Whenever I meet someone who I believe has good computer skills, that person has always had experience pirating. It's just part of the process now; the person might have ended up disagreeing with it and stopping, but they did it and learned from it.

I don't regret it, I didn't hurt anyone, I have a good summer job because of it, and now I've given it up for free software. No harm done.

Then don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:42 · Score: 0

If you think a piece of software is overpriced, then don't buy it. It's just like anything else. Companies that price their products too high deserve to not sell them. They don't deserve to have their products stolen.

Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:48 · Score: 0

Piracy is theft. Posession of a physical object is not the issue, the value you derive from access to a product is. If you can derive some value from the work of others (examples of these "others" are authors of a book, musicans in a band, programmers of a game, etc), and you do so without compensating them, then you've stolen from them. End of story.

People who steal the intellectual property of others are just as evil as those who steal the physical property of others. Period.

Re:Yes it is by Glith · 1999-06-07 23:43 · Score: 1

You mean like listening to the radio, watching television, seeing an inspiring painting, or reading a book in the library?

A better term by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 08:58 · Score: 0

Is the word "theft". I've always disliked the use of the term "piracy" since it has this sort of romantic notion that goes with it. Theft, on the other hand, properly conveys the correct notion.

To get lower prices, stop your goddamn piracy... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:07 · Score: 0

The selling price of a piece of software is a function of the cost of development plus the cost of sales, marketing, support, distribution, minimal profit, etc. divided by the expected number of sales (more sales than expected means the company makes more profit as it should if it made a good product).

If more people were decent upright citizens and bought their software instead of stealing it, then there would be lower prices for all. In a sense, when you steal software, you're stealing from the rest of us (who pay higher prices as a result).

copying software isnt like stealing a car by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:13 · Score: 0

You can compare the repreoduction of software with the reproduction of a physical thing like a car.

To reproduce software is easy (as we all know) the only costs involved with the reproduction are labour (yours) and the medium to which its copied (which you prob paid for)

The car has real costs and materials required to produce, if you steal a car, youve stolen something that cost a lot to make.

You could go find a car you like, and then make one just like it out goods and material you pay for, this is the closest comparison you can make between stealing a car and copying software

piracy can lead to a sale further down the road by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:20 · Score: 0

Piracy can actually help to sell software, some people are old fashioned and want to "try before they buy" this is why demo and trial software became popular.

Im not going to buy every app i test, but if i pirate software and try it and like it, ill recomend it to other people.

Word of mouth is the best advertising any company can get.

Do you seriously believe all the hype you get from advertising companies, or do you pay more attention to the word on the street ?

Nobody would buy an app if they havent heard of it

there is an exception to every rule (Law) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:45 · Score: 0

what if the something you need is vital for your survival, then you SHOULD STEAL IT.

There is an exception to every rule.

NOBODY should obey a law simply because its a law, they should obey a law because of what the law means, moreso because the Law is worthy of respect.

There are plenty of ancient outdated laws in existence that arent enforced by police, do you suggest we should obey ancient and obsolete laws that even the police dont worry about ?

Re:there is an exception to every rule (Law) by gavinhall · 1999-06-07 18:58 · Score: 1

Posted by godfreynix:

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:Myth of "lost revenue" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:48 · Score: 0

"Lost revenue" is indeed complete bull. The assumption that everyone who pirated the software would otherwise have bought it is completely absurd. Very few, I suspect, would have otherwise paid for "their copies" of software. Since it's available for free, they use it.

If anti-piracy organizations and software companies are serious about their claim, then those companies that incurred so-called "losses" are required by law to report such losses on their financial records. How would the investors like that? If the company were truly incurring these spectacular losses, their stock value would surely plummet, for starters. This is counter-factual however, and most who claim losses are in fact raking in HUGE profits, compliments of Intellectual Property Law (tm).

It's just another sham by "the man", I tell you ;)

If piracy/copying isnt theft... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:50 · Score: 0

Then why will you get your ass seriously reamed in school if you are caught plagiarizing?

Re:If piracy/copying isnt theft... by Musc · 1999-06-07 09:53 · Score: 1

That would be pretending to have written something that you actually haven't. That is fraud, and is most certainly wrong. It is always allowed to have quotations and information that you copied from somewhere else as long as you mention the original source. When you copy a game, you aren't claiming to be the author.

--
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix

Re:#1 reason for piracy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 09:52 · Score: 0

> Cost.

Nope. Its lack of ethics.

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 11:28 · Score: 0

What about test taking? SAT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT. Let's say I sat next to you and I didn't study at all. I am a dumshit. I don't even know what LSAT stands for. I look over your shoulder and copy every answer and make some different now and then just to make sure. Of course, no one sees me and you don't know until after the test. Now let's say you studied your ass off and took a class (paid $1000.00) that gave you tips and such. This is your second time taking it (i.e. [180 x 2] + 1000 = 1360 or so). You kicked ass and now Harvard will suck your d**k just to come to there school instead of Stanford, Princeton, Cambridge, etc. Since you kicked ass, I kicked ass but with no worries and I am not down ~$1360 and the anguish of studing. Harvard would gladly give me the common curtousy of a reach around to also attend their Univ. in the fall. It really doesn't matter if I make it pass the first year or not because I got what I needed and that was a great score.

How would you feel if I did that to you? Mad, upset, pissed off? If you said, "I wouldn't care" that is a bunch of shit because you would care because it is called pride. Copying and distributing to others is the same a stealing but just candy coated for the kiddies. It doesn't matter about what if's because if it's good software people will buy it and people pirate good software or usefull software. So something is taken from you. If people use it without paying for it, you just lost money. The only way copying is legal is for backup reasons. Other than that it's illegal.

Re:The last time I heard this kind of debate... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 11:55 · Score: 0

"Your socio-economic status in life does not entitle you to ignore IP laws."

Maybe not, but consider:

A "bitlegged" copy of 3D Studio Max currently resides on my hard drive. I really wanted to buy this program--it's a great piece of software. But the _academic_edition_ costs about $1000. This is well over 10% of my annual income (as a student, I can't exactly go out and get a better job). It basically comes down to a choice between paying my rent or buying Max. Hmm. Tough call.

What has Kinetix lost? Nothing. I could never afford to buy this piece of software.

So why am I considered to have morally wronged them? They are no worse off than if I had never downloaded Max in the first place.

Re:To get lower prices, stop your goddamn piracy.. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 12:15 · Score: 0

But if there were lower prices on software, a significant portion of "bitleggers" (I love that word!) would probably go out and buy the software.

Notice that I didn't say "all". Or even "most". Just "some". But this would still be a whole lot of new buyers, especially if the figures in the article are correct.

Besides, if all piracy stopped tomorrow, do you _really_ think software prices would drop?

why free information? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 12:52 · Score: 0

Ok, skip all the ranting.

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. But look at it this way, most of the people that bought my P3 replica probably wouldn't have bought the original anyway, too expensive.
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.
Just live with it, when you pirate software you are living off of other people who did not. You are getting over on them unfairly. BTW, there are MANY freeware software titles out there, especially if you are too poor, try it instead of the pirated stuff. By using the pirated software, you are acknowledging that capitalism drives people to write better software than the freedom of information does. Linux exhemplifies freedom, Windows that of Microsoft Capitalism and the titles therein. So, if the scarcity of capitalism produces better software, then give up on all this "Freedom of Information" crap simply because I want BETTER software.

Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 13:34 · Score: 0

So how 'bout I pirate your software and give it to *everyone* who might have payed for it. Your company gets zero money from the software. They go bankrupt. They fire your ass. Do you care now?

Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 14:19 · Score: 0

Do you remember what happened at the end of the article? David and the warez kid found his book, scanned and posted on a hotline site.
"Hey dude, you're famous".
What was his response?
"These people must be stopped! We have to do something about this"...
or something like that

Actually, My piracy has SOLD software by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 16:34 · Score: 0

I have pirated copies of Photoshop 5 and QuarkXpress4 on my home computer.

--Ohhhh, I'm EVIL!!! --------

There is no way I would have bought them, they are approx $600 apiece.

So, I pirate them, become familiar with them.

I get a job (this is all true)

I need to use Photoshop. "Boss! I need Photoshop 5"
The company buys it.
I need QuarkXpress "Boss! I need Quark!"
The company buys it.

I get a new job.

Same thing happens.

So.

As a result of my ILLEGAL LAW BREAKING PUT ME IN JAIL I'M A BAAAADDDD MAAAANNNNN piracy of one copy each of Photoshop and QuarkXpress, I generated 2 sales each of these products.

In this situation, how are the software companies losing?

Re:Piracy Stats by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 16:52 · Score: 0

I dont think it is immoral to use warez, Im doing it always, because buying software is very expensive and I dont have the money, then I must use warez if I want any software at all.
And I think it is much worse to steal in a store then using warez, because no-one looses any money because I of that.
I live in Sweden/Europe and warez is completely accepted here, everyone uses warez and people working at a company goes together to buy warez-CDs and then copy these CD to everyone.

I have felt thet Im doing anything wrong when I pirate software.

Reader Agreement by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 17:40 · Score: 0

By reading this message, you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this license.

1. License. The message accompanying this License, whether on disk, in read only memory, on a network, in print, or any other media is the sole property of the author and is licensed to you by the author, Anonymous Coward ("AC"). You may own the medium on which the message is recorded but AC and/or AC's licensors retain the title to the message and realted documentation. This license allows you to read the message on a single computer only with Microsoft operating system products, and make one copy of the message for backup purposes only (that copy is subject to this license.) You must reproduce on such a copy AC's copyright notice and any other proprietary legends that were on the original copy of the message. You may also transfer all your license rights in the message, the backup copy of the message, the related documentation and a copy of this license to another party, provided the other party reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of the License.

2. Restrictions. The message contains copyrighted material, and may contain trade secrets and/or other proprietary material. In order to protect them, you may not discuss, modify, network, rent, lease, loan, distribute or create derivative works based upon the message in whole or in part. You may not electronically transmit the message from one computer to another over a network.

3. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. You may terminate this License at any time by destroying the message, related documentation, and all copies thereof. This License will terminate immediately without notice from AC if you fail to comply with any provision of this License. Upon termination, you must destroy the message, related documentation, and all copies thereof.

5. Duties. The reader must give his/her first born male child to AC.

6. Complete Agreement. This license constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the use of the Message, the related documentaton,and supersedes all prior or contemporareous understandings or agreements, written or oral, regarding such subject matter. No admendment to or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and siged by a duly authorized representative of AC.

Copyright 1999 Anonymous Coward. All rights reserved.

Message follows:

Still, I don't think shrink-wrap licenses are legally binding. But hey, since you believe they are, send me your first born male child.

AC

Re:RMS disagrees with that principle, and so do I by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:00 · Score: 0

Of course you are entitled to enjoy the fruits of your labor. However, if the fruits of your labor can easily be enjoyed by others, without any additional work on your part, then you have no right to tell them not to enjoy those fruits, just because you are the one who does the work.

Interesting point. There is indeed a lot of benefit to everyone in sharing the fruits of labor, especially when it is so easy. At the same time, those people who don't believe in RMS's principles shouldn't have their work taken from under them in the name of community.

Just like a great novel which is nothing more than paper and ink, or a great painting which is just canvas and paint, software is nothing more than 1's and 0's and magnetic media. All of these are much easier to duplicate than they are to make in the first place. Just because a book is easy to copy, as is a painting and software, isn't it up to the author/artist whether or not they would like to contribute their work to the general public to ooh and aah at? It is after all the product of much effort (the medium is cheap and irrelevant), and potentially a source of income.
It is ok to sell software. Free software software has just a much a place as free literature. There's a lot a free writing and free newsletters in existence. The web makes this easy. There are also newspapers with paid staffs and books whose authors collect royalties. Are writers, authors, and artists not entitiled to selfishly benefit from their effort if they so choose? If not, they may or may not write in the first place, possibly depriving all of us of something good.

I know this argument gets attacked all of the time. But I think writing for profit has just as much as place as writing for free. There is no conflict of interests here. Those who produce should have the power. If they don't, everyone may just well not produce on their own and wait for other people's work to snatch up for free...

Re:An unusual perspective by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:13 · Score: 0

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.

Let me present a scenario where I rip you off, because it's "just a number." Suppose you come to work for me, on contract of course because you probably don't work for software companies (do you work at all right now?). We agree on a contract where you code X and I pay you Y. You code X, I say "X is just a number," copy your code, and then refuse to pay you. I just breeched your contract, or should I say "pirated" your code.

Yes, you're very clever, you work less than software houses in cracking their programs. I'm even more clever, I just copied your code without paying you. How smart am I? This was a one-customer program and you lost all of your income. What do you plan to do for a living?

I wouldn't call the code I ripped from you worth paying for, and I didn't pay. However, I think you'd disagree here and consider the code you wrote worth being paid for, because it took you time to write. Unless of course you want to open source it for me. That's ok to because either way I get a free lunch, legal or not, and you get no money.

Re:Development cost a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:25 · Score: 0

In a non-proprietary world, development costs would be a fraction of what they are now. Everyone would borrow everybody else's best ideas and everything would be so much the better. The programmers? Out of work? Nah, not a chance. Most people who are now working on creating "finished products" would be reassigned to client services and a continuous reengineering plan.

The "pirated" software in question was created under a business model whose success is dependent on the proprietary nature of the software. I see lots of people insisting that in this mythical happy land of "everything is free, we all share, love abounds" that all issues like these would be instantly eradicated and the mass market for products would be satiated by a new economic model, but i think just like every other purely idealistic idea its much easier to sit back and insist it will work, knowing there is little chance of its actually being tested *across the board*. The open source software we all use and improve upon certainly counts as an argument, but its quite a leap to say the development model that created Linux could truly deliver adequately for insane-deadline-driven businesses and non-technically savvy entertainment-starved masses. Where is the business model?

Re:Economically, Linux/OSS is the same as 100% pir by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:49 · Score: 0

We shall SCRIMP and SAVE!

;-)

Re:Linux/OSS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:57 · Score: 0

"Piracy" has nothing to do with stealing. It has to do with disrespect of the license with which the software if distributed. Therefore it's even possible to "pirate" open source software such as GPL software. This "Piracy" is morally wrong. If you respect the license of an open source software, so must you do the same for any other licenses.

Re:At least he's not hurting society. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 19:58 · Score: 0

Main Entry: piracy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
Date: 1537
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

--
So there you have it, piracy *is* the correct term. Besides, the term piracy when referring to copyright theft was around before the computing sense of the word AFAIK.

Re:Canadian commandos? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:09 · Score: 0

Bah, they are no match for our crack Tim Horton strike team. The American people would only be able to watch in horror as their "elite" military forces are put to death one by timbit-choked one!

Muahahaahahahahaha!

Re:Off-topic, but fun - toronto by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:11 · Score: 0

They were lying to you.

Nothing like a naive american to get some nice coffee money out of.

Re:I am already there........ by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:14 · Score: 0

Once you figure that out, you will achieve nirvana.

Re:At least he's not hurting society. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:21 · Score: 0

"... Richard Stallman for one suggests that illegally copying proprietary programs is better than actually paying for them."

Then Richard Stallman is a hypocrite, because he asks people to respect his restrictive GPL license while he himself has no respect for others' licenses. Shall I have no respect for GPL because I feel that it is too restrictive? No of course not.

Re:Vested interest, Outrageous claims by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 20:54 · Score: 0

It is a reuters story...if you don't trust reuters who do you trust? They are a major source of business and tech news. If you prefer Yahoo quoting reuters here it is Yahoo

Re:This is where I logout by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 21:09 · Score: 0

>No, you just take the advantages provided by the software (I assume you use it) without compensating the companies providing those advantages to you. Leech.

I used Strata Studio Pro only while I was working for the company that I copied it from. Since then I have not.

I do not use an unauthorized copy of MS Office, my current employer paid for a copy. I do not use an unauthorized copy of NT Server, my employer paid for a copy.

The point is archiving everything I can get my hands on. I can't wait until I get one of those 30gb digital drives.

>If choosing a profession as a software developer means you will effectively work for a bunch of lazy sods without any compensation except from a few individuals who are decent enough to value your effort, one might be tempted to choose a career as a plumber or something instead.

Or one might choose to develop for a company who has a history of charging reasonable prices for their software.

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 23:09 · Score: 0

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it morally right or wrong. As rms once said, it used to be illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus but nobody thinks that is "right" anymore. Perhaps our college friend is just ahead of his time morally. :)

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 00:39 · Score: 0

Dictionaries reflect current usage, irrespective of whether a usage is logical. The word "piracy" has been used in this context for years, so there's an entry for it, but it doesn't mean that it makes sense to use the same word for both illegal copying and maritime murder. If someone coined a different term twenty years ago, we could just as easily be debating the validity of "software hijacking" or "software embezzlement".

How many "hacker vs. cracker" debates have we seen? If most people keep calling computer criminals "hackers", that will end up in the dictionary just like "piracy".

Re: stealing a candy bar by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 00:43 · Score: 0

> The same goes with software: Either users pay what the publishers ask, or all software ends up as "garage-ware", written by somebody in their spare time, or subsidized through other means like
documentation and support. "Oh, you got our very free software product, but cannot understand a bit of it? You need to buy our $200 instruction manual..."

Hey, isn't that sound exactly like the Linux distribution business? If Linux can be successful with this kind of marketing, what's wrong with that?

two issues by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 00:50 · Score: 0

First - do companies really "lose" as much money as they claim due to illegal copying? Not a chance. I'd certainly agree that their calculations are based on some very shaky assumptions. Individuals who copy illegally probably would never have bought a legitimate copy.

Second - do companies have a right to prevent unauthorized copying? Absolutely. Whether or not such copying harms them is a secondary issue. You can say their prices are too high or that they're jerks because they don't release source code, but they're well within their legal and ethical rights to control their products as they see fit.

Sometimes it's acceptable by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 01:03 · Score: 0

I don't really feel that individuals should pirate "consumer" software items, but often they are so shoddy they aren't worth paying for. That's not what I'm talking about however. Companies such as AutoDesk, makers of fairly industry standard CAD software seem hellbent on keeping it away from individuals. The same holds true to other companies. Maybe they don't understand that your typical hobbyist isn't going to shell out tons of money for an application they don't really need. Several months ago I picked up an older SGI workstation at a computer recycling place. It was a government system and they had deleted everything. Now what am I supposed to do? Pay out the ass for Irix (only OS it will run) just to screw around with, or just pirate it from someone? I pirated Irix 5.2 from a kind soul, but I wasn't content with 5.2 ;), wanted 5.3 so I thought what the hell and called up my local SGI sales office. They sent 5.3 free of charge. That gave me a little more faith in SGI. I think all the business software vendors should have some sort of very inexpensve licenses available for non-commericial uses such as Sun Microsystems does with Solaris. I ordered Solaris for the $10+shipping. It's at such a price that just makes me think to order it for the small fee rather than to hunt around for someone willing to copy it. There really isn't much of a way to learn other operating systems and applications on your own other than pirating these operating systems and applications.

Re: But when is a law wrong enough to break it? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 01:05 · Score: 0

Maybe I don't have any problems with not being allowed to hire Jews. I do have problems with paying $50 on a game so I can squander my time.

Who decides when a law is bad or "evil"? If I law is reasonable I obey it, if a law isn't reasonable I don't. The government makes laws not morals. I will do what I believe is right.

I like Aristotle's definition of good and bad: Would the world be a better or worse place if {piracy/whatever} were practiced universally? I hope no one is so stupid as to believe software would improve if all software companies went out of business, so I would have to say piracy is bad.

Re:Linux/OSS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-09 05:41 · Score: 0

Example: a company wants to use a piece of GPL'ed code. So they include it in their system, compile it and sell it. They care nothing for GPL. They've pirated the code.

bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-09 04:58 · Score: 0

the difference b/t software and the examples you site above is that software has only 2 "natural" prices -- Finite or ZERO.

Sure, the other pieces of the software value chain (consultants, hardware OEMs, etc.) will love paying zero to use code. Just like they love a world of 100% piracy.

Economics also tells us that linkage of consumption is sooo utterly far from 100%. There is NO WAY that people can make as much money selling penguin t-shirts as they did making OS's fulltime.

ITEM 2 suffers from this same (incredibly dumb) assumption.

Item 3 -- under closed source, competition comes from substitution rather than direct competition. e.g. Cell phones taking functions that used to require PC's.

lifecycle competition happens in closed source as well as open source.

Re:Canada Won't Join the US by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-09 23:19 · Score: 0

I live in Canada (Alberta) and do not think Canada would ever become part of the states if Quebec leaves. True the west/prairies do feel under-represented in Parliament but not enough that we would want to become part of the US. The majority of us are very proud to be Canadian and could not consider the idea of becoming stateziens. We definately do not promote ourselves or our patriotism as much as out counterparts to the south. We are proud of who we are but don't make a big deal. Canada Day is truly pitiful when compared to Independance Day.
That said, if Quebec does leave our country would be better off. I don't have any figures handy (if you really want them, have a look around Canadian Gov't Website. For the taxes each province has to pay the federal government, Alberta contributes the most per capita while Quebec received the most. On the surface we all seem to be equal but having a look at the numbers reveals some interestings trends.

Just my thoughts on the subject...
--
All things being equal, a fat person uses more soap then a thin person does.

This is where I logout by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:36 · 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. I've got several $1000+ multimedia suites I've burned onto CDR's, but I'd never steal a $20 part from a store, even if there were no security. I'd feel too guilty if I ever did.

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.

Re:This is where I logout by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:53 · Score: 1

I too had to logout to speak freely on this subject. I've made copies of more software than I can remember. If you're going to view this issue in terms of theft, you already lose. It's noth theft to copy something that you were never going to buy anyway. Just because individual X, Y, and Z share individual W's software package doesn't mean that software company M has lost 3x (the price of the software because X, Y, and Z were probably never going to buy it anyway.

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:This is where I logout by drendite · 1999-06-07 02:01 · Score: 1

Or maybe I think Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Macromedia are making too much money already, and this is my little protest against them.

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?
Re:This is where I logout by gavinhall · 1999-06-07 01:59 · Score: 1

Posted by Art Pepper:

>Hehe, an overwhelming majority of my software is >pirated. The strange thing is that I don't feel >guilty at all about it. ... but I'd never steal a
>$20 part from a store, ...

I am underwhelmed by your values.
Re:This is where I logout by toriver · 1999-06-07 19:32 · 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.
No, you just take the advantages provided by the software (I assume you use it) without compensating the companies providing those advantages to you. Leech.
If choosing a profession as a software developer means you will effectively work for a bunch of lazy sods without any compensation except from a few individuals who are decent enough to value your effort, one might be tempted to choose a career as a plumber or something instead.
Re:This is where I logout by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 02:09 · Score: 1

If MS-Office had never been pirated, do you think it would be the de facto standard for documents in the workplace?

Think of it this way, does it matter? If I kill your brother, and you get a lot of money from his life insurance, does that make it okay for me to kill him?

Yes, it's an extreme case, but the point is that the consequences do not change the fact that it is illegal.
Re:This is where I logout by Rombuu · 1999-06-07 01:41 · Score: 1

Or maybe I think Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Macromedia are making too much money already

hahahaha... there's no such thing. I bet you go into your place of work once a week (if you have a job) and offer to give back some of your salary becuase you are making too much money, right?

--

DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!

At least he's not hurting society. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:40 · Score: 1

There's a tradeoff here. Him illegally copying OSS and "hurting one of the few companies willing to do commercial software on Linux" is a lot more helpful to society than you supporting them financially. Ideally one shouldn't use any proprietary software, but Richard Stallman for one suggests that illegally copying proprietary programs is better than actually paying for them.

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 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:44 · 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.

Re:Ad I heard on the radio by ewhac · 1999-06-07 01:49 · Score: 1

Oh, so now we're expected to conflate purloining physical objects (the box, manual, and disks) with copying bits.
Obviously this ad is intended for people who don't think very clearly...
Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Why pirating doesn't feel like stealing by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:52 · Score: 1

Pirating software doesn't feel like stealing because if you copy software from someone, all you've done is copy it. Now you both have a copy. If you steal someone's VCR, now they don't have a VCR anymore. Copying software doesn't really feel like stealing because you're not taking anything away from the other person. If you go into a library and photocopy every page of a book (somehow managing to photocopy it for free), did you just steal the book? Nope.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Re:Why pirating doesn't feel like stealing by Glith · 1999-06-07 03:19 · Score: 1

No, because by stealing someone's essay and using it to get into school, someone else is assumably denied admission. That's the loss-- sure, we might not know who it is, but there's definitely someone out there who's essay was beaten by the stolen one.

On the computer we're not really competing for space on a shared resource anymore; copying a program doesn't mean that you're less likely to buy another. In fact, the try-before-you-buy idea has caught on and made playable demos a standard issue nowadays.

Also, it's NOT like the money is just disappearing! If everyone bought everything on their machine, three things would happen: A) People would have less software, B) People would have less money, and therefore buy less of other goods. We might not have enough, say, to buy that fancy new G400 or a new processor, and then who'd be the one losing money?

It's not so clear cut.

"You must do what you feel is right, of course." -- Old Ben Kenobi
Re:Why pirating doesn't feel like stealing by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 09:18 · Score: 1

That's different. If I make a copy of a computer program, I'm not claiming that I wrote it. I'm just making a copy to use for myself. If someone steals a copy of an essay I wrote and just sits at home and reads it, that's ok.

The main problem with computer software right now is that when you "buy" it, you don't own it. For example, lets say I buy a book that I think is really good. Am I doing anything illegal by letting my friends read my copy of it? No.

I think that software should use the same sort of copyright laws as literature. If I buy a book, it's mine and I can do what I want with it. I can't, however, claim that I wrote it. Also, I can't write my own book by cutting and pasting from other books without permission from those authors, or without giving due credit to those authors.

Specifically can't use more than ~ 20% of the original work in your book without the copyright owner's express permission. Everything else is covered under the "Fair use" provisions of the Bern copyright convention.

[I used to make a living writing words before I made one writing code - it's handy to know this kind of thing]

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Do you let firends hear your CDs or watch a movie? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:22 · Score: 1

If so then you are just as guilty as the pirates you abhor. When you buy a CD or a VHS movie or a newspaper, it is covered by the same IP laws as software which means you bought permission for *you* to use the item and no one else. When another person can hear your CD playing or your buddy watches that movie you just bought, you are committing theft. Of course, you will say that "this is different". I say, no. It's not. Software, movies, CDs, newspapers, books. Get off off it. Everyone pirates and it is perfectly acceptable regardless of how lawyers wish it could be redefined. IP law is a western cultural invention, and (!) your concept of right and wrong is not universal.

Watch me put my head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:43 · Score: 1

Did you even read the original post before spouting your fractured logic?

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:Watch me put my head in the sand by toriver · 1999-06-07 18:16 · Score: 1
The car analogy is bogus: a car has intrinsic value (metal, glass, etc.), software has almost none (a CD and some paper).
Are you saying only physical objects have value? That e.g. "the ability to edit documents" is not of value to you? Why do you use a given piece of software? Isn't the answer to that question indicative of the value that program can be said to have?
Two other analogies:
1. Shoud a teacher be paid for their job? After all, they produce no physical objects to speak of, just put information into the student's head - information they probably could have gained in other ways.
2. If I am not hungry, can I be excused for taking an apple? Since I won't eat it immediately, it can be said to be of no value, apples grow on trees (new ones will appear within a year - no sweat), and it would probably spoil later anyway.
If you don't want to pay for software, write it yourself, or be satisfied with free software. Just don't be a leech on the software industry.
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by curveclimber · 1999-06-07 08:28 · Score: 1

The poster never claimed he hadn't stolen the software, he said that the software companies lost no money because he would not have purchased that software.

That's also an interesting way to try and make an argument . . . actually changing someone's words. I'll have to remember that one.
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by Tardigrade · 1999-06-07 06:05 · Score: 1

Then get a job as a mechanic if you want a guaranteed price for your work.
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 05:47 · Score: 1

It's not the cost of the engine that's the issue, it's the mechanic's skill and knowledge in installing it. Even if the engine were available free, you would still pay the mechanic to install it, you would have no choice. It's the same thing with software, anyone can get a cd and put some software on it. What people don't seem to want to do is pay someone for their skill in creating the program. In the software world, you can avoid paying these people for their skill and ideas. This would be equivalent to somehow forcing the mechanic to install the engine in your car for free. Do you think he would like that?
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by toofast · 1999-06-07 04:18 · Score: 1

Just because you want a return for your efforts doesn't mean that you are *entitled* to it.

Go to an auto mechanics and have him change your car's engine. He'll charge you $700 for a new transmission and $300 for installing it. He is entitled to the $300 labour he put into it, as a programmer is entitled to his $300 to write some software. Unfortunately, YOU cannot copy the mechanic's install labour, but YOU can copy software.

If the software is no good, no one will buy it and piracy won't be an issue. You'll be eating Bread Crumbs at the end of the month anyway.

You lack Common Sense.
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 09:01 · Score: 1

The poster never claimed he hadn't stolen the software, he said that the software companies lost no money because he would not have purchased that software.

But because he wouldn't have bought it anyway, it's okay for him to steal it so he can use it?

So it's useful enough for him to want to break the law and steal the software, but not useful enough for him to buy it legally?

So in other words, if you want something but don't actually need it, you can do whatever the hell you want to get a hold of it, because ethically and morally you're in the right?

Sorry, but that's complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by jlloyd · 1999-06-07 06:50 · Score: 1

most likely not. i was merely stating that although i have lots of software, hardly any purchased, the companies havnt lost that $10,000. I would not have purchased those programs

You wouldn't purchase them, but you did use them, eh? Let's rewrite your statement a little:

most likely not. i was merely stating that although i use lots of software, hardly any purchased, the companies havnt lost that $10,000. I would not have used those programs.

Now there's an obvious contradiction, which reveals the fallacy of the argument. If you don't pay for software, and don't use it, then you haven't stolen property. But if you don't pay for software, and then you go ahead and use it anyway, then you have stolen property. No amount of weasling around by saying "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway!" matters here. If you use it, and you didn't pay for it, you're a thief.
Re:Watch me put my head in the sand by lakdjfalkdj · 1999-06-07 11:41 · Score: 1

You seem to be missing the Orginal poster's point, and also this person's comment and a few other posters comments.

"But because he wouldn't have bought it anyway, it's okay for him to steal it so he can use it?"

No, it isn't ok for him to STEAL the software, because it is stealing. Stealing is wrong everyone should know that by age 6, same with killing. :)

"So it's useful enough for him to want to break the law and steal the software, but not useful enough for him to buy it legally?"

From reading this guys comments, he has no money to buy the software so for him buying it legally isn't an option, I'm assuming he can't afford the software. I would *HOPE* that if he had the money he would pay for it.

"So in other words, if you want something but don't actually need it, you can do whatever the hell you want to get a hold of it, because ethically and morally you're in the right?"

No, if you want something, ethically and morally you should pay for it. You ARE using something that took someone's time to produce and give a good product.

So since we have that all sorted out, Is it ok to claim a LOSS of X amount of dollars since this guy wouldn't have paid for it in the first place? That is the REAL question. See when someone steals an object no one else but the person who stole this object can use it. So say I take a candy bar from the store. No one else can BUY that candy bar because well I stole it. So thus you have a loss because now the manufactor must reproduce another candy bar so they can actually sell it. So now it cost the manufactor 2 times the orginal cost to make this candy bar. They're now X amount of dollars in the hole.

Now say my buddy has this really cool game on a CD, it costs $50.00. I'm a 12yr old lamer and mommy wont buy me this game, but my buddy is a real rich guy and he has a CD-Writer. So I ask him, "Hey would you copy this CD for me?" So he goes and copies this CD and I go play it for the rest of the summer. Now, did my buddy coping this CD take away the right for someone else to purchase this software? Did the game manufactor have to reproduce this product to sell to someone else? Did this guy coping this CD take away money from the manufactor because I would have purchased it anyway? The answers are No and No and No.

So how much money did the Game Company loose? I'd pretty much say nothing since they didn't loose a sale that would have never taken place in the first place.

The whole argument here is the Software company assumes X amount of dollars lost because of the assumtion that there would have been a sale in the first place.

To use the car analogy everyone likes to use so much it goes something like this: I buy a car from a car dealer drive it home replicate it and give it to my friend.

Now on the flip side where I work were things are usually tight for money sometimes. There was someone who needed some software to do their work. Now since just installing the software on their PC would be stealing I told them that it's not within the budget to purchase another license to install it on their PC. So I didn't buy a license. I also didn't install the software. So now the software company didn't gain any money since well I didn't purchase another license. So now if I would have installed the software on their PC it's considered LOOSING money! That's the logic I can not understand. The correct logic to me would be, "The software company didn't gain X amount of dollars nor did they loose X amount of dollars".

It's like having only one company car, I need to run to the store but someone else needs to use it too, so I go and replicate it, now Ford says they lost $16,000.00 because I copied it. I really don't see how Ford is loosing $16k because I could have just ridden with the other guy, but hey it's just nicer to drive by myself, and if I couldn't have copied it I wouldn't have done it in the first place nor would I have bought another car I would have just ridden with the other guy.

So again, I can't see the logic considering it a LOSS! It should be "Ford didn't gain $16,000.00 nor did they loose $16,000.00"

Honestly, I wonder how everything will be handled when you can actually replicate objects the same you can with software. :)

Re:You really don't get it, do you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:16 · Score: 1

That's got to be one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. When is everyone going to understand that the physical copy of the software is not what is being stolen? It's a simple concept... I purchase Photoshop 5. I have paid for it. I do not own photoshop, I merely am granted permission to use a copy of the program by Adobe. When I loan it to a friend to install, he is not stealing from me. He can't, because I don't own it. However, he is stealing from Adobe. He is using something that belongs to them without their permission. That is theft, plain and simple. Stop thinking in terms of physical items, you are not stealing the copy of the program, you are stealing the usage of the program. The copy is irrelevant.

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? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 12:36 · Score: 1

Ok, skip all the ranting.

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 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:37 · Score: 2

One wonders why the software is pirated in foreign countries. Could it be that it is so expensive in native currency?

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.

Re:Piracy by mikpos · 1999-06-07 02:40 · Score: 1

As others have stated, it would be good practice to break laws you don't agree with.

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?
Re:Piracy by Shadowlion · 1999-06-07 02:04 · Score: 1

I believe it's called 'civil disobedience.' It isn't a law, per se; more of a philosophy.

There's also Ghandi's concept of 'non-violent resistance.'

As it oft-quoted, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. Slavery was once supported by law, as well as preventing women from voting. Is software "piracy" equivalent to slavery or equal rights? No. On the other hand, laws aren't the be-all and end-all.
Re:Piracy by Rombuu · 1999-06-07 01:45 · Score: 1

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.

Could you show me that law that states if you don't like a law you don't have to comply with it? Does this mean I don't have to pay my water bill anymore since I don't want to support the local water commission (monopoly). Should actively try to steal water without paying for it?

--

DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Re:Piracy by Seth+Cohn · 1999-06-07 01:53 · Score: 1

In the US, Slave Return laws were overturned when juries refused to convict those who refused to 'obey the law'.

If a law is wrong, it is your moral obligation to fight it and break it if need be.

http://www.fija.org

--
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
Re:Piracy by Salamander · 1999-06-07 03:58 · Score: 1

>I may be forced to use their products (e.g., games)

You're forced to play games?

The sad thing is that the notions of things like "force" and "cost" and "rights" represented by the above are not significantly less mature than those in most of the other pro-piracy posts. It's really very very simple: a license agreement is a contract. If the license says don't copy and you do copy, you have broken your word. Whether it's "stealing" to you, whether it harms anyone, whether it furthers some political agenda...you broke a promise. Maybe we shouldn't be stringing up oathbreakers by their thumbs, but it is a moral negative.

If you don't want to pay for software, stick exclusively to free (beer) software. However you rationalize, anything else is immoral.

--
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.

There aren't many pirates left. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:46 · Score: 2

Some of you get mad when crackers are called hackers. I get mad when I see the term piracy attached to the act of copying software.

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.

Re:There aren't many pirates left. by gavinhall · 1999-06-07 02:01 · Score: 1

Posted by Art Pepper:

So, let's just call it theft.
Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Glith · 1999-06-07 02:15 · Score: 2

Why not copyright infringement? The same thing you do when you record something off the radio or TV. The price tag of the item has absolutely nothing to do with the crime itself; but why do you see TV and radio stations not mind if you copy their material as long as you don't try and gain profit on it or masquerade as them? Because they're NOT LOSING ANYTHING. The crime of theft is NOT about getting something for nothing; theft is a crime because someone else is losing something material for your own personal gain. If there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy product X made by company Y, explain to me how company Y loses out be me having it on my computer instead of not having it? If I like the software, I might even recommend it at work and get real people to actually buy the software where otherwise they would've gotten nothing.

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.
Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Jeremi · 1999-06-07 03:04 · Score: 1

> So, let's just call it theft.

If you really want to be correct, it's "violating the license agreement".

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Salamander · 1999-06-07 04:28 · Score: 1

>As a software developer I can honestly say

As a software developer I can honestly say that you don't represent me or my views. Thanks for trying, but you can stop now.

>The people who care about that are in the other wing in

Somebody else made the point that not every software developer works for a behemoth like Microsoft. Many (most?) work on their own, or for small companies that can only dream of making billions of dollars in excess revenue solely due to their market position and not product innovation or quality. I'd say the non-'softies of the world quite often do care about piracy.

That said, you make a good point about copying TV shows. The interesting thing is that TV shows are supported by the advertisers not the viewers. If that weren't the case then the TV people, like the movie people and the record people and the cable people, would care a whole heck of a lot more about piracy.

The big issue is loss of revenue. Maybe nobody cares about the "trading card" warez kiddies or the packrats (though they still doesn't make those people's actions right) but I think people here are unaware of the dimensions of corporate and for-profit piracy. Even if the vendors' claims are somewhat inflated - and I know they are - there are people out there selling pirated software for billions of dollars. By what reasoning should people like that be rewarded instead of the people who wrote the code? What are the consequences of an economy where it's more rewarding to be an uncreative leech than an innovator and builder?

Think about the consequences of your attitudes if applied globally. Personally, I want to reward people who make new things. Some of those people are motivated by altruism or ego, and they write free software; good for them! Other people are motivated by money, and if what they create is worth enough to me I reward them for that by buying it. Other people - pirates, monopolists, government officials - create nothing. The world (my world?) is not improved by their presence, and might well be improved by their absence. Not only do I not want my money going into their pockets, I want that form of livelihood denied them, so they'll be forced to do something constructive for a change.

--
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Re:There aren't many pirates left. by Sun+Tzu · 1999-06-07 02:25 · Score: 1

Agreed. "Bootlegging" is more accurate. However, the hypemeisters prefer the misleading term, "piracy", perhaps because of the connotations of violence.

--
Geeky modern art T-shirts

Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 03:54 · Score: 2

Nice rationalization for theft. Now for the refute. Plain and simple, I'm a software author. You may well have a piece of software that I wrote on your system. I sell my software -- that's my decision. I don't give a fuck what reasons you come up that your piracy benefits the industry. You don't have any right to use my software. I made it, not you. It's not yours for the taking because I didn't choose to give it away.

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!!!

Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by Danse · 1999-06-07 04:18 · 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.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by docwhat · 1999-06-07 06:57 · Score: 1

Yes, but if I buy Stephen King's latest novel, I can photocopy it, color it, loan it to a friend, sell it, take it apart and otherwise do what I want with a copy that I bought.
If I "buy" your software; I cannot copy it, I cannot take it apart, I cannot loan it, I cannot do anything against the licence included with all software.
These are not comparable situations. "Bought" software is so much more than IP. The IP portion is hidden away in most (commercial) software, unavailable for anyone to appreciate or even notice.

--
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by BiLlCaT · 1999-06-07 05:24 · Score: 1

It's an interesting debate, but you are nothing more than a programming drone. You got paid. Shut up. No one is taking money away from you unless you are involved in some kind of high-level profit sharing there at Mickeysoft AND you weren't paid hourly/salary for the work you did. No one is taking anything from you if you were paid for your labor. They are, however, taking something from the software companies because the company DID pay for your time. The question is what and how much.

--
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by BiLlCaT · 1999-06-07 20:17 · Score: 1

That's not what I'm saying. I never said it was "ok" to pirate software. I won't even get into the fact that stock has nothing to do with profit sharing nor is it affected by piracy, rather than to probably make your stock rise ever so *slightly* because of increased market share. This does NOT mean that I condone or support piracy at all. And yes... the independant developer is hurt by piracy. People who crack shareware programs hurt those people who put their time and love into a piece of useful software. I just don't think that you are personally hurt by piracy and it irritates me that you think you are.

This message brought to you by the Blunt and To The Point Society. Good Day.

--
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by Zen · 1999-06-07 04:24 · Score: 1

Anonymous coward? Okay. Not that it matters any, I really don't care who you are anyway. You missed one of my minor points, most of which went unsaid as I thought it was pretty logical. If I use the software, and actually like it, which is currently an extremely low percentage of the software that I come across, there is an extremely high likelihood that I will recommend using it on a job, and recommend it to friends that are looking for software to perform a specific function. The more people that I tell about your software, the better it is for you, because some of these people will undoubtedly buy it. If not for me, they may have never heard of your particular piece of software, and thus, you would never have made any $$ off them. In my mind it is a gray line. I am not going to play the moral/ethical battlefield with you, only try to show you some of the good things that can come from piracy. You and I will never reach an agreement because we live in vastly different worlds.
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by Maciej+Stachowiak · 1999-06-07 10:59 · Score: 1

Egad, Microsoft has assigned a permanent agent to slashdot, operating in the open even? I thought they liked their agents provocateurs to stay under cover.
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by Pink+Puppy · 1999-06-07 08:40 · Score: 1

Nonsense. It is just as illegal for you to copy Stephen King's latest novel and give the copy to a friend as it is for you to copy Microsoft Word and give the copy to a friend.
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 05:13 · Score: 1

You just refuted your own argument. If you "didn't lose revenue" then it is *not* theft. It *is* copyright violation, which is completely different. Think trespassing versus breaking and entering. The original poster may not be right, but he is not as wrong as you think he is.

Same difference. Either way, you're using something that I spent my limited amount of LIFE working on. You've just stolen time from me, no matter how small or insignificant.

I wish more people would equate intellectual property with the effort and lifetime spent coming up with it. Because mortality puts a whole new spin on the issues.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 05:33 · Score: 1

It's an interesting debate, but you are nothing more than a programming drone. You got paid. Shut up. No one is taking money away from you unless you are involved in some kind of high-level profit sharing there at Mickeysoft AND you weren't paid hourly/salary for the work you did. No one is taking anything from you if you were paid for your labor. They are, however, taking something from the software companies because the company DID pay for your time. The question is what and how much.

Oh, so it's okay to do it to a company, but not to a person?

I didn't say anything about programming specifically; I'm talking about ANY kind of intellectual property. This is why copyright violation is wrong. If was an author or an artist, you'd probably view it all differently. "Well, we can't scan in Stephen King's latest novel and send it all over the net -- that'd be wrong!!!".

But because it's software, you think otherwise.

Crazy. Truly crazy.

And yes, you do hurt me if you steal software I worked on. Because I do participate in some kind of high-level profit sharing. It's called stock.

But let's say I didn't work for Microsoft - let's say I was a lone developer selling stuff. Would it be alright to pirate my stuff then? Or not?

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 08:56 · Score: 1

Yes, but if I buy Stephen King's latest novel, I can photocopy it, color it, loan it to a friend, sell it, take it apart and otherwise do what I want with a copy that I bought.
If I "buy" your software; I cannot copy it, I cannot take it apart, I cannot loan it, I cannot do anything against the licence included with all software.

You're crossing the boundaries of the analogy. You can take the CD that it comes on, and photocopy it, color it, sell it, take it apart... you can even loan it to a friend as long as they don't install it (or rather, specifically, don't run the software at the same time you're running it).

Same doesn't apply to the code on the CD. And this also applies to a book; though the "code" of the book is readily visible on the pages. You can't photocopy a book in entirety; there are limited fair-use provisions under copyright law to allow copying of material for research and educational purposes (and for journalistic purposes, I guess).

These are not comparable situations. "Bought" software is so much more than IP. The IP portion is hidden away in most (commercial) software, unavailable for anyone to appreciate or even notice.

Over 90% of MS's customers don't want to read the source code to the apps. So instead of wasting resources releasing the source code, we spend them on making the products more useful and usable for that 90%.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Your 'piracy' is not OK, though by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 11:08 · Score: 1

Egad, Microsoft has assigned a permanent agent to slashdot, operating in the open even? I thought they liked their agents provocateurs to stay under cover.

Er, actually, no -- I post here because I enjoy participating in debates on Slashdot. And I'm "out in the open" because company rules & regs state that if I'm not "out in the open", I'll be fired. Full disclosure is the name of the game.

And as for "agents provocateurs"... do you see me spreading FUD? Or anything else that "Microsoft's guerilla teams" of myth and fantasy are supposed to do?

No. You don't.

So I post here. So what? I've been posting on online forums since before I worked for MS, and I'll probably be posting on them after I finish working for MS. The only difference right now is that it's MS company policy for me to disclose my possible conflict of interest in any debate involving the computer software industry.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Article neglects legality of piracy where surveyed by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:14 · Score: 3

Vietnam? Singapore? China? Taiwan? Um, isn't western style IP law absent in those nations. Ever heard of a big company called Son May Records in Taiwan? They COPY CDs, movies, and software and sell the copies for cheap. They are a legal business locally (not kids in a basement). They follow local laws. Their company is licensed, pays taxes, and is regulated like any other business. In short, they are not criminals. How arrogant it is for someone in another nation to decree, based on their own local laws, to decree the foreign legal entity to be "criminal". Get a clue! The world is a big place and *your* rules and *your* morality simply do not operate everywhere. And both you and they are "right" simultaneously. Just accept it.

Copying and theft are *NOT* the same! by palpatine · 1999-06-07 04:05 · Score: 1

This is surprisingly hard to get in some people's heads, but copying software and robbing a bank are fundamentally different!

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.

Re:Copying and theft are *NOT* the same! by Zagadka · 1999-06-07 05:40 · Score: 1

Fine then, How about counterfeiting money. Is that wrong? I mean, if you go print off $100,000 nobody else is losing any money, are they? You're just gaining.

Now think about what would happen if that was socially acceptable and/or legal. How much would money be worth?

In the same way, if software piracy was legal and socially-acceptable, more people would do it, hence more profit would be lost.

Yes, the "lost profits" reported by software companies do tend to be inflated. It is true that only some of those who pirate would buy the software if they couldn't pirate it. But some of them would.

Trying to justify piracy by saying "it doesn't hurt anyone" will only increase the amount of piracy that goes on, thereby causing many people that currently buy software to instead pirate it.

Software piracy *does* hurt the publishers. Sure, not by as much as (pirated copies)*(retail price), but probably a significant fraction of that. Just because they don't lose *all* of that profit doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

If you can't afford it, tough. If you think the asking price isn't worth it, go elsewhere, or write it yourself. If you think it's okay to pirate because software is "so low quality", then:

1. why are you bothering to pirate it?
2. why don't you write something better?
Re:Copying and theft are *NOT* the same! by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 05:07 · Score: 1

I think I've made my point well enough. Just to clarify, I did no say robbing a bank is equivalent to pirating software. I merely used that as an example of something else that was illegal.
Re:Copying and theft are *NOT* the same! by bogado · 1999-06-07 07:55 · Score: 1

Actualy counterfeiting money other people does lost money, everybody else. If counterfeit money were allowed everyone would print their money and very soon money would value nothing.

If you print a $100,000.00 you create inflation making everyone else's money worth less.
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"

--
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq

what really bothers me.... by xyster · 1999-06-07 02:04 · Score: 1

...is that I wonder *how* they found out these companies have pirated software on there computers??? Im sure no one 'reports' they do (except maybe for that guy who had one of the first posts who admitted he had a pirated copy of OSS) but anyways, how does this company find out what is being pirated?

Re:Linux/OSS by Matrix · 1999-06-07 04:24 · Score: 2

You sound so proud. "I only robbed *ONE* bank this week!" What you're doing is still wrong. Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you should steal it.

SW piracy myths and reality by KMSelf · 1999-06-07 03:18 · 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 to last year's SPA report. As the SIIA is repeating its rediculous revenue loss figures, 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?

--

What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

Re:SW piracy myths and reality by KMSelf · 1999-06-07 05:37 · 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?

--
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:SW piracy myths and reality by Rombuu · 1999-06-07 04:16 · Score: 1

Moreover, piracy actually reduces the cost of consumer software

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, becuase thieves get free cars.

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.

Keep your pants on, you can't deduct these losses... IANAL, but I am a CPA...

--

DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Re:SW piracy myths and reality by Rombuu · 1999-06-07 05:44 · Score: 1

WRT business deductions for losses -- what is the logic that says piracy losses are not a deductable business loss?

Logic really doesn't have anything to do with it, just the US tax code and accounting rules.

The example is if you sell say, Steel for $20 a pound and you don't sell any becuase your competition is undercutting your price, or giving it away, you can't deduct these mythical sales you didn't make.

--

DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!

Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Trepidity · 1999-06-07 03:40 · Score: 1

Well, let's take an example. Borland C++ Builder Client/Server edition is a useful piece of software for a student that wants to play around with Windows GUI programming. Pirating it, they'll play around and learn some C++. Borland claims this is $3000 in lost revenue, which is false. No student is going to pay $3000 for something to play around with a bit.

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.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re: But when is a law wrong enough to break it? by J.+J.+Ramsey · 1999-06-07 10:55 · Score: 1

"Too many people treat being right and being leagal[sic] at the same time[sic]."

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 by J.+J.+Ramsey · 1999-06-07 11:14 · Score: 1

"When you buy a CD or a VHS movie or a newspaper, it is covered by the same IP laws as software which means you bought permission for *you* to use the item and no one else."

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:Linux/OSS by Da+Unicorn · 1999-06-07 01:54 · Score: 1

Sorry if this comes off as "dense as concrete", but when I see OSS I think Open Source Software.

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

--
#941 ;=> 43.4 N 91.9 W

Re:What If.... by sterwill · 1999-06-07 09:19 · Score: 1

Interesting point. However, computers would not lead to piracy as easily as you think.

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 by sterwill · 1999-06-07 09:29 · Score: 1

You've completely misunderstood the technical term "software." Software can be copied at near zero cost, and additional derivative copies detract nothing form the first. Copying software doesn't damage the "original." Software can't be worn out. Software can be shared by two people or fourty million people at the same time, with absolutely no negative impact on the quality of all the other copies. It can be perfectly and effortlessly replicated ad infinitum. Think about the alphabet, or the integers from 1 to 10--the whole world can count at the same time without "stealing" the numbers from someone else.

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! by sterwill · 1999-06-07 09:54 · Score: 1

Sneaking into a movie theatre is a bad analogy. When you pay for a ticket to a movie, you pay the theatre. The theatre has _recurring_ operating costs: paying employees for labor, paying for rent or real-estate, paying for seat fabric to replace worn out chairs, paying for mops and water and cleaning solution to mop the floors (they do that, don't they?), electricity to power the projectors, the projectors themselves, the water in the restroom, the food at the concession counter, etc., etc. They pay for material goods which need regular and active maintenance throughout the operation of the theatre.

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 by sterwill · 1999-06-07 20:54 · Score: 1

The currency/software connection seems like it's there, but it's not. Currency, in all forms I know of, is a system where a system of material trade (gold, shells, silver, rocks, fruit) was abstracted into generic representative units. Each unit stands for a given real-world quantity of a limited and scarce resource.

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? :) The purpose of money is exchange for goods; the purpose of software varies by its nature but is most often to crunch numbers, control hardware, or entertain.

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Ian+Bicking · 1999-06-08 02:04 · Score: 1

You equate illegal with immoral. These two things are most certainly not the same.

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? by Andrej+Marjan · 1999-06-07 04:27 · Score: 1

I've considered that argument, and it seems pretty good to me, but one thing that I can't reconcile with it is the concept of civil disobedience.

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.
--

--
Change is inevitable.
Progress is not.

Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Danse · 1999-06-07 02:52 · 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.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re:So What? by Danse · 1999-06-07 03:19 · 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.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re: stealing a candy bar by Danse · 1999-06-07 04:31 · 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?

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re:So What? by Danse · 1999-06-07 05:14 · 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 :)

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re:You're confusing issues by Danse · 1999-06-07 03:57 · 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?

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

The mathematics of "piracy" by Phil+Gregory · 1999-06-07 02:35 · 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.)

--
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!

Re:The mathematics of "piracy" by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 03:48 · 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.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:The mathematics of "piracy" by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 04:14 · 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.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:The mathematics of "piracy" by Trojan · 1999-06-07 04:02 · Score: 1

Hmmmm 2/5 is pirated, and 3/5 is not.

If a company needs to charge $40 per copy if 5 out of 5 buy it, this means it needs $200 for every 5. Now only 3 out of 5 actually buy it, giving a corrected price of $66.67. Not as bad as the $100 :)

But of course it doesn't work this way. The 3/5 legal vs 2/5 pirated only holds for one specific price tag. If the price gets higher, the piracy rate will too. Microsoft (for example) will ask that price which maximizes the total revenue. The whole pricing scheme really has little to do with the actual development costs.

Re:So What? by Stu+Charlton · 1999-06-07 10:33 · Score: 1

Actually, it does have to do with "putting the work into it" that makes "copying" legal.

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).

--
-Stu

Several Bootlegging Issues by Frater+219 · 1999-06-07 08:42 · Score: 3

(Please note the subject line. "Piracy" is a bad metaphor for software copyright and license violation, because it refers to violent crime on the high seas. "Bootlegging", which refers to trafficking in contraband [specifically, alcohol during Prohibition] is a better, if less commonly used, metaphor for the activity.)

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 ... what a great opportunity to recommend free software!

Re:Off-topic, but fun: Quebec & Canada by tzanger · 1999-06-07 20:37 · Score: 1

Actually Bouchard wants to seperate, leave Quebec intact, not pay his province's part of the National debt, use Canadian currency and services, trade with Canada and the US (in French I imagine) and expect that we like it.

... 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 by tzanger · 1999-06-07 20:49 · Score: 1

And still, I have to spend many hours each week tracking down pirate web sites, tweaking my potection schemes, adding user names to my blacklists, etc.

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:Get your head out of your arse. by Erskin · 1999-06-07 02:03 · Score: 1

Signifigant is fine.

I'd lvoe to see REAL figures, not just we found X pirated copies so we lost X * $50.

Make sense?

--

Erskin
geek.

Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Erskin · 1999-06-07 02:22 · Score: 1

Sheesh, calm down!

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.

--

Erskin
geek.

"Losing" Money to Piracy by Erskin · 1999-06-07 01:36 · Score: 3

The biggest misconception about piracy are company "losses".

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.

--

Erskin
geek.

Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Gregg+M · 1999-06-07 03:25 · Score: 1

Bullsh*t tell Netscape that Microsoft didn't dump software just to kill their stock prices.

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.

--
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by pspeed · 1999-06-07 04:20 · Score: 1

I understand what you are saying, but seriously... how many people who pirate your software would have bought it if they didn't have a choice about it? It's probably a strikingly small percentage. Probably wouldn't even pay for the time you spent trying to keep it from happening.

People who buy software will pay for it. People who pirate software in most cases won't pay for it. If your price-point is appropriate then it's usually a non-issue.

There's the other side of the coin too... I've used pirated software before but we are talking about software that's normally priced in the $1000+ range. I could never have afforded to just "take a look" at it for that price. But in exchange for a little inconvenience I _was_ able to try it out... for free... and learn how to use it, etc. Then when I later really needed that kind of software professionally, I purchased it.

To reiterate, there is no loss when someone pirates a piece of software that they never would have bought anyway. And in some rare cases there are even gains.

The losses are incurred when someone pirates software in lieu of purchasing it. I think that this percentage is small.

--
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by pspeed · 1999-06-07 04:24 · Score: 1

We aren't saying that it isn't "stealing". What we are saying is that if you call it a "loss" then you are wrong.

If I sneak into a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have seen then: yes, I am stealing but no, I'm am not causing them to lose money. (Unless the theater was sold out and I took the last available seat, etc. which is why a movie is probably a bad example.) They didn't lose $7+ because I otherwise wouldn't have paid it anyway.

--
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by pspeed · 1999-06-09 02:50 · Score: 1

"It really is a loss. Maybe not all of the pirated copies, but a percentage."

That was exactly my point.

"If I didn't protect my apps, I am confident I would get no registrations at all."

Although this may be true for your software, this is easily disproved in the general sense by pointing out shareware programs that seem to earn money with virtually no "protection". I have personally registered dozens of shareware programs. I've registered the programmer's editor I use on every system I use it on and its only protection is only allowing you to print once per session. I literally never print source code so I could have easily done without this.

I paid for it because the editor is exactly what I want in an editor. I want to make sure that the author has money to keep developing it.

--
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Octorian · 1999-06-07 04:44 · Score: 1

I totally agree. Those big expensive applications packages will only be purchased by big companies that regularly use them. Students, who probably do most of the copying, only really pirate the software because they cannot afford it and it's not worth the store price to them. So if they can't copy it, they won't buy it. But they also will not benefit from it.

Games are a different story. The mediocre ones are often pirated for the heck of it. But really good and anticipated games are usually purchased because people want to support/reward the developers and like the stuff that's ripped out of pirated versions.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Merk · 1999-06-08 01:06 · Score: 1

Another thing software companies don't want to admit is that they do gain some things by people pirating their software.

Say Joe Blow can't afford a copy of Microsoft Office. He would never buy it. If he pirates it Microsoft gets no money. If he doesn't buy it Microsoft gets no money. So for the sake of argument assume he pirates it.

Joe Blow then goes on to learn how to use Word, he gets used to the interface, how to make charts, embed objects, and all the other peculiarities of Word.

So later on Joe actually gets some money. Microsoft comes out with a new version of Office. Now assuming Joe doesn't pirate the new version (maybe he feels guilty, who knows). Well Joe isn't going to spend his money on WordPerfect because he knows how to use Word. So Microsoft ends up getting a sale because he pirated their software earlier.

And before you say I'm imagining things and software companies don't think like this.... they do. I have friends who work in the industry who say it's an acknowledged "tactic" used by big companies to ensure people get to know their products.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Smallest · 1999-06-07 02:57 · Score: 1

OK. nothing personal, but...

The reason I am less-than-calm when someone tries to defend copying software because it is a) easy, or b) no big deal to the author, is that I am one of those authors. And if I lose 200 sales next month to piracy, I have lost all of my sales for the month. If MS or Adobe loses 200 sales, they won't even flinch (well, MS won't anyway). But, yet when people make these kinds of claims, they casually lump me in with these other software companies. Yes, MS is too big, but using MS as a symbol of the whole software industry is stupid. I cannot afford to produce software if I don't get paid for it.

Yes, I know software is intangible and easily copied. But, this doesn't change the fact that the end result, the a.out, represents the sum of at least one person's efforts. If I didn't write the program it wouldn't be out there for people to use.

So, I have decided that I want to trade unlimited use, forever, plus free tech support, of each of the programs I have created, for less than the price of a single decent meal (I hope you agree that this price is not unreasonable). And still, I have to spend many hours each week tracking down pirate web sites, tweaking my potection schemes, adding user names to my blacklists, etc., just because a) it's easy to copy applications and b) when you really get down to it, the people doing the pirating are much more selfish and greedy than the people they are stealing from, no matter what moral high ground they claim to stand on while they do it.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Smallest · 1999-06-08 01:51 · Score: 1

We aren't saying that it isn't "stealing". What we are saying is that if you call it a "loss" then you are wrong.

That is easily contradicted by the letters I get which say, in effect, "The real reason I'm registering your program is because I couldn't find a crack for it, and I need it."

And I really do get these letters: probably one a month. The fact that I get them at all means that there are people out there who have the balls to admit they were trying to steal a sale from me, but couldn't and decided they needed that app more than they needed their $20.

This means that there are probably many more people who didn't bother writing to tell me they couldn't find a crack for my stuff.

It really is a loss. Maybe not all of the pirated copies, but a percentage.

If I didn't protect my apps, I am confident I would get no registrations at all.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Smallest · 1999-06-07 02:06 · Score: 2

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".

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.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy by Afrosheen · 1999-06-07 03:08 · Score: 3

A few months ago Macworld had an article on piracy. It didn't advocate it or have a condescending tone (like so many people here have had). I believe David Pogue was the author, and the article basically told the story of some random War3z kid.
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.

Relative price of software by krynos · 1999-06-07 01:36 · Score: 1

I'm not surprised that China and many countries in the East do lots of pirating, consider the price of MS Office Professional and what someone earn in a year. When a piece of software cost as much as many months of salary it's really hard for a company to survive. (They should use free software instead of piracy tough...)

Re:Relative price of software by Victor+Danilchenko · 1999-06-07 01:47 · Score: 1

I'm not surprised that China and many countries in the East do lots of pirating, consider the price of MS Office Professional and what someone earn in a year. When a piece of software cost as much as many months of salary it's really hard for a company to survive. (They should use free software instead of piracy tough...)

There is more to the Oriental piracy than just that. Countries in the Far East, especially China, have a very different history of social attitudes towards what we dub 'intellectual property' -- it (IP) simply did not exist. 'The highest form of flattery is immitation' was, until the recent West-imposed New World Order, the way of it. Because of this, people there usually do not see software 'piracy' as something morally bad.
Of course, the fact that an average computer user in India or China cannot afford the Western software prices, is a rather weighty factor...
Me, I wish all the 'software pirates' the best of luck. The current software distribution system is an abhorrent beast from Hel -- and it is a beast that tricked the majority of population into believing its crap (where are all the monster-slayers when we need 'em? or will Linux/FreeSoftware become one?). I frankly wish that they get hit harder, but i can hardly contribute to it, seeing as I don't use Windows except for games...

--

--
--
Victor Danilchenko

What about... by RevRa · 1999-06-07 01:39 · Score: 3

What about your collection of MP3's Rob? Doesn't that legally constitute as piracy? ;-)

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

--
- Kate
"DNA is life. The rest is just translation."

Re:Actually, no by peter+hoffman · 1999-06-07 01:49 · 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.

Civil Disobedience by Eric+E.+Coe · 1999-06-07 04:13 · Score: 1

IANAL, but a crime, by definition, is whatever the applicable Goverment jurisdiction/law says it is. (Even if the government is a bad one, with bad laws.) So, unfortunately, you are wrong.

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:

Free software says: We don't need your steenkin' licences - or your software either!

--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool

Re:Linux - wean off warez by Timothy+Chu · 1999-06-07 10:20 · Score: 1

Ditto. I can proudly say I haven't pirated any software for a couple of years since linux came along. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about mp3's yet. Can't wait to find a GPL'd musician :)

NOT! by InThane · 1999-06-07 02:24 · Score: 0

Canada and the US merge? Lord, I hope not. At least (with the exception of Quebec) Canada isn't besot by rightwing loonies who want to take us back to the 19th century socially...

Yeah, I live in the US, what of it?

--
InThane

Re:NOT! by Moofie · 1999-06-07 13:44 · Score: 1

Ask Camus and those other nutty existentialists. : )

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:NOT! by AlefNull · 1999-06-07 07:02 · Score: 1

Isn't taxes something like 52% when everything is all added up? ouch! I think I pay 28% or something

And most Americans do know how good we have it, we just want it better... it's our right, so there :)

--
Bun-Bun Rules!
90% of day read /.

--

--
Bun-Bun Rules!
90% of day read /.
10% of
Re:NOT! by AlefNull · 1999-06-07 07:16 · Score: 1

What's the point of persuing something if you can't catch it??

--
Bun-Bun Rules!
90% of day read /.

--

--
Bun-Bun Rules!
90% of day read /.
10% of
Re:NOT! by Airneil · 1999-06-07 07:07 · Score: 1

it's our right, so there

You have the right to " PURSUE " happiness. Not catch it. :P

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Chainsaw · 1999-06-07 06:49 · Score: 1

Lets imagine for a minute that all the software that you don't own the rights to use on your computer were erased. A computer with merely Notepad and Netscape Communicator. How much work would you achieve on a setup like that? In a flash, you would probably switch to Linux for tons of free software, or spend tons of money on software licences. This is why Microsoft actually gain market shares for Windows when you install those warez for Windows: you get tied to the apps for a specific platform. When you later start working for a company, they have a choice of giving you good, quality software (like Linux) and train you for a couple of days/weeks/months, or provide you with the stuff you already know how to use and get work done instantly.

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?

--
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.

You're confusing issues by mikpos · 1999-06-07 02:36 · Score: 1

I don't much appreciate the insinuation that the American government can choose the morals for every person on Earth. Morals and American law are two completely different things. Slavery was once legal in the United States, too; do you consider slavery to be acceptable practice?

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:You're confusing issues by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 02:58 · Score: 1

Laws do not dictate morals. The government does not choose morals for anyone, they simply form rules for society to live by. The purpose of government is to provide a set of rules which people agree to uphold because it is in the best interest of personal security. This often comes at the cost of personal freedom. That's the premise of government, we exchange some personal freedom for the safety and protection of the government.

By selectively choosing which laws you want to obey, you are making a statement that laws are irrelevant and personal morality should dictate one's actions. This is very bad, because personal morality is each individuals decision. You say it's okay to pirate software because even though it's against the law, you don't feel it is wrong. Fine. Charles Manson's personal morality tells him that it's okay to kill people, so should that be ok?

Now, I know what you're thinking. Murder is a lot worse than software piracy, right? I agree. But what we need to understand is that our view on this stems from our own personal morality, which all people do not share. You cannot govern a society based on morality, because you cannot say you are any more right than anyone else. There needs to be a common consensus to govern a society and that is the law. This is where you have to take a stand. Either an individuals personal morality takes precedence over the law, or it doesn't. It's one way or the other, you can't say that it does for some cases or not for others. If that were the case, then what good is a law? Should there be laws dictating which laws can be broken?

So in summary, it does not matter if you think it is okay to pirate software, it is still illegal.

Get used to it by mikpos · 1999-06-07 02:53 · Score: 1

We (in North America) have a lot of unintelligible propaganda in the mass-media nowadays. Ask any 3rd grader about marijuana and they'll probably tell you "Say no to drugs!" Ask them what's so bad about it and they'll probably tell you "Say no to drugs!" Ask a 1st grader what an environment is and they'll probably mumble something about recycling. God forbid we should try to treat children as people and reason with them. Although I suppose that ad you were talking about was geared towards adults, too, so who knows.

Piracy costs, a break down. by substrate · 1999-06-07 01:57 · Score: 1

The 2/5 number actually seems low to me, though I suppose Microsoft Office is the primary business app and it may be bundled with just about everything. The loss numbers quoted are unrealistic though regardless of the amount of piracy that goes on. To get a realistic number you'd have to break down software theft into a number of categories:

1) Pirating software w/ no intention of purchasing. There is no monetary loss here since the individual never intended to purchase the software. This is probably the majority of the cases. There is no concept of property loss since the media etc. wasn't stolen, just a copy of the software.

2) Pirated software that causes the loss of a software sale. This would represent a monetary loss to the software publisher and to the distributor. The publisher loses their profit as well as the distributor. Again no physical property is stolen so they've only lost out on the profit, not on the costs for the media and packaging. This would most likely be the second most common form, somebody gives a copy of a package to a friend who would otherwise purchase it.

3) Physically stolen software. This is basically shoplifting, the publisher and distributor both lose out on the profit itself as well as the costs for the product.

I'm not trying to condone software piracy, I'm just trying to understand and explain the losses involved. It's not a victimless crime because money is lost, but its nowhere near as staggering as the BSA would indicate.

I suppose a fourth entry would be:

4) Theft of source code. This is a big bad one that could potentially cause huge losses. It's also probably the rarest.

Re:Piracy costs, a break down. by substrate · 1999-06-07 02:04 · Score: 1

One other thing, suppose the piracy is really rampant, and the company is left with tonnes of unsold product. This is a loss, but its caused by poor forecasting. Fire your executives.

Civil disobedience don't enter into it. by ploeg · 1999-06-07 11:23 · Score: 1

Civil disobedience means that you disobey the law and then submit to the legal process to demonstrate how bad of a law it is. Virtually all software piracy is done under the table. If you don't rub it in the software company's face and risk being sued, you are simply lining your own pockets. Nothing heroic about that.

Re:Civil disobedience don't enter into it. by Error+Spelling · 1999-06-07 13:20 · Score: 1

I was actually considering giving away burnt copies of Microsoft Office CD on the street. With a big sign. Seriously. I think ownership of software is more insidious than it seems. An operating system is mind control, so if my mind has to be owned, I would rather NOT have it owned by some faceless behemoth.

My civil disobedience plans are on hold for now. I don't think the average jane doe would consider this a "top-of-mind" issue. I'd be standing there holding out this CD with a nice generic label and she'd look at me like I was from Mars and this thought will occur to her: "That THING probably has a virus on it... He is giving me a computer virus, I just KNOW it. Eeewww." At which point she would start to walk away a bit faster.

(I think there really is something to be said for Red Hat's theory about the importance of brand-recognition in the open source software game.)

Politicians are not very interested in this issue either. If you talk about intellectual property their eyes start to water.

Oh well...

Sounds like you've been reading Phil Greenspun. by ploeg · 1999-06-07 11:51 · Score: 1

He has a similar idea (uses the Photoshop example too). Not that I think the idea doesn't have problems, but perhaps someone smarter than I could figure out how to get it to work.

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by bjohnson · 1999-06-07 03:34 · Score: 1

Mostly, this is because Micro Conversions wanted the whole pie.

The ONLY thing preventing people from using a Wintel-branded VooDoo card at a third to half the cost was the fact that there wasn't a Mac driver for it. Micro Conversions wrote one.

Micro Conversions wanted to be the only VooDoo provider in the Mac Market. Had they licensed their drivers to other video card manufacturers, they'd likely be in business today.

(and all those other manufacturers would realize the market they were missing...something to consider, all you Linux device-driver writers...)

Re:Linux/OSS by spot · 1999-06-07 07:35 · Score: 1

It's just the same as if you go into the corner store and walk out with groceries without paying.

no it isn't. if you steal groceries then nobody else can eat them. if you copy software, then nobody else is deprived.

you might say "oh but the author lost their potential gains". but this is not theft. this is more like using advertisement blocking software, which deprives the ad companies of their revenue. obviously this is not theft.

When we live in a Star Trek world, where money is not needed, then all software can be free.

of course we will always need money, but that doesn't mean that we need to legal system of copyright. these are independent ideas.

you appear to be confounding capitalism with intellectual property. In fact these ideas are in opposition: capitalism is about individual freedom of choice, and copyright is about control of individuals and government regulation.

information is free.
the only question is:

--

Scott Draves

Re:Quebec can merge with Louisiana by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-06-07 10:01 · Score: 1

Okay, okay. How about this. The US gets the Yukon Territory, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

We'll have to get the US Dept. of Marketing to come up with better names for the last two. I don't think that Americans can pronounce those names, and I'm sure that we can't spell them, or locate them on a map.

BC is not a problem, as I expect most of it to be bought up by Microsoft. They'll take care of West Coast marketing and build the MS Interstate highway up to Alaska. Naturally the road will sieze up frequently, and not work for cars other than the MS Interstate Explorer, but what the heck.

Anyhow, Ontario (ooh those names again!) I'm iffy on. Do we really want to let any more politicans than necessary into the country? Probably not, so Canada will just have to shrink to the size of Ontario.

Now in return, Quebec can have Louisiana (and possibly Mississipi) but not New Orleans, which will, of course, be given to Disney World to clean up just like they've been doing with Times Square in New York City.

Quebec or Canada can also have the Maritime Provinces if they want. Given that I'm in Massachusetts I can see some advantages in foisting off Maine to them, but then we'd lose Maine's most valuable resource. I mean of course, Stephen King and the vast tracts of lumber that are made into Stephen King novels and/or toilet paper.

Most of these moves are going to annoy Texas, as there will now be several states larger than it is, but that's okay; Disney will need to expand Frontierland at some point anyhow, and Mexico will be looking pretty juicy in 50 years.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re: stealing a candy bar by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-06-07 09:32 · Score: 2

One of these days, the thrid world is going to become a huge goldmine for US software companies.

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.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by scum-o · 1999-06-07 08:29 · Score: 1

How about buying piracy first and then purchasing the "good" software second? I've contributed many years worth of programming to both the public domain community and the commercial software industry and I don't feel that software piracy is all that bad of a crime. Granted, if I buy the software, most of that money goes to the company that created that product and if I pirate it, they don't get a dime. However, if I pay for software and it sucks it's difficult to take it back nowadays (it used to be easier). I remember purchasing a copy of WinNT 2.(something) and it totally sucked! It cost about $200 and I didn't keep it on my machine for more than a few hours. I couldn't return it for anything but store credit (which I used to buy some Oriley books) which were *WAY* more beneficial! I also remember shelling-out approx $400 for a Visual C++ package a few years ago that was so lacking the manual department (4.0 or so) that it was almost useless. Would you pay $400 for a product that you can't use? For me (at the time) $400 was a very large chunk of cash and this is where my hate for Microsoft finially came to a peak.

If I'm going to pay for software it better be @#$% good work. I.E. Quake, Linux Distros, Civ CTP, etc. I may even pay for Win2K if it's any good but I've been ripped-off so many times by crappy software that there is no way you'll ever catch me buying commercial software sight-unseen ever again.

Since I've programmed for both sides (commercial and PD) I can say that I can judge the situation fairly. I really don't care if people pay for the commercial software that I wrote, because those people are idiots. The commercial software that I wrote was some stupid idea that some guy came up with that was quickly solved (a few months later) with a netscape plugin. However, the public domain software that I have helped write is enjoyed by hundreds if not thousands of people who are friendly, have written and thanked us, and sometimes send us a few bucks out of the kindness of their hearts. The software itself isn't all that hot really either, but when you think about it, is any software product really worth all that money? Windows? Emacs? Office? XV? Where is the real quality?
--
Steven Webb
System Administrator II - Juneau and TECOM projects
NCAR - Research Applications Program

Who is really the problem? by jjoyce · 1999-06-07 13:29 · Score: 1

I got to thinking about the idea that if someone never intended to buy a certain software product, there would be no loss in revenue for the vendor if the product is pirated by this person.

Some people's arguments proceed to the idea that if everyone were to have this mentality, software vendors would go broke because no one would be paying for the product.

I thought about companies. Large companies pay for lots of software licenses at a time. So does the government.

My question is: is it really at-home consumers who are crippling the software vendors, or large-scale companies and government agencies? It is true that companies and government agencies pirate a lot; usually due to poor record keeping. The SPA can't know that I (hypothetically) sent a disk to my buddy, but expired site licenses can be tracked. So who are these statistics reflective of?

This is a red herring... by Sleepy · 1999-06-07 19:59 · Score: 1

> The poll conducted by the Business Software Alliance and the Software & Information Industry Association showed...

Anyone remember what the Mindcraft benchmarks funded by Microsoft showed? What's the fine print and scientific data on this survey? Did they conduct multiple polls until they got the result they wanted? When a survey is funded and trumpeted by someone with an agenda, watch out!

The BSA has many members, but is known as being a lapdog for Microsoft and their privacy-invading tactics. They also act as Microsoft Sales. When you get caught pirating ANY software by the BSA, say Novell Netware... they will offer to "settle" if you purchase licenses of Windows NT. I tried linking the article here, but it looks like there was a web redesign at Boycott Microsoft (http://www.vcnet.com/bms/)

"Research" like this is designed to sway clueless politicians into signing new intellectual property laws, almost always at the expense of your rights and privacy. If the phone company were tapping your phone and selling the records, the politicians would understand this as a privacy invasion... BUT if Microsoft is embedding personal data in Office documents without your consent, they don't get it.

Here's an interesting twist... by Neph · 1999-06-07 03:20 · Score: 1

Software piracy has slowed the adoption of free software.

It's true, really -- if all the people currently using illegal software were somehow prevented from it, can you imagine the massive flux towards Linux et al.? Because say what you like, the fact is that not everyone using pirated software would want to pay for it at any price, let alone the monstrous figures the industry forces upon us.

Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty

Some things to consider... by MenTaLguY · 1999-06-07 03:58 · Score: 1

In economic parlance, software is "non-exclusionary", which means that you can have a piece of software without inherently denying it to someone else at the same time. (i.e. you can have your cake and someone else can eat it, too)

That is why it is licenced, instead of being sold. (If it were sold to you, you would pretty much have complete rights to do whatever you wanted with it, included sharing it with your friends, so instead, companies withold rights to their software and allow you to use/copy it under very restricted conditions.)

So, as a result, you're not actually taking a copy of software from a software licensor and giving them money in exchange, but rather getting the pretty cardboard packaging and media for free (modulo overhead), while paying them money for the privilege of agreeing to a contract (license agreement) that has the net effect of turning the software from a good into a service which you may have to pay for repeatedly?

Of course software makers have a right to be compensated for their work; just, shouldn't it be for their _work_, rather than for the software itself, which has no economic value? (look up the definition of a "public good" -- software, as a good, fits it to a tee). If you'll notice, most programmers don't get payed by the companies they work for for the software they write, but their labor. Why should the users pay for the software itself, instead of the packaging, labor, and any value added, if software is a good?

I suppose this is the question: is software a public good, or a service (in and of itself)?

Incedentally, IANAL, but isn't unauthorized copying ("piracy") either a breach of contract or a tort, rather than a property crime?

It's one thing to take away (steal or destroy) property (or money) that a party already posesses -- that's a property crime. Isn't unauthorized copying, where the licensor is only denied _potential_ property (money), a matter of breach of contract (violating the software license) and/or tort (wronging them by denying them the money which they claim to have a natural "right" to) instead?
---

--

DNA just wants to be free...

No, it's not stealing. by MenTaLguY · 1999-06-07 04:16 · Score: 1

> Most people do not think piracy is wrong because
> most people do not identify it as
> steeling (because there is no missing object)

If there's no missing property, it is by definition not stealing. That doesn't automatically make it right, however, and certainly doesn't automatically make it legal.
---

--

DNA just wants to be free...

Re:No, it's not stealing. by Nater · 1999-06-07 05:53 · Score: 1

legal != right

They often coincide because legislators are supposed to make them coincide (though sometimes it's arguable whether they even do that). It's a mistake to believe that if something is legal it's right and that it's wrong otherwise.

--
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer

The comparison to software is a bit flawed... by MenTaLguY · 1999-06-07 04:52 · Score: 1

> I don't walk around telling carpenters that
> they should build houses for free and I don't
> expect software to be handed to me for free.

As long as we're using oversimplified analogies...

What if the physical laws of the universe were such that, once a house had been constructed by a carpenter (or by carpenters working for a contractor), any shmuck off the street could take a look at the house, wave his hands for a couple seconds, and magically get his own house just like it?

The two obvious solutions in such a case are:

often people have specific needs in a house that an existing house model just can't satisfy. Carpenters would be paid to take care of such things, making modifications to existing houses, and making bigger and better new houses. That way, everyone gets a house, and there's still an economic benefit (incentive) to being a carpenter (or a contractor, for that matter).
make it illegal for anyone but the original carpenter or contractor to copy a house without express permission. They'll be able to charge for the mere act of copying a house that way, too.
Yes, you've created an artifical economy of scarcity, and increased the price of an individual house. So what? Yes, those people too poor to have one built or buy an existing one will just have to be faced with the choice of either going homeless or copying houses illegally, but hey, carpenters and contractors should be able to make a living, right?

Of course they should.
---

--

DNA just wants to be free...

you misunderstand me by MenTaLguY · 1999-06-07 09:49 · Score: 1

> legal != right

agreed. however, I view violation of a contract
as immoral, at least, irrespective of legality,
and vice versa. don't misunderstand me to be
indicating that they always coincide.
---

--

DNA just wants to be free...

Semantic shifts win minds by MenTaLguY · 1999-06-07 05:25 · Score: 2

> Definitions of words CHANGE.

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.
---

--

DNA just wants to be free...

Re:Piracy Stats by Sesse · 1999-06-07 03:17 · Score: 2

Doesn't surprise me much -- I see a real lot of crazy attitudes towards copyright violation, especially with MP3 (`MP3 is the best thing that has ever happened record industries', `It's not illegal if you delete it after 24 hours', etc.) Sadly, many of them appear on Slashdot.

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 */

--
(This comment is of course GPLed.)

Re:So What? by ewhac · 1999-06-07 03:42 · Score: 1

What you are stealing is the usage of these ideas without the manufacturers agreement.

Then why are they selling in a retail environment?

I go to Sears. I buy a Craftsman hammer. Sears absolutely does not have the right to constrain my use of the hammer once I have purchased it. I can build a cabinet, build a house, tear apart an old crate, or use it as art. Whatever I want.

Once I have purchased it, Adobe has as much right to constrain my use of Photoshop as Sears does on that hammer. Which is to say, none at all.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by ewhac · 1999-06-07 03:51 · Score: 1

As others have already written, it sounds like Micro Conversions was done in by their own greed, shortsightedness, and lack of business acumen, not "piracy." If they had been even slightly clever, they would have sold the driver standalone for, say, $29.95. Or, if they insisted on being anal about the issue, they could have shipped the driver on floppies to the people who sent in the warranty registration card.

It is indeed a shame that some good programmers had to find new work. But the fault lies squarely with the company's management, not "piracy."

Try again.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by ewhac · 1999-06-07 04:04 · Score: 1

...R&D expenses incurred during development of their own Mac card and driver.

Don't fool yourself. PCI is PCI, no matter what platform it's on. All Micro Conversions did was change the PCI Vendor and Device ID codes, a trivial operation. As for the driver, the sources to GLIDE are easy to obtain and port once you sign the papers with 3Dfx. So their total capital expenditure for R&D was probably on the order of one programmer-year. Pretty damn cheap by today's standards.

Also, it would have been fairly easy for them to cut deals with STB, Diamond, Creative, and other OEMs to get their driver included on the pack-in CD. Even at $2.50/copy, they would have made a lot more money selling unused Mac drivers to PC buyers than they ever would have selling solely to Mac owners at "market rate".

Try again.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:Resolved, the new term is "bitlegging" by ewhac · 1999-06-07 04:07 · Score: 1

You know... I actually rather like this.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by ewhac · 1999-06-07 04:15 · Score: 1

Pirating software is illegal. Period.

So is jaywalking. So is driving faster than 65 MPH. What's your point?

The law is out of step with the physical and economic realities of digital media. Right now, this incongruity is beneficial to society as a whole, but it won't be long before this is no longer true, and the law will need to change. Read my essay on the subject.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by ewhac · 1999-06-07 16:04 · Score: 1

I agree.

Humans are still a fundamentally competetive species. I assert that, in the future, competition will be over reputation (among other things) rather than material wealth. So while people may not want for their fundamental needs, political power games may get a heck of a lot worse.

My essay also does not postulate pure socialism. Even in a universe with replicators, people will still be motivated by their own ambitions and goals, rather than the "needs of the whole". It's just that most of the mechanical day-to-day issues will be solved, and fighting over material wealth will be, well, silly.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by ewhac · 1999-06-07 16:22 · Score: 1

First of all, I am confident that future will come to pass. Ever since we invented the plow, it's the goal toward which mankind has been striving for millennia. It's simply too cool not to happen.

Second, ignoring the future doesn't make it go away. Problems you ignore today will come back to bite you or your children tomorrow. A future world with replicators has certain unavoidable economic realities. The mechanics of replicators is foretold in the memory chips of our computers. Therefore, the economy of the future exists today in our computers. So we'd better start thinking about it in the context of that future, since that's the direction in which we're headed. Otherwise, we're just fooling ourselves.

Finally, you're not the first to call me on the copyright notice. However, I would point out that, even in a future with replicators, intellectual property laws would still need to exist in some form to prevent theft/dilution of reputation. And that's why I put the copyright there, to prevent people passing off my words as their own. I actually encourage dissemination of my work; just let me know what you want to do.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:Now you're making excuses by ewhac · 1999-06-08 01:33 · Score: 1

Don't make excuses for pirates. They do put companies out of business.

No. They don't.

The merest child could see that the Mac market was going to hell in a handbasket. Apple's perennial inability to decide on an OS strategy was a fairly decisive factor in sealing their fate as a niche player. None of these factors should come as a surprise to anyone.

One of the reasons that Apple was able to charge a premium for their hardware was that it was different from everything else, and they had no competition. If you buy a sound card for the Mac, you're going to pay 3X what you'd pay for an equivalent-quality card for the PC, because there's no competition driving the price down.

So here comes Micro Conversions offering a Voodoo2 card for the Mac for $150. But guess what. The exact same card is available for the PC for $50. Both are PCI cards, both have exactly the same rendering speeds, both don't care whether its a Pentium or a PowerPC stuffing the bytes down the FIFO. It does not take a neurosurgeon to figure out what's going to happen next.

So, while it was evident that there wasn't a market for Micro Conversions' board, there very clearly was a market for their driver. The fact that they chose to ignore all this information speaks directly to the shrewdness of company management.

And, since Micro Conversions was offering the driver free for download to anyone hitting their site, use of the term "piracy" is more than slightly disingenuous.

Many factors contributed to the demise of Micro Conversions, but "piracy" was not one of them. Bitlegging of software is not a problem, and never has been.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

So What? by ewhac · 1999-06-07 01:38 · 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

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:So What? by toriver · 1999-06-07 19:07 · Score: 1

I can copy a bicycle, but I can't copy a program?
Sure you can. Just get an editor and a compiler, and get to work. Same thing with the metal bits and tools you would need to build the copy of the bicycle. Where's the problem?
Re:So What? by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 02:36 · Score: 1

I didn't say I was stealing from you, that's a very egotistical way to think about it. If I copy Quake off of your machine, you have lost nothing. I have, however, stolen from ID. You do not own Quake, you are granted a license by ID to use it. The game quake is not your property, so of course I cannot steal it. When I copy that, however, I am using a program owned by ID that I have not paid for, which in my book constitutes theft.
Re:So What? by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 03:20 · Score: 1

Ah, so I've stolen from Id? Well, I believe they still have a copy Quake II in their possession.

So if you stole a car from Ford, they wouldn't have any more copies in their possession? Look at a car vs software. Adobe has a master copy of photoshop. Ford has a master design copy for a car. Adobe can make more copies of photoshop at will. Ford can make more cars at will. The only way to prevent adobe from being able to make more copies is to steal all copies and their master and backups. The only way to prevent ford from making more cars is to steal all their cars and their master design and backups.

It is absolutely not a violation of contract, because you have no contract with ID, having not agreed to the terms of the license.

Let me quote from my registered copy of Adobe Photoshop 5.

"Adobe grants you a nonexclusive license to use the Software and Documentation, provided that you agree to the terms of the license as descibed below."

...

"This software is owned by Adobe and its suppliers, and its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of Adobe and it's suppliers."

The software is owned by adobe. The software is not the copy you posses, or any copy. It is the intellectual material that is protected by us intellectual property laws. If you disagree with these laws, that's a different issue. Software is not code. Anyone can write code. Software is not a physical copy either, anyone can make that as well. It is the structure, and the ideas, and the creativity of the developers. What you are stealing is the usage of these ideas without the manufacturers agreement.
Re:So What? by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 01:54 · Score: 2

Nice rationalizing. I love the logic people use to justify theft. The plain and simple fact is, people do it because they can get away with it. And that's stupid. Just because the industry can sustain a 40% piracy rate doesn't mean that it's okay to do it.
Re:So What? by Salamander · 1999-06-07 04:08 · Score: 1

>Ideas are free. If I understand how a good bicycle is made

So make your own bicycle, i.e. write your own program. Writing a program to do something and pirating a program are two very different things, aren't they? 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? For the time spent designing, testing, documenting and supporting their work, even if you place no value on the bits themselves?

People seem to be hung up on this "they still have a copy" thing. 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. We could of course have a lot of fun discussing whether it's OK to copy a book or a record. That would be a discussion with some meat to it, but thing I'm convinced of when I read about stealing cars or "MS can afford it" is that teaching ethics (not to mention logic) in schools might not be such a bad thing.

--
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Re:So What? by reklis · 1999-06-07 06:34 · Score: 1

Let's take this one step further:

I look at a bicycle and see how it's built. Now I "make my own bicycle" because I'm not going to pay for the bicycle that's allready built and it's got the same curves, the same colors, and the same engineering behind it. A perfect replica, because I don't know how to do it originaly, I just copy everything they did, using the same materials because I know that's what works.

I can copy a bicycle, but I can't copy a program?

I know what your going to say: You didn't do any work copying the program, the bicycle took work to build and construct, blah blah blah.

By that rational, if copying software were harder to do and it's something I had to work at, then it's legal?

I don't think the issue here is the work that went into it. It could take me 5 seconds to copy something, or 5 years to copy something. The point is, the manufacturer isn't going to get the money that they are charging for the product (bicyle or software) because I'm not going to pay it. I'm either not going to have one, or I'm going to copy it.

>The comparison is to books or records, not to
>bicycles and cars.

So if I like a band, but I can't afford to pay for the album, I'm going to write my own music? If I like an Author, but can't afford the book, and I'm going to write my own? This most certainly is a comparison to bikes and cars. If software can be "stolen" then it's not an idea. I don't believe ideas can be stolen, they can only be copied.

__

--
__
nothin' says lovin' like an open source penguin.

THANK YOU! by ewhac · 1999-06-07 03:22 · 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, which attempts to explain the true nature of The New Economy awaiting us, foretold by our computers.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

Re:Linux/OSS by AArthur · 1999-06-07 09:00 · Score: 1

A better example would be a Arrét (stop) sign behind a bush and not being able to see it and you ran it and got a ticket.

Of Course that charge would not stand up in court, since you had no way of knowing this rule, it was hidden behind the bush, the same with many license agreements in a box

Re:Piracy Stats by Zagadka · 1999-06-07 05:58 · Score: 1

It's here.

Re:Funny you should mention that by BiLlCaT · 1999-06-07 05:27 · Score: 1

And then there are those of us who wish software companies would release products that weren't full of buggy, bloated code chugged out by recent college grads who don't know optimized code from a hole in the ground.

--
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head

Artificial Materialisation by Ignatius · 1999-06-07 03:23 · Score: 1

Our notion of "theft" and "piracy" are a all based on the concept of material ownership. Stealing a car is bad, not because of my claiming of possession of an "unearned" good, but because it deprives the former owner of using it.

OTOH, if I ask someone what time it is, he can tell me and still keep his watch. This immaterial property of information (the ability to copy it essentially for free) is what makes "stealing" information totally different form stealing goods since there is no "particle count" on the former.
So if information is valuable, then by mere communication, we can increase the total amount of wealth available.

The problem is, that many people doing business aren't after wealth but after power. To them, there's simply no thrill in having a Ferrari, if everybody has one. When trading material goods, both concepts are equivalent: To aquire a good is equivalent to having the power to convince (eg. by paying) someone else to give it away and no longer have it. This equation is no longer true for information, so some way has to be found which allows the implementation of some artificial "particle count" and thereby "materializing" an otherwise immaterial good. In case of software, this is achived by licences and their publicly funded enforcement.

Note, that this is different to mere secrecy (which is of course also implemented where possible, e.g. by keeping the source closed). Secrecy would be if the guy with the watch would only tell me the time im I pay him, but copyright is telling me the time, but charge me if I make any use of this information. Yes, he would even charge me, if I get *his* time from someone else or even from my own wristwatch. With a software patent, he could even charge me for not missing the bus, because clearly, I only could have made it in time if I knew about this very concept.

Considering all the effort that is made to prevent people form making use from information available to them and all the money spent, with the sole purpose of artificially reducing the total amount of wealth available, I am amazed that the OSS revolution got away without any bloodshed so far. ;-)

Re:Questions begged by Glith · 1999-06-07 03:21 · Score: 1

And Bill Gates would give all of his money back. :)

Re:no, really Re:It's a matter of respect by Glith · 1999-06-07 23:58 · Score: 1

No, it wouldn't. Because producing the app is a lot easier than just hitting return twice and getting the $100 that you would've gotten from selling it in the first place. :P

Re:"Losses" by aphr0 · 1999-06-07 07:30 · Score: 1

I have a question for you: am I hurting Adobe by not paying for the copy of Photoshop I use for personal use for fixing up old pictures my grandmother has of her grandmother and other relatives? I'm not distributing it to others. I'm not using it to gain a profit. I certainly hope that my single pirated copy of Photoshop hasn't put any managers or programmers out of their jobs. If I had the money, I certainly would pay for my copy. But, I have bills and such and can't afford to run around writing $500 checks whenever I feel the urge. I agree with another reply to my original comment, suggesting a discount for personal use. If it were only $100 or $150, I would gladly put some money into Adobe's hands. They make good quality software and I think that should be rewarded.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it was bad for me to pirate Photoshop and Illustrator, regardless of my reasons or use for them. In the couple of years I've been using them, I've bought $150 worth of third party plugins for use with them. And I also bought (at work. I'm the only tech there, so I get to be graphics/admin/web/everything guy) Photoshop ($500), Illustrator ($500), Acrobat ($200), and ImageReady ($200); all adobe programs. So, that's $1,000 worth of 'bad' in the form of pirating vs. $1,550 worth of 'good' in the form of paid-for software.

I, personally, think the ends justified the means. Adobe never actually lost anything due to my piracy. It was harmless piracy. If no one ever broke the rules, there would be no progress whatsoever in the world. Countries would still be ruled my tyrrants, there would be no political reform, and software companies would probably be in worse shape than they think they are now. You can't always operate purely on moral theory. You have to look at what happens in the end in reality.

Re:"Losses" by aphr0 · 1999-06-07 10:56 · Score: 1

I would adore the opportunity to buy professional level programs such as Photoshop for discounted prices. I would pay the $100 today if they offered it, even though I already have a copy. They could remove some of the professional-level features, such as the Pantone color sets. I don't pirate software because it makes my balls bigger, I do it because I can't afford it.

I'd love to move to linux where there is gpl software abound, but it dosen't support all of my hardware yet, so I'm forced to cool out for a bit.

"Losses" by aphr0 · 1999-06-07 01:45 · Score: 3

US software companies alone reported $3 billion in "losses" due to piracy. They didn't actually lose that much money to piracy. That figure is assuming that for each pirated package, there was a 100% possibility of the person paying for the software if they hadn't pirated it. This, of course, isn't reasonable at all. I, personally, wouldn't have paid $500 for photoshop or illustrator if I hadn't pirated them. I simply can't afford to throw down $1k for software. But, since I pirated them and used them for personal use for a while, I chose to buy both of those and several other adobe products at work. The study is critically flawed if it says that the software companies actually lost $3 billion to piracy.

Re:"Losses" by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 03:24 · Score: 2

Plagiarism is necessary - progress demands it.

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:"Losses" by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 09:11 · Score: 1

That's a good point. I also wonder, if companies would consider charging a different price for personal use than commercial use, if piracy would go down. Very few individuals can afford to pay $500 for Photoshop, but what if you could buy a personal use license for $100? I'm sure the piracy would go down and more people would buy genuine copies.

Companies can always afford to pay more than individuals, generally. Let's see some personal use licenses.

I'd love to see that occur; though that's kind of close to what you get with Educational versions of software. Yep, I'd love to see that happen!

No idea how it'd be policed though...

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:"Losses" by FlameSnyper · 1999-06-07 15:17 · Score: 1

Only one small problem with this... if that same software CAN be sold for $100, then when it's sold for $500 is the software company making $400 in EXTRA PROFIT?

If so, then all the people (companies) who are buying the software are obviously getting ripped off to begin with.

The argument that 'companies make money from the software and individual users don't' doesn't hold water either. What's to prevent an individual businessman from purchasing the 'home' version of the software, and then using it at work, or better yet, in his 'home office' at his house? Is he then 'pirating' the software, even though he paid for it?

(OFFTOPIC) Personally, I think charging companies more money than individuals for ANYTHING is stupid. Essentially that's what phone companies do (in Texas anyway) a home phone line is $10 and a business phone line is $30. Does that line cost the phone company any more? Certainly not. As a matter of fact, since it's a business line, it probably gets used less, i.e. 8a-5p, instead of all day and all night, like some phone lines I know. (/OFFTOPIC)
Re:"Losses" by ZorinLynxie · 1999-06-07 02:01 · Score: 1

That's a good point. I also wonder, if companies would consider charging a different price for personal use than commercial use, if piracy would go down. Very few individuals can afford to pay $500 for Photoshop, but what if you could buy a personal use license for $100? I'm sure the piracy would go down and more people would buy genuine copies.

Companies can always afford to pay more than individuals, generally. Let's see some personal use licenses.

--
- =^o.o^=

The count of piracy? by Balp · 1999-06-07 17:48 · Score: 1

Last time (probably last year about this time) when BSA reported the same stats, at least for sweden, they counted my Debian box to have one pirate copy of a operationg system (Windows), One of a office program (Office?), 1/3 of a email program and so on. BSA/SPA have a personal interest of getting the numbers as high as possible. A high count of piracy helps them so get harder punishment of software copying. (As the same way as they count losses, there clames has at least a few times been ruled to high in Swedish court, one has to coun't away the cost for creating the software when one count the losses, at least the cost for printing manulals, burning cd and so on.) Then one has to count all the pirate copies on the mashines I did install on the University (we continued to use the old versions of the program when we throu out the old hardware)

I'm proud to have a "pirate" os (Debian GNU/Linux), a "pirate" office package (Gnome+Latex)... Probably then still count priacy by taking the number of sold new machines in the contry, whisiting a number of firms studying what they have on there computers, and multiplies the number of new machines and counts away the number of sold programs in that contry. A metod almost certan to give a high rate of piracy.

/ Balp

#1 reason for piracy by Plasmoid · 1999-06-07 05:45 · Score: 1

Cost.

I know, people should be able to collect on their work, but...

Some software is priced _way_ beyond reach. Especially for countries that don't use USD.

Let's use Canada as an example.
Consider that most software is shipped from the US. Now remember we pay alot of extra shipping.
x=software
y=shipping in US
Now you have
x+y^2

Then the exchange rate kicks in

(x+y^2)*1.4

This is even worse in countries with a really weak dollar

--
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Zen · 1999-06-07 04:10 · Score: 1

You're pulling at strings. My software piracy is not the same as robbing a bank. That is a tangible loss, which I agree is wrong. What I am doing is intangible. It's a gray area, but according to my own (read; only mine) code of ethics it's all right. The software industry can never lose money on me (yes, only me, not the entire world) because for the most part I have no desire to buy their products. If everybody thinks this way, and the company goes under because of it, it was probly not that good of a product anyway, since the vast majority of people were unwilling to shell out $$ to support it.

There are a couple products, less than a dozen or so, which I have promised myself that I will someday buy so that the author gets what little monies they actually recieve from a single sale because I think that those products are extremely valuable to me. But I'm a student, and don't have money for these things right now. And for your crack about after I graduate, any semi-decent company that hires me will pay for any software that I require to do my job. That is not to say that I won't keep up with the current software trends on my own outside of the workplace, I'd be foolish not to keep up with current trends. That would make me unproductive as an employee :)

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Zen · 1999-06-07 04:13 · Score: 1

I do run Linux. I have a dedicated box at school, and I have run it on my own machine for two years. I didn't include it in my list because it's free, and I don't have any software for Linux that isn't GPL.

As for programming, the only programming I am willing to do is web based. I learned basics in college, and I decided that I would pull all my hair out & be bald by the time I'm 30 if I had to program for a living. I prefer to stick with network administration and support.

Re:Funny you should mention that by Zen · 1999-06-07 04:17 · Score: 1

Thank you :) There's a ton of people on my side in this, but very few vocal people. The majority of people that are vocal about software piracy are against it, for obvious social reasons. Nobody ever thinks bad of you if you are vocally against software piracy, but people might look at you funny if you tell them that you pirate software on a daily basis.

My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Zen · 1999-06-07 03:11 · Score: 3

I freely admit it, and I am not going to log out to play anonymity. I am what you are calling a software pirate. Every single piece of software on my machine (configuration changes DAILY) was not paid for. I only have official, original cd's for Win95, 98, and NT4, which I got from work, but still never paid for myself. I also have a recent build of Windows 2000 installed, and have been running Windows 2000 (NT5) for 8 months or so. I currently have around a hundred assorted programs and games installed on my computer, including office, plus, many various multimedia programs & suites, website managers and html editors, mp3 programs, and a dozen or so of the latest greatest games.

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?

Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Brad+Moore · 1999-06-07 07:09 · Score: 1

A good analogy would be sneaking into a movie theater.

People that sneak into movie theaters may argue that they weren't going to buy a ticket for the movie anyways, therefore the theater isn't losing any money, so why should anyone care? The fact of the matter is that theaters _do_ care. It is illegal to sneak into a theater, and you can be arrested for trespassing if you are caught. Theaters lose money off people that sneak into movie theaters, because nine times out of ten, they don't want to see the movie twice and their 'preview' satisfied their curosity.

It's true that not all of these people would have seen the movie anyways. But some of them would have. It's impossible to tell what the exact percentage is, but these people that would have seen the movie are definitely lost revenue for the theater.

Instead of being detrimental to the software industry (and your future career, by the way) try looking into other alternatives. I go to UCSD, and there are plenty of computers running solaris, NT, win9x, you name it. Also, I get special student discounts on just about every software title in the bookstore.

Is it really necessary for me to pirate software to learn about it? no. Are all the games, mp3 software, and other non-industrial programs really necessary for you to become technically knowledgeable? no. Perhaps you should spend more of your time at the computer lab and less time downloading warez. Student software is cheaper than books nowadays.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Maciej+Stachowiak · 1999-06-07 11:14 · Score: 1

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?

The fact that something is illegal does not prove it is immoral or harmful to others. For exampling, possessing certain common North American plants is highly illegal in the United States. In many states oral sex is still illegal. It is illegal to say the word "fuck" on the radio (but "bitch" is OK). In the state of Massachussets it is illegal to purchase alcohol on a Sunday, or for a consenting adult to get a tattoo (although body piercings are fine). I can already imagine someone saying "So you want to buy booze on Sunday? You don't think it hurts anyone? You think it's advantageous to you to buy alcohol any day of the week you want? Well that doesn't change the fact that it's against the law! That proves it's wrong! So there!"

Mind you, I'm not claiming here that copyright infringement is moral. I just don't think its illegality is a very relevant to its moral status.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by yek401 · 1999-06-07 14:36 · Score: 2

Yes, software piracy is illegal.

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
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by redhog · 1999-06-07 07:31 · Score: 1

Pirating is illegal. Yes, it may be a stupid law, but laws are to be followed. Even stupid ones. Because if they are not, the good laws wouldnt neither... Stupid laws and monopolic companies should be fighted in other ways; demonstrations, voting, strikes and other legal actions. If you need software and do not have the mony to buye it; search the net for a free program, or create one by yourself. Pirating and spreading what other tries to protect, just enlarges the userbase for these closed programs, resulting in more of them. Just stop pirate Windows, and Windows will die by itself.

--
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 05:15 · Score: 1

I'm not talking about losses here, I merely used robbing a bank as an example of something else that was breaking the law.

If everybody thinks this way, and the company goes under because of it, it was probly not that good of a product anyway, since the vast majority of people were unwilling to shell out $$ to support it.

If everyone thinks that it is okay to pirate software, do you really think the company will go under because it wasn't a good product? Why would you want to pirate bad software anyway?

You seem to think that you have a right to have this software. This is not true. You may want this software, but you do not need it. You can justify it any way you want, but what you are doing is still illegal. If you don't think it should be, then it is within your power to take action to change the law. But you are not doing that, are you? Do you think that pirating software is going to remove IP laws? No, it's going to encourage more restrictions. If you want to help the problem, contribute to the FSF. Lobby your local government. Form an organization to raise awareness to your cause. But disagreeing with the law is no excuse for breaking it. The only case where it is is when people are being denied their natural rights, one of which is not software.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 06:06 · Score: 1

Don't pity me, and don't think for me either. Please read what I have said and point out where I said law = morality. If you look at some of my other posts, you will see I have said the exact opposite. My point, however, is that laws serve a purpose. We either respect the authority of laws, or we don't. I believe we have an obligation to obey the law except when basic human rights are involved. I'm not saying all laws are good. What I am saying, however, is that we should then work to change them. Read through here a bit. How many posts do you see talking about trying to change the law?

Wrong and right is a grey area. We cannot govern society on that, we need to have a universal set of rules to live by to promote order and security. When these laws are unjust, we should actively work to change them. We should not, however, violate them. If you can pirate software because you don't think it is wrong, then why can't I run around and set buildings on fire because I don't think it is wrong? Because your morality says it's wrong to set buildings on fire? What makes your morality any better than mine?

All I'm saying is, if you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 09:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, I read it and it took me about 30 seconds to figure out what the fundamental error was. We as a species are greedy. A society where nothing has value and nobody wants for anything simply wouldn't work. This is the fundamental reason I feel socialism is doomed to fail (pure socialism, mind you). Nobody wants to be equal working for the good of the community. We strive for competition, which is part of what has let us create so many impressive things. If our society reached a point where nothing had value, I believe that would be the end of us. I don't think we as a species are capable of living in such an environment.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-08 01:08 · Score: 1

When did I mention morality? I'm talking about the law. Do you feel it is justified to break the law because it disagrees with your moral beliefs? This is a tought question, don't jump to an answer. The problem is that if it is justified for you to break the law because of your personal beliefs, then it is justified for me to break the law for my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs may be a lot different than yours. Maybe my personal beliefs tell me it's okay to steal cars, or murder children.

Yes, killing people is worse than pirating software based on our moral beliefs, but that's not the point. There are only two ways to have it, either the law should be obeyed at all times, or we can break the law when we feel it is justified. The latter scares me, because there are people in his world whose personal beliefs can justify breaking some very important laws. Morality cannot govern a society. There's no such thing as a universal morality, we each have our own. That is why we need law, to set common rules to govern society. Plain and simple.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 03:40 · Score: 5

I'll refute you.

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?
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by LetterRip · 1999-06-07 07:06 · Score: 1

I believe you are speaking to two different issues here, one is legality, the other is morality. The first author was arguing that his use of proprietary software was not immoral because it led to eventual benefits garnered by the software producer (the students future employer would purchase the software based on the students recommendation), the future employer (the students knowledge base would save time and money in correct software evaluation/selection) as well as the student himself (via future employment because of his superior knowledge base).

Other statements were also made by the student that his piracy was also costless to the software producer, because in fact the student had neither the money nor inclination to purchase the software.

You then claimed that while any or all of the above statements were true, the actions are illegal, and hence irrelevant.

No one is arguing that software piracy is legal. In the US, it most definitely is not. The argument you attempted to refute, unsuccessfully, is wheter software piracy is immoral.

Unless Immoral == Illegal, then your arguments content is useless. For there are many practices that are immoral, yet legal, or illegal yet moral.

Two spurious examples follow - In the State of Alaska, it is illegal for a woman to drink coffee after 11 pm. Illegal = true, Immoral = false.

Makers of consumer products, such as toothpaste, are allowed to continue to incorporate known poisons/toxins in there products via grandfather clauses. (If you doubt this, read the warning labels on your toothpaste canister). Illegal = false, Immoral = true.

In the current case Illegal = true, Immoral = ??.

LetterRip

FYI - I don't, nor have i in the past used pirated software. I feel that it is at least somewhat immoral, but don't have a sufficient argument to demonstrate it...
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by jlloyd · 1999-06-07 09:09 · Score: 1

The law is out of step with the physical and economic realities of digital media. Right now, this incongruity is beneficial to society as a whole, but it won't be long before this is no longer true, and the law will need to change. Read my essay on the subject.

Interesting essay. Use fantasy to construct a future, and then assume that today's real economy should be based upon the characteristics of that fantasy future. But I can see how you genuinely want that future world to exist today, and are striving to achieve it. If so, there's one major problem with your essay, and I quote:

"Copyright © 1995 Leo L. Schwab. All Rights Reserved."
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Trojan · 1999-06-07 03:42 · Score: 1

You should consider trying Linux. Sure, it's hard to pirate, but it could potentially save your future employer a hell of a lot money.

And have you ever considered spending your time on a little programming? Lots of people could benefit and you would actually learn something useful.
Re:My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry! by Ace_ · 1999-06-07 17:47 · Score: 1

Bravo :)

--
-- Ace

Piracy by Rotten · 1999-06-07 02:22 · Score: 1

Software piracy is the effect of a cause called high prices. Let alone scpecific applications, and let's focus on the common things you'll see pirated in s friend's computer:
1) Win
2) Office
3) Games

This 3 issues are the strong leg for Intel/Windows monopoly. You can combine product 1) with either 2) and/or 3) and you got the main reason for the question: "Why people use Windows?".

M$ lost money on piracy, but won all the market. So...are they really concerned about it? Are they going to fight piracy?

Hardware keys have been around for YEARS. If they want to stop piracy they have better tools. But IMHO, they just enjoy people coping their SW.

Re:Linux/OSS by DeathB · 1999-06-07 01:30 · Score: 1

Yes, but a pirated copy of OSS is still pirated software on your computer. Heck, at this point OSS is probably the *only* non-free software on my computer ( yes, I own it ). Besides the fact that you are hurting one of the few companies willing to do commercial software on Linux, you are also braging about doing something illegal in a forum that is read by many people ( probably including the makers of OSS ). At least be a little bright and post as an AC.

--
Would you do it for some scoobie crack?

Re:Linux/OSS by Musc · 1999-06-07 23:47 · Score: 1

you must understand that violating a copyright
is failing to reward, which is different than
punishing. if anything should be proprietary, it is not drivers. 4front should not be rewarded for the stupidity of sound card manufacturers. by the way, are you aware that 4front gives free licenses to developers? I have an unpaid yet legal OSS license, in my name, because I am working on a free software project which uses open sound system.
if gateway sold me a computer without a power cable, then it would be right to steal one from the local gateway country store. if gateway, out of stupidity, refused to sell power cables, then it may still not be right to steal a cable from compusa, but there would be nothing wrong with violating compusa's patent on power cables to build your own, which is what copying oss is.

--
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix

Re: "didn't gain anything" by Musc · 1999-06-07 23:56 · Score: 1

the crime in this case is copyrighting his
derivative work. the gpl allows him to do absolutely anything he wants with apache, linux, and samba, as long as the result is gpl'd as well. the gpl would be unnecessary if copyrights didn't exist.

--
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix

why illegal copying is sometimes not bad by Musc · 1999-06-08 01:55 · Score: 1

Here is a hypothetical situation that I feel is how the current situation with software is. If you truly understand the issue of software copying, you will understand that most of the situations where 'piracy' occurs is not immoral.
Hershey's and Monsanto merge and create a new kind of plant. a chocolate bar plant. You plant the seed, and soon a fully processed and packaged, delicious hershey bar grows out of the ground. as HersheySanto did the work to create it, it is their decision to copyright the plant and collect royalties. if it wasn't for the potential profit, they never would have made it, so they have kind of moral right to ask for money if you want to eat the chocolate. by the nature of plants, the chocolate plant spreads across the planet. soon it is growing in everyones yard, like another weed. there is nothing wrong with MonsHershey asking for you to pay a small royaltie for every chocolate bar plant you eat. And certainly, if you go into business, and get rich off of the chocolate plants, you owe HersheySanto a SMALL portion of your profits. However, there are many cases when it would not be immoral to eat the chocolate bar without paying. You could eat one to see if you like it, if you like it, you would have more of an
obligation to pay for any future chocolate plants you eat. The other, more debatable situation is when you truly can't afford it. True, you don't need chocolate bars. you can live a happy, full life without them. Say there is a poor family. they own a small house and the bit of land around it, and they can buy enough food to live, but not enough for any luxuries whatsoever. They definitely can't afford chocolate bar plant royalties. What does anybody possibly have to gain by denying these people the choclate growing in their own yard? there are no potential profits lost. MonsantoHershey stays in business just as well, if not better (for the marketing exposure), then if that poor family just did without.
Another example, poor college student, majoring in chocolate engineering, wants to study actual chocolate plants up close to learn how they work. True, he doesn't have a 'right' to learn about chocolate. Nevertheless, society would only be improved if he WERE to 'steal' a chocolate plant off public property and study it. If he has any money he ought to give a LITTLE to MonsanShey, but no one is being hurt, wronged, or deprived if he is unable to pay. Yes, if everybody did this they would go out of business and we would have no new chocolate from them. It would not be good for society if nobody paid. But for exceptions such as these, the right thing to do is 'pirate' chocolate.

Copying software is not stealing. it is failing to reward. a reward that the creator is legally, and possibly morally entitled to. speaking in a purely pragmatic utilitarian sense, the world would be best off if people with money paid, and those without used it anyway. Amazingly, thats the way it is today. The problem is it isn't legal. Copyright laws don't even need to be repealed, licensing practices just need to be reformed. Like sun is doing, most any software should be available for 10 dollars, assuming you meet the requirements. big business can and should pay high prices to support creators.
This does not address the issue of free as in speech software being better because you can fork the development and freely modify for your own personal use. That really is a separate issue. software would still be free if you couldn't use it for LARGE business without paying royalties.

--
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix

RMS disagrees with that principle, and so do I by Musc · 1999-06-07 09:36 · Score: 2

Of course you are entitled to enjoy the fruits of your labor. However, if the fruits of your labor can easily be enjoyed by others, without any additional work on your part, then you have no right to tell them not to enjoy those fruits, just because you are the one who does the work.
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.

--
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix

Re: stealing a candy bar by toriver · 1999-06-07 17:20 · Score: 1

Pirates may not be thieves, but they are leeches: They use resources they're not entitled to.

If persons A and B uses the same software product, but only person A bothers to pay for it, person B gains the same advantage as person A but without the cost associated with it.

A person using pirated software can be compared to someone entering a bus without paying the fare. When addressed, the person defends their action with: "The bus is going to my destination independent on whether I pay or not, so there is no point in paying." The problem with this logic is that the bus company still has expenses related to running the bus route: If some people don't pay for the privilege of traveling with the bus, the paying passengers either need to pay even more, or the route is cancelled.

The same goes with software: Either users pay what the publishers ask, or all software ends up as "garage-ware", written by somebody in their spare time, or subsidized through other means like documentation and support. "Oh, you got our very free software product, but cannot understand a bit of it? You need to buy our $200 instruction manual..."

Re: stealing a candy bar by symbolic · 1999-06-07 09:28 · Score: 1

And YOU get to benefit from THEIR effort at no cost to you whatsoever. THIS is wrong.

I agree that software isn't a "consumable" resource, but everyone on the open source bandwagon conveniently (and consistently) leaves two factors out of the equation: a) the cost to develop, test, market, and support the software, and b) the VALUE provided by the software. Let's face it...if it didn't have any value, there'd be no desire to copy it.

Re: stealing a candy bar by IntlHarvester · 1999-06-07 03:37 · Score: 2

Don't forget about the standard Microsoft/Drug Dealer approach - the first hit's for free. One of these days, the thrid world is going to become a huge goldmine for US software companies.

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.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Re:Real Issues by pspeed · 1999-06-07 04:59 · Score: 1

The real issue is that if you make good software and sell it for a reasonable price then people will buy it.

If you spend half of your time trying to prevent something that you are never going to be able to prevent then your product will suffer and you will lose the customers that are paying.

When you sit and work out how much money your own time is worth, then calculate how much time you spend trying to prevent piracy, then calculate how much extra revenue you generated because of those efforts it usually turns out not to be worth it.

After experience in various forms of copy protection from both the programming side and the user side, I figure the best approach, if you really want to be hard-nosed about it, is to require a license key that's associated with their name. When registering the software they are required to enter their name and license. Any copies they distribute would also have to have their name and license. Real pirates will get around this easily, but honest users will be less likely to casually copy it because it has their name clearly associated with it.

Now, if you do the math, the above approach may not be worth it for most software below $40 because having to generate license keys, etc. isn't free in terms of time and effort.

--
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.

Re:One way it reduces prices... by pspeed · 1999-06-07 05:22 · Score: 1

Is by making companies price their software reasonably enough so that they get a larger number of sales. If the price is too high then more people will seek illegal copies.

Software prices are rather arbitrary and piracy is one of the criteria that goes into setting the price-point.

--
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.

Re:It's a matter of respect, not always... by pspeed · 1999-06-07 05:41 · Score: 1

As usual, all generalizations are wrong. You can't pigeon-hole all software pirates (arr, matey) into one category.

For most, it is simply that they would like to use the product but not enough to pay the price as listed.

Creating software does take skill and I am a programmer. I make my living writing programs for others as a service. Even carpenters only charge for their time.

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that anyone should be allowed to charge for software. They should also expect to be paid for it. (I also think that programmers need to be realistic about the kinds of users that are going to pay for their software.) However, I resent the generalities put forth that all bitleggers are spoiled children and future criminals.

While their activity is illegal it is no more illegal than copying your favorite song off the radio.

--
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.

It's business applications, not all software. by Azul · 1999-06-07 01:36 · Score: 1

This survey counts only business applications. I can't see how a game counts as a business application':

Almost two-fifths of all new business software applications installed worldwide in 1998 were pirated

I don't really know, but I suppose games and others applications are by far more pirated than whatever they are calling business applications (specially if that includes specialized applications that no one installs in his home computer). I suppose a company cares much more than an individual not to break any licenses, since it (the former) is by far more likely to get caught.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that about 80% or perhaps even 90% of all the persons who use computers use pirated software. *shrug*

In the place where I live, no body seems to care about that at all. Piracy seems to be right, those who don't practice it are seen as rather stupid.

Anyway, I'm always trying to educate people in this sense, telling them how software (and music) piracy is as crime no better than going into a grocery and stealing fruits.

People who practice software piracy suck.

Alejo.

Re:It's business applications, not all software. by Whoever · 1999-06-07 07:05 · Score: 1

hahaha I just about fell out of my chair when I saw that. Nice post:)
Re:It's business applications, not all software. by negative · 1999-06-07 02:35 · Score: 0

>People who practice software piracy suck.

I dont need to practice... I'm pretty damn good at it already.
Re:It's business applications, not all software. by Smallest · 1999-06-07 03:56 · Score: 1

Piracy is never going to go away so the software companies could at least focus on the real issues instead of quoting ridiculous numbers so that the goverment and clueless people feel bad for them.

You're saying I should give my software away (work for free) and focus on the "Real Issues" ?

What are the "real issues" ? They better be pretty damn important if they outweigh my need to provide myself with an income.

Come back to Earth.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Re:It's business applications, not all software. by Shafik · 1999-06-07 02:45 · Score: 1

An interesting point to this is that even though most people probably do pirate business software the joe smoe is not where these companies make their money. They make their bread and butter from businesses and it is the business piracy that really hurts them. In the US it is not really bad most mid to large companies are very sensitive to piracy but outside of the US and Eastern Europe businesses pirate much much more. The real problem is getting countries to enforce laws against the companies, it is because there is stronger law enforcement in the US that businesses are more piracy aware.

The Joe Smoe is important to these companies since when they do work they will ask for the software they are most familar with and you know what it is going to be the stuff they pirated in collage and high school anyway who argues against that is in denial. Collage student who use the software for learning are doing the companies a favor, well unless their software sucks.

Piracy is never going to go away so the software companies could at least focus on the real issues instead of quoting ridiculous numbers so that the goverment and clueless people feel bad for them.

Re:Way underevaluated by Azul · 1999-06-07 01:54 · Score: 1

companies should pay for commercial software, individuals/student should be allowed to copy it.

The problem with this approach is that there would be no commercial applications for home users, other than those that are also required by companies (as the two examples you mentioned). If you are a company in the software industry, you will not develope for the home user, but for companies only.

I mean, consider games under this approach. Only companies will have to pay for games, individuals/students won't have to pay for them. Which companies will buy games? None. Who, in the software industry, will develope games?

Alejo.

Canadians != Americans. by Parity · 1999-06-07 11:04 · Score: 1

Canadians are north americans, but they are not Americans. There's a good reason for this, actually... a certain country on the other side of the United States of America is known formally as the United States of Mexico and/or, uhm, Estados Mexico Unidos, or something close to that, I don't speak Spanish and it's been a long time since I've heard a Mexican radio frequency announcement.

Anyway, people from the United States of America can not be 'United Statsians' even if it didn't sound ridiculous because it would be confused with Mexico (and probably several other 'United States of X' around the world). And I hope everyone will agree that 'United States of American' is an absurdly awkward phrase.

So Canadians are Canadians, Americans are Americans, Mexicans are Mexicans, and they're all north americans.

And none of this has anything to do with software piracy!

--
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.

Correction by UnkyHerb · 1999-06-07 04:51 · Score: 1

I just want to set a few people straight. Yes, first of all of you are not going to purchase something in the first place it doesn't hurt anyone. Second, it doesn't directly hurt anyone for "labor" like some people compared to a car mechanic, because the developer doesn't even know and doesn't have to work to make a copy for you, but it can hurt developer's. Most people I know purchase the games and stuff they can afford and will use, and pirate the rest.

--
Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!

it's simple differential pricing by jetson123 · 1999-06-07 17:13 · Score: 2

I suspect actually that piracy enforcement and upgrade policies of software companies are simply driven by the need for differential pricing.

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:The last time I heard this kind of debate... by Spectra72 · 1999-06-07 07:53 · Score: 1

I still fail to see how setting a price on a product you spent time/effort/money to produce is *evil* just because every begger on the street can't afford to pay the price you have set.

There is no law that forces people to buy these products. If they can't afford them, they should do without until they can. Even if some budding Linus Torvalds was out there just itching to get that fancy new compiler, but gee...mommy and daddy won't ante up for it...it does not make the company who produced it evil. The kid is also not morally justified in bootlegging it. He was not born with a magical "Software Bill of Rights" that entitles him to all the latest and greatest games and toys in life.

Your socio-economic status in life does not entitle you to ignore IP laws.

Re:the college experience by HeghmoH · 1999-06-07 08:11 · Score: 1

I agree with your general point, I just had to raise this little issue... :)

MP3s are compact, terrific quality, and easily accessible.

MP3 quality, while generally acceptable to the large majority of the population, is definately in the, um, ear of the beholder. Personally, I don't think twice about buying a CD (at least, not while thinking about just downloading an MP3 of it) because, if I plan on listening to it as anything more than background noise for any length of time, my ears just can't stand the compression artifacts that are rampant throughut MP3.

I do have some MP3s, but I almost never touch them; my favorites are all on CDs. MP3 may be plenty sufficent for the music pirates (no offense) of the world to rejoice, but it'll take something a lot better to get me to consider it.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

Questions begged by Weasel+Boy · 1999-06-07 01:55 · Score: 1

Every year when these reports come out, I break out my big salt shaker and ask the same old questions. First, let me come right out and say I am against software piracy. Now, onto the discussion.

What is a loss? What is piracy? What is a business application? How are these fantabulous US$11 billion calculated? Consider...

231 million rogue applications, for an average loss of US$47 per. What business apps sell for $47? Utilities, I suppose...

Are losses calculated by list price or street value?

If someone pirates Microsoft Office, does that count as one application or 5? Is the value the bundle value of Office (about $50), street value ($100), list ($250-$500?), or the separate list values of the component applications ($1250 to $2500)?

If someone pirates a CD that includes both commercial and free software (eg, Internet Explorer), is the free software counted? Is it counted if it is available both for free and at retail?

Is it piracy if the person using the unpaid-for copy would certifiably never actually buy that product? (YES, by the way.) Is it countable as a loss of revenue?

Is it piracy if one person installs it on two computers for their sole use, as an alternative to (eg) carrying around a notebook computer? In other words, if the customer simply chooses not to cooperate with really stupid one-CPU licenses? Is that a loss?

Would our retail prices drop by 38% if all this piracy stopped?

Finally, a nit-pick: Could it be that Hong Kong was dropped from the US govt's watch list simply because it's part of China now?

Okay, there's my questions. Rip into 'em!

Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by Weasel+Boy · 1999-06-07 02:09 · Score: 1

MacWeek just recently ran a story about a longtime Mac hardware company, Micro Conversions, Inc., that got run out of business by people pirating their driver.
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/05/23/microcon2.html

Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by negative · 1999-06-07 03:09 · Score: 1

Sounds more like bad business strategy more than seems "evil" pirates ran them out of business.

Perhaps if THEY sold the commonly found video cards for $69 INCLUDING their special software for mac they would have sold more of them.. When will software companys learn, the less the software costs the more they will actually sell.. For example its rarely worth copying some games, because they are like $35, versus say, Adobe Photoshop at $600..
Re:Piracy killed Micro Conversions. by ufdraco · 1999-06-07 09:43 · Score: 1

What's the point of buying a driver? As far as I'm concerned, it's a part of the hardware. I can't copy hardware, so if I don't have the hardware, the driver is worthless. Without the driver, the hardware is worthless. Why didn't they license it to the hardware company? Surely the hardware company would have bought the driver--they would suddenly have a larger market share!
To an extent, I'll agree that this was copyright violation because the driver writers were not the hardware makers. However, Micro didn't really think too hard about their strategy either.

--
ufdraco

You're speculating by Weasel+Boy · 1999-06-07 22:37 · Score: 1

... it would have been fairly easy for them to cut deals with STB, Diamond, Creative, and other OEMs...
You don't know that. For all we know, they made a very reasonable offer to these companies and were rebuffed simply because they aren't interested in competing in that market.

IMC wasn't a software company. by Weasel+Boy · 1999-06-07 22:40 · Score: 1

IMC was giving their software away for free. You can't lower the price much further than that. The problem was people violating the licensing terms and using the software on other companies' hardware.

You're speculating by Weasel+Boy · 1999-06-07 22:47 · Score: 1

Had they licensed their drivers to other video card manufacturers, they'd likely be in business today.

You don't know that. You don't even know whether or not they tried to do that. The existence of the cut-price Wintel wasn't the problem. MCI sold lots of their more expensive card right up until the driver piracy started.

Now you're making excuses by Weasel+Boy · 1999-06-07 22:59 · Score: 1

It sounds to me like you're making up excuses to blame the victim for the crime because you don't want to admit you're wrong and I'm right. Companies actually do go out of business due to piracy.

Small companies that lack business acumen don't stay in business for 14 years. Failing to predict that most of your customer base is going to steal your product and use it to access a new device that doens't even compete in your market space is not shortsighted. Charging a lower price than your competitors in your own market space and giving your driver away for free to your customers is not greedy. Thinking game players will pay $30 for a graphics driver is not clever, nor is failing to market such a product on a couple of months' notice lack of business acumen.

Don't make excuses for pirates. They do put companies out of business.

Vested interest, Outrageous claims by gonz · 1999-06-07 18:09 · Score: 1

How exactly did they measure the number of people using unlicensed software? This issue is so complex that simple statistics like that can't possibly be accurate or even meaningful.

To begin with, the only people who conduct these sorts of "studies" have an obvious bias. You always hear them quoting figures about the X billions of dollars that piracy allegedly "costs" the software industry each year. But in which cases was a "sale" actually lost? Would the person have really bought a copy if he couldn't have pirated it? And those who did buy it, what if they did so because they heard about it from a friend who had an illegal copy? Or maybe they got locked-in to a particular product at college *because* a pirated version was available, and then they convinced their employer to buy 5 licenses when they got their first job.

And where did this data come from in the first place? Did the researchers call up 1000 random phone numbers and ask people how much pirated software they were using, then add 2/5 to compensate for possible dishonest answers? :-)

Besides, the news source was AOL quoting Reuters -- not exactly the first place I'd go for trustworthy technology journalism. :-)

Re:What If.... by Octorian · 1999-06-07 04:15 · Score: 1

setRamble(ON);

Interesting point. However, replicators would not lead to piracy as easily as you think.

You have to take into account that replicators would use a lot of energy and have operating costs. So, when ever you "make" something, you pay royalties to the "replicator service".

This "service" would supply the "object patterns", and pay royalties on them to the companies that designed the items.

In the future if you wanted to buy a Hershey bar, you would select the item, transfer payment to the "John Doe Replication Service", and then the machine would recieve the pattern, produce the item, 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 replicator and had lots of money for the "scanning equipment".

setRamble(OFF);

Hmmm... Indentured labour agreements? by Error+Spelling · 1999-06-07 12:20 · Score: 1

Are slave ownership contracts still valid? They are agreements in the same way that shrink wrap licenses are agreements. You don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter.

If you reply that slaveholding is immoral and therefore no contract can legally require or enforce it, then you have defeated your own argument. I am legally bound to disobey immoral laws. This is what War Crimes trials are about. You must have the character and common sense to know when laws are stupid. Don't just depend on the system, because the system will fail you.

Re: stealing a candy bar by Error+Spelling · 1999-06-07 12:33 · Score: 1

--------BEGIN QUOTE----------------------------

But what about Vietnam? They had like, what, over 90% pirated software? Something tells me
that a) some of these ppl could afford a legal copy b) some of these ppl are using this software out of a real need c) they would likely have to buy a legit copy were it not for available pirated copies. (no?)

---------------END QUOTE-------------------------

I think this is a really nifty and legitimate (and cost effective because there's no bureaucracy) form of technology transfer. Hey, we use the third world for cheap labour. The least we can do is give them buggy software.

Development cost a non-issue by Error+Spelling · 1999-06-07 12:48 · Score: 1

In a non-proprietary world, development costs would be a fraction of what they are now. Everyone would borrow everybody else's best ideas and everything would be so much the better. The programmers? Out of work? Nah, not a chance. Most people who are now working on creating "finished products" would be reassigned to client services and a continuous reengineering plan.

This is the same pathetic plea that we hear from pharmaceutical giants. "Oh, it costs us so much to develop and test the drug - boo hoo. We'll have to lay off researchers." If these companies coordinated their research efforts, their costs would be a fraction of what they are. I'm afraid to say it, but the pursuit of knowledge is one area in which cooperation is a more effective strategy than competition.

Re:Linux/OSS by Error+Spelling · 1999-06-07 12:05 · Score: 2

Uhhh... just where did you get the stuff that you used to make your house or picnic table or macrame plant hanger? Did it issue forth from your loins? Or, as is more likely the case, did you steal it from some unwitting natives by claiming all of the New World in the name of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella? Did you have a God given right to that? Did you have a God given right to anything that mother nature's bounty provided you with? You're like the selfish, spoiled child who thinks the world owes him everything. The rights you have to your stuff, whether it's intellectual or physical property exist only in so far as your fellow citizens are willing to extend them. That's called Goodwill, not Natural Rights. The material you use doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the world and all creatures first. You're just borrowing it. Intellectual property is riddled with problems because it makes even less sense to imagine ideas as personal ex-nihilo belongings than it does to think about physical property in this way. But when you strip away all the Jeffersonian rhetoric and the fantasy of the neo-conservative rugged individualist, physical and intellectual property are both subject to the GPL.

lesse now... by maphew · 1999-06-07 04:39 · Score: 1

There are now ~7 million linux users (conservative ).

If linux or freebsd or variant did not exist, I assume 75% of the current linux users would be using Windows, 20% commercial unix, 5% macintosh. (off the top of my head)

OS = would-have-been-linux-users * avg OS$ = loss
Windows = 5,250,000 * $100 = $5.25 billion
Unix = 1,400,000 * $1000 = $1.4 billion
Mac = 350,000 * $300 = $105 million

Therefore linux users have cost proprietary commercial operating system vendors $6.755 billion dollars in lost revenue. :) And that doesn't take into account people using FreeBSD and siblings.

I'd like to see somebody who actually has real statistics run this scenario (for instance, I have no idea what a commercial unix or MacOS actually costs, or how many *BSD users there are).

Re:Piracy Stats by geekd · 1999-06-07 15:58 · Score: 1

I am a musician (not signed yet) and I know LOTS of musicians, signed and unsigned, gold records, no records, etc... and not a single musician I know has any complaint about MP3s of thier stuff getting passed around.

-geekd

Re:It's a matter of choice by Nater · 1999-06-07 05:30 · Score: 1

Are you a programmer? Of course not, you're a carpenter. That's why you don't understand that making copies of software is easy as opposed to making copies of houses, which is hard. Each copy of a house has to be built individually and with great effort, and there is a certain cost for the materials as well. Oh the other hand, each copy of a piece of software (oh, and BTW, try defining "piece of software" in a manner that's consistent across all computing paradigms vs. defining "home" across all habitation paradigms) is effortless to make. That's why no one gets paid to use cp the way a carpenter gets paid to nail together wood. Oh the other hand, architects and software developers do get paid. Architects get more money than carpenters and developers get more than distributers (I use the term loosely) So why is it that it's a matter of choice? Developers can choose whether or not to give away their software and there are at least as many in my estimation that have chosen to give it away as there are who have sold it. Why some choose one way and some choose the other is an entirely different question, but the fact remains that both paths are taken on a regular basis. An architect could give away blueprints, too, and there are probably some instances of that actually happening. Come to think of it... don't strain yourself, there are plenty.

Point: No developer is forced to sell software. Therefore there is free software. Therefore software which is not free for which there is a free equivalent is overpriced.

--

I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer

Re:no, really Re:It's a matter of respect by Nater · 1999-06-07 23:56 · Score: 1

You missed my point.

If free software exists (this time I mean free as in free beer, but then again most free-as-in-free-speech software ends up being free-as-in-free-beer software anyway), and it does indeed exist, then equivalent software is not worth money. That is a simple market dynamic. Take Economics 101, you might just learn something. I'm going to use a really simple program as an example since complex programs like web servers and OSes are fairly easy to differentiate as products. I'm going to use the MS-DOS command format, and the Linux program mkfs.msdos as an example. mkfs.msdos is available free of charge from a number of sites on the Internet, agreed? Suppose Microsoft decided to charge a separate price for format. Could they really sell any? The market price is zero for disk formatters for the FAT filesystem, so, no, only an idiot would actually pay for format from Microsoft. That doesn't mean people won't obtain and use MS format, it just means that MS format isn't worth money, therefore people won't pay money for it. If Microsoft actually charged for Windows what Windows is worth, then illegal copying wouldn't be a problem. Let me ask you this: How much is a single copy of Microsoft Windows worth to you? I.e. How much would you pay for it? For me, the answer is zero. Windows is not worth money to me. If I still wanted to use Windows, anyway, it wouldn't be a problem for me cause I've got friends in low places. That's not my point though. The point is (again) a lot of commercial software isn't worth money to some people anymore, therefore they won't pay for it because it's overpriced.

--

I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer

Actually, no by webslacker · 1999-06-07 01:41 · Score: 2

As I understand it, MP3's are legal as long as you own the CD. When you start distributing it, then you're treading on thin ice.

Re:Actually, no by Pink+Puppy · 1999-06-07 08:23 · Score: 1

> When you start distributing it, then you're
> treading on thin ice.

AFAIK there is no doubt. Any form of distribution (excluding perhaps small clips used for research or discussion) violates fair use.

Linux/OSS by IanCarlson · 1999-06-07 01:24 · Score: 2

OSS is the *only* pirated software on my Linux box.

Re:Linux/OSS by Shadowlion · 1999-06-07 20:23 · Score: 1

Explain this more, because I'm not following.

If I have a table of items I've made put out in public, with a big sign on it that says, "Free stuff! Take as much as you like!" and someone walks by and takes one - are they stealing?

The GPL basically says, "Copy this as much as you like, it's free!" So how can you steal GPL software when it's being given away?
Re:Linux/OSS by Airneil · 1999-06-07 06:54 · Score: 1

IMNSHO, that's out and out wrong.

If I create something with my own hands (a chair, a book, or a computer program) and wish to charge for the use of it, that is my right in a free market society.

It is NOT your right to use it without my permission.

If, to get my permission, you must pay a license fee, then that's what you have to do. To use it for free is wrong. It's stealing. It's just the same as if you go into the corner store and walk out with groceries without paying. In fact, if I am a professional programmer, that's what you are doing. Because you choose to steal from me, I may not be able to eat!

You seem to be confusing our society with one that gives everyone everything they need. That society does not exist, and never has.

When we live in a Star Trek world, where money is not needed, then all software can be free. Of course, that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Re:Linux/OSS by lubricated · 1999-06-07 06:53 · Score: 1

any chance in getting me a copy. In my opinion drivers for hardware should not have to be paid for. If you disagree that's fine. If you are going to tell me it's illegal then you are correct. That doesn't make you right. Too many people treat being right and being leagal at the same time.

--
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Re:Linux/OSS by mlsemon · 1999-06-07 14:16 · Score: 1

Suppose Gateway shipped a computer to you, but they forgot to send you the power cable to the PC. Is it somehow right to shoplift a power cable from the local CompUSA? That seems like what you want to do to 4Front.

If UNIX drivers came with every sound card, then 4Front would have to find another line of business. In the meantime, 4Front is providing a third-party service that they shouldn't have to do in the first place. They make money off it, then give away their work when low demand doesn't justify the price.

OSS is a fair deal, and there's nothing right about stealing it. Why punish 4Front for the stupidity of some sound card makers?

It's Not That Simple by curveclimber · 1999-06-07 09:06 · Score: 1

If I work for a month to write a book it is a significant investment of my time and talents. I own what I produced and people pay me for the right to use my book. Pretty simple, right?

Nope, what people pay when they purchase a book (and almost any other commodity) goes almost entirely towards the cost of production and distribution of the book.

You don't see Stephen King down at Kinkos getting ready for the next run of one of his novels do you? How much do you think an author gets per book? Certainly not the $32.30 I just paid for an O'Reilly book.

The problem with software is that the cost of production and distribution is almost zero. If I coded for a month, my program could be distributed to every person on Earth (theoretically now, as net connection increases it becomes more and more feasible) in a matter of days.

It still took me a month of my time and talent, so the problem becomes how much is my time worth? Does a person who writes software deserve payment from every person on Earth for his software? Is his/her time worth that much? So much more than the author who writes a book, or a teacher, or cook? I'm not sure. Maybe it is, but I *do* know, it's not as cut and dried as you seem to think it is.

Re:It's Not That Simple by Smallest · 1999-06-07 22:50 · Score: 1

Does a person who writes software deserve payment from every person on Earth for his software?

Morally : if they all use it, yes.

Of course, if only 3/5 of them pay, the other 2/5 should know that they are using the relative anonymity and security-free atmosphere of the net/BBS/FTP site/whatever to do something they probably wouldn't do if they knew the author personally.

I'm not saying we should put everybody in jail for copying software. But, the people who do it should know that they are breaking a law that is meant to uphold contracts in situations where there is no producer to user contact.

-c

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Civil disobedience, Gandhi etc by Arvind · 1999-06-07 09:52 · Score: 1

The people who keep bringing up this argument don't realize that civil disobedience works only when it is widely publicized, i.e., you not only pirate MSWindows, you put it up on an ftp site, take out ads in the local papers, and are prepared to go to court, say what you believe and rot in jail for it if necessary.

Gandhi spent years of his life in prison because of his beliefs. Comparing him with software pirates is ridiculous.

Oops by D_Nice · 1999-06-07 01:41 · Score: 1

After reading this wonderful article from those great folks over at AOL, I can now see the errors in way. I think that I will now delete all of the pirated software that I have on my computer and go out and purchase all of the same software.
*wait just one second*

That would cost me about $23,000. If I am going to spend that kind of money, I think that I will just go out and buy a new SGI. Sorry AOL, I'm going to have to let you down on this one.
OH WELL

--
Technology's a battle between companies producing more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots

Re:You are a part of the problem too by robwicks · 1999-06-07 02:44 · Score: 1

What is with all this US vs Canada bs anyway? We have so much in common that it is surprising that we haven't become one country. The only ones who would always oppose this would probabably be the Quebecois (however you spell it).

[sarcasm=on]I for one will never bow willingly to this ongoing Canadian imperialism. I am troubled by our proud American culture's infection by the overbearing Canadian one. Hockey is spreading across the nation. What's next? Will our children be led astray by gangsteaux rap music?[sarcasm=off]

I doubt if the Canadians would want to be Americans, and I can't fault them for that, either.

--

Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who

Bullsh*t. Read the license. by AJWM · 1999-06-07 03:42 · Score: 2

Says right there on the licenses that my VHS movies are licensed for home viewing. No restriction on how many people are watching it in my home, just so long as I'm not charging them money and I'm not showing it in public.

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.

--
-- Alastair

Re:Moral Issues and Respect by nyet · 1999-06-07 14:33 · Score: 1

Wrong.

Information is not rare.

Never argue copyrights/IP from an economic standpoint. It just doesn't work.

Gold is a limited resource, and it happens to be rare. It can't be synthesized, unless you happen to believe in alchemy.

Information is a limitless resource, and it is not rare.

Human civilization has spent countless millenia trying to equitibly distribute limited resources, and at the first sign of a truley limiteless one, we regulate it to make it look limited. Boy, how stupid can we be.

Hint to software authors who are depending solely on our rapidly aging IP concepts: better find a new way to make a living, because moving information is becoming easier everyday. No amount of "but my kids will starve" bleating will save your skins. You'll be better off trying to sell horseshoes in Los Angeles.

Its not just software either. All information is moving this way.

Music: only 60 megs for a cd if they're mp3s

Movies: only 1.2 g for a vcd pair (still poor quality but sooner or later..)

Books: I happen to prefer hard copy anyway. As long as its hard to bind a book, authors are safe ;)

Sooner or later, all of this information "production" will have to be subsidized. Sorry folks. I give it 20 years tops. If the whole pathetic system hasn't collapsed by then, we will be living in a police state, and I'm moving into a cave and resorting to hunting/gathering.

Re:Copying software = counterfeiting money by nyet · 1999-06-07 15:01 · Score: 1

I disagree strongly.

There is no correlation between money and software.

Money is a symbol of a rare resource. It used to be based on a _fixed_ amount of gold. Now its not. Its value varies from day to day. But it is still a symbol of something real and material, and most importantly, something that is limited.

This is because money represents all of our concepts of an economy. We try to distribute limited resources as best we can.

Information is NOT a symbol of a limited resource. Information is just one alternative from a set of possibilities, either finite, or infinite. Shannon happened to boil this down to a sequence of binary bits, and found a way to represent any one of these alternatives, and general ways of intermixing them. Turing gave us general ways of manipulating information.

All our attempts at preventing information exchange are because 1) competition is necessary to ensure the best possible information products and 2) it is (or was) viable to restrict who and how this information is distrubuted. #2 is only nesessary insofar as our only concept of competition involves the consumption of limited resources, which we represent with money.

When 2) is no longer technically viable, or the free flow of information is more advantageous than its restriction, we need to look to alternatives.

Here's my list (in some vage order of personal preference):

I. Subsidies. At worst, welfare for programmers, at best, treat as R&D in corporations. Educational /governmental grants (ala NSF) are a middle ground here. Taxation of ISPs. Taxation/metering of bandwidth usage.

II. Service/Support. Give for free, sell documentation and support. Contract software programmers for in-house software projects. Online fees (e.g. funding an online game).

III. The artist factor. Sometimes, the best stuff is made for love, not for money. Compare _Titanic_ and _Jurassic Park_ to _Brazil_ and _Life is Beautiful_. Compare Mingus to Back Street Boys. Compare van Gogh to velvet paintings of Elvis. Compare Linus' early GPL'ing of his tiny Minux clone to Bill's infamous bigfoot letter to Altair hobbiests over their alleged misuse of "his" code.

Give me more if you can.

You really don't get it, do you? by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 02:43 · Score: 1

That's got to be one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. When is everyone going to understand that the physical copy of the software is not what is being stolen? It's a simple concept... I purchase Photoshop 5. I have paid for it. I do not own photoshop, I merely am granted permission to use a copy of the program by Adobe. When I loan it to a friend to install, he is not stealing from me. He can't, because I don't own it. However, he is stealing from Adobe. He is using something that belongs to them without their permission. That is theft, plain and simple. Stop thinking in terms of physical items, you are not stealing the copy of the program, you are stealing the usage of the program. The copy is irrelevant.

Re:Do you let firends hear your CDs or watch a mov by rm+-rf+/etc/* · 1999-06-07 03:27 · Score: 1

and (!) your concept of right and wrong is not universal.

I couldn't agree more, there is no unviersal concept of right and wrong. That's the exact reason why we have laws, and whether you agree with it or not, is is illegal to pirate software.

The Term "Piracy" by AT · 1999-06-07 02:01 · Score: 1

Can we please stop using the term piracy for using unlicenced software? Call it copyright violation, or call it licence infringment, but not piracy. It is a ridiculous term that tries to equate intellectual property theft with "physical" property theft.

From the FSF website:

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor."

The last time I heard this kind of debate... by for(;;); · 1999-06-07 02:12 · Score: 1

I was in electronics class in college, and was advising a fellow student -- who needed a copy of some software program or other -- to look on the internet for a pirated copy. A third student, who had interned at Microsoft, said "How can you, as a CS major, advocate software piracy?" I told her that the greater threat to software developers came from anticompetitive practices by large corporations. That ended the conversation.

Piracy, per se, is not the evil here. Failing to reward software developers for their efforts, whether they develop free or proprietary software, is evil. The eight-year-old who uses emacs often should feel morally compelled to send off one of her piggy-bank quarters to the FSF; or better yet, should sit down and write some extensions to it.

This is why I liked Id's "guiltware," where they put up a splash screen talking about how disappointed your mom would be if she knew you were playing Wolfenstein without paying for it. The Id folks knew that withholding software from those who can't afford is it evil, but so is failing to pay money for software when you can afford it.

--

"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man

Re:The last time I heard this kind of debate... by Salamander · 1999-06-07 04:47 · Score: 1

>I told her that the greater threat to software developers came from anticompetitive practices by large corporations.

...not that that's relevant or anything. The presence of a larger threat does not make the smaller threat disappear.

>That ended the conversation.

Maybe she's just not into deprogramming Moonies and Robin Hood wannabes. Lord knows why I still try. ;-)

>Piracy, per se, is not the evil here. Failing to reward software developers for their efforts, whether they develop free or proprietary software, is evil.

Well put.

--
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.

Microsoft likes piracy (just doesn't know it) by MindStalker · 1999-06-07 12:47 · Score: 2

This about this, lets say noone pirated anything, but yet there existed some cheap and or free programs that could take place of the expensive software. Joe Shmo is building his own machine, he obviously can't spend a few hundred dollars on an operating system, and its basic word processors and internet applications, so he goes the cheap route and gets the cheaper clones. Now the cheap clones are everywhere and there amount of computers that have the expensive software is much smaller. Therefor the expensive software has much less of a chance of becoming the defacto standard, as the average person has probably seen the cheap software, and can use it. Imagine a monopoly like Microsoft with its high prices existing in an environment like this. Now switch it around where there is piracy and you have what we have today. Sounds to me like Microsoft is accually benifits from piracy?.. anyone agree?

Re:Piracy Stats by Pink+Puppy · 1999-06-07 08:28 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight. In order to protest that small percentage of a CD price that is paid to a band, you are going to obtain a free MP3 copy and cheat the band out of even that small amount?

And this seems logical to you?

Re:Piracy Stats by McFarlane · 1999-06-07 01:41 · Score: 1

I'll give it *anecdotal* backup.

I read/heard the same story in the Canadian media recently. I can't remember where - a couple of places probably. Chocolate bar worse than pirated software... yeah that was the story all right...

I assume by "candy bar" the original poster means "chocolate bar"... what the hell is this crypto-'merican "candy bar" crap? :-)

--
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]

Re:Linux/OSS: Open Sound Software by Le+douanier · 1999-06-07 03:33 · Score: 1

I think he was talking about the Open Sound Software driver for Linux, you can have the free version I have heard but you can also download a time-limited version and purchase it later.

For the "is it good to society to pirate" debate i want to say that I love Free Software but i think that people should have the choice to do Free Software or proprietary one and we (the users) must have the right to choose. Since all i want and need to do can be done using free software except games (that's an exception in the software market) I use Linux (grrrr, was using. I'm abroad without my computer and whitout any *NIX box around).

The game are an exception because you can quite easily change your office suite, your operating sstem,... but games are not about productivity but about fun. You can play many great games at the same time but you generally don't use many different office suite.

About stealing software one can argue that if the company make enough bucks on the non-stealed softwares then it helps this company to make more bucks because his application is more used. When you use an illegal MS Office suite you are strenghtening MS because you are helping them having quite a monopoly on the Office suite side. But that don't make this more legal of course.

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,

Re:Isn't forcing people to buy windows a theft? by Le+douanier · 1999-06-07 04:06 · Score: 1

I personnaly think that forcing people to buy a software with a computer without possibility of a refound (and when you need to struggle 4 months for a refund i don't call it a possibility but a nightmare) is stealing from me because I may not want this software(s) but i'm ofrced to own it.

This is the case for windows on the PC market and I wonder if this is the case on macintosh (can you have a refund if you use LinuxPPC???, has anybody ever tried???) but i think that the situation is a little bit different. On the PC market Windows is a product and the computer is a product but on the Macintosh market the whole system is the product, designed by one entity and sold by one entity (with a few cloners some time ago).

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,

Re:Arrrrrrrrrrrgh by Le+douanier · 1999-06-07 04:31 · Score: 1

"If someone pirates a CD that includes both commercial and free software (eg, Internet Explorer)"

Internet Explorer isn't a free software. In free software free mean liberty not price, in freeware free mean price not liberty, so IE is a freeware and not a free software (some could argue that using IE cost you other things that money and i agree but this isn't the point here).

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,

Re:What If.... by Merk · 1999-06-07 21:45 · Score: 1

Oh, but in the future we'd have portable fusion sources everywhere and replicators would be so common that they'd be incredibly cheap. People would probably buy their own replicators and use their own fusion generators to power them. The only thing they'd need to buy regularly is matter bricks they'd use to provide as raw materials for the replication process.

I'd imagine that the replicators would probably cost about $300 -- you know, about the price of a CD burner these days. And I bet the matter bricks would be pretty cheap, maybe $1 each?

So I guess when you wanted a Chocolate bar, you could borrow one from the store, pop it in the replicator, drop in a matter brick, replicate the chocolate, and bring the bar back to the store.

Now at first, Hershey would probably fight this tooth and nail. They'd try to ban replicators, try to make the government put special devices in them so they wouldn't copy chocolate bars. They'd probably also modify the chocolate bar in a way so that it contained un-replicatable substances.

Now eventually Hershey would realize the error of their ways. They'd still sell the old Hershey bars at the same price in stores, but they'd also set up some kind of system where you could download their bar patterns to the replicator directly, and pay a small fee for the use of this service.

For them it would be a perfect deal. Consumers without a replicator would buy it in the store, and they'd get their money through traditional means. Consumers with replicators could pay a tiny fee, amounting to 1/10 the store-bought price, but Hershey wouldn't have to worry about distribution, raw materials, and all the other traditional costs.

Now sure, you'd probably still have some people who refused to pay. They'd rig their systems so they could replicate what they wanted without paying. But most people, either through fear of the law, or through their own sense of what's right, would pay the small fee.

You'd probably also get some people who dislike the idea of paying at all. They'd come up with their own chocolate bar recipe, and distribute the replicator pattern for free. At first this bar would probably taste little better than a stick, but a few freaks would eat it. Eventually, with everyone tweaking the pattern it would compete with the for-fee patterns....

Re:Canadian commandos? by Merk · 1999-06-08 01:13 · Score: 1

Actually, I don't know about our commandos (last I heard they had been officially disbanded) but our pilots are great. I think it was a Canadian who won the last Top Gun.

It's a matter of respect by Smallest · 1999-06-07 04:15 · Score: 1

Piracy is a big middle finger to people who put the effort into creating useful software. It's the pirate saying "Fuck you and your laws and your right to make a profit. I can copy this app, so I will. I will post it on the Net for all of the world to take, as well. I am above reproach because I am saving the world from greed and crappy software". It is all total nonsense; the ravings of spoiled children and future criminals.

Creating software takes skill and knowledge in a very specific area. And this knowledge and these skills are not things you find in the general population. I don't walk around telling carpenters that they should build houses for free and I don't expect software to be handed to me for free.

Neither should you

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Re:Copying and theft are /*NOT*/ the same! by Smallest · 1999-06-07 04:24 · Score: 1

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.

Software is not a right. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. It's really that simple.

I don't write software so that you can get a better job. I write it because it is my job. If I don't get paid because people think they are above upholding their end of the deal, I don't eat. It's that simple.

You don't deserve software. It isn't a right. The privilege of software use is not guaranteed anywhere. Software is not an entitlement.

Like it or not, you are breaking the law. You cannot disguise it behind the fact that bits are hard to hold onto.

Someone puts in effort, you use the resulting product, but only if you fuphold your end of the bargain. It's that simple.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

no, really Re:It's a matter of respect by Smallest · 1999-06-07 22:39 · Score: 1

assume i wrote an app that prints a $50 bill every time the return key is pressed. and, assume i want to charge $100 for it. (also assume the bills are real, and that i don't want to use the app to generate money - i want to collect the registration fees, instead).

do you seriously believe it won't be cracked within hours of being released?

even though it would only take 2 presses of the return key to generate enough cash to cover the inital cost of purchasing the program, this $100 would be "too much" for some bored college student; and i would become the "greedy" capitalist that the little thieves would claim was making too much money from the registration fees.

deny it. i dare you.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Re:no, really Re:It's a matter of respect by Smallest · 1999-06-08 01:20 · Score: 1

That's not my point though. The point is (again) a lot of commercial software isn't worth money to some people anymore, therefore they won't pay for it because it's overpriced.

My point is that price has very little to do with it.

I have a couple of programs that I only charge $10 for. Even these are pirated. I don't know if there are free alternatives or not; and it doesn't matter.

My license agreement is clear : if you use my software, you must pay me. Not honoring that agreement because you don't feel like it shows a total disrespect for me, the law, the way society works, etc..

If people don't want to use it because there are free alternatives, fine. It does not give them the right to pirate my software.

Speaking of Economics, you should read Matt Ridley's The Origin of Virtue.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

Is Piracy wrong? by seth_hartbecke · 1999-06-07 04:07 · Score: 1

A few years ago I was into software piracy. Nothing too huge (I was not running Internet servers with pirated software) but my whole system (including OS) was pirated from friends and family.

I never thought much of it. In fact I enjoyed it, getting around anti-piracy software was a great challenge. I never thought I was hurting anybody. After all stealing software (and that is what piracy is) is not like stealing most other things. Most times when you steal something from somebody the person you stole it from will notice the absence of the object. However with software you can quickly (and most times easily) make a COPY! Nobody ever notices you took it from him or her.

The only thing that really stops the pirate is when they realize what they are doing. They are stealing...even if the owner does not realize it. When the pirate comes to a point of moral maturity in their life they will stop pirating. Because they realize it is wrong, period.

It comes down to the simple question of; will you seal something even if nobody notices?

This I think is the basic problem with piracy. Most people do not think piracy is wrong because most people do not identify it as steeling (because there is no missing object), and those who do know it to be steeling answer yes to the above question.

--
END

pirated source... by SKicker · 1999-06-07 09:34 · Score: 1

just a thought..

since a lot of warez is leaked from inside the developer of the software, how come we never see pirated source code?

guess the w4R3z kiddies wouldnt know what to do with it..

An unusual perspective by sjx · 1999-06-07 12:43 · Score: 2

I have, perhaps, a slightly unusual perspective upon this issue. I've seen "software pirates" present their views, and as users of "pirate" software (the term is misleading, but will suffice), they've done a pretty good job justifying this to themselves, I suppose.
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. :)...

--
-- /sjx.

Re: stealing a candy bar by Jburkholder · 1999-06-07 02:47 · Score: 1

Right. You assume that the recipient (sp?) of pirated software would not have purchased a legit copy, so the maker is not out any $$.

This may be true for typical warez leeches who pull off hundreds of dollars of Mickeysoft office suite software and install it and sit back and think "gee, I just ripped bigtime" but wouldn't have ever bought a real copy because a) they can't aford it b) they don't need it. (oversimplification).

But what about Vietnam? They had like, what, over 90% pirated software? Something tells me that a) some of these ppl could afford a legal copy b) some of these ppl are using this software out of a real need c) they would likely have to buy a legit copy were it not for available pirated copies. (no?)

Granted, if this is mostly MS software and they are bitching because of lost billions of revenue, I have little sympathy.

And another post said something to the effect that creating and selling proprietary software is immoral so stealing immoraly created products is less of a crime than stealing a candy bar. OK.

I'm not so sure I go along with this reasoning. After all, right or wrong, the software industry is largely built on the premise of closed-source proprietary software products for sale for profit. I won't go as far to say that software piracy takes the food away from programmer's family's tables, but for sure there is *some* loss of revenue to companies that affects the employees that work hard to make a buck.

Id believe it. by extrasolar · 1999-06-07 01:44 · Score: 1

Gee, Im glad Im not a pirate anymore. I was 15 years old and I used to want to learn to program. I didn't have Linux then and my alternatives where QBASIC, begging my parents for money, looking for really crappy free compilers, or getting a pirated version of turbo c. I didn't download it (I felt guilty) but I know I could of. So I ended up using QBASIC for all its worth.

Now I have a free development enviroment to learn on and download free quality software of the internet often. Them software pirates don't know what they are missing.

I do have the feeling the most pirated software is either games or QBASIC 4.0. Games, because you got the "I am so cool" group. And QBASIC 4 because so many people know QBASIC really good and they want to do real programming with it (QB 4 is a compiler). A lot of people have offered money to Microsoft for QB 4 but they refuse to sell.

So, software pirates, you have no reason to break the law now. If you don't want linux, fine. There are good free compilers for windows (DJGPP is pretty good, they made quake with it).

(Darn. This post is infocused isn't it. Ill do better later)

--

Re:Id believe it. by spectecjr · 1999-06-07 09:08 · Score: 1

What is kinda funny is that not too long ago (about 6 months) I saw a copy of QB4.5 at Fry's of all places - all nice and shrink wrapped! Guess how much it was selling for?

Would you believe $150.00?

I nearly fell over - I wouldn't give a pile of monkey brains for it! What was really funny was it was sitting next to an LE version of VB5 - which was selling for $99.00...

And the really funny thing is that Microsoft hasn't sold QuickBasic for YEARS!!!

I can't understand why M$ has to charge such over inflated prices for any of their compilers (ever seen the price for VB)? Too me, it seems like they do this out of elitism, to try and keep "shadetree" programmers from creating what they perceive as lower quality (read: less features) software for the masses...

Compare the prices to Borland / Symantec, and you'll see that they compare more than favorably...

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Id believe it. by cr0sh · 1999-06-07 03:20 · Score: 1

I have to agree with this - although I would put 3D Studio Max up there as well.

What is kinda funny is that not too long ago (about 6 months) I saw a copy of QB4.5 at Fry's of all places - all nice and shrink wrapped! Guess how much it was selling for?

Would you believe $150.00?

I nearly fell over - I wouldn't give a pile of monkey brains for it! What was really funny was it was sitting next to an LE version of VB5 - which was selling for $99.00...

I can't understand why M$ has to charge such over inflated prices for any of their compilers (ever seen the price for VB)? Too me, it seems like they do this out of elitism, to try and keep "shadetree" programmers from creating what they perceive as lower quality (read: less features) software for the masses...

They can bite me.

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

A take on morality by extrasolar · 1999-06-07 05:29 · Score: 1

>Pirating software is illegal. Period.

To gray such things even blurer...

Is something illegal always wrong? Is something wrong always illegal?

I am saying this because justifying something as wrong because it is illegal is not logical. The law doesn't define morality.

--

Good point. by extrasolar · 1999-06-07 06:04 · Score: 1

Too many of fail to realize that there are people who make software, not companies. We pay the corporations who pay the programmers. If we don't pay, guess who else don't get paid.

--

Myth of "lost revenue" by scotpurl · 1999-06-07 01:35 · Score: 2

I wish these folks would get past the myth that it's "lost revenue" if someone didn't pay for it. Multiplying the street price times the number of installed pirate copies does not equal the amount of revenue lost.

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:Myth of "lost revenue" by metalman · 1999-06-07 01:38 · Score: 1

But what if Company Y files for a 430? Then will
Company A and B have the same profit margin as a
monopolized Company X? Or will both Company A and B have revenues equal to that of Company Y's tax returns? Who knows...

What if I don't pay for shareware? by Jimhotep · 1999-06-07 01:53 · Score: 1

How much $$$ do shareware producers
lose each year???

Copying software = counterfeiting money by jonathanclark · 1999-06-07 08:53 · Score: 1

Copying software is like counterfeiting money. When you copy money you do not effect the economy in anyway until you try to trade with someone else. Same goes for software, if you have a legal copy of a piece of software and you copy it, you aren't hurting anyone. In fact US law specifically allows you to copy your own software. Once these copied items are transferred to someone else, inflation on a very small occurs because the value of everyone else's money/software has decreased. Not many people will argue that counterfeiting money is a bad thing. If everyone did this we would be back to trading in gold and sheep. So why is software "counterfeiting" so much more prevalent? All it takes is a decent color printer and a scanner to start making decent looking $20 bills. The government has a vested interest in protecting the monetary system, but does not care as much about software piracy. Money counterfeiting is treated as a very serious crime and copying of a single $1 bill will call the attention of the FBI and get an investigator assigned to the case. But I have not heard of a single case in recent history in which the FBI has arrested a warez web site owner. Usually it is the software industry that tries to shut down these sites, but almost never is an arrest made. If software piracy was made a serious crime it wouldn't be as prevalent, but that wouldn't solve the problem.

Another issue is that software has an inflation rate that is extremely high. Consider if you bought a $2000 software package today. Version 2.0 comes out in 9 months and that package has lost most of it's value. If you tried to sell it on ebay I doubt you could get half of what you paid for it. Often the value obtained from the use of the software is lost as well because you have to upgrade just to keep up with your competitors. This makes software a bad investment and people know that. If money lost value that quickly people would not use it. Software vendors counter this issue sometimes by offering free lifetime/limited time upgrades. But, even with lifetime upgrades inflation will come from competitors who offer similar but better products for lower prices. Free software is an extreme case of this.

Of course, the purpose of money and software are totally different. The analogy can only be carried out so far but I think it's one worth contemplating.

--
-- Virtual Windows Project

We're not all thieves by Bob-K · 1999-06-07 05:39 · Score: 1

If 40% of software is pirated, then it's likely that a substantial majority of users have at least a small amount of it on each of their computers. And experience tells me this is probably correct.

So are the majority of people dishonest beacuse of this? No. Many people who use a little bit of copied software are otherwise as honest as the day is long. It's unnatural to suggest that the mojority of the population are thieves, so perhaps what's wrong is the definition of thievery.

There is just something fndamentally unsound about a publisher's relationship with their customers when they're all considered potential suspects. It can't continue this way forever, and I really think that the rise of free software is in large part a market reaction to the bad customer relations that prevail in the software business (not to name names, but use your imagination). For years, they're been selling software and trying to give (limited) free support. Free software and paid support makes a lot more sense, when you think about it.

Funny you should mention that by Mr_Plow · 1999-06-07 03:50 · Score: 1

I met a guy at a coffee house who claimed (couldn' t verify it for you) that he worked at a certain high profile graphics software company we all know and love. He claimed that they (off the record) didn't mind when college students pirated their stuff because it meant that when they go into the working world, they will tell their employers that they'll need Illustrator and Photoshop. Students become dependent on Photoshop and Illustrator (or whatever )and therefore require legit licenses when they start getting paid for their efforts. Interesting view point.

It is lost income but in different ways. by D3 · 1999-06-07 03:00 · Score: 1

There was an interview with John Carmak back in the days when DOOM II was about to come out. They asked him about his feelings on the pirate copy situation. He said DOOM had about a 1% registration rate and that about 10 million copies had been registered. That is a lot of lost income.

Should a company be allowed to prosecute for someone stealing their stuff? Sure. Should they be allowed to invade our privacy (backdoors reporting to the mother company online) to find out people are doing it? I don't think so.

Also, consider the context here. They did a survey looking at China and Hong Kong where piracy is very different. I belive in the states we have piracy that amounts to one or two copies made for a friend. Not any less legal under the law. However, this (local copying) is not the same $Billon/year business as it is in other parts of the world where they are making 1000s of copies to be sold as the real thing.

--
Do really dense people warp space more than others?

Resolved, the new term is "bitlegging" by dublin · 1999-06-07 02:58 · Score: 1

It seems to me that we're talking more about bitleggers than bootleggers here, now aren't we?

Is there a second to the motion?

--
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post

I wish... by FlameSnyper · 1999-06-07 14:34 · Score: 1

I wish that since 99.9 percent of the piracy happens OVERSEAS we wouldn't freaking have to hear about it anymore.

We're all switching to free (as in beer) software ANYWAYS, so M$ needs to shut the hell up.

Sorry if this comes off childish, I'm tired of hearing it.

P.S. I work for a Microsoft Solutions Provider, and get all my Microsoft Software provided free of charge. So don't bother to tell me I'm pirating.

Re:I think OSS means... by JennyFreeman · 1999-06-07 05:22 · Score: 1

I had it free on suse until i upgraded to
2.2.5 then it stopped working :(

Piracy is good for MS by Sendy · 1999-06-07 17:05 · Score: 1

I think that software piracy is A Good Thing for MS. There are this big because of piracy.
No oridinary homeuser can afford $bigbucks for their sh*tty crap.
MS can stop piracy, by demanding that everyone who wants to use their crap, register and obtain a key from MS. Without the key the sh*t would not work. BUT if they do that, A-Lot-Of-People wouldn't use it anymore.
So free OSses win.

--
GNU guru and mainframe hacker

How do I pirate? Let me count the ways. by hey! · 1999-06-07 05:49 · Score: 1

Establishing a "piracy rate" is a neat little epistemological problem for a "piracy watchdog group".

Let's say you have reliable information that company X is pirating software. What do you do? You bust them. Therefore, they're no longer pirating.

This means your estimate has to be entirely made up of what's left over: unreliable information! As such, you can manipulate the results with a judicious application of hand waving.

I say this because 40% is a suspiciously politically convenient number. Suppose the number were 10%; people would say, "Gee, that's not too bad," and carry on doing whatever they were before. On the other hand, say the rate was 90% (more realistic in my view). Then the very few people (less than 10%) who are paying for full copies feel like idiots. 40% feels pretty optimal -- enough to get the stalwarts mad at the "pirates", but not enough to get them mad at the vendors.

Now, there's all kinds of piracy that's difficult to count, other than the garden variety buy one copy of Word for 100 computers kind.

First of all, there "upgrade piracy". An example is a company buys a new computer and gets a new license for certain software. Oops! It's a new version. File formats are different too. Can't get the old one anymore. This is kind of like the plumber fixing your toilet and announcing you have to buy new fixtures for everything in your house. Now, they could run different, marginally compatible versions ("Sure, you can run with the old fixtures, but the second floor toilet is going to back up!"). Nope, not viable. They could buy an upgrade for all their other machines (uh huh). They could copy the old software onto the new machine (very prinicpled, but still technically piracy). Or, they could just copy the new software onto the old computers. If the old versions had some odious bugs that are fixed by the new version, it's going to be mighty tempting.

Another interesting variety of pirating is EULA violation. Some versions of the NT Workstation EULA preclude running a web server. All version preclude running other kinds of servers other than web servers, and use as a web server has limitations too. So, you may have a legitimate _copy_ of the software, but you're using it in a way that violates the EULA, if you can understand it.

This points to the third form of piracy, which is confusion piracy. I've had situations where I bought multiple development suites from a developer with upgrade contracts, had the names of the suites and constituent products changed; had some components switched from one suite to another as part of an upgrade, never received upgrades to one of the suites although its componets do have updates. If I buy a suite with a service contract, and all the components are updated, but I dont' receive the suite upgrade, can I copy an upgraded package from another suite to a machine running the other suite? Probably not, but it wouldn't offend my sense of justice. In some cases significant EULA restrictions were added even though I prepaid the upgrade unde the old EULA which didn't mention it could be revised. Do they really apply?

Frankly, although I try to be "legit", I've given up trying to figure it out by now.

This is a powerful argument for OSS, where your rights are very clear and understandable. I'll take GPL for clarity over any EULA I've ever read.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Libraries == (legal) Book Pirating by hey! · 1999-06-07 21:17 · Score: 1

Magazines don't make money from user fees; they make money from advertising. Library subscriptions are implicitly figured into advertising rates. You actually save money for the publisher when you read the copy in the library.

If I read a book at the library, the publisher doesn't get any additional income; however, the publisher does get revenue for the copy I use. Furthermore, because Libraries rarely can afford to have enough copies of the "hot" titles, libraries in effect promote copy buying. This would not happen were it not inconvenient and generally unsatisfactory for an end user to make copies of a book. Because of the difficulty in copying a book, one needs expend little effort in establishing legal or voluntary compliance with copyright.

In the software case it is generally quite convenient and satisfactory to make copies (indeed software is not functional unless certain copies are made), so in the absence of practical barriers to infringement, enforcement must be either legal or voluntary. Legal control is difficult, expensive, and bad PR, so really for the most part its just an empty threat. Thus, the sector of the software industry which makes money from licensing relies upon voluntary compliance. Thus we have press releases from "watchdog" groups and an occaisional, but rare case of a copier who is "made an example of." It's hard to believe this position is sustainable in the long run.

What this really raises the question of is whether copyright (while legal and arguably moral) is a practical business strategy (Microsoft's short term success notwithsanding). The problem with software is that it really doesn't fit the copyright legal and business models very well, but we've kluged together an industry using IP concepts designed mainly for printed matter.

The software industry implicitly concur with this position, in that they wish to extend their control over your usage of their IP through EULAS that limit your ability to transfer the software to a third party, decompile the software, or in some case use the software on a multiprocessor machine. It would be analagous to a book publisher saying that you couldn't lend a friend your copy of a book, or requiring special fees to discuss the book in your local book club, or charging double unless you agreed to read the book with one eye closed.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Closed source is the equivalent of communism. by hey! · 1999-06-08 01:30 · Score: 1

Open source is not the end of software development as a business.

Item 1:Economics tells us that if the consumption of two products are linked, then a price drop in one product increases the demand for the other. Example: if the price of DVD Rom players goes down, the demand for DVD ROMS goes up. So, if the price of operating systems and development tools goes down to zero, the demand for custom programming, support, training, and penguin t-shirts goes up.

Item 2: Sometimes price drops result in more overall spending. Example: Companies spend more on computer hardware now that it costs order $1K than when it cost order $20K.

If software license costs go down, IT budgets will go up, because the marginal productivity of the other investments go up. This means more jobs for many people, but mostly programmers. This will include custom vertical market application development, software maintenance, and embedded systems (e.g. programming telephone systems, PDAs and other informatics appliances).

Item 3: Under closed source, competition is constrained, because once a company commits to a platform (say SqlServer), they're locked in to the vendor. The vendor can wield monopololistic control over support, upgrades, bug fixes and in some cases other IT acquisitions.

It's striking how much being in the embrace of a vendor like Microsoft resembles being in a communist dictatorship. Pretty much they do the minimum for you that they have to to prevent open revolt (how many well known security holes are floating around in NT?), but then spend humungous amounts of money trying to conquer the people not under their sway.

Under open source, competition continues through the whole systems life cycle. You can switch consultants, hire new programmers, anything you want.

One of the problems with terms like "Open Source" and "free software" is that they mislead people into thinking that there is a reliance on pure (and therefore impractical) altruism. It would be clearer to use terminology which describes revenue models rather than software or source code:

Open Source: service revenue model
Vanilla Closed Source: copy restriction revenue model.
Closed source with EULA: usage restriction revenue model.

There. In a nutshell, the significant business differences between open source and closed source.

If Linux or some other free OS ever does gain total world domination (in other words, unseats Microsoft), it won't be because of any technical details, but because of the advantages to the consumer of a service based revenue model over a usage restriction revenue model.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

My Point Of View by zmooc · 1999-06-07 16:48 · Score: 1

I think most people who use pirated software won't spend money on software anyway; if they can get the software for free, they get it...if they cannot then they simply don't use it. Pirated software is usually not used because people need it, but because they happen to have it. Because of the fact that they won't spend money on it anyway, the company that produced it doesn't suffer from it.

--
0x or or snor perron?!

Re:Economically, Linux/OSS is the same as 100% pir by Vrongar · 1999-06-07 17:36 · Score: 1

And Malaysia has been such a SHINING example when it comes to enforcing copyright!

If I couldn't afford the software anyway, what is the moral issue with using a pirate copy? Who has lost out?

Quebec can merge with Louisiana by Yojo · 1999-06-07 05:38 · Score: 1

The same folks who founded Quebec also founded
Louisiana. The legal code for Lousiana is
much more similar to Quebec and France than
it is to any of the other states in the US.

Re:What If.... by jlloyd · 1999-06-07 08:22 · Score: 1

What if it wasn't like this and that the costs for reproduction were as easy as it is for software now?

So you're saying that there would be absolutely no cost to duplicate anything? All of the energy and matter is free? In that case, no one would need to work at all, and the need for a currency disappears entirely. So yes, everything would be free.

But if you think that's an excuse for saying that all software should be free now, you're crazy.

Indonesia, china and Vietnam ?? by Jagungal · 1999-06-07 05:03 · Score: 1

It's pretty lame when they are adding these places in with thier statistics. The cost of buying US made software in these countries is astronomical if you look at the average wage.

Re: stealing a candy bar by gorilla · 1999-06-07 01:47 · Score: 2

One important point is that when you steal a candy bar, the original owner no longer has a candy bar.

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 by hawkestein · 1999-06-07 09:05 · Score: 2

The difference between software piracy and more conventional theft (like shoplifting), is the difference between 'harming' another and 'wronging' another.

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!)
--------

--
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?

Re:Piracy Stats by Grendel+Drago · 1999-06-07 03:55 · Score: 2

Don't bring MP3 into this.

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

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Various "laws" by Deega · 1999-06-07 02:46 · Score: 1

Say, for some strange reason, everyone started wearing pink foam clown noses. Everyone in the world jumps on this, it's the latest craze. Next thing you know, you are the only one left not wearing a pink foam clown nose. Well, why aren't you wearing one? Because it looks stupid of course. You keep this maverick attitude until it becomes too complicated to fight it, so you get your own pink foam clown nose. You are assimilated.

What's the speed limit again? Shea right!

Simple property of reality: Take the path of least resistance. Does a river care if a town is in it's way? People need to wake up and realise that while we (humans) may be the smartest of the monkeys, that does not make us transcend reality. We are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. Software piracy will continue until it is no longer the path of least resistance.

Speaking of which: What ever happened to copy protection schemes? The C64 had some games that were a bitch to copy. What about dongles? Anything to make the road of piracy bumpier. They just make it too damn easy to pirate things nowadays.

Hold it you by Richard+Head · 1999-06-07 15:46 · Score: 1

Ok as a student I copied Autocad 12... Pireted that sucker right off! then I learned from it... I used the pirated copy until Autodesk came out with an affordable version... (Dad... can I have 2 grand to buy a program?) Now they basically give it to students.. (About time you morons!) how about engineering software? EET students HAVE to pirate the software to learn.. they cant spend from $500.00 to almost $13,000.00 for the design software to learn on.. the software companies are too stupid to make affordable versions for students so we have to copy it. Go to school to learn Oracle... are you going to spend $3000.00 to buy it??? but you cant learn without having it.. and using the schools computers is out of the question... everyone knows that you cant get squat done on the schools pc's.

The real crime is in the workplace... the municipality I work for, bought 1 copy of office97 from staples and now it runs on all the computers in the office.... and why do all of them have the same Serial number??

So yes there are legitimate reasons to pirate... to Learn because the company that writes the software was too stupid or greedy to get the stuff in the students hands. (and stupid is the #1 reason!!!!)

Re:Off-topic, but fun - toronto by Richard+Head · 1999-06-07 16:09 · Score: 1

have you been to toronto lately??
Gawd.. yes the subway is clean but I havent seen so much poverty in my life! I gave a few toonies to a street bum and a couple looked at me and mumbled "american tourist" so I sat across the street and watched.... NOONE was giving any money to the homless or deprived... Gawd, there's teens that live on the street there, I asked one why arent they in the nice socalist shelter that the wonderful socalist system that Canada is would provide... thay said that what little there was is full, and seeing a doctor is futile unless you are dying.

Yes they act like they are more civilized.... but when you watch the Canadians in Toronto they forsake those that are on hard times....

civilized, and they dont give to the poor... Give me good ol' violent and corrupt USA any day.

a thought on piracy... by Morpheous · 1999-06-07 13:23 · Score: 1

I believe that developers should be compensated for their time and energy. However, I must admit that I've got a few pieces of software of "dubious" legality. I think there are many factors that make piracy seem attractive. For instance, while in college and poor, I viewed a copied CD as perhaps my only chance to have a certain piece of software. Is this right? No. Now that I am in the work force, I can be honest and register my shareware, buy the CDs, etc. The ease with which software can be copied, and the "I gotta have it NOW" mentality have also contributed to piracy. I think that yet another reason is that some software is a real rip-off (such as paying for a Windows "Second Edition" that is really a service pack), or priced exhorbitantly. I do take offense to some of the sanctimonious bastards who have taken this as an opportunity to preach to all of us "sinners". I find it hard to believe that NO ONE here has ever made a copy of a friend's cassette tape, or maybe a movie rental, or "borrowed" some choice material for a research paper, etc... My point is, "he who is without sin should cast the first stone". In other words, be honest please!!! It is a morally "grey" area, and easy to circumvent if desired. Anyway, just my ramblings... feel free to disregard them.

--"A man's Palm is his best friend."

--

--"A man's Palm is his best friend."
(IIIx, that is...hehehe)

Theft, Property Rights, Authority, Justice by Chandon+Seldon · 1999-06-07 04:58 · Score: 1

None of these things are "Real" things. They are all just abstractions made up by humans to deal with life. Sometimes it makes sense to ignore them.

When I consider a course of action, I consider the following points:

Does this course of action gain me anything?
Does this course of action hurt anyone?
Does it gain anyone else anything?
Are there any potential consequences, eithor harmful or benificial?
Does the potential gain outweigh the harm?

Whether or not my action is illegal isn't relevent, it's WHY is it illegal! For an argument against the intelectual property laws see a certain paper written by one Richard Stallman.

Pirating software that I wouldn't buy anyway usualy ends up gaining me more than it would harm anyone with a minimum of posible non-benificial repercussions.

The fact of illegality is not sufficient to prevent me from doing something. In Massachusetts, where I live, fireworks are illegal . . . if I thought differently than I did the 4th of July would be pretty booring.

--
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.

Re:You are a part of the problem too by Airneil · 1999-06-07 07:04 · Score: 1

I doubt if the Canadians would want to be Americans, and I can't fault them for that, either.

Actually, I thought we all lived on the continent of North America, making both U.S. citizens and Canadians, "Americans".

Brazilians are "Americans" too. So are Argentinians, Chilians, etc.

Re: "didn't gain anything" by lost_it · 1999-06-07 08:17 · Score: 1

According to this theory, you wouldn't have a problem with the following scenario:

Joe Smith tries out Linux, Apache, and Samba and thinks to himself, "A lot of people could use this combination, maybe even pay for it." So he writes out a little bit of code to "tie" the different services together and add some features, compiles the code, and sells the end product.

He is obviously within his rights because he did not steal or destroy the original source code of other programmers. The OSS people would protest because he broke their license, but that matters not.

I'm quite sure that this is not what you meant, but I'm having trouble seeing the difference. Could someone (preferably the author) clear this up for me??

Re: stealing a candy bar by gonzocanuck · 1999-06-07 01:59 · Score: 1

Count me in. I would never steal a candy bar, but
I might consider copying software (and I never have actually...). The exchange rate is painfully expensive.

But what does the statement, "They're Cdns, what do you expect?" mean exactly? If the person had mentioned that the poll came from England, or New Zealand, or South Africa, would it illicit the same response?

When This Hour Has 22 Minutes managed to get Americans to say things like "Congratulations Canada, on your 100th mile of paved road" or "Welcome to Canada King Lucien" I laughed so hard my sides hurt for days. Especially funny was the guy who told a friend of mine that he should take his licence plate back, since they spelt "Montana" wrong. He's from Manitoba...

They were Americans. What else could I expect?
;-)

--

Off-topic, but fun by Inhume · 1999-06-07 02:33 · Score: 0

I know I'm gonna get slagged for this, but I think you're more right than you know. It's my belief that if Quebec secedes from the rest of the country, Canada is effectively finished. The remaining provinces would, in all likelihood, petition the US for statehood. Think about it for a minute. The Western/Prairie provinces have been griping for years about underrepresentation in Parliament, and feel slighted (and rightly so) vis-a-vis Quebec and Ontario. The Maritimes are small and economically stagnant, and would have a very rough go of it on their own, or seperated from the rest of the country by Quebec. The only remaining viable state is Ontario, which can hardly be said to possess a level of national indentity equal to Quebec, and thus has little reason to remain independent, especially if Alberta, BC, et. al. leave. They've been a cultural, political, and economic satellite for years; if Quebec leaves I don't they can escape the gravitational pull of the US. Who knows, I could be wrong...

Re:Piracy Stats by Inhume · 1999-06-07 01:29 · Score: 1

I hope I'm not being naive, but is this true? If so, can you provide a URL or name and date of publication that provided this statement? I'm interested in seeing figures.

Re:Who cares? by Carlos+Rego · 1999-06-07 03:03 · Score: 1

I agree with you, I myslef have Lots of programs that came from ftp sites instead of the store, but I pay 49.99 for my SuSE and didn't even tought about it twice, there is 1.99 versions of it, but indeed SOME software is worth supporting.

Re:Way underevaluated by Betcour · 1999-06-07 02:00 · Score: 1

Well, as for home-user applications, most freeware/sharewares do the job. Sharewares are usually reasonably priced for home users. Why pirated Photoshop when all your home-user stuff can be done with Gimp or Paint Shop Pro ?

As for games, you are right, but why are games so expensives ? It sounds silly to me to ask over 50$ for a video game you are going to play 20-30 hours. Since these are mostly targetted at kids/students, these prices seems well to high.

When a standard game will cost 10$, most people will stop pirating it and go with a real one. Most people are ready to pay a little more to get a manual and all the videos and goodies you get with the real CD (not some shrunk down game on RAR archives).

Way underevaluated by Betcour · 1999-06-07 01:39 · Score: 2

I really believe there are MUCH more pirated software than that. Almost all computers I have seen in my life had pirated software on it, and I have seen a lot ! Then I live in France so this might be more a problem here than in the US, but people who have NEVER used a pirated software probably have never used a computer either. And remember that using a shareware past its evalutation period is piracy too... Wonder why all those CD burner are selling like hotcakes... peoples seems to have such high backup needs ;-)

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...).

Re:Moral Issues and Respect by bbecker · 1999-06-08 02:21 · Score: 1

My point was that the value of something is based in large part upon the efforts it took to make it accessible and useful to a consumer. Gold 500 feet under a mountain has little value - it's not doing anybody any good. Purified gold in the hands of a jeweler has value. A CD-ROM with randomized bits has essentially no value. A CD-ROM encoding software that allows me to do something useful has value, and the people responsible for giving it value deserve the right to expect compensation (in terms of money, reputation, or otherwise) from their efforts if they so choose. 'Information' may not be rare, but 'useful information' is hardly in limitless supply, and it takes effort (sometimes a lot of effort) to extract it - and I don't think anyone would propose that the supply of time and effort is infinite. My argument isn't one of pure economics, more one of responsibility and moral issues. Practically, I think you have some valid points - it's definitely harder to control the output of a software developer than a gold miner, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But let's face it. As you minimize the rewards to those that work in an information field, you minimize the motivation of people to create new things or to make existing ones better. Don't get me wrong. I'm not standing up for corporate policy of price-gouging, and I'm all for timed 'trial periods' and demos - they're a great way to expose people to software (or music, or movies, etc.). It's just simply this: taking and using products that you're explicitly expected to pay for is refusing to compensate people for their work. I am against that, both on a moral and economic level.

Moral Issues and Respect by bbecker · 1999-06-07 05:44 · Score: 2

Let's face it. Software piracy IS illegal, but more importantly, it IS 'wrong'. Very little, if anything, has intrinsic economic value. Take gold for example. It supposedly has value because it's rare. But there are tons upon tons of it out there for the taking. When you buy a bar of gold, you're paying the people who went to the trouble to locate, mine, and process the gold. You're saying 'your time and efforts are worth this much to me.' The basics are the same for software. You pay others for the efforts they've put into developing it. Yes, it doesn't appear as if you're taking anything away from them when you copy their software, but here's what you're saying when you do this:

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.

Free - At Last! by The+Original+Bobski · 1999-06-07 07:34 · Score: 1

All I can say is that ever since I accidentally blew my Winblows parition away (which, btw, won't be making a return appearance) I've not a single "pirated" copy of anything for the first time in probably 25 years. Boy, does it feel good!

--
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.

Piracy Stats by Digital_Fusion · 1999-06-07 01:25 · Score: 3

A recent poll of Canadians showed that the majority of people thought that stealing a candy bar was worse than software piracy...

Re:Piracy Stats by alphamale · 1999-06-07 02:33 · Score: 1

I saw it in Edmonton's SEE Magazine, making reference to The Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST). I'm too lazy to check out the site, but that's where it'd be.
Re:Piracy Stats by juggleme · 1999-06-07 16:36 · Score: 1

I don't buy new CDs, but I do buy used. Of course this is much more related to my current financial situation, YMMV. Maybe something to consider if you need the parts you can't hear and/or have better uses for your bandwidth. :)

Confessions of a Windows Pirate by SirWinston · 1999-06-07 14:20 · Score: 1

I am a minority here: a Windows user. Not that I like it, mind you; I just lack the ability to use the current generation of Linux distros, having met computers in the GUI age and utterly lacking in the ability to learn more than the most basic command line uses. It's not a cop-out; I've always been a liberal artist lacking in math and similar skills: in college, A's in English, D+ in math, and I'm smart enough to have avoided computer science due to my own shortcomings and specialties.

So, I'm stuck with Windows. I can't use Be because my hardware's not supported and, anyway, my computer's in an open place and I need transparent disk encryption which I can't find for Be--wouldn't want anyone who knows me to stumble across those scans of me and the girlfriend, my 10-meg e-mail archive, or (yikes) my collection of Barbra Streisand lyrics.

Meaning, of course, that I'm stuck with Windows software, too. Expensive Windows software. Whereas you can just use the free Gimp to retouch those pics and create graphics, I have to either violate my 30-day evaluation license for Paint Shop Pro or pony up money I don't have (poor student syndrome), or just go without. $99.95 may not be that much, but to some people it is (I was stuck with an ancient 486 with 8megs RAM until a month ago, a miracle but I *did* run PSP well enough), and add that to $449.00 for the only video capture program I can get to work with my off-the-wall hand-me-down capture card, $40.00 for an AVI-to-Mpeg converter, $39.95 for a good Windows newsreader, $35.00 for a decent mass jpeg/gif viewer, etc., not to mention the "minor" stuff I hardly ever use, like $35.00 for an unRARing app. Hmmm, my computer cost less than what I just listed. Not many people write good free software for Windows, it's all $$$. PGP and ScramDisk are two of the few exceptions I can think of. So, should I go without, or bend those demo licenses in the knowledge that I really *can't* afford to buy the software? Yeah, most of it isn't *necessary* software--I don't really need to use that free video capture card, but I do like to use it to share things with certain newsgroups and sites. Same goes for the pics I make with Paint Shop and the home page some of those graphics land on. No, I don't *need* to have what's in those RARs, and I could always open pictures ponderously with Netscape. But, I'm not talking about purely recreational "gamez" either--I'm talking about useful software the lack of which would effectively curtail my ability to make my homepage livable and otherwise indulge my audiovisual Internet and Usenet expression.

But, since the software is available, and it costs no one anything for someone who can't afford it to not register it, why not? It can't really be called stealing, because it costs no one anything for me to download it--CNET wants those site hits anyway--and there is an unlimited supply, and again I honestly don't have the money to register it. I posit this: if I had the money to register and didn't, *then* it would be equivalent to theft.

Yes, I understand that programming is a tough job--well beyond my abilities--and that the companies who release these products need to make enough to pay employees' well-deserved salaries. But, without a lot of quality free programming going on for Windows, and without the technical abilities to switch over to this generation of Linux (though much of my old hardware, like the capture board, would probably be useless under it anyway), I am stuck with the choice between being a "benign" pirate or going without. Well, all I can say is: "there is honor even among [some] pirates." Meanwhile, I anxiously await the day when a GUI-loving, technically-inept fellow like myself can use Linux... Maybe Corel will help...

--
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson

Libraries == (legal) Book Pirating by Coward,+Anonymous · 1999-06-07 16:45 · Score: 1

Libraries exist so that we can read books and magazines without having to pay for them. Does this hurt the publishing companies? I'm sure it does, when I was in college I used to read magazines at the library that I would have had to subscribe to otherwise. There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between pirating a program to avoid paying for it, or reading a book/magazine at a library to avoid paying for it. Certainly there is a large legal difference since one is legal and the other is not, but can you imagine a system in which you were required to pay for every book and every magazine you needed to use? Why should it be any different for software?

We all seem to accept that we should not have to pay to read a book or magazine which a company has spent money to put together, but many people seem to think that we should have to pay to use software which a company has spent money to put together, I fail to see the difference. Yeah, one is legal and one isn't, but legality has nothing to do with morality.

If you think it's wrong for me to pirate software, do you think it's wrong for me to read pc magazine at the library to avoid paying for it? Is there any difference between using the library's encyclopedia to help with research paper and pirating a word processor to help with a research paper?

You are a part of the problem too by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 02:06 · Score: 0

What is with all this US vs Canada bs anyway? We have so much in common that it is surprising that we haven't become one country. The only ones who would always oppose this would probabably be the Quebecois (however you spell it).

--
---Got Coffee?---

Clueless fuck you are by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 09:26 · Score: 0

How can I, a teen almost 16 year olds, afford photoshop? I have used gimp before and I am not all that impressed with the exception of net-fu. I bought my copy of BeOS r4 at full price, but I got a friend to burn me a copy of NT (NT's own installer couldn't find the fucking partition it had prepared!!!!). That didn't cost M$ anything. They didn't lose money on it. They didn't have to pay for packaging, etc. R&D maybe, but considering the fact that M$ spends so little on R&D I doubt they would miss $300 when they have around a 40-60% growth rate in sales and they are already making $6.4 billion on office 97, and that doesn't even count Windows, VC++, VB, Project, etc!!! Oh and when I get my laptop this summer I will call Be and talk to them about buying another license for BeOS, something which I would never even consider doing with Windows.

--
---Got Coffee?---

Who cares? by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 02:13 · Score: 1

As long as upstarts like Be and nullsoft get enough cash to continue working comfortably and even grow (company size) then what's the big deal? Marketshare is more important because you can milk it for all its worth, that's what M$ does with businesses. Does anyone honestly think that M$ is concerned about piracy these days? No, because all they have to do is raise the price for their corporate oriented software like office and they recoup the money and no one bitches except for us (the minority unfortunately) (M$ is just an example). I have Photoshop 5, Office 97 pro, cf studio 4 pro, cf 4 enterprise server (that server is worth around $3,600) and lots of other high priced goodies, but guess what? I paid full price for BeOS and I probably going to do the same for audiocatalyst and winamp this summer because they make software worth supporting.

--
---Got Coffee?---

I am already there........ by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 06:28 · Score: 1

I am an American, and I live in the US so how could I move to the US when I am already *HERE*?

--
---Got Coffee?---

Canadian commandos? by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 06:31 · Score: 1

Let's see them fight some green berets or navy seals. Oh and maybe we should give the delta force some more target practice. Since the delta force has killed most of the big terrorists, it is probably bored and needs some entertainment.

--
---Got Coffee?---

I got a plan....... by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 06:33 · Score: 1

Anyone REALLY good a perl read slashdot? Write a perl script which orders 10,000 aol cds and we can have a cd war and enough coasters for life!!!

--
---Got Coffee?---

Their stats are flawed anyway by agtofchaos · 1999-06-07 09:31 · Score: 1

They lost billions in potential revenues. The same argument could be made that columbian drug cartels lose potential revenue whenever local gangs like the bloods and crips start selling drugs.

--
---Got Coffee?---

I think OSS means... by Giant+Robot · 1999-06-07 03:11 · Score: 1

... "Open Sound System" in this context.

(I got it free from SUSE!)

The solution to piracy... by Enoch+Root · 1999-06-07 02:12 · Score: 1

...is to install Linux. Sure, it doesn't cost a penny more to install Linux, but you can stop being paranoid about Micro$oft poking around your hard drive.

I bet the software piracy ratio would drop radically as Linux gains supporters. And then, big companies will no longer be able to justify to sell us outrageously expensive software by saying they have to compensate for software piracy.

I mean, come on! Ok, so my copy of Photoshop is pirated, but do you really think I would pay $600 for a license? I prefer to switch to GIMP (which is what I did.)

Bottom line: companies claim prices are high because of piracy. I say it's the other way around.

"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

What If.... by TrevorB · 1999-06-07 03:24 · Score: 1

What if in the distant future, we had the ability to replicate physical objects, either by copying an original or storing it digitally, and creating it out of component atoms (ala StarTrek)? You could but a chocole bar and copy it and give it to all your friends.

Would Hershey sue for Chocolate Bar piracy?

Would it be illegal to replicate the chocolate bar? Immoral?

Would there be Open Source Chocolate?

the college experience by RimRod · 1999-06-07 06:07 · Score: 1

Frankly, I'm surprised I hadn't heard this train of thought before on this topic: I just finished up my freshman year at a the University of Illinois, which has a fairly good ethernet system for the public residence halls (and some of the private ones as well). The network was configured such that you could access just about anyone else's shared directories who was in the dorms. Not everyone knew how to do this, but I'd estimate
that at least 5000 PCs were logged in at any given time.

Out of the 5000, perhaps half of those users knew enough about computers to set up shared directories.

Out of the remaining 2500, 95% of them had MP3s in the shared directory. And a LOT of them at that. Having 100+ files on the network wasn't uncommon at all. While i realize that music piracy is somewhat different than software piracy, the "perceived" effect on their respective industries is similar. Frankly, I can't see myself bying a music CD anytime in the near future. Recently, I thought about picking up the new Star Wars soundtrack while in the mall until i realized i could just go home and get them all in under 2 minutes. Software piracy is still for users "in
the know"--with a medium-speed connection, it can still take hours to get the latest games or applications, something most casual users don't
have the time or patience for. MP3s are compact, terrific quality, and easily accessible.

Software piracy has been going on for years--it's becoming much more prevailent now, but it's been there for decades. MP3s are a relatively new phenomenon, and one that have the music companies somewhat scared. I don't remember which company it was, but I recently saw an article in the newspaper where a bigshot at one of the major labels was complaining that it was getting harder and harder to target MP3 sites because it was moving OFF the college campuses and into "general" america--i.e. adults.

2/5 of software may be pirated, according to this article, but that number is rising slowly. I wouldn't be surprised if MP3s are at that mark
already; and it's certain that the percentage is steeply rising.

--
- ...and remember, you can't invade Brainania. It's not on the big map.

Re:the college experience by RimRod · 1999-06-07 11:31 · Score: 1

Glad you agreed with MOST of my point :)

Anyway, if you plug top-of-the-line speakers into your computer, then I can see being slightly irritated at the quality of MP3s (like anything else, some are near-perfect and some are quite horrible), but on the whole, I believe it's a viable alternative that more and more people are plugging into. With standard PC speakers, I usually don't detect enough of a difference to detract from the listening experience. Especially, like you said, if it's just for background entertainment :)

--
- ...and remember, you can't invade Brainania. It's not on the big map.

This study is useless to me! How about... by Greyfox · 1999-06-07 03:25 · Score: 1

How about this for a study. Since piracy is resulting in X amount of dollars to the software companies, how much financial damage is Open Source doing to those companies? Surely you could calculate it in much the same way -- if X boxes are running Linux now and could be running Windows, multiply the costs per box and work it all out. You'd probably have to break it down for applications and all. And I'd like to see this data on a per region basis just like this.

Yes, I realize that both studies would be equally useless for the same reason, but it would be kind of neat.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Slashdot Mirror

2/5 of All Software is Pirated

503 comments