Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the but-none-of-mine dept.
Billy_Ray writes "A study came out that states that 2/5 of all installed software is pirated. Check it out:
The Story "
Since the loki guys gave me a copy of Civ CTP, I no longer
have any pirated software on my box. So I'm in the majority.
Yippee.
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.
There aren't many pirates left.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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
Glith
·
· 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.
Your 'piracy' is not OK, though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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!!!
Article neglects legality of piracy where surveyed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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.
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.
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
·
· 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
·
· Score: 2
Maybe the shrinkwrap market needs to get over their model of one price = unlimited use.
For example, I know people who do Photoshop work all day, every day. Their company would probably pay $5000 for Photoshop, because they need it. One the other hand, some people use Photoshop to touch up little web graphics (which admittedly they could do with gimp or shareware). Yet Adobe charges both crowds the same $600. This is obviously unacceptable for the low-end of the market, so the honest people scramble to produce free or low-cost alternatives (like the gimp), and the dishonest people just pirate.
Perhaps some sort of CPU-usage accounting model needs to be resurrected. I'd love to have Photoshop as a tool if it only cost me a few dollars now and again. As it is, I'm forced to learn and use other software which is not as good. --
Re:The mathematics of "piracy"
by
IntlHarvester
·
· 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. --
Several Bootlegging Issues
by
Frater+219
·
· 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!
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.
Re:"Losing" Money to Piracy
by
Smallest
·
· 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
·
· 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.
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."
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.
Semantic shifts win minds
by
MenTaLguY
·
· 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. ---
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My 'piracy' is GOOD for the industry!
by
Zen
·
· 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
yek401
·
· 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
rm+-rf+/etc/*
·
· 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?
RMS disagrees with that principle, and so do I
by
Musc
·
· 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
Absolutely - Recall the great copy protection battles of the 1980s, where commercial software companies essentially admitted that piracy was an acceptable loss.
As the software market has gone international, and it turns out that 90% of the software in some places is pirated, guess what? Microsoft and others *still* think its an acceptable loss. If they didn't, they'd be copy protecting the stuff up to the hilt. (They even considered this seriously for Office 2000, but dropped the idea, if I heard correctly.)
Microsoft has the all the cost and benifits of being the standard. This includes being able to charge US customers $1000 for the full version of MS Office 2000, but also implys mass piracy. Lotus and Corel already have their prices down to $200 or so - busting the 3rd world pirates puts the fastest growing parts of the world economy right into their hands. No piracy means MS has to be price competitive.
Don't forget the free advertising factor either. I wish I had the reference handy, but in the old days when WordPerfect had 80% market share, someone from Microsoft essentially admitted that each pirated copy of MS Word was acceptable because it was meant an additonal Windows and Office user.
Re: stealing a candy bar
by
IntlHarvester
·
· 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. --
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.
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.
it's simple differential pricing
by
jetson123
·
· 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...
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.
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
Microsoft likes piracy (just doesn't know it)
by
MindStalker
·
· 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?
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.:)...
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.)
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?
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
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...).
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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
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!
(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.)
... what a great opportunity to recommend free software!
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
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.
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."
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.
> 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...
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.)
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
OSS is the *only* pirated software on my Linux box.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
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
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?
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.
--
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.)
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.
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?
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
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...).
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.
A recent poll of Canadians showed that the majority of people thought that stealing a candy bar was worse than software piracy...