What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

ElDiablo says : Microsoft will get what they deserve in court...

Another point on which we do not agree. I don't think the law has kept up with technology.

And you say that one should take risks and become rich... you fail to understand the word risk. I took risks. I lost my shirt. I'll do it again after I buy back my shirt.

You say we should try and make a difference instead of whining in a chat room. ... Bills don't go anywhere without popular support. Lobbying is in part getting common people to see the problem and to desire change. A bill (law) supported by only one man always dies. Only when a lot of people understand a problem will they seek a solution. This post, this conversation with my peers, is part of my plan to make change.

My final view is that everything is shareware, whether the company tells me it is or not. And that's about as on topic as I think I can be.

I'll attempt to not post here again, so that I can change my sig :) But one last note to ElDiablo: I like you, your heart seems to be in the right place, but I think you talk more than you listen.
 
Again... What do you want to change with bills or laws? Do you want to make copying copyrighted software legal? Where are you from? What are you thinking? Who in their right mind would develop copyrighted software if everyone was allowed to copy it without paying for it? Photoshop? Gone. Office? Gone. Mac OS X? Gone. Yes, there'd still be Linux. But what would Linux be without the lead of commercial software? Innovation is driven by money in software development.

Okay, maybe the Open Source community really *does* innovate. But it can't replace my Mac OS X desktop now or in a year. Gimp can't replace my Photoshop. OpenOffice can't replace Office for now.

So if anyone anywhere would change 'laws'... What does that have to do with the discussion about warez?
 
I'm not trying to get rid of copyright, but there's a helluvan article in the IEEE Times or whatever it's called, (an EE friend pointed it out to me, I might just subscribe) about copyright law. Original copyright was described in less than 10 pages, and protected a work for 28 years after availability. It was put out to protect the author from getting ripped off, and the customer from getting ripped off by an author (or publisher) who hadn't put out anything new in the last half of a century.

Copyright term has been modified 11 times since then, now is described in ~150 pages, and each time its term was changed to be longer and more restrictive to the customer. It's now what? 78 years after the death of the author? Tell me Disney isn't yanking on that one with their lobbyists to keep their exclusive hands on Mickey!?! He's old, he should be public domain now. I'd consider it rude to talk about Mickey without mentioning Disney, but I should be doing that at this point out of respect for the author, not out of fear of persecution/prosecution.

You should check out my "intellectual thread" in the non-technical section. It was short lived, but I'm glad I was there. Theft vs Piracy I think was the name.

I just think that there should be some incentive for companies to open up their IP as public domain stuff. Right now, there isn't any such incentive, we have ludicrousness like M$ still charging for DOS licenses, and they aren't even the ones who made it to begin with! Some of this stuff should be free. Other stuff should have the price brought down for the common good. Look at the MPEG-LA stuff going on right now. I see radio stations killing their internet streaming because the licensing fees are getting outrageous. We're strangling the internet and freedom of information through litigation and overprotection of the businesses.

I'm not looking for anarchy. I just think things are a little off center. I'm not saying it's all wrong, but it's not completely perfect either. There are improvements that could be made. I want to figure them out and make them. And I think consumer power needs to be improved, or software piracy will continue, and get worse. Piracy isn't right, but ignoring it is ignoring a symptom of something else that's wrong; possibly something far more dire.

Damnit, you made me post again. ;-)
 
Well, I have to assure you, I'm listening as much as I'm talking. I've heard all sides of the story here from many different, intellectual people (and some NOT so intellectual or intelligent). I just try to keep this in mind, as I wish the others posting to this forum would try to keep in mind: as much as I think I'm right, that's as much as you think you're right. And, vice-versa: as much as you think you're right, that's as much as I think I'm right. You've got TONS of reasons to believe what you believe, and those are no more correct or incorrect or justified or unjustified or numerous or lacking than the reasons I have for supporting my theory.

We must bear in mind that we all believe different things, and this is a place to voice those opinions and beliefs on this topic, but we are not here to accuse or to put down each other based on what we believe. The only thing we're qualified to do is to present our evidence and opinions and hope that they're taken to heart by the other readers/posters. I'm not saying that you're wrong for supporting piracy, but in turn, you can't say I'm wrong for not supporting piracy. You can't say that your view is more correct or justified, just as much as I can't either -- we just have to argue and debate our cases. I'm not out to change anyone's mind, although if I do, good for me.

Let's just all try to see each other's opinions and merit each other for being able to substantially argue our respective cases.

And on copyright law -- yeah, it's been changed a TON in the last few decades -- that's how laws get formed and are subtly modified over time to suit the best needs of the citizens and people that the laws govern. Laws aren't made and then set in stone -- they're a set of guidelines that are continually changing and morphing as times, technology, lifestyles and everything else changes -- they're not permanent. And as I said in the beginning, this area of technology is in its infancy. I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if the laws governing this form of technology and theft and piracy were made today and remained unchange even in the face of evolving technology. I'm glad the laws are changing, and they WILL CONTINUE to lag behind technology -- why? Because technology has to evolve FIRST before the laws that govern it are written. That's how the laws governing ANY area of life go... change first, laws second. Show me one area of life where the law was written before the event actually happened. However, it is up to the good citizens of this nation and world to see when something isn't quite right, even though there isn't a law against it. That, in my opinion, is not being a good citizen. People looking for loopholes to somehow "get around" doing shady things because there isn't a specific law governing against that is kinda immoral, in my opinion.

Remember OJ? Anyone here HAPPY about the way things played out there? Loopholes -- people looking for ways around things. It's our duty as citizens to refrain from doing something we know is underhanded or may be illegal even if there's no law specifically forbidding us to do it. To those that do pirate programs: if Adobe walked into your home or office tomorrow and was pissed off that you pirated PhotoShop, would you be shocked and appalled? Would you retort, "What am I doing wrong?" Or would you KNOW that Adobe was somehow justified for feeling the way they do about your actions? Would you KNOW that what you're doing somehow is perfectly legal and ok? would you try to justify your actions to Adobe? Do you think they'd be receptive to your reasons? Would you hope Adobe would walk quietly away mumbling, "Oh, I see the light now -- that person isn't doing anything wrong!" The point I'm trying to make is that most people pirating programs KNOW that it's looked at as shady, underhanded, and somewhat illegal, but they continue to do it, just because they can.

Another reason laws lag behind in technology is because people need to be damn sure that the law fits whatever it's trying to govern. As I stated before, this would be a sad state in my opinion if some new technology emerged and a law was hastefully written trying to govern it the very next day. Chances are that the law would backfire, or loopholes would be found, or it would somehow be damaging instead of helping on the whole. The process is long and tedious for a reason -- it's gotta go through the "ringer" quite a few times, be examined over and over again, rewritten, changed, modified, etc. before it can be said that, for the moment, "this is how it's gonna be." It's not slow and tedious because the government is inefficient... the government is MEANT to be slow and tedious to protect how things seem to be working. When something is thrown up that puts a wrench into those plans, change BEGINS to happen, but doesn't happen overnight. Piracy, in the scope of the history of technology, isn't even a blip on the radar yet. How can we expect a good, solid law or laws to be written about that? It's another form of protecting your intellectual property, and if I were Adobe, I'd rather watch my program get pirated a few times and actually believe that something, someone is thinking hard about how to protect me without rushing into some ill-thought out conclusion within a day.
 
Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
Well, I have to assure you, I'm listening as much as I'm talking. I've heard all sides of the story here from many different, intellectual people (and some NOT so intellectual or intelligent). I just try to keep this in mind, as I wish the others posting to this forum would try to keep in mind: as much as I think I'm right, that's as much as you think you're right. And, vice-versa: as much as you think you're right, that's as much as I think I'm right. You've got TONS of reasons to believe what you believe, and those are no more correct or incorrect or justified or unjustified or numerous or lacking than the reasons I have for supporting my theory.

We must bear in mind that we all believe different things, and this is a place to voice those opinions and beliefs on this topic, but we are not here to accuse or to put down each other based on what we believe. The only thing we're qualified to do is to present our evidence and opinions and hope that they're taken to heart by the other readers/posters. I'm not saying that you're wrong for supporting piracy, but in turn, you can't say I'm wrong for not supporting piracy. You can't say that your view is more correct or justified, just as much as I can't either -- we just have to argue and debate our cases. I'm not out to change anyone's mind, although if I do, good for me.

Let's just all try to see each other's opinions and merit each other for being able to substantially argue our respective cases.

And on copyright law -- yeah, it's been changed a TON in the last few decades -- that's how laws get formed and are subtly modified over time to suit the best needs of the citizens and people that the laws govern. Laws aren't made and then set in stone -- they're a set of guidelines that are continually changing and morphing as times, technology, lifestyles and everything else changes -- they're not permanent. And as I said in the beginning, this area of technology is in its infancy. I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if the laws governing this form of technology and theft and piracy were made today and remained unchange even in the face of evolving technology. I'm glad the laws are changing, and they WILL CONTINUE to lag behind technology -- why? Because technology has to evolve FIRST before the laws that govern it are written. That's how the laws governing ANY area of life go... change first, laws second. Show me one area of life where the law was written before the event actually happened. However, it is up to the good citizens of this nation and world to see when something isn't quite right, even though there isn't a law against it. That, in my opinion, is not being a good citizen. People looking for loopholes to somehow "get around" doing shady things because there isn't a specific law governing against that is kinda immoral, in my opinion.

Remember OJ? Anyone here HAPPY about the way things played out there? Loopholes -- people looking for ways around things. It's our duty as citizens to refrain from doing something we know is underhanded or may be illegal even if there's no law specifically forbidding us to do it. To those that do pirate programs: if Adobe walked into your home or office tomorrow and was pissed off that you pirated PhotoShop, would you be shocked and appalled? Would you retort, "What am I doing wrong?" Or would you KNOW that Adobe was somehow justified for feeling the way they do about your actions? Would you KNOW that what you're doing somehow is perfectly legal and ok? would you try to justify your actions to Adobe? Do you think they'd be receptive to your reasons? Would you hope Adobe would walk quietly away mumbling, "Oh, I see the light now -- that person isn't doing anything wrong!" The point I'm trying to make is that most people pirating programs KNOW that it's looked at as shady, underhanded, and somewhat illegal, but they continue to do it, just because they can.

Another reason laws lag behind in technology is because people need to be damn sure that the law fits whatever it's trying to govern. As I stated before, this would be a sad state in my opinion if some new technology emerged and a law was hastefully written trying to govern it the very next day. Chances are that the law would backfire, or loopholes would be found, or it would somehow be damaging instead of helping on the whole. The process is long and tedious for a reason -- it's gotta go through the "ringer" quite a few times, be examined over and over again, rewritten, changed, modified, etc. before it can be said that, for the moment, "this is how it's gonna be." It's not slow and tedious because the government is inefficient... the government is MEANT to be slow and tedious to protect how things seem to be working. When something is thrown up that puts a wrench into those plans, change BEGINS to happen, but doesn't happen overnight. Piracy, in the scope of the history of technology, isn't even a blip on the radar yet. How can we expect a good, solid law or laws to be written about that? It's another form of protecting your intellectual property, and if I were Adobe, I'd rather watch my program get pirated a few times and actually believe that something, someone is thinking hard about how to protect me without rushing into some ill-thought out conclusion within a day.
Click to expand...

I have not the time to read all this, but I think you've made a clear point.

But what do programmers at Adobe earn? Does somebody know that?

AppleWatcher
 
Programmers at Adobe, depending on what level of programming they're involved in, make a damn good bit of money -- because they make a damn good bit of programs.

Programmers tend to get paid very well, since they are the life-blood of the computing industry -- without software, what good would hardware be? Those who fill a necessity for another industry, or a related industry, like the software and hardware industries, tend to get paid very well, as they are filling a need. Like doctors -- what good would $100,000 dialysis (sp?) machine be without someone who knew what the hell it did? What about all those shiny knives and scalpels and what not? What about those mega-million dollar operating rooms? We need highly-paid individuals who know what to do with all that... similar to computers/software. We need people who know what all those chips and circuits and 1s and 0s do.
 
without software, what good would hardware be?
Click to expand...
>> You should ask that question 'inverted'... :D


And, ElDiablo, do you think that programmers would earn a dollar less if there are some people that are using their program(s) illegal (war-ez :p) :rolleyes:

AppleWatcher
 
Yup, I sure the hell do!

If the company is losing revenue because 25% of its consumer base never paid for the program, then the company is losing money and the programmers will get paid less. You can't have a company where the programmers get paid more than the company makes. Programmers get paid well for many hours of hard work -- I don't think anyone would disagree with me. If we had a bunch of programmers working for minimum wage, what kind of product do you think they'd produce? Think of all the people working at McDonald's or Whataburger or Burger King... wanna know why they consistently mess up your order? Because they're getting paid peanuts, and there's no incentive to do anything. There's no incentive to make a "quality" product or pay attention to detail or be accurate, because the money's not there... they can just go out and get hired by Subway the next day... now imagine a McDonald's where the employees and drive-thru attendants got paid $45,000/year. Damn, that's some incentive to be accurate, make sure that the order is right, keep the boss happy and keep your position making that much money. Paying programmers a lot gives them incentive to make a quality product, which is something that is needed on a computer. Imagine if your computer screwed up as many times as McDonald's did. You press '3' and it types 'B' three out of five times. Ouch.

I know, I know -- someone who thinks they've got it all figured out is going to say, "Yeah, but a few people pirating a program doesn't generate a loss for the company." Bullshit. It affects the company, no matter how big or how small -- it's the same excuse people use to justify not voting... "But, (sniff, whine) my vote alone can't make a difference!" BINGO, people! You, alone, does not comprise this city or state or country or world -- that's the whole idea... duh. It's for the COMMON good, not the SINGULAR good.

Take this for example. 25% of a product sold is pirated. The company is doing ok. Jack that up to 50%. The company is obviously hurting a little. 75% = hurting more. 100% = company produces product, makes NO money. It's economies of scale... every little bit counts. A little pirating, nothing to get your panties in a wad over, but keep increasing that and the problem gets worse and worse. We're at the "panties in a wad," level right now, which just means that all the companies are doing is jacking up the prices of the software to make up for losses. It's a circular problem; one feeds off the other. More pirating, prices go up... prices go up, people feel the need to pirate more. It never ends, but it is DEFINITELY one side's fault: the piraters. If the companies didn't jack prices up, they couldn't stay in business making a profit, and if they're not making a profit, they're certainly not going to stay in business, and if they're out of business, they're certainly not making any products for people to pirate.
 
Take this for example. 25% of a product sold is pirated. The company is doing ok. Jack that up to 50%. The company is obviously hurting a little. 75% = hurting more. 100% = company produces product, makes NO money. It's economies of scale... every little bit counts. A little pirating, nothing to get your panties in a wad over, but keep increasing that and the problem gets worse and worse. We're at the "panties in a wad," level right now, which just means that all the companies are doing is jacking up the prices of the software to make up for losses. It's a circular problem; one feeds off the other. More pirating, prices go up... prices go up, people feel the need to pirate more. It never ends, but it is DEFINITELY one side's fault: the piraters. If the companies didn't jack prices up, they couldn't stay in business making a profit, and if they're not making a profit, they're certainly not going to stay in business, and if they're out of business, they're certainly not making any products for people to pirate.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry El but this is not realistic. I was talking about personal use; companies HAVE TO pay for software. I'm convinced that almost every company (especially in America) is using legal software.
Because of that few personal warez-users won't lose the company about 50%!!!!!!

AppleWatcher
 
Points on which I find ElDiablo and I disagree at a fundamental level, which is why we'll never reconcile our differences about this topic:

El thinks the system is working; I think the system is harming consumers. We're both kinda right, but I'm feeling the recession more than he is apparently. (or something)

Programmers get paid a lot. ummm - eat me. That's like saying actors get paid a lot. I work hard and I get crap. It's not all about hard work, or even skill, 'cause I've got all that. I even took risks, but alas, I'm broke as hell at the moment. It's going around in the US too, just watch as all the programming in the next 10 years goes to India and China. "Will Code for Food" here in the US.

My money is infinite: El thinks I have all the money I want to have if I'm willing to work for it. I'm not yet working at McDonald's, but it's getting close to that time. Programmers, Network admins, etc. are not very "in demand" right now.

Me pirating means a company is losing money: I don't think it's that clear, and this is related to the previous point. If I have $2000 annual disposable income that I put toward computer stuff, then stuff over $2000 doesn't get paid for. It doesn't matter how much stuff I use, or what they charge, my budget is limited to $2000 / year. (theoretically that is, right now it's $0 per year) If it comes down to pirating photoshop or me not eating ... Me not using photoshop doesn't help Adobe get money. No money out is no money out without regard to my use of the product.

You get what you pay for: Nope. I've seen many people get paid the same amount, and they did vastly different quantities of work. Some people work because work needs to be done, others don't because they can get away with not working. Social workers work their butts off most of the time and get paid squat; and I've seen some real lazy rich bastards at AT&T. People are inherently lazy and selfish, and I don't think Bill Gates has done the world a large enough service to deserve being the richest man in the world. That money came from somewhere, perhaps it was price gouging on the part of the software maker? Oh well, they'll probably get what they deserve in the European courts. :)

I hope you don't think I'm ripping on you El, I'm not. I just think it's amazing how two intelligent people in this world can have such completely divergent views of the world.
 
Originally posted by theed
Points on which I find ElDiablo and I disagree at a fundamental level, which is why we'll never reconcile our differences about this topic:

El thinks the system is working; I think the system is harming consumers. We're both kinda right, but I'm feeling the recession more than he is apparently. (or something)

Programmers get paid a lot. ummm - eat me. That's like saying actors get paid a lot. I work hard and I get crap. It's not all about hard work, or even skill, 'cause I've got all that. I even took risks, but alas, I'm broke as hell at the moment. It's going around in the US too, just watch as all the programming in the next 10 years goes to India and China. "Will Code for Food" here in the US.

My money is infinite: El thinks I have all the money I want to have if I'm willing to work for it. I'm not yet working at McDonald's, but it's getting close to that time. Programmers, Network admins, etc. are not very "in demand" right now.

Me pirating means a company is losing money: I don't think it's that clear, and this is related to the previous point. If I have $2000 annual disposable income that I put toward computer stuff, then stuff over $2000 doesn't get paid for. It doesn't matter how much stuff I use, or what they charge, my budget is limited to $2000 / year. (theoretically that is, right now it's $0 per year) If it comes down to pirating photoshop or me not eating ... Me not using photoshop doesn't help Adobe get money. No money out is no money out without regard to my use of the product.

You get what you pay for: Nope. I've seen many people get paid the same amount, and they did vastly different quantities of work. Some people work because work needs to be done, others don't because they can get away with not working. Social workers work their butts off most of the time and get paid squat; and I've seen some real lazy rich bastards at AT&T. People are inherently lazy and selfish, and I don't think Bill Gates has done the world a large enough service to deserve being the richest man in the world. That money came from somewhere, perhaps it was price gouging on the part of the software maker? Oh well, they'll probably get what they deserve in the European courts. :)
Click to expand...

Eh... That's what I mean, ElDiablo :D

AppleWatcher
 
Hehe... yes, we have radically different views of how things are... and yes, we're both pretty damn intelligent! ;)

At any rate, I've gotta say a few things again, of course. I DO think the system is working -- well, not quite. I think there's a system, and I know the basic ins and outs of the system, and I'm making it work for me -- I don't think the system is there to help me. I know it, I work it, and I do what I can to maximize my profits and well-being within reason and within the limits of the system. Yes, there are ways to accomplish just that working OUTSIDE the system, but for me, the risks of doing that outweigh the benefits.

You can go outside and lift a 300 pound boulder over your head then drop it 500 times and get paid nothing. Do you deserve anything? Probably not, you're just doing hard work. Hard work does not equate to getting paid well, although sometimes they co-exist. Getting paid well means learning how to maximize your profits while doing little work -- because the less work you are able to do and still make a profit, well, then, you can do a LOT of little things that require less work and get paid a lot. Sounds dumb, but it's true. That's why CEOs can play golf 4 days a week -- they know how to make money while they're not even working... although I'll venture to say that most millionaires and billionaires have done their fair share of hard work in their life. If the road you're on doesn't visibly lead you to riches, why are you on it, if riches are your goal?

Yes, there are people who don't work much and get paid a lot. Lucky them! I'm not one of them. I don't get paid ridiculous amounts of money. I don't get paid peanuts on the other hand, either. I live within my means. I have an annual budget of $XXX.XX with which to buy food and sustain life. If I go above that allotment, do I resort to theft of food? No. I just make damn sure I don't go above the limit that is set. I don't get to eat steak every night (ie: use PhotoShop, in a way). I don't drink the most expensive beer (ie: buy every game I see). I can't even think about affording caviar (ie: using LightWave or Maya or something that costs thousands of dollars). Do I resort to stealing those things because I want to live a more comfortable and enjoyable life? Take a guess. The answer is no. I get by with what I have, and aspire to have a little more in the future.

So you've got an allotment of $XXX.XX for software, and when you reach that limit, you steal the rest? Whether or not it hurts the company or the consumer, you're saying that when you live beyond your means, you resort to stealing whatever falls outside the budget, right? That is the point i'm having a hard time with. I don't want to get into the ethics and basics of "stealing" and whether it's right or wrong -- I'm assuming we've all got the basis that theft is wrong, and we're discussing whether or not pirating software is, in essence, a form of theft that is wrong... I think it is.

I get the feeling that I'm discussing this with people who are trying to justify theft, whether the law is just or unjust... but it's still the law, and blantantly breaking it is NOT, in my opinion, the best or most efficient way to go about changing the law. I would begin to consider it justifiable if someone were to say, "Hey, I've got these people together, and tomorrow we're marching on Washington for better piracy laws," or "I've gotten 5,000 signatures on this petition," or "I've contacted my local state representative concerning this," or something like that AS WELL AS breaking the law until the law is changed... but that's not the case, here -- all I keep getting is, "I'm breaking this law because this law is stupid in my opinion."
 
I'm sorry El but this is not realistic. I was talking about personal use; companies HAVE TO pay for software. I'm convinced that almost every company (especially in America) is using legal software.
Click to expand...

Sorry, AW, you are wrong on MANY levels. Consider this:

Let's look at Photoshop. On one side, we have a small business with 10-15 people who create web sites. Six of the employees are designers, and as such, need a legitimate copy of Photoshop to do their work. So up front, this company has 6 x $609 in business expenses.

Now we have this companies competition - a few teeneagers who have "acquired" (ie STOLEN) copies of Photoshop. Because these teenage web designers have stolen their software and don't have the overhead of the small business, they can put in lower bids on jobs and undercut the company.

And not all companies are legit. I've worked for 5 different companies over the last 10 years, and half of them were using pirated software to one degree or another.

You can rationalize stealing by saying that you would never buy the software in the first place. That's hogwash. If you use it, you should pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't be using it. I don't care if you are a student or not. Students get great educational pricing on software, so that's really a lame excuse.

I'll make one exception here - leaked beta builds. Even though it's against the law, I have absolutely no qualms downloading and using beta builds - as long as you currently own the previous build. And here's my rationalization. Since I've been using leaked builds of Photoshop 7 since mid December, let's analyze this.

First off, I've been a Photoshop owned since version 3. I have paid for every major (4,5,5.5, and 6) upgrade Adobe has produced. The minute Adobe "announced" PS7, I went and preordered it. I make my $$$ from this program, and want the program to get better. I want Adobe to make good money on it, because I want them to pay their software engineers good money, so they will continue to make this product better with each release. And I definitely want Adobe to continue to derrive income from their Mac offerings, because once they don't, those Mac offerings will cease to be available.

And personally, I think Adobe and Macromedia intentionally leak these builds to widen their beta test audience. If Adobe wanted to stop the flow of leaked betas, the could easily implement a system where any leaked beta's serial number would quickly identify the beta tester who leaked it, and they could prosecute and pull their beta license.

So, to sum up - if you use it - pay for it. Otherwise, you are stealing.
 
I agree with that... didn't you people expect me to?! hehe... ;)

That's a point I never considered -- the fact that the people who ARE pirating a program are not only stealing from the company that made the program, but also the companies that legitimately use the program to make money with.

And I can also say that for 5 years I worked as a digital pre-press manager, and the company I worked for used pirated software a lot, as well as shared applications between companies and used stolen serial numbers in order to be able to load that software on different machines.

BUT -- don't take our word for it that MOST companies in the United States are using pirated software. About a year or two ago, there was a HUGE raid on MANY companies in Austin, Texas to prosecute companies that were using pirated software on a widespread basis. Also, Microsoft realized that its user base was comprised of MANY piraters, who were using thier software illegally. They chose to offer a deal to the companies -- pay for your licenses at a reduced rate and avoid prosecution. Most did. Some didn't. This was all over Texas as well as MANY other major metropolitan cities. It wasn't uncommon at the time to drive down popular stretches of highway in Texas and see billboards along the road saying, "If you're using pirated software, you have until (some date), 2000 to get licensed before action is taken against you."

Who knows about the rate of pirated software use in other countries, but serpicolugnut's right. The amount of pirated software floating around here in the US is staggering. I'll venture to say that ANY company you walk into will know what pirated software is -- not because they've heard of it somewhere in some coctail conversation, but because they've encountered it, dealt with it, or been a part of it. It's EXTREMELY common, and THAT'S why it's such a big deal. Like I said before, if it was some teenage high-schooler sitting in his room with a high-speed connection, big deal... but it's rampant and hurting us and the companies who benefit from the sales of software.
 
I'm just curious, you staunch anti piracy advocates, why you think theft of software is so rampant, even in companies that know perfectly well what software costs to produce?

Why is theft of oranges and bananas from local grocery stores not this common?

And furthermore, beyond defining the problem, what is a solution? Saying "No no, bad kitty" to all of your associates seems minimally effective. What's your plan?
 
Theft of software is so rampant, in my opinion, because it's so damn easy to do. Dial up to the internet, download Hotline Client, head on over to tracker-tracker.com and take your pick. PhotoShop? No problem. Illustrator? Ha! Dreamweaver/Fireworks Studio? Gimme a break... it's just too damn easy.

People don't steal bananas and oranges and food in general because there's a LOT of other people looking and watching you at a grocery store. You don't have privacy. If a food cart existed that was in a back alley and no one was ever there to supervise it, I'd bet my life that cart would be empty in an hour. But that's too menial and trivial -- look for the Porche back-alley cart or the Apple Computer back-alley cart. There's where you can attain something with worth. No one pirates $5 software, unless they're just killing time. It's the big packages like Office v.X and image editing software that's appealing. Software piracy can be done in complete and total privacy, and you don't even have to be dressed to do it... sit your ass in front of a computer and it's there for the taking. Too easy.

My solution? Host the application files on a server somewhere belonging to the software vendor/creator, and connect via broadband to use them with validation schemes. Or require that your serial number be validated over the internet while the application launches. No serial number? No launch. Same serial number used already? No launch. Yup, this pretty much sucks big time, but it would be a solution, and companies that can afford $600 - $6,000 programs and broadband I don't think would mind much. Hell, it wouldn't even take a ton of time on a 56k dialup, either.

I'm interested to see where Microsoft is going to take this whole .NET initiative. It seems like it might be a solution (although a heavy-handed, iron-curtain kinda solution) to some forms of piracy.
 
And not all companies are legit. I've worked for 5 different companies over the last 10 years, and half of them were using pirated software to one degree or another.
Click to expand...

I can ensure you that is not a fact in the Netherlands...
America is a little different from Europe, eh?

AppleWatcher
 
you cite ease of theft, privacy of theft, and $ cost motive.

Ease of theft, I agree, it's crazy easy. That's what makes my view of "everything is shareware" possible.

Privacy of theft, in that you're not going to get caught. You fail to mention the victimless crime feeling of stealing software. Stealing food seems to be ... stealing food, as though it were from someone. Software doesn't feel the same, as it's copied, not traditionally stolen. IP theft. The feeling may or may not be misplaced, which is what makes this discussion interesting. As for likelihood of being caught, your peers turn you in at a grocery store. No one turns in their friends for stealing M$ Office. This is an extension of the general feeling that it's not the same kind of wrong, if wrong at all to copy software. If everyone cared, no one would pirate.

And the financial incentive. That's my favorite point. It's the price itself that makes it such a sweet theft. I think Porsches are nice, but I'm not about to say that they're reasonably priced. They are intentionally expensive. Niche products. Consuming the highest grade labor and resources in their making. ... Software by comparison consumes labor, but not materials. In fact, after software development, the result is more materials, (code, implemented algorithms) not less. So the point of price is really curious.

VooDoo Economics revisited. At this point in the price curve, you make the same profit from your software as from this point, the difference is that in one model, 10% of the users are paying $500, and in the other model, 90% of users paying the $60 that you ask. Distribution costs of additional units are accounted for.

There already are fairly solid anti piracy dongles, but the industry, and consumers, hated them with a passion. They're pretty much gone now, and good riddance. Adobe has already publicly stated that it will not dongle Photoshop. The freedom to steal is part of the solution that businesses and consumers have agreed upon. Dongles are effective in anti-piracy, but they are also effective in burdening the consumer and reducing the usability of a product without adding benefit.

Beyond even this industry admission that piracy is as good a solution as security, is shareware, which makes it even easier to not pay. And one step further is freeware and gnu and RMS, putting ideas into the public domain despite personal costs incurred doing so. There's a feeling among these people that the public domain has been robbed empty, and needs to be refilled.

And at the point of .NET, and activation/monitoring security, I see consumers (if they still believe now as they believed then) running away from the scheme as soon as they get a taste for its pitfalls. Those of us with a taste are already running.

Well, that's enough for now. (whinneeee ... whack whack whack)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top