Software Piracy

[non sequitur]

im not sure if i have ever pirated something other than a few songs. i like to own my stuff, because i dont want to risk anything. i dont have a problem with piracy for personal use, but the people who pirate photoshop to use in business are {censored}s. i choose open source alternatives instead of getting the pro suites. Also, my dad has a bunch of copies of pro software for work so i might use some of his stuff.

 

i think microsoft can go straight to hell if they told me i could only install my (legal) copy of xp on one machine. thats just stupid. I bought the damn software, i own the damn software. they can't tell me what to do with it.

 

i have yet to pay for shareware because i havent found any that i truly needed. also, i dont have paypal or anything...

but yeah. i see no problem at all in pirating for personal use as long as its for learning how to use it. if you can buy it, you should.

[Staphyl]

Hrm,

Well Mash, Apparently theres only one reason that people don't "Buy" Adobe Photoshop and other said products is simply because they are too high in price. For real...paying $400-700 for software is outrageous. Just like OSx86 $140 for an OS is a hefty price to pay, but since its Apple and its "reliable." I "steal" programs that barely do the job that i want them too. Now "GOOD" programs like Lineform and REALbasic I did purchase legally, cost me $140 for both. Basically, it has its right and wrong times to do it. If you can resist try not to, but if you are really broke and have to make a logo that's awesome by next week By all means "Borrow"

[theaerosolkid]

For me...I couldn't pirate software. Just couldn't do it. My father's a programmer and so I grew up with respect for the long, hard hours programmers put into their work. Now I work in his office as a protocols author and seeing the guys who work under him go at it day after day, I'd just feel waaay too guilty pirating software because I know the effort that goes into it.

 

Just my 2 cents

[JMufla]

I agree (at least partly) with a lot of previous posts, but the simple bottom line I personally follow and beleive in is:

 

* If you are testing it, just mucking about with it, eager to learn or simply having fun with it: You shouldn't pay the hundreds of £ or $ that most programs cost.

 

* If you use an app often enough or it is your primary app (eg. Office, or for me OmniGraffle), you have a moral obbligation to buy it. If you can afford it, pay for it.

 

* If you are using it as a productivity tool, that you are actually making money off (ie CS2 or Logic or whatever). You MUST pay for it, if not it is stealing! Not learning!!

 

* If you can afford it (ie shareware or donationware) and you use it regularly (ie Cocktail), you have a moral obbligation to pay, or at least contribute to it. Support independent creativity!

 

I am a programmer, and have been in the business for over 3 Years now... I don't feel that people that want to learn or experiment from my work are stealing, on the contrary... They make me kind of proud... guess you could call it peer recognition... BUT, If you are making money out of anything I have even helped create, you must pay... You have to pay for what you get, simple really...

 

Sorry for the ramble...

 

J

[embries]

Throw in my thoughts here, not that they're all that much different than the others before me.

 

Music and Movies

I personally download the vast majority of these. I suggest everyone do the same. I want the RIAA and MPAA business model so trashed that the industry collapses and they have to face the reality of the 21st century. I do own over 1000 DVDs, all purchased legally (either new or used from a discount store). However, I do download pre-release movies because I'm a movie buff, and I'll probably buy it if it was at least half-way decent. Furthermore, being an audiophile, I've been invited to several private sites for the distribution of music content. Technically, this is piracy because the license on the music has not gone public-domain yet. However, the majority of the titles I'm downloading are out-of-print or otherwise un-attainable by ordinary means. So I think it's a bit short-sighted of the industry to make it illegal to get the content that was once available and is no longer available due to their poor estimation of demand.

 

Shareware and Freeware

As a general rule of thumb I support the authors of good shareware and freeware. I think their contributions to communities of enthusiasts (be it DVD users, or Home and Garden experts, or the next Emeril) are often overlooked and are stolen more often because of their easier (or non-existant) copy-protection schemes. This is a real shame, because these are the geniuses that can create free-form and without the support of an entire industry. Give them their due and let them take their projects to the next level.

 

Here's the back-half of my "general rule of thumb." If an independant author has a software title that is in "somewhat functional" state. That is to say some features work and others don't, or there's a timed release at which this feature will be available, then this feature is available at the next release, then I feel the author shouldn't be asking $50 or more for the software. I understand his/her right to ask whatever he/she wants for the code, as it is a product born of their own creativity. Yet, to ask everyday people to contribute a figure that is close to average retail price for many software titles is unjustified. Deliver all the pieces first, then maybe you can command the larger figure.

 

Industry Standard Apps

These are your photoshop, CAD, professional Database, etc. The number one problem is the "student discount" programs. Generally, the student prices are not that great when compared to the discount for other programs. The companies should understand the benefit of getting students involved with their software at an early age (since they'll be used to the software, they'll be more apt to use it in their careers, and more apt to ask their managers to buy the software for their businesses). It's really simple, give the software at very cheap prices to students who can verify their status. As for people who want personal use licenses at discount rates. I can see the industry point of view. It's very difficult to get people to buy business class licenses when there is a personal use license available. It's also harder to monitor these people to ensure they're using the correct version for their tasks. I say, call a spade a spade and either pony up for the business license, or don't use it.

[willgonz]

Here is my problem with software that is say $400. You spend that amount in only get $20 worth of the software. I think pay per use would be better. For every minute it is say $1. After you reach the retail value of the product you own it.

 

As for the Second post. I think any software that has been discontinued should go into Public Domain, pending there are no other owners. For example a classic game called "Lode Runner" came out by Broderbund. You can't buy it anymore. However the creator is still around and still owns rights to the game, at least the trademark.

[Metrogirl]

It seems there is a general consensus here -

 

* A lot of commercial software, aimed at big companies wth deep pockets, is overpriced for the average home user;

 

* Mostly people don't want to steal software, but feel justified if the price is ridiculous, they will make only personal use of it and the big company who produces it probably won't suffer;

 

* We support the small software houses and individual developers where we can reasonably afford to do so, and we will buy software which has given us real value or pleasure, even when we could pirate it.

 

Actually there's nothing new in the above, and a plea for software houses to take note would fall on chronically deaf ears. Adobe will always overprice Photoshop, because they know that large publishing companies can and do afford the $$$ asked. They make enough money this way not to have to worry too much about the home pirate, and they do sell 'Elements' at a lower price - and bundled 'light' versions have been around for years, free with various hardware. Their educational prices are aimed at institutions which generally can afford the goods.

 

Before ending this post, I will take a swipe at Sony for their unbelievable waste of time, money and consumer confidence in their protection schemes. ARccoSS protection on Sony DVDs infuriates me - my 5-year old Toshiba player can't play newer Sony DVDs at all because of this. Plus, I think region coding is a deplorable attempt to make money out of people like me who spend time in two regions and would theoretically have to buy two copies of everything just to watch in each place. I can overcome region coding and ARccoSS with AnyDVD (highly recommended) - and get rid of trailers and FBI warnings too - but that makes me a pirate. And then there was the Sony CD root-kit fiasco. Which of course supports some previous posts in this thread - if a big company is insensitive to the consumer or just plain arrogant, people feel infuriated by its policies and are even more likely to pirate its products.

 

I paid for AnyDVD even though I could get a crack off the internet. It's excellent, it's cheap, and the company is small. Another reinforcement of the views in this thread.

[MacFeast]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of support is there for legislating against DRM? Is it a good thing? Or is DRM needed? What do you think?

 

Personally I think DRM hurts the consumer too much to be justified.

 

In Sweden there is a "pirate party" that has won a lot of support thanks to its proposal to outlaw DRM.

[Metrogirl]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of support is there for legislating against DRM? Is it a good thing? Or is DRM needed? What do you think?

 

Personally I think DRM hurts the consumer too much to be justified.

 

In Sweden there is a "pirate party" that has won a lot of support thanks to its proposal to outlaw DRM.

 

Do you mean support in general, or support in this forum? I'd guess that almost all our members would like to see an end to DRM. I'm inclined to think that legislating against it will never happen, at least in the UK and US because politicians are prodded (and even bankrolled) by big companies, they think they know better than the consumer (too many examples to quote) and they play the 'law and order' card every time. Joe and Sally Public, who use their iPod or whatever just as the manufacturer intended, probably don't know about DRM and don't really care. Sad, eh?

[Jeezoflip]

I found that pirating is kind of a phase. When we are younger and dont have enough money to go out and spend $600-$700 on photoshop or what ever, you will pirate. But when you get older and have money, people usually have more morals and will actually go out and buy the software. Plus this doesnt make it right, but software companies make enough money where a couple hundred thousand people or how ever many doesnt really effect them.

[Rhapsody Guru]

Hmm... interesting. That reminds me of when I recently obtained WinZIP Self-Extractor 3.0 and cracked it because I needed it longer than 45 days. I wanted to use it for internal use and not to distribute the exes outside my base. Furthermore, If I ever do use this to make money off of it, I'll purchase it very first instant the money starts rolling in. Personally, I don't see the justification of a $50 price tag when it isn't any different from some of the other freeware variants out there. What REALLY chips my hide about this product is the fact that it costs $20 more than WinZIP itself! I mean come on! Do you really want to shell out that much dough for such a simple add-on tool?

 

Guru

[drcreek]

Piracy is wrong but the MPAA & RIAA try and defend themselves in the wrong way.

 

They say that it's thieft because i'm not buying it and by not buying it the industry isn't getting my money.

 

I say WHAT MONEY? Im a penniless student? Either way downloading ot no downloading they are not getting my money so how can the industry be any better or worse off?

 

O.K I'm at uni and hope to have started my own media company sometime within the next ten years. If it's successful and I'm pretty well off I'll probably buy stuff then when i have the money to spend on these things I'll spend it. until then i shall obtain them the only way i can for free via torrents. If i movie is good. I'll go to the cinema to watch it but £15 for a film? I'd never watch any!

 

i don't see how by being a data pirate me personally am costing the industries anything?

 

Ok so don't touch what you can't afford. In my neighbourhood. I think by downloading films and music i was probably committing the most lesser crime in my town.

[Metrogirl]

Just a thought - I wonder how many people have bought software because they couldn't find a crack for it? I mean, they've downloaded some obscure shareware tool and really liked it, but because it's not mainstream the cracking groups haven't fixed it. So they either delete it in a fit of annoyance, or they shell out the relatively small purchase price. I do know people who have bought stuff simply because they couldn't find a crack, but would have pirated it otherwise.

 

What I'm getting at is that the distinction between 'not being able to afford' and 'choosing not to afford' is rather blurred in some cases. It's often a case of "I'd rather spend that $50 on a new drive than on some software which I can get for free" - and that's where the software developers have a point.

[TopazBar]

All software should be free and easily distributable. However, one should pay it if one can realize profit from selling it or using it.

[MacFeast]

Do you mean support in general, or support in this forum? I'd guess that almost all our members would like to see an end to DRM. I'm inclined to think that legislating against it will never happen, at least in the UK and US because politicians are prodded (and even bankrolled) by big companies, they think they know better than the consumer (too many examples to quote) and they play the 'law and order' card every time. Joe and Sally Public, who use their iPod or whatever just as the manufacturer intended, probably don't know about DRM and don't really care. Sad, eh?

 

Not all companies support DRM. I read somewhere that even big companies like Microsoft are starting to get more cautious about implementing it everywhere.

 

And I know quite a few non-techicians who are really upset about the music they bought which can not be burnt to CD etc.

[Gaber]

Im a 14 year old kid, Im not going to pay for Photoshop/Dreamweaver/Flash/etc. Its simply dumb. I do however, plan on purchasing legal copies once I am older/can afford the, . There is no other way for to get them, and all the other "lite" versions and stuff like that suck, because you can't use the core things needed in the program. I know its wrong, and I do it. If I could afford it, I'd buy it. When I can afford it, I WILL buy it, most definatley. Movies and TV Shows- I download them a lot, but only movies in theatres that I have seen, and am sure I am going to buy, Same with TV shows, If I miss an episode, I'll download. And if its something I download, its something I want to buy, so I force my self the delete the stuff once it comes out so that I HAVE to buy it.

[Rhapsody Guru]

Not all companies support DRM. I read somewhere that even big companies like Microsoft are starting to get more cautious about implementing it everywhere.

 

And I know quite a few non-techicians who are really upset about the music they bought which can not be burnt to CD etc.

 

Yeah... I strongly agree. DRM is just another layer of dumbass beuracracy in the music industry.

 

 

Guru

[Metrogirl]

... I know its wrong, and I do it. If I could afford it, I'd buy it. When I can afford it, I WILL buy it, most definatley. ...

 

That's a reasonable statement, and I hope that when the day comes that you can afford it, you will buy it. The problem is that it may prove difficult to justify buying something that you probably could afford but is already working fine on your system - when the mortgage needs paying, the baby is hungry and your car needs new brakes. Then you may be tempted to say "If I could afford it, but I can't right now..."

 

There was an interesting article this week in the NY Times on spy software and snooping on your kids, spouse and so on, and it touches on ethics in a way relevant to this thread.

Quoting from that text:

 

"For this latest generation, there's an obscure line between lawful

behavior and ethical behavior," Mr. Hong said.

 

Jan Goldman, who teaches ethics and intelligence at the Joint Military

Intelligence College in Washington, where real spies are trained, said

many people approach spying with 'applied situational ethics' - they

change the meaning of right and wrong to suit their advantage.

 

"And that's not ethical," he said. "When you're confronted with

something else that you feel is a greater priority, then you are able to

trump your ethics."

[trav1085]

Software piracy is very simple to stop, just make it opensource and/or free!

 

There is many money in computer hardware, computers and stuff that you can't copy and pirate! There's money is webhosting and bandwidth, so why can't all software AND operating systems's be free?

 

Companies will save a lot of money if it was free, because there wouldn't be very expensive law suits and stuff like Microsoft sueing and people sueing Microsoft because they have some things that they aren't sussposed to use in vista, if it was opensource Windows and Mac would not compete, they could be written to have the same features and seucrity as eachother.

 

Yes, I don't know if anyone pays for Photoshop not to mention CS2! I don't know who really buys much software anymore either.

 

So it's the companies charing money for it, they need to pay their programmers but open source is volunteer and free!

 

I agree with Gaber, I would pay for software if I could afford it, but not many people can dish out 300 bucks for photoshop.

[rogabean]

I would disagree. There is something to be said for the closed source and non free models as well.

 

And plenty of people pay for Photoshop and the like, else the companies would have long went out of business.

 

Going open source and charging for support only would actually hurt companies like Adobe.

 

MS could in fact go to a free (not open source) home user edition (read gimped) and only charge for support, oems and VLKs and still be very profitable. But the market has shown them that they have no need to do so. Unless that changes there is no need.

[magic0200]

I'd just like to add one area in this topic that I feel should be discussed. Piracy remains to be a grey area in law where clearly even the ones in charge have no true idea where to stand on the matter in whole. This is exemplified by the differences in laws within states, countries, and global unions alike. The battle right now between a consumer's rights and the companie's control is by far the reason this situation is growing with extreme frustration and resentment towards each side. This is what has been discussed and I would like to add something different.

 

Now as for a new position from a business mind, let us take Apple and Microsoft into consideration. If you have followed Microsoft and their position on piracy, the company attacks corporations or larger interests when piracy is involved. With the amount of capital needed to sue someone, it's in their best interest to remain in this spectrum of illegal action. However, what about the everyday user....

 

Microsoft gained a large percentage of the market from Piracy as well. This does not just include countries around the world (unable to find this product originally) but also here at home. Now being Microsoft you can say you own XX% of the market, however how much of that is actually piracy? What you find in piracy is that with time it becomes a marketing position for the company and if countered correctly can cause increased market growth and capital. Simply put, anyone in piracy knows that even though you may have a version of the product, it's not always the exact thing. If the pirate continually uses the product and enjoys it, usually they will proceed with purchasing the real product and supporting the company (just like people with osx86 boxes). This has been a proven fact with piracy with the majority, which leaves only a small percentage that will remain pirates no matter what happens with a product.

 

Probably the best example would be the Xbox. The company when in fear of piracy only looked to protect online gaming from cheating. The fact that the machine was hacked really did not receive a large backlash with security updates. Many speculate this to be a safety precaution for Microsoft aiming their profits towards another sub-product of gaming: Online gaming. Without going too deep on this, we have all seen just how big Xbox Live is now.

 

With a little help from piracy (just a little), the machine quickly grew in market share and furthermore the company based a large collection of 360 features upon homebrew applications. This was even documented where Bill and other top heads would hack an xbox and view all the features to study the market. The key picture is that through piracy the company was able to grasp a full understanding of what a gamer would want in their machine. And in return gamers are pleasantly surprised so far with the 360.

 

With the position of Apple, this is where I find OSX86 to be a ground level change in the rest of Apple's future. Eventually, osx86 may become one of two things. First, Apple may finally release OSX to all PC's and fight Microsoft (I doubt it but I would love to see it). What people don't understand sometimes is the looking glass effect where Apple is using this forum and it's creators as two pieces of information. First and foremost, the company (just like the xbox homebrew) is being viewed and studied with their work on OSX and our "debugging" of the system with new CPUs, Vid Cards, MBoards...etc.

 

The amount of man hours spent on this site is actually helping Apple if they were planning on entering the PC market with a full spectrum of hardware specs.

 

Also, you will find that Apple FINALLY has a community that they were unable to achieve before... the modders. Unlike PC, Apple really could not afford to have PC modders and even upgrading was brought to a lower control with their product. However now Apple has found that they have gained a new market of die hard PC users that have built machines specifically to test out the limits of OSX. Not to mention it also shows market information on how more intelligent PC users are affected by switching over to Mac.

 

 

The other option with this situation is that the piracy will increase sales of Apple products. This is just created through patience and the lack of support released by the company. In time people will not want to patch and wait for issues to be resolved by one forum member. We all saw how JaS became overwhelmed by the greed and persistant annoyance of other users.

 

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am not held by these thoughts and do not enjoy getting into large heated debates. I only tend to play the "what if" card and throw a view or two from the business side of this disucssion.

 

 

I would like to thank everyone on this site for their help and hard work. Respect for your work never really shows up on this site and at least for me you will always know that I admire your talent and determination. Oh yea, go easy on me as I do not have a spell check handy.

 

Thanks again!

 

 

 

PS. I am still in need of a demonoid invite if anyone can PM me one. TIA

[erpupone]

software piracy is certainly a crime and it's certainly a theft...there's no saying here, like photocopying a book is theft so is copying a program

the real thing here is that stealing money from somebody's pocket in our culture is seen as theft, immoral more than illegal and we've been told so since childhood, so most of us avoid doing that...but nobody has ever been said that software piracy is theft, our morals have been conceived way before software, so nobody could teach you not to download Windows off eMule...

and what's more, stealing a wallet you're stealing to some well determined individual, but when copying Windows your crime goes against an unknown and foggy Mr. Gates somewhere in the US whom you'll never ever meet in your life...

I guess that's what makes software piracy different from other forms of theft

[unstatusthequo]

Recent News:

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2...tent_517377.htm

 

13 *MILLION* pirated discs seized and destroyed. Imaging that 100 CD-R spool in your head... 13 THOUSAND of those... yeah...

 

My favorite line: "If the government gets rid of pirated products and we provide cheaper legitimate ones, the future market will become more promising," said Chen."

 

Earlier in the article, some discs were sold for $1.25 US. So, CS2 for $1.25 scam or $800 retail... there's a LONG way to go to make that maybe pirate into a legit buyer...

[TheMadJester]

I pirate software because I simply can't afford half of the stuff out there. If it's a single person who's asking for something like $5 for their handy utility, I've got no problem paying for it.

Companies claim that when people pirate their software they're losing money, because they reason that those people would have otherwise bought the software. The reality is this simply isn't true. People don't pirate Photoshop so they don't have to buy it, they pirate it because they can't buy it. People just don't have the cash lying around to put down $700. I do, however, have a problem with people pirating just to be cheap, assuming that they can afford the software.

I should note that I'm against stealing. However, my definition of stealing doesn't include software piracy, because of my above reasons. I see stealing as taking from one party and giving to another. People see this as wrong because it's taking from the first party; they no longer have it. This isn't the case with software piracy--the first party still keeps the original, but the second party gets it as well. And, again, they're HARDLY losing potential sales, as I said.

If you could magically clone your brand new car and give one to your best friend, wouldn't everybody do it?

 

I agree with this guy, I myself Pirate because I connot afford - I'm a student. If I continue pirating when im done, that will be a bad habit.

 

My personnal vision of software would be that you could go to Futureshop, Cirtcuit City, london drugs, EBGames or wereever, and buy photo shop and other programs for 5-10 and OS for around 2-50 dollars.

 

Why? Because if it was done that way, I would go to town once a month and load up, I would spend 25 dollars and get those 4-5 programs just because its not 250 + dollars (im thinking canadian money here)

 

I wouldnt be alone, I know most you you here feel guilty about it and do it too, to ease our guilt many of us would swng by the software store and pick up a few on the way home from work. The truth is, if it takes 5 +hours to DL MAC OS x off bittorrent (... purely hypothetical...). I would have no qualms about picking it up for a reasonable price when I happened to be pasing a store that sold it.

 

Photoshop is much the same way. Its worth hundreds of dollars. as a student I would pay 5-10 dollars to play around with it. there is no way in a million years I would pay over 100.

[iawval]

"I Pirate because I cannot afford" I cannot afford aFerrari, so should I steal it?

A total different thing is to make changes to software I have bought, the agreements I have to sign when for istance I buy Os/x DO violate the most basical and common sense civil rights on property. I pay a lot a Euros for an OS and than I cannot tamper with It? what about if mercedes wil make you sign an agreement to park your car only in some places they like before selling it? Anyway all this stuff has absolutly NOTHING to do with ethics and moral. Big software houses DO NOT rely on ethics and moral, the rely on Laws and tribunals and they have the power and money to have goverments make the laws they like. How can anyone defend his civil rights on property against microsoft or apple or IBM when they can sue you at costs you'll never be able to match?