Crack down on counterfeit software. 1

[aquias]

Yeah, I'm blonde I do odd things

Mike, you're splitting hairs on that angle. If you take a product, any product, without purchasing it (whether it be virtual or physical) you've stolen the product.

Now, the fact that you wouldn't pay for it doesn't lessen the crime at all. It just becomes a crime of convience, I could get it, so I did.

 

[MikeCouling]

Aquias: Perhaps we could agree on calling it a victimless crime?

I wonder if Bcastner's travelling companion (see above) would have preferred to have, given the same revenue, 8 million users of his product or 100 million.

 

[eyec]

MS is not forcing anybody to use their products. there are competitors out there; WordPerfect, StarOffice, Linux, BSD, MAC & others.

if you don't like the price tag on something use something else that fits you percieved proper price tag.

regardless don't pirate it. there have been many really good software titles that started as freeware/shareware and gone on to provide full blown comercial products. if everybody stiffed them then we all would be cheated out of new products.

i have tried SpyBot & AdAware now & find they do right by me so i will end up buying the better versions or something to improve the operation of my PCs because they had the free versions for me to try - did not have to pirate it and i want to thank them.

bcastner - sorry but DOS was/is the best thing since sliced bread

 

[pixl8r]

IMHO: It is a matter of right and wrong, not buts. I agree as well... stealing is wrong. (note the period)

How can we say that it is wrong to pirate, but we can understand in certain situations. Why is there a but? It is wrong and it is illegal. There is no but.

There is no but for someone who robs a bank because he is poor. There is no but for someone who steals bread to feed their starving family. There is no but for someone who steals a Porsch because they can't afford one.

If schools require computers for work to be completed and cannot provide adequate computer facilities that is a problem with the schools (that needs to be addressed). If they can't provide computer access to underprivelaged families then they are not serving the public trust and need to change their policies. I live in the US and I can assure you that my tax dollars provide plenty of money for area schools to provide computers for their students.

The problem here is the but. It suggests that in some cases the end can justify the means. It does not. It can not. If it does then we might as well throw out all of our rules and laws because they become unenforceable. Everything would be permissable under the right circumstances.

Sorry for the rant but the idea that it is right "sometimes" is just flat wrong. Unfortunately we have a whole generation that seems to feel that way. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.

If you have stolen (pirated) software there is absolutely a victim. The victim is the company that has employees and bills to pay with the money that it makes from the sale of that software. How about the person who has lost their job in a corporate downsize due to poor sales of a heavily pirated piece of software. How about that persons children?

</rant>

Hope it adds something

 

[aquias]

Nicely worderd pixl!

And again, I will quantify my position on this. I'm not condoning pirating, but I am saying that there is a problem with the system, with people's expectations. And yes, that problem does give me pause. I don't argue the fact that it is a crime, but I cannot say that I wouldn't do the same given some people's situation.

As for the schools and the points you bring up, I fully agre pixl. And that is what keeps taking me off track on this topic, that one fact that there is a requirement that is being placed on people that they cannot meet and that the government is unable to provide for.

 

[paparazi]

Forgive me if this point was made earlier.

Piracy can be a good thing for the software manufacturer.

The mass piracy of a product popularizes it.

As an example:

The Sony Playstation would not have been the mass market Phenomenon if the games used had not been so easy to copy and widely distributed

I argue, that the percentage purchased might only be 20/30% BUT OF A MUCH LARGER GLOBAL MARKET.

The same applies to the music industry where many artists would simply never be heard if it wasn't for this underground sharing (piracy) movement.

You will always get a reasonable legitamate "TAKE UP" percentage, people who want the license number, packaging and peace of mind.

I genuinely believe many products would fail in the absence of piracy.

It is after a product is popular, as in the case of Microsofts XP, that MS feel that they can tighten the security to increase legitimate take up numbers.

The analogy (forgive me if this sounds crude) is that of a herroine dealer who gets his users hooked on free handouts, creating the dependencey and widening the customer base before enforcing the payment.

Am I suggesting that this is an intended strategy? NO! but these mass marketting machines are not so naive as you might think, they know how this works.

Of course I don't agree with piracy persay but you have to understand how, in the greater scheme of things, it can actually promote, popularize and increase revenues, especially for a new untested product.

I would describe this as a symbiotic relationship, they can see the siambiant has it's uses but are always resentful of it having a free ride.


Martin







We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[Frank4d]

Apologies for having a bit of a rant but if you can't afford essentials such as food or clean water then you can be excused for stealing them. If you can't afford luxuries like CDs or operating systems then you should just live without them. Claiming that a CD or software is so expensive that you "have" to pirate it just doesn't wash.

I just did the math. If I use my $143.00 copy of XP Pro OEM for three years... it comes out to 13 cents per day. About the same as a gulp of beer!

 

[dakota81]

But that beer gives us an inflated sense of self-worth. Windows has never done that for me.

I would like to see the sales of counterfeit software decline, though. Every now & then I have someone question me about charging them $150 for XP Pro when they get several e-mails a week from companies offering to sell the same software for $50 a copy. Even when I explain what's going on, the thought still remains that they could get away with using cheap illegal versions instead of buying from me.

 

[aftertaf]

people making money out of pirating, is pure crime.
people not paying for their version is also crime.
both are black, but (sorry!) one is blacker, IMHO.

this said, i do agree on the company that is losing revenue is the victim.

and no-one has forced me to use the version of XP that i have.

you cant pirate a graphics card, no, but you don't have to buy the one that have 1gig of DDR, a processor at 500Mhz and makes the coffee... you can buy a cheaper model that does what you want/need.

this said, move up aquias, make some room on the fence

Aftertaf
if its not broken, fix it anyway - with luck you might break it and have an excuse

 

[pixl8r]

I wonder how the process can be symbiotic? The analogy of the heroine dealer is not very accurate. People become physically addicted to heroine and therefore will buy to meet their addiction once they have been hooked. People do not become physically addicted to Operating systems (or any other software for that matter), nor will they buy after they have used it for awhile. They simply keep going until they can't get it free anymore and then they find the next thing that they can get free.

Additionally to argue that musicians may see additional success/exposure if their music is pirated is to say that if they don't starve or wind up in the poor house they might make it. They make no money on pirated music. Like all of the rest of us they need money to live. When you pirate you take that money away from the artist. You think that helps them?

What about authors and photographers? Is is legitimate to steal from them too?

Why not go down to the local car dealership and steal a car (doesn't have to be a porsch). Then when you wind up in court just tell the judge that you were increasing the buyer base by advertising the product by driving it around town.

You cannot legitimize theft. (again note the period)

(guess I need a soapbox)

 

[aftertaf]

pixl8r:



Aftertaf
if its not broken, fix it anyway - with luck you might break it and have an excuse

 

[pmonett]

This thread has been an interesting - albeit predictable read up to here.
I must say that - aside from the point of piracy being theft (with which I very much agree), there is the rampant tendancy of comparing with the physical universe that gets under my skin.
Comparing file sharing or pirate downloads to someone shoplifting a case of Coke, stealing a car or snorting drugs is not a valid comparison. Lets get real on this : duplicating electrical signals causes no measureable loss to anyone, apart from the license fee. It is the moral issue that is at stake, and this is unique to the computer world.

On the other hand, I cannot keep from wondering just how much Microsoft itself is responsible for this mess. MS has a history of providing OEMs with "special" licenses. For years they have encouraged shops to sell complete PCs with the Windows OS on it, but without giving the disks. I know that such is not the intent, but it is nonetheless the result. I personally know seven people with home PCs under various versions of Windows who do not have the official install CD because it was never given to them.
Now, given that they have paid for the OS along with the hardware, when the inevitable day of reckoning comes and they have to replace the hard disk, you tell me that they are not justified in getting a copy (of the same version, obviously) for installation purposes ?

Just a thought.

Pascal.

 

[bcastner]

Comparing file sharing or pirate downloads to someone shoplifting a case of Coke,..."
What ethical difference do you see?

"MS has a history of providing OEMs with "special" licenses. For years they have encouraged shops to sell complete PCs with the Windows OS on it, but without giving the disks. I know that such is not the intent, but it is nonetheless the result. I personally know seven people with home PCs under various versions of Windows who do not have the official install CD because it was never given to them."

This is not a Microsoft decision. This is an OEM computer manufacturer decision.

 

[aquias]

There's always room on the fence taf!!!

And yes, this is one of those issues where it is most often viewed as "Black and White". It is wrong or it isn't.

For those of you saying that this is a victimless crime and that piracy doesn't hurt anyone lets take a look at what you're saying right now.

I'm a company, say I do 5 million in software sales a year for the first few years. My software package suddenly hits it big, yay for me right? Maybe not, if people rampantly download my software then I may actually see a dip in my sales. Or, instead of seeing a 20 million dollar profit I only see a 10 million dollar profit. No big deal? What about those people I lay off due to expansion of my product not being as much as I thought it would be or about the jobs that I never create in the communitty due to the lack of increased revenue.

There is a clear cut victim here and to try and argue that there isn't, just doesn't fly with me.

The only arguement here should be why does pirating exist? Greed, curiosity, and necessity. Lets look at those three reasons.

1. Greed - Self explanitory, you don't want to pay and you want to profit/save money when there isn't reason for you to do so.

2. Curiosity - You want to test the product before purchasing. A unique opportunity that we get with software, so long as you don't keep the product past a testing phase it is all good.

3. Need - My biggest screaming point in this debate. That people may need something that they cannot afford to try and better themselves.

1 and 3 are crimes, you are stealing. But with the third point, this is an issue that is a society problem. It is a case of the "have's" outdistancing the "have-nots" and creating a larger social/economical gap in this country than already exists.

It is in this third case that I have a problem pointing at someone and saying your wrong. Yes, I say you've committed a crime but if my future or that a loved one was at stake (Don't even try to tell me school isn't someones future at stake) I'd do the same thing.

 

[dakota81]

Well at the risk of lengthening this article much much more - I just have to say I don't like anyone who has a hard set attitude towards software piracy. I would like to see everyone paying the software companies for their work, but I also understand most of those who do not.

Here's a situation I saw a couple weeks ago. Replaced a computer for a guy at his business. He had also purchased a Dell a year or so ago that sits in another part of the building. He never uses MS Office on the Dell, but wants to on this new computer. Can't transfer the software over. I never set up Office for him, don't know what he ended up doing - though situations like that drive people towards piracy. He paid a lot of money for MS Office already and he is willing to keep the rule of one license per machine. But MS won't allow it.

I think that is wrong on MS's side. When MS puts heavy restrictions on those who do pay MS to rightfully use their software, that causes piracy in itself. It's so much easier to set up & run say a corporate edition of WinXP and a hacked copy of Office than it is to actually pay for and use licensed copies. There has got to be a better way to reduce software piracy while not placing huge restrictions on those who want to go the legal route.

Reports came out right away about SP2 being cracked after release so that users of the FCKGW copy of XP can apply SP2. So what exactly is MS accomplishing by all of this?

 

[pixl8r]

Why wouldn't he be able to transfer Office to a new computer? Did he not have the disk? He should have if he paid a lot of money for it. Did he remove it from the Dell?

I have had hard drives go bad, switched computers, etc... and MS has never given me a hard time about transferring software.

Agreed that licensing should not be such a hassle to legal users, but a company (MS or anyone else) has every right to protect their interests from criminal copyright infringement.

Users agree to that copyright when they click "OK" on the license agreement before you install the software. If you do not agree stop the installation and take the software back to the company you puchased it from.

Thanks for the soapbox Aftertaf

 

[MasterRacker]

If he got the Office with the Dell, he got an OEM version. OEM software is typically licensed only to the machine it came with. If you want to be able to move software from one machine to another, you have to buy the retail version. To offset this inconvenience, the OEM versions cost a lot less than the retail versions.

[purple]Jeff
It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day

 

[aftertaf]

personally, i've never read the EULA in full....

can this be my excuse??



Aftertaf
if its not broken, fix it anyway - with luck you might break it and have an excuse

 

[pmonett]

bcastner:

There is no ethical difference, I agree and I thought I had been clear on that. The difference is that it is not the same loss - it's comparing apples to oranges.
But it is still theft, I do not dispute that.

Pascal.