Pocket Informant is one of the most successful PDA applications ever. However, it has not been immune to software piracy. The CEO of WebIS posted an open letter explaining how software piracy is hurting the industry, but also the consumer too and especially small software houses like his.
WebIS: Open Letter to ‘Warez’ Sites
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
That’s why I now use freeware, oss and pay for the comercial games I play.
What bothers me is that there’s lot of people out there that already know about the free alternatives and prefer to use commercial pirated software just out of lazyness or unwilling to learn (the many times) few differences between the mainstream commercial apps and the free ones.
Also preconceptions are a better motive to pirate software instead of using software legally.
The problem is that since software isn’t something perceived as a material thing, and since it is so easily available on p2p or warez sites, people don’t have to get their hands dirty and it makes it quite compelling to get it pirated. What pirate users don’t know is that there’s a lot of effort put into the development of these programs. I’m not even talking about big or specialized high-end software companies. I’m talking about guys like the ones from WebIS.
“””
What bothers me is that there’s lot of people out there that already know about the free alternatives and prefer to use commercial pirated software just out of lazyness or unwilling to learn (the many times) few differences between the mainstream commercial apps and the free ones.
“””
Excellent point, chocobanana. While some of them *might* buy the product if they can’t get it any other way, I’m convinced that piracy hurts FOSS *more* than it hurts the products being pirated, which at least gain mind share, which has tangible value.
Meanwhile, FOSS competes at a disadvantage, because heck, the proprietary stuff is a “freebie” anyway. The pirates don’t consider FOSS because, as you say, it’s easier to just pirate MS Office.
GPL and other FOSS licenses, even BSD, are grounded in the right of the creator to specify how his creations, both source code and binary, are used.
If you believe in FOSS, you really have to condemn piracy. Not because it hurts FOSS (which it does) but because it undermines the very basis of our philosophy.
Edited 2007-06-20 00:27
Your points are mute in this case. There is not “Free” alternative for what these guys are offering. And yet, they get pirated to death. This CEO is 100% justfied to complain about the situation.
“””
Your points are mute in this case. There is not “Free” alternative for what these guys are offering. And yet, they get pirated to death. This CEO is 100% justfied to complain about the situation.
“””
I was addressing the general case, and not this specific one.
But one point that is very much *not* moot is that anyone who is having his software abused by people who do not adhere to the license terms is 100% justified to complain about the situation.
That’s the problem. The general case has been fairly addressed in the FOSS Community, but the professional specialization industries have barely been touched.
There is not “Free” alternative for what these guys are offering. And yet, they get pirated to death.
The reason why they ‘get pirated to death’ is because their software is well known and it is popular, and the reason why it is well known and popular is a lot of people went out and bought it in the first place. The alternative to this is that their software is not well known and not popular, and they have far less in sales and revenue than they do now to the point where they’d border on bankruptcy.
What would you choose?
Many software companies have tried to remedy this situation by trying to put in technical restrictions to try and prevent piracy. The net effect of those measures are that it creates deployment and support issues for genuine customers, thereby putting them off, and increases support and development costs in a big way for the company involved. The cost of doing all this doesn’t seem to have accomplished, or be justified by, any reduction in piracy at all.
Indeed, those who are going to pirate it still do, those who are going to buy it still do (businesses certainly will), and in a vain effort to try and stop the pirates the company will have to put in more development time and incur greater and greater support costs. The proportion of people who pay for the software who would otherwise have simply pirated it and didn’t because they ran into difficult anti-piracy measures, is absolutely negligible. It’s just a fool’s errand looking for fool’s gold, that doesn’t even exist, that many software companies are on here.
The acid test of whether people want to buy the software is ‘Is it good and does the company really give me something for my money?’. Anyone else will simply pirate it, and if it magically can’t be pirated then those people just won’t use it – eventually dragging down its profile and popularity as a result ;-).
That’s the sum total of the debate.
This CEO is 100% justfied to complain about the situation.
As the CEO of a reasonably successful software company I’m sure he’s able to pay off his mortgage and live reasonably comfortably compared with people in other professions. Once you have a software product off the deck (that’s where the real up-front costs are), any costs in producing and distributing it are quite negligible, and it gets steadily easier thereafter.
If he now doesn’t seem to like that then it’s all a bit late now, and he picked the wrong business, didn’t he?
Edited 2007-06-20 17:36
No disagreements here.
The beauty of F/OSS is that you don’t have to make excuses to pirate since pirating F/OSS is impossible. And because you’re not treated as a criminal before you did anything wrong or pushed into paying for planned obscelescence, you become more of a stickler for the license terms, sometimes help out in some way, and either avoid software that has terms you don’t like or obey the reasonable terms or pay for-fee proprietary software that you really want rather than pirate it.
The irony of his position is that I’m willing to bet that if you told him to promote the idea “Don’t pirate. Either use F/OSS or pay up.”, he’d balk since F/OSS steals business away from him (unless he supports Linux commercially) and is often superior to shareware (compare VLC to Windows Media Player, file-roller to Winzip, OpenOffice to most non-Microsoft commercial word processors, etc).
Software piracy killed the amiga and made microsoft great, do we need any other arguments against software piracy?
hmm, maybe it’s time to register my version of total commander, those guys deserve my money
Software piracy didn’t kill the Amiga. Marketing, or lack of thereof, killed the Amiga.
yep, if pirating made microsoft great, amiga should have ruled the world today…
“Software piracy killed the amiga”
Bad management killed the Amiga.
“made microsoft great”
Maybe not great but it certainly “helped” them get some serious market share.
all of these things played a part…!!!
Software piracy – played a very small part
Bad management – so many companies are managed so poorly but survive…
Marketing, or lack of thereof – maybe
++++++++
++++++++
Technology killed Amiga.. = think how long and expensive it was to add CDROM / DVD drves, Harddrive’s and Networking (Internet)… Amiga played a back seat roll in all of these as well as 3D games..
also the perception of the Mhz race… x86 was miles away from Amiga on paper..
Pricing killed Amiga – The clones got cheaper and cheaper…. with more and better hardware…
lack of RnD and progression on the OS…
Technology killed Amiga.. = think how long and expensive it was to add CDROM / DVD drves, Harddrive’s and Networking (Internet)…
Which Amiga you are refering to? A500?
Software piracy was one of the main reasons for the amiga’s success. I still remember the debates at school, and one of the definitive reasons for buying one was that you could copy games. Most people bought a few games themselves, though, but at least 90% of every typical user’s games were copied.
I agree that horrible management killed the Amiga.
… wait til you get a DCMA notice from comcast to start paying for ur software (or download some more Linux torrents)
How are pirates hurting the industry? They won’t buy your stuff anyways. No matter how many leechers you see, you’re not going to get a percentage of those people. It’s not money lost. It’s not yours to have. And never was. That percentage is and always has been ZERO!
Of course, you can say these people shouldn’t have the priviledge of using your software. And I totally agree. At least it’s making your product more popular I suppose.
About Amiga, it was embezzlement from the top two guys taht did it in. It had nothing to do with marketing, piracy or any of that.
It’s funny, I had a discussion with a buddy of mine when he was working at Adobe about this very topic. It started off by me asking why they don’t release a cut-rate version of Adobe Acrobat for consumers without the bells and whistles so people wouldn’t feel obligated to warez it, and this evolved into a discussion about Photoshop.
He mentioned it was actually discussed internally, and although Adobe recognizes that there are far more copies of stuff like Photoshop and Acrobat running out there than their license sales would justify, they don’t care. The majority of home users downloading a cracked copy would not be purchasing it if given a choice, so they didn’t feel it was really “lost” revenue, and it indirectly helped enforce their brand dominance. Their real concern was ensuring that professionals, companies and institutions were paying for their licenses.
Of course, that was a few years ago, maybe their attitude has changed. But I think there is a certain logic to it; companies that spend more resources on locking down their product than improving and innovating with it are fighting a losing battle. I think it’s better to accept that it will happen, do just enough to make it difficult for casual sharing, but focus on providing value that encourages those customers willing to pay into continuing to pay.
Not condoning piracy or anything, but I think the impact it has is overstated. I don’t question the number of unlicensed copies of software out there any more than I question to number of downloaded songs or videos, but I do question whether each one represents lost revenue as the various industry alliances like the RIAA or BSA would have everyone believe.
I think the difference here is that Photoshop is 600 dollars and this app is 10 dollars. Out of all the people that have pirated photoshop, you can definitely make the case that they never would have bought it anyway. But for 10 dollars, the majority of pirates at least could have afforded it. Not to mention it’s a productivity app, not specialized art tool they they are just using for fun.
There was a comment on Slashdot a while back from a programmer of a game that recently had changed the copy protection method to eliminate cracks, and sales that month jumped 40%. Provided that’s true, that’s strong circumstantial evidence that some pirates would have been customers, and it’s a substantial revenue loss.
Totally agree here, and that’s why I think that activation style security systems are a colossal waste of time and actually hurt sales rather than protect them.
Anybody with even a casual knowledge of pirating software knows that activation is easily circumvented (unless it’s the Windows call back style which is offensive for other reasons), and those that don’t, know someone that does.
So what you are left with is a protection system that doesn’t work, and also annoys your genuine users.
Adobe in particular shouldn’t be surprised with the number of pirated copies of Photoshop/Image Ready/Flash etc. They are hideously overpriced, and greatly needed by students who can’t afford them.
Adobe in particular shouldn’t be surprised with the number of pirated copies of Photoshop/Image Ready/Flash etc. They are hideously overpriced, and greatly needed by students who can’t afford them.
Well said. Off-topic, but I think Adobe’s sales of Creative Suite products would improve if they cut the price of them by even 25%. I don’t know how much it costs now, but I dished out $640 for Photoshop 6.0 + ImageReady back when that version was the latest and greatest. I still use it, and price is the only thing keeping me from upgrading–even the upgrade price is too steep for me, unless they’ve done some discounting since the last time I checked.
As for the $25 Pocket Informant, I don’t seriously think pirating would increase the ubiquity of it, given its price and uniqueness. (I’m not aware of any similar, competitive OSS alternatives.)
Given their prices, I almost understand people pirating things like Photoshop and Windows, but I think this is ridiculous. I personally wouldn’t pirate any software, particularly overpriced software, because your wallet and usage of the product is your “vote”, so to speak. If enough people don’t use it or buy it, the ubiquity will decline enough for the developers to do some price-cutting. In doing so, it’d be likely they’d make more money than they did beforehand.
If someone’s really desperate for Pocket Informant, they could just eat frugally for a few days and buy it with that money if they’re too cheap to do otherwise. If they have a PDA, I’d have a hard time believing they’re too poor to afford this.
Edited 2007-06-20 16:28
How are pirates hurting the industry? They won’t buy your stuff anyways.
For software costing over $500 you might have point, but not for software costing much less than $50. I don’t see why you don’t think that if this software wasn’t available for free as warez that no one would break down and cough up $20 to be allowed to continue to use it. It’s not like $20 a lot of money to most people.
I’ll gladly pay for quality software that doesent take away my freedoms, that does not appear to be what this guy is offering, so why should i pay money for such crap?!
Hey, want to buy an icecream? sure. BUT YOU CANT EAT MORE THAN HALF OF IT!!!!
(note: this is not to say i wish to pirate it either, its to say i dont want anything to do with it)
Edited 2007-06-19 23:47
Give us a break. What freedom was taken away from you? Source code? 99.9% of the people I know don’t care about it. If you do, by all means, point us to an open source version that does AS MUCH as their software. So, before you call their product “such crap” just because of your personal pet peeve, I suggest you be very careful how you reply into an honest discussion about the problem. These are honest software engineers, they work day and night, and they must get paid. It’s as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less.
Edited 2007-06-19 23:52
If they don’t make profit but must get paid, than what do you propose:
1. state provides support
1.a. by legalizing piracy as described above
1.b. by other unrelated means
2. criminalize the community and get cash by generating artificial scarcity
3. charity
“””
1. state provides support
1.a. by legalizing piracy as described above
1.b. by other unrelated means
2. criminalize the community and get cash by generating artificial scarcity
3. charity
“””
0. Users respect the licenses of the software they use and choose their software with that in mind.
I hate to have to point out the painfully obvious, but some people seem to want to ignore the elephant in the room.
Edited 2007-06-20 02:50
I am very sorry that you have to point out the painfully obvious, eventhough you hate it, and that I and some other guys make you do so by ignoring some kind of rhetorical elephant in the room.
The thing you’re suggesting is not happening and company in the article is having a financial problem. How are you going to help? Choose 1 – 3 above or give some constructive advice. I’d say they rethink their strategy.
“The thing you’re suggesting is not happening and company in the article is having a financial problem. How are you going to help? Choose 1 – 3 above or give some constructive advice. I’d say they rethink their strategy.”
OK, so let’s go with your premise that expecting users to use software as authorized by the creator (which in this case, means paying for it (just in an the case of OSS, it means respecting the OSS license in question)), is not an option (and sadly, and entire generation has been raised with the idea that digital property has no instrinsic worth because it’s made up of bits rather than atoms).
You say that leaves this company with your options 1-3, which are all cynically-stated (“criminalizing the community”) and/or not realistic either (government subsidies and/or charity).
So how about a 5th option (which I will also state in a cynical fashion): Make a new version of the software with compelling features, but make the new version difficult to use in some way (either poor UI, inflexible, poor documentation, or whatever) so that it requires support, and then charge for that support. (In order for that to work, the new version must have features compelling enough to make people want it instead of the current version.) I don’t hold with this philisophy, but I’ve seen it stated by others over and over (not in the cynical way that I just did, however
).
Realistically:
I think what this company should really do is offer a free/trial version with limited features and/or time-limitted use, and offer a pay-for version that requires an activation key. The key doesn’t have to be a phone-home key, just a run-of-the-mill activation key. Sure, the keys themselves will be spread all over the internet, but I’d bet a significant portion of the userbase would pay $10 to obtain a key legitimatelly. Maybe not a majority, maybe not even 25%, but a significant percent would. Having no protections at all simply makes it too easy/tempting for otherwise honest people to be dishonest. Having even minimal protection would turn some of these people into paying customers.
I do recall the slashdot post referred to above, where a game developer began using modest protection on their games, and sales jumped 40%.
There’s also this well-known article written by a small developer (Mac developer Ambrosia Software (maker of the popular Snapz Pro X and other things) a few years ago on his company’s efforts to combat piracy:
*** The Plain Truth about Casual Software Piracy ***
http://www.windowsusers.org/piracy.html
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34059
It includes this tidibt: “In short, the author of a shareware program found that people were five times more likely to register and unlock a crippled version of his software than they were to register software that came fully functional from the outset.” and
“The plain fact is that most people are honest unless given a chance to be dishonest.”
The trick is finding the right level of protection/pain to not upset legit users to the point that they move elsewhere, but be painful enough to significantly curtail casual piracy.
Edited 2007-06-20 07:33
Piracy is a moral problem. (Morality comes from good education and time spent with moral people in childhood.)
Do you (or do you not) want to reward others for doing work for you? That is the question you have to ask yourself.
The answer applies equally well to FOSS software, Microsoft Office, and a hotdog with a can of Coke.
The end.
Edited 2007-06-20 12:00 UTC
A pity it is, Eugenia, that I cannot mod your comment up.
Very well said Eugenia. This stallman breed has killed it for hard working software engineers.
“Very well said Eugenia. This stallman breed has killed it for hard working software engineers.”
Don’t complain just because you can’t compete.
If you’ve read the article, you’ll know this isn’t about competition.
Neither is it about OSS, GPL and RMS.
The comment was about OSS and so was the reply.
Oh my god…this software kicks ass but i won’t use it because it takes away my freedom oowaann ooowaaann and crying like a baby continues…
this stallman breed makes me sick….ewwwwww…dumbasses
“The comment was about OSS and so was the reply. ”
Eugenias comment was about software price. You’re the one who sidetracked into Stallman and OSS by incorrectly putting the blame there.
“Oh my god…this software kicks ass but i won’t use it because it takes away my freedom oowaann ooowaaann and crying like a baby continues… ”
It’s his or her right to chose software according to whatever criteria they want.
“this stallman breed makes me sick….ewwwwww…dumbasses”
Good thing your comments are so well thought out and on topic, eh?
Well, many people do work day and night on their software. The difference is, some already know that weeping about it won’t help, the others don’t, yet.
When a FOSS projects tries to raise money, I’d really help them, if I know it’s justified (many occasions out there). If a commercial software company starts complaining about issues in TFA, I couldn’t care less, I put that on their marketing and management issues list.
Don’t get me wrong, I definitely don’t say that software developers don’t deserve their money, I wouldn’t say that. I just say, it’s their company’s duty to raise the money with which they can pay their developers. And complaining won’t help.
What kind of moron are you? Are you a stallman baby? Yes you are.
Piracy is illegal and that is a legitimate complain. Stallman too cries like a b**** for GPL violation.
“What kind of moron are you? Are you a stallman baby? Yes you are.”
You, sir, are an imbecile.
“Stallman too cries like a b**** for GPL violation.”
And Stallman relates to software piracy exactly how? What has GPL violations got to do with software piracy?
Edited 2007-06-20 07:30
And Stallman relates to software piracy exactly how? What has GPL violations got to do with software piracy?
You were the one who was defending piracy. How can you embrace piracy (or promote commercial license violation) and at the same time defend GPL violation?
This is typical sign of a stallman baby…which I am sure you are:)
“You were the one who was defending piracy.”
I have done no such thing. Either you’re deliberately putting words in my mouth or you’re confusing me with someone else.
“How can you embrace piracy (or promote commercial license violation) and at the same time defend GPL violation? ”
I wouldn’t know since I never did that.
“This is typical sign of a stallman baby…which I am sure you are:)”
Not in the least.
And Stallman relates to software piracy exactly how? What has GPL violations got to do with software piracy?
Not that I want to get dragged into a pointless GPL flamefest, but GPL violations and proprietary software piracy are both fundamentally the same thing: copyright infringement.
And Stallman would certainly complain (rightfully so) if FSF software was distributed without obeying the terms of the GPL.
and as i said, i would gladly buy software if it wasnt closed down shite which i can not fully utilize. Im a software developer myself, and i ofcourse wish to get paid, and when i deliver some project to my clients, its with full source code and rights. not some restrictive license.
“and as i said, i would gladly buy software if it wasnt closed down shite which i can not fully utilize. Im a software developer myself, and i ofcourse wish to get paid, and when i deliver some project to my clients, its with full source code and rights. not some restrictive license.”
Sounds like you’re delivering custom solutions, where it’s standard practice to hand over the source code to the client. Big deal. Selling software to the masses is a different story altogether. Oh, and if you don’t like the “restrictive license” that a developer uses, then you’re free to simply not use that developer’s software. Disagreeing with the “restrictive license” doesn’t make it ok for you to simply use the software for free.
you so obviously did not read my first post, where i clearly detailed that i didnt even consider pirating it, just because i do not want to buy.
His letter gives a different point of view on software piracy. Of course people pirating large vendor applications doesn’t have quite the impact as pirating smaller vendor applications. So in a different point of view, pirating applications can be hurting the industry if for the only reason is restraints or kills the smaller vendors while the larger vendors with a higher cash chest are able to survive while the consumer themselves hurt or kill the competition.
Interesting view point.
i guess no sympathy vote for MS, seems they like to be pirated as this is the biggest part of their strategy;)
“””
i guess no sympathy vote for MS, seems they like to be pirated as this is the biggest part of their strategy;)
“””
Gates’ 1998 quote, speaking to students at the University of Washington School of Busness, still hits the nail on the head better than anything I could ever say:
—
“Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don’t pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours.
They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
—
Edited 2007-06-20 00:56
Who said History doesn’t have a sense of irony?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
Windows Genuine Advantage? Windows Activation? Office Activation? Windows Started Edition?
Yeah, you can tell they really like being pirated.
Yeah, you can tell they really like being pirated.
They do, and I see Genuine Advantage and Product Activation as evidence of this. Now that Microsoft has allowed their products to be pirated into ubiquity, they’re pulling out the big guns and forcing people to pay up. They wouldn’t have nearly as many people to pay up if it wasn’t for piracy in the first place, and they know it.
Edited 2007-06-20 18:46
Actually, I think managing to distribute the OS with almost all new PCs during the last 20 years probably had a lot more to do with it then piracy. The tight integration Office and Windows has also had more to do with it then piracy, at least in my opinion.
Maybe the issue is not really the warez itself…
Paying 10 us bucks may not be a huge deal to an north american, or someone living in London… but maybe it’s huge for someone in India, Africa or South America… These days, costumers can’t really choose the price of the products available, specially if this product is the only option in the category… EULAs, version upgrade prices and vendor lock-in does make costumers to the other side…
Since the day costumers lot their power to negotiate a product, as it became take it or go somewhere else, well, costumer made the “third option”…
…maybe the problem in the software (shareware) world lies somewhere else… like in the middle man. Everyone knows that 5-10 bucks transactions have a large percentage going to the middle man instead of the benefiting the parts involved… PayPal to help? well, not really… they make the situation better, but not that much in the case of “microtransactions”…
…and everyone now is talking about the future… it’s all about “microtransactions”… Don’t tell the kids, think about them! They have to sleep well!
I don’t know anyone who is happy not paying for something… Everyone I know who did not use an original software does prefer to be legal and supporting the industry. It’s not different from people not paying for music anymore and knowing that most of the price is reverted to the recording industry and not the actual artist (see the latest Internet Radio situation, and how RIAA is trying to bring them down… even worse, how artists are talking that they NEVER have ever seen a check from RIAA with the royalties RIAA collects in their name…)
Well… in the end… the problem is not really A problem… but several ones. You can’t blame just one situation, we have a lot of factors that make the world as it is today…
It isn’t like it’s food or something, it’s software for a PDA. If they can’t afford 10 dollars to pay for the software, how did they afford the PDA? It’s hardly a necessity of life.
“Paying 10 us bucks may not be a huge deal to an north american, or someone living in London… but maybe it’s huge for someone in India, Africa or South America…”
While it is indeed true that $10 is a lot of money in developing countries the people who can actually afford a PDA generally does not live as beggars in the street.
>>While it is indeed true that $10 is a lot of money in developing countries the people who can actually afford a PDA generally does not live as beggars in the street.
They probably stole the PDA. The creep saw it, and said, “I wouldn’t be able to afford this PDA ever, and I’ll never buy it anyway, and the current owner has tons of them”, and walked off with it. The same reasoning that contributes to software piracy usually results in tangible goods theft, tax cheating, client cheating, vendor cheating, spouse cheating, and more. The fact that anyone here even bothers to post to the contrary in an attempt to justify it is proof of how low this society has sunk.
If he is so poor he cannot afford $10 then the $50-100 he could get from selling the PDA would be worth far far more than any feature the PDA could offer. Bottom line, if you own a PDA you can afford $10.
The question isn’t JUST if they can or can’t… it’s if the software is worth what’s asked for to them… I doubt you actually read all my post before firing up, so there’s no point trying to explain again… but everyone has their values, everyone has their opinion of how much something is worth, and when you look at the big picture, you still have to think about how much money that means to each side of the transaction. If the price of a small software is worth the dinner to the developer, and worth the hole electrical bill of the entire month to the potential costumer, well… hardly we can solve the situation to both parties.
As the Pocketinformant forums are apparently as locked up as their software… & the replies from the happy few who can do so on that forum are all reflecting the view of a minority : “I agree… whatever…”
I don’t see the need for a forum if everyone thinks same or if alternate views are censured (i don’t know in this case, but since it’s happening on many forums these days i wouldn’t be too surprised).
I’m appalled to see someone who apparently understands most facts about piracy is making such stupid claims.
His company doesn’t use license keys as they know they won’t stop crackers from distributing their software.
He even acknowledges the fact that pirated software would probably never have been bought anyways, so his phantasms about what money his company would have made had all those downloaded copies been sold have no grounds at all.
What Akac, fails to mention is the free publicity he gets from having his software pirated & most independent studies on piracy have shown that it generates more revenue through word & mouth effect.
What probably also fails to mention is that he has also used pirated software at some point in his life. I mean hasn’t everyone, except perhaps for those who have been introduced to free software early on or who come from a ‘very’ rich background?
Piracy has been around since commercial applications have started showing up and the IT business has been flourishing ever since, i don’t see a real problem here. Software companies have charged unreasonable fees for their software for decades and that’s the main reason why piracy has been so strong in homes, small & medium businesses, universities and even some governments…
I have personally bought some games for the Commodore 64 & later for a Windows 95/98 while also using ‘more’ pirated games and later apps, and don’t feel any shame about that neither do i feel like i ripped someone of his meat. As said before i wouldn’t have been able to afford that software anyways, so what would’ve been the point in having a shiny new computer if i couldn’t do anything with it?
Since i discovered the free software movement i can say that pirated software has been declining steadily to the point of being irrelevant. The progress made in free software these last 4-5 years are so huge that i have no more need to download cracked apps & games.
Sure a few commercial apps are still better or more intuitive to use than their free counterpart but i prefer to advice those alternatives as the more people use them the better they will be & of course on an ideological point of view they’re way better.
Remains gaming support in the free world that’s still lagging behind the closed source monopoly, but even there i don’t feel the need anymore to buy or use pirated commercial stuff & am happy with what i get for free, eventhough it’s less polished it gets better everyday… The only games i still plan to buy are from companies providing a version tailored for free operating systems, to encourage that effort.
So if he’s used pirated software sometime before in his life, he has no right to complain? In your world there is no such thing as learning from mistakes, repentance, etc? Everyone may have used pirated software at some point in time. However many repent of their practices and either pay for full versions of software, or just not use stuff they don’t really need, or even go the FOSS route. Your attempt to discredit his arguments are moot.
This is a ridiculous claim if you thought about it. Fred pirates the software and thinks its great. Fred tells his office about it or being the good buddy he is, he sends them the cracks too. Software use is up, number of licenses purchased is zilch. Most of these so-called “independent” studies make nonsensical claims. However, many people are quick to trumpet their claims in an effort to justify their sociopathic tendencies.
Why should you benefit from services you didn’t pay for? The majority of computer users seem to have different attitudes towards software and hardware. People like you are willing to pay for hardware but not for software. Using the argument that “I wouldn’t have been able to afford that software anyway” is a piss poor argument, pardon the language. If you can’t afford it, don’t use it or make do with a cheaper alternative. As you yourself have said, hardware is useless without the software. You should have factored in the software costs into your hardware purchase and bought a less shiny computer and using the money you saved to buy some legit software.
“Fred pirates the software and thinks its great. Fred tells his office about it or being the good buddy he is, he sends them the cracks too. “
So, you’re saying that everyone Fred knows is open to piracy? I’m sure good ol’ Fred knows a few ‘straight’ people too…then hey presto! *income*
And rightly so!
Software and hardware are fundamentally different.
Software can be copied at almost no cost while the same cannot be said about hardware.
If someone has a shiny PC and I take it, he has lost it.
If someone has some awesome software, I can make a copy of it for less than 1$ and that does not make him any poorer.
What software pirates (silly word btw.) are doing is violating copyright.
What they are not doing is stealing.
Stealing would mean taking the software and removing it from the developer’s hdd.
How you view copyright infringement depends on your view on ethics.
If you believe that there are certain rules that should be followed, no matter the consequences, you should see copyright as such a rule and not use the product without paying for it. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that there cannot be such a thing as “intellectual property”.
On the other hand, if you’re into utilitarianism like me, you should consider the consequences of each possibility and choose that which maximizes happiness and minimizes pain.
I always ask myself the following question:
“Would you, if it was impossible to pirate that piece of software, buy a legitimate copy or would you just stop using it?”
If I would buy the copy, I buy it even though I could keep using the pirated version.
If I would stop using that piece of software, I keep using the pirated software because that minimizes pain:
The developer would not get my money anyway, so I minimize my own unhappiness and keep using the software.
If the software costs about 10 or 20 bucks, it’s safe to say that the people pirating it are just assholes without any sense of moral or decency, that goes without saying 😉
“What software pirates (silly word btw.) are doing is violating copyright.
What they are not doing is stealing.
…
On the other hand, if you’re into utilitarianism like me, you should consider the consequences of each possibility and choose that which maximizes happiness and minimizes pain.
I always ask myself the following question:
“Would you, if it was impossible to pirate that piece of software, buy a legitimate copy or would you just stop using it?”
If I would buy the copy, I buy it even though I could keep using the pirated version.
If I would stop using that piece of software, I keep using the pirated software because that minimizes pain:
The developer would not get my money anyway, so I minimize my own unhappiness and keep using the software. “
———–
That’s great. One can talk of “utilitarianism” and “software piracy is not theft” if that helps one sleep better at night. Your same argument can be used to justify sneaking into movie theaters, sneaking into ballgames, etc.
But (as I’ve seen argued before), there are 5 general categories of “wrong”: lie, cheat, steal, harm, kill. Even if software piracy doesn’t fit the “steal” category, it does fit the “cheat” category. I guess thinking of oneself as a cheater rather than a stealer helps pirates deal with their consciences.
But I think the best argument I’ve seen to the “piracy is not theft” proclamations is in the “Open Letter” itself:
http://www.pocketinformant.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=11368&st=…
“And therein lies my plea to you. If you actually use our software please pay for it. When you don’t you personally are contributing to the financial downfall of a bunch of people who are working hard to make good quality software for you. If you don’t want to think of piracy as theft, think of it as stiffing us. Would you stiff the waiter of a tip? How about the guy who built your house? How about the plumber or the electrician? Or the Taxi cab driver? And yes, software does cost money to make. I pay electric bills, Microsoft dues, travel expenses to meet with MS devs, trade shows, advertising, not to mention salaries. So if you wouldn’t stiff the waiter at your favorite restaurant his 15% (or 10% if you’re money concious) tip, why stiff us the few bucks we ask?”
Edited 2007-06-20 17:08
Utilitarianism is a perfectly valid and in no way inferior view on ethics.
While I like analogies, I must reject yours for the following reasons:
1. In theaters and ballgames, the number of people is limited. For programs it is not.
Even if this number is not yet reached, the whole experience becomes less pleasant as more people enter the building.
2. If I’m in a theater I might cause dirt, and I wear down the carpet, chairs, etc.
One cannot compare software with material things because it’s completely different.
So different that all arguments based on such analogies are completely bogus.
I have no idea, where these people get their five categories from.
They’re probably either from the 10 commandments or straight from their behinds and, honestly, I don’t know which is worse.
I don’t think of myself as a thief or cheater and my sleep has never been more refreshing, thanks for asking.
I wish you would get off your high horse and stop seeing the world all black and white.
Oh, and you might want to read a book or two about utilitarianism or philosophy in general, but that’s just a suggestion.
Anyway, please stop thinking of people with different views on ethics as thieves or cheaters.
Edited 2007-06-20 21:38 UTC
I never liked the idea of using pirated software.
Laziness, ignorance of free alternatives , expensive proprietary ones kept me in that stream for a long time.Gradually,I weaned myself off by using free software alone on my pirated Windows XP pro box.
Then seeing Vista and its nuances having used a test version will tip me over to Linux full time since I use that on a regular basis now.
I suspect this will be the same story for many others to come.
At first, I thought it was some cracked version that found its way online. Now I realise it’s a different scenario all together. The company is basically selling a pre-cracked version directly since there’s no protection.
It’s one thing to complain about piracy, but to leave absolutely no protection at all seems crazy. The company isn’t even giving regular people any reason to buy it. Sure, people can download cracks. But for many, it’s easier to pay $10 (and safer, no virus). But if it’s essentially self-cracked, WTF?
You need to deter some of the people from copying otherwise you’re throwing sales away. Basic software knowledge 101. This is just plain stupid. No other word for it.
All that copy protection archives these days is bugging legit customers (online registration, usb dongle).
When I buy software then I buy software because I think it’s a great product or I’m depending on it and I want to support the company and not because the copy protection is so good that no one cracked it yet.
I actually see it as a good move if a developer doesn’t even bother with copy protection.
All the people I know would never buy the stuff they pirate if they suddenly couldn’t get it for free anymore.
I don’t think that the lost revenue due to piracy is really THAT huge.
For most people it’s just nice to get free stuff. 😉
If there was “protection” people will be grudging against it. And also, there would be support problems too because when people change PDAs and such, there will be problems. What you are saying, is simply avoiding the real problem, which is people not being honest about the things they do.
For example, I just came back from Costco, and there it was, a pack of fresh sushi left by a consumer on top of some beef cans, outside of refrigeration. How stupid was that? And if the Costco employee decides to put it back on the fridge instead of throwing it away, someone will end up with GASTRITIS — or worse.
Or, the people at the Greek Post Office who stole my birthday present to my brother, just 1.5 months ago (the Nokia N80 I sent him went bye-bye).
I personally don’t trust people. And it’s because of “little” things like that. I don’t have to have someone injure me or con me to lose my trust to humanity. Everyday things like these make me f–king sick. It makes me take the side of that CEO, not the consumer’s.
I guess, what I am trying to say is that the problem is a social problem, not a software problem that “easy fixes” of “DRM it” or “use OSS” would actually fix it.
Edited 2007-06-20 03:16
“””
I guess, what I am trying to say is that the problem is a social problem, not a software problem that “easy fixes” of “DRM it” or “use OSS” would actually fix it.
“””
The problem is that people who pirate software tend not to feel that they’ve done anything wrong. Nothing of any real significance, anyway.
They know that they are not likely to be caught and sued.
But more importantly, there is almost no peer pressure on them to make them feel bad about what they are doing because “everybody does it”.
Peer pressure’s not just for kids. And neither is the “everybody does it” excuse.
So next time you catch your grandmother pirating a geneology program, it may just be time to shame her a bit. And if she still does not respond, the BSA piracy hotline is:
1-888-NOPIRACY (1-888-667-4722)
There is a reason for software piracy, and it’s the same as music/movie piracy – software is really overpriced. I realize that it’s not the case with this PDA application, but most people find it ridiculous to pay 150 euro for the operating system, 500 euro for the office package, 600 for the graphics editor and so on when their hardware was 500 bucks.
Free alternatives don’t work for everybody – for example – I’ve been using OpenOffice for 3 years instead of MSOffice, but I really can’t shake Windows, because Linux just doesn’t cut it for me.
As for this guy’s software, I think it’s a matter of mentality. In my country, for example, it is unheard of to buy software for personal use (except for maybe some games). So it doesn’t matter if it costs 10 euro or 1000 euro, no one will buy it as long as they can find it cracked on the internet. People are just not used to buying software here. But maybe if all software would be priced as this application things would change in time.
Edited 2007-06-20 05:41
I am afraid that you are wrong. Software is very cheap. $150 for a whole operating system that took 2000 engineers to complete is CHEAP. Writing good software is HARD. The reason why it costs $150 and not $15000 is because the testing was never as good as it should have been. So, no, software is not expensive.
It is in a country where the average monthly salary is 300 euro.
It is in a country where the average monthly salary is 300 euro.
The average salary metric is useless.
So, in your country, you can buy BMW M5 for 100 euros or high-end PC for 50 euros? No way!
Same with software.
I don’t follow you. Of course this kind of goods seem more expensive here than in a country were the average income is 1000 euro. It goes without saying. You should consider, though, that everyday goods are less expensive.
But, what I am saying is that normal people here find better things to do with their limited income than buy software or M5s. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, just that this is the state of things.
Edited 2007-06-20 18:53
I think you are wrong: Let’s face Microsoft Windows – 20 years of development give us Vista (a piece of crap with errors and bad code along the way) with lots of engineers and money, and there is FreeBSD (for example) with a few engineers and pratical no money – and a better code.
Anyway the quality of the product (software) is not about the efforts you put in them – You can invest your live in making one product the result in 0 (zero!)
This is a matter of debate. Vista is not crap. It is a very complex code that tries to keep compatibility. FreeBSD and Linux break compatibility in various levels all the time. So, before you say that Vista is crap, do your homework as to what it is entails to develop Vista.
What do you think if you buy a new car that break in every trip you make ? You think “Oh no my car is good…it breaks only because it tries to keep compatibility with the roads and drivers of all world!”.
When Mr Gates sell me Windows Vista and say “You can work with AutoCAD 2006 in it, sure you can!!!” and in one day I have 5 reboots to face errors I can reply “You sell me a crap, give my money back”.I don’t what one operating system that “tries to keep compatibility” with the world – this is naif, and you know it
And about that supposed compatibility, Vista is seriously crippled in that area.
For example, DVD apps and burning apps (Nero comes to mind), did not work at all in the beginning and had to be patched in order to work. Too bad I hate the bloated Nero 7+ (where they included even the kitchen sink), since that’s the only version that works now.
Same with 3DMark and PCMark.
Same with alot of software.
If software needs to be patched in order to work at all, then the operating system is _not_ compatible.
Hell, even virus makers were quicker to port their viruses than the antivirus makers were porting their antivirus apps.
Oh, and I work as a computer technician, building, configuring, installing, servicing computers for customers. So I’ve used Vista quite alot and I find it absolutely horrible and incredibly annoying (with all the UAE and DRM crap for example).
Edited 2007-06-20 08:37
I once installed Ubuntu on my girl-friend’s computer. The first thing she wanted to do was run yahoo webcam and video chat with her friends.
That was the end of her ubuntu experience and start of vista experience.
I also installed Ubuntu on my laptop once and the power management (or lack of it) made my laptop too hot to handle. Eventually that was end of my ubuntu experience as well.
See there are annoying things with all the OS. But the way Microsoft has maintained compatibility while enhancing their OS is credible.
Linux is just so horrible when it comes to compatibility.
The difference is in Microsoft land you pay for “compatibility”, in Linux you not!
In Vista you pay to companies to mak hard tests.
To make windows crazy is easy: Work with you stuff from one cdrom and in the middle just eject the cd.
This is a bit off topic, but I thought I’d throw in my bits here.
Yahoo Webcam and Chat doesn’t work in Linux because Yahoo won’t open the protocols and won’t ever update their own Linux client. This is not Ubuntu’s fault, but the fault of Yahoo. There is a program that supposedly works with Yahoo Webcam and Voice called gYachE, but last time I tried that it was extremely unstable.
Vista on the other hand… I have it on my Laptop and it runs fine, but the second I try to use voice chat (mind you this is without webcam) and it chokes, crashes and dies. Yahoo is quite a horrible piece of software.
Power Management though with Ubuntu on my laptop works fine. It runs cooler in Ubuntu than Windows Vista or XP.
Compatibility problems are everywhere. For example, Sid Meir’s Alpha Centauri. The Linux version needs some little hacks like turning off the Composite extension in newest versions of X, and the Windows version requires a patched .dll file in Windows XP (Not sure about Windows Vista, most things don’t work in it anyhow, or they turn your theme back to classic because Aero isn’t compatible with jack.)
“Vista is not crap. It is a very complex code that tries to keep compatibility.”
The fact that it’s complex code that tries to maintain compatibility does not mean it’s not crap. It could even be exactly why it’s crap.
“FreeBSD and Linux break compatibility in various levels all the time”
Windows also breaks compatibility from time to time. In fact, every OS does.
I think that I will mod you down (and everybody below this thread) because wether vista is crap or FreeBSD has better code, has got nothing to do with The WebIS Open Letter to ‘Warez’ Sites.
Go and discuss how beautiful your FreeBSD code is somewhere else. Thank you.
like the majority of “osnews thinkers” you “shoot” before you read all thread, because if you read you find out that others start this “off topic” discussion, then go away and mod down all comments “off topic” that you don’t agree.
P.S.
Your average score (1.35) is not a great deal (above mine)
And the piece of software in the article just threw a monkey wrench into your argument. This software is cheap, yet people feel the need to pirate it. The majority of the population should learn to live *within* their means.
The vast majority of the world population DOES live *within* their means. Only a few ones live above it, stealing/wasting world ressource as if there is no tomorrow to do it.
People get hooked to this way of life that is, in reality, above everybody means except the richests. But they don’t want to live *within* their means anymore. They rather lives at next generation expense. Pirating their future.
It’s no surprise they pirates software too. Cheapest and (sadly, as anti-pirating annoys only geniune customers) often the easiest way to get any software these days.
That’s the majority of the problem right there. The majority of the population can’t live within their means. Look at how much credit card debt people have.
But for someone who can afford a PDA to spend the time and effort to crack software that is only $10, they should be shot.
If they were shot, the PocketPC manufacturers – all selling products for far more than only $10 – will be the ones complaining here, not a small PDA software company…
+1 for LOL Summoning
Nothing to add, except that I agree with him
Extracted from:
http://www.tlug.jp/docs/rms.html
“RMS: I don’t call this copying “piracy”, because that is a propaganda word. I don’t think it is wrong to copy and share information. Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, just illegal.
An unauthorized copy of a proprietary program has the same drawbacks as an authorized copy. If you want to make more copies and share them, you have to do it in secret; and you cannot get the source code.
So I think that unauthorized copies are not much better than authorized copies. The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary.
However, I can achieve the same thing by *not using the program at all*. I use free software instead. “
“The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary. ”
RMS is an ass. It is the developers right to distribute his/her product in any way they chooses, with any license they choose. He is trading one perceived freedom for another, and almost advocating piracy in the process.
I love OSS software, and I agree with the principles of Open Source, but I would never ever take it upon myself to try to force my choices on somebody else, or steal their software because I disagree with the license.
“RMS: I don’t call this copying “piracy”, because that is a propaganda word. I don’t think it is wrong to copy and share information. Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, just illegal.”
I take issue with the notion that software is nothing more than “information”. I look at a copy of Excel, for instance, and I don’t see “information”, I see an implementation of a spreadsheet processor that took millions of dollars to create. Dismissing software as simply “information” is playing word games and is intended to foster the notion that it took little effort/resources to create it. After all, “information” isn’t “created”, it’s just data that’s been discovered and organized.
BTW, if RMS is so keen on sharing “information” (and I’m talking of real information, not compiled software binaries), then let’s see him post his drivers license number, social security number, credit card numbers, ATM card numbers (with the PIN, please), etc on a public forum.
Edited 2007-06-20 17:42
Notice you said “a copy of Excel”. It’s not the copy of Excel which is information, it’s Excel itself!
The fact that something is information doesn’t mean it didn’t take effort to create/discover it. For instance, Einstein’s relativity theory is also information (what else can it be?). It took great effort to develop. Does that mean we should pay his descendants each time we write “E=m*C2”?
Stallman is not implying that information is worthless. What he says is that laws against sharing information are evil.
I can think of quite a few supporting arguments. For instance, the problems with “fair use”. If I review other person’s copyrighted work in such detailed way that the original work can be extracted from my review, am I making fair use, or am I breaching the license? There’s no easy answer, and whoever has the best lawyers wins each lawsuit. Copyright law and speech freedom pull in opposite directions.
OTOH, your argument about RMS’s PRIVATE information is moot, because he’s not against PRIVATE SOFTWARE. He recognises your right to keep your information to yourself, be it software or whatever. He’s only opposed to releasing the information and then trying to control what people in their homes do with it, how much they learn about it by direct inspection (reverse engineering), and how much they tell their friends about their findings.
Proprietary software developers don’t deserve one cent from me, not because their product is worthless, but because their are contributing to an evil system. I have to suffer the consequencies every day, in the form of “de facto standards”. Talk about coice, HA!. There’s virtually no choice, bosses and teachers impose proprietary products and standards over their alumni/employees. I’ve seen teachers encourage students to pirate expensive programs they have to use in class. Who is the victim here? The software vendors? Of course not! They will charge the students in time, when they become professionals. The students and employees are the victims, whether they know it or not.
“The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary. ”
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. Who the hell does RMS think he is dictating the terms for other peoples work? If you dont like they way someone has licensed their work DONT FSCKING BUY IT but don’t reduce their income by being a total jerkoff.
With the RMS line of argument: I don’t agree with the GPL so therefore it is not unethical of me to violate it. In fact, its good because the owner does not deserve a reward for using the GPL.
That’s pretty much par-for-the-course for Stallman. In his mind, I doubt he sees himself as an advocate of one particular development model – but rather, he’s a crusader on a holy mission to convert the world to his one-true-faith. And in that framework, anything that’s bad for proprietary software developers is perfectly-justifiable – because they’re the dirty, evil heretics after all.
This argument could be used to justify any kind of unethical (but currently lawful) behavior.
Slave oweners could have said something like “who are these yankees to decide we can’t own slaves. Slaves are our property, not theirs. If you don’t like slavery, DONT BUY SLAVES but leave us alone”.
(NO, I DON’T mean copyrights and slavery are comparable. I just want to show that sometimes the ethical thing to do may be to get into other people’s business and challenge their “rights” and their “freedoms”.)
So, RMS thinks copyright restrictions are evil, and he uses a copyright license to fight against it’s worst effects. Is that contradictory? Not really. The GPL is just a TOOL; using it does NOT mean one approves of copyright law. The purpose of this tool is to encourage developers to contribute, by making sure they are working for the community, not for proprietary vendors. If there were no copyrights, there would be no proprietary vendors and no need for the GPL, as the whole world would actually be the kind of community the GPL tries to build.
http://www.prevedgame.ru/in.php?id=20508
If you can’t make money from your business it is just a signal to shift to other markets.
Probably users don’t feel your work deserve to be paid.
‘evil pirates’ or whatever is just an excuse.
This is a completely wrong and very much uneducated statement. Software piracy actually helps software companies as long as they are not in the entertainment business i.e. video games and other software the purpose of which is only entertainment. Most people what use pirated software would never purchase it if they had to. The reason is usually that they cannot afford it but there are many other reasons as well. However, by allowing then to use a software that they cannot afford now later on when they can afford it or for some reason they have to license the software that they use they will chose the same product. So at the end piracy helps the company. The problem is with small software manufacturers. Those make highly custom made solutions and as such they shouldn’t have problems selling them. Only some small manufacturers seem to not understand the nature of the industry and get burned. Then you get lashing out like the current open letter. The truth however is that the existence of pirated software hurts the OSS community mostly because those same people that end up using pirated products would otherwise be using an OSS solution. Besides the elitist nature of the linux community, piracy is the single greatest reason why linux still has no viable desktop acceptance.
And all this other whining about how some commercial product is getting hurt because people are not willing to pay $10 for it is simply stupid. If you don’t have enough customers at a price as low as that you are definitely doing something wrong. There’s a lot more to making profit than having a good product.
I hate to be the jerk here, but here goes.
–
Dear Mr. CEO,
If you can’t defend it you don’t deserve it. Cry to the bigger bully, have him enforce your rules. Might makes right. Ask the indigenous peoples of several continents. Perhaps someone is kind enough to resolve themselves to a moral standard and pay for what you do. Congratulations. But never doubt that the cosmos feels no pity for you and your survival is your own responsibility. If piracy which has existed since the dawn of personal computing bothers you, perhaps you should entertain thoughts of a new career or invent the unbreakable security and be a gajillionaire. All the moral fiber in the world won’t feed a family for one night. They won’t pay? Go mow lawns. You shouldn’t have fallen for the devry commercials. Life sucks, purchase compatible headgear. Sorry.
You obviously don’t make anything worth pirating.
And you obviously have a fundamental problem understanding how the world actually works. I would explain it to you but I don’t like you.
I’d love to see a free version of Ansys, Pro/E, AutoCAD latest, etc., that match the power, accuracy and standards for engineering these and others like Matlab include.
Until then, FOSS free software cannot touch such tools.
CATIA, SolidWorks and others know they only have to compete against other highly expensive solutions.
There is a time and place for FOSS and there is a time and place for commercial purchases non-FOSS software.
“But the reason piracy hurts those who pirate is because they are like vampires slowly killing the company that they are sucking the applications off of.”
This reminds me of the Brady Bunch – “When you tattle, you’re tattling on yourself!”
Seriously, I agree with this guy. I’ve tried so many times, but between piracy and free/open-source alternatives there is no chance to make money in smaller software markets. I’ve pointed that out here before, and was beaten to death for “spreading FUD.”