zridling: I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to pay those prices anymore!'I never even heard of the movie but had a good ;D ;D ;D at that one!!
PS: If you didn't watch the movie, you might be slightly confused now. No problem, just watch the movie. 8)-brotherS (April 17, 2007, 06:11 AM)
More and more I'm looking for and donating money and feedback to open source and donationware programs where I can find them. I'm just sick of companies like Microsoft and Adobe .... Better, let's start listing all the companies and software vendors that treat their registered users well!-zridling (April 17, 2007, 05:27 AM)
This is exactly why software piracy is such a thriving business.
This is exactly why software piracy is such a thriving business.No, software piracy thrives because the pirates are thieves. I don't like high prices either, but we don't have a 'right' to low cost software. The prices will be as high as the market will bear.-pro3carp3 (April 17, 2007, 07:17 AM)
So right, .... gas, $3/gallon ....-zridling (April 17, 2007, 10:11 AM)
$0.56 a gallon??!! I am not paying that!!! Are they crazy??!!
Yup, agree with pro3carp3 and Curt but I *think* that we're straying into the philosophical realm here in that I don't think that people who use cracks, hacks and serialz are necessarily career criminals but rather people who... ah fuck it. They're thieves and there is no justification for it.There's plenty of people that actually do have legitimately purchased software but still use the cracked version since it's goddamn more convenient - dongles, phone-home, cd protections, you name it. I certainly know I do, when a game doesn't need data from the frigging DVD, I'm not going to bother inserting it. And in my younger days when I went to LAN parties, why should I bring along my original game CDs/DVDs and risk them getting stolen/broken/whatever?-Darwin
Yup, agree with pro3carp3 and Curt but I *think* that we're straying into the philosophical realm here in that I don't think that people who use cracks, hacks and serialz are necessarily career criminals but rather people who... ah fuck it. They're thieves and there is no justification for it.There's plenty of people that actually do have legitimately purchased software but still use the cracked version since it's goddamn more convenient - dongles, phone-home, cd protections, you name it. I certainly know I do, when a game doesn't need data from the frigging DVD, I'm not going to bother inserting it. And in my younger days when I went to LAN parties, why should I bring along my original game CDs/DVDs and risk them getting stolen/broken/whatever?-Darwin-f0dder (April 17, 2007, 05:40 PM)
Carol Haynes: anything under £1/litre is cheap in .dk at the moment.
[Carol]: Always makes me laugh when I hear Americans whinge on about expensive gas - simple solution get rid of the 6 litre V8 4x4 SUV and buy a 50cc motorbike - or even better a pushbike ... that'll get you fit too!That's true of most people world wide - it is only countries like the UK that have the majority living in cities and that's partly a legacy of the industrial revolution and partly because there is almost no land left and what is left can't be built on.
________________________________________________
— Most Americans don't live in big cities, and most of us commute long distances/times to work.-zridling (April 18, 2007, 01:20 AM)
— After WWII, we built all our cities, nay suburbs, for driving "to," not for living "in." (Yes, yes, it's true idiocracy. You should live here!)LOL - no arguments here - but it is also getting a bit that way in the UK. People seem unable to take the kids 100 yeards to school without jumping into a 4x4
— Driving small vehicles and bikes on interstates is illegal.Is here too - but I would say the average car in the UK is probably more fuel efficient and smaller than what you see on US roads - and most of that is down to fuel costs and differential taxing.
— Lots of people ditched those 4-wheel drive SUVs (seems I see only the handicapped hopping in and out of them anymore).Surprised by that comment - I thought SUVs and all-terrain were the biggest growth area in the US for vehicle manufacturers! Are they all sitting on the forecourts?
— Most self-employed people here buy trucks in order to run their small business.Don't know so much about the US but Canada has a huge number of trucks - and you never, ever see anything in the back of them. They seem to be a choice of transport for the odd hunting trip when you need to get that moose home. They certainly aren't fuel efficient and cheap to run. If people want to transport stuff for work the old Ford Escort vans would be a hell of a lot cheaper to run - but not nearly as cool!
— Riding a bike 25 miles to work in the mornings on inner-belt freeways is not an option.Sadly no longer here either - in the past I travelled 25 miles to work - I used a pushbike at both ends (4 or 5 miles) and a train in the middle. Sadly I would probably not be able to do the 4 or 5 miles now without a near death experience and the trains don't let you take bikes any more. Mind you most tyrains in the UK aren't designed for passengers given that it is cinsiderably cheaper to drive a car with one person than take a train - even factoring in road pricing and ridiculous parking charges!
— Unlike civilized countries, we never invested in public transportation beyond New York City. And trains, what are those?We invented the trains and laid almost all of the track in the 19th century - now we probably have the worst trains in Europe (and probably the world). Unreliable, expensive, dirty and downright annoying. And the UK masterminded public transport but apart from the London tube system (which everyone complains about but is still pretty good IMHO) there is no proper public transport in the UK.
— Median US income is around $40k, but the USD is weak, we're taxed to death, and working people receive no benefit whatsoever for their taxes.I would guess (I don't have any evidence) that your median salary is about the same as ours but our cost of living is a lot higher and our taxes are a lot higher. At the moment the UK does get benefits for the taxes but they are getting a lot meaner and institutions like the health service are on their last legs - and the Tories would really like the super US approach to health (i.e. if your poor you can f**k off and die 'cos you didn't vote for us anyway).
— Our jobs suck and pay minimum wage. Meanwhile, we compete daily with illegal aliens from Mexico, whom companies like Wal-Mart hire in droves.Join the club most 'British' jobs are outsourced to India these days (try calling British Telecom with a phone fault and find out what the weather is like in Mumbay). We don't actually have a manufacturing industry any more - almost everything is imported from cheap labour economies. What jobs we do have are usually farmed out the Polish these days.!
— Finally, our cars suck. While the rest of the world drives Minis and BMWs, those vehicles are prohibitively priced (as is their insurance) here.No argument there - but you have a free economy (that was a joke by the way) - people should talk with their money and change things.
Due to the wife's career, I work in Missouri, but actually live in Chicago, a 7.5-hour drive. No train service. I'll go back and forth four times in the next 11 days. Otherwise, I'm the greeter at Wal-Mart. Every dollar counts, because once it's in my pocket, money finds a hole. So I wish it were as simple as you say! ;-)You have my sympathy - that must be miserable. I have commuted pretty much whenever I have worked - last time 4 hours a day of sitting in queues. However,I think the appalling state of the US economy is finally coming home to roost like reality has in the rest of the world. Welcome to the club!
An upgrade to Creative Suite 3 Design Premium from CS2.3 costs an American $471.90 with Californian sales tax. The exact same upgrade in the UK costs £546.38, equivalent to $1080.31 as of going to press. That's a markup of almost 130%, significantly beyond the usual price-doubling that Brits have reluctantly come to expect.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/pay_twice_you_wish/-The Register
Due to the wife's career, I work in Missouri, but actually live in Chicago, a 7.5-hour drive. No train service. I'll go back and forth four times in the next 11 days.I don't know how you can cope with that commute. (I've heard of worse commutes but that's definitely up there!) Anything over 45mins drives me crazy after six months.
no matter how fast your system is, Photoshop is guaranteed to bring it to a crawl!s/Photoshop/any graphics package/
With the open-source/freeware explosion happening these guys are sooner or later going to have to start slashing their prices badly to stay afloat anyway, why not do it right away?I'm not sure there will ever be a collision between free and commercial software. Free software tends to be very small, simple programs that don't get significantly updated often and only do one or two simple things. That isn't bad, I use and love a lot of those programs and I've written and given away several myself, but when someone wants to make something really good, polished and powerful it soon turns into a full-time job. There's only so much you can do in your spare time. At that point you've got to start earning money from your software or the harsh realities of our capitalist world will swallow you up and spit you out.-Nosh
Piracy isn't something I'm going to resort to if Adobe never equalise the UK price of CS3, though. I'll investigate the current alternatives, or just stick with CS2 and get on with it. Or I'll get drunk one night and think, "dammit, I want that new feature," and spend the money before I know what I've done. But it's a lot of money and I am insulted that I have to pay 230% of what someone in the US has to pay. That 230% is AFTER converting the GBP price to USD, too (I'm not being an idiot and complaining about the exchange rate):An upgrade to Creative Suite 3 Design Premium from CS2.3 costs an American $471.90 with Californian sales tax. The exact same upgrade in the UK costs £546.38, equivalent to $1080.31 as of going to press. That's a markup of almost 130%, significantly beyond the usual price-doubling that Brits have reluctantly come to expect.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/pay_twice_you_wish/-The Register
Will me not buying Photoshop influence Adobe? I seriously doubt it. They're not aiming the product at me. It's for businesses, where paying that much for some software is a non-issue and where they have to have not only the best software but the standard software that they know will be understood by everyone they hire. All the same, I bet some of the smaller companies will be just as annoyed as home users like myself when they realise how much the UK are getting screwed.-Nudel (April 18, 2007, 04:42 AM)
What really does annoy me is when people do try to sell those small, simple, spare-time software products.Just to clarify, I mean when people sell them individually for more than a couple of dollars/quid. I wasn't having a dig at the DonationCoder concept which I think is pretty cool.-Me
as a little modification to what Zaine said ( ~ list of cheap vendors and programs ) I suggest that, on at least one long plain html page, we make a list of all of *our members here* who sell programs, along with the program names.-2stepsback (April 18, 2007, 06:56 AM)
(https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8146.0;attach=17056;image)-Nudel (April 18, 2007, 05:13 AM)
Now CS3 is out and Adobe are charging UK customers 230% of the price they charge US customers.-Nudel (April 18, 2007, 04:42 AM)
So we are left in this strange situation where companies are officially fighting to keep the program out of the hands of people who can't afford it, just so they can extract high dollars out of the people who can. This is the kind of thing that makes me long for the day when we can all pay what we think a program is worth to us (i know it's not going to happen im just saying).I suppose they reckon as well that if they reduce the price the others - "people who can't afford it" still wont buy it - maybe they're right...-mouser (April 18, 2007, 10:02 AM)
in general i guess i evaluate companies and get a feeling for if i think they are trying to jack up their prices and update charges in order to maximize profits with no real "love" of their customers. i want to support companies which balance making a profit with having happy users. show me a company trying to bleed their users dry to squeeze the last drop of potential profits, and i'll show you a company whose users are looking for an excuse to jump ship.-mouser (April 18, 2007, 10:02 AM)
hi folks,
what do you feel about purchasing expensive software in instalments?
does that help the situation?
It sure will help M$ since they've come up with the micropayments stuff (have an account - much like a pre-paid phone card)
what d'you say?
-2stepsback-2stepsback (April 18, 2007, 12:01 PM)
I'm not sure there will ever be a collision between free and commercial software. Free software tends to be very small, simple programs that don't get significantly updated often and only do one or two simple things. That isn't bad, I use and love a lot of those programs and I've written and given away several myself, but when someone wants to make something really good, polished and powerful it soon turns into a full-time job.
As a programmer I knew that good, powerful software like Photoshop was as difficult and time consuming to make as digital camera.
The reason I hadn't bought Photoshop until then, but had bought things like digital cameras, was simple and wrong: Photoshop was easy to steal and digital cameras were difficult to steal.
Darwin, you make a good point on piracy. However, I figure most folks feel that Microsoft, Adobe, and other big corporate software deserves to be pirated: You're forcing me to steal it! Reminds me of Steve Martin's advice on how to be a millionaire: "First, you get a million dollars...."
Carol - It is a very simple philosophy that drug dealers rely on all the time ... get 'em hooked and then screw them for all they are worth. MS are masters of the philosophy (my opinion).Those are almost Bill's words as also of official MS spokesmen - "if they are gonna pirate anyway, we want it to be our software that they pirate"
As also a developer "emulation SDK" which compiles to native Mac code without needing a Mac to run it.-2stepsback (April 19, 2007, 01:27 AM)
yes, i hate macs with a passion, but pirating mac os makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside
You can run Mac OS in an emulator on a Windows PC with PearPC (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/).Seems you still have to buy a MacOS copy to run the software. PearPC is a hardware emulator, it seems. Anyway, for a moment you had me bouncing around happily :) :)-app103 (April 19, 2007, 01:59 AM)
So, he makes a music player, all sleek and user friendly, to advertise the Apple brand. Majority of PC owners in Asia don't even know that there is a company called Apple.
The praiseworthy thing about Apple is that they keep everything(business games) within limits of common decency. I admire them for that. I've yet to hear about pirated Apple software(might be my ignorance, after all). I'm damn sure the next product line from Apple will be a side-by-side installation of Mac Oses or program suites on Windows machines (NOT Vista).-2stepsback (April 19, 2007, 01:27 AM)
in general i guess i evaluate companies and get a feeling for if i think they are trying to jack up their prices and update charges in order to maximize profits with no real "love" of their customers. i want to support companies which balance making a profit with having happy users. show me a company trying to bleed their users dry to squeeze the last drop of potential profits, and i'll show you a company whose users are looking for an excuse to jump ship.-mouser (April 18, 2007, 10:02 AM)
From the start, however, Google has marketed itself on niceness. It trumpets an unofficial motto, "Don't be evil," publishes a detailed code of ethics for its employees, and adds playful modifications to its home page on holidays. Smart business for a company built in large part on consumer trust, but heartwarming nonetheless.
Lately, though, Google has been acting less like a collective of lovable geeks and more like a big, powerful corporation. Not surprising—it is a big, powerful corporation, one with a responsibility to its shareholders to grow ever bigger and more powerful. But it's still somewhat jarring.
Where does it stop?-pro3carp3 (April 19, 2007, 07:32 AM)
I completely agree, anything I can say on the subject has been said before.
Really, when you get down to it... Using software that you didn't pay for is actually only breaking the terms of the license. If you break the license by using academic software for commercial purposes you're just as bad as any other traditional pirate.
And, I think I may not have worded the "different than intended" remark very well. What I mean is: as far as I know, academic software generally has some clause in the EULA that says that you cannot use the software for commercial purposes.
Dear god, don't let this turn into a Mac vs. PC thread! These are more tired than the pro/con arguments on software piracy...
...even though I am against piracy, I also do not agree with almost all of the ways that it is currently enforced.
Darwin: hang on, the government of Canada is trying to get at my money so that it can fund running the country and provide services that benefit myself and my fellow citizens and I'm trying to get off with paying as litlle... does this make me a hypocrite?!
Right, off to try to find more loopholes in the tax code... hang on, the government of Canada is trying to get at my money so that it can fund running the country and provide services that benefit myself and my fellow citizens and I'm trying to get off with paying as litlle (preferably nothing) for those services as I can... Kind of sounds like a software developer/consumer dynamic, doesn't it! Crud, does this make me a hypocrite?!-Darwin (April 19, 2007, 09:59 AM)
However, situationism should not be confused with Moral relativism. For the moral relativist, there is no universal moral truth, that there are only beliefs, perspectives, ethno-centric values, none more valid than another. Fletcher's situational ethics finds the foundation of moral truth in agape; therefore it is not moral relativism. Situational ethics rejects both legalism, and antinomianism. However, like relativism, situationism is criticized for lacking a situation-neutral point of view from which to apply its standards.
This is why software piracy is so complex - nothing tangible has been stolen (ie no box has vanished off a shelf without being paid for) - and I as I tried to point out - in some ways it's difficult to determine how the "victim" suffers from the practice, some even argue (see above) that at least some of the "victims" actually benefit from it!-Darwin (April 19, 2007, 09:59 AM)
“All human beings deserve a chance to achieve their full potential,” said Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft. “Bringing the benefits of technology to the next 5 billion people will require new products that meet the needs of underserved communities; creative, new business approaches that make technology more relevant, accessible and affordable; and close collaboration between local governments, educational institutions and community organizations.”
The expansion of Unlimited Potential will focus on three areas, Gates said: education, innovation, and jobs and economic opportunity.
“Computers and connectivity are still too expensive for private ownership by the poor, and applications as well as information resources that are appropriate to this group have been slow to emerge, in part because the poor themselves have not been involved in creating them,” said C.K. Prahalad, author and professor at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business. “In order to help create the applications and start the business dynamo that unleashes their potential, the people at the bottom of the pyramid need to have reliable, affordable access to technology and to learn computing skills.”
I don't like high prices either, but we don't have a 'right' to low cost software. The prices will be as high as the market will bear.
By purchasing their [overpriced] software, I've earned the right to gripe about it! If they don't like hearing it, then sell it cheaper.
I think i smell a new software license:
"ComplainWare:
You may use this software freely as long as you don't gripe about it. If you want to gripe you must pay our licensing fee of $1 per gripe."-mouser (April 20, 2007, 07:08 PM)
QUICK TANGENT: By the way, Carol, I love your link to Richard Dawkins' awesome site. He's made a few videos (available on YouTube). He's also an active partner at Edge.org (http://www.edge.org/).-zridling (April 21, 2007, 04:01 AM)
In other words, imagine the case of photoshop. Ideally, as long as they don't have to provide you with support, they aren't negatively effected if 30,000 high schoolers have pirated copies of photoshop and learn how to use it. In fact it helps them by establishing a more dominant user base and trained users who may eventually buy the program. But they can't "officially" give out those copies of photoshop or charge $5 for them, because they need to be able to charge the pros $500 for it.Although it may have been one bloke who thought of this on his own, and not Adobe's company policy or whatever, I have heard a story about an Adobe trainer going to a university media course to show people how to use Adobe's stuff who also showed them where to get pirate copies. (I heard this from a friend who was in the training session. I've heard similar stories second hand, too.) Clearly it is in Adobe's interests for people who can't afford their stuff to use it anyway and they seem aware of it. (As are Microsoft judging by their recent quote.)-mouser
How would you account for Linux then? What about Gimp, Open Office, Azureus, Utorrent?Azureus and Utorrent aren't big/complex enough to be sold commercially, IMO, especially with so many other good, free and almost identical programs for doing the same job.-Nosh
First, Microsoft gave Sun $150 million and then another $1.6 billion just to use Java in Windows, among other patents from 2002-04.What on earth has that got to do with OpenOffice?-zridling (April 22, 2007, 01:10 AM)
Second, StarOffice could never threaten MS Office since its open source replicateWhy does it being open source mean it cannot threaten MS Office? Firefox threatens Internet Explorer and it is open source. Being open or closed source doesn't have a large effect on success, IMO; having a full-time team of developers is the most important thing. What I've been saying through this thread is that very few free products have full-time development teams and those that do tend to be funded by a company with an agenda. Agendas are not necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it is rare for a company to want to make money by giving something substantial away and your FireFoxes and OpenOffices (and Internet Explorers) are the exceptions, not the rules.-zridling
OpenOffice is far more prevalent on desktops than StarOffice.You are aware that OpenOffice is based on StarOffice, right? My point was that OpenOffice would not exist had Sun not funded the development of StarOffice. Nothing more, nothing less.-zridling
Third, Sun didn't create StarOffice, they bought the company and re-engineered a good bit of the code through most of the 1990s.True, but it's also true that StarOffice was closed-source and proprietary before Sun bought it, and the company that made it, in 1999. My point still stands: It is rare for an open-source and free product to be large, complex and polished, and when one is it is almost always because it has been funded by a company with an agenda.-zridling
Nudel, you seem to have a hostility toward open source software. Is there a reason why?I have no hostility whatsoever towards open source software as a concept. If I appear to then you've got me wrong. I write my own open-source software in my spare time so it would be very odd for me to be against it.-zridling
Is it because of open standards (e.g,. OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format (http://www.odfalliance.org/)) perhaps?WTF would I be against open standards? You're putting words in my mouth and going off on a tangent based on completely wild assumption. Stop it.-zridling
While I agree many open source apps lack the polish of an Adobe app, but understand that most open source software is targeted to do one (or a few) thing really well and just work.That's along the lines of what I am trying to say!-zridling
OpenOffice might not exist without Sun releasing it under the GPL, but StarOffice would.Witout Sun releasing it under the GPL it wouldn't even be part of this discussion for completely obvious reasons.-zridling
As you suggest, instead of people proudly ripping off big commercial software despite the issue of affordability, it's better instead to [conscientiously] use an open source alternative.I agree, where there is a reasonable alternative. For many things there still isn't.-zridling
My point wasn't that it never happens but that it's rare and I don't see any signs that it's going to become so common that commercial software ceases to exist.
This discussion about photoshop has got me thinking more about some of my feelings on these high end programs. I sometimes work with academic software, which has similar insane pricing schemes (go price matlabl).
Part of what makes people turn to piracy is when a company prices its products for one rich market, and prices it out of range of normal people, for the sole purpose of keeping the people who can afford it from paying less.
In other words, imagine the case of photoshop. Ideally, as long as they don't have to provide you with support, they aren't negatively effected if 30,000 high schoolers have pirated copies of photoshop and learn how to use it. In fact it helps them by establishing a more dominant user base and trained users who may eventually buy the program. But they can't "officially" give out those copies of photoshop or charge $5 for them, because they need to be able to charge the pros $500 for it. So we are left in this strange situation where companies are officially fighting to keep the program out of the hands of people who can't afford it, just so they can extract high dollars out of the people who can. This is the kind of thing that makes me long for the day when we can all pay what we think a program is worth to us (i know it's not going to happen im just saying).
in general i guess i evaluate companies and get a feeling for if i think they are trying to jack up their prices and update charges in order to maximize profits with no real "love" of their customers. i want to support companies which balance making a profit with having happy users. show me a company trying to bleed their users dry to squeeze the last drop of potential profits, and i'll show you a company whose users are looking for an excuse to jump ship.-mouser (April 18, 2007, 10:02 AM)
Stealing is wrong. Piracy is stealing. Piracy is wrong. If you can't afford it, don't buy it and don't steal it. If you can't afford Photoshop, use the Gimp. If you can't afford Windows, use Linux. Period.-tinjaw (April 19, 2007, 09:15 AM)
I always laugh when I hear others complain about this or that in America. If your country sucks, move. The US pays more for oil than any other country. What's the military budget for Britain for instance? Just because the price is not on the pump doesn't mean it is not paid.Carol Haynes: anything under £1/litre is cheap in .dk at the moment.
I realise that other EU states also have a bad time of petrol prices but I didn't realise Denmark had got that bad!
Always makes me laugh when I hear Americans whinge on about expensive gas - simple solution get rid of the 6 litre V8 4x4 SUV and buy a 50cc motorbike ;) - or even better a pushbike ... that'll get you fit too!-Carol Haynes (April 17, 2007, 07:19 PM)
My point wasn't that it never happens but that it's rare and I don't see any signs that it's going to become so common that commercial software ceases to exist.
You seem to have substantially changed your stand now.-nosh (April 22, 2007, 09:45 AM)
I'm not sure there will ever be a collision between free and commercial software. Free software tends to be very small, simple programs that don't get significantly updated often and only do one or two simple things. That isn't bad, I use and love a lot of those programs and I've written and given away several myself, but when someone wants to make something really good, polished and powerful it soon turns into a full-time job. There's only so much you can do in your spare time. At that point you've got to start earning money from your software or the harsh realities of our capitalist world will swallow you up and spit you out.
(What really does annoy me is when people do try to sell those small, simple, spare-time software products. It seems cheap to me and, even if it's more costly to me personally in terms of my time vs my money, I'd rather write my own version of a small tool than pay someone money for something that only took them a day to write. Usually there's some other tool that'll do the same job for free, and that's alright.)
There are some very good, polished and powerful free programs but they're exceptions, IMO. They're also often funded by large companies with an agenda of killing off other products in the market.-Nudel
Either you're extremely naive or you're simply in denial if you think good freeware that does more than one or two things is a rare commodity. I could give you a list of top notch freeware apps on my system that are as good as or better than any commercially available software.
Azureus and Utorrent are damn good programs that perform complex tasks and perform them well.-Nosh
I wouldn't categorize Firefox as a simple software that just does one or two things either, it's the most used app on a lot of PCs.
I'm sure a lot of folks on this forum will be able to mention great free IDEs that they use for developement.-Nosh
Is it just another exception then? Wait a sec! We're seeing quite a few exceptions here... maybe it's the rule rather than the exception.-Nosh
Now... If you live in a developed country, then there's no excuse. You can afford my prices and what I'm asking for my software. If you're stealing, then you're stealing. Period. Agreed there.Playing devil's advocate, what about someone who is in a developed nation but has chosen to do a low-paying job? (Or can't get a high-paying job.) They might work just as hard as someone else who earns more. They might be working on things that will really benefit their fellow man, which often don't pay as well as things that will benefit the 5 rich guys on the golf course who own everything. (The "payment" isn't in money but the satisfaction of making a difference, but that doesn't buy you much software or anything else in this world.)-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
Now... If you live in a developed country, then there's no excuse. You can afford my prices and what I'm asking for my software. If you're stealing, then you're stealing. Period. Agreed there.Playing devil's advocate...-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
They could even sell it to customers in the USA/Europe at prices which massively undercut other developers, and still earn a very good standard of living. Is that fair on the other developers? ...-Nudel (April 22, 2007, 01:37 PM)
When you make $100 per month, it's not easy to spend $50 on software.If anyone makes $100 per month and they spend a single penny on software, they're a fricking idiot. If they are making $100 per month a) they probably don't have a computer in the first place b) if they do, they can't afford electricity to run it. c) If they "need" software they can use free software. I don't care if the price of the software is one cent. If they don't pay for it, they are stealing. If you don't believe me, read a dictionary. I'm not trying to be hostile here, it is just a fact of life. The definition of the word is what it is.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
To ask that someone that makes what I spit on for a piece of software is just cruel. It's called having some sense of generosity and compassion.That is a red herring. Again, if the software has a price, be it one cent or a million dollars, if they use it without paying they are stealing. It has absolutely nothing to do with generosity or compassion. Again, I repeat, if a seller wants to show compassion and generosity and give it away for free or at a reduced price, then I applaud them.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
At the moment our ability to respond to these issues (as software manufacturers) is limited, and only the larger manufacturers really have the means to do soI cannot disagree with you more. I disagree with you 100%. I offer you the tens of thousands of one-person F/OSS applications available for anybody's use. It doesn't take a large manufacturer to provide free software for people who can't afford to pay for software. I am not sure why you say this. And if the company you are working for makes software that poor people cannot afford, spend your time off the clock working on F/OSS.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
But to begrudge someone that lives in poverty and is fortunate enough to actually HAVE A COMPUTER is just cruel.Who in this thread has aid *anything* to indicate that they begrudge such people? No one has said anything of the sort.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
I'm not really buying this line of reasoning across the board.Yes, pricing is situational. But, that is a red herring. The situation might be that the software only costs $0.000001 USD in China and $1,000,000 USD in the US, however, if you take it without paying, by definition, you are stealing. I don't care if you downloaded it, borrowed installer media, or shoplifted it. It doesn't matter if it is software.
Pricing is situational.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
Just around the corner from my house I see Mercedez cars, BMWs, and Bentleys. These people can afford to pay for software. I can also travel a few hours from where I live and see people in complete and total squallor with literally nothing. If they "steal" from me, my cost is virtually nothing.It has nothing to do with one's ability to afford something. Again, by definition, if you take something that isn't yours, that isn't being offered to you by the rightful owner freely, then you are stealing. If the millionaire down the street takes the same exact software that a homeless person takes without paying, they are both stealing.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
We're talking about software here. The cost for me to get my products to these people is virtually nothing.You can decide that about your personal situation and the software that you personally make, however, just because you don't seem to feel there is any cost, even an opportunity cost, associated with doesn't mean that this is the case across the board for all entities and all software.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
How can I possibly begin to accuse people of theft there?Definition of theft (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theft) according to Wiktionary. Definition of stealing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal) according to Wiktionary. That is how I can.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
It's got to do with a matter of scale and resources. On my resource scale I can spend $50 and not bat an eye. For some people, that's a weeks wages!It has nothing to do with matter of scale or resources. See definition above.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
(Ahem... Like mouser said... WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU!)-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
Now... If you live in a developed country, then there's no excuse. You can afford my prices and what I'm asking for my software. If you're stealing, then you're stealing. Period. Agreed there.If you want to forgive poor people for stealing, fine. Let them take your stuff. However, it is theft. period. I haven't yet seen any reason, in any of the arguments you have put forth that the definition of theft has changed.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
This is a complex issue and there are real problems in solving it.As this discussion is about piracy, I will have to disagree with you. It is black and white. However, I do believe that you are mixing issues here, and the issue you seem to be confusing with piracy is one about economics, humanity, society, philosophy, etc. - the ability to legally obtain what you need. That is one I will leave the economists and philosophers to figure out.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
But it's just not right for us as software authors in the developed world to complain about fractions of a cent. That's being miserly and greedy in a very obscene and (almost) evil way.I don't believe any of them are complaining about fractions of a cent. They are complaining about millions of dollars.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
I am not condoning Adobe's behaviour. I am not endorsing any particular licensing scheme. I am endorsing being compassionate and fair to PEOPLE.In terms of Adobe being a company competing in a Capitalistic market, I am condoning they're licensing scheme. And I am condoning the licensing scheme of the other companies that compete against them with other software products, targeted at similar markets, with various pricing models. I also condone the licensing scheme of those developers writing similar software using a variety of F/OSS licensing schemes. That is what is great about democracy and capitalism.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
I think that what's at the bottom of it all is a fundamental flaw in capitalism that cannot be adequately addressed inside the system it operates. (This would run off on too much of a tangent - I'll leave it there.)A hah! You admit you are a pinko commie socialist hippie!! :P J/K of course.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 05:21 PM)
[app103]: "Can you name 1 program that has been released in the last 5 years that is actually so good that it is worth having at any price (or even worth pirating)?"
Now that depends on how you use your computer. In the last five years? Hmmm. For me, it'd be UltraEdit (http://www.ultraedit.com/) and XYplorer (http://www.xyplorer.com/index.htm), although not sure either qualifies for the 5-year limit. So how about VMware Workstation (http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/)? That's worth more than $189 cost for a lot of people who use it and need it in today's OS environment. (But then VMware has probably been around a long time, too.)
AutoHotkey!-zridling (April 23, 2007, 02:19 AM)
pinko commie socialist hippie
Sigh... At the end of the day you're pretty much right. Stealing is stealing and piracy is stealing in the end. Understanding where it happens and why though is important to prevent it though.Renegade, you've opened *THE* can of worms. Being an avid worm-hunter in licensing, I want to add something as well.-Renegade (April 25, 2007, 05:02 PM)
The one part where I think you really missed what I meant was where I mentioned that our ability to offer software at different prices in different markets is limited. While it is possible to offer it for free, that doesn't pay the bills for commercial developers. So while $50 may be ok in the US, in another place a reasonable price may be $2.That could not have been stated in better words.
Pricing things for markets like this is still rather difficult as IP assignments aren't 100% accurately reported for different countries (e.g. AOL has a US IP block in use in Germany). Then there's the question of proper maintenance of an IP address database. For most developers this kind of maintenance becomes unbearable.*NO*.
At the moment, only the Microsofts, Symantecs, and Trend Micros of the world are doing this.+ M$ can offer the service for a nominal amount or even free, they can afford a few tens of server hits, one for every registered shareware install, or even trial install.
Back to what I said and your response - Yes. I am completely guilty of mixing issues there. Part of my intent is to point out that pricing needs to be done for the market, and a US pricing schedule just isn't appropriate for some other markets (most in fact). So when a pricing schedule ceases to be rational, how is the market supposed to respond? Rationally? This is a pretty hard leap to make when rationality has already been thrown out.Correct. very thoughtful of you to have brought not-so-obvious aspects and sytems.
While theft still may be wrong, in some circumstances it at least becomes more understandable, and perhaps even excusable. I place part of the blame for this on unreasonable pricing schedules. Another portion of blame should rest on inadequate distribution, payment and banking systems that prevent legitimate payments. (In some places actually paying for software is impossible.)
We're never going to eliminate piracy, but if we can make paying for software easy with reasonable prices, then our reasons for excusing it in certain circumstances diminishes. I think this is what we as software authors *should* be striving for.Yeah man! You said it all in nicer words. Fully agree. I had to tell my opinion even if it were a repeat of what you said. Sorry :) :)
For example (a radical one to illustrate the point), suppose Bill Gates or Larry Ellison were to program a simple sharewre type utility ($20~50 price range) that took them a week or a month to write. They would have to price it at some insane price like $10,000 per copy to begin to justify their time. The market simply can't accept that though. Their expectations wouldn't be reasonable.
Similarly, only providing a way to pay that nobody has access to is equally unreasonable.
Setting ourselves up for failure then complaining about it doesn't solve the problem. We really need to look at the causes of our problems and address those. Piracy is just a symptom in many circumstances. (Albeit China may be a poor example as everyone I know that does business there complains about nobody ever being honest.)
Dear god you people should be paying me for reading your frigging novel posts. Or better yet, you should be charging, since after all, it did take time to write.-Hirudin (April 26, 2007, 06:04 AM)
Now, to the next: Cracking.
Cracking is not a technical issue. It's a social one. When smart talented programmers have no jobs and no clues as to when they can start earning, they are frustrated.
Then, they go out to prove that they are good, very good. So many crackers end their victory note in " People, enjoy, I've unlocked the thing, now you can go and make merry"
Read that sentence ten times. Over and over again.
it says: "These bloody overpricing F***ers have troubled us no end. They have put a mouth-watering cake on the table in front of us, but, it is inside an iron cage and to get the key we have to fight an entire economical and social establishment. Instead, I shall use my brain and liberate myself, and you others like me, from this bonding. Take this and make merry! Remember me for the favor!"
Stealing is wrong. No argument there! I think what we're disagreeing on is just how wrong it is. Libertarian or not, I hope you don't see everything in blinding-stark-white or pitch-jet-black as you appear above tinjaw. I hope "wrong is wrong" isn't what you're trying to say. Is pirating wrong? Sure. Is genocide wrong? You bet. But, are they both equal?You need not worry. I do understand the difference and I would not put all of those in the same basket. I was strictly speaking about "is piracy a crime of theft?" and the answer is black and white.
Yeah, stealing is stealing is stealing, but are you seriously saying that all stealing is the same? 1¢ and 100,000,000¢, the same?-Hirudin (April 26, 2007, 06:04 AM)
The one part where I think you really missed what I meant was where I mentioned that our ability to offer software at different prices in different markets is limited. While it is possible to offer it for free, that doesn't pay the bills for commercial developers. So while $50 may be ok in the US, in another place a reasonable price may be $2.This is not a problem reserved only for software. It is a problem with any good or service offered globally. And the market is working that out a little more each day. Unfortunately it hasn't really been a true global market but for the past five to ten years and so we are just starting. I find "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century (http://The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century)" by Thomas Friedman an excellent book on this topic. I think what we will see develop is there will be a tiered market for software. With different versions of software having different amounts of features included and costing exponentially more per tier. I suspect the highest tier, with the highest cost, and the greatest amount of features and value-added material will be subscription models like Salesforce.com so that piracy can be avoided more easily.
I do think however that there are some ramifications for this kind of pirating that are non-obvious but quite important to think about. And one of them is the open source market. For example, does piracy hurt the open source community? If people couldn't pirate photoshop, would that make programs like the Gimp and Paint.net more and more important, more and more used, and perhaps more and more supported, funded, and developed? If MS Windows and OSX were never pirated, would it funnel more energy into developing and developing for linux? These are the issues that really make me think twice about pirating..
Mouser wrote:I do think however that there are some ramifications for this kind of pirating that are non-obvious but quite important to think about. And one of them is the open source market. For example, does piracy hurt the open source community? If people couldn't pirate photoshop, would that make programs like the Gimp and Paint.net more and more important, more and more used, and perhaps more and more supported, funded, and developed? If MS Windows and OSX were never pirated, would it funnel more energy into developing and developing for linux? These are the issues that really make me think twice about pirating..
Now THAT is an interesting and astute insight! I had never thought of this issue from that perspective before.-Darwin (April 26, 2007, 08:38 AM)
I was having a bad day and everything I seemed to say came out all wrong and I got on the bad side of many people.Ask me. First hand fresh experience :)-app103 (April 26, 2007, 09:53 AM)
If you like to code for the sake of coding, and you are already doing it for free by releasing freeware and never expecting to make a dime, and you have the skills necessary and can handle working on larger projects (with others), do the world a favor and help out on an existing open source project. You just might make a difference and it would be just as or maybe even more rewarding.Very very well said. :up: :up:
But for now it isn't a good idea for me to get involved in the actual coding. I am still on the hunt for a project that does have something I can do to help, though.Wordpress, best bet. <-- super simple PHP
As it turns out, the only skill I seem to have, that I am really good at, is connecting people with the resources they need (be it info, tools, or experts), to help them find the answers they need to tackle whatever problem they have. Despite what some people that know me may think, I don't know everything...I just know where to find the answers.1. People with those skills are gonna be in demand when Redhat and sourceforge.net start their FOSS exchanges. Keep a watch.
Wordpress, best bet. <-- super simple PHP-2stepsback (April 26, 2007, 10:41 AM)
XUL next best. <-- only markup in XML
Non-FOSS:I don't know a lick of java and see above XML comment.
XAML <-- M$'s version of (Java+XML) for GUI
1. People with those skills are gonna be in demand when Redhat and sourceforge.net start their FOSS exchanges. Keep a watch.Will do. ;)
2. You should try your hand at Google and Yahoo! AnswersI currently have a 54% best answer rate on Yahoo Answers. And that site is too addictive...I am going to get in a lot of trouble with spending too much of my time there if I am not careful. :D
(psst.... if you make good money, pass a few Donation Credits here as well ;) ;) )Unfortunately I am broker than broke and might just have the worst income/expenses ratio on this forum. :(
Open Source/FOSS people are dangerous idiots.
So, in an attempt to revive this thread. What does everyone think of the new subscription based windows services that are coming with Windows 7? You pay for the base OS and then addon what you want as far as additional small features.-Josh (April 01, 2008, 11:36 AM)