Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

RANT: High Software Prices!

<< < (18/22) > >>

Renegade:
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.-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
Playing devil's advocate...

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)
--- End quote ---

Excellent points throughout. They are complex issues that are not likely to be resolved any time soon.

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.)

tinjaw:
Renegade, I am only using your reply as a representative example. Yes, these are your points, and yes, in many cases I disagree with them, and thus you. However, I don't want to think that I am attacking you. In fact, I chose to use your reply because I felt you are one of those capable of being both passionate and reasonable.

When you make $100 per month, it's not easy to spend $50 on software.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

If the developer, producer, whatever, of the software wants to make it available for free to such person, they will do so. If there is such a free version available and you take a retailed box version from the store that isn't a free version, you are still stealing. period.

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.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

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 so
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
I 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.

But to begrudge someone that lives in poverty and is fortunate enough to actually HAVE A COMPUTER is just cruel.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
Who in this thread has aid *anything* to indicate that they begrudge such people? No one has said anything of the sort.

I'm not really buying this line of reasoning across the board.

Pricing is situational.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

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.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

We're talking about software here. The cost for me to get my products to these people is virtually nothing.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

How can I possibly begin to accuse people of theft there?
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
Definition of theft according to Wiktionary. Definition of stealing according to Wiktionary. That is how I can.

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!
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
It has nothing to do with matter of scale or resources. See definition above.

(Ahem... Like mouser said... WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU!)
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think that is great. I think donationware is a great idea. I support it. I am in the process of writing software I plan on offering as donationware. And I don't care if somebody highly values it but cannot afford it so only sends me a thank you email. However, I am also writing software I plan on selling and if somebody takes it without paying, that is theft, and I would hope I can use the legal system to prosecute them. (That not being economically feasible in most cases is a different issue altogether different.  ;)  )

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.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

This is a complex issue and there are real problems in solving it.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

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.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't believe any of them are complaining about fractions of a cent. They are complaining about millions of dollars.

I am not condoning Adobe's behaviour. I am not endorsing any particular licensing scheme. I am endorsing being compassionate and fair to PEOPLE.
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

Again, please, please, please don't take this personally Renegade. As you, I too do not have time to cut and paste and reply directly to a multitude of individuals. I have chosen to use your reply as an example, because I feel it is representative of many peoples feelings.

People don't "need" Photoshop (our collective example), they "want" Photoshop. If they do need Photoshop, then I can think of no other reason than that it is to produce something they themselves will be selling. (If they are giving it away, then again, they "want" it, not "need" it, because don't "need" to make something to give away for free, they "want" to make something to give away for free.) And if they can't afford Photoshop, then they need to find a less expensive or free alternative. If they do not, they are hypocrites for charging for their own products or services.


* By definition, software piracy is theft. period.
* If you want software that does something either a) buy it, b) find a cheaper alternative, or c) find a free alternative.
* If there is no alternative that is free, or you can affords, than you must go without.
* No one in their right mind is going to argue against you when you say that there is a strong demand for inexpensive to free software.
* No one in their right mind is going to argue against you when you say that people should show compassion to those less fortunate.
* No one in their right ming is going to argue against you when you say that you are willing to give the paper you use to wipe your butt to poor people.  :P
* As a libertarian, I see nothing wrong with charging for software to make a profit.
* As a libertarian, I see nothing wrong with charging "what the market will bear".
* I will leave it to the economic textbooks and economists to explain why providing goods and services for low prices, or free, can, in many cases, be more harmful to the economy as a whole, and one's personal financial health than charging market price.
* I do financially, and with my time and effort, support F/OSS and donationware.
* I find it very difficult to impossible to believe somebody "needs" software that it justifies theft. (Yes, million dollar software runs medical equipment, but that is not what we are discussing here.)
* I don't feel any less sympathetic about people that live in poverty, or that otherwise cannot afford the luxuries more fortunate people can.
* I am an advocate of F/OSS.
* I am happy that businesses support, in various ways, F/OSS.
* I am a libertarian, and believe in democracy and the free market of capitalism. (Read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged)
* I charge (as many others do) for software so that I can earn a living and not end up as one of these unfortunate people we have talked about.
* All of the various businesses that are involved in the sale of that same piece of software also charge money for the same reason.

tinjaw:
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.)
-Renegade (April 22, 2007, 05:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
A hah! You admit you are a pinko commie socialist hippie!!  :P J/K of course.

I too see many flaws with capitalism. There are no shortage of them. There is, unfortunately, also no shortage of people acting in manners that are not conducive to the long term of humanity as a whole regardless of what economic, political, geographical, or religious group they belong to. I too wish we could "all just get along".

tymrwt33:
In perspective:
1. Lotus 123 cost around $129, 20 years ago. Excel probably costs about the same now, for a much superior software. Lotus made you use their program disk every time you wanted to use the program, that is after you installed it. Having to install a Key once on software installation does not seem so bad, does it?.
2. No use ranting at prices and quoting some piece of Hollywood fantasy as your guide. Vote with your feet - there is a legal freebie for most software you would want to use, in most cases several freebies.
3. Cost of goods was never a reason for stealing , and piracy is not caused by software pricing. Pirates do it because they can, and it will always be cheaper that any price. Countries like China and others condone piracy because it is a cheap way for them to catch up technologically.

zridling:
[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 and XYplorer, although not sure either qualifies for the 5-year limit. So how about VMware Workstation? 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!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page