Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
RANT: High Software Prices!
Carol Haynes:
There was a lot of discussion when product activation was introduced in WinXP and OfficeXP. At that time there were numerous 'studies' and articles on how piracy had been condoned in the past to allow market saturation - activation was only introduces when near enough maximum saturation was reached.
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).
Hirudin:
I love reading people's hyperbole when it comes to "stealing" software.
"Stealing is wrong, end of story!" is so ridiculous I feel that explaining why would be insulting to anyone with an IQ over 100.
There are degrees of "wrongness" to stealing. And stealing overpriced software (electronically) from large companies is WAY down there, in my opinion at least. Maybe roughly equal to recording music off the radio... oh wait, that's prefectly legal. OK, maybe roughly equal to... hooking your friend up with your "employee discount".
On a scale from 0 to 9
Click for the scale0 being perfectly OK, 9 being the same as stealing something of equal price from a store (note: I don't say equal "value" here)
I'd give downloading a copy photoshop from a P2P network, installing it with the supplied serial number, and using it for intermediate personal use a 2.
Photoshop from P2P, supplied serial, but to use it to work from home: 4
Same software, but using it in part of your primary business, say as a graphic designer: 8
Stealing Winamp "pro": 6
Windows Vista, cracked serial number, primary OS on your computer: 7
AnyDVD (a program designed to steal others' work): 3
Using a crack to disable the CD/DVD check on a game that you legitimately own: 0
What would y'all's ratings be?
Oh yeah...
Buying an "academic" version of some software, say photoshop, and using it in a manor completely different than as it's intended: 4
Complaining about other people stealing software while doing the above: 7
Darwin:
Trust me, Hirudin, I'd be the first to admit that my intelligence is fair to middling at best. And yet I am pretty confident that I could follow your explaination for why my position on software piracy is "wrong", if you'd deign to explain it to someone so obviously challenged. However, I'm equally confident that I've heard it, even said it myself, all before. I've been there and I've done it. I've made all of the rationalizations and arguments. So I "get" it, but so what? I don't feel that anything that I have posted in this or any other thread on the subject qualifies as "hyperbole" and wouldn't sum up my position as "stealing is wrong, end of story". Software piracy is a complicated issue - you've highlighted some of those complications. *I* choose not to steal software (though I have done so in the past) because I came to realize that it IS theft. All the rationalizations that you can think of don't change that. Ford and GM are manufacture and market mediocre, overpriced and overhyped cars and trucks (in my opinion). Yet it irks me that I can't afford to buy anything in either manufacturer's product line new, off the lot. Does this mean that stealing a 4x4 F-350 Crew Cab to drive my son to and from preschool on flat, paved roads (clearly using the vehicle in a way that significantly underutilizes its power and abilities) is defensible? I'm not willing to test it by "giving it a go". I suspect that I would have a difficult time using the "I can't afford it, but gee whiz I'm not using it for the purpose that it was designed for anyway" argument in a court of law.
I could not care less whether or not you pay for the software that you use - I don't even give a shit if you're using a cracked copy of CS3 to layout, design and edit a magazine - but I care very much about the software that I run on my computer. If you are comfortable stealing software, go for it. I'm not going to look down my nose at you and I'm not going to report you to anyone. This is a individual, personal decision - one that should be taken with some thought as to the ramifications of the course of action that one decides upon. This is turning into one of those "if a bear shits in the woods and no one witnesses it..." arguments. You steal something, no one notices, nothing happens to you, because you never intended to pay for the item in the first place the manufacturer isn't hurt, either because no sale was lost. Does that make it right? If a guy manages to slip a date rape drug into your sister's and she wakes up the next day none the wiser (but a little woozy and sore) does that make it OK because no one witnessed the crime and, provided sis doesn't get pregnant, no one is even harmed by it? Now that, my friend, is hyperbole.
cranioscopical:
It's easy to complain about high prices and monopolistic practices. There's more than one side to the issue, though.
Because I live where I do I have to buy 'high-speed' internet via satellite for about 6 times the rate of faster, more reliable service in the nearest town. I don't enjoy paying that but nobody makes me. If I want it, that's what it costs.
Microsoft doesn't make me use its software, nor does Adobe. I don't enjoy paying for it and I'd probably find alternatives were it only for private use.
If certain clients require certain formats, however, then it's just part of the cost of doing business. The software helps me to earn more.
OTOH I did hold a virtual monopoly in my field for quite some time and I was neither slow to exploit that nor remorseful about doing so. How, then, can I complain if others do the same?
zridling:
[cranioscopical]: I don't enjoy paying that but nobody makes me. If I want it, that's what it costs.
Ah yes, and that's the problem. We say that about medical care, drugs, gasoline, electricity, macaroni & cheese, and just about every necessary commodity these days. I don't have to have those items, but my lifestyle would be radically different. 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. No one makes them sell Photoshop for $1800, but if they want to, they invite global piracy. It's a karma thing. It makes a very good argument in favor of open source software — use it, support it, evangelize it, pay it forward. Then let the Adobes and the Microsofts spend their time suing each other in court over the patent-infringement-of-the-day.
________________________________________________
[JeffK]: "How do forum members cope when software is dearer than they want to pay but has some features they really like, and a whole heap of functionality and power which is superfluous? Might be a subject for a new thread but what eg are the substitutes for eg Photoshop."
This exactly describes my love/hate relationship with the CorelDRAW suite. Been using it since version 3 (mid-90s/1994?) and have a crapload of files over the years in CDR format that are difficult to convert without losing masks, filters, etc. I now use other software, but whatever I use, it's always missing that one feature I used all the time. The answer is you work like heck to discover workarounds, even if it means using two or more graphics programs to accomplish the same tasks. So between Inkscape, GIMP, and Photofiltre Studio I get just about everything I need done, and in better, more universal formats, which has been a real boon.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version