Maybe this should be kept a secret, but...

[Sisyfos]

???
1. Software piracy is the reason for high software prices.
2. High software prices are the reason for software piracy.

Lying is indigenous to commerciality. It's about getting you to believe that you 'need' this or that product and hence forking out the dough. If this is so why use ethics as an argument in this debate at all.
And just saying stealing is wrong, is just to orthodocs an argument for me to swallow.
The world is a grey colo(u)red melting pot, and I would be hard pressed to find black or white in this debate (in an orderly logical and philosophical way that is).

Just my 0.02 whatever your currency.

[Snake-Eyes]

Without stating where I stand on the issue (it's not important, since it also depends on hypothetical situations), I'd have to say that Sisyfos has made a really good point. You should read some of the licenses included with your software. Some of them go so far as to state that you don't own the software, and have just purchased the use of it. (most of them, actually)

Even worse, a few state you can't sell the software to anyone else- meaning, even the original media.

Personally, I find current pricing and licensing on certain types of software to be fairly ridiculous anyway.

Anyway, I can't condemn any of you that have used copies of software, as I have in the past too, and I KNOW that every single person here has stolen something in one way or another during their lifetime (not that this justifies anything- but it makes condemning others a little hypocritical, eh??)

------------------
Ace

[Joel]

I'm not saying that I haven't done it in the past, but I will say that I don't do it now. But unlike Grum I am not here trying to justify or convince others that stealing is not stealing.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 10 August 2000).]

[Joel]

Murder is murder, rape is rape and stealing is stealing or at least that is the way I was raised. If you take something that does not belong to you or without permission then that is stealing. And software does not belong to you until you purchase it. Try to justify it anyway you want but the simple truth is you are taking something that does not belong to you and that is stealing.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 10 August 2000).]

[Sisyfos]

Yes Joel, this is true in today's society.
But if you're too orthodocs (meaning too loyal to authorities) in your views, that might easily be exploited.

Anyway, we might need a revision of ownership because what applies to a car e.g. doesn't port very well to digital media, which is none the worse for wear and it's easily distributed.
'Pay per use' springs to mind, but how would one administer this without 'Big Brother'???

[KvHagedorn]

First of all, some of you mentioned the "music industry". I recently linked a thread to an essay written by Courtney Love on this topic, which basically spells out how the sleazebags in the music "industry" steal the intellectual property from artists all the time. If I were to copy one of these CDs, would I feel guilty? Absolutely not! Screw those bastards! Clint Black actually stopped doing anything for a few years because everything he did belonged to his record company, and he would not have made a dime for it. THIS is theft. And the scum at the labels can afford to have a bank of lawyers who draft contracts legalizing this theft, and they even buy legislation legalizing their theft. There are countless stories of artists who have nothing to show for years of pouring their hearts into their craft and thousands of adoring fans buying their records.

As to some software, I agree that it is overpriced. Is AutoCAD worth $3000 to ANYONE who is not going to make a serious living from it? Of course not. For those who are just going to "diddle around" with it, it would be irresponsible to put that much cash into software. And I agree that there is probably no real harm done in these cases.. no potential for revenue from these people in the first place, so no revenue lost. And the point is also well taken, if some kid DID "steal" AutoCAD to "diddle around" with, might this steer his career choice towards drafting and becoming a legitimate CUSTOMER for AutoCAD? It very well might. So some harmless bootleg usage might even be beneficial to a software manufacturer. How many people who were given a bootleg copy of Diablo and enjoyed it so much that they went out and forked over fifty bucks for DiabloII? Quite a few, I'll wager.

So this really boils down to a character test for software companies. Are they really hurting because of bootlegging? Maybe just a little, but they are still making tons of money. And most people who want a game will still buy the game. But should they become like Metallica and get all whiny about the bootleg copies out there and sue? I doubt that that really serves their interests. I heard the guy who invented Wing Commander is building a castle (yes, a real castle) somewhere in Austin. If these guys are smart (um, they are) they should just relax and enjoy the fruits of their labors, and not worry about poor kids who didn't really have the money to buy their game (or word processor, or whatever) in the first place.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[Kruzin]

Uh oh...someone is saying it's ok to steal AutoCAD? I don't think so....at least not without me putting in a word or 200...

"Is AutoCAD worth $3000 to ANYONE who is not going to make a serious living from it? Of course not."

I spent 10 years teaching AutoCAD at a local college, and gave this speach the beginning of each semester.
I paid my $3k for AutoCAD. I do make a serious living off of it. What really chaps me is to see other people I deal with also making a living off of it, but never bought it. Some of these people are pulling down 6 digit incomes, and openly admit they never paid for the software. This kind of piracy is many levels above a warez game or two. I know of at least one local company who was turned in by a disgruntled employee for multiple illegal copys. AutoDesk nailed them for nearly $50k in damages, and could have gone for more, but didn't want to put the company out of buiz, just make them pay for what they where (and had for years) been using. These kind are the larger theives that need to be taken care of before going after warez kiddies.

For the record, ACAD is worth every penny I paid for it, and has paid for itself dozens of times over. Anyone who steals ACAD and makes a living off of it hears my opinion on this.

"For those who are just going to "diddle around" with it, it would be irresponsible to put that much cash into software."

This is why Autodesk gives more options than just the $3k package. AutoCAD LT is available for a just couple hundred dollars, and does most of the stuff full blown ACAD does, except LISP and 3D. You can even get it from your local comp store (I saw it on the shelf at Best Buy a few weeks ago).

There is also a student version of AutoCAD available through any high school or college, at a fraction of the price of commercially usable ACAD. It is fully functional, and the only difference is the student version uses a parallel port hardware lock to insure it cannot be warezed off, and a label on hard plots stating it is from a student version, and should not be used for commercial projects.

So while it would be irresponsible for a 'student' "diddling" around with ACAD to buy the full commercial licence, it would also be irresponsible for these people to steal it when there are reasonable alternatives like AutoDesk offers.

"And I agree that there is probably no real harm done in these cases.. no potential for revenue from these people in the first place, so no revenue lost."

I disagree. I once worked for an LA (landsscape architect) who did all his drawings by hand on a board. He "borowed" ACAD from a pal, just to "diddle" around with it, to decide if he wanted to move to computers for his drafing or not. He ended up hiring several CAD operators (me included), and running his buiz off that "diddle around" copy for at least 4 years (the entire time I was employed there). Small time theives usually turn into habituals, and it ends up costing those of us who pay for it.

"And the point is also well taken, if some kid DID "steal" AutoCAD to "diddle around" with, might this steer his career choice towards drafting and becoming a legitimate CUSTOMER for AutoCAD? It very well might. So some harmless bootleg usage might even be beneficial to a software manufacturer."

If one of my kids wanted to learn AutoCAD, or any other software, as a parent I would pony up the cost of a student version (there are student versions of most major softwares available) for the good of my child's education. There would be a greater benefit to having a real learning version with manuals and tech support than telling my kid it's ok to steal.


As for those hwo think it's ok to warez games, trying to justify it with "if I like it, I'll buy it"....HELLO....that's what demos are for. D/L the free demo...like the demo? BUY THE GAME. Stop trying to BS the rest of us paying gamers by telling us you are "just evaluating" the game. That's a crock, and you know it.

[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 11 August 2000).]

[KvHagedorn]

OK Ken, you've got a good point there. When it becomes too easy to bootleg software, people tend to feel no obligation to pay for it. But I did not advocate stealing AutoCAD, and ESPECIALLY in the instances you indicate, where these people depend on that software for a living. Not cool. But the approach Autodesk took in dealing with the piracy was very level-headed, I think. When you compare AutoCAD to any other set of professional software, it's not that expensive. I was just saying it is not worth $3000 to someone who isn't going to put it to some serious use. If they wanna just say they own AutoCAD, for that much money they could buy stock in the company



------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[ahartman]

Someone please explain to me the argument that because person 1 'steals' from person 2, it's okay to steal from person 1?

If you're so pained that the artists (musicians) are getting pimped by the record companies, how does that justify your stealing from the record companies? How does that help the artist in question?!?

How many people use WinZip. Are you still using it after the trail period? Did you send in the $15 after the trial period expired? Are you going to tell me that WinZip isn't useful enough to spend $15?

If people won't support shareware, what makes you think all those good eggs out there will spend money on a game they can get for nothing?

[xortam]

I think the WinZip owners (Nico Mak Computing, Inc.) would be happy to charge a fraction of a dollar if they could guarantee collection from all users. SW costs for simple electronically distributed SW will become quite inexpensive when the eCommerce infrastructure can efficiently support such transactions. I recall Novell aiming to deliver such technology several years ago; alas they never seem to market such things.

[TnT]

Most people that work on a game make absolutely no money off of the sales. The same goes with musicians and albulm sales. The distributor/production company makes the money off of retail sales. So you aren't stealing from the people who came up with the stuff, you're stealing from the suits. Developers and musicians have already made their wage when they finished the project. (sidenote: The revenue will determine if they will get funding on another project though. Although so many crap projects out there are getting sponsered, so I doubt this system is working.) It is stealing, but do I feel bad about it? No. Do I buy games/apps/music/movies that deserve my money? Yes.

Kruzin, I have worked with ACAD, and it isn't worth $3K. It's a great program, but it is overpriced, IMO. I do have ACAD light, and for the price it is at it should come with 3D.

BTW, I am a programmer, and I have many friends that are musicians.

[Joel]

"Most people that work on a game make absolutely no money off of the sales. The same goes with musicians and albulm sales. The distributor/production company makes the money off of retail sales. So you aren't stealing from the people who came up with the stuff, you're stealing from the suits. Developers and musicians have already made their wage when they finished the project."

Have you never heard of a thing called royalties which are paid based on sales?

Joel

BTW: Two wrongs don't make a right.

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 11 August 2000).]

[fds]

I suppose I already made my opinion clear on copying games and software in my previous post. I have no illusions of using an illegal copy is a perfectly moral thing to do.

As Joel says, stealing is stealing... Only in my definition stealing is when the legal owner is left without his copy. I wouldn't call making a duplicate theft. Especially since you can't buy software, only purchase the license to use it. Anyway, the main point remains. I too find it hard to understand how someone using pirated software could convince themselves it's the right thing to do with absurd reasons such as that he wouldn't have bought it anyway.

I'm not saying I can't understand very well the reasons for using an illegal copy. I do it myself. Only that I never felt it was an entirely right thing to do with "hell no" reason of feeling guilty.

On the other hand I say there is no harm in trying something before purchase. Demos? The only advantage demos have is that it is the only legal way. That is certainly a notable point but, for most of us, something being illegal is not a straight synonym of unethical. Let's say you are considering buying a flat with four rooms. Are you going to check the first room only and assume the rest is of the same quality?

Now what I would like to get your opinion is copy protection and some shareware apps.

If I have the option of getting rid of any kind of copy protection which force me do to something the way the developer wants I feel no guilt over applying cracks onto my legal copy, yet it is illegal. I have no problem with protections which work transparently (server side key checks as in Q3, HL or blizzard games) or which are essentially just a side effect. I have no problems with keeping the CD in the drive if the game is actually going to use it for something important (like some hundred megs of videos playing from there). But when Q3 asks for the game CD only for the sake of copy protection as I have the whole thing running from my HD that's just stupid and inacceptable for me.
Even more so as copy protection in these cases is only a burden on legal users and illegal copies are already without it. Server side key checks is the only way which won't penalize the legal users and is also the only way which cannot be cracked if done properly.

The other illegal thing I don't feel too bad about is some shareware apps where as a programmer I find it outrageous to ask money for (unless of course as an optional donation or for support). One nice example is WinZip. So they wrote a GUI to complement the InfoZip group's free implemetation of the zip standard. This kind of work can be done over a few weeks with no real difficulties involved. It's not something I would expect people to pay for.
WinRAR and others are of course in a completely different position. Creating your own compression software is definitely not such a no-brainer I would expect anyone to do for free.

I wanted to write some more but I'm getting tired. Maybe we should simply consult the automatic complaint generator.

[This message has been edited by fds (edited 12 August 2000).]

[fds]

I think the WinZip owners (Nico Mak Computing, Inc.)

They are now known as WinZip Computing, Inc.

Running an entire company off of software which should be an essential part of any OS released today... Interestingly just about any other OS except for Windows ship with a zip utility built-in.

[TnT]

Joel, musicians make crap for royalties off of CD sales. Read the Courtney Love article on Salon.com if you don't believe me. There is an article in Computer Games Magazine, it states that around 75% of game sales go to the publishers, and 25% get to the actual creators. Which they just plop right back into the company as investment.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

In this economy I believe in voting with your dollars. Apparently people are voting for lower prices. If someone is really worried about losing money over piracy, maybe they should actually *think* and figure out alternative ways of bringing in the cash. How about ad placement? If done well people will see the ads, but not be annoyed by them. Eudora Pro, for example, nice small ad in the corner. I feel fine with it, Qualcomm gets their money.

I didn't make my stance clear before- I'm against companies pirating, and I'm against people making profits out of pirated material, but friends sharing some games to play over a LAN is really no big deal, and sharing an app to fool around with is also no big deal.

The other illegal thing I don't feel too bad about is some shareware apps where as a programmer I find it outrageous to ask money for (unless of course as an optional donation or for support).

I completely agree with fds. Unless it is some really intricate shareware app, money shouldn't be made off of it.

I disapprove of the obsession with profit that tempts people to throw away their ideas of good citizenship...businesspeople design software and make their profit by obstructing others' understanding. Everything I do, people are free to share. The only thing that makes developing a program worthwhile is the good it does.

-- Richard Stallman

[This message has been edited by TnT (edited 12 August 2000).]