Pirated software why do people think nothing of it?

I hope this thread isn't too dodgy, I am not encouraging the use of pirated software in anyway but I just thought I would offer some opinions on it.

I can understand why certain software such as Photoshop cost a lot of money, these programs are extremely complicated and expensive to development. For business use I think you should pay full price or use open source software.

However for home use I am not sure its quite so serius, for example I had a dodgy copy of Photoshop for ages I used for university work, I learn't how to use photoshop on it, I have since bought Adobe Photoshop Elelements so Adobe have actually made money out of that program I had illegly.

By the time I graduate all software on my PC will be legal, however the stuff I do crosses the line form personal to business use.

The peer to peer sites are beginning to annoy me because there is this download culture of why bother paying for a DVD or an Album when you can have it free?

With pirate software though can we really expect a home user to pay £500 for Microsoft Office? I think there needs to be better licensing, I believe that if this kind of software was cheaper more people would buy it, for example me buying both Premiere and Photoshop Elements at £50 each, they are both affordable.

Its no wonder people are downloading stuff when it costs so much. What do you think?

All of the above is stated as opinion and in no way reflects the views of Zerogain or other parties invovled in it.

 

You may wish to explore the opensource world and the various licenses offered as a way of acquiring 90% to 100% of what is offered by non opensource vendors. If someone flouts a software licensing agreement then can you trust them in other areas? An unpopular question to pose and I expect a hard one to answer.

 

How many home users really use the power of office? MS Works should be fine, and comes free with most pre-built PCs. It's a sensible price to buy if you need to. If people just recognised what they needed, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to steal something better. and if you are recognising that a piece of software is important to you to do your job and make a living, then you must also recognise the intrinsic value of the software. The companies aren't charities.

Dropping the price won't make any difference either. People who steal software will do it at any price. Piracy doesn't stop at megabucks applications, it goes right down to the £40 game in HMV.

Ferarri make expensive cars, that most of us want, despite being able to get by perfectly well with a Ford Focus. But we don't all put a brick through the nearest dealership window and take one. Why? Because stealing is wrong. Or is it just because it takes effort? Or that we'll get caught?

Let's face it, people steal software because it's easy, and doesn't feel like stealing. I don't care how you try to justify it - it's stealing. And don't talk to me about greedy corporations, always wanting more money. We make them that way. You want your pension to payout, yes? Your savings to earn interest? Your ISA to perform? Well the banks invest in the companies that do well. Like it or not, you probably have a vested interest in the performance of these corporations, unless you keep your money under the mattress.

ahem. Rant over.

 

Because it is free

 

if you bought something and it didn't work - would you complain..??? I'm sure I would...


thats why I tend only to copy MS software these days...

 

On a different tack why should students get software at a 'reasonable' subsidised rate yet I as a business have to pay full wack.
Same software just the piece of paper has a differing licence agreement, it annoys me a little. Especially as the 'student' will ingore the legal one and just go to get a free pirate edition anyway.

 

stumblin, you're right that software piracy is a form of stealing but one of things that makes it much more acceptable to most people is that when you make a copy (steal) some software you're not depriving the original owner of their copy. Same goes for copying CDs etc. IMO that's a fundamental difference. I'm not saying it's right to pirate software but I do think you can't really compare it to stealing a car or other physical object.

Michael.

 

Michael,
I agree that while making an copy of software is not same as stealing a physical good it is still never the less depriving the software maker of income. Some may view this a type of white collar crime or victimless crime and so not a real crime at all, I can not subscribe to this view. I think that the popular view of white collar and victimless crimes is wrong but then many millions disagree with me as is their right.

 

auric, I agree with you that software piracy does deprive the software maker of income and is therefore wrong (and not victimless) but I wouldn't put it in the same league as stealing physical goods. The same can be said for music piracy.

Michael.

 

I know this is stating the obvious but all manufacturers and retailers pass on the cost of theft to the customers who do pay. If it gets to the point where they can't the company will shut and the employees will have to find another way to earn.
Pirates aren't stealing from Bill etc. but from those who want to be or have to be legitimate.

 

Because students are learning the packages, I have a legal version of Visual Studio 2003 which the universisty can distribute to students for educational purposes. Businesses often have thouands of pounds on on their I.T budget, students have probably about £50 a year if that.

Also you are not allowed to do anything for business purposes on the student version, the licence is much more restricted than the commerical or OEM versions.

At the end of the day when students learn packages and get jobs in industry they will soon be responsible for buying software, quite often people are likely to buy software they already know. This why I have bought Premiere Elements and Photoshop Elements because I was already very familier with the full versions.

Microsoft works isn't really any use for the marjority of students these days, although Open Office which is open source should be good enough.

Also for the record I hope to run my own limited company within the next two to three years, so I ma not just passing the buck.

 

I was kind of getting at 'What is the value?' of the software. Is it the student rate or the commercial rate? IMO if they can flog it to students cheaper then they can damn well sell it to me at that price to. Not every company, in fact very few companies have thousands of pounds to spend on their IT every year. Most get along by spending the minimum they need to, as you quickly realise that a new version will be along next year, and the year after, and the year after.

 

You just have to adapt, also with the student versions you don't get the technical support. The problem is most SMEs who have been established for 3 years or more will have no trouble finding £500 for some software, they make £100,000s profit so buying the latest version of photoshop won't harm them. An indvidual cannot afford this amount,

If software was charged at the student versions then none of these firms would make any money. Take a lot of Adobe programs for example, extremely complex pieces of software that must cost millions to make.

What you have to remember with software is you're buying a licence rather than a product.

 

I have to say that AT is bang on the money with this one. This is exactly why educational establishments get discounted rates.

Oh, and just to lay down my credentials, I work in software pricing.

 

Well, you can take AT's argument further....allow pirated software for a while to create market penetration and then steam in with licenses and invoices later on. Microsoft has (allegedly) done this in a number of (mainly developing) markets. Drug barons use a similar tactic - get the punters hooked on free stuff and then start charging them. There's little difference in the morality of either approach IMO.

Michael.

 

I believe they did this with MS SQL Server, they knew there was plenty of opposition from MySQL and commercial databases from Oricle etc. So they decided to offer MS SQL Server cheap (About £500) to try and convert these people, people were won other especialy if they were already using Microsoft technologies. Then a couple of years later the price went upto £2500.

 

hmmm, I'd say this is rather a lot of difference actually Michael. In the MS case the companies in question were breaking the law by using illegal licenses. Once it had gone too far, MS went in and required licenses, probably threatening litigation. And quite right too, why should they get something for free when MS worked so hard to develope the software. And no cracks about the quality of the software, please. It's completely irrelevant to the argument. If it's so bad, don't use it.

Hardly the same as drug barons getting people hooked on crack. MS did not send the company the software, they 'acquired' it from somewhere and used it illegally.

Why is it that as soon as a company becomes successful, doing business and protecting your investment becomes wrong?

 

Where did those figures come from? A quick look at the local ltd. companies results in the paper today doesn't seem to support the £100,000's of profits theory.

You know I had figured out why they produce Academic versions

Their gamble is that I will continue to buy more expensive versions of the software (because they're subsidising AE versions) rather than change product and have to retrain everyone. I now upgrade when I have to, though of course skipping and update means the next one costs more.

As for the free give away does anyone remember Netscape?
With Netscape out of the picture Microsoft may not have actually started charging for IE but they sold a lot of product that worked with IE and didn't quite work with any other browser. The 'get em hooked' does work if you have enough money.

 

Have things really changed that much since when we were kids? I mean yes the technology is different and the internet gives you access to pretty much anything you want but, as I remember it, 20 years ago if your mate had an album you liked he'd tape it for you and vice-versa and when the ZX Spectrum and the like came along you'd maybe group together to buy an original game and then copy the tape - technically stealing yes but that serious?

Matt.

 

Thats a very good point, in some ways the only thing thats changed is that its now easier to get caught.

I think for home use a lot of people turn a blind eye to software piracy, its just organisations and businesses that won't get away with it.

It would be interesting to see what Microsoft would do if a registered charity got caught without legal window licences.