Pirated software why do people think nothing of it?

Let me pose a thought I have had on this.

I recently purchased a magazine book thing about Macromedia with a 30 day trial version of the new macromedia suite on it.

When I installed it, it was in fact the complete version all you needed was a serial number.

If companies are serious about stopping this why then do they distribute full versions on the front of a magazine?

I believe they know that no one will ever afford this in their younger years, but in order for their software to continue in a tight market in the future they need up and coming people to have a good understanding of the software.

A bit like Nike. I read a book 'No Logo' which went into detail on the workings of multi companies, Basically Nike don't do all they can to stop their stuff being copied because it gets their name out there.

You look at the complexity of todays software yet still the persistence of a serial number of 12 or so numbers, which evidently is piss easy to hack.

Its not right I agree, I purchased a full version of Microsoft office because its the one thing I actually need for work, I also purchased photoshop elements, the apple ilife stuff and all their OSs.

Just food for thought, are software compaines really making all that effort to stop people using their software?

 

Not home users, but for businesses its a different story. I know of one large software company that are spying on SMEs, if they get cuaght at worst the directors can be sent to jail.

 

And this is fair enough, companies need this software to be a business, what I am saying is I believe they are not fussed with home users having a go because its mabye kids from these homes that will grow into the software which will work in the companies that buy the software.

This obviously breaks down if the companies don't buy the software.

I am not saying this is right BTW just that the security to stop piracy is pitiful in todays technological age.

 

So the defence would be it's not theft because the anti theft measures weren't secure enough to stop you doing it?

No company can stop theft but they do have to balance ease of use against what ever methods they choose. We've a couple of £3000+ bits of software that come with dongles which are expensive and not good if they break. Most of our recent stuff needs to be 'activated' and now we will need to contact the companies if we want to transfer to a new computer, that's if they continue allow that in the T&C's. Either way my life has now got a little bit more complicated.

 

You seem to be referring to a specific case (which I'm not aware of). I was referring to the fact that MS deliberately turns a blind eye to widescale piracy of Office (mainly) in many developing countries, particularly amongst private individuals (rather than companies), because they know that's a great way to get people "hooked" on Office rather than any competitor. Microsoft can afford to do it that way.

I never said that. I do think that MS has used extremely underhand practices in order to gain some of it's market dominance. Either you are against piracy and crack down on it everywhere or you are not against it and don't crack down on it at all (not just where it suits your business model).

Michael.

 

I think it's a shame that there isn't more respect for intellectual property - people don't see theft of data or ideas as being as serious as the theft of a physical object, perhaps because the object isn't there to remind them. Most people wouldn't walk into a shop and stick a load of music or software CDs into their pocket then walk out again, but in effect software piracy (or illegal music downloads) amount to the same thing, with the obvious exception that you're more likely to get caught shoplifting.

It seems that the physical manifestation of the data (ie. the CD or whatever) is considered more 'significant' or whatever than the data itself, which is of course entirely the wrong way around - the actual value of the physical thing itself is negligable in the scheme of things, whereas the data is what is actually valuable.

Just to set out my stall too BTW, I am in the position of having a vested interest in the value of intellectual property.

 

OK, I had a huge reply to this laid out, but just realised that this is a bad topic for me to be speaking about in a public forum.

Excuse me guys but as strongly as I feel on this issue, I cannot continue to be involved in it due to my particular field of work. I can't trust myself to keep it purely on a personal level, so I must withdraw.

Nuts.

 

It's a contentious topic. I'd have to disagree with PeteH about theft of data/intellectual property being the same thing as theft of a physical object. As I already said, the fact that the original owner is not deprived of the "data" is a fundamental and indisputable difference. Of course the copyright holder is deprived of earnings but that's different (I'm not making a judgement about which is preferable, but there is a difference).

Similarly, I'm undecided about where I stand on the related issue of patents. IMO there are many situations where patents are abused and I'm not sure that they create the incentives and motivation to invent that people claim they do. To take an exteme example, if I were working on a cure for AIDS my motivation for doing so would be primarily the knowledge that a cure would save the lives of millions of people. Secondly I'd want to be recognized as the person who discovered it (that's where patents have a valid use) and I really wouldn't be that bothered about whether I made shedloads of money from it (where patents are often abused).

...and don't even get me started on software patents (I'm a software developer so I do know what it's about).

Michael.

 

its dead easy to know why, people are so pissed that stuff like that has so much profit on it, that they are legally stealing of us, so people have had enough and think its justified.
when prices are fairer, then the vendors can complain about theft and no sooner, as they are at it themselves big style.

 

Actually a lot of smaller software companies are going bust and cannot compete. Todays software costs millions to development and the publishers/developers are taking on a a huge risk in producing it, the high costs reflect this risk.

I am not sure what you're background is but if you have ever done any programming at more advanced level I am sure you will appecriate just how valuable software is. It is very time consuming and painful to develop.

I believe £500 for a business licence is a fair price, but £500 for an invidual is not, but this is why they some times turn a blind eye to like what Micheal was saying.

I don't really think companies like Adobe actually expect indidviduals to pay £500 for the full version of photoshop.

 

Michaelab said
'To take an exteme example, if I were working on a cure for AIDS my motivation for doing so would be primarily the knowledge that a cure would save the lives of millions of people.'
Where would this be then - in your shed in cloud cuckoo land? You could only be doing this research under the auspices of a drug company who would be employing you to do one thing only - make money for them. Some research at Christie's hospital in Manchester recently showed that essential oils in combination may kill MRSA. They needed money to further investigate and guess what - no one would bankroll them because the result would not be patentable. Eventually Sir Jimmy saville put his hand in his pocket to fund it. That's the real world.

Bob

 

heheheh, it's a commonly heard phrase in all pricing departments - "everyone thinks they know pricing".

 

amazingtrade

Any proof of this?

Lt Cdr Data

Is this the author of the software stealing from a customer, if so the how? I thought the user was stealing by not paying the asking price and not sticking to the EULA conditions or have I got this wrong?

 

Why do they make it so easy to piratre software then? If they really wanted to they could stop piracy by having much more complex registration processes. So many people have full ilegal versions of office its almost standard practise. However if nobody had a copy of Office at home do you really think places like schools and universities would be bother using it? Because its so widely distributed its also the number one office package used in business and they pay a lot for it.

 

I'm intrigued that there is the concept here that 'intangible' products like software and ideas are somehow are less real than a physical product like the 'car'. When every 'real' product ever produced started out as an 'idea' in someones mind. Cars didn't pop into the world fully formed one day and a lot of effort was put into their design by many people who deserved recompense. I see no difference between that and software design.

 

Precisely illustrates my point about what's so bad about patents, thankyou.

Michael.

 

Or at least, you would have to if I'd said that. There clearly is a difference, but that's to do with the intrinsic nature of ideas or data, as opposed to materially valuable things. It's obviously much more difficult to actually remove intellectual property from its owner, but that fact doesn't make it any less wrong to deprive the owner of the rights pertaining thereto.

Long, rambling and unenlightening discourse deleted. The patent system does get abused of course, but hey, that's human nature, or at least lawyer nature. It's not perfect, but that's a very long way indeed from saying we'd be better off without it.

 

This doesn't make much sense.

You're basically saying that stealing a BMW M3 from a dealer with a stock of several is not so bad as stealing your BMW M3. Well, it's not so bad for you personally but it's still theft and in this case it hurts the insurance companies who distribute the hurt across the population. When you steal software you hurt the creator who cannot insure against the loss.

So software (of whatever sort) theft is worse than hardware theft....

Paul

 

Not at all. The equivalent in car terms would be if someone had a device, some kind of Star Trek style "replicator", which they could take to my garage and make a copy of my M3 and then drive off in it. I still have my M3, and they have a copy of it.

In the case of CDs and software the "replicator device" is a PC with a CD-RW drive.

The people who lose out in the above case would be BMW allthough even that is debatable since, as is the case with a lot of software piracy, if the person can't get it for nothing (or almost nothing) then they likely wouldn't get it at all. The only pirated bit of software I have is Photoshop 7.0. If I hadn't been able to get a pirate copy I wouldn't have bought it, I'd have got something else much cheaper.

Michael.

 

With USB, is it so hard for companies to issue dongles with their product?

BTW - can Works open normal Word files? IIRC that's the reason many people I know used to have pirates of Office... Who needs full versions of Access/Excel/Word at home? Being able to open the "gist" of the work files in something simpler like Works should be a given if you ask me. That would solve a lot of the problem.

Making the software cheaper and unhackable (see dongle above) should enable you to shift a LOT of product at MUCH lower prices while maintaining your profits.

As for music piracy - the main record companies deserve all they get right now. £11.99+ for a CD which is compressed to the max and then overloads is taking the piss. No wander so many people copy CDs. But wait - let's feel sorry for the record companies - they HAD to pay out millions for Blobby Williams and Mariah Carey right? Whle all the real talent gets paid about 3p a CD.

£7 is fair for an album, £1 is fair for a single.

And don't even get me started on VHS/DVD; e.g. Titanic:
"Let's make a movie. Oh dear - we're over budget, but we'll ask our sponsors and the director for more cash to finish...
...Oh look - we've busted all box office records and made shedloads - let's release on Laserdisc and VHS ASAP for top dollar...
...and now - look - DVD. Hmm - no extras, no anamorphic - how much? Ah - £29.99 should do it. Even more profits despite the fact we've made millions!"

That film should have cost no more than £8 on VHS, maybe, just MAYBE, £15 on Laserdisc (expensive media), and no more than £20 on DVD (new technology at the time). The film distributors should be ashamed...