Pirated software why do people think nothing of it?

michaelab said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why should this be any different from any other area. You can't afford it - don't buy it. Presumably you couldn't afford an M5 (or some other car superior to the M3, there must be one that's out of your reach and not just personal choice) so you bought an M3. You can't afford (or are unwilling to pay for photoshop) so buy something cheaper!

Instead you break the law and obtain a copy. Thus meaning you are using someones intellectual property without their permission and without paying them for it. Arguments about direct harm aside, what on earth gives you the right? You develope software - I don't want to buy it, or contribute to your wages in anyway, and I wouldn't buy it anyway, but I'd like to use it. Send me a copy? I'll pm you my address.

hmmm, so much for staying out of it...
 
I can see your point stumblin but I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. The point I was making in my last post was that piracy isn't costing software companies as much as people might think since many (most?) of the owners of pirated software wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't obtain a pirate copy so the firm hasn't "lost" that sale because there never was an intention to purchase in the first place.

Michael.
 
but we live in a culture where if you want to use something, something must be given in exchange. If you don't want to buy it, you shouldn't use it! Discussions of harm are meaningless. Maybe we should have an additional section on our price list entitled "prices for people who don't actually want to pay"?
 
This argument is not going to go anywhere useful so I'm going to drop out at this point. I have a clear conscience about the very limited amount of pirated software I own.

Michael.
 
Has there ever been a 'scientific' study or 'proper' research done on how the profits of software companies would be affected if they VASTLY reduced the costs of popular packages. i.e. if they dropped the price by 75%, would the loss in profit be offset by them selling shedloads more?

If the latest versions of Windows was £20, Office £50, Photoshop £50 and Quark Xpress £50 I'm sure that the vast majority of people who are now using it illegaly would buy the 'retail' version.

Or I am I just being naive?
 
I think you're making a good point sane4sure, one I've made in the past, particularly in relation to PhotoShop. It's vastly overpriced in todays market where digital cameras are now the norm. FWIW I received my pirate copy of PS 7.0 unsolicited in the post from a member of the dpreview.com forums after I had a rant about Adobe's pricing strategy (making Photoshop much more expensive in Europe than in the US even once you take VAT etc into account). If Adobe priced Photoshop at a reasonable level there's no question I would have bought it, not had a rant about pricing and not received a pirate copy.

If I was selling software I'd much rather have 1000 people paying £50 a copy than 10 people paying £500 a copy. Of course the levels are not as extreme but IMO companies like Adobe could earn a lot more money from Photoshop if they just got their head out of the sand and had pragmatic pricing levels.

Michael.
 
I thought you were dropping out of this one Mike ;)

I'm not so sure about if price drop's would increase sales enough to keep profits the same/increased.

MOst new albums can be bought for under £10 now, but many still choose to copy and download than pay out.
 
ok, guys - realise one thing. You aren't their target market! Simple as. YOU DON'T NEED THE POWER OF THEIR SOFTWARE! Their pricing strategy is not aimed at you, and neither are the products.

You think it's priced too high, but probably use 5% of the functionality of the product.

It's like buying a Ferrari and making the school run in it. Then complaining that it's overpriced. Of course it is! That's why the "soccer moms" as they call them here all have Rav4's. Buy a Ferrari if you "need" one, or if you have more money than sense.

Buy software that does the job you want, at the price you're willing to pay. Compromise. You do it in every other area of your life, why not with software? Oh yes, because it's easy to steal the software you aspire too, whereas you're forced to compromise on your car.

Michael, I think you yourself made the point in the driving thread - it's illegal so she got punished. I hope you can be so clear cut about it if FACT knock on your door.
 
I suppose if people aspire to mega funcationality then a free little opensource something be it OOo, GIMP or whatever may will give you the function youcrave and for a fact keep FACT away from the door. After all software is for using and not displaying as trophies on the shelf or is it?
 
stumblin said:
It's like buying a Ferrari and making the school run in it. Then complaining that it's overpriced. Of course it is! That's why the "soccer moms" as they call them here all have Rav4's. Buy a Ferrari if you "need" one, or if you have more money than sense.
Click to expand...
That analogy is flawed. Many products like Photoshop and MS Office are such well established standards that using anything else effectively puts you at a huge disadvantage. It would be like having a road network where 90% of it was only useable if you had a Ferrari. If you have any other car you're welcome to tool around on the remaining 10%. The choices in software are not nearly so clear cut as in other areas.

With Photoshop, yes, most photographers who use it could probably get most of their work done most of the time with the (much cheaper) Elements but "most of the time" isn't good enough. Then you find that the RAW file plugin for your camera only works with full blown Photoshop, not Elements. Ditto for countless other plugins and action scripts where it's always: "Ah...sorry, they don't work with Elements" :mad: . Net result is that even though I don't use 90% of the functionality of Photoshop I'm still forced to use it for compatability reasons.

Michael.
 
Well I am the target market for Photoshop and yes it is over priced and full of 'features' that I don't want. I also can't get around to liking the way it works and hate 'elements' too. But rather than nick it I get a legal copy of some other software that does the job, thereby keeping the competition to Photoshop in a job and depriving Adobe of some genuine market share..
 
stumblin said:
ok, guys - realise one thing. You aren't their target market! Simple as. YOU DON'T NEED THE POWER OF THEIR SOFTWARE! Their pricing strategy is not aimed at you, and neither are the products.
Click to expand...

Stumblin, I think maybe that it is you who are being naive here. Of course we are their target market! All software companies want their products to be used by as large a user group as possible. Sure, at the moment we may not need all the functions their package offers, but who is to say that we won't in the future?
 
sane4sure said:
Stumblin, I think maybe that it is you who are being naive here. Of course we are their target market! All software companies want their products to be used by as large a user group as possible. Sure, at the moment we may not need all the functions their package offers, but who is to say that we won't in the future?
Click to expand...
Ummm, did you read the bit about me working in the pricing group of a multi-national software company?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top