P2P Networks Blamed For Software Losses Doubling 786
L1TH10N writes "CNET News is reporting that software manufacturers have doubled their losses to $29 billion dollars, according to a BSA survey, which is blaming P2P networks for their misfortune. Seems a little too far-fetched to me - a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software, just too much chance that you are downloading a trojan onto your computer. Me thinks the Business Software Alliance are jumping on the bandwagon and vilifying P2P networks just as the Senate is taking aim at P2P providers."
Ps (Score:5, Insightful)
Article text translated for non-BSA users (Score:5, Insightful)
Work harder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ps (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
And if he really did use it illegally, consider it spreading your market share.
But Would They Have Bought It Otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is always a weird issue with intellectual property "theft." If I steal a car that I wouldn't have bought since it's too expensive, I not only have that car, but someone else is now lacking their car. But if I "steal" a copy of Photoshop, nobody else is missing anything of their own...
What Happens? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who will they blame when there is no one left to blame but themselves? If they would make a product that was worth paying for, or not change more than the average person makes in a month, then they would sell a lot more. I'm not a big fan of microsoft products, but they have been smart recently with their variable pricing levels for the office products. The home user and Education users get a better price than the pro edition.
Now if I could just get Adobe CS Home edition
Uh huh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The movie industry just had a billion dollar month and is whining about piracy. The software industry isn't able to continue it's double digit growth and says piracy is due to their failed projections.
Here's a hint: not a lot of people buy software as often as they used to. Old versions of MS-Office are in use around the globe, old versions of Windows itself. Hell, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". People and companies no longer pay the upgrade tax automatically. (not to mention free software and how it's doing.
Lost Revenue: Formula (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ps (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually agree, that bullet-proof anti-piracy techniques would greatly improve the Open/Free Software Community.
If Joe User (well, I live in Mexico, so Jose Usuario) could not go down to the flea market and buy a pirated Win2K for $10, or download it for free from some Russian w4r3z site, he would be more likely to find and use gratis software.
Re:Ps (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares if they would never actually buy photoshop for $$$$$$$, every person who steals photoshop is one less potential customer of a competing, cheaper product. Even adobe sells an image editor for $100 or so.
Every person who steals office is one less legal user of openoffice.
Re:Why steal software? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just mausenscheiss for the investors (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there is a clearer reason for the loss... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been in a major economic downturn and to top it off the people that are technical (that would buy lots of the higher end stuff) are getting laid off. No one has the cash for Photoshop, 3D studio, or anything else that is on the top rung of the scales. These people crying about their losses are the same people the fired off 10,000 workers and replaced them with people from India, China, and Indonesia. f**k 'em... Use gimp, openoffice, and one of the many FREE operating systems. Send a clear message, and maybe they'll get these hits:
1) The software is too much money for a guy that now has to deliver pizzas. Pizza guys make $1/$2 an hour, and about $20/$30 in tips a day. Software = $40+, productivity apps range $150-$1000+
2) The software is no better than the stuff that can be downloaded for free, and occasionally it is worse. Gimp = 98% of photoshop (minus the bits no one uses), Openoffice = 120% of MS Office (the extra 20% is the time you do not have to worry about the application virusing you.) etc..
3) People that cannot afford the package and truly need it will bootleg it and apply a crack if they cannot find a free alternative. (This has always been the case, since the dawn of computing.) If you think it is going away or ever will, you are simply insane and delusional. Price your wares fairly and you will sell more.
4) Nothing called software is worth over $100 unless it is used to control missile launches, perform nano-surgery. compute orbital tragectories to neptune. Ok, this is just my opinion... You may have another.
-Mind
Re:Ps (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial software providers make it more and more difficult to get warez. More effective copy protection, better enforment, fines, etc. You have a huge class of people (say: those who dont live in the G7) who are used to getting software for zero cost. When they no longer can get the commercial stuff for zero cost, what will they do? But it, or go with OSS? Thats what I thought....
Important question! (Score:3, Insightful)
Using the word "lost" is an abuse of the language. There is revenue that has not been realized, but quatifying how much would have been realized without piracy is difficult.
I admit it. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I use the softeware to make money or my life easier I will pay for it.
Example 1:
My work was interested in runing some basic 3d software to make certain things easier. I hop onto a H.L. server and download the 4 biggies, try them all out. We find the one that is appropriate to our needs. That company now has a sale (Did this one 2 weeks ago). 2 out of the four I downloaded did have "trial" editions, but guess what, the trial editions did not tell us what we most wanted to know, ie, how the renders were.
Example 2:
I personally pirate shareware all the time. I hate "functionally limited demo's" (see above, there is always something missing). Usually, I install, use it for a while, then discover it is useless to me and delete. If I find I am using their software regularly, I will pay them for it.(For those keeping track, I will also donate to OSS if that is the solution, you get what you pay for.)
Example 3:
My career of choice is 2d graphics, the print world. I find video effects mildly interesting...as a hobby. There is no I could pay the $1000+ that most high end video editing software requires. Especially considering that none of this software is the do-it-all sort. So I have lot's of pirated video software. However, I feel no guilt on this. I am making no money off of their product. And they have not "lost" a sale, as I would not have bought it in the first place. On the other hand, if someday I do a freelance job these companies that have unwittingly supplied me with a learning tool will be the first to receive my money.
Re:Why steal software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Protel/DXP - PCB design & simulation: $7,995 for single user
IAR Embedded Workbench: ~$2000 (IIRC)
*yes, there are *-gcc toolchains that can be used instead.
Mathworks Matlab: $1900 Commercial Use
I would think that firms that use such software actually pay for them, and that the people who are aquiring them in less legal ways are students/hobbists/enthusists who wouldn't be able to buy the packages in the first place anyway, nor use them for commercial purposes.
Piracy can help in some specific cases (Score:5, Insightful)
And these numbers were probably based on if everyone actually was going to buy the software. Most people who have photoshop wouldn't have shelled out $700, however their employers are happy they are experts on it and they pay for it.
Erm, nice reporting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I enjoy reading these corporate PR releases bundled as news. For example, this is not that the software industry was $29 billion in the hole last year, it's that if you totalled all the pirated copies of software that the BSA feels exist, and you sold them all at full price, it would total $29 billion.
But heck, if the software industry were bleeding money (it isn't) then what could be the cause? Could it be P2P networks? Why yes, it could. Could it be an unfair monopoly? Pshaw! No one ever heard of a monopoly stifling innovation or competition, don't be silly. (Rubbing chin and looking thoughtful...) Although... I could name some companies that didn't lose money last year. Like, Netscape! Or... Quarterdeck! Try Ashton-Tate, Fox Software, Central Point, Stac, Digital Research, Banyan, and Borland. None of these companies lost money because they either went bankrupt, had to merge, or faded into obscurity. What happened to Wordperfect, the pre-eminent word processor? Harvard Graphics, the ultimate presentation graphics package? Lotus 1-2-3, the world's most popular spreadsheet? dBase, the most popular database? DESQview, the best multitasking environment? Visio was bought. FoxPro was bought and run into the ground. Netscape was crushed. Central Point, Stac, Spyglass, and 3COM (OpenServer NOS AKA LAN Manager) all did a deal with the devil and were forced out of the market. How much of that alleged $29 billion do the boys from Seattle claim is their slice of the pie? Yeah, maybe P2P is to blame. Maybe not...
Re:Why steal software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why steal software? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're just a hobbiest who occasionally uses PS, the $700 is completely unjustifiable unless you like throwing money down the toilet. (In such situations the Gimp would probably suffice and do quite well, but depends on your need.)
Or look at a 3-D modeling program. Maya, 3D Studio, etc. They are really fun to dabble with. Make a quick animation, share it with a couple friends, etc. Worth several thousand dollars? If you're doing commercial stuff with them, hell yeah! But if it's just a hobby, definitely not. (Again, Blender would probably do, but it has a bit of a way to go...)
Everyone - Everyone!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ps (Score:5, Insightful)
Monkey1: Dude, I've got Autocad 2005.
Monkey2: Cool! What do you do with it?
Monkey1: You draw pictures and stuff, like of the space shuttle.
Monkey2: Cool! Can I make a copy?
Do the statistics match up? (Score:1, Insightful)
I always believed these companies wrote off loss as "piracy" because "mis-management" doesn't look good on an annual report. But to think that somehow "piracy" losses DOUBLED from 2002 to 2003 just doesn't add up. Perhaps some reputable source could gather statistics on P2P network usage comparing 2002 to 2003? I highly doubt the P2P statistics doubled in parallel.
Re:Ps (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush says he's against terrorists in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and then goes and invades Iraq and turns the US into some sort of Orwellian nightmare.
Microsoft says it's against piracy yet hands out free/$1 software to universities and governments and creates licenses (Academic License, gimme a break) that discourage, even *preclude* their following.
Now the Congress says it's against software piracy and attacks P2P, and legitimate Open Source distribution methods in the process.
Ask yourself: What are they really fighting against?
Re:Newsgroups (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ps (People have had it with upgrades...) (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that the software industry can and should expect a constant stream of growth or even just stable revenue based on upgrades and otherwise selling mostly the same functionality over and over again is simply flawed. That's like Madonna expecting flat or growth of revenue based on selling Borderline version 1.0, Borderline 3.0, Borderline XP. People have had it with constant upgrades, both software and hardware. Why exactly do I need a 3Ghz machine and Word XP when I type my letters perfectly fine with a P5-166 and Word 95 ? And with the downturn in the economy, I'm simply going to spend my smaller budgets elsewhere. Nicer to blame P2P and the boogyman instead, I suppose...
Re:"Study" available here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?" Why do you think all the games companies are so eager to move to consoles now?
Pirating software is so easy that entire websites have sprung up for the ed2k protocol alone. Warez groups compete with each other for the earliest pre-retail leaks. Even back in late 1999, a friend of mine had a retail version of Windows 2000 before it was out in stores. This was on 56k dialup.
Windows XP must be one of the most pirated pieces of software out there, to the point that both SP1 and SP2 refuse to install on known pirated product keys.
Let's not get stupid here. Software piracy alone is probably more rampant than mp3s and movies. If you're a shareware developer looking to make a living, forget it. Shareware is dead. Freeloaders just aren't willing to follow a valid system of try before you buy--they just want the whole thing for free. Morality and ethics are gone in a new era of hax0r kiddies who hang out in IRC all day and never even dream of heading to a software store to buy something.
People here love to hate the RIAA and MPAA, and few if any people here are musicians and filmmakers so it's easy to ignore the rights of those groups of content creators, but I'm curious to see how Slashdot's general position will change when software piracy begins to have a real effect on the people here who make a living developing software. Or is free OSS the only way to go now?
Doom 3 will be out on ed2k networks before it hits retail, I guarantee it. And that's "far-fetched?" Whatever. It's fact, it happens, and it's growing as more and more people have highspeed connections. At some point, people will be forced to face it head-on and decide--what are we going to do? Allow it to happen or actually come out and say that it's wrong? At this point come some college dorm room unemployeds who lecture me about "finding a new business model," whatever that means. I could have sworn making something and selling it was a business model. Guess I was wrong. That's the new era of computing. "GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE! GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE!"
If you disagree, reply. But don't mod me down. Just my opinion (which I feel is supported by the facts). It's stupid to turn a blind eye toward this ever-growing section of the Internet that is pirating everything.
Not to mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. I feel like I'm an empty voice in the wind here. I guess I never realized that part of it was forgotten. It's never even mentioned in these types of discussions...y'know...someone taking something without paying for it when they're supposed to. I mean, that's bad, right?
I guess I was just raised a certain way. I actually work for and buy shit when I want it. I had to buy my own car growing up. When I wanted WarCraft II, I worked for and bought the fucking thing. Nowadays kids just pirate. A lot of the young generation these days have their cars bought for them. I think that's not just coincidence when you look at what else is freeloaded in today's society.
Everyone suddenly thinks they're entitled to everything. In the many years I've been lurking here since the 90s, that selfish attitude has grown and grown. It's a bit startling to me. But, that's me.
And here i thought it was high software prices... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are more illegal photoshop users than legal. If Adobe had the balls to sell it for $50 a box... Adobe would do pretty well.
Re:Newsgroups (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The BSA doesn't seem to employ any statistician (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
There are exceptions to this of course, exceptionally "honest" people with an overdeveloped conscience may not fit the above generalization, but they are regretably in the minority.
Now how many of those people would have paid for it if no free avenue had existed at all is another problem entirely... and can only be estimated, but should be directly proportional how valuable the commodity is to the people that use it. In the case of photoshop, I'd daresay that value is a lot higher than the grandparent poster would want to admit.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it was when the average citizen didn't have the capability to do mass duplication and distribution of your products. Piracy was less rampant in the old days not because people were more honest, but because it was harder to cheat.
The world has always been full of dishonest people. The current response to this mix of new technology and old-fashioned cheaters seems to be focused on government-dictated restrictions on what your computers can do and Draconian punishments for ever-expanding definitions of crimes. However, centuries of history have shown that this kind of approach often yields questionable results.
If those enforcement efforts fail, then the portion of the software industry that produces shrink-wrapped products will have to find another business plan, rightly or wrongly. That's life in the real world.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind I'm not supporting leeches - if you like the artist, you really should buy the CD, which is what I tell anyone on the subject, and a lot at least claim to.
I do agree with your points on shareware - I have a lot of friends who download the free trials and crack them. I'll admit that I cracked software a few times when I was running Windows, but only with things like image editors that are just fuck-around toys (ie Fark Photoshop contests) as opposed to something that I'd need for work or would profit from.
Ethics (Score:2, Insightful)
If you have ETHICS, you don't steal. You don't steal from a shop, you don't steal from Bill Gates. It's about ETHICS.
NOT Bill Gate's ethics (or lack there of), not the RAII / BSA's ethics (or lack there of), it's about YOUR ethics.
Stealing from The Donald is still stealing.
You are not everyone. (Score:2, Insightful)
You know what's bullshit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I the only one anymore who has fucking morals? I've posted a couple of other times about this. I just can't justify to myself taking something that I know some poor guys slaved over late hours into the night to get out the door for the publisher to stick on the shelves down at my local Wal-mart, people who are working to make money and make a living in this world. Then a bunch of kiddies and college dorm room "anti-capitalists" come along and rip them off, complete with a preset list of ideological justifications.
The statistics aren't "screwed up beyond all hell." Just because you weren't going to buy something still doesn't give you the right to suddenly have it without paying for it. Where does this backwards-ass sense of entitlement come from? Doesn't anybody care about the basic ideas of morals and fairness anymore? Even two year olds quickly grasp the simple concept of getting something by giving in return. And guess what, that's how it works in the real world when you get out of school (I say that because I know most of you are college guys).
If someone used pirated software illegally, he used it illegally. Don't spin it into "spreading your marketshare." Some real human beings who created that software didn't get paid for that marketshare. Or is it "free advertising"--the most laughable of all spins?
I know you guys love OSS, but just because you're used to one set of apps being free (not just beer, but speech) doesn't mean all apps are supposed to be free (as in loading). Note that this isn't an indictment of everyone on Slashdot. But I do know this applies to the majority viewpoint around here. I wish this site went back to more of the hard tech news of yesteryear and not these abstract ideological movements pre-designed to create page hits in the discussion threads.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
How do evil software pirates sleep at night?
People have been predicting that piracy would destroy the software industry since at least the mid-eighties when I started reading about it. You know what? It doesn't matter. Some people will pay for it, some people won't pay for it, and some people will pay for it only to get screwed by bad copy control mechanisms. It's the way it's always been.
You also seem to think that most software developers make their living selling the sort of general purpose, widely used software that tends to get pirated. Operating systems, popular applications, games, etc. But a great deal of development is for customized applications and software which solve problems that only the people who wrote the software actually needed solved. Ergo, it's effectively unpirateable. If you have the control code for an assembly-line machine, and there are only twenty like it in the world, you could put it up on Kazaa, but who would download it?
You claim, without proof, that "shareware is dead." Perhaps it is. But given the cheapness of distribution via the Internet, it takes a lot of freeloaders to cancel out the relative handful of people who actually pay money. If you're insulted that 95% of people will use your software without so much as a thank you, it's not the way for you to go. But if you can take a more mature attitude, and say, "I'm making a fair amount, and I'm happy that people like my software," then you stand a shot.
Without further proof of the deadness of shareware (as a business model. It's undeniable that there are still tons of shareware apps out there), I see no reason to believe you on that point.
Last thing: Business models. You are indeed correct. Taking something that is cheaply and easily copied and trying to sell it for far more than replication cost is a business model. Then again, so is picking leaves off your front porch, stuffing them in a paper bag, scrawling "delicious salad" on it in magic marker, and selling it on the street. Love it or loathe it, the effortless duplication of information is a fact, and it is far more sensible for companies to look for new revenue streams than to whine about the unfairness of it all, or to buy legislation outlawing general purpose tools that might be used to infringe.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:1, Insightful)
BSA can't continue the BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Second if everyone was forced to buy the software before it could even be evaluated it wouldn't even sell. Many people swear by Photoshop, if they had to pay the $700 for it every time and for every new release I think you'd see far fewer criticisms of the GIMP.
Third in the West many people pirate when they are young and have no money, in third-world country they pirate because they have no money. Notice the money theme? I note with interest that in order to try and curb piracy in Thailand Microsoft has tried to propose a *really* low cost version of Windows.
Fourth corporations do pay licences. The altenatives are expensive audits and those were well publicized some years ago. Notice how we don't hear from them anymore? The message got through and everyone who can afford it is fully licenced now, and that's only fair.
If the BSA wants to shoot itself in the foot they should certainly continue the strong-armed tactics of spot audits and uncircumventable DRM systems. This is pushing people in the arms of Free Software.
Conclusion: those who can afford the huge price of software are fully licensed and paid up, or very nearly so. Those who can't pay do pirate, but still wouldn't pay if they were forced to, because they can't. The result would be a lesser market penetration for all players involved for little or no financial gain.
And best of all, making "pay up!" noises is great for OSS. Nothing that the BSA does has any significant impact on the bottom line, except if somehow they would succeed in making Free Software illegal. This is not going to happen.
BSA is facing a reckoning in a few year's time. Software is becoming commoditized everywhere. Soon Windows will have to be given up for free or very nearly so (as it is now in Thailand), and the rest will follow suit. Look forward to either a full version of Photoshop for $25 or equivalently a fully featured GIMP as good as photoshop is today for $0, and not only that, but the quality of software will go up across the board. Notice how Windows is slowly getting more secure and feature rich? The alternative is oblivion for Microsoft.
BSA members have become super-rich by gouging the public. People who use Free software are seeing through their game: great software doesn't have to come at the price of an arm and a leg. How can Microsoft justify its $40B in the bank? In a properly functionning market where people have a choice, these sorts of insane margins cannot exist. Slowly and surely, the end of these practices is coming, and not a moment too soon.
Re:Newsgroups (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a whole bunch of other p2p services available which are much harder to shut down, most prominently because the servers are outside the US. Soon there will be encrypted networks to replace the current crop of kazaa replacements.
Any commercial p2p effort is going to involve (in addition to the aforementioned encryption) significant non-infringing uses first and then add p2p later. Work is already underway lol hint.
The real reason software is losing money:
Because software companies with mature products keep adding useless features to drive the upgrade cycle, not realizing that improved support for virus propogation is not a feature most people want in Word.
Honestly, Windows and Office were mature products somewhere back in the 97-2000 stretch. The past 4-7 years have seen most of microsoft's products develop lots of useless bells and whistles and lots of security holes and bugs. Why pay the MSFT tax when linux and staroffice are free and provide most of the features you really need. Shit, Firefox rocks just because it does simple browing really well and DOESNT run ActiveX controls or allow popups. Zing, like 100 security holes and annoyances removed in an instant.
This is why microsoft is:
-releasing a stripped down version of XP at a lower cost to compete with Linux (read, lower our prices because people dont find our new products any more compelling than our old ones that they already have)
tech.veolzie.com (off google) [velozie.com]
-reducing costs (read- laying off thousands of their programmers and sticking to bug fixing and maintenance of their existing stuff)
www.newsfactor.com (off google) [newsfactor.com]
Re:Not to mention... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not even getting into the ethics issue, an overlooked issue, in my opinion. Software developers are geeks like us, and you're not helping someone's life any by taking away from his sales. Keep in mind that when you download, not only are you getting it, but you're serving as a node for other people to get it off of you. It's the nature of P2P, and without realizing it, you're part of a much bigger web affecting the system.
In the interest of fairness, yes, I have pirated too. In fact, in high school I was quite the pirate. Having graduated college, gotten a real job and produced products, and actually experienced real life, your eyes are opened to how things really work. It's a cliche, but it's true. I'm curious how the system will be forced to change, because such changes will majorly affect people's careers.
Re:So is copy protection good or bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with copy-protection on music CDs is that (as it is currently implemented) it infringes on our fair-use right to rip our CDs. Not to mention that implementations have been known to destroy speakers, render Macs inoperable, install unwanted programs on users' computers, and other nasty things.
Copy protection on software has generally proved to be more of a pain to legitimate users than to w4r3z d00ds. It's an extra hoop to jump through, and it's especially annoying when it prevents people from reinstalling software after a hard drive crash or suchlike. *If* a "perfect" copy-protection scheme could be devised, (perhaps a la Palladium) that does *not* prevent computers from running "unauthorized" OSS software, and does *not* prevent backups, reinstalls, and other such necessary things, but *does* prevent unauthorized duplication of, say, XP and Office CD's, then that copy-protection will be all right.
That said, the more annoying the copy-protection technologies become, and the more effective they become at preventing average people from installing pirated software, the more appealing OSS will look -- as long as those technologies don't prevent people from running OSS in the first place.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:1, Insightful)
Making something and selling it != forcing people to purchase a hard copy or go through unnecessary legal terms just to install it.
Allow me to explain. We are quickly entering a world where "perfect" copies of the original can be made with little effort by a layman. A few years ago, this was not the case (number of floppies, immaturity of the internet, low bandwidth to end-users, etc).
Let's take for instance books. Books can be easily made into a digital form and distributed quickly, with very little cost (bandwidth is the main cost I see, offset by some sort of p2p). However, there is a market for the "dead tree" version. Somebody who wants to hold actual paper in their hands. Incidentally, most people do prefer to purchase a book rather than download (which is why I believe digital books haven't taken off yet). This might be due in part to the fact that books are portable and easy to read (in terms of eyes). Computers on the other hand are either not portable and easy to read, or portable and hard to read. Basically, books are more convenient for the consumer than digital books are.
In the case of music, generally people don't care to purchase a "hard copy". They just want to music. There is a market for the CD though, but it is slowly dwindling. People want to listen to music wherever they happen to be. Such as people who make copies of CDs to put in their car, work, and leave the original at home. Who wants to lug around CDs wherever you go? In this case, digital music is more convenient for the consumer. We have seen people embrace iTunes and other digital music offerings. People are willing to pay if the product is convenient to them.
Movie industry has seen DVD sales soar even with movie trading. Perhaps because people saw that the movies were good prior to purchasing a DVD that they might not be able to return. In addition, DVDs generally offer extras that are not available on file-sharing networks. This is added value to purchasing a "hard copy".
Now we come to software. CDs are going by the wayside. People don't want to have to go to a store to purchase a CD. In the case of games, one has to put in a play CD whenever you want to play. That is inconvenient. It's a helluva lot easier just to download a game and not even have to worry about CDs. Now, there is a market for a "hard copy". To me, nothing beats a thick, informative manual and/or a cloth map. If a game I want offers that, you bet they got my money. But back to the convenience factor. People look at the price of a CD-R. It's what, not even a dollar? Yet there's software out here that costs what, a helluva lot more. Of course there's the distribution costs, payment of employees, etc. But I don't think most people see why a CD has to be marked up 5,000% ($1 to $50). Something like $20 or $10 would be seen as more reasonable. And you also have to worry about crappy software. In almost every store now, once you open software, you CANNOT return it. So if you just bought some software that doesn't work because it was made in one month by some crappy developer or forced out by some crappy publisher, you can't do a thing about it. That is inconvenient. People will not pay for that.
If there is some system where people can pay like $5-$10 per download (utilizing p2p bandwidth, of course) for premium software (not bargain bin card games), I think it would take off (possibly Steam [steampowered.com]). Or perhaps a monthly fee to download software. I'm just offering some suggestions. Maybe the killer business model is something that I wouldn't think of in a million years. Either way though, the current one that requires a "hard copy" is slowly dwindling. It just isn't convenient for the consumer, and money talks.
I would like to touch on more aspect. In the case of online games (especially MMORPGs), there is generally a CD-Key
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue game companies are leaning more toward consoles because they are easier to develop for, sufficiently powerful now, and have reached a critical mass for an audience (Average gamer vs. L33t PC geek with his tricked out box).
Software piracy is probably not as common as you think. Here on slashdot, I guarantee a vast majority of users have at some point "borrowed" an application. The general population, on the other hand, the kids and average parents on AOL, probably have not.
There will always be a segment of the population that steals software. I am willing to bet, however, that this PERCENTAGE of users has not increased over the years (noting that the total number of users, therefore pirates, have).
There are two types of piracy in my book: the for-profit pirates, and the tinkerers. The former is what the BSA is (or should be) focusing on, such as Russian mafia groups burning windows XP cds and selling them and profitting from the stolen software. I think almost everyone can agree this is unacceptable in any form, morally and ethically.
Then, there's the tinkerers. The college kids who download that $700 photoshop program, or $2000 Matlab program, or $10,000 Maya suite for the purposes of learning it and toying with it. Here's the shocker, by these kids learning these packages because they stole them, they make the software more valuable. Once they get into a real job, and boss asks you to whip together some images, the kid who knows Photoshop is gonna make said company go out and buy that software.
Now granted, this is an idealization, and I'm sure businesses pirate software as well, but the larger the user base that knows your software, the more valuable it is and more likely it is to be purchased. I'm willing to bet Microsoft actively looked away from pirates back in the early days when their market share wasn't so certain, because these new users were using the software, getting hooked on it, and eventually landed in a situation where they had to buy the packages.
As far as games go, the reality is that almost every new game will have some sort of network functionality. Users may pirate a copy of a game, and play it in single player mode, but now they're hooked, and want to play online, where now it's very easy to check to see if your copy is legit. Again, another user roped in and hooked.
Still, a hax0r kiddie who steals a copy of Autocad is no skin off of anyone's back, because he was never a potential customer to begin with. But if he learns it, and eventually ends up in the business world, then that's one more license sold for Autodesk.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
So? they're within their right to charge what ever they want, its their software. On the other hand if you feel this is an unfair price its your right not to purchase it. Just because you disagree with the list price of something does not give you the right to take it. I don't have the right to download Office because I can't afford it any more then its my right to jack a BMW because its expensive but I still want one.
You can argue that piracy isn't stealing till your blue in the face, one, it doesn't change the fact its illegal, two, you took something you have no right to , and three, the meaning of words change, language is not a static entity, so if the general population uses the word steal in the context of downloading music, movies or software, guess what it comes to mean. If you don't believe me, look up the word Gay some time.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?"
I think software piracy by P2P is far-fetched -- not that it doesn't happen, but that it's hardly the major vector. Also, looking at the FA: "Vietnam and China had the world's highest rates, with pirated versions accounting for 92 percent". There's no way P2P has anything to do with piracy there. If you've ever been to either country, or most 3rd-world countries, you'd know that Internet access is terrible and expensive, but CDROM (AND DVD) bootlegs are dirt cheap. I would imagine that in most 1st world countries, bootlegs propagate mostly by CDROM too, either free from friends or at a few dollars a disk, from boot sales, street vendors or the like.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:1, Insightful)
Parent is a dimwit. So is the person who modded him up. Grandparent was not calling software piracy far-fetched, as anyone with the reading comprehension skills of the average toenail fungus could tell. He was referring to downloading pirated software from random anonymous people via P2P networks, which is just asking to catch the electronic equivalent of AIDS.
"Ewww, don't stick that
Re:Piracy can help in some specific cases (Score:4, Insightful)
AutoCAD has been riding this bus for freaking ever. Were it not for its installed base and every student getting their free copy, a competing (and certainly cheaper) CAD package would have knocked them off long ago.
They publicly claim to have their panties in a knot over this (after all, they might actually scare or guilt a few people into buying their copy), but in reality they know that if they succeeded in eliminating pirated copies, they would only be killing themselves in the long term.
Sure, blame the messenger. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just as this, P2P networks are not the CAUSE of this problem, in fact, the software producers, studios, theatres, etc are their own cause for the popularity of P2P networks. If they weren't in such a hurry to rip people off, and offered a product at a price that's reasonable with the product, then people would be less inclined to return the favor of ripping them off. As an end user, why the hell should I pay $3000 for a video encoding software for hobby use, when I can get it for free and give the producer the shaft? It's not like *I* make any money with that $3k piece of software like those bafoons up at the RIAA do, then charge me $7.50 a frelling ticket to see a B movie and then bitch because everyone would rather download it for free because the RIAA should be paying US to see it, not the other way around...
Morons.
I swear, stupid people should just be shot... but only by other stupid people weilding slingshots... oh wait, those would be outlawed too. Tards. Yea, I'm ranting. I'm sick to frelling death of people screaming "I'm being ripped off!" when they're the ones casting stones from the glass house to begin with. As a general rule, people are complete retards. Present company excluded, for the most part.
-Phyre
"far fetched" (Score:2, Insightful)
There are millions of people who use one p2p software or another, and they don't just use it to download legal mp3s from their favourite indie bands offline.
Software piracy has been around before p2p was ever thought of, and as long as there's a means to do so, it will be around for a hellova lot longer, via p2p, ftp, usenet, bittorrent
Just because you (or even the majority of the
So horribly inaccurate (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pathetic how every corporate organization now needs a scapegoat for their own shitty business practices. Forced upgrade policies, lock ins, price gouging etc etc. It's all coming back to bite them in the ass but wait.... there is this new buzzword called P2P, let's blame that!!
mindless angry rant (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, this isn't an excuse for piracy, but lets be clear about exactly who it hurts; the largest corporations in the music and software industries.
And there is piracy going on on the other side of the fence. I bought windows XP, microsoft frontpage and MS Office. I've had each of these programs remotely disabled, despite the fact that I PAID for them. This is piracy every bit as much as IP infringement. When the US government allows the patenting of naturally occuring genes, this is theft from the public domain. Nobody has a right to own these things that they're claiming to possess. Same with copyright extension. It was intended originally to remunirate creatives for their work. Now it's been extended so that what should be public domain is held in private hands indefinitly.
And with the passage of UCITA, software vendors are now able to disclaim all liability for their products that extend beyond the purchase price and enforce shrinkwrap liscenses that you didn't get to read before purchase.
They are also able to prevent you from reselling your 'liscense.' A similar thing happened at the beginning of the century, when the publishing industry tried to prevent used book sales. The sales were eventually allowed to proceed.
You're right that people are greedy. Some of these people, unfortunatly, are well connected and funding very powerful organizations. They've used their own dirty tricks to get and keep their power. Why do you think certain songs are played repetitivly on the radio? (I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy right now). MS got out of a government antitrust trial with a punishment that was actually a reward; donating software to schools, so the kids would know how to use/buy MS products. There are dozens more examples. I'm sure you can think of a few.
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing a quality decried when average people possess it, but lauded when businesspeople use it to make money. If breaking the rules, abusing distrobution methods for illicit personal benefit and taking whatever you can get are to be decried in the American public, they should also be decried in the businesses that practice these same tactics, and who use their influence to avoid competing on a level playing field.
OEM is the real culprit (Score:2, Insightful)
1. People who don't know better receive software for free with their computer and begin to think that is the way it should be. They shouldn't have to go out and buy software, they should just get it for free because they have bought a computer.
2. People who do know better realise they've already paid a fortune for software they have never used because they know the cost of their computer/s actually included the cost of the OEM software that came with it (which is often crap). They go out and find better alteratives and if it's free all well and good but those companies complaining about piracy have actually stolen real $$$ from them. I can understand why some of those people "find" software and fail to compensate said companies even more $$$.
BTW I use Macs and open-source software and I get even more than I pay for _ now that is a crime.
Re:Why steal software? (Score:1, Insightful)
The issue is that home users can't afford it, but they may like to try an unrestricted edition if they happen to do something that needs that tool. The nice part about giving away something like this to home users is that those home users may one day make a career out, resulting in a business buying one more license. Hell, sometimes you can get away with charging home users for it and they'll feel like they're getting a good deal out of it.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:4, Insightful)
The really sad thing is that I would do more time for using a camcorder to record a movie than most of these assholes get for stealing billions. The color of their collar earns them such leniency? No wonder people don't give a damn about corporations losing money. They see that it's all about what you get without getting caught. If corporate leaders are going to ignore the law with virtual impunity, why should anyone else do differently? Don't hate the player, hate the game, right?
For many companies: piracy > competition. (Score:4, Insightful)
If these companies _seriously_ cracked down on piracy, people would simply flock to the cheaper products or the open source alternatives. This would threaten the market/mind share these companies have, which allow them to demand large figures for site lisences to corporations.
Re:Newsgroups (Score:4, Insightful)
1) that you can, or
2) how to.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're using photoshop to feed your family, you're going to buy it.
If you're blurring out your AIM window to submit a screenshot to 1337p30p13.com, Photoshop is not valuable to you and hence you pirate it.
Teenagers pirate games because they _have no income_. Therefore they can't afford $50 for a game. They can, however, use their parents' DSL to get it for free. So they do.
P2P networks aren't the problem. People are. P2P networks don't kill profit... people kill profit
Re:Silly article summary (Score:2, Insightful)
And the more widely distributed for free is the software, the less valuable it is and the less likely it is to be purchased.
Here's the deal. Duplicating my software, without my consent, is NOT flattering to me, nor is it beneficial to me. If it were, I would give it away for free, or give limited versions for free, as I choose.
Still, a hax0r kiddie who steals a copy of Autocad is no skin off of anyone's back, because he was never a potential customer to begin with. But if he learns it, and eventually ends up in the business world, then that's one more license sold for Autodesk.
A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience. As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.
In any case, the hax0r kiddie who steals a copy of Autocad had better do so covertly -- for serious damages and possible criminal responsibility await if he gets caught.
All things considered, why steal software that isn't yours? If they won't give it to you for free on your terms, make your own. if you can't, and can't human engineer yourself a legitimate copy, but nevertheless descide to steal from people without permission, please OH PLEASE, spare me the homily how you are doing the vendor (or society) a service by training the workforce.
Man, you are just another drag on us all.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. The property is the copyright itself. Duplication of a CDROM doesn't take away their copyright, nor does it diminish the original.
Another "moral stance" rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen, your perspective is painfully and tragically well-represented, in my opinion. On Slashdot you may be a minority, but you'll be pleased to know that almost every person I've talked to outside of the concentrated, activist internet is at least well acquainted with this spuriously 'common sense,' 'moral' approach to parsing the copyright debate -- usually they don't understand any other perspective.
It makes very repeatable, catchy, and above all simple sense. But listen, bucko--these 'kids these days' are not going around stealing cars and bubble gum just because they don't want to buy it. They understand the morality of stealing, and the wrongness of taking something without paying for it. There is no moral decay going on. How do you explain increased copying then?
Here's an argument that needs to be made, though you've no doubt already heard and marginalized it as 'lawyer speak' or 'splitting hairs' or what not: Copyright infringement is different than 'taking without paying,' or 'stealing' (the word you were conjuring without actually saying). Copyright infringement is instead 'copying without paying.' Is this illegal? In many cases, yes. But it shouldn't surprise you that the specter of copyright infringement deters people less than than stealing does -- the explanation is simply that they're different things, and infringement is only a moral wrong to those who, quite simply, do not understand American copyright law, and choose instead to rely on some fictitious 'old fashioned' 'moral' outlook. The argument sounds great, but really is only a blind for their (somewhat understandable) laziness at truly understanding the mountain of legalese and unprincipled patchwork that is current copyright law.
I've been a broken record on Slashdot lately, but people keep making at least this same misinformed argument. So those who have heard it before, forgive me, but: 'back in the day' the Framers of the Constitution expressly rejected a moral outlook on copyright because it would take us back to pre-Statute of Anne copyright monopolies. Recently however, your 'moral' stance, soundbiteable and infectious meme that it is, has taken hold of the American copyright psyche. And, lo and behold, legislation is making copyright more and more like the centuries-spanning, creativity-impeding pre-Anne copyright. That is bad for obvious reasons.
So please: Copyright has nothing to do with ownership. If you have an argument against copyright infringement, great -- but what you are putting forth right now is spurious at best, and at worst is contributing to the destruction, not the salvation, of copyright.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
I would agree on low to medium cost software. High end software, on the other hand, is very different. A student will NEVER buy lighwave 3d, say, no chance, while he's still a student. I would actually argue that the authors would want that kind of person to pirate it because it means more people get into doing the 3d artwork in the first place, and some of those decide they want to do it "for real", and actually buy a copy. Had they not pirated it, they wouldn't have bought it, would never have experienced the artform, and wouldn't get into it professionally. Is it really worth a company's while suing schoolkids for thousands of pounds worth of software that they'd never have bought anyway?
This is in fact exactly the reason Microsoft has had the sense to give Visual Studio away free to students, they know they couldn't afford to buy it, but they get them hooked. It's taken them a while to realise that, but now they are doing it. Software vendors often don't see past their primary market, the people they know are willing and able to buy their software, MS is now (worryingly, in a way) working that out for themselves.
Though, on one point I'm not totally clear, I've spoken to people in some companies that provide this sort of software, and I know they don't care about piracy of this sort and actually like it. They would never admit that as an official line though, which is understandable as it seems like they are supporting piracy, but they also don't release "free for non-commercial use" versions or the like, which wouldn't seem like supporting piracy... not quite clear on why they don't do that, didn't get any good answers.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
>through unauthorized copying or use of a work or
>other subject matter under copyright.
What country's copyright law would that be? In most countries, the USE of work that someone holds the copyright is not at all covered by copyright law. Reproduction (making copies), distribution (usually only first sale though) and public performance are the typical actions that are covered by copyright law and given an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. everything else is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder. That is why I can read any book, even one I don't own, and not infringing on the copyright.
>Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to
>the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized
>copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
Ehh, the only "ownership" it assigns is the copyright. It would not be ownership to each copy were the work that had copyright is fixed into a tangible form (basically made into a physical copy). Of course, the copyright holder will typically always be the first owenr of each such copy, but they are then usually sold and then there is no longer such an ownership othe individual copy. Of course, the copyright is not sold along with the physical copies. Hence there is a big difference in owning a copyright on something and owning the individual copies of the work. For example, I own the books in my own, but do not own any copyright on any of them.
You seem to equate the copyright to a property. That is, by holding or owning a copyright, you have a property. Fine, lets go with that. However, no one is stealing the copyright when copying a book (or computer software), you still have it, and they don't. They create a new copy (unauthorized since only a copyright holder can typically do that) so against the law, but they did now steal any property at all.
Blow me, BSA! (Score:4, Insightful)
Software piracy in these countries is NOT done with p2p programs, it's done with CD's and DVD's! The reason piracy is so rampant there is that the burners and medium has become really cheap! Not to mention that with hardware costs dropping in these countries, more people have access to computers, all of which need software to run.
The one BIG FLAW in all these arguements is this: How many of the people who steal software/music/movies would have actually bought it/them?Until this question is accurately answered (hint: it's not even CLOSE to 100% as the BSA, RIAA and MPA would have you believe), the debate on p2p will always be an invalid one, and the laws proposed and/or passed to "protect chldren" from the rampant dangers of copyright infringement will always be suspect.
Re:Newsgroups (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not saying that the man hours put in, cost of distribution (online or shipping) and other costs don't justify a high price, but they do guarantee that most people will think twice or thrice before purchasing that software even when they reall really need it. Video game that I use 8 hours a day for months (Diablo 2 [blizzard.com] with expansion [blizzard.com], anyone?) -- US$30-$50. And I would be willing to bet that it cost just as much to develop between writing, programming and developing the engine, sound, graphics, packaging, tech support, etc. than any version of Photoshop ever produced. Ok, I don't know that, but come on.
If your software only costs a small amount and people are willing to pay for it, don't you come out just as well (and with a larger user base, to boot) as the monster corporations that charge an arm, a leg, and a third extension and half less people buy it (but thanks to whatever method you use, just as many people using it?
Re:You know what's bullshit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Non sequitur.
Whether or not it gives anyone the right to have it without paying for it is not the issue. The issue is whether BSA members would have had $39,000,000,000 more if all software piracy was prevented. Since a very large percentage of that software is used by people who either will not or can not pay for it, that figure is seriously flawed.
Let's say you paint a mural on the side of your garage and require everyone who looks at it to pay you a dollar because of all your hard work. You put out a can to collect the money. You check it a week later, and there are only five dollars in it. You saw three people look at your garage without paying. So you hire a guard to stand by the mural and make sure that nobody can look at it without paying. He chases away the three people: an art lover (thinks he has a right to it), a 6-year-old girl with only ten cents (can't afford it), and a blind man (can't use it anyway). Your can still has only five dollars in it.
None of those three people would have paid to look at the mural in the first place, so you have gained nothing by hiring that guard to prevent them from doing so. You can't claim that you lost $3 from "illegal staring" before you hired the guard, because it was $3 you never had and weren't ever going to get.
That's the problem with the BSA's figures: They're making up numbers for how much pirated software is out there, and then counting their "losses" as the full retail price of that software, disregarding the fact that a very large percentage of it is in the hands of people who will not or can not pay for it, and thus was never "lost sales" to begin with. If illegally copying software is wrong, then what is lying about statistics and deliberately misleading the public and the government?
Re:Newsgroups (Score:5, Insightful)
One of Bill's long-term mistakes (and it's hard to take the richest man in the world seriously when talking about his "big mistake" - I should make such mistakes!) was believing that a product that can be duplicated for zero additional cost (after development) and which never wears out could be treated using the same economical models as cars and televisions.
There is an inherent difficulty in charging for "shrink-wrapped" software and that's why Bill wants EULA's to be enforced and all the rest of the crap that the non-OS industry generally are tryingto force on us through copyright changes and so on, they're trying to enforce their economic model through changes in the law. That's not going to work in the long term.
On the other hand, if Bill had an ounce of sense in him he'd be out enjoying his billions instead of being a arsehole and making everyone else's lives a misery by foisting crappy software and crappier laws on the rest of us.
TWW
Re:Silly article summary (Score:2, Insightful)
I generally agree with your comments, but I believe you are missing a key segment of pirates here. In addition to the "for-profit pirates" and the "tinkerers", we should be discussing the "ignorant/lazy IT departments".
The BSA's focus is directed at more than just Russian Mafia groups, and rightly so. The BSA is also focused on IT departments inside companies, and particularly those where the majority of their software is not properly licensed. This has probably been the case at most companies I have worked with, both large and small.
While I agree with you that on one hand, the "tinkerers" are providing a good knowledge base for future business revenue for software companies, those same tinkerers are the ones bringing their culture along with them from university into business. When they get their first job, and they are asked to acquire software to fill a certain need, they are often (not always) prone to follow old habits. So my conclusion is that the "tinkerers" group has a good side and a bad side for software companies. I'm not sure what the ratio of good to bad is here, but it certianly seems to me like this gives the BSA the ethical right to go after that group as well, if they deem it necessary.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Theft: Any act of stealing, including robbery and burglary. The wrongful taking of the property of another.
Merriam-Webster: theft, n. 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it [emphasis mine]
Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder
No they don't. They grant a duplication rights monopoly on your product, but the actual copy is my property. If I give it to a friend, or burn it and stomp all over it, there's nothing you can do about it, unless specified differently in a valid contract.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience. As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.
I'll let Bill Gates speak for himself:
Man, you are just another drag on us all.
Could you explain this in more detail? Where did GP claim to illegaly copy software himself? What you don't get is that an uncopyable MS Office would be the death of Microsoft (unless they figured out a clever way to separate home use from business use while still keeping business prices up), so yes, some companies do profit a lot from software piracy. It's not that they wouldn't have taken hundreds of dollars if the student who infringes upon their copyright would have offered them to MS. But it's still way better for them if he copies their software, instead of going for the free OpenOffice. They know that bloody well, and this is why they do not enforce their copyrights towards private users. So in some situations, piracy may hurt the competition instead of the copyright holder.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:2, Insightful)
My only knowledge on this, there were about 200 people on the torrent at suprnova for UT04 a couple weeks back but I`m sure thousands probably bought it in that time period. And of course, I am very glad I got a pirated version of Halo first, because contrary to what the box says, it will not run on my laptop even though I meet all the requirements and turn everything down to a minimum, I blue screen and restart. That saved me a good bit of money. And I can also say depending on the time, my money usually shifts between movies and computer games, the only CD in the last 10 years to intrigue me into buying was the Evanescense cd(no, I cannot spell) so I think it might be a good point to say the RIAA has lost sales to DVD`s and computer games because most kids that I know are working on a limited budget. and no, I hadn`t thought that was a real possibility but after hearing it and thinking about my experiences, it does make sense.
And yes, I was being horribly melodramatic at the end of my post, I probably should more accurately say that if I was limited into only buying a BMW 5 series instead of that 7 series I always wanted, I would be pissed off;).
á
Re:Silly article summary (Score:1, Insightful)
Generally academic prices for software are in line with what I'm willing to pay. Too bad there isn't an academic price for CDs and movies.
Re:Silly article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
This is the essence of your argument. I hope you can see that "copying" isn't "taking" -- for a start, the copyrighted object has not been taken away. Making a copy or a derivative work is a violation of copyright, it isn't theft, stealing, robbery, or even really piracy, except that the latter term has somehow become attached to this particular act, though it has nothing to do with armed robbery on the high seas. There is a reason that the legal concept of "intellectual property" has evolved: it's because the concepts of "real property" fall apart in many cases when you try to apply them to ideas rather than goods. So whenever I see an argument beginnning "Think of this DVD/software as a car..." and going on to talk about carjacking, the cost of a Mercedes, etc, there's realy no way to answer, because the terms of reference are already far from the actual legal system.
View from someone who runs a software company (Score:1, Insightful)
I work very hard on the software i develop, and its a tough market, and hard to rbeak even, let alone make enough to pay the bills. Every game I sell earns me about $19.
I have to sell a lot of these to pay the rent.
So how do you think I feel when I see discussions like this on forums and newsgroups:
L33tD00d: Hey you played *game* it rocks!
UberKid:: Yeah Its kewl I got it yesterday. been playing it all day
L33tD00d: Cool, you buy it?
UberKid: Nah got it from Kazaa, want the serial?
L33tD00d: Yay!
I dont have a ferrari in the garage, I dont rip off my customers, they get an up front demo (shareware) so NOBODY can say they need to carck my stuff to test how it plays.
Yet thieveing warez kiddies steal my games every day.
What should I tell the bank manager?
"Sorry I can't pay my mortageg again, but remember d00d, software should be free"
Not every company losing out to pirates is Sony Microsoft or some evil mega-crop. Sometimes its some hard working Geek trying to pay the bills.
Remmeber that next time you l33t kidz hack my work.
Quality and Price (Score:1, Insightful)
I took the wife and kids to see Shrek when it came out 3 times. Then I downloaded a pirate copy from Kazaa. We watched it many times, till the Shrek DVD came out.
Then know what I did? I purchased the DVD.
Why, because the quality was great, I wanted to support the studio,and the price was good.
Question: Did Dreamworks lose any money on me because I pirated a copy?
OTOH, I rented Josie and the Pussy Cats for a buck. After watching it, I wanted to submit a bill to the vidoe store for my time that they wasted.
I let EVERYONE know, how bad the movie was.
Question: Did Universal lose money on Josie because people were pirating it, or because people were telling thier friends what a piece of crap it is?
Moral: If you have a real quality product, and price it correctly, what little piracy there is, is just a "tax" on doing business. Produce a product that is crap, will will pirate it, or just live without it. Produce a quality product that is overpriced, and it will be pirated like mad.
BSA is run by Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, if you're going to complain I don't have enough proof, take a deep look into some of these 123,000 pages [google.com].