Can A Pirated Copy of GB Effect its Performance? [Archive]

Counterfit

Mar 14, 2004, 01:28 AM

Duff-Man says...I don't want to sound like some software-pirate-nazi or anything, but even if it was Final Cut Pro for $1000 that should not make it any more condonable or understandable. Face it, the Mac is a "marginal" market (as much as I love it...) and every little bit of piracy does hurt. Just this week there have been stories in the online media about Mac game companies thinking twice about releasing titles because all the piracy has made it unprofitable for them....companies like Corel have ceased making any new Mac software....if we end up with no software, what is the point of having the hardware or the OS???.....oh yeah? I think that's a record for your longest post ever.

As for your "friend", I have the feeling he can qualify for the educational price... $30! THAT"S REALLY CHEAP FOR WHAT YOU GET *hint hint*

So tell him to stop being a cheapass and buy the damn thing.

Koodauw

Mar 14, 2004, 01:51 AM

I think that's a record for your longest post ever.

Quick someone get him another Duff!

lol @ cjc343. I think we need more humor like yours, IMO

briankonar

Mar 14, 2004, 02:29 AM

ChrisH3677

Mar 14, 2004, 03:06 AM

IMHO I don't think pirating is ever acceptable. Would you mind someone stealing your car for the day as long as they brought it back?

That said, the software industry does set itself up for pirating.

They are getting better though. Like most vendors now provide fully-functional trial versions of their software now. Apple is still to join the club tho...

PS I ain't no angel and have been guilty in the past. I don't think I am now... I do try to avoid it since it's part of my job to enforce it!

johnnyjibbs

Mar 14, 2004, 04:56 AM

As the others have said, get him to buy a copy. iLife 04 is well worth the money - one of the best value pieces of software you can get, even if you have iDVD 3, etc.

Pirating, in my opinion, is ALWAYS a bad thing because it is no less than stealing. There is nothing different between pirating some software and walking into a shop and taking an iPod, or whatever.

However, I do think that software companies, and in fact the music industry, have themselves partly to blame. I simply think that a lot of software is too much money. Sure, businesses can afford it, but people like students or ameteaur enthusiasts simply cannot afford the entry price or annual upgrade fees. If they lowered the price significantly, they would get a lot more sales and piracy would be lowered, so they'd probably get more profit anyway. Oh, and student discounts help but they still cost WAY too much.

dubdub

Mar 14, 2004, 06:21 AM

I will, "my friend" has money, but he's cheap. It seems to be well worth it.

thecow

Mar 14, 2004, 08:37 AM

Like most vendors now provide fully-functional trial versions of their software now. Wouldn't that just make it easier to pirate software? You could just download the trial off of the internet and than get a patch or key to make it the full version.

Les Kern

Mar 14, 2004, 08:41 AM

I think in situations like this, where your still learning the ins and outs of the software, "pirating" can be acceptable, but if I ever do use them professionally, I'd be more than willing to fork over the cash.

Argh. Justifying stealing is a simple affair: just scream "I got no money!" and you convince yourself it's okay. It's not, so cut it out. Visit your labs to learn. If they don't allow after-school access, make it happen by convincing the administration.
Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm going out today to learn how to golf. But since I can't afford greens fees I'm sneaking on to the course.

Earendil

Mar 14, 2004, 12:08 PM

Argh. Justifying stealing is a simple affair: just scream "I got no money!" and you convince yourself it's okay. It's not, so cut it out. Visit your labs to learn. If they don't allow after-school access, make it happen by convincing the administration.
Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm going out today to learn how to golf. But since I can't afford greens fees I'm sneaking on to the course.

Stealing is Wrong. Period.
That said I agree that the big software companies are setting themselves up.
They charge $500-$1000 for a Program they expect professionals to use and pay for. This price is above the heads of 99.99% of all students that would like to learn it and possibly make a career out of it.
The professionals that are going to pay the $500-$1000 to use it as professionals have to start as students. This is a Catch22.
Yes, there ARE some ways around it that are legal, but they aren't available to all students (like myself).

The Perfect scenario would be to have 2 identical versions of a program. One for professionals, and one for home (none profit) work. Then, somehow have the program tag the work and (for those that are looking) scream out electronically "I'm none profit!". In this way you can have the money making professionals using Maya (or whatever) for their large pay checks pay the very small $1000 work expense, and have those that are learning and use it at home (or education) use it for, say, $50 or $100.

I highly DOUBT that any student trying to learn these $500 apps are paying for them. In that case, how much more money would companies make if they offered a none handicapped (but tracked way) of selling a $50 program?

Just my take.

Tyler
Earendil

Les Kern

Mar 14, 2004, 12:18 PM

The Perfect scenario would be to have 2 identical versions of a program. One for professionals, and one for home (none profit) work. Then, somehow have the program tag the work and (for those that are looking) scream out electronically "I'm none profit!". Just my take.

Tyler
Earendil

Actually that's quite an interesting idea. They could make profit they wouldn't normally make, and train a whole legion of followers. Of course there will always be pirates, but still....
I'd patent the technology right away!

ingenious

Mar 14, 2004, 01:52 PM

Actually that's quite an interesting idea. They could make profit they wouldn't normally make, and train a whole legion of followers. Of course there will always be pirates, but still....
I'd patent the technology right away!

I agree. We have a class at school that uses lots of Pro apps, but we don't know how to use most of the features and the school won't pay for the other licenses or something, anyway, don't blame me for it, but we have to install the same license on each PB. This idea could be really profitable for students.

arogge

Mar 14, 2004, 04:47 PM

So tell him to stop being a cheapass and buy the damn thing.

Unfortunately, all this "just buy it" stuff is getting to be costly. Two OS X upgrades at $129 with another one coming and now OS X has lost the integrated applications that are now part of the separate iLife package. It would be better if Apple made all of its applications freely-available for non-commercial use and didn't separate the "iLife'd" applications from OS X. Paying money for the software would mean getting telephone support and other incentives, while people who just play with the software for fun could use it for free. If potential Switchers then saw all the free applications that they could have if they bought a Mac, Apple would make selling a lot easier.

johnnyjibbs

Mar 14, 2004, 04:53 PM

themadchemist

Mar 14, 2004, 04:58 PM

I will, "my friend" has money, but he's cheap. It seems to be well worth it.

oh, ok, so it's you?

johnnyjibbs

Mar 14, 2004, 05:06 PM

oh, ok, so it's you?
Hehe, I'm surprised we all missed the old "my friend..." gag until now!!! :D

Earendil

Mar 14, 2004, 05:36 PM

Duff-Man

Mar 14, 2004, 06:01 PM

Hehe, I'm surprised we all missed the old "my friend..." gag until now!!! :DDuff-Man says...no we didn't - I thought my very first response in this thread was pretty clear that it obviously was him.....oh yeah!

johnnyjibbs

Mar 15, 2004, 03:20 AM

Duff-Man says...no we didn't - I thought my very first response in this thread was pretty clear that it obviously was him.....oh yeah!
True, apologies! I missed that as well! :D

johnnyjibbs

Mar 15, 2004, 03:21 AM

Not quite what I meant. I want a fully functional none handicapped version for $50-$100 that is for none profit. Number of sales has something to do with price. But you can't tell me that the reason Maya/PS/FC are so highly priced isn't because Hollywood and major (read: rich) companies use them as their equipment.

The rest of the worlds software is sold to average people for $30-$70, why not the Art programs?

Tyler
earendil
If you don't handicap the free version in some way (even something such as adding a watermark), how do you get any of the pros to actually buy it?

Colonel Panik

Mar 15, 2004, 06:07 AM

To answer the original question, no, a pirated copy of GB isn't crippled, unless you forgot to copy over the 1.81GB of extra files that GB installs (loops and instrument settings, etc.). :rolleyes:

whooleytoo

Mar 15, 2004, 06:20 AM

It's funny how the same arguments always pop up when it comes to piracy, many of them flawed. Piracy isn't stealing - it may be a crime, but it's not theft. If you steal a car, you deprive the owner of its use; if you pirate software it doesn't affect the legitimate owner. (Aside: wow.. imagine if you had a car that could automagically clone a copy of itself.. that WOULD be piracy! ;) )

On the other hand, the "I can't afford it" argument is over used too. I remember many years ago as a student I pirated a lot of games using that as my excuse - "I'm not depriving anyone of money, since if I couldn't pirate it, I'd just have to do without". Except later when my 'source' of pirated software disappeared and I had a new (blank) Mac, I quickly found ways of scrounging the pennies together to buy two or three new games.

I remember a survey in MacUser (UK) magazine some years ago, where they counted the number of Mac apps bought by users, country by country. In Spain, the average was less than 1! I think that's the 'I can't afford it' argument gone crazy!

Some things the software companies state are deceptive too. If they see 1000 copies of their software pirated, they seem to think "that's 1000 x Our Price of dollars/euros we've been deprived of". Which is very, very unlikely. More likely, if piracy wasn't an option, perhaps 300 or 400 of those might have paid for the software, and the rest done without or gone elsewhere. So when I see figures for the amount of money "costs" software makers, I generally take it with a cardiac arresting amount of salt.

(And "costs" is another deceptive term. Piracy doesn't "cost" the software industry, they don't magically get poorer every time someone makes a copy; it deprives them of extra revenue. Again, it's a crime, but a different one).

mobility3

Mar 15, 2004, 07:13 AM

Some things the software companies state are deceptive too. If they see 1000 copies of their software pirated, they seem to think "that's 1000 x Our Price of dollars/euros we've been deprived of". Which is very, very unlikely.

It's good to see some clarity on the issues and that some people are being honest about their usage of pirate software. There are still the holy rollers here who want to pretend they're immune to using or have ever used "pirated" software. I'm curious what percentage of mac users as individuals have actually bought all the software they use (unless they only use their computer for surfing the internet). On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that anyone who can afford a Mac and the connection to download the iLife04 package can't afford to buy it! c'mon...

On a different note... I recall hearing sometime back a story that some software companies actually allow their software to be pirated. It might be just a rumor but I thought Adobe once tried to make a version of Photoshop that was "un-pirateable". What they found was that users started converting to Macromedia. A lot of these users were students who would eventually grow up and pay for software in their profession. With this conversion Adobe saw a drop in their market share in a few years time. So piracy may be "allowed" as part of the competition.

Still, that doesn't condone piracy, but there are deeper issues coming to head though, such as the role of free software vs proprietary. We will likely see this heat up in the coming years and forever affect what "software" means to the global community. I'm sure it will get messier for the industry before it gets cleaner.

Sayer

Mar 15, 2004, 07:13 AM

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 08:15 AM

It's funny how the same arguments always pop up when it comes to piracy, many of them flawed. Piracy isn't stealing - it may be a crime, but it's not theft.

it's also funny how many like to play (what i consider) semantics game and insist that piracy is not theft.

you are denying the company of the revenue its entitled to. yeah, sure, they still have the copy of the software but they don't have the money, so who stole the money?

sounds like theft to me, as far as software companies are concerned. besides, i don't think any of the arguments are "flawed" in the sense they depend on piracy strictly being theft.

Some things the software companies state are deceptive too.

why is it deceiving. i understand your point about not all of the pirate copies would have been purchased. however, that's all they know, so that's what they will state. what do you want the companies to do? do a comprehensive study on how many of the pirates would have actually purchased?

(And "costs" is another deceptive term. Piracy doesn't "cost" the software industry, they don't magically get poorer every time someone makes a copy; it deprives them of extra revenue. Again, it's a crime, but a different one).

right, "extra revenue." :rolleyes: you aren't ever going to become a business executive, i guess.

board: "why is our profit down?"
exec: "oh, it's down but it's ok. our decline in 'revenue' is not really real, they are due to piracy. we lost just the 'extra revenue' anyway."

whooleytoo

Mar 15, 2004, 08:32 AM

you are denying the company of the revenue its entitled to. yeah, sure, they still have the copy of the software but they don't have the money, so who stole the money?

But that's precisely the point I was making. No money was stolen. A potential source of revenue was denied them, by illegal means. That's very, very different.

I wouldn't dream of belittling piracy. But fallacious statements from software makers and their representive bodies annoy me just as much.

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 08:40 AM

But that's precisely the point I was making. No money was stolen. A potential source of revenue was denied them, by illegal means. That's very, very different.

this is all semantics. yes, software companies may "inflate" their damages to make their point across, but i think "potential" is a wrong word here. there is no potential - potential seems to imply that there's some room left for realization, which, in this case, means additional revenue - but we all know that ain't gonna happen. the pirate is very unlikely to pay up for the copy. (buying a legal copy later isn't the same - that payment is for that legal copy. the fact remains a pirate copy wasn't paid for.)

no, piracy isn't EXACTLY like theft. we both agree it's a crime and i feel pointing out the differences is a lame exercise in precision semantics.

whooleytoo

Mar 15, 2004, 08:56 AM

but i think "potential" is a wrong word here. there is no potential - potential seems to imply that there's some room left for realization, which, in this case, means additional revenue - but we all know that ain't gonna happen. the pirate is very unlikely to pay up for the copy. (buying a legal copy later isn't the same - that payment is for that legal copy. the fact remains a pirate copy wasn't paid for.)

Actually, I chose that word deliberately. To software makers, every pirated copy is considered one sale lost. More honestly and (significantly) more accurately, it's one potential sale lost. There's absolutely no guarantee that any pirate-proof form of copy protection would turn all those ex-pirates into paying customers. Losing a sale you never were going to get doesn't cost you anything.

Software makers have 'right' on their side, they don't need hype and hyperbole to bolster their case.

sonicbaz

Mar 15, 2004, 09:00 AM

Hands up anyone that has bought software and been RIPPED off with MAJOR bugs?

#1 reason to DL warez is to check out the software. Demos and time limited trials are a joke, sometimes you need to try the real thing and for LONGER than 30 days people.

Like many I've seen my fair share of bad buggy pathetic EXPENSIVE software, but if I like something I will buy it, I want the patches upgrades and support!

Frankly it's good illeagal software exists, otherwise I would be sitting here with Cubase and wondering why the timing is crap.

A LEGAL Logic user :D

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 09:14 AM

Losing a sale you never were going to get doesn't cost you anything.

true, but i still argue that it's not the responsibility of the software maker to conduct a study on this. they are the ones who are losing anything.

another point i'd like to add is that people behave differently when things are free as opposed to not free.

yes, it's very true that not all pirates would have bought a copy if they couldn't pirate. absolutely no debate about that. and people would pirate more if it's free. even programs they don't need, they will pirate. even programs that cost very little, they will pirate. (GB, for example, in the orig. post. it's $50. cut the beer for a week or two or eat sandwiches instead of eating out and you have that...)

you are right, it's probably unnecessary for software companies to "hype" the damages, but i don't see what else they could do...? they are losing something and stockholders do and will insist that they at least try to address the problem. marketing/hyping the problem to try to steer the public opinion toward you is one way.

whooleytoo

Mar 15, 2004, 09:22 AM

you are right, it's probably unnecessary for software companies to "hype" the damages, but i don't see what else they could do...? they are losing something and stockholders do and will insist that they at least try to address the problem. marketing/hyping the problem to try to steer the public opinion toward you is one way.

You're making fair points.

The one thing I wonder about though, when you see press releases saying "Piracy cost software industry $X billion dollars this year", won't that just cause the reaction: "They make HOW much?? Wow, they really won't miss my few dollars so.. " :D

rt_brained

Mar 15, 2004, 09:58 AM

There is built-in protection in GarageBand that makes pirated copies take over your computer and slowly melt the Hard Drive, Graphics card, and logic board. If you do not immediately format the hard drive, you will have 100% data and hardware loss. Do not back anything up or the problem will return, it has been built into the headers of ALL of your documents.
Does anyone know how to remove GarageBand quickly? Uhhh, my friend has it on his computer and just realized he needs to take it off right away.

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 10:15 AM

The one thing I wonder about though, when you see press releases saying "Piracy cost software industry $X billion dollars this year", won't that just cause the reaction: "They make HOW much?? Wow, they really won't miss my few dollars so.. " :D

yeah, no kidding. also reminds me of martha stewart. why did she do what she did just to save a few hundred thousand dollars when she's already got millions?

when numbers involved are so much greater than what we (most of us, i assume) are used to, it's hard to put logic on it...

anyway, i find this thread quite funny. i realize it's pseudo anonymous, but why would you come out and ask the "public" about pirated software?

"my friend" just robbed a bank, but "he" is afraid that the bills are sequenced and might be traced. are there any hints on how to make "his" money useful without being caught?

again, it's not the same as pirating, but you get my point. ;)

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 11:19 AM

If you don't handicap the free version in some way (even something such as adding a watermark), how do you get any of the pros to actually buy it?

I never said "free". And to answer you second question, let me quote a post I made a few posts back.

"The Perfect scenario would be to have 2 identical versions of a program. One for professionals, and one for home (none profit) work. Then, somehow have the program tag the work and (for those that are looking) scream out electronically "I'm none profit!". In this way you can have the money making professionals using Maya (or whatever) for their large pay checks pay the very small $1000 work expense, and have those that are learning and use it at home (or education) use it for, say, $50 or $100.
"

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 12:00 PM

I will never understand how someone can have a computer that cost several thousand dollars, have high speed internet access and still bitch that they can't buy a single piece of software that costs $10-50 one time!

And the "starving student" line doesn't wash either. You get money for your tuition that, based on my own limited personal experiences, often doesn't entirely get spent only on books/classes. Then there is the Bank of Mom & Dad.

I suppose before you start making arguments, you should try and read the detailed facts concerning what the other side is saying.

Aside from the original poster, most people here are talking about the "Art" programs of PS, FC, And perhaps Maya. All of these programs cost between $500-$1000, which is a huge chunk of an $1000 computer spending limit. Also most of the arguments are being made for students, who don't pay for internet access (at least directly or by choice). The students are also the future users of future products by Adobe, Apple, Macromedia (and whoever makes Maya). If they can't afford to learn, how are they going to be future users? I'm not talking about 100% of students here, because some have labs, and some have $500 of cash that just floats around.

Most students get into college with a large loan that they then don't even try and pay back before they are out of college.

And I'm not sure where you get off saying people can just go ask their parents for that kind of cash. Is that a joke, or are you really that ignorant of the financial situation that most (even american) families are in? I don't mean to be rude, just extremely curious.

I'm not condoning piracy, I'm just pointing out the problems with the current system. For my own part, I am NOT in a situation where I can come close to affording one of those programs, yet I really want to learn and become familiar with it so I can use it in a future career. I swore to myself that the day I start making money with the program, is the day I'll pay the $500 for it. Until then though I have two choices, give up on ever becoming proficient with it, go into another line of work (and the software company will lose a costumer) or else continue to find "alternate" means of educating myself, and in time pay for said program with a paycheck that came from my use of that program.
In my case it's more of a "loan" to go along side the rest of my loans because if I ever use the software, it WILL get paid for, just not at the time of "purchase".

But, see my previous post for my idea of the "ideal" software world.

Tyler
Earendil
-Would be shot on site if he asked for $500 (let alone a $1000) from his parents.

johnnyjibbs

Mar 15, 2004, 12:41 PM

I never said "free". And to answer you second question, let me quote a post I made a few posts back.

"The Perfect scenario would be to have 2 identical versions of a program. One for professionals, and one for home (none profit) work. Then, somehow have the program tag the work and (for those that are looking) scream out electronically "I'm none profit!". In this way you can have the money making professionals using Maya (or whatever) for their large pay checks pay the very small $1000 work expense, and have those that are learning and use it at home (or education) use it for, say, $50 or $100.
"
I don't understand the 'tagging' system. Are you meaning a watermark? That's the only thing that would prevent pros from using the software.

whooleytoo

Mar 15, 2004, 01:17 PM

"my friend" just robbed a bank, but "he" is afraid that the bills are sequenced and might be traced. are there any hints on how to make "his" money useful without being caught?

Ooh! "My friend" can help you there! Just check out "my friend's" profile on macrumors.com for contact details! ;)

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 01:43 PM

I'm not condoning piracy, I'm just pointing out the problems with the current system. For my own part, I am NOT in a situation where I can come close to affording one of those programs, yet I really want to learn and become familiar with it so I can use it in a future career.

personally, all i ask is that if you pirate, just accept that you are doing some thing illegal and not make excuses or justifications. i hate these efforts to legitimize something that is illegal, period. if you need an excuse for yourself, fine, but don't bother publicizing about it.

as long as you are making excuses, you are conditionally condoning piracy. "oh, i think and i know it's wrong. but i need to make exceptions for myself because of blah, blah" - that sounds like condoning to me.

hulugu

Mar 15, 2004, 01:53 PM

I had an earlier post about problem but this is different. My friend has an old 15 inch PowerBook, I think Its about a 1GHz, but he got a pirated copy or whatever you want to call it of GarageBand. It worked well until he actually used it. The performance was lacking, it froze alot. He doesn't really use the program that much because its almost useless.

-Can A pirated Copy of GarageBand have lacking performance and freeze alot?

Thanks.

Yes it does, often times Toast .dmgs loose parts of the compressed data and thereby give you a mediocre install; tell you friend to buy iLife and quit pirating software. It's wrong, it's illegal, and it hurts Apple developers.

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 02:05 PM

I don't understand the 'tagging' system. Are you meaning a watermark? That's the only thing that would prevent pros from using the software.

Not quite, and no it isn't the only thing that would keep pros from using it. Hovering hunter drones that seek and destroy everyone that uses the software without paying for it might work too ;)

But a more practical, though not implemented and probably won't be for a few years, would be a system to track software that was and wasn't "profit" software. And even more importantly, track the WORK produced by that "profit" or "none profit" piece of software. If every piece of work had to check in with some automated system before it could be distributed, you could theoretically make sure (to an extent) that people followed the "Agreement" that nobody reads :D

I believe Codewarrior had an agreement where the educational discount made the software within reach of education, at like $50 or $100 (I forget now, but I bought it) while the full version is like, $500? There were no handicaps to the Educational version, except for the agreement that you wouldn't profit from it. Now THAT is the system I want to see, the problem is the software companies need to find a way of keeping people to the agreement, by somehow electronically tagging work as profit or none profit.

Anyone following me?

Tyler
Earendil

hulugu

Mar 15, 2004, 02:10 PM

I suppose before you start making arguments, you should try and read the detailed facts concerning what the other side is saying.

Aside from the original poster, most people here are talking about the "Art" programs of PS, FC, And perhaps Maya. All of these programs cost between $500-$1000, which is a huge chunk of an $1000 computer spending limit. Also most of the arguments are being made for students, who don't pay for internet access (at least directly or by choice). The students are also the future users of future products by Adobe, Apple, Macromedia (and whoever makes Maya). If they can't afford to learn, how are they going to be future users? I'm not talking about 100% of students here, because some have labs, and some have $500 of cash that just floats around....I'm not condoning piracy, I'm just pointing out the problems with the current system. For my own part, I am NOT in a situation where I can come close to affording one of those programs, yet I really want to learn and become familiar with it so I can use it in a future career. I swore to myself that the day I start making money with the program, is the day I'll pay the $500 for it. Until then though I have two choices, give up on ever becoming proficient with it, go into another line of work (and the software company will lose a costumer) or else continue to find "alternate" means of educating myself, and in time pay for said program with a paycheck that came from my use of that program....In my case it's more of a "loan" to go along side the rest of my loans because if I ever use the software, it WILL get paid for, just not at the time of "purchase".

Just to poke a few holes in your argument. First, many of these companies offer educational discounts or student versions of their software. Or in the case of Maya the Personal Learning Edition which is free and can be downloaded; personally, I bought Adobe Photoshop for 250.00, but you can always buy the older used version of the software and learn the basics of any program and then upgrade for less than the new version. Students need to be more creative, not criminal.
Furthermore, you argument has a problem, eg:
I want to learn digital photography, but I can't afford a new camera. So I go to the nearest Best Buy and steal the camera. Obviously when I become proficient I will be a digital camera buyer and future customer and therefore I'm just using "alternate" means. In fact, if I get caught I will tell the Best Buy security goon that it is more of a "loan."
The reason software piracy is okay is because of its perceived value: because IP and the associate 1 and Os that make up a program are abstractions it makes it easier to consider them worthless, however a camera or a laptop is not an abstraction, but a physical object and therefore holds some value just because of its materials. We accept that books have value, but we fail to realize that we are not paying for the binding, the cover, but rather the writers expression or their Intellectual Property (IP); software has the same problem.
In the case

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 02:16 PM

personally, all i ask is that if you pirate, just accept that you are doing some thing illegal

I have. And for being the only thing that you ask, you sure have spent a lot of time replying to posts when NO one has said that Piracy is Legal.

and not make excuses or justifications. i hate these efforts to legitimize something that is illegal, period. if you need an excuse for yourself, fine, but don't bother publicizing about it.[i]

I am not making "excuses" ([i]3."To serve as justification for"), I am explaining while I commit this illegal act, and how I plan to partially correct it. I'm displaying the flip side to the example of kids who can get these programs legally with money from their parents.

as long as you are making excuses, you are conditionally condoning piracy. "oh, i think and i know it's wrong. but i need to make exceptions for myself because of blah, blah" - that sounds like condoning to me.

Well you're wrong. I'm not. I would never tell or ask anyone to pirate software. In fact in this thread I'm suggesting ways to STOP piracy, and help the software companies, while making it harder to pirate without being caught. The only time I ever "pirated" software that cost less than $100 were a few shareware/trial versions of programs back in the OS8.6 days when I was 13 and thought I was cool because I could find the invisible prefs :D

Tyler
Earendil

tomf87

Mar 15, 2004, 02:16 PM

That's awesome!! How about telling that to the Apple Retail Store while you're walking out with a Dual G5! Oh, I will buy it later, I promise.

Just another way to make it sound like they're doing something right. How about getting into an educational program that teaches you the things you need to know, so you won't have to pirate?

Snarf!

Mar 15, 2004, 02:17 PM

The student version could have lesser features than the pro version. Like logic express contra logic pro. Theyre both great but there are alot more options in the PRO version. the express version is one third of the pro version. Also even more discount could be added if the buyer could produce a valid current proof that he infact is a student at a qualifying school. ( if your`taking classes to be a plumber, you don`t get the discount.. if youre studying something music/computer related you get the discount..)

This would probaly be pirated in some way too, but its better than EVERYBODy pirating software, and thus ruining the mac plattform for us who DO pay for everything.

tomf87

Mar 15, 2004, 02:22 PM

... For my own part, I am NOT in a situation where I can come close to affording one of those programs, yet I really want to learn and become familiar with it so I can use it in a future career. I swore to myself that the day I start making money with the program, is the day I'll pay the $500 for it. Until then though I have two choices, give up on ever becoming proficient with it, go into another line of work (and the software company will lose a costumer) or else continue to find "alternate" means of educating myself, and in time pay for said program with a paycheck that came from my use of that program.
In my case it's more of a "loan" to go along side the rest of my loans because if I ever use the software, it WILL get paid for, just not at the time of "purchase".

But, see my previous post for my idea of the "ideal" software world.

Tyler
Earendil
-Would be shot on site if he asked for $500 (let alone a $1000) from his parents.

I thought you only pirated software when you were 13 back in OS 8.6 days?

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 02:26 PM

tomf87

Mar 15, 2004, 02:29 PM

Somebody has to do it.

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 02:30 PM

I thought you only pirated software when you were 13 back in OS 8.6 days?

You guys are starting to make me sick. Some of you want to argue to the point where you are MISQUOTING me or quoting me out of context or out of point.

Let me quote the ENTIRE phrase...

"The only time I ever "pirated" software that cost less than $100 were a few shareware/trial versions of programs back in the OS8.6 days when I was 13 and thought I was cool because I could find the invisible prefs"

Tyler
Earendil

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 02:30 PM

I have. And for being the only thing that you ask, you sure have spent a lot of time replying to posts when NO one has said that Piracy is Legal.

...

I am not making "excuses" (3."To serve as justification for"), I am explaining while I commit this illegal act, and how I plan to partially correct it. I'm displaying the flip side to the example of kids who can get these programs legally with money from their parents.

...

Well you're wrong. I'm not. I would never tell or ask anyone to pirate software. In fact in this thread I'm suggesting ways to STOP piracy, and help the software companies, while making it harder to pirate without being caught. The only time I ever "pirated" software that cost less than $100 were a few shareware/trial versions of programs back in the OS8.6 days when I was 13 and thought I was cool because I could find the invisible prefs :D

well, obviously, we have substantial difference of an opinion. to me, "partially correcting" (whatever that means) part of your post tells me that while you at least think piracy is illegal, you don't think it's "wrong." the only reason you'd think to "partially correct" something that is 100% illegal is because the chances of getting caught and paying for the consquences is virtually nil when it comes to piracy. no, no one here have said piracy is legal. but i think many here i've been posting against think pirating is like jaywalking - an illegal act that has no negative consequences most of the time. and i beg to differ.

laws in this case do not change based on differing personal circumstances. if piracy is illegal, it is illegal regardless of whether you are poor or rich.

you specifically mention not pirating software under $100. how about those over $100?

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 02:35 PM

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 02:42 PM

well, obviously, we have substantial difference of an opinion. to me, "partially correcting" (whatever that means) part of your post tells me that while you at least think piracy is illegal, you don't think it's "wrong." the only reason you'd think to "partially correct" something that is 100% illegal is because the chances of getting caught and paying for the consquences is virtually nil when it comes to piracy. no, no one here have said piracy is legal. but i think many here i've been posting against think pirating is like jaywalking - an illegal act that has no negative consequences most of the time. and i beg to differ.

laws in this case do not change based on differing personal circumstances. if piracy is illegal, it is illegal regardless of whether you are poor or rich.

you specifically mention not pirating software under $100. how about those over $100?

A single piece of software that would cost me $500 to use and learn at the scale at which it would be useful to me. "partial correction" is that when I make money, I will pay for the program, so what I used is paid for. Still not "legal", but full compensation for the companies work will be there.

Now if you'd like to keep nitpicking my words, go ahead, but I won't be responding, at least not on this thread, feel free to PM me. I will stick around and discuss ways of preventing and perusing piraters from continuing. As you appear to have plenty of money for all your career programs, I suspect that you probably haven't given this path all that much thought, that's ok.

Does anyone know of a company that has started to use some sort of tracking for "work" produced by software? I don't think it's quite feasible with todays tech, but things are only going to become more automated and electronic. I see it happening eventually.

Tyler
Earendil

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 02:46 PM

How about we go back to coming up with ideas as to how things could be made better? I think I may be one of the very few on this thread that has done that so far, while other people insist on preaching the gospel to the wrong doers.

here are some i can think of, not involving piracy.

1) educational discount. this is already in place. since software companies are doing this as a favor to edu. institutions, i think it's unfair to ask for 100% complete versions at next to nothing prices. people will always want more stuff for less and something's gotta give. i think educational prices, for most widely used software, are quite fair at this moment.

2) guarantee from schools that they will supply enough computers in labs with ample operating hours with specialized, expensive programs needed for all the classes being offered. if one have a computer and simply wants the software for one's convenience, then that is one's problem and still not an excuse for piracy.

3) temporary license. classes requiring specialized programs will offer temporary licenses at modest prices with a few caveats. 1) it will phone home to school's database and will let one use the program only when enrolled in the class. 2) it will have adjusted functionality set that will meet the requirement for the specific class.

4) setting aside a part of the tuition for academic purchasing. schools will offer to set aside a part of the tuition with modest interest for academic purchasing. this will be reserved from the tuition specifically to purchase expensive textbooks or software. it will be refunded once graduated or dropped out.

etc.

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 02:52 PM

As you appear to have plenty of money for all your career programs, I suspect that you probably haven't given this path all that much thought, that's ok.

i strongly resent your implications here. i believe it's not relevant to discussions at hand.

what if you never make it in the career you "trained for" using the pirate software?

will you be purchasing the updated, full version of the software once you make it? or will you be making additional "donations" to the company, including any interests, to make up for the pirated software in the past?

what if the company goes bankrupt?

etc. etc.

i think the best solution is for you to take out additional loans. that sounds a lot fairer than software companies having to foot the bill for unwanted, unguaranteed "loans" to whoever getting pirate software?

sonicbaz

Mar 15, 2004, 03:03 PM

You know he's kidding right?

Does anyone know how to remove GarageBand quickly? Uhhh, my friend has it on his computer and just realized he needs to take it off right away.

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 03:16 PM

If I were a professional making money I know I'd feel differently, but as I student I have to wonder...

What are the production costs for the major art programs compared to every other piece of software? Anyone know? Does the regular software production/cost ratio even come close to the handicapped "educational" priced software/production cost ratio? Or is the high price of education software just so professionals aren't as inclined to use it?

jxyama

Mar 15, 2004, 03:29 PM

If I were a professional making money I know I'd feel differently, but as I student I have to wonder...

can't help to mention it, but you certainly got a "pro" machine. :D

let's just lighten up. i'll lay off - i feel strongly about piracy (which should be pretty obvious), but i don't really want to sound as if i want to crucify you as if you represent the entire problem...

Earendil

Mar 15, 2004, 03:53 PM

can't help to mention it, but you certainly got a "pro" machine. :D

I knew it was only a mater of time before someone said that. Well, I've shared a Bondi iMac with three siblings that all are only 2.5 years younger than me, and I've shared for 4 years now. I worked damn hard at min wage to get a computer that would last me, and that I could hopefully use in the development of my career. That was all before college took all my money though :(

Speaking of over priced items, wtf is with the price of college these days? It has gone WELL beyond inflation. In fact I read someplace that it makes the top 20 list of services that have risen in cost over inflation...humm...
nm, don't answer that, stay on topic :D

Tyler
Earendil

Counterfit

Mar 15, 2004, 04:01 PM

I knew it was only a mater of time before someone said that. Well, I've shared a Bondi iMac with three siblings that all are only 2.5 years younger than me, and I've shared for 4 years now. I worked damn hard at min wage to get a computer that would last me, and that I could hopefully use in the development of my career. That was all before college took all my money though :(

Speaking of over priced items, wtf is with the price of college these days? It has gone WELL beyond inflation. In fact I read someplace that it makes the top 20 list of services that have risen in cost over inflation...humm...
nm, don't answer that, stay on topic :D

Tyler
Earendil Luckily for me, the place I'm looking to transfer to actually costs less than the private high school I went to.

hulugu

Mar 16, 2004, 02:14 AM

[QUOTE=hulugu]Just to poke a few holes in your argument. First, many of these companies offer educational discounts or student versions of their software.[/i]

So obviously I'm not talking about them :P
I think though that my original idea went a bit above this...

*snip*

Furthermore, you argument has a problem, eg:
I want to learn digital photography, but I can't afford a new camera. So I go to the nearest Best Buy and steal the camera. Obviously when I become proficient I will be a digital camera buyer and future customer and therefore I'm just using "alternate" means. In fact, if I get caught I will tell the Best Buy security goon that it is more of a "loan."

I am not so naive as to think anything I say would defend me in court. Their may be better examples, but that isn't a great one. You can pick up "used" film cameras for next to nothing these days. And unlike software, Film hasn't changed in the least bit in the last 50 years. Skip two versions of a piece of software and you're talking a big difference in functionality, not to mention it may be outdated on a system or not even supported.

But people have sidetracked and picked apart my original post so that I am defending something that wasn't even my point. How about we go back to coming up with ideas as to how things could be made better? I think I may be one of the very few on this thread that has done that so far, while other people insist on preaching the gospel to the wrong doers.

Tyler
Earendil

But, my point still holds, your logic states that stealing is okay if you were willing to buy it later when you could afford it; that's credit. But, you can't do this with any physical object, so why is software so different?
A film camera hasn't changed much since Ansel Adams, but that's not the point it's still wrong, and it's illegal. Please note just for the record: morality and legality are not the same thing, but parallel systems.
I'm not defending the system, but this logic makes it very easy for people to steal software and music. The RIAA and the software companies under the flag of the BSA don't do themselves or us any favors in the way they act either, but that doesn't make your actions any more moral.
I should think about a better example, I know, but nonetheless stealing IP (by not paying for it) is wrong, but because it's an abstraction that makes it okay.
I would say the system works, to a point, but could be extended further and could have been if software wasn't so easy to copy and pirate.
In the case of Maya PLE, no it is not the full version, but it allows you to understand the basic tenents of the software so it's useful. But, I would be happy with higher discounts for students (say 75% off) and then a watermark system. If a student buys the software that version will always be marked as a student version, if it appears on a p2p site, then the student who bought that copy is liable. (Charged for full-version and limited to the equivalent of 10 copies, yeah this could be a 10,000 bill, so don't share software, jack***.)
Simple, easy, and it catches only those who are pirating software en mass. This of course still allows sneaker-net, but that is a very small problem.
If a corporation starts running a Student-Learning-Edition then let BSA hang them up by their balls. Corporations/Studios/etc. know to buy their software and there's a system already in place, it just needs to be used effectively.
Furthermore, some art schools, design schools, have computer labs that allow you to use their software to get your projects done. You also might want to try getting a loan, or a credit card, even an extra job, to pay for your software, etc. My wife and I are graduate students and I work 40+ to pay for school, my expenses, and my software so don't tell me it can't be done.

briankonar

Mar 16, 2004, 02:45 AM

Maya does have one of those already - Personal Learning Edition. Completely free but you get a watermark when you use it. Unfortunately I can't get the damn thing to install - the installer crashes after I choose the "alias folder" everythime, no matter what I choose. I've sent a bug report to Apple.

the watermark covers your entire image, it's not just in the corner or something. VERY annoying.

to post about a cheap learning edition of FCP etc. that would be exactly what i need. spending $500-1000 is doable on software for me, but $5000+ is WAY too much. If you think i'm exaggerating (any professional will know i'm low balling this number) look at copies of Director, FCP, Maya, Logic, etc. stealing is definitely wrong, i agree, but i really have no other option. unfortunately i need a place to sleep, and food to eat, and my parents would never fork out that kind of cash for computer program's (i think $4,000 on a computer alone is a bit much to ask).

so would it be better to just not learn the software at all, eventually make a living off of it, and when i'm capable of affording it paying for a license? i'd say 80%+ of people who work in the industry have gotten their on a very similar route.

my school allows me to stay in a lab and work all day from 6 am to midnight, but if i worked only at school i'd be their all day, and i'd have no reason to have even purchased a Mac in the first place.

Mac Kiwi

Mar 16, 2004, 03:51 AM

Before a pricing war a few years ago Maya unlimited was 16999 US,and complete was 7000 US I think it was,so their current pricing will not be changing anytime soon.

Imagine paying 17000 for a seat of unlimited and having it drop 10 grand over night.

rt_brained

Mar 16, 2004, 07:26 AM

You know he's kidding right?<sigh>I drop the bait, I catch a fish, I drop the bait, I catch a another fish. It just shouldn't be that easy.

jxyama

Mar 16, 2004, 08:20 AM

my school allows me to stay in a lab and work all day from 6 am to midnight, but if i worked only at school i'd be their all day, and i'd have no reason to have even purchased a Mac in the first place.

i know this issue has been beaten to death, but you purchasing a computer and not wanting to work at school "all day" is your problem.

you just happen to be wealthy enough to afford a computer (a Mac!) but not the software. someone who's an even poorer "struggling student" and can't afford a computer would have no choice but to work in the computer lab, all day at school, if needed.

flyfish29

Mar 16, 2004, 08:51 AM

[QUOTE=johnnyjibbsPirating, in my opinion, is ALWAYS a bad thing because it is no less than stealing. There is nothing different between pirating some software and walking into a shop and taking an iPod, or whatever.

However, I do think that software companies, and in fact the music industry, have themselves partly to blame. I simply think that a lot of software is too much money. Sure, businesses can afford it, but people like students or ameteaur enthusiasts simply cannot afford the entry price or annual upgrade fees. If they lowered the price significantly, they would get a lot more sales and piracy would be lowered, so they'd probably get more profit anyway. Oh, and student discounts help but they still cost WAY too much.[/QUOTE]

"Manufacturing" things costs money. Research and development costs money. Creating things costs money. Promoting things cost money. Making sure software is compatible with thousands of software programs out there costs money. People who make this software have to have medical insurance. They need to make a living wage. I could go on, but I won't. The point being is that despite software not seeming like a real product you can hold, IT IS! There are products and there are services. Software and music seem to fit inbetween those two product categories. Well, they shouldn't be inbetween, they are products...even if virtual in nature sometimes (iTMS or downloads)! You can't really steal services (you can't go to a mechanic and steal an oil change) and you shouldn't steal products...no matter what form they come in. If you don't like the price, don't buy it! That is the basis for our economic structure. If the price is too high for what you get in return (and nothing illegal has been done such as price fixing) then chances are someone else will come out with a similar product for cheaper. If someone else doesn't come out with a cheaper one that is similar then it probably costs that much to make that good of a product so buy the damn thing or do without.

How can one say student discounts cost way too much. Take iLife for example. $29 for five software programs! Give me a break! I don't see any other industry that gives student discounts for products. Don't get greedy, buy the software or do without! :D

flyfish29

Mar 16, 2004, 08:57 AM

Does anyone know of a company that has started to use some sort of tracking for "work" produced by software?
Tyler
Earendil

M$ I'm sure is already tracking as they do everything and probably working on a plan to make everyone pay per document created or some crazy thing like that. A use fee of sorts?!?! :D

johnnyjibbs

Mar 16, 2004, 12:54 PM

"Manufacturing" things costs money. Research and development costs money. Creating things costs money. Promoting things cost money. Making sure software is compatible with thousands of software programs out there costs money. People who make this software have to have medical insurance. They need to make a living wage. I could go on, but I won't. The point being is that despite software not seeming like a real product you can hold, IT IS! There are products and there are services. Software and music seem to fit inbetween those two product categories. Well, they shouldn't be inbetween, they are products...even if virtual in nature sometimes (iTMS or downloads)! You can't really steal services (you can't go to a mechanic and steal an oil change) and you shouldn't steal products...no matter what form they come in. If you don't like the price, don't buy it! That is the basis for our economic structure. If the price is too high for what you get in return (and nothing illegal has been done such as price fixing) then chances are someone else will come out with a similar product for cheaper. If someone else doesn't come out with a cheaper one that is similar then it probably costs that much to make that good of a product so buy the damn thing or do without.

How can one say student discounts cost way too much. Take iLife for example. $29 for five software programs! Give me a break! I don't see any other industry that gives student discounts for products. Don't get greedy, buy the software or do without! :D
We're not disputing the good value of iLife. But iLife is $49 and Maya is several thousand $ - huge difference. Sure, programs like Maya are very complex and have required a lot of hard work to produce, but then they can sell as many as they like at no extra cost. Upgrades keep the cashflow going.

However, I'm not saying, release Maya at $49 (in fact, that is a bad example because the Personal Learning Edition does exist, which is free, but this is true for any of the expensive programs) but that if it was a little less expensive, they would have more sales and so recoup bigger profits via 1) increased volume of sale and 2) decreased piracy (as many could now afford it). We have seen this bare fruit to some extent with programs such as Final Cut Express and Logic Express, but they are still quite expensive (although FCE 2 is cheaper).

The same arguement goes for video games (many argue that if all were £20 ($40) as opposed to £40-45, ($80-90) they would have far more sales per game. Reproduction and packaging and distribution costs are negligable.

By the way, medical insurance is not an issue here in UK because the NHS is free ;)

I believe that software is worth a lot because it can take a lot of hard work to produce. It doesn't matter that its less physical and so "copyable" - it is no less of a product. I'm not disputing that software companies/artists should be paid, it's just that several £/$100-1000 is a lot of money that people can't have and lowering the price would help fight against piracy, while earning higher sales also.

jxyama

Mar 16, 2004, 01:10 PM

you can't just say lower the price then you'll sell more and make up for the lost revenue per sale in the overall revenue. you must account for the fact demand may change differently than the way lost revenue per sale changes.

if a $1500 software was reduced to $500, will the sales increase by a factor of three? not always. and this doesn't even include the cost. if that said software costs $100 to make and in overhead, then you will need to sell the $500 version 3.5 times more than the $1500 version to reach the same profit. (and the situation gets worse in real life because you'd have much thinner profit margin to survive.)

i did simplify the fact overhead would be spread over more units and would be lower per unit shipped if the demand increased, that is true. but i hope you still see my point.

things are generally priced where they need to be - it's not as arbitrary as you make it sound. even if you can make more copies at "no cost," you could incur more costs that's not associated with production. if you produce more but they don't sell as well, then there's additional cost incurred to keep those extras in storage.

the demand, however, gets a little warped when things are free. that's a different issue all together and a part of things to consider when discussing piracy.

bar italia

Mar 16, 2004, 01:25 PM

You guys are starting to make me sick. Some of you want to argue to the point where you are MISQUOTING me or quoting me out of context or out of point.

Let me quote the ENTIRE phrase...

"The only time I ever "pirated" software that cost less than $100 were a few shareware/trial versions of programs back in the OS8.6 days when I was 13 and thought I was cool because I could find the invisible prefs"

Tyler
Earendil

You are worse than Hitler and Saddam. Combined.

jxyama

Mar 16, 2004, 01:28 PM

You are worse than Hitler and Saddam. Combined.

i hope this is a joke. your comment is uncalled for and rather tasteless.

raynegus

Mar 16, 2004, 03:19 PM

Pirate from Micro$oft, not Apple.

bar italia

Mar 16, 2004, 03:22 PM

i hope this is a joke. your comment is uncalled for and rather tasteless.

What do you think? :rolleyes:

jxyama

Mar 16, 2004, 03:40 PM

What do you think? :rolleyes:

some kind of smiley would have helped...

i saw that you have posted several other short and crude posts so...
who knows?

Earendil

Mar 16, 2004, 03:52 PM

It is probably impossible for me to say anything but "don't pirate software!" without getting flamed now, but I'll give it a shot anyway...

It would be interesting to take the Arts industry, all the currently law abiding citizens that pay for the software that they use for their work. Take all them and put them in a pot, NOW, take out ALL the ones that sometime previously in their life pirated the software that they now use. I wonder how much that would effect the industry...
Not saying Piracy is right, not trying to justify it and make it morally right. Just posing a question to keep the thoughts going on the "system" and what can be done.

Also, in reply to software having overhead and production cost and employees needing med insurance. Exactly how much more medical insurence is their for them as opposed to MacSoft? or Symanc? Or any other software company (aside from giants that can draw money from other sectors like M$ and Apple) that sell software for $50-$90? I think the EDU "discounts" should at LEAST match what the rest of the software world sells software for. Saying $250 is a great deal for a $1000 program, but with that in mind, so is a EDU discount of $10,000 on a $100,000 program, $90,000 savings, wow! You get my point :D

Probably my last post for a while, I'm leaving the country for 5 weeks...

Tyler
Earendil

bar italia

Mar 16, 2004, 05:40 PM

some kind of smiley would have helped...

i saw that you have posted several other short and crude posts so...
who knows?

i strongly resent your implications here. i believe it's not relevant to discussions at hand. :o

johnnyjibbs

Mar 16, 2004, 05:44 PM

I think what some of us are trying to say is that people, such as students (the future Photoshop pros, etc) cannot afford the software, even at education prices, so are 'forced' to pirate a copy. Personally I've never pirated anything - I just accept that I'll have to go without. But that hurts potential sales of the software in question.

If they offered a very cheap "Express" version (like FCE for example) of most software, that would help. For example, I use Photoshop Elements which is reasonably priced. It's not like Adobe or Microsoft are struggling for business (not that that makes piracy of their products any more "right"). They make plenty of money on their software. However, reducing the price even a little would help combat piracy.

When someone cannot afford something but there is a relatively easy way to get it, they tend to go that route, whatever the legality of the situation. Even regular people who have never got as much as a parking ticket. Like the music (and soon film industry also), software companies need to offer CHOICE rather than just expect everyone to cough up many hundreds or thousands of dollars just because their software is 'the industry standard'.

arogge

Mar 16, 2004, 06:45 PM

The people who want to chastise those involved in the copying of commercial software for personal use are missing some important points:

Software isn't like a physical product. No one is being harmed as a result of me making copies of software and giving them away for free to people who weren't going to buy the software anyway.

Commercial software isn't like a physical asset that depreciates normally based on open market conditions. The release of a new version of software can make the old version almost worthless due to a lack of technical support, restriction of features only to new versions, and a lack of bug fixes.

A person who copies software like iLife or OS X, uses it for personal use, and doesn't use Apple's servers for updates isn't costing Apple any money.

I can make lots of copies of my Linux CDs and DVDs legally, but doing this with OS X is somehow seen as bad. I don't like being forced by Apple to upgrade because software is deliberately being made so that it won't run without the latest version of OS X. It might be different if upgrading was an option, but it isn't and the upgrades are becoming annual. I can choose to ignore the Apple license or stop using Apple software, which will eventually mean moving to other computers instead of to the latest Apple products for a system upgrade.

The spread of free software has a significant effect on how many people use it. If I had to pay $129 for a new copy of OS X for each system every time Apple decided to make a new version, I wouldn't be using it and I also wouldn't recommend Apple computers to other people, which would be a real cost to Apple.

Of the software I have purchased, most of it has been freeware or shareware from small companies or individuals who care about each customer and don't treat customers as numbered units of revenue sources.

The availability of software for free with an option to donate money to support the company or group producing the software can be more effective in gaining users and raising money than hiding the software behind a huge price tag with expected and frequent upgrade costs. Adobe, Corel, and Macromedia have lost thousands of dollars in sales because I don't agree with their license agreements or their attitudes concerning software copying and sharing. The loss of my business is costing these companies a quantifiable amount of money, and because they want me to pay to use their software for non-profit use and would restrict my ability to use the software as I wanted even if I did buy it, I now have no plans to ever buy their products whether for commercial use or not.

johnnyjibbs

Mar 16, 2004, 07:00 PM

There is some truth to what you are saying arogge, but I disagree with some of it. Firstly, pirating of software even for personal use is hurting the producer. For example, if I buy Office and then let my friend install it too, Microsoft has lost a sale of that because my friend no longer has to pay the £450 to buy it. This is also true of music and films. It's very tempting to borrow a friend's CD and import it into iTunes, then give it back, but that is also stealing.

Now lets think of a physical example. Take book burning. This is a potentially ludicrous thing, but something that is vital to economy (although I don't like it due to environmental damage). Millions of books get burnt every day. Brand new books. The reason? Too many produced for demand. I know someone who drives lorries that carry the books from warehouses to the place where they get burnt. Needless to say, several have 'fallen off the back' and ended up in his collection. Now you could say that that isn't harming anyone because they were going to be destroyed anyway. However, in doing so, he will never buy that book, hence there is potentail loss of sale. This is regardless of the fact that he may never have bought it anyway. In that sense, the law of averages then comes into play.

Although software is not so physical, and so does not get burnt as such, the act of copying for personal use is exactly the same. The damage comes in potential loss of sale. Sure, you could argue that you may never have bought it anyway, but that's where demos and free trials come in. Of course, I wish there would be more demos and stuff. And I'd wish that Apple would agree for magazines to include demo software of Apple products (including updates) on magazine cover discs.

Having said that, high prices put people off buying too, as I have been arguing.

jxyama

Mar 16, 2004, 07:17 PM

Software isn't like a physical product. No one is being harmed as a result of me making copies of software and giving them away for free to people who weren't going to buy the software anyway.

what if you gave a copy of PS to someone who had no intention of buying full PS? maybe that person would have bought PSE after seeing how expensive PS is? but if that person already has a pirate copy of PS, adobe would miss out on a sale of PSE.

this is an overly simplistic view. why do you get to determine whether the person you are giving the software to wouldn't have bought it?

software isn't like a physical product, you are right. that's why you get away with pirating it to begin with. you cannot conclude that piracy is harming no one.

jxyama

Mar 16, 2004, 07:18 PM

i strongly resent your implications here. i believe it's not relevant to discussions at hand. :o

he he... :cool:

arogge

Mar 16, 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by johnnyjibbs

"For example, if I buy Office and then let my friend install it too, Microsoft has lost a sale of that because my friend no longer has to pay the £450 to buy it."

Microsoft Office copying is something that I don't like because people believe that they must have it and would do almost anything to get it. By giving them the software without showing them the free and better alternatives, the demand for Microsoft software is actually increased because that extra person is now using its proprietary file formats that other people will believe need another copy of Microsoft Office to be read.

"This is also true of music and films. It's very tempting to borrow a friend's CD and import it into iTunes, then give it back, but that is also stealing."

Should I take the artists' CDs that I bought, as a result of listening to copies of the artists' music before buying their albums, back to the store for a refund? :rolleyes:

"Now lets think of a physical example. Take book burning. This is a potentially ludicrous thing, but something that is vital to economy (although I don't like it due to environmental damage). Millions of books get burnt every day. Brand new books. The reason? Too many produced for demand."

That's a physical item that cost money to produce each unit. There are probably some markets to which those books could be sent, but the producer just wants to fix the oversupply cheaply by destroying it.

"I know someone who drives lorries that carry the books from warehouses to the place where they get burnt. Needless to say, several have 'fallen off the back' and ended up in his collection. Now you could say that that isn't harming anyone because they were going to be destroyed anyway. However, in doing so, he will never buy that book, hence there is potentail loss of sale."

You can't count those book findings as potential sales unless he was intending to buy the books. He could just send money to the authors if he likes them.

"Although software is not so physical, and so does not get burnt as such, the act of copying for personal use is exactly the same. The damage comes in potential loss of sale. Sure, you could argue that you may never have bought it anyway, but that's where demos and free trials come in."

The good demos include a large sample of the software and I've purchased software based on using those kinds of demos. The bad demo software is time-limited, missing features, and riddled with nag screens. While a business operator might want to get a 15- or 30-day trial and evaluate it, I might take a few months to use the software and decide if I'm going to buy it or not. If I can't do that, the company doesn't get any money.

arogge

Mar 16, 2004, 08:03 PM

what if you gave a copy of PS to someone who had no intention of buying full PS? maybe that person would have bought PSE after seeing how expensive PS is? but if that person already has a pirate copy of PS, adobe would miss out on a sale of PSE.
this is an overly simplistic view. why do you get to determine whether the person you are giving the software to wouldn't have bought it?
software isn't like a physical product, you are right. that's why you get away with pirating it to begin with. you cannot conclude that piracy is harming no one.

I, for one, don't have Photoshop because I can't justify the Adobe price tag. I will not buy Photoshop, PSE (Photoshop express?), or any other Adobe product. I now use GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) and other Open Source alternatives. If Adobe had let me use the software for free, I might have bought a lot of the company's products and been able to promote that software to other people. Adobe, as can be shown quantitatively, has lost money because of its refusal to make software free for non-profit use. And I can determine if a person requesting a copy of commercial software is going to buy it or not. If someone has just bought a new Mac, needs an image editor for a few pictures, finds that iPhoto can't do the task, and I had the software he or she needed, that person is not suddenly going to go out and pay lots of money for Photoshop or another commercial package if I don't give that person the software. However, an individual who wants to have Photoshop because he wants expense-free profits while running a photo-processing company, would not get a copy of the software.

johnnyjibbs

Mar 16, 2004, 08:10 PM

You can never base a law on whether someone was intending to buy something or not and you could never prove it either way. Even if the lorry driver wasn't intending to ever buy the books and never would have done, that does not make keeping those books right.

I'm not sure if you pirate any software that doesn't perform to your expectations, demo-wise, but that's not a good thing to do. On the other hand, if you simply never use that product again, then that is your choice. I think lower software pricing would help appease this issue but I fail to understand why people think that the non-physical presence of software and ease of copying it makes it any less wrong than stealing from a brick and mortar store. By that logic, if someone invented invisibility suits so that we could easily go and nick stuff from shops, that would make it right because we wouldn't get caught? :confused:

As I've said before, the software/music/film industries have themselves partly to blame for high amounts of copying and piracy (e.g. due to high prices and lack of distribution methods). I think music and DVDs are way too expensive and this promotes piracy. However, the bottom line is that piracy and illegal copying is and always will be wrong.

arogge

Mar 16, 2004, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by johnnyjibbs

"You can never base a law on whether someone was intending to buy something or not and you could never prove it either way. Even if the lorry driver wasn't intending to ever buy the books and never would have done, that does not make keeping those books right."

That should be the decision of the author. If the author says that he wants the books destroyed, then keeping them would be wrong. But what if the author likes the fact that one more person has his book because that person might buy more of the author's books and promote them too?

"I'm not sure if you pirate any software that doesn't perform to your expectations, demo-wise, but that's not a good thing to do."

I actually don't use much for software. The really expensive software for very important work doesn't run on the desktop Mac, anyway.

"I think lower software pricing would help appease this issue but I fail to understand why people think that the non-physical presence of software and ease of copying it makes it any less wrong than stealing from a brick and mortar store."

It's only "wrong" legally. The big difference between the two wrongs is if I steal a product from a store, the following happens:

The store does not get paid;
The stock manager has to look for the missing product and can't find it;
The store writes off the loss;
If there is too much theft, the store might spend money on more security and employees could get laid off;
The store raises prices or reduces shelf stock and product variety;
Stolen products are not available for customers to buy;
The store might lose more sales and future customers who are frustrated to be told (this happened to me) that there are at least 25 bricks on the shelf where there are clearly none remaining. This happened because the bricks were not marked as sold on the store computer.

If I copy OS X to use on two computers, the following happens:
I get to use the software that wouldn't work without the 10.3 release;
I'm a happier Apple user and continue to promote Apple computers and make real hardware sales;
The included bug fixes improve system performance, and that means I don't have to call AppleCare as much as I did when I had the older release;
Apple does not support the server and bandwidth for two systems to be patched and updated;
Both parties benefit. :)

However, if I copy Microsoft Office 2003, this happens:
The user gets hooked on using the proprietary software;
The Microsoft-formatted files that the user shares with other people may be unreadable until they also get Microsoft Office;
The user now demands that everyone else start using what he has, which means using Microsoft Windows;
Other people who can afford the software buy Microsoft Windows and Office, giving Microsoft thousands of dollars in sales and more monopoly power;
This leads to more copying and more demand;
I get a Word, Excel, or PowerPoint document that I need to read but I can't read it on my Unix system;
General frustration occurs in trying to figure out what was in the unreadable file;
Productivity is lost as a result.

Copying a normal, non-monopolistic company's software, and giving it to someone for free can have this actual result:

The recipient has a computer with more functionality and begins to play with the new software;
If it isn't useful, it will not be used anymore;
If it is useful, the user has a good opinion about the software and remembers the name of the company;
The user talks to other people and tells them that this software is really useful;
He gives them copies of the software;
Some people realize that they want the manuals and reference books that come with the boxed product;
They go to the store or directly to the company and buy the product after finding that they get technical support along with the books, and a commercial CD-ROM containing the software;
The company now has multiple sales from customers with a positive opinion of the company who will remember the service they received and will likely buy more of the company's products;
The product is more widely-used than it would have been without the users' copying and distribution;
Market share and general interest in the company increases;
Both the company and the users benefit. :)

Counterfit

Mar 17, 2004, 12:39 AM

Some people realize that they want the manuals and reference books that come with the boxed product;
They go to the store or directly to the company and buy the product after finding that they get technical support along with the books, and a commercial CD-ROM containing the software; Of course, if they pirated the software (yes it is pirating), what would be keeping them from getting a .pdf of the manuals? Or why bother with the developer's/distributor's manual when (in the case of Photoshop) many books exist that go far more in depth than the manuals Adobe provides, and even those can be gotten illegally.

johnnyjibbs

Mar 17, 2004, 04:11 AM

As much as some people are anti-Microsoft, Apple has just about as many proprietary formats as Microsoft. For example, iDVD save-as-archive requires iDVD, not a standard disc-burning format. This is purely so Apple can get more sales of Superdrives (as opposed to letting users use external burners). Does that mean it's ok to somehow steal superdrives? Sure, Office has proprietary formats and people should be more professional and use something universal like PDF to share documents but you don't really need Office to open a word file. There are plenty of converters out there: TextEdit does a good job on the Mac, then there's Appleworks and OpenOffice.org. There are plenty of others.

If too many people abuse the OS X one-user licence system, expect Apple to start using security keys and registration like Windows. It is currently done on trust. Sure, I do believe that Apple, in some ways, causes its own problems by charging so highly between releases with no upgrade price because it narrows the percentage of people using the latest operating system. However, most programs run well on Jaguar anyway. Also, they don't develop Jaguar anymore so they do not have to share resources in that way.

I can see you're trying to argue that more exposure to a product may increase someone's likelyhood of doing business with that company, arogge, but people are creatures of habbit. Once someone has pirated one thing I bet it's temptingly easy to keep on doing it again and again.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 08:21 AM

If I copy OS X to use on two computers, the following happens:
I get to use the software that wouldn't work without the 10.3 release;
I'm a happier Apple user and continue to promote Apple computers and make real hardware sales;
The included bug fixes improve system performance, and that means I don't have to call AppleCare as much as I did when I had the older release;
Apple does not support the server and bandwidth for two systems to be patched and updated;
Both parties benefit.

arogge:

this is pretty absurd. yes, it costs apple next to nothing if you (and only you) pirated OS X. but if everyone who works for non-profit or for personal use decided for themselves to follow your logic and pirated OS X, it will hurt apple's bottom line. no ifs or questions about that.

it's somewhat similar to spamming on a personal level, such as advertising a sublet to a small university emailing list: yeah, if only one person sent a generally unwanted email to an email list of 50 university students, it only costs those 50 students miniscule amount of time to press delete. however, if many, many students did the same, it becomes a real problem.

you have no right to determine whether what you are doing does no harm or not. only because you are not paying for the consequences you can claim to have done no harm.

if you don't like the pseudo-annual $130 upgrade on OS X, then switch the platform. use linux. as long as you continue to benefit (being a non-profit doesn't matter, it still pays your bills and rent, doesn't it?) from the use of OS X, i believe you owe apple both legally and morally to pay for those upgrades.

Stolid

Mar 17, 2004, 09:19 AM

As a developer perhaps I can give some of my views on the subject:
Some pieces of software are clearly 'hard to break into' -- a great example is Maya. It's CLEARLY meant for studio work, so a student getting his hands on it is really not reasonable. If your school doesn't have labs with Maya (mine doesn't) then you're left with a demo version (for AW's Maya, that's Maya PLE) or pirateing.
Now; I completely see the point of PLE and agree with it; but I also have had lots of trouble using it due to the watermark.

I've seen pieces of software that use 30 day demos, this always has annoyed me. Why? Because I tend to grab these demos; install them; use it for a bit and forget about them until the 29th day. Now; you can often remove the demo and put it back on but thats just dishonest.

So here's my proposal:
1) For some pieces of software; an education price is silly. iLife is a great example. There is veritably no one that can really justify pirating this (with the POSSIBLE exception of testing it to see if it will run; but I hear that excuse too much from people that have no intention of removing it if it does)

For OTHER pieces of software I think there should be 2 methods
#1) Edu prices and other such discounts; a la Photoshop. I think the Edu price on PS should be a touch lower but it is there and I feel that I can scrounge up the funding to buy it.
#2) For pieces of software like Maya, I like the PLE existing but I do find the watermark to be 'too much' more often than not. Instead I'd like to propose such pieces of software be 'phone home'-ish -- If you use Maya PLE and want to turn the watermark off you can, temporarily (and never for 'final render quality'), under the condition you let the software 'phone home' to AliasWaveFront and monitor your actions to the keystroke. If it can't get the reply from AWF it won't let you turn it off (for security, of course, you'll need this to be encrypted). The problem? Cost for all that bandwidth and a decent 'detector' to make sure you're not trying to cheap your way out. Maybe a charge-per-incident (something low, like $1 to $5) to turn it off for 10 minutes.
#3) Software demos that use time as their limiter should limit based on USAGE time. "You can use this product for 24 hours" is far better than 30 days IMHO.

There is NO EXCUSE for piracy if some form of demo exist; I get the bejeebus annoyed out of me by Maya's watermark (my big example for that reason) but I will not pirate it because PLE exist.

Most of these pro products have some form of 'finalization', and I think that a 'free version' with no watermarks that just doesn't allow this finalization is normally acceptable (a great example, TrueSpace has, or had, a demo that has almost all the functionality of the full version with no use limitation on time or anything. The removed functions? You can't save projects or render to a file. Annoying? Yes. But as a student it let me figure out the software and now I have a legal version of TrueSpace).

I believe there is very (VERY) rarely a legitimate reason to pirate software; but as a developer I understand the need to let students access a product that they may wish to use in a professional studio. Any software that cost over $100 should have some form of demo, IMHO. Personal users and students can't afford to 'test' software at that kind of cost.
I don't steal books from the bookstore, but most bookstores let me open it up and read the first chapter. Pro software seems to sometimes, very begrudgingly, give you the back cover until you buy the book. A problem with IP is that it is very difficult to evaluate the quality of it without actually using it. I think that software makers with the ego to ignore these demands deserve to have their products overlooked and unused; not pirated. Any great innovations they have will be absorbed by the rest of the market.

One last thing: Anyone who develops software to cross a platform needs to give multiplatform users a reason to pay. I have a legal version of X for Windows; I do not have X for Mac. I would be willing to pay, say, $10 or so for the priviledge of putting it on both, but I'm not about to rebuy it. The only piece of software I know that accomodates this is the Opera webbrowser (which I love to death for this and other reasons)

Whew, I'm long winded. :blush: sorry.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 10:28 AM

"If too many people abuse the OS X one-user licence system, expect Apple to start using security keys and registration like Windows."

If Apple tries that, I plan to default to Yellow Dog Linux within a few days, look to AMD for system upgrades to replace the PowerMac, and will stop promoting Apple products. That will cost Apple more than $10,000 this year alone. And Apple knows it, too, which is probably why there is no copy protection scheme in Apple software.

"It is currently done on trust. Sure, I do believe that Apple, in some ways, causes its own problems by charging so highly between releases with no upgrade price because it narrows the percentage of people using the latest operating system. However, most programs run well on Jaguar anyway."

I mostly have the problem with X11 and Java3D. I had to install OS 10.3 to get them to work, even though I had no need for anything else in the new release.

"I can see you're trying to argue that more exposure to a product may increase someone's likelyhood of doing business with that company, but people are creatures of habbit. Once someone has pirated one thing I bet it's temptingly easy to keep on doing it again and again."

If that's the case, stopping personal pirating isn't going to stop these kinds of people from going to the real pirates that sell illegal copies of software for a profit. I would rather give people software for free and hope that they eventually buy it than to force them to buy from the spammers.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 10:41 AM

arogge:

you still didn't answer my point. what if everyone else under similar circumstances as you decided to do the same and pirate? you still think there are no negative consequences?

switch to linux and let apple lose your business. just because apple end up "positive" from you doesn't mean you can pirate their software. or is there a reason you haven't switched to linux yet? when you bought your PM, you paid for what you got. beyond that, you didn't pay. if they decide not to give you upgrades for free, that's apple's decision and their right. if you can't deal with what you paid for, pay someone else, but don't pirate. you aren't "entitled" to upgrades - you didn't pay for them.

and guess what? i paid for my panther - and i didn't need X11 or Java3D support. do you hear me complaining that i was forced to pay for features i didn't need or use?

finally, just because there are "worse" kind of pirates out there doesn't make your type of "pirate" any less "wrong." :rolleyes:

(obviously, i'm not going to make a "believer" out of you anyway, so i'm now wondering why i'm wasting my time... anyway, i think i'm just about done here. it's far off topic already... :D )

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 11:20 AM

"yes, it costs apple next to nothing if you (and only you) pirated OS X. but if everyone who works for non-profit or for personal use decided for themselves to follow your logic and pirated OS X, it will hurt apple's bottom line. no ifs or questions about that."

There is a question and it involves what happens if people get tired of paying for OS X. Apple is going to lose sales on new hardware, which is where the profit is. If Apple had told me a few weeks ago that installing OS X twice was not possible and that I must buy a second $129 box and CD-ROM, I probably wouldn't be using OS X right now. I also wouldn't have sold somebody on getting a new PowerBook because my opinion of Apple would have changed. There is a lot more "pirating" going on, as in one person buying the software and installing it on multiple systems, than you're willing to realize.

"it's somewhat similar to spamming on a personal level, such as advertising a sublet to a small university emailing list: yeah, if only one person sent a generally unwanted email to an email list of 50 university students, it only costs those 50 students miniscule amount of time to press delete. however, if many, many students did the same, it becomes a real problem."

Spamming costs money because of the server and bandwidth resources. If there is too much spam going through the network, the network can crash and legitimate mail can be lost. This is not the same as making a copy of software.

"you have no right to determine whether what you are doing does no harm or not. only because you are not paying for the consequences you can claim to have done no harm."

Can you quantify how much damage I've done to Apple? I can easily quantify how much money Apple has made as a result of my ability to use Apple software without restrictions.

"if you don't like the pseudo-annual $130 upgrade on OS X, then switch the platform. use linux."

That's not going to help Apple at all. If I am forced to switch to Linux, that move will soon be supplemented by a 64-bit AMD system running Linux, which means that I don't buy a new Apple desktop, ever, and Apple would not be included in my purchase recommendations.

"as long as you continue to benefit (being a non-profit doesn't matter, it still pays your bills and rent, doesn't it?) from the use of OS X, i believe you owe apple both legally and morally to pay for those upgrades."

OS X doesn't really pay me anything, and Linux could easily replace OS X for what I want. OS X for me is more of a personal desktop environment than anything else. Really critical work is not done with OS X, but rather on high-end workstations and servers running Linux or a another Unix variant. I could move over to a Linux or Unix workstation for my personal work within a few hours, a move which is practiced occasionally in case something does happen to the Mac. I like the company's hardware products, but I don't need Apple.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 12:05 PM

"switch to linux and let apple lose your business. just because apple end up "positive" from you doesn't mean you can pirate their software. or is there a reason you haven't switched to linux yet?"

Your arrogance would cost Apple real sales. I just haven't gotten around to installing Linux yet. The plans to jump to YDL have already been made. It is unlikely that OS 10.4 will be considered for my next Mac desktop environment because I believe that YDL now better supports my tasks.

"when you bought your PM, you paid for what you got. beyond that, you didn't pay. if they decide not to give you upgrades for free, that's apple's decision and their right. if you can't deal with what you paid for, pay someone else, but don't pirate. you aren't "entitled" to upgrades - you didn't pay for them."

I believe that I paid a premium price, about $700 more than I would have for a faster AMD system with a professional graphics card. I chose Apple because I liked having the free Web services, free software updates, and the good integration between hardware and software. If software I want to use suddenly needs an new operating system, I shouldn't have to pay for the update.

"and guess what? i paid for my panther - and i didn't need X11 or Java3D support. do you hear me complaining that i was forced to pay for features i didn't need or use?"

That was your choice, but I'd rather buy other Apple products than pay for extra software licenses that I don't need. I also don't like being forced to upgrade because it took 10 hours of downtime to do the upgrade. If Apple had simply let me install X11 and Java3D, I could have continued without a significant interruption.

"finally, just because there are "worse" kind of pirates out there doesn't make your type of "pirate" any less "wrong." :rolleyes:"

Fortunately, you do not represent Apple, a company which currently enjoys my purchases of additional hardware and software that I do want instead of extra software licenses that I don't want and wouldn't buy if forced to. You're not going to make me feel bad about ignoring the Apple software license because I know that doing so benefits Apple.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 12:08 PM

That's not going to help Apple at all. If I am forced to switch to Linux, that move will soon be supplemented by a 64-bit AMD system running Linux, which means that I don't buy a new Apple desktop, ever, and Apple would not be included in my purchase recommendations.

so it's ok for you to cheat apple as long as you are overall being positive influence to them? gee, should apple send you a thank you note while they are at it? :rolleyes:

taking your argument to an extreme, since i've bought a $1800 PB, does that make it ok for me to pirate $1799.99 in apple software?

i can exactly quantify how much damage you've done to apple or other software companies. just multiply the number of software you've pirated by their price - it's irrelevant if those people would have bought a copy or not - the fact is, they got a free copy and the copyright holder was not compensated. that is a fact. whether they would have bought a copy or not is just circumstantial speculation. how do you plan on proving that they would have never bought those software? you can't - it's all speculation.

if you are advocating free software - switch, not pirate.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 12:14 PM

I believe that I paid a premium price, about $700 more than I would have for a faster AMD system with a professional graphics card. I chose Apple because I liked having the free Web services, free software updates, and the good integration between hardware and software. If software I want to use suddenly needs an new operating system, I shouldn't have to pay for the update.

again, believe whatever you want about "premium." apple didn't force you to buy their product - you decided to pay whatever the premium you perceived because they provided some benefits to you. if you get something more out for paying more, then that's not a premium.

i believe software that used to work with your older OS would continue to work with your older OS. upgrading is your choice - older OS is not responsible for making sure updated software would work on it. it's the responsibility of the software company. if you need to upgrade both the OS and software, then it must be done together - what's the difference, it's ok to pirate the OS but not the software?

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 12:22 PM

You're not going to make me feel bad about ignoring the Apple software license because I know that doing so benefits Apple.

i don't care whether i make you feel bad or not. it's quite obvious that you believe what you believe and you won't be changing your mind. i'm just trying to point out faults with your reasonings.

it's ok for me to be a criminal because i know it will benefit the society. :rolleyes:

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 02:48 PM

jxyama

"so it's ok for you to cheat apple as long as you are overall being positive influence to them? gee, should apple send you a thank you note while they are at it?"

I talked to employees and customers at an Apple Store who realized exactly that. Everyone understood that people who were buying were not suddenly going to buy more licenses on top of everything else because they wanted to use software on more than one system. The employees laughed at the possibility that Apple could use a copy protection scheme, calling it very unlikely, and that sales would drop if that did happen.

"taking your argument to an extreme, since i've bought a $1800 PB, does that make it ok for me to pirate $1799.99 in apple software?"

Are you making a profit on it? Are you using Apple's resources or depriving anyone else of its use? Are you reselling the software for a profit? If not, then I don't see the problem.

"i can exactly quantify how much damage you've done to apple or other software companies. just multiply the number of software you've pirated by their price - it's irrelevant if those people would have bought a copy or not - the fact is, they got a free copy and the copyright holder was not compensated. that is a fact. whether they would have bought a copy or not is just circumstantial speculation. how do you plan on proving that they would have never bought those software? you can't - it's all speculation."

I definitely know what I would have bought given different conditions, and so do other people who consider buying Apple products. This all goes into the purchase decision. For other companies' software, it's pretty obvious that someone who can't afford to buy software and just wants to play with it occasionally is not going to buy it because the price cannot be justified based on the lack of any real returns. Eventually, that person may find a way to do some profitable work with the software and will buy it or a later version of it. This is something that I have seen happen as a result of me giving away free software. If the software is never used, that person will not know about it and definately will not want to buy it. In Apple's case, the company is compensated because people are buying the products. If that changes, Apple will have reduced sales or absolutely no sales from me. What your argument fails to consider is the fact that virtually no one really needs Apple computers or its software. I buy and promote Apple products, in large part, because I want to support the company, and that's what I will continue to do unless Apple gets an arrogant attitude.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 03:09 PM

"i believe software that used to work with your older OS would continue to work with your older OS. upgrading is your choice - older OS is not responsible for making sure updated software would work on it. it's the responsibility of the software company."

I want Apple's Java3D update and X11 (not the beta version) to work on OS 10.2; I have no other need for OS 10.3. Linux had no problem running the Java software, and even an old version of Microsoft Windows could run it. But OS X apparently needed a $129 upgrade. So, how would I install this software without the full upgrade? If I'm missing something in Linux, I just get the source files and patch the system. I never have to upgrade the entire operating system.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 03:15 PM

i guess above all the interesting reasons (some of them seem to make some sense, maybe...) you give, i do find your absolute conviction that you are doing apple a favor by breaking their licensing terms rather amazing.

and, no, i absolutely don't agree that just because i would not be profitting from my piracy, it would be ok for me to pirate software as long as it's lower than the amount i paid for the hardware.

i'm sticking to the point that after all is said and done, all this discussion can even be held only because software piracy usually goes unpunished.

What your argument fails to consider is the fact that virtually no one really needs Apple computers or its software. I buy and promote Apple products, in large part, because I want to support the company

you can replace Apple with any computer company above. if you wanted to truly support apple, then why not support its licensing terms?

and that's what I will continue to do unless Apple gets an arrogant attitude

ohhh, apple better not get cocky!! :rolleyes:

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 03:17 PM

I want Apple's Java3D update and X11 (not the beta version) to work on OS 10.2; I have no other need for OS 10.3. Linux had no problem running the Java software, and even an old version of Microsoft Windows could run it. But OS X apparently needed a $129 upgrade. So, how would I install this software without the full upgrade? If I'm missing something in Linux, I just get the source files and patch the system. I never have to upgrade the entire operating system.

then use linux :rolleyes:

if apple loses customers because its practices and services are different from other companies, then it's apple's problem when they lose those customers. it's not a license for you to pirate so that you get what you want under terms apple decided not to offer.

it's one thing to pirate - because i'm not that naive to think it doesn't happen. it's quite another to think doing so is actually doing a favor... i'd rather see more people being lawful and fair about these things than justifying being wrong under the pretense of doing one of my favorite companies a favor. if apple can't survive without the "grace of pirating customers" like you, then i'd rather see apple go bunkrupt...

7on

Mar 17, 2004, 03:36 PM

I think all software should use hardware keys. There, problem solved.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 04:03 PM

[QUOTE=jxyama]

"i guess above all the interesting reasons (some of them seem to make some sense, maybe...) you give, i do find your absolute conviction that you are doing apple a favor by breaking their licensing terms rather amazing."

I've actually done very little in the way of pirating. In fact, I haven't even potentially misused the OS X license yet because I can't risk reformatting the second system.

"and, no, i absolutely don't agree that just because i would not be profitting from my piracy, it would be ok for me to pirate software as long as it's lower than the amount i paid for the hardware."

Lower or higher, it doesn't matter. If you consider what you will do with the software and how it will be promoted, I would rather have somebody using the software for free than to keep it away from them. I know that I couldn't afford Corel Draw or any of the Adobe products a few years ago. There was no way to try and make something with them. They talked about how it was piracy that was raising the cost of their products. Well, I may never buy their products now. Adobe, Corel, Macromedia, Microsoft, and so many other commercial software companies will never have my business or my recommendations because they chose to hide their software behind high price tags. Even companies like iD Software now have my business because I was given the opportunity to try their software for free when I couldn't afford it. I wasn't going to buy it then, but I'm buying it now, and that means more sales than would have been otherwise.

"you can replace Apple with any computer company above. if you wanted to truly support apple, then why not support its licensing terms?"

Because it's a waste of money to buy extra copies of software. If I was receiving total support for those products, it would be different. But even a paid-for OS X box did not give me support when fixing a problem required use of a network or the root user. I was told by AppleCare that this would cost over a hundred dollars to get "special" support.

"ohhh, apple better not get cocky!!"

That's right, because if it does, the company image changes from one of being different to the common image of just being out to make money. Microsoft tried the arrogant attitude with me back in 1996, and I've never bought another Microsoft product since. I've also cost Microsoft a lot of money in sales by moving people to better alternatives. While $20,000 or so in sales for the year doesn't seem like much, it really starts to add up over many years with increased market share and a wider user base which will continue to support the company. Repeat buyers are very important to Apple because the Switching rate cannot make up for the loss of big purchasers who are already familiar with the company. Big companies like Dell don't care if a few customers move to competitors, but Apple is different. Every Apple customer is important, no matter how much they buy, and those customers have to be kept satisfied.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 04:12 PM

I think all software should use hardware keys. There, problem solved.

The result of any non-gaming company that uses any form of copy protection is that their software is never considered by me for purchase. I don't care if it's iTunes music or calculation software, no use of copy protection is permitted on any of my systems.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 04:38 PM

"it's one thing to pirate - because i'm not that naive to think it doesn't happen. it's quite another to think doing so is actually doing a favor... i'd rather see more people being lawful and fair about these things than justifying being wrong under the pretense of doing one of my favorite companies a favor. if apple can't survive without the "grace of pirating customers" like you, then i'd rather see apple go bunkrupt..."

Apple might not go out of business because of it, but the expansion would be reduced. Open Source distributions can work with "piracy" too. If I give someone a copy of a commercial Linux distribution, he or she usually buys it next time. The reason is because you get support, real books, and a new compilation of good software, all in one package. If I give someone OpenOffice.org, the likely possibility exists that he or she will eventually buy it. If I don't give that software away for free, those people would have gone to buy Microsoft Office XP or 2003. The instant they hear about it being free, they like it and are more willing to support it either with donations or by buying a commercial version of it, which I encourage with each copy distributed.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 04:38 PM

Because it's a waste of money to buy extra copies of software.

this is the attitude i have the most problems with. copies of software for different machines are not "extras."

in just about everything else in this world, those "extras" you speak of aren't really extras. if you need tires for your car, you need to buy as many tires as there are wheels. you cannot buy one tire and consider the other three "extras" because the car won't run without them. they are required.

the only reason they could even be considered "extras" for software is because you can clone it. only honesty and licensing terms that are hardly enforced are the only things standing in the way from making them virtually "extra."

that still doesn't mean they are really extras.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 05:07 PM

this is the attitude i have the most problems with. copies of software for different machines are not "extras."

in just about everything else in this world, those "extras" you speak of aren't really extras. if you need tires for your car, you need to buy as many tires as there are wheels. you cannot buy one tire and consider the other three "extras" because the car won't run without them. they are required.

But, again, physical objects have per-unit costs whereas software does not. I wouldn't buy a copy of Linux for each machine; and I won't for OS X, either. If the company offered something else like free support or server resources, I would consider buying it. But there is often no additional service added by buying extra licenses. It's all about maximizing profits by artificially inflating costs.

tomf87

Mar 17, 2004, 05:16 PM

With the possibility of ignoring the software licenses, I'd choose to get:
PowerBook: $2,500
PowerMac: $3,000
OS 10.2: $129
OS 10.3: $129
QuickTime: $30
AppleWorks: $79
Final Cut Pro: $999 (when I finally get that camera I've been wanting)

With approximate values, I also recommend and make sales of:
iBook: $1,700
iMac: $1,900
PowerBook: $2,000
PowerBook: $3,000
PowerMac: $4,000
Plus additional Apple software amounting to approximately $3,000.

With software restrictions, the second system would not be considered because the obvious alternative is better and the investment would not be made in Apple software. Apple would not have received such good recommendations from me, and those potential purchases would have gone to the likes of IBM, HP, or Dell. Apple would make only $2,500 in sales. What your argument fails to consider is the fact that virtually no one really needs Apple computers or its software. I buy and promote Apple products, in large part, because I want to support the company, and that's what I will continue to do unless Apple gets an arrogant attitude.

No matter how many right things you have done for Apple or anybody else, it still does not correct the wrong you've done by pirating the software. Even better, copying Apple software doesn't make the world better and copying MS software doesn't make the world worse. Copying copyrighted software is wrong, no two ways about.

While you're at it, go steal that camera you want and help that company out too.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 05:26 PM

If I give someone OpenOffice.org, the likely possibility exists that he or she will eventually buy it. If I don't give that software away for free, those people would have gone to buy Microsoft Office XP or 2003. The instant they hear about it being free, they like it and are more willing to support it either with donations or by buying a commercial version of it, which I encourage with each copy distributed.

bad example: OOo is free. ;)

i'd tend to argue that those who actually adhere to software licenses are more likely to donate to free/share/donationwares. they understand why licenses are needed and also tend to appreciate the work involved in making software.

people who like things because they are free - freeware or pirate - like the fact it's free. if they don't have to pay, they are not very likely to pay.

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 05:29 PM

But, again, physical objects have per-unit costs whereas software does not.

wrong. it only appears that way because you can easily clone it.

something having no (apparent) cost does not mean you are allowed to just take it.

tomf87

Mar 17, 2004, 05:30 PM

The result of any non-gaming company that uses any form of copy protection is that their software is never considered by me for purchase. I don't care if it's iTunes music or calculation software, no use of copy protection is permitted on any of my systems.

I think every software company is removing copy protection as I write this so they can sell you something. Oh, wait, you're a tight wad so you won't buy it anyway. :rolleyes:

jxyama

Mar 17, 2004, 05:42 PM

I wouldn't buy a copy of Linux for each machine; and I won't for OS X, either.

btw, i'd love to see you ask apple to refund you $129 when you next purchase a panther installed Mac because you don't want to pay for an "extra" copy of OS X. (you've already got a pirated Panther, right?) :D

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 05:43 PM

No matter how many right things you have done for Apple or anybody else, it still does not correct the wrong you've done by pirating the software. Even better, copying Apple software doesn't make the world better and copying MS software doesn't make the world worse. Copying copyrighted software is wrong, no two ways about.

While you're at it, go steal that camera you want and help that company out too.

It's like everything I've typed hasn't been read. Software licenses can say anything a company wants. Some companies say two installations, some five, some only one desktop and one laptop, and some as many as you want. But they are all licenses for the same thing - software. The per-unit cost is in support and other services. Copying Microsoft software is a bad thing because other people are cajoled into buying it, which increases Microsoft's monopoly. Coping Apple software makes my systems work the way I want. If I steal a camera from a store, I harm the store. If I copy software and don't ask for anything else, I don't affect anyone.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 05:47 PM

btw, i'd love to see you ask apple to refund you $129 when you next purchase a panther installed Mac because you don't want to pay for an "extra" copy of OS X. (you've already got a pirated Panther, right?) :D

No, I don't have a pirated copy of OS X. I actually bought it in the box because I liked some new features that it offered for my PowerBook.

frem001

Mar 17, 2004, 06:10 PM

i can see people 's stance against pirating any software, but i'd like to make a little comment on this.

im a multimedia & web design student, and tuition at school is expensive enough as is. we use various forms of software from Maya to Final Cut, Photoshop and Dreamweaver and everything in between. I own most of my software (all the ones that i'll eventually use in my profression), however I don't own copies of either Final Cut or Maya. They are both very expensive, and I am far from advanced enough to actually use 9/10's of the programs features. I realize their are alternatives (FCE, Maya PLE, etc) but these both have plenty of reasons not to use them (showing anything but wireframes in Maya covers the image with text reading this is for personal use only, and when working on little details, this is far from annoying). I think in situations like this, where your still learning the ins and outs of the software, "pirating" can be acceptable, but if I ever do use them professionally, I'd be more than willing to fork over the cash.

As an international student studying (architecture) in London and I agree with the above post. My parents make an yearly sacrifice of £8000 not including cost of living and materials. I can't work because of my visa. Software and hardware is overpriced in the UK and any educational discounts are like the free mint you get when eating at a restaurant. No piracy isn't acceptable and paying £30 pounds for a great software package is peanuts even for a student, but to pay £300-£400 for a SINGLE set of software as discount is unacceptable. What do these companies expect students to do?

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 06:17 PM

I think every software company is removing copy protection as I write this so they can sell you something. Oh, wait, you're a tight wad so you won't buy it anyway.

I look to justify every purchase I make. I had OpenOffice.org and decided to pay for it because it was worth the expense. I bought Linux instead of downloading it for free because of the extra services and items available with purchase. If I can't justify a purchase, I don't buy the item. I looked at Macromedia Studio MX and actually found a small justification for its high price tag. However, when I went to buy it, the old version was out of stock. I then found out about the copy protection and the restrictive license in the new version. I contacted the company and asked that the license be changed and the copy protection be removed so that I could use it on as many systems as I wanted. I explained how I intended to use the product and why I wanted it installed on more than one system. Macromedia representatives refused and the company lost a $900 sale. I offered another company a percentage of the price tag if I could get versions of the software for OS X and another Unix platform. I'm talking about a $2,000 price tag, and I was willing to go up to $2,500 if I could get both Unix versions in the same box. The company wouldn't even consider it, and insisted that I buy both versions at full price. I didn't buy either version and the company lost $2,500. Obviously, making no sale and protecting the software with rigid restrictions is more important to these companies than making money and getting satisfied customers.

mvc

Mar 17, 2004, 06:57 PM

What do these companies expect students to do?

IMO Companies EXPECT students to pirate their software, and ENCOURAGE Professionals to pay eventually if they didn't at the start. That's why there is a frequent upgrade cycle for most software, it is their best method of creating revenue over time.

Jumping heavily on people for piracy is not going to engender more revenue unless you effectively have a monopoly. So its a question of coaxing out the money by ensuring that software gets updated frequently and the serials in circulation go out of date fast. Online or Phone registration/activation codes certainly help, yet you still don't see most firms absolutely requiring it, unless, once again, they have a monopoly.

I would imagine most software developers are pragmatists about this situation, but I would love to hear the thoughts of any OSX developers out there.

Horrortaxi

Mar 17, 2004, 07:55 PM

Software licenses can say anything a company wants. Some companies say two installations, some five, some only one desktop and one laptop, and some as many as you want. But they are all licenses for the same thing - software. The per-unit cost is in support and other services...If I copy software and don't ask for anything else, I don't affect anyone.

I've been following this thread as my stomach has allowed, and have resisted the urge to participate, but I can't hold back anymore. Arogge, it doesn't seem like you have a firm grasp of how the world works. Maybe you're 14 years old and your mind hasn't developed to that stage yet. I'll take that as an excuse for most of the things you've said. In any event you're not making a lot of sense.

Software certainly does have a per-unit cost. It doesn't come from thin air--people made it and they got paid by a company to do that. In order to make their money back they have to sell the software. If they spent $10,000 to make the software then they have to sell less units to make a profit than if they spent $100,000. Support and services are completely separate from development and production. If you copy software, even if you don't ask for anything else (and if you're stealing you shouldn't ask for anything else), you may effect other people.

You are right about software licenses being able to say anything they want. You could be allowed unlimited installations of a program; or just one. You might also be required to run the software on specific hardware. You may not be allowed to do certain things with the software. The point is that software licenses are an agreement between you and the company that made the software. In order to use the software you have to agree to their terms, whatever they are. You can't cross your fingers or something like that. If you are found in violation of the agreement (i.e. contract) then the company could take action against you. They won't...probably...but they could.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 10:05 PM

"Software certainly does have a per-unit cost.
If you copy software, even if you don't ask for anything else (and if you're stealing you shouldn't ask for anything else), you may effect other people."

I can duplicate a piece of software and install it on some virtual operating systems running in separate windows. How long should it take for someone to be affected? It seems that you don't understand simple economics. I wanted to buy Macromedia Studio MX for $900 and agreed with the license. Because the company changed the license to make it more restrictive, the company lost money. I wanted to buy a $2,000 package and was willing to pay $500 more so that I could run the software on two systems. The company rejected the offer and lost $2,500. It would have cost them less than a dollar to drop another copy of the CD-ROM into the box, but they didn't see that and lost the entire sale because they were unable to make a reasonable deal. A software company doesn't save money by not selling software.

"The point is that software licenses are an agreement between you and the company that made the software. In order to use the software you have to agree to their terms, whatever they are. You can't cross your fingers or something like that."

A click-through license or a license inside a box is not like a real contract. I have no opportunity to sign in agreement or change anything about the agreement. It's their way or no way at all. That is not a legitimate contract between two parties. In some cases, these licenses are really illegal because their demands are unreasonable.

"If you are found in violation of the agreement (i.e. contract) then the company could take action against you. They won't...probably...but they could."

Many companies aren't even given an opportunity to try that because I reject their unneeded software if I don't like their restrictions. You'd also have a hard time trying to show any real examples of piracy on my part since the bulk of my software is Open Source or has no per-seat license restriction.

arogge

Mar 17, 2004, 11:02 PM

"bad example: OOo is free."

It's free, but the commercial variant isn't, and I encourage both donations to the organization and actually buying the software in its commercial form.

"i'd tend to argue that those who actually adhere to software licenses are more likely to donate to free/share/donationwares. they understand why licenses are needed and also tend to appreciate the work involved in making software."

I appreciate some of the work and understand the reasons given for some companies' high prices. I just don't like being treated like a numbered revenue source. If the company won't be reasonable, I won't agree to a sale.

"people who like things because they are free - freeware or pirate - like the fact it's free. if they don't have to pay, they are not very likely to pay."

Free things are almost always good. I've found that people who used to pirate Microsoft software are different after receiving Linux or OpenOffice.org for free. They suddenly realize that they could be helping the community and anything that they give to the community is appreciated. One person said about Linux: "40 dollars! That's it? There's nothing else? And it comes with all this software? Books too? That's... no... wow! Of course I'll buy it." OpenOffice.org recipients with Microsoft Windows are pointed to the local computer store which is happy to receive some more business at $75 per sale. They've had to increase their stock and move some things around due to an unexpected increase in demand for Microsoft alternatives. :)

NeoMayhem

Mar 17, 2004, 11:25 PM

Hey jxyama what software company do you work for?

Horrortaxi

Mar 17, 2004, 11:31 PM

[edited] You are clueless. Completely mixed up.

You're right, a licensing agreement which you click is not like a real contract. It is a real contract. Legal, binding, and enforcible. You do not have to sign something to enter into a contract. In the case of software, the click (or even breaking the seal on the disk envelope) takes the place of your signature. It's perfectly legal. Unreasonable demands or not, you're agreeing. Yes, it's their way or no way--and by installing the software you're accepting their way.

How long it takes for somebody to be effected by your piracy is not relevant. Just the fact that somebody will be effected is enough to make it wrong.

[edited]

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 12:48 AM

"You are clueless. Completely mixed up."

And you can't provide any quantifiable numbers to show how me copying software affects anyone else. You don't even know what software I'm copying, but simply assume that copying any software is wrong.

"How long it takes for somebody to be effected by your piracy is not relevant. Just the fact that somebody will be effected is enough to make it wrong."

When does your "fact" become real and not just your belief?
You fail to understand the meaning of per-unit costs. An item has a per-unit cost if it costs a quantifiable amount of money to produce each unit. Software has a bulk cost. A software company that sells each software unit for $100 only spends money on the physical items for each unit. The bulk costs can include employee salaries, rent, utilities, and advertising expenses for a defined period of time. If a company has sold its lot of 100 CD-ROMs containing software and needs one more for an unexpected new customer, the only cost of selling that unit comes from the physical materials and the delivery of the product.

Horrortaxi

Mar 18, 2004, 01:33 AM

I have no idea what you're actually copying. What you've talked about copying (hypothetically) and what you said you wished to copy are titles in which this is a no-no (Mac OS X, iLife, Studio MX).

You're challenging me on fact vs. my beliefs? You? The person who said that Apple would lose business if he wasn't allowed to pirate their software? Want to convince me that pi is exactly 3?

So let me see if I get this: Say you give copies of Studio MX to 4 of your friends. You're saying that Macromedia's loss is the cost of the media only? If they get a CD made for 10 cents then you've cost them 40 cents.

I see what you're saying about production costs vs. bulk costs, but I can't help but want to divide the bulk costs to determine how many units need to be sold at a given price to make up those costs. They won't cover costs selling software for the cost of the media. There's a reason Studio MX costs $900. How do you explain this?

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 01:37 AM

You're right, a licensing agreement which you click is not like a real contract. It is a real contract. Legal, binding, and enforcible.

And then there's contract law. A contract has some basic requirements. All parties involved must:

Be serious about entering into a contract;
Be able to enter into a contract - must be legally-competent;
Be given due consideration;
Be agreeing to legal purposes or terms.

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 01:58 AM

"I have no idea what you're actually copying. What you've talked about copying (hypothetically) and what you said you wished to copy are titles in which this is a no-no (Mac OS X, iLife, Studio MX)."

I never talked about wanting to pirate Studio MX, and everything else was to be for my use only and hasn't actually been copied yet. The software I do copy and distribute publically is Open Source.

"So let me see if I get this: Say you give copies of Studio MX to 4 of your friends. You're saying that Macromedia's loss is the cost of the media only?"

No, Macromedia loses no money because I use my resources to make the copies. If those people intended to buy Studio MX, then Macromedia would lose potential sales, which are not the same as actual sales. This is a big mistake some people make on financial statements. You can't count future earnings estimates as actual earnings.

"I see what you're saying about production costs vs. bulk costs, but I can't help but want to divide the bulk costs to determine how many units need to be sold at a given price to make up those costs. They won't cover costs selling software for the cost of the media. There's a reason Studio MX costs $900. How do you explain this?"

An offical explanation from the company is that the software is targeted for the professional production market. It is not recommended for personal or non-profit use. Macromedia makes an educational version available at a reduced price for such purposes. The price of the product does not reflect piracy, and anti-piracy schemes that are included in the software now will not cause the company to reduce the price of the product. The people who usually buy Studio MX are making a profit through the use of the software, and the price is fair and reasonable to the buyers in those commercial markets.

jxyama

Mar 18, 2004, 07:42 AM

Hey jxyama what software company do you work for?

i don't work for a software company nor am i a software developer.

i just happen to have certain (strong) beliefs in regards to software piracy.

jxyama

Mar 18, 2004, 07:49 AM

And then there's contract law. A contract has some basic requirements. All parties involved must:

Be serious about entering into a contract;
Be able to enter into a contract - must be legally-competent;
Be given due consideration;
Be agreeing to legal purposes or terms.

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

two points:

1) unless the invalidity of EULA for a particular product has been proven in court, it stands. (i believe some may have been questioned in court.)

2) since software companies are the copyright holders, you do not have the right to do whatever you want just because EULA is not enforceable. if EULA is not legal, unenforceable, etc., you are supposed to not just use the product, much less pirate it.

i do commend you for at least contacting the companies to see if you can get a more agreeable licensing - however, companies aren't usually negotiable, as you found out.

jxyama

Mar 18, 2004, 08:19 AM

would you, arogge, demand that you be allowed to ride a commercial plane for free if there is an empty/unsold seat and you "offered" to provide your own drinks and food? (and not watch any movies or use the restroom, for the sake of this argument.)

afterall, the seat would have remained empty for the duration of the flight anyway (so the airline doesn't lose anything), adding your weight to the airplane will cost next to nothing in fuel and you won't be costing them any drinks or food or other amenities.

and to make the matter better for the airline, you may choose to use the airline more in the future if you have a pleasant trip! so the airline will see money from you in the future that may have gone to another airline!

is it unreasonable for airline to deny you a free seat that costs them nothing?

Horrortaxi

Mar 18, 2004, 11:57 AM

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

Funny, I think it meets all the criteria of a contract. We seem to have a disagreement. When there is a legal disagreement, where is it resolved? In court or in Arogge's mind?

Edit: You talk a lot about "non-profit" use. I just want to make sure we agree on terms. Do you mean that use of the software won't generate income for you, or it's used in a non-profit organization? If it's the latter, you can get software dirt cheap--and often free.

tomf87

Mar 18, 2004, 02:16 PM

A software EULA does not comply with the basic requirements; therefore a EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

If it's not legally binding, then why do people get sued, and lose the case, when they copy tons of software? It's happened before.

Also, under that same argument, if it is not legally binding, why did you bother asking manufacturers to change their EULA's when it didn't suit your needs. Actually I think that's actually a dumb thought, because huge companies aren't going to modify a general purpose EULA for one person because they don't agree with it. And I don't think any company is going to worry over one sale.

mvc

Mar 18, 2004, 02:26 PM

i don't work for a software company nor am i a software developer.

i just happen to have certain (strong) beliefs in regards to software piracy.

Hey Jxyama, do you ever download music from p2p networks? Ever?

jxyama

Mar 18, 2004, 03:28 PM

Hey Jxyama, do you ever download music from p2p networks? Ever?

nope... i've never downloaded any music from p2p. (i've used iTMS once.)

i was in europe without a computer when the napster craze was going full force... so i never got into it.

even if i did illegal downloads, i wouldn't justify it to myself as if i'm doing artists/recording labels a favor... or to think there's nothing wrong with it.

Jimong5

Mar 18, 2004, 03:51 PM

IMHO I don't think pirating is ever acceptable. Would you mind someone stealing your car for the day as long as they brought it back?

Car Dealers do it all the time. Its called a test drive. I've never used Garage Band, Apple offers no demo/Trial, and I don't have an easily accessible method of going to try it out. (I can drive 30 minutes to the apple store and play with it, but thats not enough to evaluate well enough and justify a purchase) And why blow $50 on something i won't use? as long as you aren't profiting on the software, I don't see the problem with taking it to learn/get used to the program before you spend the money on it. 30 day trials aren't even enough, because you only start getting used to the thing and then it expires on you. but once you decide you want the thing, you buy it. But to look at, there isn't much of a problem to me.

jxyama

Mar 18, 2004, 04:17 PM

Car Dealers do it all the time. Its called a test drive. I've never used Garage Band, Apple offers no demo/Trial, and I don't have an easily accessible method of going to try it out. (I can drive 30 minutes to the apple store and play with it, but thats not enough to evaluate well enough and justify a purchase) And why blow $50 on something i won't use? as long as you aren't profiting on the software, I don't see the problem with taking it to learn/get used to the program before you spend the money on it. 30 day trials aren't even enough, because you only start getting used to the thing and then it expires on you. but once you decide you want the thing, you buy it. But to look at, there isn't much of a problem to me.

when car dealers let you test drive, they set the terms for how they let you test drive. you didn't decide for them that they should let you test drive and you cannot because you don't own the cars.

it's up to the owner of the property to decide whether or not you can test it. you don't have some sort of inherent right to test whatever you want just because you want to. the only reason you can even "test" software is because it's a copyable. it's still a property and i believe right of the owners should be respected.

if someone other than the property owner can determine whether or not testing should be allowed, then can i borrow your computer while i learn from it? yeah, you own it, but i've decided for myself that i'd like to test drive your computer.

if you "test" without the owner's consent, it's called "theft." car dealers give you consent to test their property. if i take your computer as a "test" without your consent, i've "stolen" your computer. geez...

all these arguments are not about what's possible and what's not in real life. of course you can pirate. of course you can take software for unlimied testing by copying, with minimal costs to you. it's about principles and respect.

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 04:30 PM

"If it's not legally binding, then why do people get sued, and lose the case, when they copy tons of software? It's happened before."

People get sued and lose because they don't have a very good case or have bad representation. There are several cases in which the EULA has been called illegal and unenforceable by a court. A EULA is more enforceable when combined with illegal activities such as large pirating operations that sell software for a profit or a company that violates a real contract regarding software and services provided.

"Also, under that same argument, if it is not legally binding, why did you bother asking manufacturers to change their EULA's when it didn't suit your needs."

The introduction of more restrictions would have caused problems. I requested that the old license be used and the copy protection be removed. I wasn't going to break the scheme so that I could use the software occasionally. The company obviously didn't want the sale.

"Actually I think that's actually a dumb thought, because huge companies aren't going to modify a general purpose EULA for one person because they don't agree with it. And I don't think any company is going to worry over one sale."

Smaller companies are more agreeable because they want more sales and will change prices or terms to make the sale.

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 04:48 PM

"Funny, I think it meets all the criteria of a contract. We seem to have a disagreement."

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/martin.htm

You need to learn about real contracts before you can decide if something is legal. A EULA that makes unreasonable demands is illegal. If I open the software box and find that I don't agree with the license, I'm supposed to return the entire package to the store for a refund. But many retailers refuse to accept opened packages. If I don't know about the license before purchasing the software, there is no reasonable way to comply with that EULA, therefore the license can be made invalid. In Apple's case, the company did not provide any terms as a condition of purchase. When I opened the box, I found the EULA. Apple's license is actually not very restrictive when compared with those of other companies, and it can allow for multiple uses.

"You talk a lot about "non-profit" use. I just want to make sure we agree on terms. Do you mean that use of the software won't generate income for you, or it's used in a non-profit organization? If it's the latter, you can get software dirt cheap--and often free."

A non-profit use is any non-commercial use, which is a condition specified by many companies that allow users to download their software for free if the software isn't going to be used in any commercial setting.

hulugu

Mar 18, 2004, 04:50 PM

Car Dealers do it all the time. Its called a test drive. I've never used Garage Band, Apple offers no demo/Trial, and I don't have an easily accessible method of going to try it out. (I can drive 30 minutes to the apple store and play with it, but thats not enough to evaluate well enough and justify a purchase) And why blow $50 on something i won't use? as long as you aren't profiting on the software, I don't see the problem with taking it to learn/get used to the program before you spend the money on it. 30 day trials aren't even enough, because you only start getting used to the thing and then it expires on you. but once you decide you want the thing, you buy it. But to look at, there isn't much of a problem to me.

Nope, a test drive and going to the Apple store is the same thing. When you test drive a Jeep do you take it four-wheeling? Or take the mini-van to the grocery store or a truck to the hardware store and fill it up with bags of concrete? Nope. Nyet.
Instead you drive it around for 20-30 minutes, adjust the seats, marvel at the radio, blather with the car salesman, and take right turns. Furthermore, the test drive is a service, software companies are under no obligation to extend the same courtesy. Some do, in the case of a 30-day trial which is significantly more than the average test-drive.
Besides, a software pirate may have every intention of paying :rolleyes: but 99% just forget about it, so there's no good reason for a company to give out free versions without any kind of 'trial' systems built-in.
I still say that software piracy is the simple inability to see IP as something of value because of its ephemeral qualities.

jxyama

Mar 18, 2004, 05:01 PM

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/martin.htm

um, those are public comments. just because it's on the ftc website doesn't make it any more "official"... the guy's not a lawyer or anything...

I still say that software piracy is the simple inability to see IP as something of value because of its ephemeral qualities.

agreed.

and with that, i think i'm finally done here. it's been kinda fun, i guess, but i think both sides are just expressing the same point. that gets kind of tiring after a while...

have a good rest of the week everyone. ;)

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 05:47 PM

"it's up to the owner of the property to decide whether or not you can test it. you don't have some sort of inherent right to test whatever you want just because you want to. the only reason you can even "test" software is because it's a copyable. it's still a property and i believe right of the owners should be respected."

This leads to something called intellectual property rights, a new legal field that will take many years to define. I also have rights under fair-use, which prevent a copyright owner from making unreasonable demands. Do you watch television? Did you know that some organizations consider the act of ignoring the commercials stealing. Because the commercials are part of the program, you are stealing if you don't watch and listen to the commercials. Do you buy music CDs? What if you opened a non-returnable CD and found that it would only play if you used Microsoft Windows? What if a CD has a license restriction that limited your use of it to 20 uses, and you must run the entire CD - listing to part of it will count as one use; after 20 uses, the CD won't work anymore. If you bought a DVD movie, would you accept restrictions limiting you to watching it only between certain hours or would you like it if the disc wouldn't read 2 days after opening the package? Do you ever record television programs for later viewing? That's stealing too, because the broadcast company only intended for them to be viewed at those particular times. What your kind of blind attitude will do is make these types of restrictions even more common.

"if someone other than the property owner can determine whether or not testing should be allowed, then can i borrow your computer while i learn from it? yeah, you own it, but i've decided for myself that i'd like to test drive your computer."

Based on your personal attacks and bad attitude? No, you may not. But pretty much anyone local who asks may use my computer. The good part about doing this for Microsoft users is that after they try it, they want Linux too. I have guest accounts set up for different tasks like operating system demos and games. I can also bring a desktop unit to other people and let them try it for a day or so.

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 05:55 PM

Nope, a test drive and going to the Apple store is the same thing. When you test drive a Jeep do you take it four-wheeling? Or take the mini-van to the grocery store or a truck to the hardware store and fill it up with bags of concrete? Nope.

You've never been able to do an off-road test drive? I have some local dealers who want people to take the vehicles off-road, and even offer an area to try it. I met a customer at another dealership who was encouraged to take an SUV across the street to go shopping. He did and brought it back about an hour later; he then bought the vehicle.

Horrortaxi

Mar 18, 2004, 07:15 PM

It's been nice chatting with you, arogge, but for my own sanity I have to stop now.

tomf87

Mar 18, 2004, 07:22 PM

I agree with you, HorrorTaxi. It's like talking to a tape recorder, so I am stopping too.

hulugu

Mar 18, 2004, 08:45 PM

You've never been able to do an off-road test drive? I have some local dealers who want people to take the vehicles off-road, and even offer an area to try it. I met a customer at another dealership who was encouraged to take an SUV across the street to go shopping. He did and brought it back about an hour later; he then bought the vehicle.

That's very cool, I think a Jeep dealership in Phoenix does that, but the trails are dirt tracks with small rock beds, not a true test at all, but one to give you a least the feel.
But, I hope you understand my point, the dealer is not under any obligation to do this, they do it because it makes sales; software is similar.
I actually think the 30-day system and the Personal Learning Editions are great options for software companies to use.
Intellectual Property is the ability of the copywrite holder to maintain their rights to something they have created, this includes the financial aspects of such a work and the holder can retain these rights for a specific and limited period.
Fair-use is the ability for a consumer of copywrited work to retain this work for their personal use and enjoyment and extends only to copies or versions held in their personal possession. Anything beyond that is a subversion of these two rights.
These two systems should be balanced on the fulcrum of technological progress
'Nuff said.

arogge

Mar 18, 2004, 10:32 PM

hulugu

"But, I hope you understand my point, the dealer is not under any obligation to do this, they do it because it makes sales; software is similar."

A software company is similar, and I still say a lack of a reasonable deal means no sale. I don't understand why some people believe that software CDs are worth much of anything if they're sitting on a shelf. A software company should be willing to sell to different markets at different prices, something that Microsoft is trying now. The companies that have refused my business have lost money and saved no money. This simple fact is obviously beyond the understanding of some users and many marketing departments. Software discs are only worth something if people want them. I can plan a budget for and make 100 copies of Windows-based software for sale, but if I can't distribute the CDs right away they're costing me because I have to store them somewhere. It might only cost me a few cents to make a new CD that contains a version for a different platform, and I'd do that to get another customer instead of demanding lots more money and lose a sale as a result. I'm not saving money by letting media, with software that will quickly become obsolete, sit on a shelf. I'd want to move those CDs and get them into the hands of people who want them at any price, because a happy customer is usually a repeat customer. A car dealership can make deals, so why can't more software companies do the same thing?

"I actually think the 30-day system and the Personal Learning Editions are great options for software companies to use."

The 30-day trials aren't good at all, especially when they expire after only a few hours. Maya PLE is a good idea. I can try it and learn how to use it before buying it for commercial use, except that it only runs on OS X or Microsoft Windows 2000 and XP Professional.

"Fair-use is the ability for a consumer of copywrited work to retain this work for their personal use and enjoyment and extends only to copies or versions held in their personal possession. Anything beyond that is a subversion of these two rights.
These two systems should be balanced on the fulcrum of technological progress"

Now that I can agree with.
There is a big push for Open Source software in regions that were previously dominated by commercially-licensed software. Microsoft didn't get popular in Asia by selling software at full price, and now that Linux is there Microsoft doesn't like the competition. It's hard to compete with free stuff, even when you're a monopolist. A weird thing about Open Source software is that it can gain value if it is copied and distributed for free. For every new OpenOffice.org, Linux, or other free software package that is installed, Open Source becomes more popular and the demand increases. If certain companies continue to stick to their small markets by keeping prices high, Open Source will eventually dominate their old markets. My local computer store used to have Microsoft boxes taking up an entire set of shelves. Now that's been moved over to a smaller section and the old Microsoft display is now a big Linux software display combined with Open Source software promotions. :) People are buying what is really free software because they're getting more than a CD and a little instruction booklet inside the boxes.

arogge

Mar 19, 2004, 12:34 AM

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115251,tk,dn031804X,00.asp

hulugu

Mar 19, 2004, 12:42 AM

Now that I can agree with.
There is a big push for Open Source software in regions that were previously dominated by commercially-licensed software. Microsoft didn't get popular in Asia by selling software at full price, and now that Linux is there Microsoft doesn't like the competition. It's hard to compete with free stuff, even when you're a monopolist. A weird thing about Open Source software is that it can gain value if it is copied and distributed for free. For every new OpenOffice.org, Linux, or other free software package that is installed, Open Source becomes more popular and the demand increases. If certain companies continue to stick to their small markets by keeping prices high, Open Source will eventually dominate their old markets. My local computer store used to have Microsoft boxes taking up an entire set of shelves. Now that's been moved over to a smaller section and the old Microsoft display is now a big Linux software display combined with Open Source software promotions. :) People are buying what is really free software because they're getting more than a CD and a little instruction booklet inside the boxes.

I mean IP beyond even software, but nonetheless Open Source is easily the best thing that's happened to the zeitgeist of the computer market since the first Mac. The simple idea that not only can you have a true Personal Computer—I don't understand how IBM and x86 got such a hold of that term—but that you can now build software for it and then distribute that software under your own terms is quite amazing. OpenOffice is going to be my next Office Suite for sure—I would already but I was turned off by needing to run X11, etc., I'm going to wait for a true installer—and GIMP is getting very cool and is beginning to compete with the monolithic Adobe. The shear amount of shareware, etc. that exists out there now, much of it is actually quite good. Even something as powerful as Konfabulator or Salling Clicker come from little guys and while they ask that you pay for their software I don't mind shelling out a few bucks to help a developer. I like paying for good products because it allows me to vote with my pocketbook; I buy products I like, or companies I have faith in. And that allows me to do so on a interpersonal level that really starts to matter. Since Apple has done so much to help me to the things I want to do I don't mind shelling out 50.00 for iLife or 99.00 for .Mac because these things are very useful to me. I worry, especially in the case of Apple, that if enough people pirate their software they must stop development and
now we're all screwed because someone tried to cheat the system; it's the Prisoner's Dilemma and the only way to win this game is for everyone to play by the rules.
And, I mean everyone; I'm talking to you Bill! Yeah, you the geeky billionaire with the same bowl haircut—I mean come'on he could buy an Enzo for every day of the year and he still can't get anything better than a trip to Supercuts!
I hate that guy.