Can A Pirated Copy of GB Effect its Performance?

[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.

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!!

 

[jxyama]

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

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]

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

 

[arogge]

"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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jxyama]

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?)

 

[arogge]

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]

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?)

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]

Totally agree

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

Hey jxyama what software company do you work for?

 

[Horrortaxi]

[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]

"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]

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?