Software Piracy seen as Normal

[crachoar]

That's interesting, because it is $50 for students (Elements), as others have already pointed out. And for non-students Elements can be had for about $80. If you absolutely need the few features that CS reserves over Elements, then you're a professional who will more than pay for it with your first job. Even if you're just starting out, you have to realize that starting a business takes an investment of capital. And there are plenty of ways for people without a lot of money to get it for business purposes.

There's just no excuse for software piracy in my book.

I want to just hate you and move on, but...the teacher in me wants to get this point across...

Ok. Elements is not used in university level classes. Hell, it's not even used in High School courses.

Elements is a (get ready to take some notes) 'consumer-grade photo-editing application'.

What does that mean?

Well, if you have a Photoshop-based course, that requires you do create project files with Photoshop CS2 - using Elements isn't going to cut it, as many of the features aren't there - not to mention, that it's an eitrely different program.

And I don't know if you were ever a student - but the facilities in most class aren't big enough to facilitate an entire student body. You're lucky if there is one free computer.

Not to mention the fact the fact that there are 'mac labs' and 'PC labs'. That's really fun when you have an HFS formatted drive...

So, let's say you do find a computer to use - you've got, what? An hour, at most, before the next class is in session, and you have to leave?

What I'm saying is - it's nearly impossible to be a successful student without owning your own computer, as well as the software you need to complete your courses.

And, I'm spent...

Have a good one gents.

 

[WinterMute]

You realize, that in the end - the person can't afford this program. Can't buy. So, them downloading it and using it could be considered the same thing as if they hadn't downloaded it at all.

'Wha-wha-wha?'

Just blew your mind? Ok, here:

In the end - they're not stealing, as much as they are 'using without a license'. The company sees no lost profit from Joe Consumer downloading Photoshop, because in the end - they don't know - and they don't host the bandwidth anyway. They're not losing anything. If anything, they're gaining his interest in their product.

I'll bet you my Powerbook that there are plenty of people around the world that have purchased games, music, software, movies, etc. that they otherwise, never would've looked at - thanks to P2P file-sharing.

I know that's how I found half of the bands I support today...

If it was all poor folks who couldn't afford the kit then you might (and it's a very tenuous might) have a point, but I'd bet your PowerBook (not mine you'll notice, mine's too precious) that the vast majority of downloaders could afford to buy their software, but don't because it's cheaper to download and steal it.

I know 20 year professionals in audio, video and post production who routinely steal software because they can and they know they won't get caught, these guys pull down £40-£150K a year easily, but still choose to steal.

For every pauper you can point to there are 20 "suits" stealing for the hell of it. There's your morality and it sucks.

Incidentally, do you then buy they releases of these new bands once (if) they hit the shops? If they never do, are these artists supposed to be grateful because you enjoyed their work for free and contributed to them being unable to continue playing music because they couldn't afford to?

How many great albums do we have to miss before you realise how badly this is affecting the musicians. NOT the music industry, not the record companies but the musicians.

Pretty justifications for obtaining any copyright material (physical or intellectual) without paying it's owners still equal theft.

 

[WinterMute]

Ok. Elements is not used in university level classes. Hell, it's not even used in High School courses.

Elements is a (get ready to take some notes) 'consumer-grade photo-editing application'.

What does that mean?

Well, if you have a Photoshop-based course, that requires you do create project files with Photoshop CS2 - using Elements isn't going to cut it, as many of the features aren't there - not to mention, that it's an eitrely different program.

Same in Music Tech, the students can't use Logic Express because the EXS24 sampler is playback only.... the cheap versions of high end software often miss the really important stuff i.e. no batch capture/recapture in Final Cut Express.

And I don't know if you were ever a student - but the facilities in most class aren't big enough to facilitate an entire student body. You're lucky if there is one free computer.

Not to mention the fact the fact that there are 'mac labs' and 'PC labs'. That's really fun when you have an HFS formatted drive...

So, let's say you do find a computer to use - you've got, what? An hour, at most, before the next class is in session, and you have to leave?

We are purchasing 85 copies of Logic Pro 7 this year to ensure the students don't have this problem, the labs have no classes scheduled in them and they are open 24/7. BUT we are in the minority in HE establishments. The upgrade cycle for pro software is way too fast for most educational establishments to even hope to keep up.

What I'm saying is - it's nearly impossible to be a successful student without owning your own computer, as well as the software you need to complete your courses.

And, I'm spent...

Have a good one gents.

Totally agree, our students often end up buying complete systems at the beginning of their courses to ease their demand on the Uni's facilities, so the ones who have often do better than the ones who can't afford to have.

Most of our facilities planning goes into trying to ensure a level playing field for all not just the ones with money.

Luckily it's not as easy to replicate a G5 as it is to download Photoshop on BitTorrent.

I'm happy to see Apple and Digidesign protecting their software with hardware dongles or interfaces, it may be the best way to stop piracy.

Have a good one yourself...

 

[JeffTL]

The only software I feel okay about bootlegging is out-of-print stuff, e.g. old games.

I don't see any moral problem since nobody is denied any licensing or sale proceeds, and there is no practical legal issue since nobody is going to sue over a bootleg of something no longer sold.


(Standard law-related-post disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so this is NOT LEGAL ADVICE)

 

[bankshot]

I want to just hate you and move on, but...the teacher in me wants to get this point across...

<Yoda>To the dark side hate leads...</Yoda>

Well, if you have a Photoshop-based course, that requires you do create project files with Photoshop CS2 - using Elements isn't going to cut it, as many of the features aren't there - not to mention, that it's an eitrely different program.

Fine. If you're taking classes aimed at learning the professional features of Photoshop CS2, then you need that version. Just doing a quick check, it can be had for $290 educational, as compared with $560 normally. I don't know about you, but I spent much more than that on books and supplies each semester in college 10 years ago. I'm sure they cost more now. It's all part of the cost of getting a good education. Anyone who can't afford it ought to be able to get financial aid. Heck, I'm just now about to pay off my last student loan, 9 years after graduating. No sympathy here.

What I'm saying is - it's nearly impossible to be a successful student without owning your own computer, as well as the software you need to complete your courses.

I agree with this. And I say there's absolutely no excuse for pirating software that you need for any reason - school, work, or otherwise. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Simple, isn't it?

 

[iindigo]

I am sorry to admit that I do use pirated software - namely Photoshop CS. I'm 16 and I'm not able to afford it, however I have recently landed a job that actually requires Photoshop-only features, and Photoshop Elements or the GIMP simply won't do. However coming with this job is a nice payday ($2000/month) so I will be able to buy Photoshop in a month or so, and that I will do.

I do agree that prices do need to be lowered - what I think companies fail to see is that if they lower the price of their software, they will sell more compies of the software than they would have previously and end up making more money in the long run. I wish companies like Adobe would see this - it would make things easier for a lot of people. Until then piracy will continue to grow until it kills the company.

Slightly O.T., but before anybody asks, I'm no Photoshop newbie - I've been using Photoshop for all my graphics works since late 2000.

 

[CanadaRAM]

Who said anything about piracy, other than you?-blather blather blather-
Either way, I think we can all agree that Gatorade is better than Powerade.
Cheers.

Not worth replying to. Except I won't let the misuse of the term "Fair Use" skate...

Fair Use does not mean "It is fair to do this".

Call it "legitimate use" if you like, but Fair Use is a specific legal term under the US Copyright legislation (Title 17, Section 107) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 (* below)

It is a USA-only concept. Canada has superficially similar legislation that is fundamentally different legally. Don't know about anywhere else.

Fair Use protects reporters, teachers, students, authors and the like from prosecution when they quote portions of copyrighted works for the purposes of commentary, criticism, education and research. There are criteria that are applied to the intended use that must be met to qualify the copying for Fair Use, including
- how much of the work is being copied,
- what the intended use is (education or reporting, vs commercial),
- the nature of the material being copied, and
- the impact on the copyright holder.

Fair Use does not apply to the copying of media for personal (or other) use.
I don't know what US legislation covers that. The Betamax decision doesn't really apply because it pertained only to broadcast video that was being offered for free (if you are being offered it free over the air, then you can tape it and view it later for private and non-commercial purposes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios
Full ruling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=417

In Canada it is legal to make a CD or casette tape copy of music (and only music, not video) for personal use, because we pay a royalty on every blank CD and tape to pay the copyright holders. But it is not legal to make a duplicate and then give that duplicate to someone else.


* Title 17, Section 107
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall includeó

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

 

[dotdotdot]

As I've said before in another thread, the reason I think people pirate software is the following:

- If they use a demo of something, its a DEMO. It looses functionality and has a time limit, and its useless.

- On the Windows side, most shareware or "Lite" versions are PACKED with Spyware and adware.

- Half of all software costs WAY too much. Why should Photoshop CS2 cost over $1,000? Why shouldn't it just cost $200 - if everyone that purchased CS2 for $1,000 purchased it for $200, they would still have more money than they started with. Not to mention that after a while, the software becomes outdated - who wants to buy CS2 when they know that their $1,000 investment will not even last another 10, or even 5, years? Thats spending $2,000 in 10 years for the same software, just a new version!

- Its so easy - in fact, its easier than buying it. For example: Someone needs to DESPERATLY use iWork for Keynote, which needs to be ready the next day. Either they can go to apple.com and buy it and wait a week for it to ship, or they can go to Google.com and search for it.

Now, pirating software is bad, but in most cases its more practical.

Plus, over 90% of computer users using XP use a crap os, where their purchased software doesn't work 1/2 the time. On Mac OS X, it works, so why not support the company? Exactly.

 

[toothpaste]

If it was all poor folks who couldn't afford the kit then you might (and it's a very tenuous might) have a point, but I'd bet your PowerBook (not mine you'll notice, mine's too precious) that the vast majority of downloaders could afford to buy their software, but don't because it's cheaper to download and steal it.

I know 20 year professionals in audio, video and post production who routinely steal software because they can and they know they won't get caught, these guys pull down £40-£150K a year easily, but still choose to steal.

For every pauper you can point to there are 20 "suits" stealing for the hell of it. There's your morality and it sucks.

I had an interesting class in college that I don't recall the course name of hand but it dealt with morals. Morals and ethics are not universal at all. So "stealing" in your book is not necessarily "stealing" in mine. I make no pretenses or excuses at all I have in the past and probably will again in the future download software that is overpriced that I want to try.

 

[iGary]

Oh yes - boo-hoo. The poor corporations are being torn down by Joe Consumer.

Awww, they can't afford to have beta testers! It's total anarchy!

So if I go next door to your rich neighbor house and steal his BMW, #1, becuase he can afford it, and #2, I think BMW needs me as a test driver, it is OK to steal his car?

Gotcha.

In the end - they're not stealing, as much as they are 'using without a license'. The company sees no lost profit from Joe Consumer downloading Photoshop, because in the end - they don't know - and they don't host the bandwidth anyway. They're not losing anything. If anything, they're gaining his interest in their product.

OK, you steal $1100.00 worth of software and they are losing nothing.

Again, gotcha.

$600 for Photoshop is outrageous for students and small businesses.

Compared to what, FREE? I bought CS when I was in school (the whole suite) for 370 some odd dollars...a small business has to spend money to make it.

Don't forget iPhoto. I mean, you can edit photos right? That's the same thing, right? It has 'Photo' in the name, it's gotta be rougly the same thing - which is good enough.

This has what to do with nothing? Photoshop Elements is a perfectly suitable program for most people.

Yes, there's no difference between taking a penny out of a multi-billion dollar jar and stealing somebody's Powerbook from their home (for your own financial gain, no less).

Good, we agree.

Now, when somebody downloads a copy of Photoshop - does Adobe have to lay off all of it's employees and file for bankruptcy?

So now you're disagreeing with yourself?

I think you're confused.

 

[iGary]

Why should Photoshop CS2 cost over $1,000? Why shouldn't it just cost $200

I felt the same way about the last $1800.00 lens I bought.

Get real.

 

[wiseguy27]

Although I've seen many valid points from "both sides", I think a couple of aspects that encourage piracy have been missed out.
1. "Affordability" - this means whether or not a person feels they can afford something. Of course, people will take anything that comes by for free, but at the same time, people would also be willing to pay what they think they can afford and what they think the product is worth in their present situation. This doesn't include certain people who will always pirate stuff because they want everything for free. But there are many who would want to pay a "reasonable" price for something that makes their life more worthwhile.

2. "Cost of living" - ever wonder why software is so expensive? It's so damn expensive because the people who develop it (and more importantly, their CEOs) get huge salaries. Employ 15 developers for a year and you're down more than a million dollars!!! I'm not disputing the effort it takes to produce good software (being a developer myself), but the main reason software is grossly overpriced is because of greed on the part of the company.

In the US, this also boils down to the concept that anything that ever involves a human (and not a machine) is going to be damn expensive! There is a price for creativity and intelligence, but the overall economy skews the whole equation. Do you think that Photoshop CS2 would cost around $600 if it were completely developed in China or India or some other lower wage country? (ok, in a way it still would because Adobe is greedy - in the question above, change the word from "would" to "should" and the answer would be different). Please don't start an argument about sweatshops - that's an entirely different industry! People in the software industry in lower wage countries earn a lot more than their peers in other industries even though they get a pay that's about 1/3rd or 1/5th of the pay a person would get in the US (or some other high wage country). If the "cost of living" goes down in the US and other countries, the cost of software would also go down.

While the cost of even "simple labor" in the US seems high (ever seen how much "labor" costs for a simple diagnosis/repair for an automobile compared to the estimated cost of parts?), we also see people complaining about how the minimum wage is just not enough. Doesn't that sound paradoxical? So who's getting all that money then??? I think huge corporations and the government connive together to make life simpler for the top people amongst them. As for the rest of the world, what do they care?!

People who say that if you can't afford something then it's not for you are most likely falling into the capitalist trap that only promotes the divide between the "haves" and the "have nots". Unless capitalistic greed can be controlled, there won't be any solution to this problem (other than making tougher laws and treating everyone as "guilty until proven innocent", which is what DRM and "activation technologies" blatantly promote).

Anyway, I don't condone software piracy because in many cases it kills smaller developers. Those who develop "freeware" and "donationware" rarely get anything by way of donation - that's a fact of life! One would think that even if each user contributed $2 (a cup of coffee?) to each donationware product, the developer would make at least $2000! But the truth is far from that. Most donationware developers rarely see more than $500 per month - a miniscule percentage of users subsidizes the rest. "Selling" something seems to be the right solution for our times, but pricing is a thorny issue (combined with other factors mentioned above).

I doubt if I made much sense in this whole post, but I feel that the overall state of affairs with regards to the cost of living and how corporations care only about their top people is a big factor that's skewed against the "not so rich".

 

[WinterMute]

I had an interesting class in college that I don't recall the course name of hand but it dealt with morals. Morals and ethics are not universal at all. So "stealing" in your book is not necessarily "stealing" in mine. I make no pretenses or excuses at all I have in the past and probably will again in the future download software that is overpriced that I want to try.

I understand that and you have a point, but I think the bottom line lies in observing the laws of the country you inhabit, not just the ones you feel like observing. Laws are made to protect the weak and helpless, and yes, they are often mis-applied and hijacked by the powerful for their own ends, but without them the poor and weak go to the wall and anarchy reigns.

Whether you feel it to be ethically OK to steal, I doubt your country does, if you steal software or music you are still breaking the law whatever your moral stance, and could be prosecuted for it.

 

[Les Kern]

I know this is just how things work but I prefer to try before i buy, and that's basically how I justify ripping these companies off.

So with that logic, stealing a car is justified? I mean, I need to try it before I buy it, right? Why sure. I think that's why there are forums, consumer reports, reviews, MacWorld, PCWorld... etc.
Please dont try to justify theft. Can't be done honestly. You want it, so you take it. Right?

 

[Sharewaredemon]

As I've said before in another thread, the reason I think people pirate software is the following:

- If they use a demo of something, its a DEMO. It looses functionality and has a time limit, and its useless.

- On the Windows side, most shareware or "Lite" versions are PACKED with Spyware and adware.

- Half of all software costs WAY too much. Why should Photoshop CS2 cost over $1,000? Why shouldn't it just cost $200 - if everyone that purchased CS2 for $1,000 purchased it for $200, they would still have more money than they started with. Not to mention that after a while, the software becomes outdated - who wants to buy CS2 when they know that their $1,000 investment will not even last another 10, or even 5, years? Thats spending $2,000 in 10 years for the same software, just a new version!

- Its so easy - in fact, its easier than buying it. For example: Someone needs to DESPERATLY use iWork for Keynote, which needs to be ready the next day. Either they can go to apple.com and buy it and wait a week for it to ship, or they can go to Google.com and search for it.

Now, pirating software is bad, but in most cases its more practical.

Plus, over 90% of computer users using XP use a crap os, where their purchased software doesn't work 1/2 the time. On Mac OS X, it works, so why not support the company? Exactly.

I like your points, all good ones.

Except I'm the opposite about what's more convenient. I'd rather buy something than steal it. To me I don't have to worry about serial numbers and find a good copy and sitting in front of my computer browsing P2Ps for the program....

I've pirated one program by downloading, and that's it. I can't be bothered.
Something else I've noticed with me is that I get more and more into Macs, I want to be buying my software more and more.
My dad seems to be like this more now too.
For example we stole Panther, but bought Tiger.
Same with Toast and Popcorn, when Tiger came out, we decided to buy it. We've been using the software for a while, and feel that we should support the company. (We also wanted the updates...)

The examples of not needing the pro features if you aren't a pro doesn't make sense to me.

I'm a history major at university but I'm very in to video editing. I use a copy of Final Cut Pro 4.5 that I downloaded. Recently I booted up FCE at work and I tried to do a simple motion keyframe. Well, FCE doesn't support motion keyframes.

So me, being a history major, and not a Pro video editor, does this mean that I don't need to use motion keyframes?
Or variable slow motion?


Anyway I'm never going to pirate another copy of FCP which means that I'm stuck with this version, as there is no need for me to spend 879 dollars on a piece of software that has nothing to do with my major, (I'm not taking any film courses) and will be 2 to 3 versions behind by the time I graduate.

I felt the same way about the last $1800.00 lens I bought.

Get real.

I'd rather spend that amount of money on a lens, than that on a piece of software.

To me, buying a physical object like a camera lens makes more sense.

How long are you going to be using this lens?

If you buy a new lens are you going to throw that one out?

The point I'm tying to make (and I don't feel I'm doing a good job) is that if you buy Adobe CS 2, you're gonna want to buy CS 3 when it comes out.

Once you have CS 3, you aren't going to need CS 2 anymore.

Whereas a lens you will probably still have a use for.

Sorry if I offended anyone, it really wasn't my intention. This is a very touchy subject, and I really like everyone here on Macrumors, so if I've said anything you disagree with, please try to be nice in your rebuttal.

Thanks

 

[Mblazened]

I looked at your illustrations. I like some of them, but they're not 100% to my needs. I'm not sure if using your illustration will work for my client. Might mess up my project.

If you won't lower your prices by 50%, i'll just take one off of your website and use it. Ok?

THAT'S how i justify your sketchy morals.

m

Good point! It would obviously suck if people went around stealing my illustrations and using them without permission.

Yet we all steal ideas... anytime you record your favorite TV shows (don't tell me you've never done this), you infringe on copyright. You speak against piracy like your hands are so clean... are they really?

 

[Moxiemike]

Good point! It would obviously suck if people went around stealing my illustrations and using them without permission.

Yet we all steal ideas... anytime you record your favorite TV shows (don't tell me you've never done this), you infringe on copyright. You speak against piracy like your hands are so clean... are they really?

i've never owned a tv nor do i watch that stuff.

recently i bought one to play some legal gamecubes games. i bought NHL 2005 used for $19. don't need to pirate it, waste time trying to download it, having the download fail, and not being able to play a game or two with my pals.

TV has nothing worth me recording and watching later. I'd rather read a book or take some photos.

 

[WinterMute]

Good point! It would obviously suck if people went around stealing my illustrations and using them without permission.

Yet we all steal ideas... anytime you record your favorite TV shows (don't tell me you've never done this), you infringe on copyright. You speak against piracy like your hands are so clean... are they really?

I speak against it as I find it, as you say, we all video off-air, but not with the intention of getting something for nothing. In the UK, we pay a yearly license fee that allows us to view programmes, videotaping is viewed under the "Tiimeshifting" legislation, i.e. a copy made for future viewing.

If I was going to duplicate 100 copies of a film and sell them at Camden Lock, you'd have a point, but "fair use" in the States allows for this personal-use copying provided we own the original media.

It's about intent, I download DVD Studio Pro 3 from BitTorrent, and I install it on my Mac, I'm robbing Apple of the revenue, if I give the discs to my friend, he's an accomplice. It's the intention to steal that is the crux of the matter.

As a University lecturer, the concept of stealing ideas is even worse, knowledge is our stock in trade and without the identification of authorship we cannot assign credit. It's called plagiarism and you can be dismissed for it.

 

[Mblazened]

As a University lecturer, the concept of stealing ideas is even worse, knowledge is our stock in trade and without the identification of authorship we cannot assign credit. It's called plagiarism and you can be dismissed for it.

I like the image for your avatar. I don't see any identification of authorship... so I guess that must be some original artwork of yours!

 

[WinterMute]

I like the image for your avatar. I don't see any identification of authorship... so I guess that must be some original artwork of yours!

Oh, good try... <applause>

Nope, it's a scan from a book by W E Eascher, which I bought about 20 years ago, I have several volumes of his work and 1 original woodblock print. Fair use? Intent?

I wish I could draw like that.

 

[Mblazened]

Nope, it's a scan from a book by W E Eascher, which I bought about 20 years ago, I have several volumes of his work and 1 original woodblock print. Fair use? Intent?

We call him M C Escher here in the states. Is that his translated name?

 

[iMeowbot]

Yet we all steal ideas... anytime you record your favorite TV shows (don't tell me you've never done this), you infringe on copyright.

It will vary from place to place, but that is false in the US. In Sony v. Universal it was established that "noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement."

 

[Mechcozmo]

I'm a history major at university but I'm very in to video editing. I use a copy of Final Cut Pro 4.5 that I downloaded. Recently I booted up FCE at work and I tried to do a simple motion keyframe. Well, FCE doesn't support motion keyframes.

Actually it does, but the icons aren't there for it. Use Control+K to insert a keyframe.

 

[WinterMute]

We call him M C Escher here in the states. Is that his translated name?

No. it's me posting while doing too many other things, got him and Auden confused, yes, it's an MC Escher illustration...

 

[coolsoldier]

I think that what leads to the casual attitude about piracy is the lack of scarcity. That's where any analogy to stealing a physical product breaks down.

When you steal a product, you directly deprive someone else of its use. For instance, if you steal your neighbor's car, then your neighbor can't use it anymore. But if you pirate your neighbor's copy of Photoshop, your neighbor's ability to use his copy of Photoshop has not been affected at all.

Piracy is illegal. But in most cases, people's ideas of "right" and "wrong" aren't based on the law. A lot of people decide whether something is right or wrong based on whether it hurts another person -- which makes piracy, in most people's eyes, less "bad" than outright theft.