Dumbasses need to stop pirating software.

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ranger X
Maybe if software wasn't so expensive more people would buy it. Piracy will never end. By the time the industry introduces a new method of copy protection, someone has already found a way around it before the announcement is made.

People would still pirate it. It does cost quite a bit to employ good programmers, setup facilities, etc.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Screw anti-pirates. It's people that show the companies that you are willing to pay so much for software. $50 a game? Bump that.

No piracy or reduced piracy would lead to less expensive software titles and games. Assclowns that pirate the software drive up the cost for those that purchase it.

It's a circular argument. The reason people steal the software is because it's overpriced. The reason it's overpriced is because people steal it. If the software companies would price their software reasonably, then piracy would go down, guaranteed.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

There you go 🙂 It's ok to steal in those cases IF you can truly and honestly to yourself say you'd never be buying it otherwise. Whether that's from the standpoint of you're dirt poor or a VW is not even worth a single $1 to you, then yes it's fine for you to "steal" it. Now, if being honest and true to yourself a VW is still worth $20k, then stealing it with the replicator is a no-no. I find few things in morality black and white and anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

Most of the MP3s I have are ones I'd never have otherwise paid a nickel for. I sleep well at night. Some of them I would have otherwise bought but didn't. THOSE are the ones that skoorbie is a bad boy for.

Well, I can see that being true in principle, but even you admit that you have stuff that you didn't pay for that you would have paid for if you had to. If people HAD to pay for software, you'd see people with 3 or 4 video games that they paid for instead of 30 or 40 that they got for free. Sure, you're right, they wouldnt have paid for most of them, but they would have paid for a few of them.

I can't believe we seem to mostly agree but I do achknowledge that if mp3s/software were impossible to steal I'd have paid more for them. It's a unique case where given that "most" of the stuff I have simply wasn't worth enough to me to pay for the lines are easily blurred and I end up settling into a rut of not actually paying for anything.

I think ideally manufacturers of software could have a mind reader and scan your brain. Or give you a lie detector test. If they could honestly tell that a $700 piece of code to you is only woth $200 and you just won't pay $700 I'm sure they'd give it to you for $200. At the same time there wouldn't be much wrong with them asking for $1500 if you think it's worth that for you. I suppose anything else would be hypocrisy.

 

[idNut]

Originally posted by: deerslayer

Originally posted by: notfred
You're ruining it for the rest of us.

It's never going to end, deal with it.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I agree.... it's easily settled legally...
it's more of a moral issue...

If my son is using some software at school and wants to finish working on his project at home..... I'm not going to go out and purchase a $700 program for 2 or 3 uses... I will always be happy to pay for software that I use on a regular basis... but I doubt I'll ever pay more than $10 for something I'm only going to use once or twice. If some of the companies had an option such as $700 for the lifetime license, or $2 per use... I'd go with a per use fee. Til then... I'll just pirate it. On the other hand... I'm more than happy to pay hundreds of dollars for programs like Mathematica, because I use them regularly.

I got a free copy of photoshop with a hard drive.

Same deal. New hard drives aren't $10 last time I checked.

 

[PatboyX]

i think its all about providing a good product. ill go buy the no one lives forever games but i wont buy matrix becuase i couldnt play i for more than a minute without getting bored.
there will always be people that steal but i think even those people know when something comes along worth dropping some cash on (maybe not 50 but used games or just time can help the price problem)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

There you go 🙂 It's ok to steal in those cases IF you can truly and honestly to yourself say you'd never be buying it otherwise. Whether that's from the standpoint of you're dirt poor or a VW is not even worth a single $1 to you, then yes it's fine for you to "steal" it. Now, if being honest and true to yourself a VW is still worth $20k, then stealing it with the replicator is a no-no. I find few things in morality black and white and anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

Most of the MP3s I have are ones I'd never have otherwise paid a nickel for. I sleep well at night. Some of them I would have otherwise bought but didn't. THOSE are the ones that skoorbie is a bad boy for.

There are much cheaper alternatives to the VW though. You can get decent cars for under $10k. You can get alternatives to much of this software for free. Can you really justify stealing a $20k car when you could easily steal a $9k car? How can you justify using pirated software that costs $700 when you can use legit software at the cost of a download?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I agree.... it's easily settled legally...
it's more of a moral issue...

If my son is using some software at school and wants to finish working on his project at home..... I'm not going to go out and purchase a $700 program for 2 or 3 uses... I will always be happy to pay for software that I use on a regular basis... but I doubt I'll ever pay more than $10 for something I'm only going to use once or twice. If some of the companies had an option such as $700 for the lifetime license, or $2 per use... I'd go with a per use fee. Til then... I'll just pirate it. On the other hand... I'm more than happy to pay hundreds of dollars for programs like Mathematica, because I use them regularly.

I got a free copy of photoshop with a hard drive.

Same deal. New hard drives aren't $10 last time I checked.

But who doesn't need more hard drive space? 😉

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

There you go 🙂 It's ok to steal in those cases IF you can truly and honestly to yourself say you'd never be buying it otherwise. Whether that's from the standpoint of you're dirt poor or a VW is not even worth a single $1 to you, then yes it's fine for you to "steal" it. Now, if being honest and true to yourself a VW is still worth $20k, then stealing it with the replicator is a no-no. I find few things in morality black and white and anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

Most of the MP3s I have are ones I'd never have otherwise paid a nickel for. I sleep well at night. Some of them I would have otherwise bought but didn't. THOSE are the ones that skoorbie is a bad boy for.

There are much cheaper alternatives to the VW though. You can get decent cars for under $10k. You can get alternatives to much of this software for free. Can you really justify stealing a $20k car when you could easily steal a $9k car? How can you justify using pirated software that costs $700 when you can use legit software at the cost of a download?

Cost of a download? In either case nobody is making money off you. If you have $0 to your name, why not get the better software? WHO in fact are you hurting at that point?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Roger
I am not going to argue with you Bigbong, you took something that is not yours without paying, that is theft no matter how you look at it, all this is just symantics.

So then you're talking morally. It is an important distinction to make - because at least in the US, copyright infringment and theft are two different things, legally.

If people want to argue about morals, then it's pointless. The debate will never end, and nothing will be gained from it.

If people want to argue about laws -- fine, BUT -- since when should we follow the law to the letter? Wouldn't that create the type of nation that caused oppressed europeans to move here and start the US in the first place?

They moved away. Towards something more agreeable... Maybe a movie to a consumer friendly OS and software is in order?

I don't really see it happening. Code monkeys don't like, or aren't good at making idiot-friendly software, so generally this stuff only gets done well by companies. Those companies then sell their products. Look at what's happening to linux. You can buy redhat advanced server for $1500+. Free is too risky and dangerous for most people, for the same reason that everyone has savings accounts instead of cash in a safe at home, car/home/life insurance instead of saving money, etc etc.

...Although it seems linux is slowly crawling onto the desktop. I'm just not sure what will need to happen for it to get there all the way.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If volkswagon invented the replicator from star trek, put it in their dealership, and used it to create cars to sell (at a cost per car of $0 to VW) would it be OK to steal the cars then?

What about your favorite author's latest novel, is it OK to make a photocopy of that instead of paying for the book?

There you go 🙂 It's ok to steal in those cases IF you can truly and honestly to yourself say you'd never be buying it otherwise. Whether that's from the standpoint of you're dirt poor or a VW is not even worth a single $1 to you, then yes it's fine for you to "steal" it. Now, if being honest and true to yourself a VW is still worth $20k, then stealing it with the replicator is a no-no. I find few things in morality black and white and anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

Most of the MP3s I have are ones I'd never have otherwise paid a nickel for. I sleep well at night. Some of them I would have otherwise bought but didn't. THOSE are the ones that skoorbie is a bad boy for.

There are much cheaper alternatives to the VW though. You can get decent cars for under $10k. You can get alternatives to much of this software for free. Can you really justify stealing a $20k car when you could easily steal a $9k car? How can you justify using pirated software that costs $700 when you can use legit software at the cost of a download?

Cost of a download? In either case nobody is making money off you. If you have $0 to your name, why not get the better software? WHO in fact are you hurting at that point?

What makes the free software worse? The fact that people don't bother to promote it as much? The fact that it is free? You obviously don't need the software, most people who do buy it. Might as well help out the free project. With more users the project will get better and be a much better competitor to the proprietary one. Competition brings prices down 😉

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Screw anti-pirates. It's people that show the companies that you are willing to pay so much for software. $50 a game? Bump that.

No piracy or reduced piracy would lead to less expensive software titles and games. Assclowns that pirate the software drive up the cost for those that purchase it.

And for that reason, piracy will continue.



Btw, where is this going? Nowhere.


Goodthing I have work because I'd probably sit here for another 30 minutes like a bafoon talking about this crap. Enjoy y'alls day.

Heh.. I'm only sitting here babbling like a baboon because I'm at work. 🙂

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Roger
I am not going to argue with you Bigbong, you took something that is not yours without paying, that is theft no matter how you look at it, all this is just symantics.

So then you're talking morally. It is an important distinction to make - because at least in the US, copyright infringment and theft are two different things, legally.

If people want to argue about morals, then it's pointless. The debate will never end, and nothing will be gained from it.

If people want to argue about laws -- fine, BUT -- since when should we follow the law to the letter? Wouldn't that create the type of nation that caused oppressed europeans to move here and start the US in the first place?

They moved away. Towards something more agreeable... Maybe a movie to a consumer friendly OS and software is in order?

I don't really see it happening. Code monkeys don't like, or aren't good at making idiot-friendly software, so generally this stuff only gets done well by companies. Those companies then sell their products. Look at what's happening to linux. You can buy redhat advanced server for $1500+. Free is too risky and dangerous for most people, for the same reason that everyone has savings accounts instead of cash in a safe at home, car/home/life insurance instead of saving money, etc etc.

...Although it seems linux is slowly crawling onto the desktop. I'm just not sure what will need to happen for it to get there all the way.

This is Anandtech. This isn't granny.com. Many of the users here aren't idiots. They can figure it out. They don't want to, and that is the problem.

What does linux need? User support.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: MangoTBG

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
Screw anti-pirates. It's people that show the companies that you are willing to pay so much for software. $50 a game? Bump that.

No piracy or reduced piracy would lead to less expensive software titles and games. Assclowns that pirate the software drive up the cost for those that purchase it.

And for that reason, piracy will continue.



Btw, where is this going? Nowhere.


Goodthing I have work because I'd probably sit here for another 30 minutes like a bafoon talking about this crap. Enjoy y'alls day.

Heh.. I'm only sitting here babbling like a baboon because I'm at work. 🙂

Ditto 😉

That and the big Ls in the next office worry me. 😛

 

[igowerf]

I think one of the big problems now is casual pirating. People who regularly use computers see that they can pirate software easily and that so many other people do it. To them, software piracy is about as bad as jay walking, especially since everyone does it. They'll send copies of software to all their friends without even thinking twice, spreading their feelings of casual piracy. These people won't even think of buying a $20 piece of software that they regularly use.

I've found that people who don't use computers regularly actually try go out to buy their software. They don't yet see how easy it is to pirate a piece of software. They still feel that piracy is stealing.

 

[Kntx]

Software piracy makes me so sad to be in software development. To know that projects I poured my heart and soul into are being traded for pr0n on IRC.

So next time you pirate software, remember not only are you stealing a product, but a piece of my heart.

 

[igowerf]

Originally posted by: Kntx
Software piracy makes me so sad to be in software development. To know that projects I poured my heart and soul into are being traded for pr0n on IRC.

So next time you pirate software, remember not only are you stealing a product, but a piece of my heart.

:brokenheart: 🙁

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: brtspears2
Activation is sure better than back in the day ... "Look on page 41, word 6 of the 3rd paragraph in the manual to continue..."

the

at

with

and just continue on down the line 😀

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Same deal. New hard drives aren't $10 last time I checked.

But who doesn't need more hard drive space? 😉

Now that's something I can agree with. 🙂

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Kntx
Software piracy makes me so sad to be in software development. To know that projects I poured my heart and soul into are being traded for pr0n on IRC.

So next time you pirate software, remember not only are you stealing a product, but a piece of my heart.

Wait... I can get porn for this stuff?

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

Yea but adobe isnt being compensated for all of the effort that their employees put into writing software.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

Yea but adobe isnt being compensated for all of the effort that their employees put into writing software.

Whether you can copy their software or not doesn't change the fact that they will not be getting compenstated by John; he simply cannot afford it. He harms nobody by thusly taking what he cannot afford and what costs nothing to reproduce.

What makes the free software worse? The fact that people don't bother to promote it as much? The fact that it is free? You obviously don't need the software, most people who do buy it. Might as well help out the free project. With more users the project will get better and be a much better competitor to the proprietary one. Competition brings prices down

Hey you're bringing other things into it now 😉

I've really said basically all I have to say about it! I think in some cases software "piracy" is perfectly moral, as I stated above. And then in other cases where you're actually costing the maker money they'd otherwise make then it's immoral and is far easier to prove the detrimental effects of your theft.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

What if John then does some graphic design work with his pirated copy of photoshop and makes a thousand bucks for it??? Is that wrong???

I'm sure VW has insurance anyways, so they'll get their money back. VW is out nothing.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Hey you're bringing other things into it now 😉

I've really said basically all I have to say about it! I think in some cases software "piracy" is perfectly moral, as I stated above. And then in other cases where you're actually costing the maker money they'd otherwise make then it's immoral and is far easier to prove the detrimental effects of your theft.

And I disagree with you. I am just trying to bring better alternatives to the light instead of trying to prove to someone that will not change his mind that he is wrong. Why waste my time or your time? 😉

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Where I come from VW loses money on every car they make. Where I come from Sears has production costs for BBQs. Where are you from?

What does that have to do with what I said? Does the financial situation of the person you're stealing from determine whether or not it's ok to steal from them?

I'll try to make it simple for you:

Situation 1: Bob wants a new VW. The car costs $20k. Bob has $2k. He can't afford the car. He will not be buying this VW. He decides instead to steal it. VW now has lost the $15k (not $20k) that it cost to make the vehicle and now has to spend $15k to replace what Bob stole. Bad bob!

Situation 2: John wants Photoshop. Photoshop costs $700. John has $50. He can't afford photoshop. He will not be buying photoshop. He decides to steal a copy from the internet. Adobe now has lost...drum roll...$0. It will cost them exactly $0 to replace what John stole.

In both cases neither manufactuere were going to make a sale. In the case of Bob a physical item requires manufacturing costs and VW has to eat the losses. In the second case since it's a digital copy and the manufacturing costs are dead on $0 photoshop lost no money. They didn't make money, but they weren't going to anyway because John can't afford it can he? So to them there has been no loss suffered. However, VW lost $15k.

Both cases are stealing, but let's not pretend that software piracy is as obviously detrimental to a company as the theft of a physical item.

Yea but adobe isnt being compensated for all of the effort that their employees put into writing software.

Whether you can copy their software or not doesn't change the fact that they will not be getting compenstated by John; he simply cannot afford it. He harms nobody by thusly taking what he cannot afford and what costs nothing to reproduce.

What makes the free software worse? The fact that people don't bother to promote it as much? The fact that it is free? You obviously don't need the software, most people who do buy it. Might as well help out the free project. With more users the project will get better and be a much better competitor to the proprietary one. Competition brings prices down

Hey you're bringing other things into it now 😉

I've really said basically all I have to say about it! I think in some cases software "piracy" is perfectly moral, as I stated above. And then in other cases where you're actually costing the maker money they'd otherwise make then it's immoral and is far easier to prove the detrimental effects of your theft.

Just want to point out that the manufacturing costs are not $0 for "photoshop." You have to take into account the stamping of the CD, box creation, etc that went into that one copy sitting on the shelf because Billy John Jimmy Joe decided to download it instead of buying it.