so why dont they crack down on software sharing?
- Thread starter MrDudeMan
- Start date
The software industry is in touch with reality - if they pirate it, they probably can't afford it, and would use your competitor's stuff because it's cheaper. Take a hit to hit your competitor. Also, they're content preventing 99% of piracy with retarded copy protection schemes that prevent you from copying the disks with EZ CD Creator.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Because not a lot of people steals software compared to songs and movies.
Your average joe knows how to steal mp3s and movies. Anyone that knows how to use AIM knows how to steal songs and movies with easy to use P2P programs.
Most of those same n00bs don't know any software to steal in the first place, and even if they did, they couldn't be arsed to find out how to crack the copy protection.
Your average joe knows how to steal mp3s and movies. Anyone that knows how to use AIM knows how to steal songs and movies with easy to use P2P programs.
Most of those same n00bs don't know any software to steal in the first place, and even if they did, they couldn't be arsed to find out how to crack the copy protection.
Also, Microsoft's philosophy on piracy is entertaining. "Let them pirate. Once we figure out how to REALLY prevent it, they'll be so used to using our products that they'll be FORCED to buy it."
Here's a theory:
Film and music are dominated by oligachies of a few firms roughly equal in power. Thus, it's pretty easy for them to pool resources to lobby, investigate and enforce their copyrights.
Software is dominated by a monopolistic oiligarchy, where one major player would burden the cost of a large-scale political/legal battle. And his taking on those costs would benefit all those smaller companies who put in nothing.
It might be more profitable for that one large company to invest the R&D and Customer Service costs that benefit only it, by requiring online authorization of its products and other security "features." This would mean that the smaller companies that couldn't invest that money assume the brunt of the costs of pirating, while the big player takes less of a hit.
This would likely lead to a consolidation proccess among the smaller players until they, too, could afford all the expenses related to the technical procceses needed to protect their copyrights. Or, that chaper technical solutions would eventually be developped by the smaller players.
O' course, I havn't slept yet today, so I could be way off. But isn't idle speculation about market structures fun?
Film and music are dominated by oligachies of a few firms roughly equal in power. Thus, it's pretty easy for them to pool resources to lobby, investigate and enforce their copyrights.
Software is dominated by a monopolistic oiligarchy, where one major player would burden the cost of a large-scale political/legal battle. And his taking on those costs would benefit all those smaller companies who put in nothing.
It might be more profitable for that one large company to invest the R&D and Customer Service costs that benefit only it, by requiring online authorization of its products and other security "features." This would mean that the smaller companies that couldn't invest that money assume the brunt of the costs of pirating, while the big player takes less of a hit.
This would likely lead to a consolidation proccess among the smaller players until they, too, could afford all the expenses related to the technical procceses needed to protect their copyrights. Or, that chaper technical solutions would eventually be developped by the smaller players.
O' course, I havn't slept yet today, so I could be way off. But isn't idle speculation about market structures fun?
Because there isn't one big organization protecting software companies. The movies have MPAA, music has RIAA. Software doesn't have such an organization.
Okay, so EA, Microsoft, Vivendi, and Adobe should spend more money on their lawyers and less on developing products. Riiiiiiiiight. I can see Microsoft doing that, but their policy makes money in the long run, so they won't change it.
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
Funny, I always thought that their logic was more like "Let those high school and college kids pirate our stuff... At least they aren't learning Linux or Mac OS instead! We'll just make 'em pay once they're grown up and buying software for their businesses, because they won't know how to use anything else! MUHAHAHAH!"
And, yes, I really DO think that they end it with a diabolical laugh like that
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Funny, I always thought that their logic was more like "Let those high school and college kids pirate our stuff... At least they aren't learning Linux or Mac OS instead! We'll just make 'em pay once they're grown up and buying software for their businesses, because they won't know how to use anything else! MUHAHAHAH!"
And, yes, I really DO think that they end it with a diabolical laugh like that
That's part of the same concept, actually. Buying for business = instant foolproof copy protection (almost, anyway)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter