Feel justified to pirate?
 

I dont usually pirate software from small companies, but i feel no guilt in pirating ms products.

win xp pro costs 200 bucks, and office xp costs what? 500? 600?

i think this is just complete bull shit, and ms comes out w/ a new series of these almost ever year now! what do they expect us to milk out 1000 bucks/yr for their software?

this is complete bull shit, i say.

anyway, in college i get cheap ms software.

this is the only good thing the devil has done.

well... if you work hard for something should you not get paid for it? or should your services just be "free"?

Back in the day when I was coding games, there was no freeware, and shareware was just getting it's foothold. There was no internet, there was no GUI. There was a lot of work involved in making the games that I had made, I didn't like the specs of the game, and I told the management that. When the games were released the sold poorly and I was laid off.

I am above board on almost everything that I have. I try to respect IP whenever and wherever I can, but that does not stop me from being bitter sometimes. For example, I PAID full price for Frontpage. I used it 2-3 times and then I realized it was a POS that I could do better with Notepad. I wish I had my money back on that one.

Now Music is a different story. The record companies fixed prices and screwed the consumer on purpose. It costs SO m,uch less to make a CD then a tape and yet CDs were $19- and Tapes were $10-. I bought way too many crappy CDs with like one good song and so now I take it out of their ass.

Re: Feel justified to pirate?
 

So it's OK to pirate software from large compaines that charge 200 bucks for their product but not from the small company who charges 30 bucks. Look at how many developers the compaines have to pay for...the 30 dollar program probably only pays for a few developers while the 200 from the large corp pays for many developers. I'm not saying that none of it is profit, but the larger company does have more overhead.

What do you think would happen if no one pirated from software companies and everyone purchased software like they were supposed to. Do you think prices would go down because of increased revenue? Do you think you would get a better product because more staff could be hired?

As far as new versions of software goes, unless you need the new features, don't upgrade. I stull use office 2000 at home because I don't need the additional features in XP. Don't be a sheep and buy a product just because it's the newest version when you don't need the features it provides.

look @microsoft. they're a monopoly in the business. they can charge whatever outrageous prices for their software.

windows is the dominant os, office is the dominant office suite, so they can pretty much ask for whatever they want.

About the only software I purchase is games. Mainly because it can be a pain in the ass to get them to play online, and it's worth the 40 bucks to not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I feel that $500 for Office or whatever is insane, and I have no problem taking a copy home from work, or downloading the CD. I never use it anyway, I have it just in case.

http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/werd.gif
that's what I do, but i buy office and windows from my university for like 5 bucks apeice...

academia special prices own ;D

I really hate the attitude that it's okay to steal as long as you do it from someone who has money. As microsoft has gotten bigger over the years, their software prices have gotten much lower. Their prices generally aren't excessive for what you get.

There are plenty of lower priced (and even free) software packages that compete head-to-head with the MS versions. Why not get one of them? Most people I know say it's because the MS ones are better and work so well with each other. Well don't you think that gives them license to charge more?

It's like saying that it's okay to steal a rolls royce, because it's so expensive, but not okay to steal a hundai. How does it make any sense at all?

Pirating is stealing. Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I'm a programmer, but I worked hard to afford the software that I want, and if I can't afford it I don't have it.

I use free software whenever possible. My computer runs linux, so I'm pretty well off there. I paid for VMware express (it was like $80) a while back, but then they stopped supporting it, or selling a consumer verison of thier prouduct (would no longer work with a current kernel) so, I just grabbed VMware workstation ($300) and used a keygen. I feel moraly justified in doing so. And I have a pirated copy of Win2k to use on it, for the rarity I need a windows only program that won't work in wine, and I don't feel I use it enough to justify paying for it. If I were forced to pay for it, or do without it, I would just do without it.

Anyway people, don't pirate microsoft office. Use OpenOffice instead. It works just as well.

Podmore: pirating is NOT stealing, stealing involves depriving someone of what you have stolen. If you steal a rolls royce, they have one less they can sell. If you pirate software, you are simply using a copy of it without paying. If you are unable to afford it, and could not pirate it, and would otherwise do without, the developers would not have gotten your money anyway.

I don't pay for software just because I can't afford it. Do I lose any sleep over it?? No, but I can see your points. I really wish I could pay for it, but M$ isn't going to file chapter 11 because I didn't buy office. I'm not saying the end's justifies the means, but I'm not putting anyone on the street.

And M$ does screw people over, corporations. You want SQL, you get it and it's running slow. So you add another processor and BANG your in violation of the software agreement because you have to license each processor. Then with W2K, sure you can keep licensing it with MS's old licensing but in order to be legal you'll have to buy site licenses for other things, but wait just a sec if you do the *new* big corp licensing you can save money and not have to buy any other site licenses for everything. They screw people as much as we screw them. Then small businesses have already invested a ton of money in M$, and now thye have to shell out more money than they planned because they all have some kind of proprietary software that works with the newest MS version. Because no one codes for windows 98.

my only softwares installed on my PC right now that are not pirated are Diablo II and Diablo II exp, both because I wanted to play on BNET without having to use somebody's else key.

is not like I want the software companies to go fuck themselves, is just that I can't afford every software I use, and I can buy the same software for like 10 times less its actuall price

justified?

no, i do not ever feel 'justified'.

granted, in the past 3 years, i've downloaded hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stuff...sometimes just because i could...to collect it, or whatever....

but..if i could afford it, i surely would buy it.

Microsoft, Adobe, whatever.

i feel no need to 'rip them off'.

just a matter of money, or lack of.

All of my shareware software is properly licensed. XP and Office XP are as well - somehow I got them for free from Microsoft. Some stuff is academic but licensed as such.

I have some software that I should license because I use it regularly - I'm working on it.

Otherwise, yes, everyone should pay for software from any sized vendor. I think people should donate to open-source if they ask for it.

Do you work for free? If not, why should programmers and the companies that hire them not be compensated? If every piece of software was properly licensed would it cost as much? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll never know.

As for the music companies... They did mislead us as CD prices haven't changed much since the 80s. However, you can get inexpensive CDs from music clubs like BMG or retail like Circuit City. So there really isn't a reason to bitch.

you get that warm fuzzy feeling inside when you pay for your own software too. i love it.

I have always felt that I can try to come up with as many excuses as I like... they all seem to make sense until I think about them. The basic fact is, I do it because I want what I can't afford. I do it because it easy, hard to track, and there so many other people doing it. In the end I like what I got but I feel guilty. I know what it is but I still do it...

I do it much less than I did. I try to use freeware a lot more, which I have been able to do. I can't play many games anymore so I don't do that... the only thing I still do sometimes is music... small bands and stuff I dont, but the big famous names on the radio I do. No matter what excuse I use (the riaa sucks, charging that much per cd for what it costs to make the actual cd) and then jipping the artist, it's just an excuse. It may be true in many cases, but I still do it.

Some things I refuse to get for free though... I will never trust a pirated OS. People are much smarter than me and could have the chance to add, change, or remove something that could be devastating. Ditto the virus software... paid for Norton Antivirus and boy did that feel good... (not loosing the $$ but paying for something).

Now, I try to get any games off eBay or something.

Anything I pirate is usually because of lack of funds for purchasing (like SiN).

I used to be a hardcore pirate. Nowadays, I tend to find freeware to use on my linux partition, or sometimes I'll find a keygen or something. I generally avoid the big expensive software. I pirated XP, which is a mediocre operating system. I do have a legit copy of OfficeXP, but only because it was $7 through my skool.

I still pirate games every once-in-a-while because most PC games these days are crappy. Horrible buggy monsters that have to be patched to work. Then the game is over in 4 hours anyway. What a rip.

Everything that is running on my computers are pirated or free. I know it's wrong but I do it anyway.

I guess you didn't know that IBM did the same thing when they were the dominant player.

Well I'm just pointing out one instance. Cuz I think IBM can eat it too. They make crappy computers, and they're software is way overpriced. It's so bad it's not worth pirating.

Except some SCO stuff, but it's not exactly for home use.

That is <i>such</i> a rationalization. Any time you take something that doesn't belong to you, it's stealing. The fact of the matter is that a LOT of people who steal software would find a way to pay for it if they had to. ANd you know what? If everyone who used it paid for it, it would be cheaper for all of us. Piracy drives prices up, and there's a lot of evidence to that fact.

People who create things have to make an investment to do so. It really sucks to use their creation without paying them for it. I don't see how you can justify it.

when i goto a computer store and there is something i want that is *resonably* priced i buy it but if i find something i can d/l i'm gonna do it!

i'm not going to sped thousands of dollars on graphics software so they arent losing money because i wasnt going to buy it

sure that isn't a good reason but it's an excuse and i dont care so whatever

Linux, anyone?

I'm able to sleep at night with the old "I'm poor and I need this" justification as well as the "I paid for this before."

I wanted Windows XP Pro and was too poor to afford it.

I had paid for Norton Anti-Virus products in the past, so I was completely fine getting Norton Anti-Virus 2003 Pro.

See, everyone wins. Well, I win, and that's what is important.

It's quite simple, really: I can't afford to buy most of the software I use *right now*, therefore I pirate it. I wouldn't have bought it anyway, and get a lot of experience anyway. This means that in the future, when I do have a good job and loads of cash, I can buy the software I learned to use now.

Hell, nobody is losing any money - I wouldn't have bought it anyway, and it's all copied/pirated from people that still have the original program.

To be honest, I think Microsoft should pay *me* money to work with their POS operating systems; we consumers do the beta testing for them, it seems... :)

Ever since Apple incorpated unix underpinning in their OS I have no need to pirate. Freeware does everything I need and want, and at a great price.

It sounds here that money is what matters too people and why they pirate.

I'm sure all of us could afford the software listed, but we are just bitching and moaning because we can't buy our other toys if we buy software.

$600 is nothing when you realize that you are going to spend more then 100+ hours using it.

As with video games, I have a certain equation. Give yourself an hourly rate you believe you are worth, me..I gave a reasonable $12(cause I don't work 24/7). So if I buy something for $600 and I spend over 50 hours on it..then it was worth every penny. Photoshop...hmmm I've used for 7 years now...I think it's worth it.

I still pirate though, my position is as long as you don't make a profit off of it. There's a difference from taht high school kid who used to give you warez, and the one that tried to sell it to you.

The way I see it, it's only "bad" pirating if the act of piracy takes revenue away from the publisher.

If I was realistically never going to buy it in the first place, than they haven't lost any revenue by me pirating it.

And the more you keep that attitude in mind, the less often you'd "realistically buy it." I'm betting that if you didn't have the ability to pirate, you would in fact buy some of the stuff you've stolen. Of course, I don't know you at all, but I think what I said is generally true of people.

It really hurts when your unemployed and all the offers require expereince using a package that is way out of your price range (3d studios, microst visual c++, ...) I dont see it being a problem to steal it then and use it to gain experience, using it to make a profit is just another shade of gray.

Computers, like your driver's license, are a privilege - not a right. If you can't afford to buy and maintain a computer, perhaps you shouldn't have one. It's a tough reality.

When I got a "real job" and had the money to spend, I certainly didn't spend it on software. It was spent on rent, car payment, insurance, or just goofing off. Hell, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

With today's free open source software there is no more room for the "I can't afford it" excuse. Download Linux and OpenOffice - you get general compatibility with Microsoft and you can give the finger to Bill Gates all day.

i guess there's 2 sides to the story. i think it's wrong to charge that much for an os that would be obsolete in like 1 year. but at the same time, programmers and developers are demanding lots of pay.

sucks that microsoft has created a monopoly and thus is making a killing off of this. i think that they would have a better reputation if they actually reimbursed people who did purchase crappy software *cough* win ME *cough*.

and did it occur to some of you that your ip's were logged?

i hate what the riaa is doing, but i still shell out to buy albums of bands i really really like. with new dvd recorders, i never even think about copying movies. lots of work went into that, and if you get them at walmart on the tuesday they come out, it's usually 14 bux. odd how an awesome movie on dvd can cost less than a cd.

If you were a programmer, wouldn't you want to make more money too? :)

Here's another thought about the Microsoft monopoly... It takes a seller and a buyer. We're to blame for the success of Microsoft. We could have bought OS/2, Mac, or BeOS. In fact, Linux existed at the same time as OS/2 and NT 3.51.

Microsoft solved a problem at a time when users needed widespread compatibility and a fair price (IBM was the giant over-priced villain with crappy software in the 80s-90s).

Consumers "vote" with their dollars. Stealing MS software doesn't get rid of Windows - it simply propogates it and takes away from growing the market share of alternatives.

Pirate
 

Hey, nobody is forcing us to use Microsoft's products! You are most welcomed to be using other developers' softwares if you don't feel like paying for Microsoft's products.

As for the monopoly part, it's not like that anyone can becomes such a monopoly in the market. There must be reasons why Microsoft can be this successful.

so, say you see a one hundred dollar bill, or even a five dollar bill lying around on the gutter, if you pick it up, is that considered stealing?

Or a perhaps a bit of paper?

Or finding a really useful document on the internet that you decide to save for later on (even though the author has in no way given you permission to download it?)

Or knocking off a brand new Porsche or Ferrari? (Hell, even a Datsun 180B)

there are degrees to stealing, and stealing a copy of an infinitely re-copyable item doesnt rate that particularly highly in my book.

You say that piracy is directly correlational to cost. In order for this to occur, a critical assumption has to be fulfilled:

MS can make too much money, and will do something to reduce the amount of money they make.

Think about it. Lets say that tomorrow, magically, every single person repents thier evil ways, and decide to go legitimate. All of a sudden, MS is going to have a massive influx of cash, resulting in greater profits. In order for the price of thier software to go down, subsequently, MS would be required to cut the initial price of their software, which would result in less profits. A representation:

(n.b. this is a simplified model, assuming that MS regularly releases products, and everyone buys said products... Just to be used for illustration purposes only)

1) 1st Quarter, everyone goes legit, and microsoft records a massive increase in profits. Share prices skyrocket.
2) 2nd Quarter, MS drops prices, and due to this, lose billions of dollars of profit (a $50 dollar loss over twenty million users, lets say). Share prices tumble, because markets operate on speculation, i.e. growth/diminishment of profit, not actual profit.

So, MS loses a ton of money, and additionally, thier share prices tumble. Do you think its likely for MS to do that?

The reason M$ is a monopoly isn't because they did something right and no one else can replicate it. It's because the cost to enter the market is outrageous. Do you really think some kid in a garage making a sweet OS has the funds to compete with MS?? No way in hell. And even if said kid does get his OS on the market, MS offers the kid a few million and it's done. It's very very hard for any company to really compete with MS.

I generally agree with your comments, however look at open-source projects. They're mostly "garage" in nature and their success is based on team work and volunteerism.

The non-Windows alternatives are all very capable and it's a matter educating the user. Wal-Mart's Lindows computers show users they have an affordable option which isn't Windws. In the end, that's how people are won over: value and price.

I find it offensive to hear some people say that if you can't afford software, you shouldn't have a computer, or that everyone here can afford it and we are just liars. That takes a fair amount of assumptions. College students are barely making ends meet in Canada; I shudder to think about the US. The elderly, whom a computer may be a link to distant grandchildren, may own a computer given to them by a family member. The unemployed, who for no fault of their own, need a computer at home for retraining. What about these groups? Making computers a toy for the financial elite destroys the idea of a global village.

Personally, I do not pirate. I used to, and I still have an old copy of Windows 2.0 that I have on disk, which I have on "long term evaluation" (and have had since 1994 or thereabouts!) I use OpenOffice, simply because of the cost MS products and my low income. I occasionally buy a program from the clearance bin and I treated myself to a copy of The Sims recently. Everything else I get online, or do without. I am not going to judge another person for what they do; I can only deal with what I do, and hope others rest easy in their decisions. MS make good products, but I notice they often require patches. So much for a company that has 80% of the world market. And it is true; if piracy did disappear overnight, prices would not go down, for the shareholders would crucify the CEO.

That is my two kopeks worth.

At best this is an extremely weak argument.
1) the elderly are a miniscule portion of computer owners.
1a) Elderly that do own computers rarely upgrade/purchase new software mostly using it for email and not much else.
2) unemployed - Librarys have computers for public use, computers can be had for about $300 which hardly places them in the financial elite category, and colleges and training centers have computer labs. So why would they NEED one at home, especially since given the choice between someone who received professional training and someone who read a book and learned at home employers will choose the professionally trained individual most of the time (online courses notwithstanding).

Bolshevist..in those examples you mention computers in general and not the software.

Can't really pirate a computer.

Let's say john doe saves enough too buy a computer...$1000 for his first ever. He probably will get it with windowsxp and MS Office standard (cause the sales men sold it too him). He has the software, not piracy involved.

I believe piracy because more rampant after your first initial purchase. Yet that's why MS and other companies offer upgrades.

You put $600 down for Pshop 5 years ago, but you want the latest...just put $149 down now.


I still believe...you can pirate, you can evaluate, but as soon as you make a dollar off that program...you buy it, or you get a legal version of it. Example..you are a college student...yeah go ahead and learn 3dsmax 5 on a pirate copy, but when you learn...don't tell studios you would render for them at home...go to their shop and work on their legit copies.

Like several other people have said, I pirate because I can't afford the software. It's simple as that. If I wasn't able to pirate the software, I still wouldn't buy it, because I'm poor as fuk. Companies are not loosing 1 dime by me pirating software because they wouldn't be getting it anyways. That's how I justifty my piracy. And it makes complete sense to me.

If I did have enough money to spare for software, I would probably buy some of it, but a lot of software that I have on my computer I very rarely use, so really I can't much justify spending hundreds of dollars on something that gets very little use. Especially if the use is only for 1 week or something, as many programs end up getting, because I find out that they suck.

When I've watched a movie I've downloaded that I've really liked, I have gone to the theatre to see it and/or bought the DVD. I assume if I could afford it that if I found a good peice of software that I pirated, and I really liked it and used it a lot, I would also buy it if I could afford it. I can't, though.

If I buy a novel, and it's good, I will lend it to whomever I choose.

If I buy a dvd, and it's good, I will lend it to whomever I choose. Hell, I may even give it to them as a gift.

If I buy a software program, and it's good, I will lend it to whomever I choose.

I own it, and I will do with it whatever I choose. The hell with anyone who has a problem with that.

Seriously.

I'm sorry if you feel that someone else's opinions are offensive. There's a saying, "opinions are like assholes, everyone has them." Everyone is entitled to have their opinion whether I like it or not.

From my perspective, I stand firm on the notion "if you can't afford it you can't afford it." Cars, telephones, and computers are luxuries - even if our culture/society can't go without them. Fortunately, there is public transportation, existing phone customers help pay for low-income phone users ( take a look at the 10+ taxes on your phone bill ), and libraries offer free computer use.

I've had difficult times financially. I was used to having good paying jobs and when I attempted a career change, I saw my bank account dwindle down to about $300 with a $750 rent and $400 car payment coming up. This happened a few times but I made it through it. I'm married now but my "own" income isn't huge and I don't buy computer stuff with the "joint" money - I buy it with mine. I sell a lot of crap on eBay to help finance other stuff. I don't assume everyone else has it good, but I assume they have the power to make things happen for themselves.

But I hear what you're saying and it's cool.

Doc technically this is legal, because the license says that it's per computer. So if you lend it out, and don't use it while it's out...then that is legal.

The think is...you bought it.

Me: (calling my friend) Hey, Steve. Are you using that copy of Office I loaned you?
Steve: No. Not right now. Why?
Me: I wanted to make sure you weren't using it when I did. Thanks.

I try to use more affordable alternatives or not use it at all with most software. Yeah some things in OpenOffice or AbiWord aren't as easy to use as MS Word , and GIMP probably can't do everything that Photoshop can, but at least I don't have to think about software licensing even though I know I won't ever get caught if I decide to run pirated stuff.

My friend wanted to put an x where he would be able to shoot a desert eagle into his computer so that if the feds ran in they wouldn't have any evidence.

Clear line right through 3 hard drives.

Some programs for Graphic Design do not do what they advertise- if I bought them all I would go Broke- if they are lying on the back of the box- I get fucked- therefore, fuck them, I try out a pirated copy first, and if its worth it Then I buy it - this policy does not extend to microsoft, who is the closest thing to pure evil that I have yet encountered- is it right to pirate microsoft prods beacause of this - no- but then if that sends me to hell at least I can make fun of bill gates while i'm there.

That's the ticket right there. Part of going pro is going legit on your production tools. We buy OEM licenses on major software to cover our machines on the floor, but people take it home to install on their personal machines so they can do some work from home. I'm not going to buy seperate licenses for home use and office, but we stay above board here on the ranch.

It's called Linux.


Hell, you don't even HAVE to pirate ;)

The arguement is of course between what is tangible and what isn't.

i 'try' software befor i buy it, but as for music, f*ck RIAA i can buy 100 CDR's for the same price that they sell 1 CD for. F*CK RIAA IN THE *SS

(sorry Mod had to use the words)

Not taking sides Dilbert, but curiousity makes me want to ask this.

Your arguement is because the cost of the medium.

So you would support paying say $1.50 a song? I mean..you get average about 10 songs a cd. Cd cost about $15.00, so the math says instead of cd you can pay $1.50 a song and voila!

That escapes the fact that you have to buy the dreaded medium, and plus the artist will probably get more. So do you support that?

Check out the bottom of this link. It refers to part of Title 18 of the United States Code:

http://digitalenterprise.org/governance/us_code.html

I am proud that I have never contributed to the wealth of Gates and Co. They have accumulated their obscene fortunes without my help. All of you who feel moralistic or guilty feel free to carry on being pawns in the game that he invented. Personally I choose not to.

Right now my system is completely clean of pirated software, but thats pretty coincidental because I'm running debian Linux and I can only think of three pieces of software that are even sold for this market.

But back in my MacOS days I never had a qualm about grabbing all the software I could. I think the reason copyright violation (it is *not* stealing, illegal yes, theft no, not under our legal system or most moral systems) never bothered me was because it always felt a little too much like a thought crime. I'm doing it on my own time in my own home and not hurting anyone (and no, depriving a company of my dollars is not hurting them in an unreasonable way, they have no grantee that they will make money... after all its not "hurting them" if they get out competed, or at least its not viewed as immoral)

As far as programmers being entitled to make a living, a subject which is particularly relevant to my current degree, there are other business models than "product on a shelf" that make a lot more sense for software. And besides who said we (programmers) are *entitled* to anything anyway?

A writer shouldn't be payed for their work? The book, like a cd, is the medium in which the authors ideas are transfered. Same thing with the programmers. I think they are entitiled to one thing...recogniction for their work. Either it be through money, fame, or acknowledgement.

when i pay $22 for a CD im pissed off, first it does not cost $22 for a Fregin CD, they charge $12 for the tape, which has like 15 moving parts, i dont see where the industry gets off charging so damn much for a CD that is why people Pirate, it cost to damn much

not to mention this CD has only 3 good songs on it, the rest is cRap

The following article is copied without the author's permission (but I don't think he'd mind ;))...

---------------------------------

A Few Hard Truths...

Software Piracy Is A Good Thing (Seriously)

GOOD AS IN Mom, apple pie, and that quality which many Americans
consider the highest of all virtues - sales volume.

Take a minute to think about it. You've undoubtedly seen the figures
put out by industry mouthpieces like the Software Business Alliance,
which recently claimed that $2.4 billion was lost to software piracy
last year in the United States alone.

Frankly, this figure is pure hogwash, as about 10 seconds of study
reveals. First of all, SBA has no hard data on the amount of software
piracy taking place. Therefore it estimates piracy based on how many
software titles it believes an individual is likely to purchase in a
year, which is four.

Thus, if you only buy a couple software packages, you will be credited
in the SBA's calculations as having pirated a couple more - even if
you have never pirated anything in your life!

This sort of reasoning offers computer users a bizarre choice: either
buy as much software as the industry believes appropriate, or be
judged statistically guilty of piracy.

It also leads industry groups to make the preposterous claim that well
over one third of all software used in North America is pirated. Like
Jimmy Buffet in A Pirate Looks At 40, "I've done a bit of smugglin',"
but I don't know anyone who is using 35% to 59% pirated software, as
the SBA claims is the average for in the U.S. and Canada.

Then there's the matter of how much piracy subtracts from sales, if
anything. Industry groups like the SBA and the Software Publishers
Association assume that every piece of pirated software represents a
lost sale.

Fact is, the vast majority of pirated software does not represent lost
sales because most bootlegs are unneeded or useless. Without access to
a bootleg copy, most people would never spend 10 seconds with these
programs - let alone buy them.

And this brings us to a very important point that is entirely
overlooked by the software industry. Piracy sells software - perhaps
more than anything else. That is to say, instead of SUBTRACTING from
software sales, it actually INCREASES them.

Let me put this in personal terms. I am the registered owner of
thousands of dollars of Windows software (including CorelDraw, Adobe
PageMaker, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Intuit Quicken, Calera
WordScan, Claris FileMaker, Fauve Matisse, Aldus PhotoStyler, Delrina
WinFax Pro, Dvorak NavCis Pro), and I've rarely bought a program that
I didn't have as a bootleg first.

The thing that sells me on software is working with it. That's what
shows me if it's well designed, and meets a real need. If it's truly
useful, I will buy it, no matter what it costs. And if it is a turkey,
I want it out of here, no matter what it's supposedly worth.

I mean, seriously, how much hard disk space does the S.B.A think I
have? A gigabyte for myself, and then another couple gigabytes to load
up on pirated programs just for the illicit thrill of it?

I think not - nor am I unusual in this respect. If an average user has
a pirated copy of an app they use regularly enough for it to become an
important part of their work (or play), they will eventually need to
buy it - for a full manual, for tech support, for new features in the
upgraded version, or for simple shrinkwrap lust.

Although there may have been time when it was possible to get by with
only a set of bootleg disks and a cheat sheet, today's complex
programs (and what Windows program isn't complex?) make the manuals,
technical support, and bug fixes essential to getting the program to
work well.

But what about the morality of the thing, you ask? Isn't piracy simply
stealing? The industry's answer is yes, but again let's take a closer
look. The California penal code, for example, states a person is
guilty of theft if they "take, carry, lead or drive away the personal
property of another." That is, theft is fundamentally subtractive. A
victim of theft must have had something taken from them: a car, a
necklace, etc.

So what does software piracy take from the software manufacturer?
Because the disks are copied, not purloined, the software manufacturer
suffers no physical removal of property. The only thing that software
pubishers can claim to have lost is the opportunity for profit.

But since software piracy actually increases sales and profits, where
is the theft? The answer - there isn't any. Software piracy is a good
thing, and good for business too.

The solution? The industry's hired watchdogs should chill out, and
spend their time worrying about real problems, like making software
perform as advertised.

In fact, if the industry really wants to help sales, it should take
some of the money that goes into piracy propaganda, and hire more tech
support people. Heck, it might even bring back toll-free tech support!
Now there's a concept that would REALLY influence buying decisions.

--B.B.

I pirate to stick it to the man.

Actually I don't really pirate that much, maybe just a game every other month to see if it's worth buying. And windows xp pro, because MS forced passport on me.

pretty much all I use, and therefore all I buy, are games. I buy them for the online gaming features and for the unique cd-keys that allow me to play freely.

I only copy orginal disks. I don't make copies of copies. Because if there is the orginal disk, then at least one person bought the software.

Another thing I do is if I see that software that I copied really cheap (because it's an older version) I would buy it.

I definately wouldn't download MP3s if the music industry would follow the software industry with older products. I can't see myself spending 19.99 for a CD that is a few years old. Software companies on the other hand sell older version really cheap. If music companies did that then I wouldn't have to search the internet and down load 80's and 90's music.

Buying software does not make it yours to do what you please with it. The "i bought it, it's mine... etc.. " mentallity doesnt fly with most software. When you buy software, you are buying the license to use that software. It is not yours to do with as you please. Read you license agreement (EULA) before you hit next or install. As for the people who say they pirate software because they cant afford it..this statement doesnt make sense. I cant afford a BMW M3 but i want one. I am not going to go steal one from bmw. I will work to get it. I know most college students are poor, and that software, music, movies are easily accessible but does downloading, copying without paying make it right?. If you dont want to pay for something dont buy it. If you are sick of the prices of things then boycott them If enough people stop purchasing overpriced goods then the companies would really start to sweat and maybe rethink their pricing structure.
As what was said before. Dont like to give M$ money for an OS or office suite, use a BSD, or a linux variant.

LHF, stealing a BMW is a bad analogy for piracy.

LHF post makes complete sense though.

I think there's two types off pirates here...

People who pirate to stick it too the man

and

People who pirate but if possible would pay for it.

I would rather be the second one, personally I feel if you don't like the company why even used their product at all. Just doesn't make sense.

Personally I pirates things in three distinctive groups:

The first is music, mainly because a lot of the artists I listen to are obscure or foreign. I really don't mind paying for music, I’ve spent money on much more frivolous things, but I like the convenience of sitting at home and grabbing music. I also resent paying $45 for an import CD. If there was a group that had a wide selection of actual mp3 files for download at a reasonable per-song price, I would be all for it.

Second are programs that are way, way beyond my price range. These are programs like 3DS max, Maya, ms c++, etc.... I am not going to make any money off of these programs, if I ever can or do I would go out and purchase the products. I think most of these company's money comes from big corporate customers anyway.

Finally I get games that you can't buy anymore. Anyone here played Z? It's a damn good game, but if you don't have it, there's no chance that your gonna be able to get it legally. I don't usually download new games, though on occasion I’ve gotten semi-new releases, I don't have any at the moment.

To be honest I would really like to see the who kazaa thing turn into something much better. Because studio quality recording equipment is getting cheaper all the time artists will soon be able to cheaply record their own songs and then it would be great to have a service that would let them self-publish. I don't think that just because a company has a lot of money means that it is ok to steal from them. However, Microsoft is a monopoly that intentionally tries to drive their competitors outa business. So I think stealing from them is just peachy.