If people are so worried about the price of software, why not buy OEM?

They also get sued but that doesn't make the media. After all, it's not the Big Bad Music Industry going after the innocent little schoolkids...

OEM software isn't for general sale. It's only licensed for sale in combination with something else, usually hardware but sometimes other software.
A store selling OEM software separate (and yes, I know they exist) are as much perpatrating theft as the person selling CDs with pirated software.
Maybe even worse in fact because they also deprive the person who purchased that hardware that should have had bundled software from retrieving what they paid for.

Edit: Thread clean - Catweazle

If I leave my door unlocked and theives come through and steal my stuff, that's not right, but there is no consequence of it being illegal unless they get caught. Part of the blame, however, has to lie with me for not taking sufficient responsibility for securing my possesions. While it's nearly impossible to be 100% theft-proof (if a thief wants in badly enough, a way will be found), that number can be somewhere around 98% or 99% with the right approach. If I don't take the steps, then I might have to pay the price.

So it is with software. It might not be possible to create software that's 100% piracy-proof, but there are ways of reducing probably well over 90% of the piracy. Now if a software developer doesn't take the steps to implement adequate protection schemes, that doesn't make it acceptable for someone to illegally obtain their software, but they must share some of the blame for not taking advantage of what measures are available.

Personally, I do not engage in piracy, in the sense that I make a company's software freely available to others, but if I run across a nice and useful app, and I can by some means get around the trial limit or whatever, I might do it. If the value of that software justifies its price, I'll buy it; if not, I'll find a way around the trial limit, if there is one. I don't sell it, I don't distribute it, I don't do anything with it that makes me money, but that doesn't mean it's totally right. I also don't buy blackmarket copies or get software from warez sites; I download it from either the publisher's own site or one of the many legit download sites. I look at it like this; whatever is on MY computer is MINE to manipulate as I please. If you don't want me using it beyond some trial limit, then build some protection into it.

As a final word, I don't think not being able to afford software or the fact that the company is making a killing from their software justifies mass contrabanding. At the same time, I admit that I genuinely don't have a problem using (for personal, non-profitable use) any software made available to me by a publisher, for any purpose I choose.

Toulinwoek, I reckon that argument is a complete load of balls that's been brainwashed into people by bloody insurance companies.

It's no different to the dropkicks who argue that if someone runs a red light and cleans my car up, 10% of the blame is my fault because I didn't predict they were going to do it!

Theft is theft, and trying to blame the person who had the goods stolen is ridiculous, whether they were locked up or not!

No, the argument is solid, because it doesn't propose that stealing is right, now does it? And it's still true, even if you don't agree with how the concept is used, that your failure to secure your personal property is in fact a contribution to it's theft. It may not be the root cause (the root cause of course would be the thief's action), but it is a factor.
And as far as the car incident, it doesn't apply at all because if you fail to predict a person running a light, you are not taking any unacceptable risk, since you obviously can't predict that (as you said). On the other hand, if YOU run the light and get hit, then you are partly to blame because you engaged in known risky behavior. You know it's risky to leave your property unsecured, so you are assuming risk you needn't assume if you do; yet you can't predict that some thief will dynamite a hole in the side of your house, so failing to armour-plate the house is not an unacceptable risk.

To reiterate my original point, if a developer makes his product easy to steal by not availing himself of existing ways to make it harder, then that decision contributes to the theft of his product. Again, that doesn't excuse the act stealing (which I never implied). Call it ridiculous if that makes for good debate fodder, but I guarantee if you leave your car running and unlocked and it gets stolen, you'll kick yourself just as much as you will loathe the thief. It's the same principle, just a different scale.

Im with sani on this one. Besides, If you need free stuff there are plenty of demos and trials out there to cut your teeth on or use for that one time project. Besides, I like my support to come from the initial vendor. As for the punishment not fitting the crime.. well a small offence in $$ seems to be the same as a big $$ offence.

I have to agree with Catweazle here - and I have to point out that you can´t argue both sides of the debate at the same time, Toulinwoek. First you say that you don´t think stealing is right:

Then you claim you don´t do it yourself:

Then you say that if you think the software is a bit high-priced that you will find a way around the trial limits.

I´m really not picking on you Toulinwoek, I´m just illustrating a point that I wanted to make in the original poll. Even though most people think copying software is not a good thing (only one respondent so far says its OK) almost 40% of all the votes so far say they´ve done it at some time.

It shows that there is a moral dilemna in the computer world which doesn´t really exist anywhere else in society (other than the out and out crooks that don´t care about morals. I find the whole thing interesting...

The only problem i see with some of what your saying is that it is easy to secure your car for your own use, but to secure your car when a million other people have to use it the same day is harder. Take the example of Half Life 2, launched through steam as secure from piracy, yet it had been hacked within hours of launch and subsequently, because of these measures, many gamers had problems using software they paid good money for.

That said, I'm going to read your post as saying; Software companies have a duty of care to ensure they take every possible measure to avoid piracy, and in then doing so are able to provide the farest pricing to their customer. In which case I agree with what you said.

Edit: Thread clean - Catweazle


Toulinwoek, if you make the companies totally lock down there programs and make it to where they have to proof it against every insecurity out there, and then predict future insecurities, the prices for the software will go threw the roof. Then if that happens, your going to have more people trying to get around it and not paying for it, then the few who do get around it will just distribute it freely. Then there ya go, it will be on your computer and it will be "yours" and you will be making the same argument.

Its wrong, wrong wrong. Theft is theft whether it be stealing somebodys software or going into a shop and nicking a few items. by stealing, in effect you are committing a crime and you are permanently depriving that company or person of their property without offering any kind of payment. all thieves should be done. there, nuff said