Opinion on Software Theft

[zeroth]

The attitudes about stealing software are amazing - do you have an opinion?

[nanosani]

None of the above :

I'm not in favour of software copying cuz I'm a computer science guy and if I make a software and it gets copied, I'll get a huge loss ... financial and moral:(

I'm in favour of software copying as I use a lot of softwares and if I start copying all of them then I'll save a lot of money ;).

[belama]

I think it is NOT ok to copy software but I've done it. When a software costs a lot and you are a student you cant buy anything too expensive. I do not regret having copied the software I did copy because I would not be in the situation I am right now. For example, the only place I could use most programming software was at school and when I copied the software I could better my skills at home and become better. Now because I have used the pirated software, I will soon have a job and have a decent salary to buy my legal software. I know students can get some educational versions of software but its still big amounts. I think students should be able to have software for low costs.

[jhdobbins]

theres a program i am wanting and the student version runs in the thousands... its ridiculous...

[belama]

theres a program i am wanting and the student version runs in the thousands... its ridiculous...

Exactly what Im talking about. Student cant afford extreme prices. If they want us to buy licensed products in the future they should be thinking about letting us learn with the software before.

[kc0arf]

Hello,

Well, it appears that Micro$oft has figured out your dilemma... and offers great student discounts to Office. But if you are a company upgrading Office, the costs are huge.

I love the idea of Open Source software, such as OpenOffice. I use that whenever I can. But I aso went out and purchased some software at home for my Mac OS X computer.

I like the idea of online demos, or software with expiration dates on it, so that you can get the feel of the product before you buy the complete version.

You will find certain companies like QUARK thata extort tooth and nail for unstable crappy software. Just go read their online forums if you do not believe me. The stuff is just not good. You will also find companies like Apple that will have a moderately priced bulk license for their OS, such as the Family OS X (5 user) license for $150 or something like that. You will also find companies like AutoDesk that have ridiculous registration / authorization technique that doesn't work 1/2 the time, and you loose money waiting on the phone for them to get you a proper license key.

Christian

[Patate]

The thing is that if software wasn't that expensive, people wouldn't have to copy them. So in a way it's kind of their fault. Not everyone can afford to pay a few hundred bucks for Windows for EACH computer they have.
But companys mainly make their money of other companys wanting licences to their software anyways.

[YoungCoder]

I'm all for copying software, i am self centred and dont care about people making money other than myself :)

[zeroth]

I like the idea of online demos, or software with expiration dates on it, so that you can get the feel of the product before you buy the complete version.

Me, too!!

companys mainly make their money of other companys wanting licences to their software anyways.

So far, some good ideas in response to this poll. Patate has hit on something here - it is true that the majority of a software companies´ revenue comes from corporate clients. Makes you wonder why they don´t give the stuff away to us mortals so that they carry their opinions to work.

Hey guys, only 6 votes out of 40+ views, let´s get with the program and vote! :cheesy: We want to know what you think - no one will know how you voted...

[Catalana]

It shouldn't be copied, but all of us have done it I think!

[jwenting]

The thing is that if software wasn't that expensive, people wouldn't have to copy them. So in a way it's kind of their fault. Not everyone can afford to pay a few hundred bucks for Windows for EACH computer they have.
But companys mainly make their money of other companys wanting licences to their software anyways.

Wrong. I've encountered pirated copies of freeware. People actually removing copyright information and the name of the original authors from freeware programs and distributing them as their own (often asking money for them).

If you buy a computer, factor in the cost of software. If you can afford more than one computer you're not a penniless student (who can get discount educational licenses) anyway.

[jwenting]

The attitudes about stealing software are amazing - do you have an opinion?

Software piracy should be treated like piracy at the high seas. Keelhauling is to good for the criminals!

People scream foul about shoplifting yet casually steal tens of thousands of Euros worth of software.

When confronted with their crimes they claim noone is hurt because software doesn't cost anything anyway and they're "only punishing large corporations for overcharging"...
This attitude prevails even among many who work in the industry and make their own income from creating software that is sold, making the situation even worse (and harder to understand, these people make money creating something they say doesn't cost anything to create).
Worst of all: I've seen many requests on usenet for pirated copies of software to create copy protection and for commercial compilers, often in official support groups for those products...

[jwenting]

It shouldn't be copied, but all of us have done it I think!

Not for the last 20 years, and even before that only software that wasn't available in any other way (that was before the internet and online stores, with the only computer store in town having maybe 5 titles).

[chrisharris]

I think Bill Gates could afford to give away software for home PCs.

As said before- these companies make their money from corporate America.

But they will squeeze us little guys for every cent they can get away with. You squeeze a penny or maybe $200 for each copy of Windows that you sell to the home PC user and it adds up to millions in profits each and every year.

Nope, I don't have a problem with copying software at all.

[moderate_rock48]

I think Bill Gates could afford to give away software for home PCs.

As said before- these companies make their money from corporate America.

But they will squeeze us little guys for every cent they can get away with. You squeeze a penny or maybe $200 for each copy of Windows that you sell to the home PC user and it adds up to millions in profits each and every year.

Nope, I don't have a problem with copying software at all.

Well that is the whole concept of our economic system in America. I mean, if you were in Bill Gates position, Im sure you would try and get every cent out of every person you possible could.

Its all about bending people over and screwing them, there is a legal way, and an illegal way. You could make arguments for both sides, but if your going the illegal route, the odds are stacked against you.

[SuperFlyHost]

Hello all.

Ok to be truthful 55/9% of all my software is not legel, As Adobe wants you to pay $699.99 for Adobe photoshop 7 and more for cs and Now even more for CS2

Macromedia, Is not that badily priced but when they came out with there Macromedia Mx Professional Crap they jack the prices up sky high..

So Yes I would blow smoke up someone A$$ just to get Free Software that I need or Wanted to learn.

Peace out,
Michael

[jwenting]

If you can't afford the price, use a cheaper alternative...
There's PSP, Gimp, etc. etc.

Theft is theft also if it's "because I need it and can't afford it".

[MartyMcFly]

I personnaly think that the majority of people who copy software, not so much that they can't afford it but really need it, but can't be bothered to pay the price.

I'm quite proud of the fact that on my two PCs, all my software is legit, (excluding a possible dodgy copy of Studio MX I bought from Amazon). I wanted office on my laptop, and despite being easily able to nick it from work being a network administrator, used open office instead. People can easily get linux for PCs, and XP OEM is not that expensive, if you build your own, or even free with new PCs.

I have got the ocasional pirated software and CDs, videos back in the day, but wouldn't do so now. Just because it's easy doesn't make it acceptable. The owner of BMW is no doubt a rich guy, and the cars in this country are overpriced, but that doesn't mean I can take a M3 off a forecourt, (unfortunately).

[jwenting]

Well said Marty, and my opinion exactly.

If you can't afford or can't be bothered to pay the price for highend software use a free or cheaper alternative.

I work in software development myself.
My company does provide staff with corporate licenses for many packages we have at work, so we can get them free or cheap. Similarly for students and educational staff educational licenses cover the same ground, offering them cheap access to high end software they may need (usually the same software used in classes and labs).

[server_crash]

I don't get it. They sue people for downloading songs which cost 1$ a piece, but there is server software on P2P networks worth 6-10,000$.

[server_crash]

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

[jwenting]

I don't get it. They sue people for downloading songs which cost 1$ a piece, but there is server software on P2P networks worth 6-10,000$.

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...

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

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

[Toulinwoek]

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.

[Catweazle]

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!

[Toulinwoek]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[zeroth]

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:

No, the argument is solid, because it doesn't propose that stealing is right, now does it?

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).

Then you claim you don´t do it yourself:

Personally, I do not engage in piracy.

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

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 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..

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...

[MartyMcFly]

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.

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.

[moderate_rock48]

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.

[JANINE]

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 :twisted: