fullerr@yvax.byu.edu (08/02/90)
I am interested why people pirate software. Is it just because of the cost of most software or is it for other reasons as well? What does everyone think? Reply by E-mail to <fullerr@byuvax.bitnet>
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/02/90)
fullerr@yvax.byu.edu writes: > I am interested why people pirate software. Is it just because of the > cost of most software or is it for other reasons as well? Oooh! You hit one of my pet peeves. I don't think price has anything to do with it. I've seen people pirate $500 programs and I've seen them pirate $30 ones. Amongst the reasons I've had people tell me, or that I've infered myself are: 1) The know they will never get caught. Hard to argue with that one on factual grounds. 2) They honestly don't think they are hurting anybody. 3) They realize they are hurting somebody but since that person is either anonymous or very rich, they don't care. The "why should I make Bill Gates any richer" syndrome. 4) They don't think copyright laws apply to them because they are a non-profit organization, only making a copy for their personal use, and/or "I've already bought a copy, I just want to install it on my other machine". -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
carlo@osprey.cvs.rochester.edu (Carlo Tiana) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug2.152426.25372@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >fullerr@yvax.byu.edu writes: >> I am interested why people pirate software. Is it just because of the > Oooh! You hit one of my pet peeves. I don't think price has >anything to do with it. I've seen people pirate $500 programs and I've >seen them pirate $30 ones. Amongst the reasons I've had people tell me, or >that I've infered myself are: > > [plausible reasons omitted] How about this one (used it myself, I admit it): I can't afford it now, but as soon as I can I will pay for it. It's sort of like shareware: "Use it, and if you like it pay for it". I actually do follow up and pay for it, in fact. It's sort of like "[do something] pay later", I guess. I'll have to think about ahether it's "right" or not, in principle. Carlo. carlo@cvs.rochester.edu
brent@rbdc (Brent Daniel) (08/03/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >> I am interested why people pirate software. Is it just because of the >> cost of most software or is it for other reasons as well? > Oooh! You hit one of my pet peeves. I don't think price has >anything to do with it. I've seen people pirate $500 programs and I've >seen them pirate $30 ones. Amongst the reasons I've had people tell me, or >that I've infered myself are: Actually, you forget that the majority of piraters are between the ages of 13 and 19. These are the people who, would like to have nice software for their computer, but don't have the money either because they can't get a job, or they spend their money elsewhere. In my opinion, price is the major reason for pirating. > 1) The know they will never get caught. Hard to argue with that >one on factual grounds. You're right here. Pirating is totally ignored, especially from companies that sell software for under $60 dollars. > 2) They honestly don't think they are hurting anybody. Can't argue with this, there's not much to make you think you are hurting someone. You're just downloading it, it's not like you would buy it otherwise, you're not taking anything from them. > 3) They realize they are hurting somebody but since that person is >either anonymous or very rich, they don't care. The "why should I make >Bill Gates any richer" syndrome. I don't think this is ever a factor. Except, maybe for outrageously over priced software, such as most business software. > 4) They don't think copyright laws apply to them because they are a >non-profit organization, only making a copy for their personal use, and/or >"I've already bought a copy, I just want to install it on my other >machine". I think the 'on my other machine' is actually ok. If i've payed for a copy already, there's no reason to pay for another one. That's just logic.. -- +--------------------------[ Brent Daniel ]--------------------------------+ | We are no longer the knights who say neet. We are now the knights who say| | Icky Icky Icky, Zip bop bing. --The knights who say icky icky icky, zip | | bop bing. |
omalley@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John O'Malley) (08/03/90)
In article <7120@helios.TAMU.EDU> n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) writes: >Summary: Why get stuck with a lemon? >I think this. Why should I dish out _any_ $$$ and get stung? If I have >been thinking about buying some program, I'll look/ask around to see if >anyone I know has it so I can use it. Not just try it out at the lab >for an hour, but really use it. *Bzzzt!* A better way would be to buy the program from MacConnection or some other mail-order place that offers 30 or 60 day money-back guarantees. This way you can try out the program legally ... and you'll have the latest version and full documentation. And you'll be able to get your money back if you don't like it. -John --- John O'Malley / Macintosh / Purdue University / (317) omalley@mace.cc.purdue.edu / Specialist / Computing Center / 494-1787
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (08/04/90)
In article <7120@helios.TAMU.EDU>, n138ct@tamuts (Brent Burton) writes: > If a program doesn't "ring my bell" I delete it. No harm done to the >company and I'm not out some cash. > >Brent Burton On the other hand, if you're seriously interested in a program but not sure if it's right for you, why not order from MacConnection or MacWarehouse? They both offer 30 day money-back guarantees on most software; at least with legitimately purchased software you have access to manuals, tutorials and the like. And it's hard to beat their prices -- unless, of course, you pirate the software. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/04/90)
In <7120@helios.TAMU.EDU> n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) writes: > If I have been thinking about buying some program, I'll look/ask around > to see if anyone I know has it so I can use it. Not just try it out at > the lab for an hour, but really use it. I assume you mean "make a copy on my machine so I can really try it out." While this certainly violates the letter of the copyright law, and almost certainly the spirit as well, even a "goody two shoes" about pirating (like me) would have a hard time condemming it, if only the end point really were "buy a real copy or delete the hot one after a true and honest trial period." Now, I'm not suggesting that that's not the case with Brent, but in my experience, it all too often isn't. I'll tell you a funny story. My usual approach to fighting piracy is to offer to help people find the answer to their problem in their manual that came with the software. I usually have a pretty good idea what's hot and what's not, and my offer is largely just a way of confirming my hunches. If I become convinced that the person has no manual, sometimes I suggest that the program was installed wrong and offer to help re-install a clean copy from their original disk. Once it becomes obvious to me that it's hot and obvious to the party in question that I know, I refuse to provide any help, and suggest they call tech support with their question. I recently had somebody who actually did call tech support, and then had the balls to come to me to "borrow" my software registration number, so tech support would talk to them! -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
jsuker@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Johnathon Laurence Suker) (08/04/90)
I think the main reason people (as in individual people, not corporations) pirate software is that no one can read a review and decide whether the program reviewed will do what they want. NO ONE can no matter how good the reviewer, you just cant look at a few reviews and have all of your questions answered. I remember reading an messages (a while ago, I dont remember who wrote is) that stated the people that do any signifigant damage by pirating software are the large businesses and offices that buy one copy of software and then install it on all 50 or so machine in the office. The average user who does pirate cannot feasibly use all they program they pirate and eventually stick to using one program which they usually buy to get the manuals and support. Being a student (in the Computer Sciences which gives me access to almost any program I could want) I cannot affort to pay $400 dollars for a wordprocessor and I certainly cannot spend $400 for Word and FullWrite Pro to decide which is better for my individual needs. Luckly the better software companies offer discounts to students which does help but it doesnt help the fact of "How do I know if the program will do what I want", and the last time I listened to a salesman was when one tried to sell me a Pi ece of Shit/2. As for being a "software collector/Testor" I needed a modem software package that supported zmodem and had host features. I had Red Ryder 9.4 but it was VERY BUGGY with my modem and I decided to try one of the newer versions. I couldn't get ahold of either White Knight or Microphone II version 3.0 so I was forced to buy both (luckily Microphone has a student version for $75and white knight is around $75 if you shop around) not only was a VERY broke for three or four months afterwards I eventually throug h away my copy of White Knight because it had to many idiosyncrasy working with the schools mainframe, besides Microphone was just plain easier to use. IF I HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS FOR EVERY PACKAGE I WOULD GIVE UP ON COMPUTERS ENTIRELY. These days I usually try and find a friend with a copy of the software I want to check out (I dont care where he/she got it, their pirating not I) and spend a few hours checking it out. I then shop around at swap meets or at discount stores for older versions with hopes of an easy upgrade path or I work overtime and save the money for the software. I think the software companies should lower the prices of software (hey cut out the cost of advertising, the good programs will get the recognition they deserve whether they have multi-million dollar advertising or not) and they will still make the money. I know this is long, and now I will step down off my soap box. Price the software "for the rest of us" and the piracy will go down. Remember if you dont give the people a chance how do you know they wont pay reasonable prices for software, besides, someone who pirates software with no intensions of paying NEVER WILL no matter what you do. Take it from me, I used to be that way. My two cents worth. Johnathon Suker "Don't quote me on anything, I don't even remember what I said"
jsuker@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Johnathon Laurence Suker) (08/04/90)
I think the main reason people (as in individual people, not corporations) pirate software is that no one can read a review and decide whether the program reviewed will do what they want. NO ONE can no matter how good the reviewer, you just cant look at a few reviews and have all of your questions answered. I remember reading an messages (a while ago, I dont remember who wrote is) that stated the people that do any signifigant damage by pirating software are the large businesses and offices that buy one copy of software and then install it on all 50 or so machine in the office. The average user who does pirate cannot feasibly use all they program they pirate and eventually stick to using one program which they usually buy to get the manuals and support. Being a student (in the Computer Sciences which gives me access to almost any program I could want) I cannot affort to pay $400 dollars for a wordprocessor and I certainly cannot spend $400 for Word and FullWrite Pro to decide which is better for my individual needs. Luckly the better software companies offer discounts to students which does help but it doesnt help the fact of "How do I know if the program will do what I want", and the last time I listened to a salesman was when one tried to sell me a Pi ece of Shit/2. As for being a "software collector/Testor" I needed a modem software package that supported zmodem and had host features. I had Red Ryder 9.4 but it was VERY BUGGY with my modem and I decided to try one of the newer versions. I couldn't get ahold of either White Knight or Microphone II version 3.0 so I was forced to buy both (luckily Microphone has a student version for $75and white knight is around $75 if you shop around) not only was a VERY broke for three or four months afterwards I eventually throug h away my copy of White Knight because it had to many idiosyncrasy working with the schools mainframe, besides Microphone was just plain easier to use. IF I HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS FOR EVERY PACKAGE I WOULD GIVE UP ON COMPUTERS ENTIRELY. These days I usually try and find a friend with a copy of the software I want to check out (I dont care where he/she got it, their pirating not I) and spend a few hours checking it out. I then shop around at swap meets or at discount stores for older versions with hopes of an easy upgrade path or I work overtime and save the money for the software. I think the software companies should lower the prices of software (hey cut out the cost of advertising, the good programs will get the recognition they deserve whether they have multi-million dollar advertising or not) and they will still make the money. I know this is long, and now I will step down off my soap box. Price the software "for the rest of us" and the piracy will go down. Remember if you dont give the people a chance how do you know they wont pay reasonable prices for software, besides, someone who pirates software with no intensions of paying NEVER WILL no matter what you do. Take it from me, I used to be that way. My two cents worth. Johnathon Suker "Don't quote me on anything, I don't even remember what I said"
kyt@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Kok Yong Tan) (08/04/90)
In article <5258@mace.cc.purdue.edu> omalley@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John O'Malley) writes: >In article <7120@helios.TAMU.EDU> n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) writes: >>Summary: Why get stuck with a lemon? >>I think this. Why should I dish out _any_ $$$ and get stung? If I have >>been thinking about buying some program, I'll look/ask around to see if >>anyone I know has it so I can use it. Not just try it out at the lab >>for an hour, but really use it. > >*Bzzzt!* A better way would be to buy the program from MacConnection >or some other mail-order place that offers 30 or 60 day money-back >guarantees. This way you can try out the program legally ... and you'll >have the latest version and full documentation. And you'll be able to >get your money back if you don't like it. Good though MacConnection (I'm a MacConnection devotee after having been put through the grinder by other companies who shall remain unnamed), not all programs have a money-back guarantee. The ones that do are clearly marked. You can call MacConnection and ask their sales people whether the program is or is not an MBG product. They're also pretty good with compatibility questions, too. =============================================================================== Kok-Yong Tan can be contacted via: | "Oscularis fundamentum!" InterNet: kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu | - Annoyed Latin scholar CompuServe: 75046,256 | America Online: Lallang | ===============================================================================
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/05/90)
In <1990Aug3.101831.12438@rbdc> brent@rbdc (Brent Daniel) writes: > you forget that the majority of piraters are between the ages of 13 and > 19. These are the people who, would like to have nice software for their > computer, but don't have the money either because they can't get a job This implies that the majority of pirating is done by individuals for personal use. Believe me, it's done plenty by companies and universities for use at work. If not by the institutions themselves, then certainly by the people who work there, with the blessings (or at least intentional ignorance) of their employers. > Pirating is totally ignored, especially from companies that sell > software for under $60 dollars. I don't think it's a matter of software companies ignoring the problem, it's just that there is no practical way to enforce it. Assume you are a software company that makes program X. My friend gives me a hot copy of program X which I install on my machine and use on a daily basis. Explain how, using whatever resources you like, you are going to find out I have a pirate copy. > I think the 'on my other machine' is actually ok. If i've payed for a copy > already, there's no reason to pay for another one. That's just logic.. It may be logic, but it's not law. Unless the software copyright owner explicitly gives you the right to make additional copies for your other machines, you can't. Note that some software licenses do grant you specific rights to make copies. Symantec, for example, allows you to install Think C on as many machines as you like, as long as (if I understand the license correctly) there is no possibility of more than one copy being in use at a given time. I take advantage of this, for example, by having one copy on my machine at work (which is password protected) and another copy at home. I suppose it is *possible* that both copies could be used at the same time, but I think I'm keeping within any reasonable interpretation of the license agreement. If, however, I bought another Mac for another programmer in my department to use and installed a copy on that machine too, I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that I wouldn't have violated both the copyright and license (two different things). -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
hideg@spsd3260a.erim.org (Steve Hideg (Mr. Fabulous)) (08/06/90)
Because they can. ____________________________________ Steve Hideg (N8HSC) hideg@spsd3260a.erim.org
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (08/07/90)
(Steve Hideg (Mr. Fabulous)) writes: >Because they can. I'd like to relate a recent episode, which illustrated to me just how much of a problem piracy is in the Real World [tm]. Personally, I must admit to going along with Brent's program...if I'm interested in a program, I'll find a copy and try it out. If I find it useful, I'll buy a copy. There are at least ten software packages on my shelf that I would never have purchased had I not had the opportunity to try them out first, so I don't feel too bad about this. Anyway, the anecdote. I recently visited the office of an acquaintance; he's quite successful in his field. In his office, he has a brand new Mac IIci w/8 megs of RAM and 160 & 40 meg hard disks, a SuperMac 19" color display, an H/P ScanJet, and a LaserWriter IINTX, along with some sundry other stuff. I could see somewhere in the neighborhood of $18,000 worth of hardware sitting on the guy's desk. However, when I looked over at his bookshelf, there was only one original manual; that for SUM II. All the other manuals, including the prog- rams on which he'd built his business [Quark Xpress, Adobe Illustrator], were photocopies. He didn't own legitimate copies of any of it. I don't think price has much to do with it at all. <chaz> -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Must think...bubble pipe will relax me and I think..." - Flaming Carrot clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (08/08/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > I don't think it's a matter of software companies ignoring the >problem, it's just that there is no practical way to enforce it. Assume >you are a software company that makes program X. My friend gives me a hot >copy of program X which I install on my machine and use on a daily basis. >Explain how, using whatever resources you like, you are going to find out I >have a pirate copy. [....] > It may be logic, but it's not law. Unless the software copyright >owner explicitly gives you the right to make additional copies for your >other machines, you can't. This brings into question the good sense of those who write these laws. Unenforcable laws are bad laws. At best they bring into disrepute the makers and enforcers of the law. I think we will just have to start accepting that the patterns of production and distribution that work so well for primary and secondary industries are simplying not serving the information industry properly. They never have, but until now there has been small problem because the methods of circumventing the system (hand copying and even photo-copying) were more expensive than using the system. This is no longer the case, and it is pointless for people to sit around weeping and nashing their teeth. We need a new system. We need new laws. The legitimate production and distribution system must become cheaper than the alternatives. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
seye@motcsd.csd.mot.com (seye.ewedemi) (08/10/90)
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >This brings into question the good sense of those who write these laws. >Unenforcable laws are bad laws. At best they bring into disrepute the >makers and enforcers of the law. I think we will just have to start >accepting that the patterns of production and distribution that work so >well for primary and secondary industries are simplying not serving the >information industry properly. The previous passage indirectly portrays a mentality that is very scary. It also shows the frame of mind of a large percentage of American people in recent years that has lead to the unlimitless drug problem that we now face. I can see little children in New York thinking such thoughts as above before bashing the head of a classmate for his Air Jordans. This is not a flame directed at the writer of the passage because I'm not altogether sure he knew exactly what he was implying; this is more of a reaction to a deadly thought I had from reading his passage. The problem is this: To say that something that is not enforcable should not be a law, or is a bad law, is to limit a crime to our human ability to catch the criminal. The two are not the same. Just because one can get away with something doesn't erase the offence of the crime. There should be a higher judge internal to all of us that watches our actions and enforces these crimes since a mere mortal policeman cannot be at all places at all times. Some people call this a conscience. Some people still have one that is effected every time the do something morally wrong even if they get away with it. To argue that software pirating isn't a moral crime is another argument all together. There would be some worth to such an argument since not all laws in the books are morally criminal. Take for example, 30 years ago when it was a crime for blacks and whites to go to the same schools. However, to say that a law that cannot be enforced is not a good law is a fatal mistake that can bring on chaos in ways we cannot even imagine. Especially now that the criminals are getting smarter and it is much harder to catch them. Soon, there may not even be a smoking gun to locate the murderers with. Who knows what the future brings? The Seye
drew@cup.portal.com (Andrew E Wade) (08/10/90)
Why do people pirate software? Here's a guess of common reasons: 1. Because it's too easy. So, they do it without even thinking, or maybe meaning well, thinking they'll pay for it tomorrow,... 2. Because it's too hard. Some people can't resist the challeng of breaking that security, or resent its imposition. 3. Because they see no value in software. It's ephemeral, it's not substantial like buying an hunk of plastic or metal. -Drew Wade
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (08/23/90)
seye@motcsd.csd.mot.com (seye.ewedemi) writes: >brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >>This brings into question the good sense of those who write these laws. >>Unenforcable laws are bad laws. >The previous passage indirectly portrays a mentality that is very scary. >It also shows the frame of mind of a large percentage of American people >in recent years that has lead to the unlimitless drug problem that we now >face. I can see little children in New York thinking such thoughts as above >before bashing the head of a classmate for his Air Jordans. This is not a >flame directed at the writer of the passage because I'm not altogether sure >he knew exactly what he was implying; this is more of a reaction to a >deadly thought I had from reading his passage. >The problem is this: To say that something that is not enforcable should >not be a law, or is a bad law, is to limit a crime to our human ability to >catch the criminal. Thanks for letting me off so easily. It is comforting to know my inability to understand my own words makes me innocent of their meaning. I think you are taking a slightly liberal view of what I meant by unenforcable, especially if you think murder and property theft are unenforcable. The sort of law of was thinking of is the law (here in Queensland) that prohibits certain acts between consenting adult males. There is no way (consistant with reasonable levels of privacy) to fairly enforce such laws. Generally (as with piracy) knowledge of the act is entirely restricted to the participants. People are only charged with this offence if they have upset people in high places, or as an "example" to scare and humilate people of similar preferences. The law is unenforcable because any application of it will be selective and therefore unjust. Now as to the morality of such practices between consenting adult males? Well there seems to be some disagreement on that matter. We'll never finish arguing that out, and meanwhile there remains the potential for selective and unjust application of the law. The law should go because it is unenforcable, hence unjust and therefore stupid, unless of course you like to have a few laws around that can be used to get rid of nuisances. Perhaps there are things so morally repugnant to society that we should legislate against them even if there is no reasonable way to find out about their occurance. Can't think of any off hand though. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.