1833 replies to this topic

[Archamond]

Pirating software!=stealing from the store

Lets look at simplified example:
You want to get an office package. You have three options: a)buy MS Office, b)download cracked MS Office, c)download Open Office. What would Microsoft want you to do? Option a) of course. But if that fails? Exactly.

For each and every company is better, in my opinion, to have their software(or music, or whatever digital) used instead of rival company's product, even if it is pirated. That means bigger market share. That means that someone else might heard of them and decide to buy their product. That can't be bad thing, right?

At least 90% of people who get pirated software would not buy legal version. Some simply won't. Some of them can't, they don't have money or simply live in a country(like me) where is paying online too much of a pain in the ass to even consider doing it. I can give you all sort of examples if you want. (for the record, I have legal GM 7. GM, GTA IV, new Total War and PES 2010 are only legal software I have)

So, from company's point of view, in most cases, pirated software is not lost sales. It's market share increase for their product. If their product get some state-of-art protection, most of pirates will just get product from rival company.
And don't get me wrong, piracy IS a bad thing, but if you ask manager of any company, would they rather have people using pirated version of their product or not using it at all, I'd bet you know the answer.

Software(and music) can't be blindly compared to physical products. They simply can't.

[Robert3DG+]

Wonderful, that proves it! If Game Maker ever went open source, there would be a huge flame war, this topic is solid proof. But then I suppose Game Maker can't really do anything without causing a flame war around here, in the land where everyone is always right.

In a land where a certain few thinks they're always right.

[onpon4]

Look guys, superjoebob is right. Piracy has absolutely NOTHING to do with open source. How about ceasing this stupid argument over terminology?

[Yourself]

If I see someone stealing from a store, what is stopping me from following suit?

The same thing that stopped you from being the first person to do it. The fact that you might actually have some kind of ethical obligation not to.

[Samscam]

Does anyone here really believes that piratig results in a loss of money for the developer? If so, then do you believe that users who use pirated software, would have payed for it if there weren't a pirated version?

This is how I see it:
Pirating:
Product price: €15,00
Sales: 1500
Income: €22.500,00
Users: 2000

No pirating:
Product price: €15,00
Sales: 1500
Income: €22.500,00
Users: 1500

Less people using the software, but the income stays the same.

Edited by Samscam, 02 March 2010 - 04:17 PM.

[petenka]

I hold no opinion.

Edited by petenka, 03 March 2010 - 10:07 PM.

[FredFredrickson]

I myself can't afford most software, so except for the rare cases like game maker, I generally just pirate everything.
Those companies haven't lost any money from me, since I can't buy their software anyways.
They have gained another user though, and every company wants a larger userbase.
Hence my piracy benefits them, since they haven't lost any potential profit, and their userbase has grown.

This is what I hate about the pirate attitude. Everyone's always trying to rationalize an activity that is unethical and wrong.

Just because you can't pay for something (or merely don't want to), it doesn't mean you are entitled to it for free. A userbase means nothing if your income isn't enough to support further development.

[Archamond]

This is what I hate about the pirate attitude. Everyone's always trying to rationalize an activity that is unethical and wrong.

If a company don't bother to make paying their product from my(or any other) country comfortable, then pirating their software is both ethical and right from my point of view. If they don't want to be good company and care about me, why should I give a **** about them?

Thus, I only pay for software as support to developer, if I feel they deserve me bothering with payment. Like Paradox Entertainment or Mark Overmars for example. Their products and effort are just worth all the money they want. On the other hand, likes of Sports Interactive whose games need up to 3 patches to work correctly simply don't.

Small percentage of people on this world is actually able to sit comfortably in their chair and use their credit cards to pay all over the world, or to be precise, all over the USA/parts of Europe. I do have money to pay for software but I can't do that comfortably. And there are millions of people around the world with same attitude. You just can't look at entire world and base opinions through US eyes.

Edited by Archamond, 02 March 2010 - 05:45 PM.

[e_barroga]

Does anyone here really believes that piratig results in a loss of money for the developer? If so, then do you believe that users who use pirated software, would have payed for it if there weren't a pirated version?

This is how I see it:
Pirating:
Product price: €15,00
Sales: 1500
Income: €22.500,00
Users: 2000

No pirating:
Product price: €15,00
Sales: 1500
Income: €22.500,00
Users: 1500

Less people using the software, but the income stays the same.

Pirating:
Product Price: 15.00
Sales: 1500
Income: 22,500
Users: 2000

No Pirating:
Product Price: 15.00
Sales: 2000
Income: 30,000
Users: 2000

Obviously pirates want to use the software, otherwise why pirate it? Not being able to afford it is no excuse to get something for free. Your comparison assumes that pirates wouldn't buy the software anyways. If they are pirating, obviously they want to use it, they just don't want to waste their money on it.

Thus, I only pay for software as support to developer, if I feel they deserve me bothering with payment. Like Paradox Entertainment or Mark Overmars for example. Their products and effort are just worth all the money they want. On the other hand, likes of Sports Interactive whose games need up to 3 patches to work correctly simply don't.

Then it is simple. You either buy the products you think are worth it or you don't. You don't steal it. Obviously it has a decent amount of worth if it makes you result to stealing it. Who's fault is it really for Sports Interactive's games requiring up to 3 patches to work correctly? Greedy business leaders or the programmers? They could either ignore the bugs and be happy with the money you used to buy their product or they could spend money to fix the problem.

Small percentage of people on this world is actually able to sit comfortably in their chair and use their credit cards to pay all over the world, or to be precise, all over the USA/parts of Europe. I do have money to pay for software but I can't do that comfortably. And there are millions of people around the world with same attitude. You just can't look at entire world and base opinions through US eyes

So companies make an effort to expand globally and this is the attitude of the "millions of people around the world" that they are making an attempt to serve. Perhaps they shouldn't bother if all they are going to do is steal it anyways.

If there weren't any thieves in existence perhaps getting your product would be easier.

[Yourself]

If a company don't bother to make paying their product from my(or any other) country comfortable, then pirating their software is both ethical and right from my point of view. If they don't want to be good company and care about me, why should I give a **** about them?

How, in any way, does this entitle you to their product? If you don't like it, or can't pay for it, or whatever, you don't get it. That does not justify piracy for the same reason not being able to afford it does not justify piracy. You're still trying to rationalize something that is unethical.

This is just idiotic.

Edited by Yourself, 02 March 2010 - 08:08 PM.

[GrayAvocado]

I myself can't afford most software, so except for the rare cases like game maker, I generally just pirate everything.
Those companies haven't lost any money from me, since I can't buy their software anyways.
They have gained another user though, and every company wants a larger userbase.
Hence my piracy benefits them, since they haven't lost any potential profit, and their userbase has grown.

Do you also feel fine stealing from rich people?

[Recreate]

At someone above: You are forgetting that in most cases pirates pirate software purely because they can't afford it.

[e_barroga]

At someone above: You are forgetting that in most cases pirates pirate software purely because they can't afford it.

Not being able to afford something just means not being able to bear the cost of something. If you can't bear the cost of something, obviously you don't get it, otherwise what is the point of money?

[Samscam]

Pirating:
Product Price: 15.00
Sales: 1500
Income: 22,500
Users: 2000

No Pirating:
Product Price: 15.00
Sales: 2000
Income: 30,000
Users: 2000

Obviously pirates want to use the software, otherwise why pirate it? Not being able to afford it is no excuse to get something for free. Your comparison assumes that pirates wouldn't buy the software anyways. If they are pirating, obviously they want to use it, they just don't want to waste their money on it.

Let's take Adobe's products as an example. I'm not accusing you, but let's say you are using a pirated version of photoshop. You're probably doing this because you can't afford the $699 they're asking for it. I can imagine that lots of people want to use photoshop, but if there weren't any pirating, a huge part of these people simply won't because it's so expensive. So the result of pirating will only be the increased userbases, not a decreased income.
Can you give any other real reason for why people would use pirated software? Saying that they just don't want to "waste" their money on it isn't a good argument.

[e_barroga]

Pirating:
Product Price: 15.00
Sales: 1500
Income: 22,500
Users: 2000

No Pirating:
Product Price: 15.00
Sales: 2000
Income: 30,000
Users: 2000

Obviously pirates want to use the software, otherwise why pirate it? Not being able to afford it is no excuse to get something for free. Your comparison assumes that pirates wouldn't buy the software anyways. If they are pirating, obviously they want to use it, they just don't want to waste their money on it.

Let's take Adobe's products as an example. I'm not accusing you, but let's say you are using a pirated version of photoshop. You're probably doing this because you can't afford the $699 they're asking for it. I can imagine that lots of people want to use photoshop, but if there weren't any pirating, a huge part of these people simply won't because it's so expensive. So the result of pirating will only be the increased userbases, not a decreased income.
Can you give any other real reason for why people would use pirated software? Saying that they just don't want to "waste" their money on it isn't a good argument.

So you're saying people should take the easy way out. People shouldn't work. People who work shouldn't save their money. People who work but don't get paid enough should be worrying about things like Photoshop instead of a food.

Really the only reason people serve people on this planet is because they expect to be compensated. It is either that or conquest.

[superjoebob]

I myself can't afford most software, so except for the rare cases like game maker, I generally just pirate everything.

You do realize that no matter how common pirating has become, it's still considered stealing, and you just openly admitted to it.

[Samscam]

So you're saying people should take the easy way out. People shouldn't work. People who work shouldn't save their money.

I'm not saying that that is how it should be, but I'm saying that that is how it is.

People who work but don't get paid enough should be worrying about things like Photoshop instead of a food.

If those people work, they probably have no problems getting on food, otherwise, they probably don't even know what photoshop is.
Something else: If those people don't work, and they are good photographers/photo-editors, and they want to start making a living out of that hobby, they will probably use a pirated version of PS to do so.

Really the only reason people serve people on this planet is because they expect to be compensated. It is either that or conquest.

True, but I'm still waiting for your argument on why people would use pirated software other than the fact that they can't/wont pay for it.

[e_barroga]

True, but I'm still waiting for your argument on why people would use pirated software other than the fact that they can't/wont pay for it.

I am pretty sure you don't need anyone to spoon feed the information on this thread for you.

Pirating software because trying to purchase it is hard is bunch of bull****.

If those people don't work, and they are good photographers/photo-editors, and they want to start making a living out of that hobby, they will probably use a pirated version of PS to do so.

Then get a job like everyone else so you can buy it. Use your brain, how does one get money to purchase equipment one would need to make a living?

Edited by e_barroga, 02 March 2010 - 09:40 PM.

[Lody]

@e_barroga:
I'm not sure what you just (directed at 7:18am post) said but samscam is right.
people only pirate software cos they don't have the money themselves to buy it.
obviously it's only if they want it so everyone isn't gonna be worrying about photoshop instead of food (which is a stupid point to make btw).
samscam is also right about the pirating/non-pirating comparison.
if people pirate something cos they can't afford it, doesn't mean that when they don't find a pirated version that they'll magically pull money from where the sun-doesn't-shine and buy it.
instead theres less people using the software but no more are buying it.

but what I find stupid is the fact that whether gm is open source or not it still gets pirated.

Edited by Lody, 02 March 2010 - 09:44 PM.

[e_barroga]

if people pirate something cos they can't afford it, doesn't mean that when they don't find a pirated version that they'll magically pull money from where the sun-doesn't-shine and buy it.
instead theres less people using the software but no more are buying it.

Based on what assumption?

edit:
You don't seem to understand economics.

Edited by e_barroga, 02 March 2010 - 09:45 PM.