Some of us believe that developing software is a service, rather than think of software as a manufactured product.
I am a software engineer by trade. I am not paid by my employer per line or per unit or per program or per product. I am on salary to produce software for them, and by the nature of my industry, all source code is part of a contract deliverable.
I understand that this model does not work for independent software developers quite as conveniently, but it was guys like Gates that convinced the world that software was a manufactured good, and coincidentally, it was the windows platform that centered around the ideas like DRM. It was an easy argument for a culture that believed that as long as they wrote something, it would be purchased based on intrinsic value.
Note that shareware did not extend far outside of the microsoft model. MacOS had some. Even Linux saw a bit here and there. But Apple got in the business of We’ll give you everything you need., which covered a lot of users in a free-to-use model (yes, plenty of commercial proprietary software there. Probably some piracy, but how to measure it?) and the F/OSS crowd in Linux said Yeah, we’ve got commercial software too, but chances are good that someone’s going to write something that’s nearly as good, in some cases better, and give it away. So you’d best think of what you have to offer above and beyond software as the end-all/be-all.
I do not condone copyright infringement, be it media works of art or artifact. But my sympathy doesn’t extend to anyone that isn’t flexible if the world changes around them.
I’ve seen a lot of these arguments now applied to the record business. I remember when NIN released a series of records DRM free a year or so ago (i think it was called Ghosts?). People were falling over themselves with gushing and praise for the delivery method but the music was not worthy of buying. Some were claiming we should buy the record to reward NIN for being so hip. I heard similar things of Radiohead’s internet release.
I think this goes to something deeper. Why should I donate to a political campaign if I can be part of it with out giving? Or a church? Or a shareware?
Speaking of pirating software, not contributing to open-source/free projects that you use and depend on, is just as bad IMO. I encourage anyone that uses Wikipedia (I know I use it daily) to donate.
Maybe I am missing something here but if developers want to make their software pirate proof, why don’t they maintain a database of serial numbers. Each one of them can only be used once and the product has to call home to that database of keys to be activated. I guess that would be something similar to when Microsoft implemented the WPA. There has to be a way to make it uncrackable too.
I prefer to pay when I have to spend too much time pirating.
iTunes, Steam, are a great incentive against piracy because I can attach my property to my online profile. Steam provides additional services that I can only access if I have an account.
Paypal helps a lot too, it makes it possible to buy easily in seconds.
World of Warcraft only uses the server to create a multplayer environment and provide on-demand the scripted logic for the high level bosses.
Software authors should check serial/crack sites and re-release a new version often to suppress the available crack/serial.
Why do you repeat such bogus claims about piracy??
I can’t imagine how a programmer could figure two utter unknowns should be assumed to be approximately equal!
Furthermore, there is another category of people who will rack up multiple IP’s: Those who travel and have it on a laptop.
If they actually want to learn something about piracy they should have sent some machine signature info.
Furthermore, as others have pointed out a lot of piracy is by those who never would have bought the product anyway–either because they simply don’t have the money or because they need to make a little use of something that’s not little. (I’m thinking mostly of people who use an expensive package at work and want to make one thing with it at home. Is someone like this going to buy Autocad to make one drawing? Sure, there are cheaper equivalents but if they have learning curves. Given the option, such a person is likely to use a pirate copy of the product they know.)
As far as I’m concerned a pirate copy means nothing unless the person has the money to buy the product and doing so isn’t obviously nuts.
If you’re downloading and using software that you didn’t pay for but you should have then it’s stealing
That’s a circular argument, because you define the act as something that should not be done — you start by assuming the conclusion.
It’s not a circular argument; it’s a statement identifying a particular action – downloading and using software that you didn’t pay for but should have – as stealing. I didn’t write the statement, but I think it’s pretty clear that the but you should have part is pointing at the fact that an individual or organization owns the software in question. I’d say it’s owned legally because the government recognizes the creator’s right to control the distribution of that software (copyright), and owned morally because the creator of the software (or book, song, etc.) must be able to own the products of his own work if he is to survive, let alone live a happy and full life.
complaining about piracy gets you nowhere. like you said, it will happen. this is obviously something that is part of our current culture, and we must accept it; unless you want to concede more rights and let the government control hardware and software.
perhaps people just feel $20, or $15 is too much? what if he had charged $5 instead? he would only have to break the 40% piracy rate to make more money. so the question is, would 30%+ more people buy a game if it was $5? if you think I’m crazy, look up the iPhone fart app (as my basis for cheap or micro charging).
again, whining about piracy gets you? n o w h e r e.
Speaking of pirating software, not contributing to open-source/free projects that you use and depend on, is just as bad IMO. I encourage anyone that uses Wikipedia (I know I use it daily) to donate.
I think there is one fundamental difference: Pirating someone’s software breaks the terms that the owner set for use of his software, but using open-source projects without contribution to the author does not.
Exorbitant Adobe software? Bunk. For the amount of honest-to-God innovation and human hours that go into designing, creating, and testing the Suites, the prices they charge are a bargain. In fact, that flippant comment undermines your own argument; Adobe helps people create art that’s never before been possible. Surely the tools of one’s trade are worth a couple hundred bucks.
Myth: stealing cable is wrong. Fact: Cable companies are large, faceless corporations, which makes it okay. - Homer Simpson
It seems to me that the only real effective way of dealing with piracy is through the use of server side inducements. For example, World of Goo could have restricted it to one name per purchase on their online leaderboards. That would mean, if someone wanted just to play the game for fun, they would be able to pirate it without anyone stopping them but if they wanted their name to be preserved for posterity, they need to pony up the additional money for a license.
Your software is being pirated? Gee, say thanks! Being copied illegally (which is incidentally the right term for this, piracy is something else) means that your software doesn’t suck and it’s worth copying illegally, and it’s getting some free publicity. It also means that in most people’s minds your software is not worth US$20. It’s a pretty darn big hint that you should lower what you charge for your software. Get over the whole piracy soap opera already…
This is the reason why some of us have given up on charging for software altogether. I am a programmer and I make a living out of it, I charge for programming services, not for programs. You just have to face the hard cold fact that the modern society doesn’t see a value in software anymore (if it ever did).
When playing the demo you have the option to submit the score as well (world of goo). I hope they only looked at scores submitted by none demo versions. if there is no way to see that than the must count only the submissions from the levels not found in the demo.
Jeff, at least you were honest about stealing software in the old days. Just how that is supposed to discourage others from piracy is beyond me. It is like the parents who tell war stories about drinking in college or high school and then telling their kids not to drink.
This post might have well not have been written. It is useless except as a vehicle to get people posting here and traffic driven to your website.
Next week we can argue about abortion or religion. It is just as useful…