What do you feel about software piracy

Where is the option for "occasional hacker?"

I'm in between option 2 and 3... I buy a lot of software, but there's no way I could afford the amount of stuff that I actually have.. when there's something that I REALLY like, 90% of the time I'll actually go out and buy it. I see it as, try before you buy..

Wow, few want to even talk about this issue.

If something violates someone else's property rights, generally, unless you specifically wish to deprive that person of something that belongs to them, you shouldn't do any such thing that violates their property rights. The law of karma suggests that one can expect one's own property rights to become violated in an analagous manner. So before violating another's property rights, you might want to be prepared for this situation to arise, and know how well or poorly you will be able to tolerate it.

Originally posted by soilman
Wow, few want to even talk about this issue.

If something violates someone else's property rights, generally, unless you specifically wish to deprive that person of something that belongs to them, you shouldn't do any such thing that violates their property rights. The law of karma suggests that one can expect one's own property rights to become violated in an analagous manner. So before violating another's property rights, you might want to be prepared for this situation to arise, and know how well or poorly you will be able to tolerate it.

I think people don't want to put their criminal habits in writing. But yes, I too, feel much better about myself and the world when I pay for my software. If it is something I really use a lot and love, and especially if it was made by a small company or feelance programmer, paying will encourage more good work from that company or person in the future.

Well, I don't buy a whole lot of software. Not even close. I've never bought a Microsoft product besides MS Money and Flight Simulator. I have thousands of dollars worth of audio editing software that I've never paid for. It ain't right, but I'm not really apolagetic about it. I almost always buy the home-grown and small-business-made tools when I find them useful. It has nothing to do with karma, as karma has nothing to do with the material world, it's just how I decide to do my thing, that's all.

All I really use is Internet Explorer, AIM, and word processing. Other than that, it's accessory to me. I don't have time or the expertise to pirate anything.

Max, my boyfriend Chris is always on his FlightSim. I'll call him and ask him to land his Thunderbird, Cessna, or whatever he happens to be flying. He's had me try it, but since I have hardly used a joystick before, it's just not much fun for me.

My primary evil sin in regards to software is installing software on multiple computers. For the most part, open source and free software means that I don't need to pirate for almost all applications.

i have to admit that i do use a few programs that i didn't buy. but i just can't justify to myself buying these programs if i use them so seldom, you know? i am harsher on myself with music though, as i'll download mp3s to hear an album but i'll either delete them soon after or buy the album if i like them. i guess it doesn't really make sense making a distinction between the two but i do..

I'm pretty good about it. I have some fairly expensive programs that I've gotten through friends. I really don't use them so it doesn't bother me. Cheaper programs (less than $100) I'll either buy or download and find a registration code for. If I like it and continue using it I'll go ahead and pay for it. If it's quality software at a reasonable price then I'm all for compensating the creators. MP3's are another story. :D

For games, it's a bit of a catch 22. There's no way I'm going to spend money on a game I haven't played. But if I already have the pirated full version of a game, there's much less motivation to drop $50 for something I already have, just for the privilege of owning the legitimate version. Originally this was the point of demos, but they've become increasingly less reliable for determining the actual quality of the finished product.

As far as Microsoft products go: I want their functionality, but I don't want to support the company. It's bad enough I'm giving them market share by using their products. I'm easing my way into Linux, but I still think it's a year or two from prime time.

To date, I've only felt guilty about one program I've warezed: the RPG Morrowind. I wish the developers had some online donation system so I could throw them a few bucks.

Yes, I'm terribly cheap about paying for things I can copy.

skylark writes:
"I don't have time or the expertise to pirate anything."

The thing is, however -- you don't need much expertise to pirate anything. If you have a broadband connection, it takes very little time to transfer a large program from one person to another. The digital electronic revolution has made, from a practical standpoint, violation of a creative person's right to receive money for something they worked hard to create, much easier than it was in the past. For copyrighted books, making a photocopy of a legitimate copy would cost more than buying a legitimate copy. Making a copy of an e-book cost almost nothing. But writing an e-book, with a word processor, is not a so dramaticlly easier than writing a book with a typewriter, having a typesetter re-set it , and having a printer print it.

Thalia agreeing with soilman, writes: "yes, I too, feel much better about myself and the world when I pay for my software. "

The other side of the coin is that in many parts of the world, the disparity between what the wealthy have, and what the poor have, the simple ratio of material assets and money to buy material assets, is an unbelievable ratio. Furthermore, just about all of the poor are suffering due to being unable to afford enough to eat, or being unable to get adequate medical care, while the rich don't worry about such things. I therefore find it difficult to assign guilt or blame to the poor who use software without making a payment to rich people who wrote it; but have no trouble assigning guilt and blame to rich people who use software without making a payment to poor people who wrote it. That's right, there are excellent computer programmers who are poor, because people use their programs without paying them; and there are mediocre computer programmers who are rich, because numerous people have paid them lots of money for the right to use the mediocre programs they wrote.

Take Bill Gates for example. The programs his company writes are mediocre. Yet he is very rich. At the same time, there are brilliant elegant programs written by people, who didn't make any sort of living from payments made to them by people using their programs. Plus there are undoubtedly many shades of gray in-between, for example fairly good programs written by people who made a decent living, from payments made to them for using the programs, who are economically comfortable but not rich.

100% compliant.

"Take Bill Gates for example. The programs his company writes are mediocre. Yet he is very rich. At the same time, there are brilliant elegant programs written by people, who didn't make any sort of living from payments made to them by people using their programs."

This is why I feel the need to compensate people for their work. As long as I feel it's a good value (and most of it is). In a way, not compensating people for writing superior (and cheaper porgrams) is just as bad as giving your money to Microsoft.

They tend to be more reasonable. To me, asking $450 for Microsoft Office is not reasonable. I'd be tempted, assuming I haven't already, to pirate something like that. Whereas something like MailWasher, which is a very simple but useful program, is only $20. I didn't hesitate to pay for it because I don't feel they're trying to gouge me and it's most definitelly worth it. I don't know, it just seems their intentions are better and it makes me want to support them.

Originally posted by Marumm
To date, I've only felt guilty about one program I've warezed: the RPG Morrowind. I wish the developers had some online donation system so I could throw them a few bucks.

That has gotta be the best single player RPG out there.. I love that game! I have a lvl 52 Redguard, hehe. I have the downloaded warez version too, but I forked over my $50 on the xbox Morrowind, so I dont feel bad.

Did you know the expansion pack is out already?? Tribunal. :D

Soilman,
The main catch is that I don't have a broadband connection. I just have a standard telephone line connection. This bugs the heck out of me, but its the only connection that my rents are willing to pay for. I'd love to pay for road runner or broadband or another faster connection, but I can't realistically do that and college at the same time. I offered to help chip in toward road runner, but my parents are slow to act. My dad says our internet connection is plenty fast enough, its when I visit sites with graphics and pictures that slows it down. Um, how many sites exist that DON'T have graphics and/or pictures? I can only think of two off of the top of my head, they are both sites built by my friends, and they've only just started them.

Originally posted by soilman
skylark writes:
"I don't have time or the expertise to pirate anything."

The thing is, however -- you don't need much expertise to pirate anything. If you have a broadband connection, it takes very little time to transfer a large program from one person to another. The digital electronic revolution has made, from a practical standpoint, violation of a creative person's right to receive money for something they worked hard to create, much easier than it was in the past. For copyrighted books, making a photocopy of a legitimate copy would cost more than buying a legitimate copy. Making a copy of an e-book cost almost nothing. But writing an e-book, with a word processor, is not a so dramaticlly easier than writing a book with a typewriter, having a typesetter re-set it , and having a printer print it.


On the other hand, the economics of copyright currently are bent decidedly in favor of the big ones like Microsoft and J. K. Roling that everyone wants a piece of, but not necessarily the little guys who need exposure to be read. Many lesser known authors have found that they make more money if their work is freely available on the internet because it is cheaper to buy the print copy than to print out 500 pages. The print book has added value and functionality that does not exist for e-books.

The same economic principle applies to free software*. Most of the programming market is not in selling shrink-wrapped license-bound software but in consulting and customization. People known for contributing to free software* are more likely to get hired to customized that software for businesses. Shareware works on similar principles.

But although I agree that piracy is an ethical lapse, I have a hard time finding sypathy for most of the folks complaining about the problem..

1: Microsoft, a company that was convicted of using dirty tricks to obtain a 95% share of the desktop and web browser market.

2: The MPAA who'se member studios rake in $100mil each opening weekend and hold a virtual monopoly over the production and distribution of American film.

3: The RIAA that owns 95% of music produced in the united states.

We are talking about the kind of coporate scum who can say without a hint of irony that going to the bathroom during a commercial is a breach of contract between the cable buyer and the cable company.

Granted the internet has greatly enabled piracy (of which I feel that more attention should be paid to the mass Asian pirates than Joe Shmoe who makes a single copy of an album to give to a friend). On the other hand, in the last 20 years the public domain has practically vanished and software and media companies are doing their best to eliminate fair use as well.

*free as in speech, not as in beer, an important distinction.

Originally posted by skylark
Soilman,
The main catch is that I don't have a broadband connection. I just have a standard telephone line connection. This bugs the heck out of me, but its the only connection that my rents are willing to pay for. I'd love to pay for road runner or broadband or another faster connection, but I can't realistically do that and college at the same time. I offered to help chip in toward road runner, but my parents are slow to act. My dad says our internet connection is plenty fast enough, its when I visit sites with graphics and pictures that slows it down. Um, how many sites exist that DON'T have graphics and/or pictures? I can only think of two off of the top of my head, they are both sites built by my friends, and they've only just started them.

We got broadband because it was actually cheaper than buying a second phone line+ISP. On the other hand, internet media bloat is a sign of bad design.

There is no Broadband option where I live, the computer has to share the phone line. Grrrr not fair. All my stuff is 100% paid for except socket watch screen clock syncroniser and I would send them a little money if it wasn't so complicated from the Uk.

" Most of the programming market is not in selling shrink-wrapped license-bound software but in consulting and customization."

That is because piracy is so widespread, that if they tried to sell shrink-wrapped licensed software, and make an income selling it, it would quickly be spread around via pirate versions, and they wouldn't be able to get paid for all the labor they put into writing the software. If they claimed copy rights, hordes of looters would steal what is rightfully their. So they have to selll what can't be stolen, custom applications rather than appliations that are useful if simply copied without being altered. This is one of the unfortunate results of widepread piracy: programmers cannot make a living off of reproducible software that they put a tremendous amount of effort into.

"The main catch is that I don't have a broadband connection." They are rather expensive compared to dialup.

One way to save, and it is quite legal even tho the cable companies try to make you think it is not -- is for several housholds to share one cable connection, with only one cable modem, that they pay only one monthly $40 payment for. You can get up to 20 or so computers on one connection using one connection and one cable modem. I'm surprised more people don't do it.

All you need to do is put a cheap nic in each computer and get a nat router hub thing, at about $80. Then connect each computer by twisted pair from each computer's nic to the hub. Unshielded twisted pair cable, the cheapest kind, will work at up to 220 meters, using (the typical) 100baseTX NIC! That's about 600 feet. So you can connected nearby houses, not just apartments.

You don't even need that; you can make one computer the cable modem server using windows internet connection sharing feature, with nics on all the other computers and twisted pair wires connected to a hub. Set up peer to peer home network between the computers. On the computer with the cable modem, make sure ICS is (part of Internet tools) is loaded. Then go to Control Panel > internet options > Connections tab > sharing button. Put a check in the "use internet connection sharing" box. Under "select the device that u use to connect to the internet" select your cable modem. In "select your home network Nic" select your nic. connect the nic to the hub, and the nic of all the other computers to the hub. That's about it! All the other computers on your peer to peer network will pretty much be automatically already set up to connect to the internet via the cable modem on the computer that has the cable modem! Get everybody a copy of zone alarm to protect them from each other, keep their files private.

Yes if 2 computers are downloadibng at once they each slow down a bit -- but it is still about 20 times faster than dialup. While the distance between houses may require something more advanced, people in adjacent apartments in apartment buildings should need nothing but 1 cable modem in one apartment, nics, a hub, and wires from each apt to the hub. I think the max length of the wire is about 600 feet.

Soilman:

It is a bit clear that you don't know anything about how the software programming market works. That is okay, very few consumers really do. Most computer programmers are not employed making "end-user" applications. Instead, they are employed making "enterprise" applications for businesses and organizations. In fact, I know of quite a few computer programmers and none of them work on end-user applications. One is currently developing billing systems for cooperative electric companies. Another is developing educational Web applications. A third works for an ISP setting up e-commerce solutions for businesses. In all of these applications piracy is not much of an issue. After all, how many people need a custom billing system for Midwestern cooperative power company? A huge number of programmers are employed creating macro scripts for Microsoft Office to format documents and data in a particular style.

In terms of free software only being released as free because of the risk of piracy, on that you're just plain wrong. None of the free software producers are in the business of creating free (free as in speech, not as in beer) software because of piracy. Most do so because they believe that the free software is good for the community, and good for consumer rights.

For an example of how free software is good for the community, when the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee he convinced his employers to release both the software (a Web browser and a Web server) and the specification for how these two components communicated into the public domain. The software was specifically written so that academic scientists and researchers around the world could collaborate. The World Wide Web was not a unique invention. However about the same time, the University of Wisconsin announced that it might, possibly, at some point in the future, charge royalties on Gopher. The end result is that the World Wide Web is the Internet for most people while Gopher has pretty much vanished.

Economically, free software transforms programming into a service rather than the production of a product. A person who contributes to FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, Apache, or OpenOffice may not get paid for her his contribution in terms of royalties or hourly wages. However they get an impressive line on their résumé that may help them if Walgreens or Sears needs a specialist in any of these applications to create a customization. They do get returns through the creation of the Commons. The commons only works as long as people are actively contributing to it. If I need a solution for particular problem, it is likely that someone else has figured out. In addition, publishing the software as free software turns a personal project into a collaborative project. People who contribute to free software get returns in terms of free labor. If your project is popular enough, and needed, other people will contribute suggestions, bug reports, and improvements. See http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ for a description of how this works.

And it's not just individual programmers who contribute to free software. AOL/Time Warner are major contributors to Mozilla, Sun Microsystems contributes to OpenOffice, and IBM contributes to the development of Apache and Linux. If you're competing with the company such as Microsoft that can outspend you, free software development has a major advantages. AOL/Time Warner gets a strategic benefit in not being dependent on Internet Explorer for dial-up customers, Sun Microsystems gets an office suite that will run on their own proprietary systems as well as Microsoft Windows, and IBM can sell "big iron" and Web server hardware based on proven technologies.

In terms of personal economics, it frequently does not make sense to try to turn an idea into a product. The economic cost of producing and distributing software is enormous. Once you distribute software as a commercial product, you also have to deal with liability and support for that software. Computer programmers suffer from the same bad economics as professional writers. Fewer than 5 percent a professional writers make a living off of publication royalties. If the money is already in the pocket, (the programmer was paid to create the software as part of a job) the pain and mess of trying to commercialize the software may be more trouble than it is worth. Sometimes you have to give something away in order to make money. Many authors and musicians have found that they sell more copies of their material if their work is freely available on the Internet. People will pay to get the material printed nicely in hardcopy form. Likewise, with free software you don't charge for the software, but you can make money selling computers with the software preconfigured and preinstalled, you can make money selling CD copies of the software, you can make money selling the supporting documentation, you can make money selling technical support, you can make money as a consultant customizing the software for enterprise users.

As a consumer, I believe that if I own a copy of something, I should be able to do what I want with it. There is nothing to prevent me from buying a garbage can and drilling a bunch of holes in the bottom and using it as a planter. However with proprietary software I can never really own the software that I buy. I cannot copy it, even to make a backup for my own uses (a right granted by fair use). If it breaks, I cannot fix it. The software can even demand that I make personal information about myself known to the producer of the software. Microsoft Windows XP has clauses limiting what non Microsoft software you can use to connect to your machine, and Microsoft FrontPage prohibits you from making a web page that criticizes Microsoft.

And finally, some of us create things for reasons other than making money. The primary reason I publishes because I believe I have something to say that is important to people and my field. Making money for saying it is less important than having people hear it. The secondary reason is that if nobody reads my papers or my book chapters, my employment prospects vanish. As such, giving people the freedom to widely redistribute my ideas is in my better interest than charging cash for each copy they read.

Originally posted by soilman

All you need to do is put a cheap nic in each computer and get a nat router hub thing, at about $80. Then connect each computer by twisted pair from each computer's nic to the hub. Unshielded twisted pair cable, the cheapest kind, will work at up to 220 meters, using (the typical) 100baseTX NIC! That's about 600 feet. So you can connected nearby houses, not just apartments.

Good idea, but at $30 per 100 feet it is probably cheaper to go wireless over ethernet. Just make sure to turn security on. But I really don't think the expense is really the problem as long as dad holds the purse-strings.

You don't even need that; you can make one computer the cable modem server using windows internet connection sharing feature, with nics on all the other computers and twisted pair wires connected to a hub. Set up peer to peer home network between the computers. On the computer with the cable modem, make sure ICS is (part of Internet tools) is loaded. Then go to Control Panel > internet options > Connections tab > sharing button. Put a check in the "use internet connection sharing" box. Under "select the device that u use to connect to the internet" select your cable modem. In "select your home network Nic" select your nic. connect the nic to the hub, and the nic of all the other computers to the hub. That's about it! All the other computers on your peer to peer network will pretty much be automatically already set up to connect to the internet via the cable modem on the computer that has the cable modem! Get everybody a copy of zone alarm to protect them from each other, keep their files private.

!!!!Cringe!!!!

As much as Windows XP and Windows 2000 have improved over the last few years the built-in firewall is minimal and if the connection gets hacked, your home computer gets hacked. Especially now that home firewalls are down to $60 I think they are a good investment. The power savings alone from being able to shut down the computer should make it worthwhile, especially since windows XP still requires a reboot with 50% of software installs :(