future of the software business/what to do about piracy
Oh and another thing,, Im REALLY hate people who sell pirated software..... Especially if its a Con, theres nothing worse then sending out a check to someone for what you think is legitamate software and getting a Warez.com cd that is as useless as the person that sold it... ( oh and no offense to lone wolf programmers and small dev comps who sell online cuz they have too ;-) But its still cool to pay a little more for a cd sent by mail!!!)
You don´t get the thing about thieving until you´re in a position to be robbed....
so, i say nail the thieves to a board and burn them!
Seriously, software piracy should be punished to the full extent of the law, basically it´s the same as shoplifting.
so, i say nail the thieves to a board and burn them!
Seriously, software piracy should be punished to the full extent of the law, basically it´s the same as shoplifting.
Nah, shoplifting is worse than piracy, because it costs the victims actual money as opposed to theoretical money and because it deprives a legitimate customer of an opportunity to buy the product.
$0.02
$0.02
Author
Wow, there are a lot of great replies here... I want to put out another idea though: I was thinking about why people buy cd''s even though mp3''s are easy to get, and it probably has a lot to do with packaging and flashy advertising, like goulflesh said. Also it has to do with portability; you can burn your own cd''s but you need a cd-r and some free time.
Free time is important. Most people will pay to have something done that they could have done themselves if it would have taken a long time to do it. People pay for convenience.
So what if in addition to selling at wal-mart, a business could get a big server and then sell downloads? As long as it was a fast, reliable download, people might pay. Also they can sell tech support and hints etc. etc. The software would be free- both in the open-source and the monetary way- but still the developers would get paid.
Of course, pirates can offer cheaper downloads since they didn''t have to pay to write the stuff- so some kind of legal protection might be necessary...
FallingFrog
Free time is important. Most people will pay to have something done that they could have done themselves if it would have taken a long time to do it. People pay for convenience.
So what if in addition to selling at wal-mart, a business could get a big server and then sell downloads? As long as it was a fast, reliable download, people might pay. Also they can sell tech support and hints etc. etc. The software would be free- both in the open-source and the monetary way- but still the developers would get paid.
Of course, pirates can offer cheaper downloads since they didn''t have to pay to write the stuff- so some kind of legal protection might be necessary...
FallingFrog
No offence or anything but you sound somewhat pro-piracy.
Downloading 98% of MP3''s are illegal, that''s why people pay for the CD''s because they are not law breakers.
Fast connection, server, being paid to download stuff for people ?
It''s not a bad idea but what exactly do you intend to download ?
Free SDK''s, Free Demo''s, Shareware Apps ?
So far all your intentions seem to be on the illegal side of thing''s.
Yes people do pay for convenience. That''s why people spend $4 for a burger when they could buy and make themselve''s 4 burgers for $4. Call people, lazy, slack, whatever. It''s how thing''s are.
Also it''s a good "business" plan if you can get the right''s to material (and afford for that matter).
Also CD''s are still better quality then MP3''s that have been copied 50 time''s.
Downloading 98% of MP3''s are illegal, that''s why people pay for the CD''s because they are not law breakers.
Fast connection, server, being paid to download stuff for people ?
It''s not a bad idea but what exactly do you intend to download ?
Free SDK''s, Free Demo''s, Shareware Apps ?
So far all your intentions seem to be on the illegal side of thing''s.
Yes people do pay for convenience. That''s why people spend $4 for a burger when they could buy and make themselve''s 4 burgers for $4. Call people, lazy, slack, whatever. It''s how thing''s are.
Also it''s a good "business" plan if you can get the right''s to material (and afford for that matter).
Also CD''s are still better quality then MP3''s that have been copied 50 time''s.
"MP3''s that have been copied 50 time''s"
< sarcastic > Right cos the quality decreases as more copies you make... < /sarcastic > Ever heard of digital n'' analogic?
It''s true that we are just lazy but for example I listen to music mostly from the computer cos I really prefer being able to have all the songs that I want toghether than changing CDs, the legal way is buying CDs in which I need to wait until they arrive or go to stores to buy them, then record the mp3 files, with napster I get the songs directly as mp3 files with no need to wait or going to any store, if they leave stealing being easier than buying stuff legally then lazyness will do the opposite than with the hamburgers, I used to buy CDs but now I just use napster, I don''t like to be stealing specially cos it''s stealing from artists instead of being from big corporations but the legal way is so annoying that lazyness wins, if I could pay some money for that I would do it but not if that means having a worse service. Nothing can be an excuse for stealing so I''m not justifying anything, but why can they just ban napster and just let us buy mp3 files at a dollar each.
< sarcastic > Right cos the quality decreases as more copies you make... < /sarcastic > Ever heard of digital n'' analogic?
It''s true that we are just lazy but for example I listen to music mostly from the computer cos I really prefer being able to have all the songs that I want toghether than changing CDs, the legal way is buying CDs in which I need to wait until they arrive or go to stores to buy them, then record the mp3 files, with napster I get the songs directly as mp3 files with no need to wait or going to any store, if they leave stealing being easier than buying stuff legally then lazyness will do the opposite than with the hamburgers, I used to buy CDs but now I just use napster, I don''t like to be stealing specially cos it''s stealing from artists instead of being from big corporations but the legal way is so annoying that lazyness wins, if I could pay some money for that I would do it but not if that means having a worse service. Nothing can be an excuse for stealing so I''m not justifying anything, but why can they just ban napster and just let us buy mp3 files at a dollar each.
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
Nah, shoplifting is worse than piracy, because it costs the victims actual money as opposed to theoretical money and because it deprives a legitimate customer of an opportunity to buy the product.
$0.02
Right, but "theoretical money" sounds a lot like "no harm done". That´s not true. I agree that most of the loss-statistics about software piracy are way off, but in the end there is a substantial amount of money missing... and with multimillion dollar development costs a firm can run out of money pretty fast if sales are not what they wanted...
still.. software piracy is stealing. And in the end it really does not matter if you would or would not have bought the product otherwise.
Theoretical money??? So those millions of dollars used to create the game, were just monopoly dollars?
Now I''m going to use extremes to show you something: If *everybody* except for a guy named Joe pirated Quake, then id would not have made any money, rather they would have lost money (people work for money, computers and other assets such as office space cost money). So id would then most likely go bankrupt, or something bad like that. Then where is Quake II? Now, when Bob, the legit customer does not get Quake II, is he to blame? No. Is id to blame? No... then there is only one other party to blame.... everybody
If *everybody* (including Joe) bought Quake, then id would have made $%^$&loads of money, and would be quite happy to continue making games, so then along comes Quake II.
(For the person (people) that thinks Quake sucks; so do I, but remember Theif used one of the Quake engines =) and name of the game isn''t the point of this person)
Everything costs money, and if people abuse that, then they end up worse off. Fact.
How come, there are no open source programs which are more popular than their non open source counterparts? (or none to my knowledge)
Trying is the first step towards failure.
Now I''m going to use extremes to show you something: If *everybody* except for a guy named Joe pirated Quake, then id would not have made any money, rather they would have lost money (people work for money, computers and other assets such as office space cost money). So id would then most likely go bankrupt, or something bad like that. Then where is Quake II? Now, when Bob, the legit customer does not get Quake II, is he to blame? No. Is id to blame? No... then there is only one other party to blame.... everybody
If *everybody* (including Joe) bought Quake, then id would have made $%^$&loads of money, and would be quite happy to continue making games, so then along comes Quake II.
(For the person (people
) that thinks Quake sucks; so do I, but remember Theif used one of the Quake engines =) and name of the game isn''t the point of this person)Everything costs money, and if people abuse that, then they end up worse off. Fact.
How come, there are no open source programs which are more popular than their non open source counterparts? (or none to my knowledge
) Trying is the first step towards failure.
Actually, I think comparing shoplifting and piracy is bad, cuz they actually are 2 different crimes. No one can actually steal software, (unless its taken right after developement and sold by a different developer as their product.(Ever see TRON?)) Cuz software never is sold but a licensce to use it is sold. Piracy is the copying and distribution of unlicensced software. Not stolen software.
Id be much worse to actually have software stolen from you, as I'd be much more difficult to prove and you'd hate to see someone making money off of something you created and you arent seeing anything.
Now Im not saying shoplifting is worsethan piracy, cuz with piracy you're actually breaking 3 laws and all have a heavier fine and penalty then shoplifting does (I believe shopliftings only a class 1 misdameanor here . So in a legal sense piracy is actually worse, in a moral sense thats up to the person. (Why, cuz there actually are people who don't think shoplifting is bad.)
forgot to finish a thought:-)
Edited by - ghoulflesh on January 18, 2001 9:53:04 AM
Id be much worse to actually have software stolen from you, as I'd be much more difficult to prove and you'd hate to see someone making money off of something you created and you arent seeing anything.
Now Im not saying shoplifting is worsethan piracy, cuz with piracy you're actually breaking 3 laws and all have a heavier fine and penalty then shoplifting does (I believe shopliftings only a class 1 misdameanor here . So in a legal sense piracy is actually worse, in a moral sense thats up to the person. (Why, cuz there actually are people who don't think shoplifting is bad.)
forgot to finish a thought:-)
Edited by - ghoulflesh on January 18, 2001 9:53:04 AM
quote:
(For the person (people
Thief was developed by Looking Glass Studios using their own "Dark Engine".
Piracy is bad. No doubt about it. But how many percent of the $50 we pay for a game goes to the developers and how much is taken by the people who distribute and sell the game?
- Le Gameur
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
