Piracy happened when the cost of software (including o/s's) was prohibitive. Remember when a copy of Wordstar for cp/m was priced at around $500? Same thing happened with 8 track tapes in the 60's and 70's, and videos in the early 80's. Video rentals were created to combat the high cost of movie ownership.
In the case of Micro$oft, their actual cost per copy (legitimate) is about $15 give or take a few clams. Then they charge $50-100 for the 'use' of that software. They're loosing not $15, but the retail value, and that being their cash cow, they prosecute hackers.
If they would price their product at less than 100% markup, maybe they wouldn't have the problem of piracy. Then it would be cheaper to buy the legitimate version instead of a pirated copy. This is what happened with home videos. In layman's terms, a fast $5 is beter than a slow $80.
Considering the D+ performance of Windows, and what you pay for it, I'd say $20 a copy is more than it is worth. Of course it is profitable to all those who have written spyware, virii, and trojans for Windows, making it emininantly simple for unknown people to electronically spy on your computer . . . where we store sensitive information, thinking it to be 'secure'.
My two bytes worth . . .
Gary Hildebrand St. Joseph, MO
On 10/1/07, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
On 9/30/07, feba thatl [email protected] wrote:
I'm curious as to what some of you think of Windows piracy. Do you think it's alright if it's only done to run software that only works on
Windows
due to MS's monopolistic tactics?
I generally do not bother with any piracy which is not for profit.
Do you think it's alright if it replaces the purchase of a legit copy, as it hurt's MS's profit margin?
Not exactly the best rationale, but if that's what makes one feel better.
Do you think it's always bad? Do you think that software should always be free
anyway?
There are few cases where i think _use_ of software should be free.
Are your decisions about this based on law or morals?
I would say neither, more like my own personal conclusions.
Personally, I don't pirate software anymore, and it pisses me off to see
my
friends downloading *yet another copy of windows* to reinstall with
*again*,
instead of trying linux, but that's more about their lack of a brain
than it
is piracy.
Yah well, if Windows couldn't be pirated, it would have MUCH less popularity. I haven't had to pirate a copy of Windows in ages, most since I get free copies these days. Whenever I stop getting free copies, I doubt I'll be too bothered about downloading it myself. The bandwidth would be better used downloading the latest version of Fedora or CentOS
--- gary hildebrand [email protected] wrote:
Piracy happened when the cost of software (including o/s's) was prohibitive. Remember when a copy of Wordstar for
That's total BS or you're new to the software use world, but since you speak of Wordstar. I suspect the former. I hail back to the days of build-it-yourself PCS. Yes, I know you can do that now. I'm speaking about Sinclairs or was it Altairs? God age and memory the two just don't go together. Anyway... People have been pirating software for as long as BBSes, external storage systems (tapes, diskettes, etc) and the internet have existed. It has nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with what you grew up believing was right or wrong and what you personally have allowed yourself to consider acceptable behavior.
For me, copying and sharing commercial software for free is wrong. I won't call it piracy. It's copyright violation. Copying and selling commercial software is copyright theft. If you're caught you deserve whatever punishment the law says. If you do a crime you should be willing to do the time. Copying software you have paid for and use only on your own personal home computers is fine, although some would disagree with me on this. I consider this fair use. But I also only have three people in my house. I do believe that if you then sell or give away one of those computers, any software you do provide with it should have it's own license.
If you are unwilling to pay for a product then don't use it. I would expect that you would not consider walking into a store and walking out with book without paying for it acceptable behavior. Why would you think it is acceptable behavior to do the equivalent thing with software? I can understand the frustration of wanting to play Quake 2009, but not being able to because you need UltraVista 2015 to run it, but that doesn't make it anymore acceptable behavior.
Also, since I have had every version of Windows since version 1.01. I have no problems with upgrading any of my PCs to any version of Windows I own. I bought those disks/CDs and any version after version 1 is an upgrade, so I have literally a dozen or more Licenses to Windows. While this may be a stretch, it's not an issue because I don't run Windows, although my laptop has a (currently broken) copy installed.
Lastly, I never, ever click on those license agreements. If I have a license I must click through and I don't agree to all the terms, I don't use it. Someone else may come along and click that agreement, but i won't. Once that has happened I have no problem using it. This may also be a stretch, but then the vile things should never have been upheld by judges, and some are not.
That's my $0.02.
-
gary hildebrand -
Jack