SA bangs the piracy drum

[murraybiscuit]

some comic relief. finally. this thread was getting a bit intense.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Tis the voice of the lobster..

i concur

 

[PeterCH]

the problem with piracy is that it's unlike other theft - the user ultimately has the ability to recreate the product and can thereby become a manufacturer themselves, without the costs of production. with most other products, the manufacturer is also the only person able to duplicate the product and thereby retains control of revenue.

Yes, but unlike the manufacturer of tangible goods you don't have to worry about material costs to produce a product. Heck I'll take it further, if your warehouse gets robbed and 10,000 copies of software are stolen, you can recreate them with relatively little expenditure. You could even block the serial numbers of the stolen software if you have such a service running.

@peterCH, i disagree.

to use your analogy of supply and demand:

in a free market, if you have x cash and you need x tool in order to create x product, you have choices:

1. buy a cheaper tool and sell your product cheaper
2. buy the more expensive tool and pass that cost on to the consumer
3. sell at the same price and pocket the profits yourself, which means you'll be undercut pretty quickly.
4. if a cheaper tool does not exist, because the demand will arise

thus, supply, demand and competition regulate the free market because buyers have a choice. the problem comes in when you decide not to buy the alternative, but to steal the original.

That only happens when someone 'steals' a software package instead of buying it. The 'instead of' is a very important point of contention here.
In these latest BSA ramblings, and in ramblings by the RIAA/MPAA/and other shill groups, made up figures based on subjective projections of expectations of what people should buy are not in line with reality.

So as with my example of Autodesk Autocad and engineering co's in JHB,
if you can prove that a certain number of copies is being used by businesses who could easily have afforded the software and would not have gone with cheaper or free alternatives, or none at all - such as fewer AutoCad licenses, if you can prove that - I will agree with you. I agree with you on principle but so far we're only seeing thumbsuck made up figures with no grounding in reality.

this effectively means that:

1. your competition will go under (you will always be able to undercut them)
2. the tool manufacturer will go under (they get less and less revenue)
3. there is no incentive for other companies to provide cheaper tools, because you can always have the best one for free.

Perhaps you then need to offer value added services with your tool.
If your software is affordable, AND GOOD then very few businesses will want to do without it. If you give them value added benefits - such as good documentation, freebies, support - well you sell a product no pirate can reproduce.

 

[lord_spaceman]

Interesting. Windows 7 gets released in SA tomorrow. What perfect timing for an article like this to appear.

 

[Kosmik]

Had access to for a while now, not intrested yet.

 

[Nutty Grandad]

You don't have a clue what it takes.

Indeed I DO know what it takes!

I am currently developing a game server emulator for Aion written in java. This will be distributed FREE open source!

There are of course exceptions to every rule and yes you need to be rewarded for your hard work...There are just some who quickly develop something and then want to sit back and let that feed them forever, where in all probability you could find something in open source that fits the bill nicely!

 

[murraybiscuit]

Yes, but unlike the manufacturer of tangible goods you don't have to worry about material costs to produce a product. Heck I'll take it further, if your warehouse gets robbed and 10,000 copies of software are stolen, you can recreate them with relatively little expenditure. You could even block the serial numbers of the stolen software if you have such a service running.

your material cost is whatever your cost is to produce your product. in the case of software, it's your programmer's time, software, hardware etc. this is built into the end cost for the consumer. loss of stock would equate to a server crashing and losing code - it would mean downtime/loss of revenue - a risk which can be underwritten by insurance.

That only happens when someone 'steals' a software package instead of buying it. The 'instead of' is a very important point of contention here.
In these latest BSA ramblings, and in ramblings by the RIAA/MPAA/and other shill groups, made up figures based on subjective projections of expectations of what people should buy are not in line with reality.

Agreed. Basic stats 101. we're talking about people who should otherwise be buying the software here. if you download it and don't use it, you are the idiot for wasting your bandwidth.

So as with my example of Autodesk Autocad and engineering co's in JHB,
if you can prove that a certain number of copies is being used by businesses who could easily have afforded the software and would not have gone with cheaper or free alternatives, or none at all - such as fewer AutoCad licenses, if you can prove that - I will agree with you. I agree with you on principle but so far we're only seeing thumbsuck made up figures with no grounding in reality.

I get your point, try the following...

a product in a market has a price which has been established by competition and supply / demand. let's pretend that because of this, they are able to cover their costs and have scaled their operations based on the size and profit potential of the market. let's say for argument's sake they are benevolent and don't need to make profit, just cover costs.

product sale 1 (let's say it's a version upgrade):

1. product costs x to make and is sold for y
2. 10 copies are sold
3. the revenue covers production costs, no profit is made
4. company is happy, consumer is happy, price stays the same next time the product is made.

on the next product upgrade:

1. product costs x again, and is sold for y (product has the same production cost, already determined by market factors)
2. 1 copy is sold (the other 9 are pirated)
3. costs to produce stayed the same, but less sales have been made due to piracy. the company didn't want to make a profit, but now they're making a loss.
4. the loss needs to be absorbed by somebody - the consumer, otherwise the company will go out of bunsiness.

on the next product upgrade:

1. product costs x to make and is sold for y (they take a risk and could go under)
2. 100 copies are sold
3. now the company have covered their costs and can choose to pass on the saving to the consumer (they have competition, so pocketing all the profit would be silly)

hence my comment that the more software is purchased, the more the cost can be passed on to the consumer, in a free market with competition. it may be a simplistic example, but it illustrates the point.

Perhaps you then need to offer value added services with your tool.
If your software is affordable, AND GOOD then very few businesses will want to do without it. If you give them value added benefits - such as good documentation, freebies, support - well you sell a product no pirate can reproduce.

couldn't agree more. this is a solution and also the best one i can think of to deal with piracy issues. you have to either offer something that piracy doesn't or make it so darn easy and cheap that piracy becomes too much of an effort to bother about. unfortunately most companies are stuck in an archaic mindset and are too scared to change their operations model.

but that doesn't address the ethical issue of piracy

 

[murraybiscuit]

Indeed I DO know what it takes!

I am currently developing a game server emulator for Aion written in java. This will be distributed FREE open source!

There are of course exceptions to every rule and yes you need to be rewarded for your hard work...There are just some who quickly develop something and then want to sit back and let that feed them forever, where in all probability you could find something in open source that fits the bill nicely!

do you mind dropping that project and working for me for a few years for free? oh, wait, you have a regular job that pays the bills which does remunerate you for your time. i see now...

 

[LazyLion]

Ah... I see the Bull Shpit Association is up to their normal tricks again.

What kind of lack of conscience do you have to have to work for an organization that tells lies / sucks meaningless statistics out of their zambone as part of their normal daily operation?

Or is that these people could not find jobs in the real world?

 

[PeterCH]

your material cost is whatever your cost is to produce your product. in the case of software, it's your programmer's time, software, hardware etc.

Are you suggesting that Toyota does not have to hire Italian designers to design the cab, engineers to optimise and customise the engine and electronics engineers to get the timing, onboard computers etc sorted out.

Look once you've designed your software - the way anyone who designs a tangible product does - you've got a blureprint you replicate - the costs now are marginal. A R3000 software package costs what to print the box, wrap in plastic, press a CD and print a cheap thin manual --?

this is built into the end cost for the consumer. loss of stock would equate to a server crashing and losing code - it would mean downtime/loss of revenue - a risk which can be underwritten by insurance.

I am pretty sure you back up. It's easy remember to copy your product but also to back it up. Electrons are free, you know. Toyota's latest reference design could also be lost in their server crash - that can happen too. Except they need to produce a tangible product - a fully functional car, with a warranty for x years/kilometers, it has to be safe, needs to be certified and they need to offer good support (service plan). Toyota has to worry about issues such as the price of steel and if people don't buy their cars - those cars rot in the warehouse, software doesn't.

I think software engineering has benefits and negatives. On the one hand your major costs are in development but once you develop, you only need to churn out copies for a fraction of the price, and its also not too difficult to make updated versions and release patches. On the other hand businesses which produce tangible products eg install geysers or garage doors, make cars, assemble computers - those organisations have a much harder life, because once they design their product they have to produce each and every one and these products cost a lot to make. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Agreed. Basic stats 101. we're talking about people who should otherwise be buying the software here. if you download it and don't use it, you are the idiot for wasting your bandwidth.

But some people have issues that it's been downloaded. I can understand the personal issues a person has, chiefly emotional ones, but they're not economic issues.

hence my comment that the more software is purchased, the more the cost can be passed on to the consumer, in a free market with competition. it may be a simplistic example, but it illustrates the point.

In the real world businesses charge as much as they can get away with. IC charges R4400 or so for Vista Ultimate for example - retail edition. MS charges - several thousand for MS Office Standard. How many copies are they churning out? How much profit are they making? Who's the richest man in the world again? Is he an auto-maker? A PC maker? Of course not, software has huge markups out of relation to development costs.

I understand that small software houses can suffer, they can develop a great product and then people don't buy it and they go under - because maybe they're all using pirate copies. However, how frequent is that really?
How many big software companies have gone under because of piracy?
If they go under it's because of competition, unfair practices and assimilation - eg MS destroying Borland or Lotus.

but that doesn't address the ethical issue of piracy

Ethical issues are up to the conscience of the one using the software. If it's a kid using MS Office to write a letter to grandma I couldn't care less. If it's some poor person who can hardly afford a PC and is using Office illegally I couldn't care. If it's a company and they're pirating word en masse instead of licensing it or better using Open Office - well that is unethical. Ethics are quite subjective and one has to look at the greater good I guess. A few poor people in India using Office won't make MS go out of business but maybe these poor instead of paying $$$ for Office can afford to buy school uniforms for their children - that is a greater good.

If a profitable business is saving some money by not licensing a software package - yeah that's wrong but if it's someone who uses it casually, not for profit and who'd never have purchased it, please software developers, get over yourselves.

 

[Joy-Energiser]

Look, I know what I am about to say may seem hypocritical but this is what I meant by different levels of morality,let me try and explain it this way.

Lets say for arguments sake there are 2 kinds of software.
1)Specialized and unique software that is specifically customised for the client
2)Mass produced software that is sold in general to whoever needs it.

Now I think its safe to say that option 1 isn't really affected by piracy, because the software is so customized that only the client it was intended for can actually make use of it. Incidentally this is the section of software companies which are the smaller to medium ones(which most likely what most of us developers talking in this thread would belong to) would be the most aversely affected if their software was pirated, which is unlikely due to its specialised nature.

Option 2, if the software is good enough that most business's will pay for it or just out of of fear of being prosecuted which could jeopardise the business (which is a stupid risk in the first place)or because to use the software it needs to be activated somehow.The point is that at this stage the people pirating the software are most likely using it for personal use and the software company is large enough to take the Minor hit in profit from piracy anyway.

One issue I do have is when people mass produce and sell pirated software, that can directly affect the software companies, but "private piracy" for personal use really is negligible.

There are indeed a lot of assumptions in this post, but thats just the way I see the scenario.

 

[Nuxxy]

But they are deprived of the right to decide who can use their intellectual property.

Care to elaborate? When does anyone have the right to decide who can use use their software when they put it on the common market?

You don't have a clue what it takes. I've spent more than 5 years working on my current project. ... I've spent more time studying, writing and than many highly paid professionals in their respective spheres.

Errr...also a software programmer, and 5+ years is an extremely long time to be working on any software, to the degree where one has to wonder if there is any point anymore? It's certainly not the industry norm, so you can't go getting upset because you want compensation for your 5+ years of work when it shouldn't be more than 6 months anyway.

 

[JoSorc]

Care to elaborate? When does anyone have the right to decide who can use use their software when they put it on the common market?

Errr...also a software programmer, and 5+ years is an extremely long time to be working on any software, to the degree where one has to wonder if there is any point anymore? It's certainly not the industry norm, so you can't go getting upset because you want compensation for your 5+ years of work when it shouldn't be more than 6 months anyway.

Point 1: I have the right when I say: 'Please do not copy my product for personal use or other without paying for it'. You'd have to be stupid not to understand that.

Point 2: Huh? 6 Months? You are not a programmers ball. It often takes 6 months or more just to get a specification right for a new development.

 

[icyrus]

Welcome to the new world. Adapt or die.

 

[Nuxxy]

Oh wow...chuck insults...real classy. That doesn't make you look like a whiner at all.

Point 1: I have the right when I say: 'Please do not copy my product for personal use or other without paying for it'. You'd have to be stupid not to understand that.

I have the right to say "Please don't" = You can request. You never get to decide who uses your software when you put it into the public domain. From then on, it's the public's choice, not yours. Including whether or not to pirate. That's why PeterCH was saying your argument is based on selective ethics. It's wrong because I say it's wrong is not a valid argument. Piracy is a risk you accept when you publish software. You can't claim that you don't expect anyone to pirate software. You know it's going to happen.

Point 2: Huh? 6 Months? You are not a programmers ball. It often takes 6 months or more just to get a specification right for a new development.

It depends on the software and the development methodology. Over half a decade is still unusually long, on average.

 

[JoSorc]

I have the right to say "Please don't" = You can request. You never get to decide who uses your software when you put it into the public domain. From then on, it's the public's choice, not yours. Including whether or not to pirate. That's why PeterCH was saying your argument is based on selective ethics. It's wrong because I say it's wrong is not a valid argument. Piracy is a risk you accept when you publish software. You can't claim that you don't expect anyone to pirate software. You know it's going to happen.

So do we do away with copyright altogether?

 

[Nuxxy]

So do we do away with copyright altogether?

Well strictly speaking, copyright is purely a right to retribution. It doesn't prevent piracy. All it does is give you legal recourse should IP theft happen. If you want to enforce copyright on your IP, you agree to that system of working. IE: If someone breaks your copyright, sue them, don't moan about lost revenue. That's the methodology you've chosen to work with. There are only pirates because there are copyrights. And it's a system that's a proven failure across digital systems, be it software, music, or movies.

I'm not saying you shouldn't make money. I'm just saying you can't slap © on something and expect that you will.

Wow. I think I'm an anarchist!

 

[icyrus]

So do we do away with copyright altogether?

In its current form, yes.