What Drives Software Piracy?

[riverdusty]

Just an observation.
If you go to pretty much any torrent site and search for the most popular software that is obtained illegally, you'll note that the most popular software is generally the most expensive software.
This leads me to believe the primary reason for software piracy is price.
If Microsoft and Adobe were to significantly drop the price of their products, do you think this would help stop the piracy of their software? (It appears to have worked for apple).

 

[Arthur]

Of course it's price. If developers gave away their software for free there's be no piracy. Logical.
Same goes for any other property crimes.
Private property should be banned.
Developers should be forced to work for free so others can get their software for no/low price.

 

[GreGorGy]

If Microsoft and Adobe were to significantly drop the price of their products, do you think this would help stop the piracy of their software? (It appears to have worked for apple).

This is going to spiral out of control so before it does, allow me to answer at least the above: yes!

In 2005 (or thereabouts) I purchased AdobeCS2 Premium for around R12000 if memory serves me right. In 2009, I bought my first Intel machine and of course CS2 is PPC so I upgraded for a similar amount. CS3 is NOT compatible with Snow Leopard and needs to be installed from another machine or before upgrading to SL on a Mac. Once installed, it works just fine. This holds true for Lion as well. The installer uses PPC code to generate the license files (the hardware locks for activation) and because of this, it must be installed on a Mac PRIOR to upgrading to lion. If I bought a new mac right now, I would have to upgrade my AdobeCS at a heavy price tag just to be allowed to run the software again. I find this practice very unfair. And adobe is not the only offender. But basically, from CS2 to CS3 the "new feature" was Universal Binary. From CS3 to CS4, the "new feature" was able to install without Rosetta. Quite frankly, Adobe have been taking the piss and their prices are nothing short of daylight robbery. Especially when I consider the alternatives

 

[Toitjie]

Of course it's price. If developers gave away their software for free there's be no piracy. Logical.
Same goes for any other property crimes.
Private property should be banned.
Developers should be forced to work for free so others can get their software for no/low price.

Either you are being sarcastic,

or you have no idea how much time/effort and logical thinking is put into developing software, especially MS/adobe

 

[GreGorGy]

Either you are being sarcastic,

or you have no idea how much time/effort and logical thinking is put into developing software, especially MS/adobe

I am pretty sure Arthur is being sarcastic...

 

[Beachless]

There are actually allot of open source products that work perfectly well for the average user but they continue to pirate the more commonly used products.

I think its just an accepted thing to do and people don't consider it as a serious offence.

But I also agree that some licensing models are horrible and if I have a piece of software I should be able to install it on newer OS's and multiple machines(all owned by me)

 

[Arthur]

... if I have a piece of software I should be able to install it on newer OS's and multiple machines(all owned by me)

"Have" How does this process happen where software written by someone else automagically moves to you "having" it?

"Should"? Why?

And if you own a company with 10,000 PCs, would you also claim this "should"?

 

[riverdusty]

The primary idea, or business model, that I would enforce is one of low cost, mass sales. Microsoft and Adobe are loosing sales because people would rather obtain an illegal copy because its too expensive.
If Microsoft or Adobe did a cost analysis on sales vs. price, they might be surprised that decreasing their product price would result in a lot more sales and in the end they'd probably make more money on lower profit-per-product than on less sales with higher profit-per-product (s/product/sale).
So, software shouldn't necessarily be free, but at the very least, it should be affordable.

 

[Beachless]

"Have" How does this process happen where software written by someone else automagically moves to you "having" it?

"Should"? Why?

And if you own a company with 10,000 PCs, would you also claim this "should"?

I am buying the right to use a product(I don't want the source code) if I have 2 laptops and 3 desktops I should be able to use it on all of them.
The attitude of your leasing it is just so people can take advantage.

In fact Microsoft had a program where you can install what is on your work pc for free at home for volume licensed companies they now allow it for a reduced cost as far as I know, this is the kind of attitude I expect.

Companies work totally different and get discounts etc, I'm talking about the home user.

By the way I am a developer.

 

[Arthur]

...If Microsoft or Adobe did a cost analysis on sales vs. price, they might be surprised that decreasing their product price would result in a lot more sales and in the end they'd probably make more money on lower profit-per-product than on less sales with higher profit-per-product (s/product/sale)...

Care to give an example?

I've personally tested that very notion in various markets. It does not work. In the real world, piracy is not a financial decision but a moral one. If it were financial, then people would simply use the open source/free alternatives. But they don't.

 

[Arthur]

I am buying the right to use a product(I don't want the source code) if I have 2 laptops and 3 desktops I should be able to use it on all of them.

No you are not. It is not you that is licensed, but the machine (or machines, if the copyright holder so allows).

 

[riverdusty]

Care to give an example?

I've personally tested that very notion in various markets. It does not work. In the real world, piracy is not a financial decision but a moral one. If it were financial, then people would simply use the open source/free alternatives. But they don't.

The not so accurate example is that of Apple. Since they've dropped the price of their OS, it appears to have fallen off the popular pirate software lists.
I don't know if the analysis would show proof of volume sales over product-price. It would be interesting to see if microsoft software would be so popular among pirates if it were 10 times cheaper. Just saying...

 

[Beachless]

No you are not. It is not you that is licensed, but the machine (or machines, if the copyright holder so allows).

Thats the attitude most people dont like, I live alone and yet I have to buy multiple licences to be able to use all my hardware.

Thats like DSTV saying I need 3 subscriptions because I have 3 TV's

 

[Knyro]

Care to give an example?

I've personally tested that very notion in various markets. It does not work. In the real world, piracy is not a financial decision but a moral one. If it were financial, then people would simply use the open source/free alternatives. But they don't.

I disagree with this. People always weigh up cost/benefit in decision making. If it is more reasonble to pay for software people will buy it instead of pirating. I'm sure if MS Office was R200 instead of R900 most people would rather take few minutes to pop to the shops and buy it instead of spending several hours downloading a torrent, which may not work, may have viruses etc. Take the success of Steam for example, makes getting games very convenient, and you can bypass the rip-off prices of games in this country.

As for your open source/free statement most people have never even heard of such a thing so it's more to do with ignorance than a lack of morals there. GIMP and Inkscape you say? What's that, dude by the way do you know where I can get Photoshop for free?

 

[Arthur]

Thats like DSTV saying I need 3 subscriptions because I have 3 TV's

"Like" as in "similar to"? Actually, there are important differences. The analogy goes only so far.

Multiple computers can perform useful work concurrently and independently of your immediate interaction.

Surely you must know that Microsoft and others already allow installation on more than one machine, for certain types of licences in certain circumstances and conditions.

 

[paralystic]

Many students dont earn a income, so i guess thats one reason for them pirating.

 

[Arthur]

As for your open source/free statement most people have never even heard of such a thing so it's more to do with ignorance than a lack of morals there. GIMP and Inkscape you say? What's that, dude by the way do you know where I can get Photoshop for free?

You are not adverting sufficiently to the significance of the two little words at the end of your hypothetical but very real example: "for free".

If someone with a computer doesn't know they buy software at a computer shop (bricks 'n mortar or online), then their ignorance is willful and therefore culpable, ie they are chosing to ignore the moral issue for the sake of money. That is itself immoral.

 

[Lounger]

The issue is that the software industry plays in the same market as entertainment. Those movie studios that spend $4m on making a movie and then make $20m profit after release.

 

[Mr.CookieMonster]

I think the reason why people pirate things is due to the cost ie: Windows 7 Almost R2000. Where as with pirating, it will cost probably R400 (for the uncapped internet to download) or nor nothing.

If companies maybe made their costs cheaper and added more benefits like maybe "buy this and get 1/2 price on your upgrade" or similar, then I think Piracy will be driven down.

 

[Arthur]

The issue is that the software industry plays in the same market as entertainment. Those movie studios that spend $4m on making a movie and then make $20m profit after release.

No they don't. There is only a superficial resemblance.

Why not check the real world. Microsoft's profits before taxes are around 33%. See the latest results here - revenue $17.37b, profits $5.74b.

You don't have an idea of development costs. Windows 7 had direct development costs of over $2.5b.