why do you think pirates pirate?

Why do you think pirates do what they do?

  • because they are broke or are too stingy with money

    Votes: 195 47.6%
  • because corporate america is too greedy

    Votes: 139 33.9%
  • because they like living on the edge

    Votes: 34 8.3%
  • not enough companies are generous enough to offer a try before you buy promo

    Votes: 65 15.9%
  • to (aggravate) people

    Votes: 18 4.4%
  • or just because they can

    Votes: 236 57.6%

  • Total voters
    410
One reason people pirate software is the curiosity factor. People want to know why program X is so great and expensive. They download it can't use it and delete it. Something like Photoshop isn't an application that you just install and start using. Now something like Windows on the other hand, I see this kind of thing happen all the time. WIth the HP/Compaq systems they do not include a copy of Windows. They do include that lame restore function. If you want a copy of CD's you have to call HP and order them. I live in a poor part of the country and most of the people around here are stupid. They don't understand much of anything if it has a capacitor or chip of any kind unless it has Lays on the bag. They can order the cds, but that takes time, and of course they "have" to have the machine running. I lose business because I won't install a copy of Windows unless the disc is holographic or has Dell, HP/Compaq, eMachines/Gateway, or whatever on it.

Also, the BSA and other anti-piracy are after people that are selling this stuff on the street. The average person with a dsl or cable connection and bit torrent aren't really at risk.

A quick and funny story.
A buddy of mine was reported by some dude to the BSA, they came to his house with a warrant and a few other officers, they ran some program that said he had a pirated copy of windows (he didn't by the way) So he backed all of his documents and such, and they low level formatted his hard drive. He also had a binder laying on his bed with a bunch of burned cds in it. They were kind enough to destroy all of them. My friend just sat there the whole time never said a word. Eventually the guy asked him if he had a legit version of windows to install on his machine. He reached into the closet and pulled out another binder that had Microsofts Logo on the front, in said binder was every cd that they had just finished destroying. He promptly installed a beta version of Windows XP (think it was beta 1) with his key. For some reason he found out later, that program kicks back the key is invalid if it doesn't know what the app is, in this case WinXP wasn't on the market so it rejected it. My friend flashed his beta ID and told the guy in so many nice 4 letter words that if he ever stepped foot in his house again he would leave a foot shorter, and he should have him arrested for destruction of private property. They never asked if he had the originals for the discs they destroyed and wouldn't let him talk.

Thought I would share that.
 
Marduk said:
(eye) wonder if (eye) know who Grey is talking about... :D

I'll presume nothing was implied by that comment :)

The OS is something i can't live without. I still haven't figured out linux, so windows is my only other option.

i have learned to not save money but make my dollar more powerful.
*buy windows OEM from a reputable site (I bought XP from newegg for $143 with a $5 dongle)
*I have 2 copies of photoshop elements because they both came packaged with my scanner and my digital camera when I bought them.

moral of the story is shop thrifty, on your next upgrade look for bundled software :) as far as music cd's that only have a few songs on it that you like - you can always find that song on an internet radio station playing somewhere -
 
greyghost said:
I'll presume nothing was implied by that comment :)


Certainly not you. I mean, hell. you bought SUSe instead of any of the other countless free Linux distros...(I've got a copy of SUSe that's newer that was made available for free not too long ago if you want it...I think it's 9.2? But I'm pretty sure 9.3 is out by now)

No...a certain explosive that's enfuego ;)
 
I don't pirate software.


If a software has a demo, I'll use the demo for the amount of time its allowed. I won't nuke a drive/do registery tweaks to be able to run the demo for longer than is intended.
 
They pirate prob because of the price of some of these software. Thank goodness I still get WinXP, Office2003, Adobe CS2, etc for like $5 a piece....
 
There are three primary reason why people pirate:

1) A vast majority of people these days feel "entitled" to everything. The amount of "got mine" out there is digusting. The same logic applies to people who run red lights. They feel they are so damn special that everyone should just go to hell. The fact they may kill somebody never enters their mind.

2) People can't divide dollars and time. When you buy an OS at lets say $200. If you use that OS for an average of an hour a day for 3 years how much did you pay in a $/hour. That is it. People just see the three digits and don't look beyond how often they use it. I keep hearing but I could go to 5 movies for the price of that game. Yeah but in 10-12 hours your 5 movies are up. The game will last you at least 40 hours (min typical). I use office every day for school. According to my logs I had over 600 hours of active use with word/excel. I've used it for 3 years..that is $0.16/hour. If you average out with all costs, my PC costs me about $4/hour to use based upon a 3 year period. How cheap is that (look at my hardware). That is still cheaper than a movie ;)

3) Because people want everything cheap. People would rather have 5 19" TVs at $60 each than one good TV at $300. That is the truth. They don't understand the difference between a bigger/better TV...the only word they see is TV. Therefore it doesn't matter if it is elements or a full blown Photoshop. To them all photo programs are 19" TV's and thefore should cost like a 19" TV regardless of what it really is. This can also be extended to college students because since they are paying tuition that they should have to pay for the "tools" they need. I was an EE...I could have used lab equipment to my degree but I realized that to fully become the EE I needed to be I dropped $4k in equipment.

-tReP
 
Cheetoz said:
I think, if things were cheaper, it wouldent be worth it to pirate
I'm curious as to why it wouldn't (from the perspective of a pirate). Free without any reprecusions short of guilt will always be more attractive than paying even if it is cheap.
 
voted - "or just because they can'

Sadly most have no idea how much work goes into designing good software. Hence they
don't understand, and disagree with the pricing.

There is always this too :

Trepidati0n said:
>>>>>>

1) A vast majority of people these days feel "entitled" to everything. The amount of "got mine" out there is digusting. The same logic applies to people who run red lights. They feel they are so damn special that everyone should just go to hell. The fact they may kill somebody never enters their mind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>-tReP
 
Bragging rights and stuff aside I think people are getting used to expecting everything. If you look at americas you see more in more where someone will want to return an item to a store 6 months to a year after they bought it and think it is there right to return it. People do the same things with clothes. They will bitch up and down saying it was not right to begin with or they never wore it. This right people bitch about and quote customer service on can be said for the software/music/movies pirates as well. As a laptop tech I get to tell people all the time that I can not install the software they claim they own but can find the real cd too. I show them the directory that says crack. I also mention that are policly is to notify the local police when we find ilegal software. Most of the time they just take the unit and leave. People will find any reason to bitch that they can and then think it is there right to have it for free. Hell if you made office, windows, photoshop all 10 bucks a peice you would still have people pirate them like crazy. People would then just say that they are too lazy to go buy them or what is 10 dollars to the team that made the product. I love how the customer service where I work will have some asshole try to return something months after they have had it saying it broke. They bitch that it is only 6 months old and we should replace it. The person behind the counter looks at them and goes "Did you buy our warranty on it?" and the person bitches how they never do. The guy/gril behind the couter just looks back saying well if you did you would have a new one now but since you didn't we can't help you. This drives people nuts. I guess I'm one of a dying bread that doesn't think it is my right to have my products warranted by the store I bought it for years after I bought it when the store made what maybe 20 bucks on it?
 
There are many good reasons, but one aspect I don't think many people have looked at is the social and generation aspect. Who use computers the most, the current 12-25 year olds or the other extreme the 50-80 year olds? I’m sure most of us would feel that it was the prior, not the latter of the two. Simply put, young people can’t afford $200 OS or $1000 Photoshop. You can ask to borrow or get money, but why when you can get it for free? I think that’s the issue, those that want to use it can’t afford it, those that have money but don’t really know or care about it (computers in this case), don’t bother buying it.

As for the $/time, you pay all that money up front. If Windows gave me the option to pay .75 for 365 days (extra because of interest), I would certainly rather pay for it instead of $200 upfront.

I’m absolutely sure the software industry knows that there is piracy, and they take it into account. It is the choice that many software companies have to make; 1) sell a lot for cheap and make less of a profit but have less piracy, or 2) sell a few and make it really expensive thus creating more piracy. Either of these choices will give you income, but if you made the same net profit on both of them, what’s the difference? In option one, many people will have your product, and won’t need to buy it again (who owns 4 copies of Windows XP Pro for personal use, honestly?). In option two, there are a lot more people that you can sell it to when they feel ready.
It’s a purely business choice, and it’s a business choice for most people whether to do business or not. Do you spend $200 when you can get it for free? Do you spend $20 if you can get it for free? There is no such thing as morals or getting a pat on your back, it’s how much your willing to pay to do business.
 
The reason i think is justifiable it the current price of software, and store's no return on open box policies.

How many times have you bought software because of the hype and then were sorely dissapointed?

If more companies gave out Demos, and priced their software reasonably (not "how much can i get away with selling this for) i think more people would buy software.

500 bucks for office? 400-600 for photoshop? come on you gotta be kidding me...

I think piracy also serves another more important purpose, allowing me to use software in the manner in which I want, like not having to put a CD in for each game I play (per day i typically will play 3-4 different games with my kids, the cd shuffle is just plain annoying), or being treated like a criminal even though I have purchase my copy legitimately (not allowing me to run software i buy because I use OTHER software for my own purposes (e.g. daemon tools/clonecd).

All this being said, if I like the software, and will use it on a regular basis, I buy my own copy, and sometimes more than one copy if the price is right and the software is worth it (like serious sam 1 and 2, 20 bucks for a full game with great gameplay and great graphics? I bought 3).
 
One thing I did notice in my experience with students who pirate...when they've graduated and go to work for an organization and are asked to make recommendations, guess what's recommended...thats right the very software they pirated. I know of organizations where firends work that have spent thousands of $ on software that was once pirated (VMWare, Windows Server, Exchange...and the list goes on).

Many people I know who dl music also go out and buy CDs of the music they like (and though they still bitch about how they really paid for a few songs out of the CD). So I dont know what the aggregrate loss of the RIAA / artist is, but i'm relatively sure its not as great as they claim.

I also dont like where things are going on the net in regards to locking it down...P2P apps being shut down, people being monitored et al.
 
Some Llama said:
I think piracy also serves another more important purpose, allowing me to use software in the manner in which I want, like not having to put a CD in for each game I play (per day i typically will play 3-4 different games with my kids, the cd shuffle is just plain annoying), or being treated like a criminal even though I have purchase my copy legitimately (not allowing me to run software i buy because I use OTHER software for my own purposes (e.g. daemon tools/clonecd).

You bring up an excellent point here. Recently I bought the Foo Fighters, In your honor cd, great CD by the way. Well there is some BS copy protection on there, where you have to download a license to play the cd on your computer. Well that doesn't bother me that much; it’s just a small hassle.

I then proceed to try and put the songs on my iPOD. Doesn't work. I go to the Foo fighters’ message boards and apparently you cannot transfer the songs to your iPOD because of the copy protection. This is absolutely stupid. I buy the damn cd and I can’t even listen to the songs on my iPOD? So Im forced to download the tunes to put them on my iPOD?

In an attempt to thwart piracy, they have only gone and increased it. Once the news got out that you could not transfer the songs to you iPOD, everyone was just downloading the CD. Yes you can say go buy it from itunes, but the itunes tracks are cut at the wrong times and it sounds horrible. What type of message does this send to the legitimate buyer? You can’t use what you rightfully purchased the way you want, yet you can if you download it illegally for free? Sounds a little bass ackwards to me.

BusyBizz you hit the nail on the head. When a student pirates the software learns it and nothing else, the company who hires them is going to buy them that software. I know thats they way it happened in my.... my friends case.
 
It's something close to an "addiction" to getting things for free, for example shoplifters have this. Also, it's something close to a "why not?" factor because pirates usually are way too lazy to purchase things.

And another point - many pirates are teenagers who either have no money or don't want to bother their parents to purchase their software.

And finally, pirates download most software not for serious use, but just to play around for several minutes and then delete. The software they do keep is just because they are against purchasing it as to the described two points above.
 
Draax said:
I then proceed to try and put the songs on my iPOD. Doesn't work. I go to the Foo fighters’ message boards and apparently you cannot transfer the songs to your iPOD because of the copy protection. This is absolutely stupid. I buy the damn cd and I can’t even listen to the songs on my iPOD? So Im forced to download the tunes to put them on my iPOD?

That would seem to negate the whole argument the RIAA presents - that you are buying
the songs not the CD. Well, if I was paying for the the song why can't I exchange my
old cassette for a new CD and only pay for the disk itself?

Honestly, I believe the whole reason the RIAA is so animate about the subject is because
the major recording labels got caught with their pants down in respect to the I-net and downloadable music.

They missed the boat and are trying to stem the tide until they get their own infrastructure in place.
Itunes & the new NAPSTER are good examples. Now defunct services like eMusic and
MP3.com weren't supported by the major labels.
 
I think that people pirate such things as Windows (for example) because you have to purchase one copy of windows for each PC you have. If you are doing this at home It will cost you as much as buying a new video card. :rolleyes:

The thing with music is that alot of people are not passionate about music, so they feel no sympathy for the musicians that are going to make one billion dollars less because they stole the cd instead of buying it. Then you look at the recording industry that has been gouging us for the past 50 years.

Why are cd's cheaper now than they were years ago. Wait, oh yeah its probably inflation... :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to go in to the fact that musicians make 2 good songs then fill the rest of the cd with poop.

/End Rant
 
once apon a time music came in a "wearable" format, and people where forced to purchase the same music over and over again, from record to record, 8 track, cassettes, CDs

Ive a few albums (degraded) in all those formats (except 8 track no one has 8 track :p )

that was to a certain extent an artificial "boost" to the music industry
that is now gone without drm schemes
 
I think another reason might have to do with the generation that you belong to. I, being aged 20, was an adolescent, perhaps in my early teens i'm not quite sure, when Napster first came out. The fact that it was possible to get music for free back then before any perspective existed on the legality of the software made a lot of people feel comfortable with the act of piracy. The law was only put in place much later, after everyone had gotten used to getting the stuff for free. Since we were young back then, we weren't really used to buying stuff for ourselves, like albums, movies, games, etc. Our parents bought that stuff for us. So as a generation, there was no real perpsective regarding the value of what we were "stealing". In addition, why would you pay for a copy of [Software/Game X here] when you could just borrow the floppies from your friend who owns it, and then install it on your own pc with absolutely no barriers to prevent you from doing it? The lawlessness of the "priacy" scene was sort of implanted in my generation when we were young, so we've grown up with a genuine lack of feeling that it's wrong. I guess that's just my two cents.

In addition, regarding the poll options, I think it also largely depends on the fact that it seems so easy to get away with, and it APPEARS to be a largely victimless crime. If someone leaves their car in the driveway with the keys in it and the doors unlocked, sure it's easy to steal, but you know that it belongs to the person who lives in the house that lies before you. A much lower percentage of people would steal that car because they know it's wrong and they know that they are stealing from a living, breathing person. When you illegally download software, movies, music, etc. you are much further disconnected from this living, breathing person. You are in fact stealing from software developers, artists, directors, actors, musicians, etc. but they're so far away from you that it doesn't seem to be relevant. Okay, that's enough of that.
 
Ice Czar said:
once apon a time music came in a "wearable" format, and people where forced to purchase the same music over and over again, from record to record, 8 track, cassettes, CDs

Ive a few albums (degraded) in all those formats (except 8 track no one has 8 track :p )

that was to a certain extent an artificial "boost" to the music industry
that is now gone without drm schemes

I can't help but think that they (recording industry) are wetting their pants at the thought of people not having to buy the same songs over and over.

That instead of buying a "best of" you can take all the songs you bought before and make your own best of.

When your cd gets scratched up or your mp3 player breaks you can take your backup and replace all of your songs without spending another cent on them.

Oh my god...you mean that you actually get to keep something that you bought. No you can't because you don't own the music.
 
Well, you know Hard On there before the internet the casette tape (or tape as it was affectionately called long long ago when dinosaurs ruled the earth) this tape allowed you to record music from anywhere...Oooo. :eek:

Even the radio, yes the radio. On the radio they play every popular song ona regular basis. So at that time this was a mainstream form of music piracy.

Its more high tech now, but its the same principle. :p
 
Shmuckety said:
Well, you know Hard On there before the internet the casette tape (or tape as it was affectionately called long long ago when dinosaurs ruled the earth) this tape allowed you to record music from anywhere...Oooo. :eek:

Even the radio, yes the radio. On the radio they play every popular song ona regular basis. So at that time this was a mainstream form of music piracy.

Its more high tech now, but its the same principle. :p

Oh man, the number of mixtapes and taped cd's I have from my adolescence is extremely large. It fills 2 tape holders, it's in excess of 50. I remember I used to play SNES listening to a cd so I'd know when to flip the tape and start again on the other side. So yes, that just further strengthens my argument that if I could get away with it on a tape deck, why is it all of a sudden so much more insane to burn the cd?
 
Shmuckety said:
Well, you know Hard On there before the internet the casette tape (or tape as it was affectionately called long long ago when dinosaurs ruled the earth) this tape allowed you to record music from anywhere...Oooo. :eek:

Even the radio, yes the radio. On the radio they play every popular song ona regular basis. So at that time this was a mainstream form of music piracy.

Its more high tech now, but its the same principle. :p
Agreed. Suddenly it's a moral issue now due to the extent that it's being done. There's a hipocracy in saying that it's ok to copy a song off of the radio onto a cassette but it's wrong to download a song onto an iPod.

In regards to photoshop and other highend productivity programs, I'd say that 99% of the people pirating them arn't making any money off of them. While those who are purchase them legitamatly. I'm not arguing any moral implications with this, but it's easy to see how this is viewed as a victimless crime. Where is the loss of money in this case. Some 20 year old isn't likely to be purchasing PS for fun anyways and if he is then he's more likely getting a school discount for his college education.
 
It's a big issue now because it has become more prevalent and the industry has become fat with greed.

They can theoretically enforce this now and they are exercising their right to do so.

So to all the 12 year old girls out there sharing music with their friends...you are no longer safe from the boogie monster. :eek:
 
Because they can. Or to save the money. Sometimes, like for example a $1000 program, to get it and use it for 2 or 3 things and be done. Or to just try it out.

I don't know if their motivation is based on the because they can, as a hobby, or to save the money for other things.

Some pirates wouldn't buy the game even if they could afford it, they just have access to getting it for free, so go for it. Same with movies. Let's copy a DVD! Why? Because I have a burner! I've heard that many times. They copy a movie even before watching it once. Netflix probably gets a good portion of their profits from pirates.

Of course, you can be like me: Open Source. Open Office, Linux (BSD), Firefox, Thunderbird. Free. No pirating needed.

And I agree with a previous poster: For the booty! ARRRRGGGGG! ;)
 
I feel that there is alot of greed by the producers, and they are letting thier greed affect fair use. The Foo Fighters CD that will not let you play it on your computer without a special downloaded license, and cannot be put on a iPod is a clear violation of fair use.

When you buy a CD fair use allows you to make a backup for your own personal use (not your friends), and allows you to store it on other mediums if you choose to do so. I have a friend.... who has over 400 full albums of MP3s on his computer, but he owns every single CD. He ripped them to MP3 himself because it is much more convenient than having to flip through a giant CD folder. What he is doing is 100% acceptable under fair use laws, yet RIAA, MPAA, and Software companies are now making protections to prevent people from excercising thier rights to make backups (for personal use only) and to store the product on differrent media.

When I see the companies do stuff like that it really angers me because I can not see any reason for it other than greed. It makes me want to stop supporting them. If they are going to take my rights away, why should I give them my money?
 
Another aspect of the whole thing is the difference between a "hard" verses "soft" product.

If you buy a hammer, a "hard" product, for $15.00 then you have a hammer in your hand. You can look at it, notice the wood grain in the handle, use it - you know that a certain amount of work went into making that hammer. You paid for the wood, steel, and sweat of the people that made it.

If you buy a song or computer program - "soft" products. You have a cd in your hand. cd's cost $15.00 for a hundred count spindle. The program or song on that cd might have taken hundreds of hours to produce, but the visual value to most people is the same as the cost of the blank cd. And everyone knows how to copy cd's. Everyone knows the amount of work required to produce the copy of the orginal work, and it isn't much. So we all know that after a certain number of copies of that song or program are sold then the company/programmer/artist/distributor/etc is making almost 100% profit - simplisticly speaking of course, I know that people in the music business can tell me how much it cost to produce, market, distribute,etc each song that is recorded and people in the software industry can do the same.

The point I'm reaching for is that people appreciate work that they can see and understand, like making a hammer.

There once was a counterfiter of fine paintings. He would produce almost flawless copies of the paintings of the great masters. Even after he was caught and the fakes revealed they were worth huge sums of money, not as much as the orginals, but still a lot. All because it was easy for people to see the talent and work that went into the fake, and plus the noterity<sp?> of owning one. True story...I just don't remember his name.

So a lot of it has to do with the business model and the consumers thought processes.

Red Hat doesn't sell Linux, go to their site, hit the link for Fedora and you can download it for free. It sells you the effort and material that Red Hat put into their packaging and copying and their customer support - for a fair price. And you can't say that Red Hat isn't making money.
This is the customer support subscription model.

Microsoft doesn't sell you Windows XP either. If you don't believe me then read your EULA and look up some of those words with a dictionary. Bill Gates still owns all of your OS - you have payed him for the right to use it, under certain conditions, for an unspecified amount of time, which can be terminated at his discreation, with no guarentees of support or assistance what so ever.
This is the infinite arena concert ticket model.

Red Hat's model makes sense to all of us....it's kind of like the guy who cuts your grass or washes your car....you are paying for a service.

Microsoft's model is like going to listen to a music group play at a HUGE arena, and the promoter has some special recording equipment. On the event date the promoter charges $150.00 to get in, to a butt load of people. Not bad to hear a band play, I guess. The promoter records the orginal concert. The next night the arena opens and the promoter charges $150.00 to get in - but instead of the band playing the promoter just cuts on his recorder/player and plays the previous nights concert, he's happy, he's getting paid a second time for work that he has already been paid to do. Now he keeps doing this over and over and over. Neat scam, huh?

Now, before some start objecting about my discription, hear me out. If you go to a live concert you might pay $50.00 to get in. Which is worth it, you are paying for the artist to preform their music for you. If you buy a CD of that concert you might pay $15-$20.00 - which is worth it, you are listening to a reproduction of that concert.
Only in Microsoft/Adobe/RIAA/MPAA/etc 's world is a reproduction worth just as much as the orginal work. And don't even get me started about MS's customer support.

People don't like paying hugely inflated prices for something that they know is just a reproduction, Especially when they know exactly how much work it takes to make a copy. Base reason software/music/video piracy exists.

Example: a DaVinci Print.....$25.00 with frame at the mall.
The orginal Mona Lisa in the Louvre..........Priceless.
Example: Rolling Stones "Lick It Up" CD.......$20.00
"Lick it Up" Live at Madison Square Garden.....$150.00 for good seats
$50.00 for nosebleed.

Example: Windows XP Pro Retail Today...........$225.95
Windows XP Pro Retail 2001.............$189.95
Do we see a difference?

Face it....
Windows XP isn't the "Mona Lisa" All of the work to produce XP has been paid for - for a long time. Maitenance cost for the service and support staff for this product doesn't justify the cost of the product being the same today, or more than it was when it was released. And neither does R&D or any other economic arguement. DeWalt Tools does a lot of R&D, but the cost of their tools goes down over time, not the same or up, ie check the cost of an 18V Drill 2 years ago verses today, it's almost half. Economies of scale apply to everything. And there is a reason why Microsoft is such a wealthy company.

Want a real suprise....go buy a copy of Windows 2000. And it's just about dead, except for the business sector.

Personally the only reason I buy Windows is because the programs and games I want and need to use aren't made for Linux. If CS:S and BF2 had a Linux version I'd be Red Hat bound and happy to pay for the support.

Just my $0.02

 
many students and young people pirate stuff like adobe studio and autocad because it is far too expensive.

there is no way that i could spend even $300 on a program like that and i want to learn for the future. teenage car insurance is a BITCH
 
SN4p said:
many students and young people pirate stuff like adobe studio and autocad because it is far too expensive.

there is no way that i could spend even $300 on a program like that and i want to learn for the future. teenage car insurance is a BITCH

so don't drive... life is full of choices...

re: cassette vs. cd... c'mon... think about that one for a minute... i'm old enough to remember cassettes (and 8 tracks, for that matter)... anyone who wants to think that copying a cassette is the same as burning a cd is fooling themselves... the main difference being that you can create a perfect copy with a cd, and perfect copies on cassette don't exist (well, at least not with the equivalent of a cd burner, that being an el crappo radio shack cassette recorder)...

i'm hearing a whole bunch of excuses... but no "reasons"...
 
Basically it comes down to economics as with all things. I'll try and break it up based on sections for Apps, Games, Movies, MP3's.

A majority of people said $1000 is too much for Photoshop. Well yes it is for the average person but companies can afford these prices, the same companies that Adobe is trying to sell their product to. I cant recall the name of their version for home users which is around $99, looking at what it offers thats a reasonable price. But as someone said previously when you go to work for a major company they will most likely be using Photoshop so your $99 program doesnt mean so much as a learning tool. By making the program available online the average user has an opportunity to learn the program and have fun with it, more importantly they can use this knowledge later on in life. The average person who downloads photoshop is not using the program to make money off it.

Games, the industry that was laughed at years ago because people said it was just for kids, now almost anyone and everyone is playing games. Because of this the market is being flooded crappy games, corporations know that if they hype it up enough someone will buy their product, if they pay off a reviewer to praise it (it happens), someone will buy the product. Its not like the games are cheap either, I think most come out at around $50 and then drop to around $30 after a while. Regardless nowadays you can't return the game due to piracy, what do you get instead? Store credit, which basically means we still have your money until you decide get something else. Either way the consumer loses, by downloading the game you have an alternative to try it out, dont like it? Delete it... You're done. Like it? Go buy it to support the developer so they can create another one.

Movies ? wow, I think everyone beat this to death already. $9.25 (Price in most of CT) is too much to go see a movie, then you have to factor in food, drink, and actually getting there (price of gas) and your entire evening to see 1 movie by yourself, once, in a usually crappy theather where you are most likely to be annoyed by someone is going to be near $20. Got a date? Double it... Got a family of 5 ? Shit... Take out a loan... This still doesnt guarantee that you will have a good time. Luckily with emerging technology we will be able to download a movie or buy a dvd of it when its at the theathers (this is coming sooner than you think). Once again piracy offers you the "preview" version for free, and if you actually like the movie, you'll go and get the DVD to have a copy you can enjoy later on.

MP3's ? Corporate greed again, people do not want to pay $15 for a cd with 1 good song, people have said this for years. Solution? iTunes... Corporations way of screwing you over? Copy protection... The recording industry has relied on the fact that "consumers have no choice, if they want it, they'll buy our product" for too long. Their figures of how much they lose to piracy is ridicilous. I will tell you for a fact that they lose more money by their actions to stop piracy than they do on piracy. How do I know? Lets just say that I'm fortunate enough to have access to their financial statement breakdown due to the nature of my job. Why do you think the government is getting involved in stopping piracy? Its cheaper to fund the US government directly rather than going after individuals with lawsuits. If you cant guess by now as to why groups do it then you didnt read anything above :p The corporations want to keep getting richer while keeping the man down.

A majority of the groups that release these titles do it to be in a way, an economy of scales. They're putting the product out for free in an effort to stick it to the man for making the title so damn expensive. Don't believe me? Try and find someone at the top and ask them why they do it.

Of course there are people that will download things contantly and never purchase anything, as fun as that might be it has to come to an end sometime. As some others mentioned this can be time consuming, then again if you're at the top everything is at your fingertips but that doesnt last unless you're willing to give something back. The cheapskates usually dont so they fall ;) Bottom line being if you got the money for it you dont think twice, if you dont, you pirate. Like me for example, will I buy something thats $30 or spend an hour looking for it to download. If I buy now I have it and can start enjoying it or get pissed but move on. If I spend an hour looking for it then it's already cost me $30, I would have been better off buying it. It comes down to your time = money, unfortunately record companies and the movie industry are under the impression that everyone makes $30 an hour and can blow money on their crappy products.

Everytime I ask people "why do you do it"

I get the common answer of "screw over the corporation", "for the fun of it", and sadly sometimes "to make money". There are groups that are in it to make money and they usually get caught, once the realization kicks in that they've gotten big and made it on the scene they want to make some money off of it and get caught. The people that do it for their own gain do make me sick but they usually get whats coming to them. In a way they know they're breaking the law and thats the fun part for them, sure they could be boosting cars but they're more likely to get caught.

For some its their way of becoming someone which is why they take part in it, sure they might be a loser in real life but online they're the person or group that released a top game or movie and get a lot of credit/appraisal, something they cant pull off in real life.
 
I think that there are a series of problems that is confronting the current computer industry, none of which alleviate piracy.

With regards to games, users used to receive extensive demos; Doom's shareware version gave users an excellent idea of what the rest of the series would be like, as did wolfenstein, commander keen, etc. That's where the PC gaming industry REALLY began. While there were games prior to 92-3, the scene really exploded when they started selling shareware in shopping markets for under $20 to try. When was the Doom 3 demo released? When was the Half Life 2 demo released? Without demos for people to try, they're going to try and get ahold of the software to test and see if it's worth buying. Think about it; would you buy a house or car without walking around in the house, or test driving the home? No, you'd want some hands on experience.

Prices for many of the most important software packages are terribly high. Windows, the most commonly used OS, is hellishly expensive for most low-income users; even the student editions of their OSes are pricy as all hell. Students are the amongst the group that is most likely to commit piracy; if you're going to charge them an arm and a leg for a critical piece of software, or they can get it for free, their probably going to get the free copy. Lower the price, and you'll reduce the likelihood of piracy.

Other applications, like Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, etc are also expensive as hell, and when students apply for real jobs when they get their degrees their expected to know how to use corporate software, software that they haven't had trainingquires it. Hence, they download the software and learn how to use it. Asking someone to spend $300-150 000 just so that they have the requisite skills to apply to 70% of the jobs that are posted is unreasonable, especially when different jobs have different softwa on at school, and that they're not going to buy without already knowing they have a job that rere competancy requirements. Students can't get a loan to purchase software so that they can apply to jobs. Once they land a job, they may purchase the software, or they may not, that's dependant on the person, and the kind of job they have.

There's also time factors, people's unwillingness to purchase crappy products, and general distaste at how legitimate users are being treated by media distribution companies. All of these things, combined with the ever increasing disparity between haves and have nots in society contribute to the increases in North American piracy.

Anyhow, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

 
Reasons people pirate:

1. It's not out yet, but should be.
2. Copy protection. Why should someone spend $60.00 so they can sit and wait for a DVD to load instead of a local copy? Or have their computer infected by StarForce?
3. Principal. Some people think that spending $55.00 for a game that might suck is criminal.
4. Because you shouldn't. Ever broken the speed limit? Do dumb things to get an adrenaline rush?
5. Because shareware is dead. Wolfenstein sold becuase people tried it first, and it wasn't rediculously crippled. Modern demos are a cock tease.
6. Because companies are entirely too greedy today. Video game companies are no longer small startups with a face. They are conglomerates with an agenda.
7. Because there is no innovation. Why buy something that's just a rehashed version of what you had before?
8. Because sometimes, getting something of that nature is more of a game than the game itself.
9. Because if it's really worth it, people will pay for it. If it's not, they won't.
10. Because the public constantly finds itself on the wrong end of the fuckstick, and it's good to give some back once in a while.
11. It's a way to keep insurmountable greed in check.
12. Because they've been fucked by the RIAA for the last 15 years, and by their count, they're still owed many thousands of dollars due to price fixing, and collusion. Debts which have not been repaid to the public.

Matt.
 
I think many people pirate because they don't want to spend the $. HOWEVER- that doesn't mean they would spend the money if they couldn't pirate. For instance- someone may pirate a movie, CD, or game b/c is doesn't cost anything- but would just go without if they weren't able to obtain in online. I know someone who burns DVDs. He rented Cronicle of Riddick, hated it, and then copied it anyways b/c it cost $0.40 to so so. No sale was lost. He never would have bought it, but now he has it just because it doesn't cost much to have a copy... So when companies look at the amount of content downloaded and assume that's profit lost- they're oh so wrong.
 
redhalo said:
Agreed. Suddenly it's a moral issue now due to the extent that it's being done. There's a hipocracy in saying that it's ok to copy a song off of the radio onto a cassette but it's wrong to download a song onto an iPod.

Agreed. I remember when it was all the rage to make your own mix tapes on, dare I say it? 8-track tapes. :eek:
Actually, I still have a working 8-track player & big box of tapes in the garage. Most of them free form yard sales etc :p

In my opinion it's the volume & ease at which one can transfer music which bothers the recording industry.

Anyone old enough remember the HUGE controversy around the Batamax case back in the '70's?
The companies made the case that recorded video would kill the industry. That certainly has NOT been the case. In fact, there
is an extremely vibrant industry around movie rentals and such. Once the recording companies
saw the light they took big steps to get an infrastructure in place, hence recorded video has made them billions.

And I suspect the same will be true of downloadable music. These attempts at curtailing
downloadable music is just a plan to slow things until they get their own infrastructure in place.
 
Two words: It's easy. I'm talking about modern-day piracy when I say that, btw.

It's easy to pull something off the internet for free. It's easy to download that one or two songs off an otherwise craptastic album. It's easy to find that $500 Adobe Photoshop. It's easy to get WinXP Corp. edition. It's easy to "stick it to the man" when all the work's been done for you. Someone's already done all the work of putting up that movie or that song or whatever, all you have to do is wait for the download to finish. If it wasn't for the fact that it is so damn easy to do this, threads like this wouldn't exist in such numbers and the RIAA wouldn't be suing babies and Mac users (not saying this in an insulting way, just goes back to an RIAA lawsuit on one a while back that was rather funny).

Is it all the corporations' fault? No. They may have inadvertently created a receptive audience to piracy due to their price gouging, but they did not create the technology to do so. Now, that's not to say that they're not on the wrong side of the debate by hanging on to their 19th century business model of selling their crap. If they want to save themselves, they have to create a practical, legitimate means for people to get what they want that approaches the ease of downloading off...whatever people use these days.

As flawed as it may be, that's my view on it.
 
Aperion said:
>>>>>
but they did not create the technology to do so.
>>>>>>>>

That is the heart of the matter IMhO. That and "price gouging".

CD's cost only a tiny fraction of cassettes to produce. Yet CD's are much more expensive.

Back when CD's first came out everyone was bitching about the high prices. There were
numerous statements from the industry that the prices would fall dramatically
once the technology matured.
Have the prices dropped? Hell no!! If anything they have risen.
 
Price gouging goes along with creating the potential base for pirating on such a massive scale, but is not a direct cause of it. Almost everyone that has downloaded a file off the internet illegally would still be saying "Thank you, sir. May I have another?" if it weren't so easy to download that file to begin with. Until recently, the capacity to do such a thing was beyond all but the most talented with a computer and a modem.

This is why I say that entities such as the RIAA are not directly responsible, but they have to suffer the consequences of their arrogance in some form or another. In a way, I find it fitting that they are being buried by the very apathy that they exploited for so long to make their huge piles of cash.
 
Back
Top