I read an article a few years ago which put forward the theory that piracy was good for for the likes of Adobe and MS. Apps like Photoshop and Office make money by being the defacto choice for that kind of application. Home users learn the software from their pirated copies at home then use the copy the company purchased at work.
Indeed. Without pirated copies of Windows and Photoshop everywhere, you can bet there'd be a lot of alternatives around. Now the market is nearly completely cornered by only a small number of apps.
The only use of sites such as the bay of pirates I agree with is the ability to download ISOs of software/games that you have purchased a license for. After losing my original XP discs back in the day, I was shocked to find that you have to purchase replacement disks.
Yes. I also tend to re-download game discs that have become damaged, such as my AvP2 which is now unusable due to scratches. Scratches which, incidentally, would not have occurred if there were no disc-in-tray requirement on the game
I often download films, music and the odd program, but all of which are from very large companies, Microsoft, Adobe, and many other giant corperations and the thing that makes me think its not such a bad thing to do is how much money some of these companies make, and where that money actually goes to. Directors and actors earn ridiculous amounts of money for their films and thats precisely why I don't feel bad about downloading them. However for much smaller artists, and its only really in the music industry that I've found this, I do feel guilty about downloading there material and so I tend to be more selective about the music I download, often buying songs from itunes from the lesser known bands.
copyright exists so that the copyright holder has a right to decide how his/her work is distributed, and to gain remuneration for that work by way of a license. wether that copyright holder is a large corporation or a small indie is irrelivent, you are depriving them of the funds the law allows them to collect. it is illegal to deprive the copyright holder of said funds.( if you dont pay that is) scratched disks, usually incur a small replacement fee to cover, manufacture, delivery and admin costs.
Read something similar, think it was about Adobe not being that fussed about people at home downloading their software because it meant that people got used to using it and it became the defacto choice for professional use which meant that lots of companies paid them lots of money.
I think that there are those who are happy to pirate, and will do so. That's a personal choice, as I said before. I personally see it as theft, regardless of what the law or anyone says. If you obtain something that has commercial value, without paying for it or obtaining it legitimately, then in my book it is theft. People who don't pirate, don't for various reasons. My cousin doesn't because he is a Christian (his reasoning, not mine). I don't because I grew out of it. I used to when I was younger, but I would rather pay for any software/ media/ games I have now, and feel safe in the knowledge that I have customer support behind me, if required. I also enjoy the feeling of buying stuff, and I think it allows me to appreciate it more. Regards the "road testing" aspect of piracy, I use reviews, demos or word of mouth to form my opinions on any digital products. That's got me by most of the time, although I have admittely got one or two games collecting dust here, due to this.
But surely they were the de facto choice on the market before piracy of them really took off? I mean, no one would bother pirating them if they weren't so popular in the first place, and there are plenty of other applications out there you could pirate which aren't 'de facto choices'. Companies buying thousands upon thousands of licences of applications make them the de facto choice, not piracy.
You're the first person I've heard say that and I agree completely. When I went purchase-crazy a while back and bought all my previously-pirated games, it wasn't for strong moral reasons but because I don't really enjoy games that I haven't bought. I still don't know why exactly, but it changes it. When you buy something you make a commitment to play/watch/read it; if you get it for free, you feel like you're seeing it over someone's shoulder, and you can stop anytime you want the moment your attention span fails. And usually do.
Im sorry what is so expensive that they charge for? Windows ~£70 oem or ~£100 retail for an OS with free support and service packs for ~10 years Office ~£70 that can be used on three machines? Visual Studio Free for the majority of features gets a little more expensive after that SQL Server Free for the majority of features gets a little more expensive after that Exchange - Not sure on pricing but enterprise level software that your probably not aware of Windows Server- Not sure on pricing but enterprise level software that your probably not using. yet people are willing to spend £20-£40 quid on a game that does half what windows does and they often use for only a month or £100 - £300 for a GPU that they update every 2 years the attitude above really pisses me of please could you or anyone explain what is so expensive
Same. I feel sorry for OS manufacturers sometimes. The proper remedy is to put someone in front of an OSless computer and see how much they manage to do...
It's just people using the same old worn and frequently used cliche - "M$". I've seen it many times and in many guises.
You lot seem to have pretty short memories, think back to some of the prices for Vista and if you wanted a decent version of office 2007 ,£300...And Vista was not the greatest OS to every leave microsofts empire was it? Granted , Win 7 is a good price and a good OS and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with Office, just that IMO it was over priced. After all the basic version was crap! People are going to download pirated copies of anything they can get thier hands on , no matter how low the price is.
Yeah me too, I wish I had bought a few of them now. I used to buy all my Vista one's from the USA Vista ultimate full retail for £90 inc.
I don't think that Office was overpriced. For a home user, yes it could be seen as being overpriced, but it was never intended solely for the home market. For the SOHO market, I think it is reasonably priced, as other applications for this market can easily come in at much higher prices. There is also the fact that for small businesses, like mine, the purchase price is tax deductable. Also, alot of my clients waited for a while, till the price drops started, before upgrading, which resulted in even more savings. Early adopters always pay a premium, it's the same with almost every IT related product. It's too easy (and also very lame) to justify piracy by claiming companies are charging too much.
