Should operating systems auto-delete itself at first sign, EVERYTIME?

Well, deceptive advertising is the name of the game. That, and as lupin said, freeing the consumers of their rights to the products they buy. According to the EULAs, you don't actually own any of the software on your computer, regardless of how you acquired it - you're simply "leasing" it. It's sort of like a library, except you went in thinking it was a bookstore. They're trying to combine the two - you pay for the software, but you use it on their terms. And once they've decided it's no longer yours to use, you've got to dispose of it. So in addition to the false advertising and lease-lend software, there's also a lot of planned obsolescence thrown in. You've got to throw the book/disk away when they say so. You can use your shiny XP/Vista disk once, twice, three times - but after that, it's back to the library to buy a new book - which, don't forget, will be due in another three days.

This sounds quite warped when described in terms of libraries and bookstores and garbage cans, but it's been the business model for large software corporations for years now.

 

A car is advertised as 'the definition of luxury' with 'astounding acceleration', and a 'cavernous trunk' .....

... so you buy it based on the description, without actually investigating for yourself what is included or whether or not its specifications will meet your needs, or how it compares to other similarly priced models. You could end up with a Hyundai hatchback with manual-crank windows and an 85 horsepower engine.

While that description was certainly lofty, it didn't imply the presence of any specific equipment or capabilities. What is the definition of luxury? How much horsepower is astounding? And how many cubic feet of cargo capacity is considered cavernous?

Lots of superlatives, zero specifications. If you wanted cupholders, or a cd-changer or a sunroof it is up to you to find out if the product is so equipped before you hand over your hard-earned money.

It is no different if you wanted photo-editing software, word processing software, or games.

As the saying goes, 'a fool and his money are easily parted'.

 

Actually, car manufacturers and some dealerships nation wide have been successfully sued for many counts of false advertising. For example, false gas mileage claims.

To expect every consumer to know about every item is ridiculous. That would defeat the purpose of Windows shopping, Browsing and spur of the moment purchases that many companies count on.

I stated in a earlier post that my cousin got a 512MB notebook with Vista pre-installed on it. Nothing but problems. Sorry, but she is too busy with school to know that Vista is basically a no go on 512MB. It's not her fault, most would figure that Vista would work flawless if it's pre-installed. Just watch HSN for a while and see how much false info they put into peoples heads.

Also how are people suppose to research what they don't know? A lot of people don't know they need software for this or that until after they buy a PC. So how can you expect them to do their homework on this.

When I bought my Acer, I didn't really know about Graphics Cards yet. Before hand I thought the more PC RAM the better graphics. If I knew then what I know now, I would have spent a little bit extra for another Notebook. How was I to know to research this?

 

Exactly. I'm not saying that there's no burden on consumers, I'm just saying that in areas where a lot of people are unknowledgeable or misinformed, there should be at least minimum guidelines as to how you advertise a product, such as with technology. A lot of people think that all you need to play PC games is a PC, or that all you need to edit home photos is a "multimedia" computer. They don't know before they buy the PC that it's "bundled" software is either all crap or all trial versions. It's not realistic or fair to expect everyone to always assume they're going to get screwed, and to thus do in-depth research before every purchase. And you may say, "well that's just the way the world is, and it isn't going to change," well then I'll just have to reply "piracy is a part of that world, and it's not going to change anytime soon either."

 

AGREE .....With every word of that statement!!!!!

 

Add me to the agree list. Yes, people aren't free from the responsibility of looking out before making purchases, but companies *are* responsible for going out of their ways to deceive consumers about what their products do and do not contain. The corporations screw the customers, and the customers go along with it because they don't know any better.

But not every customer goes along with it. Some explore the world of open source. And others raise the black flag and download what they need to make their computers work the way they were meant to. And as long as there's a gap between the worth of software and the MSRP, there's going to be piracy. As long as there's a gap between the advertisement and the product, there's going to be piracy to fill the space between.

 

If the OS autodeletes itself, it's a rubbish OS. What happens to my other legit data?

 

And I would never have figured you to be one to watch HSN!

 

What absolute RUBBISH. Are you smoking crack? It's not like people browsing round the store, it's like people walking in, and taking the clothes and wearing them around but saying "oh well it's okay to do so because I never intended to pay for them anyway".

Honestly, if you want to use freeware, go right ahead, Ubuntu is a perfectly working OS, you can get free very good software now to do most things, but if you want to do things that free software doesn't exist for you either have to break the law, or you have to decide that it's something you actually want to do and are willing to pay for.

 

If you walk out of a store with a piece of clothing, the store has one less piece of clothing.

Do you believe Microsoft has one less copy of Windows Me if someone downloads it?

What about when someone goes to a library, checks out an audiobook, burns the CD, and returns it to the library? Does the library lose its copy of the audiobook?

I agree completely.

 

I agree with that, I see it more as walking into a store seeing a nice polo you like but then you notice that it is way over priced and decide not to buy it. On your way home, however you see a store with the exact same polo being given away for free....so you take one.

 

That's a really poor analogy b/c you are referring to physical items. When someone downloads Windows with Bittorrent, they're not walking away with a physical item, which is not easily duplicated in the store, but with data; that's essentially what Windows is.

 

Hate?
That's a big word. Why such strong feelings? Maybe you lose money on it, but do store owners also hate people who buy from their competitors? They lose money on that too. Or maybe you don't lose money on it, because you're not producing or selling movies, songs, games or other applications. And in that case, hatred seems even more out of place.
Can't we all just get along?

Two reasons.
The first is that another thing most people hate is buying a product that doesn't work. Currently, a huge number of Vista installations have had problems with their overzealous copy protection labelling legal licenses as pirate copies. Now how do you think people would react if Microsoft deleted their OS due to a mistake? Can you say lawsuit?

And the second reason is a bit more pragmatic. What is best for Microsoft? People pirating Windows, or people switcing to Mac or Linux? Microsoft has piracy to thank for their explosive growth. Yes, it has cost them money, but it has also spread their OS to the extent that most people now wouldn't know what to do if they needed an alternative OS. (And that's also why they've only recently started cracking down on piracy. Until a couple of years ago, it had benefits to them as well as disadvantages. But now they're so big they no longer need to worry much about competitors, so they can start harrassing their customers)

Oh, and a third reason. There are a lot of laws about what information can be sniffed from your computer and sent to remote servers. And of course these laws differ from country to country. Finding a strategy for doing this, which is safe all over the world is... tricky. And even if they managed that, they'd still have to deal with a lot of customers feeling it was invading their privacy. Doesn't something like this sound like spyware to you?

And while we're at it, a fourth and fifth reason too.
Fourth: Not everyone are online all the time. And their server might not be online all the time either. What should people do who can't connect to this master server when required? Oops, auto-delete because they couldn't get it verified?
Fifth: Corporate customers would never use it. What do you think an IT administrator would say if he had to 1) install each of, say, a hundred PC's with different license keys (currently they get corporate keys that can be reused on hundreds of computers, saving them a lot of hassle), and allow company computers to phone various companies all over the world with... unknown information?

Bit naive. First, there are illegal copies of pretty much anything you can think of. Second, how does this mean the ban would be error-free?

Because Steam never makes mistakes or bans the wrong people... Happened to several people I know. And there's your reason. In Steam's case, people can email of phone them to sort out the problem. if you just lost your data, you're still screwed even if Microsoft admits they've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Software piracy is not theft.
The owner does not lose posession of anything. If I steal a car, the owner no longer has it. If I rob a bank, the bank no longer has the money I took.

If I pirate a game, does the developer suddenly lose their rights to it? Do they lose the source code?

Software piracy is illegal in most countries, yes, but it is not theft

 

It is technically theft (seriously, it is the closest word people can think of so that is what they call it)...but you are definitely denying the developer their right to the profits they deserve. That's what the problem is.

 

Most things are poor analogy's, that's part of the problem, people go "oh well, its just data, I'm not actually making it so the copy can't be sold therefore, it's okay" It's NOT okay, sorry, being a software developer myself I know how much time and effort goes into making software, and get rather irritated with people saying that it's not hurting me because they never intended to pay me for it in the first place. If you want to use software I create, pay me for my time and effort in creating it (whatever I am charging), if you don't want to use software I create, don't use it. It's upto you to decide if what I charge for my software is worth how much use you get from said software.

 

Does it hurt you financially if I find a copy of your software on the street, pick it up, and install it in my computer? If so, how? Where exactly does the money leave your pocket?

 

Well, that's questionable though. If you can prove that you're denying them their rightful profits, they deserve to be compensated for their losses or potential losses and you're in effect diluting incentive for people to create new media and technology and software.

However, that's a big "if", and although I'm sure every single major company in question here has had their marketing departments work overtime to plot what profits, if any, they might or might not lose, there's still no conclusive evidence that any of it is true. There's this sort of intuitive idea that "people are pirating our software, therefore we must be losing money!" that's floating around, but is this really true?

I mean, look at it this way. Let's use Photoshop as an example. If your job requires you to use Photoshop, most people would buy that software. The legal ramifications of pirating software for a business, commercial, or production use are just too risky, and most people would write that off as a business expense anyway (I'm talking about actual small businesses, not 1-person self-employed businesses). You would buy it, write it off as a business expense to your company, and that would be that. Or, your company would work out volume licensing of some sort. I'm almost 100% sure that no sizable company that intends to keep any sort of professional clientale will mass-pirate PHotoshop.

On the other hand, if you want it for personal use, if you couldn't pirate it, would you buy it for $700? Probably not. So that's a sale Adobe would never have had. On the other hand, now if you pirate it, Adobe's still not getting your money just yet, but at least its product is being used and more popular. Furthermore, an additional user, legit or otherwise, is one more user who uses adobe-specific proprietary file formats. Others wanting to open ppd files will almost have to have Adobe Photoshop, and those people may buy Photoshop. The more Photoshop is in use, the more it will become an industry standard that people will want to buy or use. In the end, that 1st user who pirated PHotoshop may decide to buy his own copy as well if his use of it starts to become business and not personal, especially since he's had ample opportunity to fully try the software out (as opposed to the very limited trial demo).

So in the model above, Adobe would never have gotten a sale to the original pirater to begin with, so it's not money lost. On the other hand, the distribution of its software indirectly promotes sales and can actually lead to increased revenue.

Obviously, this is just an example, and possibly an extreme one at that. The point is, it's enough of a relevant example that there are companies who adjust their marketing strategies to accommodate technological change. Again, I refer to GalCiv2 and EMI as examples.

 

It does if, and only if, you would have bought that software anyway if you had not found it for free.

The main point though is that people who pirate would never have bought the software anyway if they didn't pirate it.

 

I agree completely.

 

While I understand your point, let's say that Arla is a developer for ABC software. ABC software has this really awesome and needed product that really makes life easier for a lot of people. Rewind back to Arla graduating high school and Arla decides to go to school to be a PR major and not a software developer, then what software would you have to pick up off of the street? The point is that Arla probably spent a small fortune of time and money going to school to learn how to make applications. The applications they (software) developers make allow the modern world to go around. We could have millions of computers in the world but if there is no software to run them or run on them then we have some pretty nice paperweights. I don't work for free so I don't expect Arla or anybody else for that matter to do the same. In my job I am a tech support guy, now I can't physically touch my handywork because it involves talking, thinking and fixing an array of tech issues that I can't put in a box and take home at the end of the day, but I get paid every 2 weeks for this service and I feel that software development is the same.

 

No, money doesn't "leave" my pocket, does money even "leave" my pocket if millions of people download a program I wrote and sell for $5. It's still stealing. If you can't see that then as far as you are concerned any "product" which isn't tangible should be free.

 

No, the main point is that people who are pirating software are getting to use something they haven't paid for, whether they would or wouldn't have paid for it is actually fairly immaterial.

If you don't see the thing as having value, don't pay for it (and don't use it) if you find it has value then pay for it.

 

See, that's the thing. You're conflating how we "feel" about this, with the financial ramifications of it. They are entirely separate issues. You can argue people are pirates, thieves, stealers, immoral copyright infringers - whatever. But you can *NOT* argue money leaves your pocket if people without the means or desire to purchase your product copy it for personal use on their personal computers. Do you see the difference there? No one on this end of the aisle is arguing the law isn't being broken. No one here is arguing your feelings and/or pride aren't hurt. They may both very well be. But your BANK ACCOUNT does not decrease with each copy of your software.

 

Of course they're getting to use it without paying for it. But the fact that they wouldn't have paid for it anyway IS relevant when you insist on making the argument that you lose something financially when people with no intention of purchasing your software use your software without paying for it. Only when you drop that argument can the former become immaterial.

You're free to feel this way. And you have a right to feel angry about this, if you choose to. But people also have the choice - and right - to disagree with you, and to do as they please, with the knowledge that they are breaking the law. I am not advocating lawnessless, but I find it necessary to explain "the other side", I suppose.

 

There's only value as far as the making of the product translates into a sale. There has to be demand for it first.

You could argue that pirating indirectly affects that because it makes demand more elastic and eventually indirectly lead to lower value for their product, and probably be right in a sense, but only if people would have bought that product to begin with. In that sense, whether or not people would have paid for it is actually very material.

The issue is not whether or not people are getting something for which they have not paid for -- since this doesn't necessarily directly translate into profit for the software maker. Adobe will not sue you because you're getting "value" for free. They'll sue you because your actions, either directly or indirectly, affect their potential profits. During the course of litigation, they may well use that argument to further their claim, but that's not the primary motivation or reason you're getting sued.

 

Maybe it doesn't currently decrease, just maybe, but if Arla works for ABC software company, that happens to make a software product that is sold by the company, if even 25% of the users of the software don't pay for it, then how is ABC company going to be able to afford to pay their developers to make the next update or newer version to keep up with technology?

 

That's true. If they reach the point where they don't make enough sales to fund the development of the software, they will go out of business. I can see this being blamed on people who used to buy the software, discovered they could get it for free, and stopped buying it - but how could it Financially be blamed on the people who never bought the software, discovered they could get it for free, and began to use it?

 

This is also true. I don't expect him to work for free either, and I do believe software developers should be compensated for their work.

 

I've never tried to argue that money leaves my pocket for each person who copies the software that I make, I've just argued that the people who copy that software are breaking the law. I'm still of that opinion, and so far nothing you've said makes me feel any different. You are making use of products that you haven't paid for.

 

You'd have to first prove that those 25% = lost revenue.

Also, one person may look at it and say, you're losing 25% of your revenue.

However, another may look at it and say:

You're getting 100% of your revenue that you ever could have gotten. But, an additional 33% beyond your customer base is using your software and indirectly promoting it for free.

 

Could have fooled me, you seem to believe that since you copying the software I produce doesn't take money away from me, that it's perfectly legitimate to do it.

 

I'm not trying to make you feel differently about that. I've stated several times throughout this discussion that people who copy software *are* breaking the law. I have never said otherwise.

 

We're arguing two different things here.

On an individual level, of course you're breaking the law. That's a matter of fact.
Nothing you say to justify yourself *excuses* you from breaking the law, which is very clear on this subject. Piracy is illegal and should not be condoned no matter how you individually justify it.

However, on the macro level, I believe the current set of laws are detrimental to the original purpose of intellectual property protection and copyright protection - for both consumers AND producers. And what I'm arguing for is the fact that producers should be able to realize that it's not simply a matter of 1 pirate = 1 loss = loss of profit.

 

Either way you have an unpaying customer in the end, each of them arriving at that point differently, but nonetheless unpaying. Now please don't flame me for this because it is just a school of thought about my point. Maybe the price increases we are seeing is because of piracy and has a little to do with the price differences in yesterday's software vs today's software. Now I understand the economics of money hungry companies and the like but it's a good point to be made.

 

You're conflating again.

We just went over this. I don't buy your product. You don't get money from me. I download your product for free. You still don't get money from me.

Where in there did I take money away from you?

And just two minutes ago, you wrote this:

Yet you just made that argument in your most recent post.

Perhaps I should just start repeating my counter to this over and over again:

 

As for loss, well, it's hard to say, my argument would go along these lines.

For each person illegally using software that I created I have a potential loss, how much that loss is depends, certainly it's not the full price of the software since as you point out a number of the people using my software would never pay for it, however once you have it for free are you likely to ever pay for it? Even if perhaps you would have paid for it had you not had it for free.

 

I agree, but 1000 pirates = 1000 losses = somekind of profit loss and you can keep adding that as I'm fairly certain that there are more then 1k copies of Photoshop (example) being pirated right now.

 

This seems more reasonable, because there definitely can be a negative, but indirect (and thus hard to quantify) loss from piracy that may not be balanced by the positive effects of it. Unfortunately, it is in fact not the approach taken by any company.

For example, I'm sure you have all heard of the MPAA and RIAA levying lawsuits against college students for each music and video file they had shared in their collection - the sum of which totaled into the BILLIONS of dollars. They then brought that lawsuit for against each student for the full amount of their supposed "losses". Of course, they settled for a far smaller figure in the end, but such actions, even for--ESPECIALLY for-- deterrent purposes do not serve the intention of intellectual property protection at all.

Just an arbitrary figure. Point being it's not necessarily a 1-to-1 loss, if at all.

 

No flames at all. I agree unpaying customers exist in both situations, although I would argue that in the second case, the company is actually dealing with unpaying consumers, rather than unpaying customers. About the price increases, I believe they use piracy as a pretext for raising the prices annually. The RIAA in particular is quite fond of this - implying piracy deprives record corporations of millions of dollars per year, even while music sales continue to set records each year.

 

Um, again I never said it "hurt" my bottom line, I simply stated that you seem to think it's legitimate for people who wouldn't pay for software to copy it because they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, therefore it impacts no-one.

I would argue it has two impacts, one is that now that you have the software for free, even had you come to decide you "needed" the software you won't pay for it (since you already now have it for free, thus "removing" potential profit from me) also it's unlikely that you make a single copy and just stop there, likely (in this day and age) you share your copy over bittorrent or limeware or one of the many other file sharing programs, and others who might have brought my software, are now using it without buying it.

 

This I can agree with.

Then again, if we /are/ going to consider hypotheticals, there /is/ the matter of how much you might potentially make from the increasing word-of-mouth your product receives from people who don't buy it but download it, like it, and tell other people about it. Sort of the way OSx86 might be the best viral campaign for Apple's OS in the history of their company. People illegally download OSX cracks that, if they're lucky, work on their x86 hardware, but never work quite as well as OSX. It gives people a way to try the OS out for free without dropping the cash on the hardware it's bound to. Eventually, people either uninstall the OS, since it is never as bug free as XP/Vista, and go back to their old OS, OR they go out and buy Macbooks, MBPs, or iMacs, enthralled by OSX and wanting to try the real deal.

I believe this is why Apple has not sued the OSx86 project out of existence. They know they're getting a great hand from the hack project, and although I can't prove it, as I don't work in the annals of Apple, I would bet a hefty sum that their profits Have increased as a result of this piracy, rather than decreased.

 

I agree and that's why I added the some kind of profit loss. I don't believe it's one for one but I know that if enough ones do it then it has to add up somewhere.

 

Oh I agree, I'm not saying companies have dealt with this in the right manner, but that it does deprive companies of potential profit. Also saying that just because you'd have never paid for product X doesn't give you the right to use product X, whether it be something material or not.

You also have the issue of, say those students, sure SOME of the music they wouldn't ever have paid for, but I would bet that had they not had free access to it they would have paid for some of it.

 

This is true. See my post above, which considers the hypothetical implications of piracy (from the angle of potential benefits to the makers of the software being pirated).

 

Yes, no, maybe. It COULD have helped, but it also can hurt, because each person that "copies" my software, even if they love it, they haven't paid for it, and likelyhood is that they will tell their friends about it, INCLUDING HOW TO GET IT FOR FREE (since in general people dislike paying for things they can get for free).

 

I agree with this. Blaming all the price increases on piracy is definitely ludacrous, but I know that it does have some impact. So then these companies assign all the blame on the minority of consumers who don't pay for these things they use and then most people don't buy into it and know it's a bunch of garbage and say to said companies, if that's your take then I won't pay for it at all. Doesn't make it right, but it does happen.

 

Yes - it can help, or it can hurt. Most likely, it does both, to different degrees. I imagine it helps more than it hurts, but I admit I have no concrete way of proving this. And I'm all too aware that from the perspective of the person making the software, the potential hurt is far more significant than is the potential help. And conversely, for the person using the software freely, the imagined help is greater than the imagined hurt.

 

Great we all agree now finally. Yay.

It's too bad neither the MPAA nor RIAA nor Microsoft really cares though.

True, so long as it's illegal, it doesn't give anyone the right to pirate, no matter how much they feel they were in the right.

But I think companies might even benefit if they relaxed their policies in this regard officially and allowed some form of distribution. I.e. the spawn versions of previous Blizzard games, or GalCiv2's policy to protect their game updates, rather than the game itself, or EMI's decision to actually profit off nonDRM music, etc.

They probably would, but who could ever come up with a realistic model to quantify this that would be acceptable to all parties involved? The RIAA simply says, 100% of it is a loss x however many times it was distributed to any and everyone. Again, I feel a better solution would be for the companies themselves to innovate their way of distribution and marketing, and not try so hard to make everyone conform to the same model used for hard media that they've used for decades.

 

Quite true. It can sort of spiral out of control, until both paying and non-paying consumers regard the companies as the enemy, and the company becomes more and more restrictive toward both paying and non-paying consumers, a la collective punishment.

 

Well the RIAA is simply saying you are using product X (whether it be music, or video or even software) you should have paid for it, therefore you owe us Y for it.

It's a valid point, whether you would have paid for it or not, you are using it and therefore legally should have paid for it.

Having said that, since the RIAA launched all the lawsuits I listen to CD's I already owned, I listen to new CD's that I buy direct from a couple of independent bands, and I listen to the radio. I don't buy CD's (or MP3's) because I honestly think the music business is very slow and are trying to force everyone into the old physical model despite technology changes that SHOULD have changed how they sell things.