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

Well actually it's a one sided punishment. Pirates could care less how much the program goes up in cost since they aren't paying for it to begin with. Who is hurts is the paying customer who say's yeah I can get it for free but it's wrong (illegal) and I want/need it for fill in the blank so I guess I have to pay for it. I fall into this category which is why I had to go open source for almost everything. This leads me into my next point, who funds programs like GIMP, Open Office and Thunderbird? I pick those because I use(d) them before and they are really good programs and they don't cost anything. I don't understand how Adobe charges 599 for photoshop when the GIMP has maybe a few less features but it's free?

Edit: I use open source software, I just don't understand how the whole open source industry works so if someone can shed some light!?!?

 

Opensource is fairly simple (at least in my understanding) bored geeks write programs for free (in essence).

I'm curious how it really works in a more organized fashion (such as how say Ubuntu releases work, who/how it is determined what is in the next release, what isn't etc etc).

 

They are funded primarily by generous contributors - people give money and time to keep the products afloat. GIMP is maintained by a group of volunteers, per wikipedia. Open Office and the larger distributions also offer distributions at low prices, as well as side merchandise - hats, shirts, etc. Then there's advertising. But basically, most of the heavy work is done by people giving up their time, because they fundamentally believe in the cause.

What you said about Adobe charing $599 compared to GIMP's ability to give 95% of the features away for free is the clearest example of the difference between the two models of software creation. One exists with the express goal of making as much money as humanly possible. The other does not.

 

Some people develop software for a living. That is why software is expensive!!! Or do you propose software developers live on minimum wage for the rest of their lives? ABSURD!

 

A bunch of geeks get together and decide to create a tool that everyone can use (like GIMP). They start it up, they share it, and they work towards a common goal that helps everyone out. That's the general public license idea.

Open source, as I was recently corrected by a forum memory, is just that all the source code is out there for everyone to read. It is not necessarily free, but it is out there for all to see and review.

 

Per wikipedia:

 

Interesting. Although I know that for me Piracy is illegal and therefore wrong in my eyes, the open source up and comers really do add to your point of one making money and the other making life better (arguably ) to acheive the same result.

 

That's right Greg (the artist formerly known as Night_2004 ), I was putting open source and GNU (I think) in the same bucket. I meant GNU which is usually open source but not all open source is GNU. You rock man and thanks for explaining my difference.

By the off topic way, I see you changed to your real name. I liked the other better.

 

Try talking to a C++ graduate to work for free... Any takers? People need to make a decent living, so that is why a lot of professional software is costly!

 

Think about this. If you are good at what you do, do you expect to make a decent wage such as 60k a year? Now multiply that 60k by 1000 (or how many work for the company), and then factor in marketing, equiptment, software, benefits, 401 K's, taxes, future growth, promoting future investors or paying them back, etc...

 

Well I use some GNU software like GIMP that is available for free to me, is very easy to use and does what I need it to. I doubt it was developed by the car wash company down the road so I assume that they had to have some form of education either self taught (less likely) or college taught (most likely).

 

I have a perfect example of 2 sides of this opinion. My Fiance just graduated with a degree in Public Relations, while most of her friends are making 1.5 times more money as she is working for big PR advertising firms, she decided to take a less paying job at a non profit agency. What do they do? They teach adults how to read. Now sure she could have went for a job that's all about the money (like her friends) or take the job that's more about making a difference in peoples lives which is DEFINITELY not about the money. It doesn't make one person better than another, but it does lead to the point that not everybody is out for the same thing. 1 degree, 2 different paths.

 

Perhaps some of those people are highly paid software engineers from some big company, so they have the time and money (during their free time) to do some good things for the general public?

 

Nope. A lot of people just do things out of the goodness of their hearts. Without financial compensation. Out of a desire to improve the world, and the accessibility of good software to people everywhere.

Not everyone makes decisions with money in mind. Fortunately, a lot of people make decisions with communities in mind.

By far the largest group to have benefited from open source software has been the community of computer users in developing countries across the globe.

 

Well, Page 17 of this thread is not coming up for some reason, but anyway..

Not all opensource software is quite as good as their commercial equivalents though. It's one thing when you have a large community contributing to a project like firefox, but not every project has such a large support base.

And actually, given a choice and unlimited funds, I would still prefer to use MS Office 2007 over openoffice and photoshop over gimp. It's because I don't have unlimited funds however that I'm on NeoOffice instead

Even still, especially for work, people tend to want to use commercial projects for the very fact that they're commercial. I.e. no matter how tech savvy your tech dept is and how much in savings you can get in both labor and parts, a business isn't going to build up its own desktops and workstations. Instead, they'd probably pay more for worse Dell computers and the warranty. Similarly, they'd be willing to shell out more money for an outdated version of MS Office (say Office 2003) than use the newest OpenOffice suite for free. Back when I was doing multimedia design and our company was absolutely pressed for cash, we still opted to use old versions of photoshop 6 (even though CS was just coming out) instead of use gimp or paint.net

 

A lot of open source software is catching on, however. Part of propriety software's advantage is the fact that it's permeated the culture so thoroughly. People have heard of Microsoft Office. Far fewer people have heard of Open Office. This will take time to change across the board - whether with IE and Firefox, or Vista and Ubuntu, and so on. But more and more people turn to open source alternatives each day.

 

You're starting to imply that piracy absolutely has a negative effect on profit (and hence negatively impact the necessary funding for what you listed).

While that may indeed be the case, I think in the absence of hard numbers that can be proven, none of us here are qualified to judge or quantity exactly what the direct monetary effects of piracy may have on any specific company - especially since it may different from company to company and from market to market.

 

"...pay for my time and effort in creating it (whatever I am charging)..."

So you expect customers to pay any number you name instead of getting a free copy of your software? If you do, then you think a little too highly of the general consumer. Most consumers, including myself, think that your prices suck. Of course piracy isn't OK, but we've already established that.

 

Personally, I think the objections to copyright infringement come from two fundamentally different corners. There's the large companies who are (pretty much exclusively) trying to make as much money as is humanely possible. They argue against copyright infringement on strict legal grounds, and try (through marketing and overzealous lawsuits) to dissuade anyone from every infringing on copyrights, as they're afraid it will be come so prevalent it will put them out of business.

Then there are the majority of normal people and some small software developers, who are actually concerned that their way of life is getting hurt by copyright infringement (as opposed to large businesses who make enough money as to not be in any imminent danger). This includes consumers who see rising prices and blame piracy, and small software developers who blame piracy for their small market base, or for their small profits. These groups of people definitely have a point, and they are tangibly hurt by piracy.
Personally, I would never pirate anything from an independent developer, as I believe in the work they're doing, and believe they need all the help they can get. However I have less sympathy for consumers seeing rising prices, as I think that in terms of dollars and cents, a lot more of those price raises are due to company greed, rather than piracy.

 

Um, what? So no matter what I price my software at, you're saying that my prices suck and that people should just pirate the software instead?

But then you go onto say Piracy isn't OK? Did you have a point, if so can you actually make it?

 

I think he was speaking in general, saying that software prices today (for most things) suck. While I may not agree with that in all cases, it is fairly accurate.

Also, I just want to note that I, too, recognize that Copyright Infringement is against U.S. law, and is therefore socially reprehensible. However that does not mean that in all cases I agree that it is morally reprehensible.

 

Well except it wasn't stated in generalities, it was stated as my prices suck but.. I'll let that go.

So, what prices are bad, why are they bad, where should they be?

Also when do you think it's not morally reprehensible?

 

I only assume he was talking in generalities, as I'm not familiar with your software or your prices, I don't know exactly.

I believe that virtually every Adobe and Microsoft product is overpriced. The prices are justified by saying that "Oh, well, it's a luxury and if you don't want it you don't have to buy it," while in fact operating systems, office suites, and media manipulation programs are necessities for many people and small businesses. As for what should they be, I merely say that if a 95% suitable alternative (Ubuntu, Open Office, GIMP, Paint.net) can be had for free, with community support and updates, then there is no way to justify that amount of money. It obviously isn't necessary for the R&D, as I know groups of friends who can sit around on a weekend and come up with a working code plan for updates to open source programs, one's which are actually helpful and useful to myself and others. It also is probably not necessary for the paying of software developers, as several of my colleagues who work for major companies (Blizzard and Adobe, to be precise) are not that well paid, despite being incredibly able programmers. I don't know where the money is going, and so I don't know how much of it is necessary, but I can guarantee you that all major software prices could be lowered at least somewhat.

 

He did have a point, it's called "Human Nature". Not to steal, but the Human Nature to accept what is basically being handed for free without questions being asked.

 

Given that I've never sold a piece of my software, neither do I, it was more the general note that apparently all software is overpriced (and the implication that it should be free).

I imagine that some of it goes into the corporations profit and helps the shareholders (who are the main people the company is beholden to) some goes to paying the developers, some goes into future R&D (some of which will never come to fruition). If so many of these "necessary" items are free, why are prices overinflated? Your argument seems to be since there is a free alternative, the "paid for" product is overpriced, that doesn't make any sense to me, if there is an expensive product, and a free one, I will use the free one (unless there is a reason I can't). Want an office suite, use Open Office, for 95% of people it probably does everything they need, need painting programs, use GIMP, or if you want a cheap alternative (but still supported) try Paintshop Pro, can't live without Photoshop, then buy photoshop, but understand that you are making that choice.

 

"Um, what? So no matter what I price my software at, you're saying that my prices suck and that people should just pirate the software instead? But then you go onto say Piracy isn't OK? Did you have a point, if so can you actually make it?"

My point is that I use open-source software for two reasons:

One, proprietary software is too expensive. I have never seen a reasonably priced piece of software before. The way I see it, author of a book does about as much work as a run-of-the-mill programmer but he doesn't charge $700 per book.

That said, I don't pirate software (with the exception of Nero 7 when I used XP 1.5 years ago), but I don't buy commercial software either. So to answer your first real question (b/c "Um, what?" perhaps demonstrates that you were unable to read my post), your prices do matter; I'm just saying that they need to improve vastly. After all, a novelist cannot make infinite copies of his book, nor does he have the luxury of not having to worry about production costs per book; yet somehow he is able to charge more reasonable prices than you, the programmer/developer; why is that? The price cannot be justified!

The answer to my above question doesn't really matter, though, because I use Linux. I'm just happier with it. With what I have, everything is free, everything is secure and safe, and everything works just as well, if not better, than Windows. I have nothing to complain about since I've never bought commercial software before (w/ the exception of OEM Windows XP), but I'll never buy a product that is poorly priced.

PS; LIVEFRMNYC explains my comment; that given the choice between a real Ferrari and a duplicate "Ferrari" made in China, it is surprising to some people how others would choose the latter simply because they either can't or don't want to pay for the real thing. It is gullible to believe otherwise.

 

Well, in my view a lot of software and media is really priced incorrectly. Yes, the RIAA love to excuse their actions by saying they're in it for the "rights of the musician", but let's face the music that is playing to the tune of the shareholders' and distributors' pockets. When we live in a society when, apparently, it is unacceptable to multi-install Windows XP on a room full of computers for a school, when it is expected that the school buy an OEM (albeit cheaper, but individually) copy of Windows XP only to install on one computer, something's wrong when that money could be better spend on improvements and books, rather than on superficial software that isn't hard material.

The movie industry's not much better in this regard either, charging $10 or so to enter a big, crowded, smelly, loud room to watch a movie in front of a bunch of noisy kids who have apparently never seen a violent movie before (300 premiere comes to mind), I have to disagree. When I look at stores like Wal-Mart or Costco and see the DVDs on the shelves, I think to myself how badly priced they are, considering that it's simply a disc with a movie in it. When (more like "if") I buy it, it's not really mine to keep, but rather, it's just another form of "ticket" to watch the film with, and with all those unskippable anti-piracy movies shown to me when I pop the disk in, I'm troubled of the inconvenience the "proper" consumer has to face as opposed to DVD pirates who simply rip the annoying bits and advertisements out.

The next-gen disks also worry me, especially with the amount of encryption that the MPAA is pushing to put on the disks. With the digg.com fiasco regarding the HD-DVD decryption code a while back, it really showed to me how desperate those corporate conservative moguls are about their "intellectual property". The encryption inconvnenices further the consumer while pirates and hackers who know better know how to rid themseves of that. Rather than having a simple disk where the consumer is allowed to use in whatever fashion he/she wishes, the MPAA is pushing for DVD companies and DVD player companies to push for proprietary formats and perhaps timestamps to indirectly control how the consumer watches, plays, uses, and shares "his" disks.

Really, either we're on a dawn of a revolution regarding how software is to be treated, or old-world views that pertain to hard goods to pertain to virtual goods still hinder the development of how internet society functions. Really, I see a lot wrong with piracy and all that, but I see a lot of potential in cheap software and/or open source. As it can be said, if you know where to look in the Internet, you'll find it, and I'll be damned if I end up purchasing a $600 Adobe Photoshop suite as opposed to the many thousands of open source apps that can do the same, if not better.

 

I hate that too. Not letting the consumer who paid for the DVD fast foward the Movie previews and sometimes Ad's is a blatant misuse of Advertisement.

 

Wow - I had no idea DVDs did that these days.

 

The ones I HATE, more than anything else, are those annoying ads showing some kid stealing a purse or something and then linking it to copyright infringement. I mean come on, does anyone actually believe those ads? The analogy is hideous, and considering the only people who see them are the one's who actually bought the DVD, it seems a bit out of blace.

 

LOL, I seen that one. That's just as bad as the commercials that make it seem like every single bootleg/pirated item supports terrorists. Before 9/11 it was the Mob's fault.

 

I've not seen this, I'm curious because both my PC and DVD player seem to let me skip it (of course I have to find the right button but...)

 

I do dislike more and more of the restrictions being placed on what you can (or can't) do with things you have purchased, while I agree that some of it unfortunately just seems to be needed because of being in the digital age, some of it seems excessive, and as you point out, doesn't really slow down people who pirate these things, but certainly causes "pain" to the consumer.

With regard to pricing, I think it all depends on how much worth you place on these things, I've never thought DVD's were too expensive ($14 for a new movie, seems reasonable given that I can then watch it as many times as I want) Blu-Ray and HD-DVD seem extortionate (cheapest I've seen so far were $26, which is why I'm not buying any Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players). Cinema's have always seemed excessively expensive to me, so I rarely (if ever) go see movies in the Cinema, why pay $10+ each to see a movie, that three months later I can buy and watch as many times as I want (with as many friends as I want) for $14.

As for software, well, I still think that most of them are reasonable, and as you point out, there are quite a lot of free alternatives if you don't want to spend the money that companies are requiring.

 

It's not on all DVD's. I have a lot of kids in my family, nieces, nephews, etc:
So I get DVD's for them to watch when they stay over. I have noticed that it's mostly Disney or Movies made for Children and/or Teens that do this. But I have come across a few Rated "R" Movies that did the same. And I remember this happening a lot when I used to rent from blockbuster.

 

I think this sums up your feelings nicely:

<object width='425' height='350'><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MRVHUbrbEUA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MRVHUbrbEUA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width='425' height='350'></embed></object>

 

Thats nice.

I agree I hate that too.

The movies are also bloody expensive, its $10 to get a ticket, fine, but if you want popcorn the small is miniature sized and costs as much as the large.

So, you smuggle in your own candy and soda cans.

 

usapatriot, that's copyright infringment on Coke, Pepsi, Reese's and Orville Redenbacher.... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Well, candy is candy, but for pure taste, movie theater popcorn is the best

Of course, you may drown in butter afterwards, but at least it tasted good!

 

I've never actually taken candy in the theatres; have always preferred popcorn and soda.

 

Nothing beats Mike and Ikes.

 

Bill Gates is the "Ultimate" Pirate...

 

Well, I've seen this point a lot in this thread - that programs may be overpriced, they're a rip off, therefore so and so will pirate the program and be justified in doing so.

But...

I fail to see how one justifies the other.

Sure, overpriced goods may provide more incentive for a person to pirate goods, but just because one thing leads to another doesn't mean it's necessarily a valid justification for it.

I'm failing to see the logic in the "justification" part of it. That's like saying, if X product is too expensive in my opinion, I'm justified in breaking any and all laws that inconvenience me in obtaining said product for what I feel it's worth (i.e. free). Or another example: that I think movie tickets are too expensive, so it's okay for me to sneak in and watch it, and tape it, because it's a rip-off anyway.

Obviously, this is not true under any circumstances! Personal excuses and legitimate reform have nothing to do with each other!

 

All the software I have on my pc are not legal copies, Photoshop, Office, and all the other small programs... all cracked.

The thing is the programs are avaliable to download online for free, so why not do it? If it wasn't avaliable to download for free I still won't purchase it, but since it's there for free, why not get it?

 

That Logic is many (not all) Software companies have the law on their side to do what they want. Like false/misleading Ad's, Spyware/Adware, Price Gouging, Etc: Etc. But the Law cannot dictate the Human reaction, whether it's illegal or not.

 

Good point. We're very quick to quote "the law", but when the biggest thieves of all are the ones who make the laws, it's very hard to take this argument seriously. And then there's the inevitable response of "if you don't like the laws, change them", or "it doesn't matter what you think of the law; the law is the law" etc, but neither of these hold water either, because in the first case, it's next to impossible to launch large counter-suits, to lobby for legal reform, and to basically expedite political change - much less run for office - if one doesn't hold bags and bags of money. The legal system has always been a tool of the rich, so the argument that people should - much less could - band together to affect legal reform is laughable at best. It takes dozens of millions of dollars to become a mainstream contender for the presidency, several million for the senate or house, and often several thousands to run for domestic offices - things like city councils, much less mayorships. Laws are written by the people with the biggest bank accounts. End of story. When this point is dismantled, we inevitably move to stonewall number two (the law is the law is the law is the...etc), which, while slavishly authoritarian, has little bearing in reality. The laws enable legalized theft, yet we're to abide by them because we're told to do so by the bank robbers and their sycophants. Sorry - that doesn't work either. Whenever someone encounters a law, s/he performs a risk-reward analysis. If s/he decides the reward is worth the risk, s/he breaks the law. This has always been the human condition, and it will persist as long as there are humans who think for themselves.

 

First of all, you have to realize that laws are just guidelines set in place to help society run smoothly. They're not, and they're not meant to be, moral absolutes. If one considers a product overpriced, and one feels that the laws governing the sale and distribution of that product are biased towards one group of society (large companies, rich people, whatever), then one possible justification for breaking that law would be that the law is counter-productive, in that it doesn't help society run smoothly, it actually hinders it.

 

That's freekin hilarious and very true.

 

It's true that law can be a means to aid society - that's one interpretation of its goal. Law as an end unto itself however - as support for the necessary organization and structure of a lawful society-is another goal that may or may not necessarily have to coincide with the first goal.

Obviously, everyone when they're in the role of a consumer will feel that things are relatively "overpriced". However, not everyone decides to play "Robin Hood" and redistribute the wealth (to themselves). While everyone feels that its always the large companies, the rich people, the political elite who have a monopoly on all the means of change and power, it's never quite so one-sided as that.

When you individually assess the risk and rewards and decide that you could reasonably gain the use of an item without paying for it, you're not just breaking down the first step in an unjust tyranny - you're breaking down the first step of the entire system. If you universalize this, then we'd all be living in a lawless society, where everyone feels it to be expedient to not obey the laws (or prices) they personally find unreasonable, but which may or may not be unreasonable to other parties involved.

Also, under the general rules of supply and demand, individual self-interest leads to an equilibrium that's generally favorable for all parties involved. However, software piracy is largely an externality - both in terms of its network effect, and in terms of values not returned. In this case, piracy is NOT contributing to the equilibrium or optimal societal benefit. At that point, it's no longer "justice" or any of the many reasons why piracy should be made legitimate - it's just 'greed'.

Yes, the system is weighted towards those with power and money - the big companies and the MPAA and RIAA. Change through legitimate means, whether through grassroots civil society, legislation, judicial, the media, or simply through the vote, or through any legitimate and legal means is slow and unrewarding, and typically lags far behind what the individual consumer would like. But the alternative isn't much better - and individuals who pirate for only their own sakes do little to help this cause, and much to hinder it.

 

Number 1 reason: stuff is just getting unreasonably expensive. For example, the 8.50 for a movie or 20$ for a CD. There prices are ridiculous. However, I buy CDs or games just to support the work of the artists. But I do have some beef with what you re suggesting. If I pay 200$+ for an OS, then I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with that software, its mine. Company's are consistently getting more say in what you do with what you payed for and thats some serious BS.

 

Law as an end unto itself is not a goal. You can say that one goal would be to have an ordered society, or that the goal is to maintain a complex structure for society, but merely following laws is not, and cannot be, a goal unto itself. If you look at this from a Lockian point of view, you would say that the consumer (the citizens) and the government have entered into a social contract, and that the laws are the necessary clauses of that contract. However from a philosophical perspective, it's the duty of both parties (the government and the citizens) to amend or nullify that contract if it's no longer contributing to a peaceful, ordered society which is beneficial to both parties.

What you have to realize is that the government is not natural, it is a social construct, and as the citizens of that government it is our job to amend or change that social construct if it is no longer best serving the people. One way to do so is through the channels of that government, however that is not the only way, and it's not always the best way. Sometimes a little anarchy is necessary to achieve greater social order in the end.