That’s not a solution; that’s a whole new set of problems.
You seem to be basing the whole argument on the premise that the customer absolutely must have the item. If it was a kidney dialysis machine, I might see your point, but it isn’t. The manufacturer has absolutely no moral obligation to ensure you can have it just because you want it.
The economic reality is that in third world countries there’s nothing the company can DO about the piracy. Thus people do it. There’s nothing they can realistically do about people just downloading the software in their basements around here, either, since the cost of chasing these people down will exceed whatever compensation they could hope to gain, so people do it. Will there one day be some legal recourse for the software makers? Perhaps, but in the meantime, enjoy the free lunch.
sure “windowslessness” isn’t a life threatening decease or perhaps it is 
but these days it’s pretty much a basic necessity, third word or not.
but they( companies) have managed to close down original Napster and made people pay for downloads, and they do successfully fight another distribution networks ( torrent comes to mind)
they have blocked google’s book indexing program there are other examples as well, yes it is extremely expensive, but to create a precedent is well worth it.
Well, as long as you keep thinking that, there’s no problem, is there?
I have a sort of weird attitude to piracy. I have been known to install pirated software on my system long enough to test it. If I like it, I uninstall the pirated version and buy the genuine article. If I don’t, I uninstall it and leave it at that. (The exception being an Operating System. I would never install a pirated OS. I’m not sure why; it just seems *more *wrong for some reason.)
I’m sufficiently good at self-delusion to tell myself that it’s the *equivalent *of the demo model the company was too tight-fisted to give me, and that as a part-time worker I don’t have the cash to just *hope *that software will work for me when I shell out the big $$ for it. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny; it’d be like nicking a car from the car lot before deciding if I’ll buy it… and arguing that the car yard should have given me a test-drive anyway doesn’t really change that. But it’s close enough for me.
It’s a twisted rationale, I’ll admit, but as a means to test software prior to purchase I can get my head around the immorality of the exercise.
Of course these days I’m working for an educational institution so I just tend to buy the EDU version of software right off the bat, meaning that piracy hasn’t been a personal issue for the last year or two.
Well, tell me if I got this wrong–are you saying that you feel companies have an obligation (moral, economic, not sure which) to price things according to a standard unit of work, so that the price is roughly equivalent across countries and markets? And that if they don’t, customers in countries in which the price is higher are more likely to obtain the product illegally? And that there might be a question about whether that is forgiveable because of the relative disparity in pricing? Is this the argument you want people to discuss/debate?
If Microsoft ever writes an OS that’s at least as good and solid as Novell’s server software of 1991 was, I might buy it. As long as it’s priced according to what it’s worth. About US$5.95.
Until then, I will be using Linux or stealing (if that’s what you want to call it) from Bill Gates’ personal pocket. If I ever totalled up what pirating perhaps hundreds of his crap units was worth, I figure I owe him in total about…lessee…$5.95.
Come and get it, Willie.
I’ll remind posters at this time that while discussion of the morality of pirating software is OK, encouragement to pirate or admission of piracy is not.
**CrankyAsAnOldMan ** yes,
you got the gist of my frustration.
Except that I’m not saying that companies have any obligations toward " less fortunate" customers.
It’s just that in the situation as it is we ( the companies and the poor potential customers) are on the different sides of the barricades:
You do what you have to do (make profit) and I do what I can (steal your product), because I’ve got no other choice, sorry to say. I wish I could pay for that but I just can’t.
To move from Windows to an open source software is not exactly a choice.
If everybody (ok, the great majority) drives on the right side of the road I have to do the same.
Sure, I can try driving against the flow, but it’s not worse it for obvious reasons.
And to avoid this MS against an open source arguments,
let’s take another example: books, technical books in particular , I have to work up to 10 times as long as you do to pay for it. I do need that book, it’s not a luxury it’s a necessity. What do I do ?
In other words:
I do NOT know what the solution could be.
Perhaps it makes an economic sense to differentiate the prices somehow, perhaps not.
I want you (guys) to admit this is not fair,period.
No one did that so far.
It’s not fair, in exactly the same way as it’s not fair that a bawling five-year-old can’t ride the pony when he/she only wants to ride the pony.
I’ll tell you one thing that certainly wouldn’t be fair; goverment intervention in pricing schemes.
It’s not at all clear to me that anyone needs Vista. I know lots of people who still use Windows 98, for example, because most people are using their computers to surf the web, read email and write a few documents, all of which can be done with low- or no-cost operating systems and applications.
And by the way, someone quoted the $200 list price of Vista, but I don’t expect to pay that much, since I plan to purchase it as part of new system, where the OS cost might be $50 or so.
And another thing. This analogy doesn’t work because on the Internet, no one knows if you’re using Vista, Windows 98, Apple OS X or Linux.
Actually, that’s rather easy to find out. But except in unusual cases, no one cares.
You’re right, of course. I was thinking of the classic New Yorker cartoon (“On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.”)
**Mangetout ** I’m not going to argue with you ,you’ve got a very different opinion on this matter, that’s fine,I respect that.
What surprises me, though, is that NO ONE shares my view, but it’s OK too, I’m a big boy, I can live with that
Dewey Finn
Windows isn’t just about the Internet, it’s an OS that has been installed
on 80-90 % ( give or take) of the world’s computers.
And ,please, I keep repeating for the third time: it’s NOT about MS
see my message #69 ( end of it) ,would you.
No, I think few people have a problem admitting that this is unfair, or at least, agreeing that this would seem unfair to the consumer faced with a price that’s out of reach.
But agreeing that this justifies using pirated software is another thing. I think you want people to not just admit it’s not fair, but to also agree that under the circumstances, obtaining the product illegally is understandable and perhaps even okay.
I started hanging out (lurking) in 1999. Back in those days the internet was in black and white. As you can see I have not been burning up the place since joining in 2001. My post average is .1 per day, and that is because I have gone through a recent spurt of posts. I was reading Straight Dope books back in the 80’s if that counts.
Sorry, wrong thread.
My 2 cents, speaking as a chronically-broke student:
Say there’s some software, be it a new OS, whatever, that I think is neat. I don’t need it, because obviously whatever I’ve got is working fine for me. But I want it. It’s a new toy.
But it costs $200, and I do not have $200 to spend. So I am not going to buy the software. I’m not going to spend the money on it, because I don’t have the money. At some points I may have two hundred bucks extra in the bank, but that’s much better used for repaying my five digits of student debt, or saving up for law school, other things like that. I’m not going to spend the money on that software, because it’s prohibitively expensive.
So: The software company is not going to get my money. It’s not an issue of “I will download a pirated copy, or do the right thing and pay the company.” It’s an issue of “I would like this but cannot afford it. The company will not get my money regardless. Downloading an illegal copy of it does not harm anyone in any way. Therefore, there is no reason not to download it for my own personal use.”
The same for all things: downloading music and movies, software, whatever.
All of the above is, of course, strictly hypothetical, YMMV, etc.
I don’t really understand why everyone seems to think that Microsoft/Adobe whoever are the big losers from piracy. It’s not like all the people that are currently running a pirated copy of Photoshop at home would actually buy it should piracy be made impossible, they’d move over to PaintShopPro, or switch to free/ish stuff on Linux. It’s the little® guy who gets screwed in my opinion.
To try and make this less techie - if a publisher started printing ‘you may not loan this book’ notices on the paperbacks you buy, would you refuse to lend them to friends? Or have none of you ever accepted a mixtape from a friend?