"You're stealing from people who count on your honesty to make a living."

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9763/codersgu6.jpg

by makimaki • 18 years ago

90 75 18 years ago

img171.imageshack.us

ardell• 18 years ago

Great strategy, just be honest with your "customers"...

"Hey, we built this awesome piece of software that will help you do [x]. We love building software for our customers. Help us continue building great software by paying $[y]."

thomasmallen• 18 years ago

And it's only $20...I can understand why people steal Microsoft Office and the Adobe Suite, but I can't understand the incentive in stealing something like Transmit or TextMate. It seems that some people can't accept that some software costs money.

And while we're on the topic of small Mac software shops, can we safely call ShapeShifter abandonware yet?

tdavis• 18 years ago

I don't think it has anything to do with accepting software costs money. When I was younger and had basically no money, I would pirate software that I needed to improve a skill or something along those lines. Once I got older and started having disposable income, I started buying software. Hell, I even legitimately own Adobe CS3 Web Premium.

Nowadays, if I use a piece of donationware that provided a useful service, I donate. I donate to Open Source projects which have been particularly useful to me. The oddity here is, I'm far from fiscally well-off; I have about $3,500 to my name.

So, it seems to me at least, that these things become habit. There were times I used to pirate software (or anything, really) just because I didn't feel like paying for it. Once I became accustomed to paying for software, I kept paying and even started donating. Now, I don't have a single piece of pirated software on my computer.

Although, I do have some paid-for software which I no longer use. For instance, I have a license for SteerMouse (http://plentycom.jp/en/steermouse/) which I no longer use, but am also barred from transferring it (I was going to give it away just now) per the license agreement. This is just silly. The less restrictive a piece of licensed software is, the more likely I am to buy it.

gaius3• 18 years ago

Companies could definitely be smarter about non-commercial licenses.

Tichy10• 18 years ago

Not to defend piracy, but if you shell out 20$ for every small desktop enhancement application, it adds up very quickly.

tom_rath4• 18 years ago

How much did the otherwise empty computer and operating system cost?

Value doesn't materialize out of good thoughts. Actual work has to go into it.

sh1mmer• 18 years ago

This is great.

I think "shameware" is much more compelling than DRMware. If you remind people that they are costing a small developer business and then let them pirate anyway then you are going to catch the people who might pay. The people who are going to pirate will do it whatever.

Also USB Overdrive is a great product. So I'm glad to see them trying something to keep their business viable.

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

They won't pay due to shame. Not at all. People steal music from indie artists just as readily as they do Madonna. They're not out to get someone by stealing from them, they just want stuff for free.

They rationalize it largely as they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

fallentimes3• 18 years ago

That's stealing more (in terms of dollars) from the labels than it is from the artists/talent.

Personally, I would pay for more music if the artists saw more than 5% of the proceeds. If you really want to support an artist: go to the concerts, donate directly or tell your friends about them.

lkozma• 18 years ago

While it might be true that people just want stuff for free, I guess it is more because of the close-to-zero marginal costs. Knowing that it costs almost nothing to make a new copy of a software or music album it is easier to rationalize and have a clear conscience. I guess we haven't met this kind of zero-marginal-cost intellectual property stuff throughout our evolution, and this might not be a bad thing.

lacker• 18 years ago

The rationale is that nobody is getting hurt. Which is true. The other side misuses words by calling it "stealing", which they rationalize by saying that not giving people money is the same as stealing money away from them.

illumen2• 18 years ago

To hackers: please don't look through our code for GPL violations, because surely you'll find some. Hopefully no one finds all the code I copy/pasted from, or the documentation I learnt from.

To hackers: I used GPL software to compile this program, but I won't give you the same pleasure... you are not free to use my programs.

tb• 18 years ago

Compilers licensed under the GPL do not transfer their license to their output. This is explicitly stated in the GPL.

illumen2• 18 years ago

That is almost true1, but completely misses the point.

They are using tools(gcc) by people who count on their honesty to give people the same freedom they are given.

Get a better business model. Software copying has been happening since the beginning(since before people were charging for software)... learn from history. People who still complain about copying software are very silly, they haven't learnt from over 50 years of history.

1 not a lawyer, however -- with certain compiler switches you can include GPL software with gcc. For example if you link in GPL covered object code.

delackner• 18 years ago

"or the documentation I learnt from..."

Because of course, whoever teaches you owns all the ideas you build thereafter.

illume• 18 years ago

No one ever owns ideas. It's true, look it up.

axod9• 18 years ago

I think websites should start popping up a similar message when adblock is detected.

I realise this is an unpopular view around these parts, but it's a bit of a "jerk" thing to do.

Herring7• 18 years ago

The irony here is you're supporting click fraud. What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile? But you're perfectly happy to take money for worthless views & that sounds a lot more like actual stealing.

axod9• 18 years ago

I'm in no way supporting click fraud. I don't care if you view adverts and decide not to click on them.

I do care if you aren't even prepared to entertain the notion that at some point you might find an advert intriguing enough to click on it.

How is the relevancy/usefulness of adverts going to increase if you're not prepared to listen?

It's fine to be hostile to websites that use horrible techniques - flash, popups, etc etc many of the news sites seem to do it now - "Here's an advert while the article 'loads'"... But I think the non-jerk thing to do is to give websites at least a chance. IF they abuse your trust, and advertise intrusively in your face, it's probably best to just not go to that website any more.

By installing a blanket earplug mentality, you're refusing to trust any website to treat you properly. Which IMHO is pretty antisocial.

>> "What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile?"

Do people using adblock never buy anything? Do they never find information useful or interesting? Are they really immune to all forms of useful communication? Never read a product review and then decided to purchase? I'm skeptical.

</rant>

sethg• 18 years ago

Is the proportion of adblock users actually high enough for the ad-buyers to care about their impact?

axod9• 18 years ago

I'm not sure... as a single data point I measured usage on the Mibbit main client for a while (Mainly early adopter fx3 tech types), and it was 8% or something for the main client.

Of course it isn't too important as adblock is useless in blocking all but the most simple adverts.

In the general population the % is probably much much lower though, so you're right - probably not worth worry about until you're a very big site.

It's more the antisocial attitude I disagree with.

hxa7241• 18 years ago

That's fine, and you have every right to do so.

I will then use the 'adblock detected popup message'-blocker.

greyman• 18 years ago

I don't endorse pirating software and I don't use one myself, but I never agreed with the notion that using pirated software is stealing money. Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it would be not be possible to use it without buying. Maybe a few would, but this amount is compensated by the marketing value the pirating provides. To sum it up, the company would not make more money if pirating would not be possible.

Again, I am against pirating, but don't agree fully with the text in that popup dialog.

gaius3• 18 years ago

Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it

That is a fallacy. If it were not of some value to them, why would they even want it? It's more a case that they simply feel entitled to it.

Herring7• 18 years ago

Have you ever walked through a department store? Try it sometime & see if you pay for everything you'd take for free.

Retric• 18 years ago

There is a gap between what an item costs and what it's worth to you. I have a copy of Vista Home that came bundled with my machine, I would pay 20$ for a copy of Vista Ultimate 64 bit, but that's about it.

michaelneale• 18 years ago

Yes stealing is not the right word.

I always think its odd - the one thing, really the only one thing that computers do really really well, flawlessly, better then any other tech in history is copy information without error. And yet the primary business model of successful software is (or was) charging people for the copying of those bits (allowing, rightly so, the creators of those bits to get paid for the content creation).

I am not saying its wrong, not at all, it just feels like a kind of arbitrage, and can't last. Well I guess that's one business reason why software is increasingly moving online.

I guess the same is true of any content creator. I am happy to pay for content and software, and do, but kids these days....

noonespecial• 18 years ago

I am not saying its wrong, not at all, it just feels like a kind of arbitrage, and can't last. Well I guess that's one business reason why software is increasingly moving online.

Well said. Software is moving from "making computers do something" to "making computers do something together". This changes the economics of software completely.

tom_rath4• 18 years ago

Sure, if the pirate just stored the file in their collection as a trophy (as many do). However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value.

Having a thief (sorry, 'copyright infringer') take your software rather than pay for it may eventually provide some word-of-mouth advertising, but they're likely to tell other pirates and repeat the cycle of revenue loss rather than become vocal advocates for a purchase.

Outside of edge-cases like Microsoft (whose Windows dominance was arguably helped by piracy) it seems that 'piracy is good advertising' is a fallacy used by pirates to make themselves feel better about denying income to people they otherwise like.

Can you name three small software producers whose revenue grew stronger as a result of piracy?

jamesbritt• 18 years ago

"However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value."

Or done without. Or done with something different. But it's false to assume that anyone glomming a copy of some software would pay for it were it not free.

cschwarm• 18 years ago

"... in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it would be not be possible to use it without buying."

In economic theory, the demand curve is (basically) constructed from the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of people. It is assumed that people with a WTP > Price (P) buy the good, and those with a WTP < P don't.

Your statement would be true if we could determine that only people in the WTP < P group use illegal copies. They would not affect a supplier's sales when they use illegal copies.

But there's no causal relation between one's WTP and one's ability to use an illegal copy. Thus, people in the WTP > P group are just as likely to do so as people in the WTP < P group.

Well, this is not quite right, for we may ask: Who's more likely to be motivated to make or search for illegal copies? Who's gaining the most profit by investing time and effort to search file sharing networks? Those with a rather high WTP or those with a rather low WTP?

If this sounds uncommon to you, ask yourself: What software is more likely to be found in any file sharing network: The popular ones -- that is: those with many people having a high WTP -- or the unpopular ones? According to my observations, the popular ones are more likely to be found. The same holds true for other products such as movies and music.

Whether these losses are compensated by advertising effects, is a matter of the circumstances: To make this reasonable, a supplier needs to sell (more) copies. People with illegal copies may advertise a product, but they are also likely to distribute illegal copies: What good is advertising if it does not increase sales?

Even if we assume that -- in the beginning -- only people in the WTP < P group distribute illegal copies and advertise them, it should be clear that it will also spread to people in the WTP > P group. The longer illegal copies are around, the more likely it will affect the sales of the suppliers.

Overall: Yes, it's possible that illegal copies do no harm to suppliers and may even help them to sell more legal copies. But these are likely to be exceptions to the rule. In general, using illegal copies decreases the wealth of suppliers.

In the long run, it also decrease the wealth of users who want or need software, for it decreases the incentive of suppliers to improve their products or invest money to make new ones.

jcl2• 18 years ago

Well put. If price were the only determinant of software success, free/open-source software would have long ago crushed its competitors. It's free without needing to be pirated, so it gets all that free "advertising", right? :)

No, you are correct that software largely gets pirated because it's popular rather than the other way around. Pirates who think they are doing software authors a favor through "advertising" are fooling themselves -- and ignoring the systemic damage done by piracy. (Where are all the big Chinese consumer software companies?)

yters• 18 years ago

Wha...? Most thiefs would not pay for the things they steal...

While the current IP laws may not be so good, it'd sound less like rationalization of people would make good arguments.

jmtame• 18 years ago

Ouch. I would not feel interested in writing a keygen for that app.

petercooper• 18 years ago

You could only improve on this by having a picture of the developer with his kid or something :)

Shame is a good motivator in this case. Shame works as a motivator for people who probably could pay, but aren't (or just want to "test" the software). Shame does not work as a motivator for criminals or heartless freeloaders, and they'd never pay anyway.

"You're stealing from people who count on your honesty to make a living."

Related Stories