Re: Software Piracy - Justifiable?
Draw your own conclusions.
Re: Re: Software Piracy - Justifiable?
In India, packages are available at very affordable prices, I remember someone telling me about MS office 2003 costing Rs. 1,500. Thats about $20. Maybe they could introduce the same prices here, just to see if its successful or not, even though I doubt it, except for some of the companies here.
What about job losses at Rainbow center if they make this whole thing so strict?
It's important to understand why ppl use pirated software (that goes for music too). There are several different reasons why people pirate software, in my opinion. [And this is true for ppl living in all parts of the world: not just Pakistan. When one has a choice between a $200+ WinXP and a "free" one: more likely the consumer would go for the latter.]
1) Software is too expensive for most computer users. I don't know about any of you, but I can't afford spending over $300 for an office suite when all I need is a compatible word processors. I have no problem using free and open source software such as linux, open office, gimp, etc. However, if companies like Microsoft are going to monopolize a market and leave the average person with no choice but to spend hundreds of dollars on their software then they have to realize that people will seek alternatives.
2) Music - This may be a contentious issue, but in my opinion most music today isn't worth the price of an album (Yes, even if that price is only 20 dollars). The industry churns out untalented hacks every day with a catchy tune here or there. I'm sorry, but I have no intention of paying 20 dollars for an album that has one good song on it. As for those people who actually think they're taking money away from the "artists" when they download music should check the figures and costs of producing and distributing cds. The unfortunate fact is that artists don't make even half of what their cds sell for. 80% of the money goes to record companies. Record companies have bled people dry for years, and now that people are starting to steal music, you're finding reduction in prices. Several record companies have taken initiatives to lower cd prices or to put caps on cd prices because they're trying to get people to buy the cds. They're not suddenly deciding to take hits in their profit margins for no reason. It's because they were making unfair profits and taking unfair advantage if people for years. I agree downloading music is wrong, but I for one do it all the time. The reason I feel justified in doing it is because I'm sick of buying albums because of a good single, just to find the rest of the album suxs. If I like what I download, I go out and buy the album. I, for one, have decided to only spend money on artists that deserve my money.
I read somewhere that 'Though the software industry loses $10 billion a year because of pirated software, they still manage to make a lot of profit' That being said, the software companies which is basically Microsoft should lower its prices to facilitate the average consumer to afford its products. Microsoft needs competition. There is no product in the market which is as user friendly as Windows XX. Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the software industry and I don't see that changing in the near future.
So, yea.. stealing is wrong, but so is bleeding the public dry. It's not as cut and dry an issue as some people feel.
How about making a law where software industry releases generic versions of softwares (which should be much cheaper) after the expiration of patent of branded versions of softwares? So people would be able to buy 1 or 2 years older versions of softwares. Something like we have in medical drugs where drugs whose generics are availabe are sold at much cheaper price than same drugs sold under brand names.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by heart beat: *
When one has a choice between a $200+ WinXP and a "free" one: more likely the consumer would go for the latter.
[/QUOTE]
Would it be any different if it was $20 or even $2, versus, for free?
For most of us, it wouldn't. We would prefer the free option. Let's forget the 'is it okay for the software companies to fleece me?' argument. They are there to make money and price stuff at the rate which they think their customers can afford. (Probably, completely unrelated to costs. Unlike other products, what is the incremental cost of a Office suite? The packaging probably would be more expensive than the CD).
We use pirated software because we can get away with it. If the chances of being caught and penalised are high, and if you really need it, you would pay. As simple as that.
We get away because 1) it is very expensive for the software companies to catch us and go through the legal proceedings and 2) they do see the virtue of increase in the userbase.
Open Source is best option i guess.
Microsoft never wanted to make its software more secure in terms of piaracy, they want people to use it more.
plus MS and others should price according to the puchase power of the consumers.
piracy laws should atleast be forced on big companies and governement departments. this is major source in every single country, individuals dont pay anywhere mostly.
the big source can be issueing bulk licenses with compatible PC's vendors for fixed price.
If youre not making any money out of it, you're least likely to be targetted by the software companies. This 3D CAD software called Solid Edge, the same version sells for $8000 to businesses etc and at the same time sells for $25 to students! :-)
Good marketing that. Students use it and obviously everyone prefers using something they know rather than learn how to use lets say Maya or 3d studeio max. Eye candy who make the famous plugins for Adobe Photoshop wasnt really botherd about piracy actually encouraged it but not when busineses where involved. They use the tools to make money and developers want a slice of it for their hard work.
