ITT: Devs who make poor quality games that don't sell at all and therefore blame the lack of sales on pirates.
No. But it's worth questioning why Adobe forces a non-commercial home user to pay the same price as a business user. Many companies have licenses that distinguish between commercial and non-commercial uses (because let's face it, commercial users are far more likely to be prepared pay a higher price), so why can't Adobe? They are alienating a significant proportion of their market with a pricing model that doesn't work for at least 50% of its potential userbase. The problems with piracy and lost sales they have as a result are entirely their doing.
Hope this isn't directed at me since you quoted me. My sales have been very good. I clearly stated that piracy is a non-issue for me. And I never said I haven't used software for free in my days. I just stated the facts as I see them. I'm not saying anyone is a good or bad person for using pirated software. As I see it, dealing with piracy is part of developing softwate. I don't believe most of them would pay for my game anyways, it's only 99 - freakin - cents. I don't worry about it one bit. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it though. How is Adobe to know your intention though? They price their products in a way that they believe will make them the most money. They used to have stripped down versions of it for less money, not sure anymore, but that's their decision. There are less expensive graphics programs out there. I would say most people who buy Photoshop intend to make money - whether or not they actually succeed at that is anyones guess. It is a top of the line graphics solution. There are many others that are very cheap or even free. If you want the best you gotta pay for it. The same goes for most other products.
No, it wasn't directed at you, and that is my mistake. I initially quoted you because of the 'thief' comment, and I wanted to show that there are indeed 'grey areas'. The problem with quoting, it becomes impossible to continue a discussion without saying "this the part where I stop talking about schplurg's quote." Adobe can, and does have pricing tiers depending on the status of the consumer. Students, educators and school faculty can get a licensed version of PhotoShop for less than $49. Non-profit organizations are eligible for a $29 price tag. These are fully licensed versions, but there are certain limits on their usage. Supposedly, you cannot use it for commercial use, however that can be ridiculously murky and unenforceable. Of course, these tiers are not common knowledge, nor are they immediately accessible to everyone.
So how would I, as a consumer who wishes to purchase the product but not use it for any commercial purposes, go about getting hold of it for one of these lower prices? I see nothing on their website, nor any of their resellers'.
Exactly. It isn't publicized. These are physical copies on DVD. Most college/universities sell this software at the student price, but of course you must prove your student status (or faculty status) in order to purchase it. CS4 recently went on sale at my local Community College for $99, completely packaged for Windows or Mac. These are identical to the normal consumer versions- there isn't a distinction or special version for students. Here is evidence of price tiering: http://techsoup.org is used by non-profits and other organizations. This site has been around for a number of years, and it is legitimate. TechSoup doesn't have the cheapest prices that I have seen for Adobe products, but it is adequate if you have a way of eligibility.
I'll tell you one thing that did piss me off about my game being pirated. My story: So I'm googling my game to see if there are any new reviews online...sales had skyrocketed in the UK overnight and I couldn't figure out why. I see a site...I forget it's name, and I click it. Turns out it's a message board at a warez site and it's announcing that Daredevil Dave is available for free download. But that's not what really got to me. What pissed me off is that some punk on the board was complaining about how this particular pirate site "stole" his own site's pirated version of my game and put it on their site! WT*....???!!!! THAT got me going! They stole your game!?!?! You f&$%#@ little pr#%^#s!!!!! I even tried to register so I could comment but it didn't work. You stole my game you little.....sigh. After a little while I chilled out and just moved along. I admitted before that I have used free (I mean stolen, there I said it) software in the past...I bet most people have. So I try to look at this as payback. It helps me sleep at night. This little incident did manage to break through my "piracy is a fact of life for developers" attitude for a short time.
That's really funny. It is unfortunate when google searches bring up more warez sites than reviews. In some cases, you can see feedback for your game on those pirate sites. Flickitty sees more popularity in Russia and the Middle East than it does in Canada and Australia (in terms of actual sales). Piracy is also higher in Russia and the Middle East. I've tried to log in to pirate sites before, to tell them that Flickitty is FREE for a few days. But it becomes such a friggin headache, it isn't even worth it. So that brings up another point- what is the difference between a pirated copy and those who get it free through sites like freeappcalendar.com? I don't see any difference, really.
Okay, let's start with the first sentence: Well good for your "looser view"! That doesn't change the fact that piracy is a crime. Why do you think sites like Mininova had to take down 99% of their stuff? Because they got BUSTED! The rest of your post basically says that it isn't theft if someone isn't profiting from it. So it's okay for people to download and print out a book for free and read it? Maybe make some copies for their friends and hand them out for free? I've heard it all before... "I try before I buy" "It's free advertising for the company" "There's no such thing as IP" I'm not going to go any further with this. Pirates make all kinds of excuses to justify themselves. I would at least have a little respect for someone that just says "Yeah, I download free stuff. I know it's wrong but I do it anyways."
So you basically ignored everything I said about the role of an artist and the role of information? Thanks. You basically just told me that it's wrong because people got arrested for it. Your argument is like saying "all of these people think that eating sandwiches is morally reprehensible. Therefore, I believe that eating sandwiches is bad" without any real reason or logic. It's amazing that there are people who can actually live like that. p.s.: just because it's a law doesn't make it right. We used to have Jim Crow, slavery, legalized marital rape, legalized child abuse, public stoning, and all sorts of other laws in place. Did that make them right?
I think he gave you a short reply because that's all your self-righteous argument deserved. And I'm guessing all the other developers you're insulting believe that it doesn't deserve any form of reply whatsoever.
Or SkyMuffins argument isn't entirely wrong. Technically it isn't illegal. If I walked down the street and told a cop I downloaded some music for free, would I be arrested? Would I be fined? No. I could even open my laptop and show him how I downloaded the files. He'd probably laugh. If I walked into a music store and walked out with a CD, would I be fined and possibly arrested? Yes, I would definitely be fined. It is only illegal in the fact that a certain group of people are unable to fight. Mostly the poor are targeted. You don't hear much about the failed attempts to prosecute. That doesn't mean it is illegal, it means that the justice system is flawed and duped. Bleeding the poor is nothing new, a large number who owe court fees/fines are poor.
Very interesting debate. I hope it keeps going for a while. I personally think that piracy (and information laws in general) are badly in need of help. There isn't a very clear consensus on how these things should be treated. SkyMuffin has said a lot of intelligent things. Once you put some information out there, there is potential for it to be used in a great number of ways. It can be read, copied, modified, etc. Some of these things happen naturally -- whether they are authorized or not. If I was inspired by a great image of a cow some years ago, and I draw a cow in a very similar pose for a client, am I guilty of some crime? Current laws attempt to distinguish inspiration from copying, so I would not be charged with plagiarism unless, for instance, I traced that cow image. I, however, am not sure of the reasoning behind this distinction. The cow -- which belongs to someone else -- also exists as a copy in my head. Does it really matter whether an unauthorized copy of someone's IP exists in MY memory, or the memory of an iPhone? Am I committing piracy each time I hum a tune I heard on the radio? The mechanisms involved are basically the same. I am not trying to defend piracy here. All I want to point out is that there are gray areas present, and that there are many of them. It's very important for us, developers and vendors of information, to discuss these things. Hopefully there will one day be agreement, and along with it, more reasonable laws regarding IP.
I agree with you, it is a crime. But, there are worse crimes ocurring so it isn't prosecuted except on a large distribution scale. When piracy occurs, it is not the stars who are hit with the loss. It is the small guys. The behind-the-scenes workers. I find it morally reprehebsable because IT IS THEFT. There is no excuse. How would that go in the real world? Employee-"Sir, you can't take that game." Thief-"Ah, it's alright. If I like it I'll come back and pay for it." Employee-"I'm calling the cops." Thief-"OH SH!T!!!"
I'd also like to point out that piracy is somewhat different from theft. If I take a physical copy of something without permission, there are two results: 1) I have gained something without paying for it 2) Some individual(s) has/have lost something without being compensated If I were (mind you, not that I would ever) to pirate a game, 1) is true but 2) is definitely not. As a developer of an app, I do not have a finite number of copies of that app. In short: I don't pirate because I respect the developers of an IP, not because I believe it is equivalent to theft.
Please explain to me how a circular, self-fulfilling moral belief isn't self-righteous. I made a real effort to civilly explain my views, while schplurg simply came in, called me a "looser", and then used this incredibly flawed argument. "It's illegal because it's wrong, and it's wrong because it's illegal"-- that's what he said, and it doesn't make an ounce of sense. It's more like: Employee - "Sir, you have to pay for that game." Pirate - "I don't have the money to buy this, but I think it would be valuable in my life." Employee - "Oh. That's a shame." Pirate - "It's okay. I can just make a copy. No harm done!"
I have heard the "infinite supply" argument many times before. It's a strawman. Music has infinite copies. Movies have infinite copies. Books have infinite copies if you count eBooks. That it barely costs anything to make more of something is neither relevant nor the point. It's still theft. Just because there is an unlimited supply of something doesn't mean taking it without paying doesn't count. That's asinine. If something costs money and you take it without paying regardless of its provenance or supply, you've stolen it. Full stop. The key idea here is "taken without paying." Not "taken something of which there are an infinite number so nobody has really lost anything." They've lost a sale. Period. Whether or not it had the potential to be a sale in the first place is another argument entirely.
