I see my stuff pirated all the time.  It phases me not.

Zookeeper wrote:

Actually, for those of us who make our living selling our intellectual property (in my case, software) it's a rather happy day.

A lot of my stuff gets picked up by various news sites and blogs concerned with food safety/issues, etc. I'm of mixed feelings about it. I'm pleased my work is regarded as substantial enough that people refer to it and I'm happy more people are seeing it. Doesn't help my hit count, though.

Dmtdust wrote:

I see my stuff pirated all the time.  It phases me not.

What type of "stuff" are your referring to and is it your livelihood?

Most folks who support themselves selling software they've developed do indeed care when their stuff gets pirated.  Piracy was costing me about 20% of my income at one point until I improved my software's protection.  Most folks would be phased by a 20% reduction in their income.

Just out of curiosity, Zook, you technical or management?

orangeplus wrote:

Just out of curiosity, Zook, you technical or management?

Yes, sort of.  I'm an independent developer and market my software myself from my own web site.  The current term in fashion for it is Micro ISV or mISV.  In days-gone-by the term was "shareware author" but since the word "shareware" has a negative connotation in so many minds a lot of developers don't use it.

Dmtdust wrote:

I look forward to yearly reasonable yearly subscription rates for something like photoshop or illustrator.  I know many artist who use pirated versions.  Most want to come in and legitimize their use, but the cost is so very prohibitive.  Adobe is run by a bunch of wanks.  They could make 10 times what they are now if they had subscriptions, and a tiered system, but no, they would rather cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Unfortunately, with most software products consumers simply aren't willing to agree to a model where they have to pay for annual license renewals.  Most consumers want a one-off deal.  I've sold software both ways so I know what I'm talking about.  For a product that requires regular updating to remain useful (anti-virus software is probably the best example) people are often willing to pay for the updates or pay an annual license renewal fee since the publisher is continually providing them updates that they need.  With graphic design software I would expect that you would have a hard time convincing users to keep paying for it year after year.  Too many people are satisfied buying the current version and don't care to keep paying for updates if the version they bought gets the job done for them.  Still, some publishers are starting to get some traction with the idea of unlimited updates (regardless of whether they are small or large updates) at a low annual price.

As for your friends who use pirated software because they consider it too expensive, they have no excuse.  If you consider something overpriced then don't buy it.  Just because you think something is overpriced is no excuse for stealing it.

Dmtdust wrote:

Easily said, and understandable from your vantage.  As art has moved into the computer world, one has to have tools.  Artist are notoriously poor.  I mean you could use Gimp, which f'ing limps.

Software development tools aren't exactly cheap.  I've spent a fair amount on development tools, setup deployment tools, help authoring tools, etc.  I've also paid a fair amount to people for graphic and website development.

I agree with you about Gimp.  I'm no graphic artist but I found Gimp a major pain to try to get started with.  Paint.net was easier but still I don't use it much since I just plain suck at graphic design.  But it's a false dilemma to say one's choices are between a freeware/open source app and the most expensive product on the market.  There are lots of graphics programs out there with prices all along the continuum.  If you can't afford top-of-the-line then use something more affordable.

The bottom line though is if you can't live without something, that, by definition, makes it highly valuable to you.  To say it's too expensive on one hand and to say you can't do without it on another is sort of a contradiction unless it is literally priced beyond the means of the target customer.  Photoshop is expensive but if it's indispensable then it sort of follows that it is highly valuable and is likely to be priced as such.  I'm willing to bet that your friends paid for the computers they run their pirated copies of Photoshop on.  Most likely they cost a lot more than the software.  They just weren't so easy to get illegally.  It's easy to rationalize when its so easy to get away with it.  If your friends had had to break into a store to copy the software rather than just download it or get a copy from a friend I'm willing to bet they would have either ponied up the money or went with a less expensive product.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-18 15:35:54)

Dmtdust wrote:

Well, as much as I agree with you, your model of the world no longer really exist.  The equiv of what actions you seem to endorse to deal with this situation would be the "War On Some Drugs", in truth you are spitting into the wind.  You can though, try to educate people, and provide multiple ways of paying.  Adobe sells but 5% of all of its copies.  That is pretty much the straight poop.  How Zooks are you going to convert all these people back to paying in the traditional manner?  The old music industry has failed miserably with the tactics you endorse, and is dying as a consequence.  The new music industry is doing quite well... and its model will prevail.  Just look at what the bands are doing on their own, and especially note the success of Radiohead and others with their way of dealing with the new landscape.

If by "my model of the world" you mean a world where people have scruples and don't steal, well, the world has always had people lacking scruples and who are willing to take what isn't theirs if they can get away with it.  The big difference today is that now it's so much easier to do it without worrying about getting caught.  It's just so seductive to be able to download something free rather than lay your money down.  I'm not sure exactly what actions you think I "seem to endorse".  If you mean prosecuting people who practice and facilitate piracy, yep.  I'm all for that.  I know it won't stop people from pirating software but if most of the people who do something illegal get away with it that doesn't make the ones who get caught innocent.

How do I convert people to paying in the traditional manner?  Well, I increased my income by about 20% by employing effective anti-cracking measures in my software.  That paid off well.  For people who don't want to pay, there are other options such as through an outfit called TrialPay.  But there's really nothing anyone can do to stop much of the piracy that takes place.  The only thing that stops people from doing something wrong that is both easy and virtually risk-free is a change in the people themselves. 
 

Dmtdust wrote:

I was an acquaintance with Bob Wallace, you might look him up, and the part he played in this.

I'm fairly well plugged-in to the shareware world and know about Bob Walsh.  I've met one or two of the pioneers of the shareware industry.  What about Bob?

Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-04-18 23:22:21)

Dmtdust wrote:

You're missing the point.

I read your post.  We're just making different points, that's all.

Zookeeper wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

You're missing the point.

I read your post.  We're just making different points, that's all.

You're right.  Maybe we could actually talk points sometimes.

Clarification:  I agree that you have to do what you can do to protect your investment, and expertise with your product.