Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

littlebitofcode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–268 of 268 posts

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#261

Post by kra »

Karunamon wrote: post #134
MatthewB wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call it?

Take your pick. There's: Using unlicensed software copyright infringement downloading a torrent pirating ..among others. None of them roll off the tongue as nicely as "steal" or "thief", but copyright infringement is just as illegal as stealing. The industry groups have been campaigning for years (with great success) to ensure they mean the same thing. They do not. Please don't fall into their trap.

When I was a kid I got caught sneaking on the subway. I was charged with theft of services. It makes sense to me - what I literally did was evade paying my $1 before stepping on the platform, and I was attempting to ride a train that wasn't full, so my being there or not wouldn't affect the operation of the train or the other riders. But gaining access to something against the wishes of the provider jeopardizes the provider's ability (or incentive, or willingness, whatever) to provide the service. That's why it's called theft.

This is all kind of off-topic to the OP, and doesn't address why people should or should not pay for their software, music, and movies, but I think theft or fraud is an accurate term to use.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#262

Post by jongalloway2 »

gm wrote: post #234
jcnnghm wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the automated online system erroneously rejects the activation.

Never once had the same problem as you. Actually this is the first I hear of anyone using the offline activation methods. Yeah 54 digit codes suck. But 54 digits ain't 100 digits. And it would not justify, for me, going pirate. Unless you're sitting there installing stuff all day long every day.

Same here. I've installed Windows a bajillion times over the past 15ish years and never run into this kind of problem. I don't reinstall Windows, since (for me) apps cleanly uninstall post-Vista due to virtualizing filesystem and registry writes that used to gunk up /Windows and /Program Files in XP.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#263

Post by gm »

jongalloway2 wrote: post #262
gm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never once had the same problem as you. Actually this is the first I hear of anyone using the offline activation methods. Yeah 54 digit codes suck. But 54 digits ain't 100 digits. And it would not justify, for me, going pirate. Unless you're sitting there installing stuff all day long every day.

Same here. I've installed Windows a bajillion times over the past 15ish years and never run into this kind of problem. I don't reinstall Windows, since (for me) apps cleanly uninstall post-Vista due to virtualizing filesystem and registry writes that used to gunk up /Windows and /Program Files in XP.

Same for me. I whined about crapware that came with PCs just as everyone else, but with Vista and Win7, I noticed can just uninstall these programs as soon as I fire up the machine for the first time and no harm done.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#264

Post by 6ren »

cgoddard wrote: post #214
6ren wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just had a thought on seeing your point 1): Part of the value some people buy is exclusivity. If others can get it for free, it reduces this aspect of its value.

How does exclusivity add any value to a piece of software? The utility and productivity that I get out of a piece of software is in no way influenced by how anyone else obtained it. Sure, I might be bitter that I didn't also break the law and obtain an illegal free copy of my software, but that's really just sour grapes. And in business if the value I'm able to produce with software is governed more by my exclusive o…

I'm saying some people pay more for exclusivity. You're saying they shouldn't.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#265

Post by gurkendoktor »

jongalloway2 wrote: post #195
gurkendoktor wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family got by for a long time on a legal XP + MS Works. They then had to pirate the real MS Office because teachers at school only accept PPT files, and OpenOffice's export was too broken. I buy all my software but I still can't really blame them.

Office 2010 Home And Student is $119 and it gets you Powerpoint, Word, Excel, and OneNote. If that's too much, though, I'd recommend just using either http://office.live.com or http://docs.google.com . They're easier to use, the files don't get lost, they have all the features students will need, the documents auto-save, they're available on any computer with an internet connection, it's easy to share the documents (…

I believe in copyright and commercial software and everything, but teachers should not press my family into buying software when free alternatives exist. They can just accept PDF slides which OOo can produce, since when are slide animations critical?

I think the "more right" reaction would be to complain about this, at increasing levels of hierarchy, rather than support a monopoly that will push the $119 bill on other families who might be worse off. Either way, I don't blame them for not wasting too much time on it.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#266

Post by gurkendoktor »

Deestan wrote: post #178
gurkendoktor wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same with Photoshop. If Photoshop had perfect DRM (or if users would selflessly follow EULAs), then I am sure we wouldn't be stuck with Adobe's terrible monopoly and insulting usability. I see why it won't happen: Many pirates can't wait until a 99% feature-compatible competitor emerges. People who don't want to buy Windows or Photoshop can also not just throw money in a Kickstarter pot instead (imagine how…

> A tragedy - I would love to work full-time on a killer product pitted against either of them, but I just can't see how it fits into the scheme of the market. :( Gimp would be a good competitor to Photoshop if it could just get a ton of focus on usability. If you want to "fight" Photoshop, that would be a good place to help out. http://www.gimp.org/ http://www.gimp.org/develop/

And who will employ me to work on it full time? I know of no example where occasional hobbyist contributions have led to good usability, except for Terminal-based text editors (and only in the eyes of some).

I think the GIMP stinks and I would still honestly dedicate myself to it for a small salary. I would madly dedicate myself to it if I were to sell it commercially and with perfect copyright in place, because then my "salary" would depend on my merits. But I won't, because I know everybody is used to warezing Photoshop by now. (FWIW, I spent a long time being the target of laughter and facepalms by not warezing Photoshop but supporting cheaper alternatives instead. There's even a social push to do it now.)

Maybe this will work again once we have perfect DRM in the disguise of SaaS, but that's a day I fear for different reasons.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#267

Post by joshma »

reissbaker wrote: post #201
joshma wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's equivalent in an ethical sense, not equivalent in the legal sense. I think it's perfectly fine to call it stealing, since it embodies the core meaning "steal" is meant to convey. You're depriving another of something that is rightfully theirs, control over their creative content. Let's not get pedantic here, lest we devolve into discussing what "to steal the spotlight" means.

"Stealing" generally connotes taking something away from someone else. With piracy, a potential sale is lost: the pirate might have bought the item were it not available illegally for free. With theft, there is both potential sale loss and property loss: if you steal a car from Toyota, they lose the ability to sell the car to you, and they also lose access to the car itself (which prevents them from selling it to any…

I'm not sure if you're joking or not by trying to define a quantitative relationship between piracy and stealing, but here goes anyways:

First of all, relatively pricing should not matter. By your logic, if Toyota's price was suddenly 0.5 * price, then stealing just got two times better! What's wrong is wrong.

Second, your equation does not do justice to math. If your definition of X is the same as mine (i.e. average likelihood an individual will buy this item, independent of the world population) then you're saying Toyota's lost income can potentially be GREATER than the price of the car.

In clearer terms, if

  dX / d(world population) = 0
then

  lost income = X * world population * price
does not have an upper bound! With the explosive nature of the world population, it would seem that theft gets exponentially worse as the years go by.

Where does the logic break down? Well it seems you've modeled the world's purchases of A SINGLE CAR as independent of each other. (In other words, you've modeled the lost income if Toyota had a car stolen by every human in the world.) What you really want, for n people, is

  X*P + (1-X)*X*P + (1-X)^2*X*P + ... + (1-X)^(n-1)*X*P  = P*[1-(1-X)^n]
- and there's our upper bound at P.

So now the comparison is between (1 - (1-X)^N) and X. In the case of software like Windows 7 where relatively few people will go for a free alternative, X is pretty damn high. I won't argue that it's greater than (1 - (1-X)^N), but it's nowhere near your estimate of 7 billion.

In all seriousness, I definitely agree that the "relative virtue" of digital theft is better than other forms. But, as you acknowledge, there is indeed a loss of value.

Re: I'm Pirating the Next Version of Windows

#268

Post by Drbble »

sanderjd wrote: post #258
Drbble wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are honestly arguing that deprivation is not an intuitive aspect of theft?

Although Karunamon already replied, I think you were responding to me. I'm not sure I understand the question - I'm not arguing that it is not an intuitive aspect of theft, I am stating that it has not been intuitive to people I have discussed this with. It is a fact, not an argument - are you trying to ask if I'm arguing that it should be an intuitive aspect of theft? If so then I really don't have an opinion - I th…

I was responding to you, sorry.

I was questioning the validity of your (albeit informal) research, that people don't find deprivation to be a key aspects of the meaning of theft.

Post reply on HN