People Don't Understand Software Licensing

[finlay666]

anyone want a cheap Rolex!

No but I have eyes with Z-Ray vision for sale, 2 times better than X-Ray

[nichomach]

I disagree with the basic premise there, I'm afraid, dh; the scarcity lies in the labour and skill required to produce the software. Yes, there's no real additional cost in producing duplicates once the software has been produced, but that glides over what is frequently a hugely expensive development process which can take years and is dependent upon a relatively high skillset, as well as ancillary support services which directly consume other scarce resource (server farms not running on squirrel farts for instance). The scarcity occurs before the point at which you're looking for it.

edit: It seems that all too many people are looking for the word "sustainable" with regard to business models for music, software, movies et al, to translate into "free", or at least so ludicrously cheap that there's no incentive to produce them.

[kalniel]

I disagree with the basic premise there, I'm afraid, dh;

I don't think it's his view or premise, but he's explaining why pirates (incorrectly) see it as victimless/harmless.

[jim]

I don't think it's his view or premise, but he's explaining why pirates (incorrectly) see it as victimless/harmless.

Looks to me like they're disagreeing on the idea that software can't be scarce, as a consequence of its very nature... which is a fair argument.

[peterb]

The confusion is berween the software and the software delivery medium. The software (code, music, whatever) is not the CD - it is what it contains, and the cost is the time and skill in creating it.

[nichomach]

The confusion is berween the software and the software delivery medium. The software (code, music, whatever) is not the CD - it is what it contains, and the cost is the time and skill in creating it.

QFT, and time and skill are subject to scarcity.

[TheAnimus]

There is actually a funny irony to this.

Many of communistic people believe that property should not be heridatory, that because your born into a family which owns say a copper mine, you shouldn't be entitled to profit from it.

If you have something like a computer, you have a hardware, the key resources cost, you have the labour costs of transforming YOUR build into reality from the components and you have the R&D.

People don't seem to like the R&D..... this is what I don't get. Most left leaning philosophers always start on the ownership concept, never the issue of providing a service (ie 'working') on something.

Yet plenty of people think its socially acceptable to do the opposite, pay for a PC with high end GFX card and then be a thief to every bit of IP.

[scaryjim]

Well, software itself is not a scarce resource. There's probably a much greater volume of software available than anyone could reasonably use in an entire lifetime. Problem is most of it sucks like a Dyson (or a Henry, if you go by the recent "spec me a hoover" thread )!

Additionally, *supply* of end-user software is plentiful - particularly now we can get more and more software via downloads. From the POV of the end user, it's cost the vendor nothing to provide them with software via download: they're wrong, of course, but that's the perception.

And on the other end of the scale, you get snootyjim's colleague: who's shelled out for a copy of the software so they assume that gives them the right to install and use it as they want, because the vendor's already had the money off them.

I think the real problem is that we haven't developed a business model that handles digital media as separate from a physical delivery medium yet. This applies to music and video as well, I think. Physical DVDs / CDs / Blurays are basically irrelevant - all of those products can be delivered digitally now, and they can be duplicated practically without limit very easily. Existing business models just don't work in that kind of distribution environment, and until the business models catch up to the distribution we're going to keep getting these sort of issues.

But, while we have to work under outdated business models, then you stick to the terms in those agreements. If the license says one machine only, then that's what you do.

[jim]

Yet plenty of people think its socially acceptable to do the opposite, pay for a PC with high end GFX card and then be a thief to every bit of IP.

I think the problem was that people have got used to the idea of lending each other pens, lamps, vacuum cleaners, whatever they needed. That progressed onto things like VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, so on - and then people started to think, why don't I just make a copy. If the first person paid for it, then it's fine, you're just permanently borrowing it.

Then sharing becomes extremely easy, and people start to get things over the internet. They know it's illegal, but since they're never going to get caught and it's very easy to do, off they go, transferring anything and everything. Then, as it becomes increasingly common, it becomes a theme of "everybody does it". It's a bit like going over 70mph - everybody knows it's wrong, but because so many people do it, it becomes largely acceptable.

When I was at school, somebody who was vaguely interested in PCs asked me about my first build, which included Vista x64... they started laughing at me because I'd bought it, and told other people, who proceeded to also laugh at me. As far as they were concerned, nobody apart from businesses paid for software.

The two combined together, A) that it doesn't fit into the generally accepted model of theft and B) that it's been extremely easy to do for a long time means that it's done by a massive number of people and then that it's socially acceptable.

People seem to discuss it really openly these days, at least 3 IT professionals I've dealt with recently have discussed their personal piracy views (and collections ) whilst on official business, and I've been to a fair few places where I've heard people say something like "No, it hasn't cost us a penny - Brian's downloading music all the time" - and it's clear that they've got more than enough money to buy some top designer clothes and flash cars, but not the music they can get for free. Weird.

[Flash477]

The thing is that this is one of the reasons why so much software nowadays has to have activation, and locking to machines, becuase too many people in companies will still basically aid in piracy for fear of "rocking the boat"

[Lucio]

Ignoring the incredible thread derailment (can it be pruned out by a mod and left as a seperate thread?)

Software costs money to make, definately, but without consuming resources to reproduce then a software company has effectively got an ever growing profit margin.

[peterb]

Ignoring the incredible thread derailment (can it be pruned out by a mod and left as a seperate thread?)

The thread seem back on track, so unless it goes off the rails again I will leave it as it stands for the moment

Software costs money to make, definately, but without consuming resources to reproduce then a software company has effectively got an ever growing profit margin.

Not strictly true - there are support costs and maintenance and an element of the profit will go into future improvements and upgrades (which may themselves have to be paid for) so that is an incentive to write and sell software that has a proven requirement - and to keep on improving it and adding new features.

Generally the more complex the software, and the smaller the market, the more expensivethe development costs and the there are likely to be fewer sales to recoup those costs (and make a profit). And if the developer gets a percentage of the profits, then it is an incentive to write better code. (Look at an analogy with music - the more copies of a CD are sold, the greater the return on investment for the arrtis)

Small utilities tend to be cheaper (or free) and that encourages greater take up. It is the old case of volume sales with small margins or few sales with larger margins.

[jim]

Ignoring the incredible thread derailment (can it be pruned out by a mod and left as a seperate thread?)

I don't personally mind, the original question's been answered now so it's not an issue. Obviously if someone still wants to split it then fair enough, just throwing my opinion out there since I started the thread.

[directhex]

QFT, and time and skill are subject to scarcity.

But that skillset isn't what you're paying for. You're paying for a spinny disc, or a paper license. That disconnect is the issue.

Software evidently has value associated in its initial production, but the costs of duplicating that initial production are negligible - and it's only that "negligible cost" duplication which pirates are doing as DIY - they're not kidnapping scarce programmers, they're merely saving the effort of mailing one CD to the distributor. I mean, it's practically saving them money, right? Right? Right?

[Champman99]

Yes the whole Non-IT world is completely clueless when it comes to software licensing.

Even my school was guilty of it, my music teacher happily gave out copies of the schools (single license) edition of Sibelius to anyone who wanted them, at the time I think that edition was about £300 per license.... oh dear.