The effect of piracy on price?

[excalibur2]

***But none of that addresses my question, which was why people still pirate MS Office when a highly functional, completely free and totally legitimate alternative exists?***

Well you've probably heard the same views as me for piracy so take your pick and add in a few if you like:-

Because it's the best?
Bill Gates has enough money anyway?
It's basically an American company?
Cos I can?

***For that matter, why do people need (and I stress need, rather than just want) Vista, when they probably already have XP, and Linux is available?***

Well why do people go to McDonalds and eat junk food.......... I would guess the majority of people are ignorant about OS, and MS are in the business of making money to sell their latest erm do you have much of a choice on OS when buying a new computer. So Vista is going to take over from winxp whether you like it or not, stay a dinosaur or jump on the band wagon.
It will be interesting to see how much support winxp (from MS) gets for new dx10 games.

***Also, in relation to your above point, can I point out the inherent contradiction. In one breath, you ask if MS cares if some people pirate Office, and in the next you claim out that they're attempting to make the OS pirate-proof. Does the latter not suggest the answer to the former? - that yes, they care.***

No confusion, get everyone to use your products by any means and kill the opposition, become a monopoly and then screw the consumer.......I haven't invented anything new companies are doing it all the time and sometimes run at a temporary loss or DUMP.
Do you realy think MS got where they are by absolute honesty, no attempt to intimidate the opposition, and not withholding coding to 3rd party suppliers, dumping free products to knock out the opposition and so on

[Funkstar]

As an asside excalibur2, your posts woupd be easier to read if you used [ quote ] blocks

[greektony]

if only their was a way to download an xbox 360!!!

[Spud1]

But none of that addresses my question, which was why people still pirate MS Office when a highly functional, completely free and totally legitimate alternative exists?

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the functionality of the software - Open office may indeed provide 90% of the functionality that office provides, with a very familiar interface that the majority of office users would be perfectly happy with - especially the majority of users who will only be using office for basic word processing features.

I think that the reasons are more socialogically orientated. Or at least the reasons behind why they *want* to have the software, with the driving force between actually pirating it being that 'they can'.

Microsoft pretty much has a monopoly on office suites used in education and business - ok so Lotus is still around (although its still TERRIBLE, just try and use lotus notes i dare you..i was stuck with it all last year) and a smattering will be using smaller alternatives like wordpefect/openoffice etc, but I don't think you can argue with me when I say that Microsoft has pretty much cornered the market. So when people are looking at jobs etc, its *Microsoft Office*, not just a 'word processing application' or similar that the adverts ask for experience in. So immediately you have a group of people that are going to be pushed into getting office purely because they might need it for a job. Then theres the related fact that since so many people use it at work, they will naturally want to use the same at home.

It's the same in education, particularly at university. Most universities have office installed on university owned machines, and as such many students will also want office, to guarentee compatability between university computers and their own, and for familiarity in cases where people have never really used a word processor before. If more universities were to just have open office installed on their machines then maybe things would be different here - but they don't do it. Students are also more likely to pirate office due to the proliferation of pirated software around university networks and campuses.

So basically microsoft are a victim of their own success here - if office was used less in the real world then people would not have a percieved (and untrue) need to pirate it..open office may provide similar functionality but because thats not what people will end up using in their working life, its not what they use at home.

Then there is also the 'cool' factor so to speak. Open Office maybe 'cool' in the same circles that linux is, but those groups of people are so small compared to the UK population that its insignificant. It's just not cool to be using the latest free version of office, its seen as being 'cheap' and behind the times - whereas running an up-to-date verison of office - pirated or not - IS percieved to be cool..so people will do it. Free software is almost never cool purely because its free..which is odd when you consider that to a pirate, the pirated software itself is free..but you can go in circles with that for hours..you get my point i hope

[kalniel]

I don't think people *need* this stuff at all. But back to my original point, because it's easy to get hold of, and socially acceptable, they will pirate it. It's almost a case of getting it even if you don't need it or even have a use for it.

If it weren't so much the case, then I think a lot of people would consider much more carefully their needs vs wants, and would happily 'make do' with a cheaper solution, which would in term drive down costs and increase competition. All good things.

[Saracen]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the functionality of the software ..... <followed by lots of stuff, much of which I agree with>

Indeed. That was rather my point. Excalibur started out by saying

...and when you couldn't pirate easily in the old days, we were ripped off by the software companies e.g. a simple program like dos wordperfect 3.1, on a few floppies, was about £350 12 years or so ago. How could Joe public afford that and people were forced to use something like Xtgold to do letters.

Yet piracy is far more prevalent now than it was back then, and very competent alternatives exist. People don't need to pirate stuff to avoid having to use XTGold, nor did they in those days.

[Saracen]

Well you've probably heard the same views as me for piracy so take your pick and add in a few if you like:-

Because it's the best?
Bill Gates has enough money anyway?
It's basically an American company?
Cos I can?

Well, the first one amounts to wanting something you can't or won't pay for, so you'll take it anyway. Which is what I said ages ago. It's self-serving self-justification.

The second point is ignoring the fact that MS and Bill Gates are not the same thing, and that ripping off MS is ripping off investors, which in large part amounts to ripping off the pension funds of millions of working people. Biut of course, pirates like to avoid inconvenient little facts like that when trying to justify their selfishness.

The third point - well, my opinion is that that is just pathetic, in my view.

The fourth option nails it.

***For that matter, why do people need (and I stress need, rather than just want) Vista, when they probably already have XP, and Linux is available?***

Well why do people go to McDonalds and eat junk food.......... I would guess the majority of people are ignorant about OS, and MS are in the business of making money to sell their latest erm do you have much of a choice on OS when buying a new computer. So Vista is going to take over from winxp whether you like it or not, stay a dinosaur or jump on the band wagon.
It will be interesting to see how much support winxp (from MS) gets for new dx10 games.

Yes, of course you have an option on OS when buying a new computer. You just might not get much of an option through major players, like Dell or Evesham. But anyway, if you're buying a new computer that comes with an MS OS installed, then you aren't pirating it, so it isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about people that pirate stuff, be it an OS or whatever.

And yes, Vista will take over. But how long it will take is another matter. Businesses are not going to be in any hurry to jump to Vista, until and until the benefits clearly exceed the costs, and that argument is far from made. But over a period of time, yeah, it'll happen. It STILL isn't a justification for piracy, though, because you don't need to upgrade. Your PC works now, without Vista, doesn't it?

It comes down to what I said at the start. Piracy occurs because people can, and because people know they're almost certainly going to get away with it. It's just greed, in wanting something they either can't afford, or in many cases could certainly afford and just won't pay for.

Personally, I don't much care whether people pirate or not. I just wish they'd be more honest about it instead of coming up with the usual self-serving rationalisations, because what it amounts to is that they do it because they can, and either don't consider who it affects, or don't care. It's a symptom of basic dishonesty, and strongly suggests that either the reason they don't rob their local shops is because they expect to get caught if they do, or because they're self-deluded into thinking that if you rip off a major corporation, it's only billionaires that suffer.

[excalibur2]

***Yes, of course you have an option on OS when buying a new computer. You just might not get much of an option through major players, like Dell or Evesham.***

........and Joe public is gonna say I want Linux, erm well go out on the street and ask how many people know about OS, seems to me that most want the latest whatever it's called.

***It comes down to what I said at the start. Piracy occurs because people can, and because people know they're almost certainly going to get away with it. It's just greed, in wanting something they either can't afford, or in many cases could certainly afford and just won't pay for.
It's a symptom of basic dishonesty, and strongly suggests that either the reason they don't rob their local shops is because they expect to get caught if they do, or because they're self-deluded into thinking that if you rip off a major corporation, it's only billionaires that suffer***

Well how can anyone argue with your excellent view if living in Utopia, but in the real world..............................

[mike_w]

***It comes down to what I said at the start. Piracy occurs because people can, and because people know they're almost certainly going to get away with it. It's just greed, in wanting something they either can't afford, or in many cases could certainly afford and just won't pay for.
It's a symptom of basic dishonesty, and strongly suggests that either the reason they don't rob their local shops is because they expect to get caught if they do, or because they're self-deluded into thinking that if you rip off a major corporation, it's only billionaires that suffer***

Well how can anyone argue with your excellent view if living in Utopia, but in the real world..............................

Huh? I fail to see how whether we live in paradise or not comes into this. Greed is greed, utopia or otherwise.

Because it's the best?
Bill Gates has enough money anyway?
It's basically an American company?
Cos I can?

By this logic, it is acceptable for me to go and steal my rich, American neighbour's Mercedes S-Class so long as I don't get caught.

[excalibur2]

***Huh? I fail to see how whether we live in paradise or not comes into this. Greed is greed, utopia or otherwise.**

erm I think you missed my point in that you can have a view on how things should be and as they are. Why should it suprise anyone what humans are capable of and do/and have done.
Most of us are only civilised because we can control our basic instincts, but lets face it........ greed or something for nothing is very difficult to control.

[badass]

All of these comparisons between copyright infirngmennt and theft are getting boring now. Anyone that believes Copyright infringement=theft has been watching those messages at the beginning of films faaaar too much and has been brainwashed.
Firstly, theft is an improsonable, criminal offence. Copyright infringement is a civil offence, like libel or something like that. It is only finable. Selling illegally copied materials is imprisonable though.

So even the law does not see them as the same thing. However if you are still brainwashed enough to see copyright infrimgement=theft then consider this.
Person A is a very good artist. He writes the most moving symphony ever, a real amazing piece of art.

Person B of lesser morals takes the score from him as he sleeps and keeps it for himself. Person A forgot how it goes. Person A is now denied ever enjoying playing or hearing that music.

Person B gets busted and Person A's work is handed back to them. However Person C took copies without asking the author to play to himself.

Would Person A be at least a little bit glad that he got his work back, even though someone now has a copy?
Would person A rather:
He doesn't have his masterpiece at all and someone else has it, enjoying it?
he does have it, but someone has copied it against his wishes?

Copyright infirngment is more akin to plagarism than to theft.

However before anyone thinks thats justification, it is still immoral and illegal to do. Just not as immoral or illegal as theft.

[excalibur2]

***However before anyone thinks thats justification, it is still immoral and illegal to do. Just not as immoral or illegal as theft.**

...and would add:- those that take a very high moral high ground on piracy, should make sure they have no skeletons in the cupboard, and haven't taking even a paper clip from their work place...............as theft is theft.

[Spud1]

All of these comparisons between copyright infirngmennt and theft are getting boring now. Anyone that believes Copyright infringement=theft has been watching those messages at the beginning of films faaaar too much and has been brainwashed.
Firstly, theft is an improsonable, criminal offence. Copyright infringement is a civil offence, like libel or something like that. It is only finable. Selling illegally copied materials is imprisonable though.

So even the law does not see them as the same thing. However if you are still brainwashed enough to see copyright infrimgement=theft then consider this.
Person A is a very good artist. He writes the most moving symphony ever, a real amazing piece of art.

Person B of lesser morals takes the score from him as he sleeps and keeps it for himself. Person A forgot how it goes. Person A is now denied ever enjoying playing or hearing that music.

Person B gets busted and Person A's work is handed back to them. However Person C took copies without asking the author to play to himself.

Would Person A be at least a little bit glad that he got his work back, even though someone now has a copy?
Would person A rather:
He doesn't have his masterpiece at all and someone else has it, enjoying it?
he does have it, but someone has copied it against his wishes?

Copyright infirngment is more akin to plagarism than to theft.

However before anyone thinks thats justification, it is still immoral and illegal to do. Just not as immoral or illegal as theft.

No no, that just sounds like a pretty weak argument for justification to me.

It's been stated (by me and others) when comparing infringement to theft that it *was not* in a legal sense, but more in what actually happens.

The situation that you describe would NOT be copywrite infringement anyway. I can think up a song in my head, but if I hear that song on the radio the next day they havn't stolen my idea, because I never published it anywhere. If I did publish it then its a different matter, but im hardly likely to totally forget it am I as in your story?

It's wrong, it is illegal (no matter if its a civil offence or not) and it IS akin to theft as far as the victims are concerned..the term theft doesn't exclusivly relate to physical possessions, nor to the actual loss of something.

[kalniel]

...and would add:- those that take a very high moral high ground on piracy, should make sure they have no skeletons in the cupboard, and haven't taking even a paper clip from their work place...............as theft is theft.

That's more a question of consequences and stupidity though.

The consequences of your actions of taking home a paper clip are in most cases benign. The consequences of piracy are such that you are shooting yourself in the foot and affecting others, hence you would have to be truly stupid to do so.

[directhex]

***However before anyone thinks thats justification, it is still immoral and illegal to do. Just not as immoral or illegal as theft.**

...and would add:- those that take a very high moral high ground on piracy, should make sure they have no skeletons in the cupboard, and haven't taking even a paper clip from their work place...............as theft is theft.

so a paperclip is the same as hundreds of pounds of software?

what's being requested isn't a holy blemish-free background - it's being honest.

"i pirate windows because it's a rip off" is bull**** that makes you look dishonest
"i pirate windows because i'm greedy" is another matter

[Steve B]

/me throws grenade in cess-pool