Windows 7 / Software Piracy thread split

[aidanjt]

But what about the situation I'm talking about - surplus product just sitting there with no use.

Surplus product isn't abstract, it's physical property. Your analogy is like lifting a Windows Vista Ultimate Retail SKU which is just sitting in a warehouse. Copyright theft is opening the box, copying the contents of the DVD, putting the DVD back in the box and tucking it away again.

[kalniel]

Surplus product isn't abstract, it's physical property. Your analogy is like lifting a Windows Vista Ultimate Retail SKU which is just sitting in a warehouse. Copyright theft is opening the box, copying the contents of the DVD, putting the DVD back in the box and tucking it away again.

Good analogy, so what is the moral difference between those two types of theft?

[Splash]

Several:-

Remote Desktop
File-level access control
Active Directory stuff like Domain memberships
All the networking features really

Wow - so you could justify paying for a server OS but not the client? Otherwise obviously you wouldn't be using AD. Or did you feel that the Server OS was too expensive, so pirated that too?

[scaryjim]

I think you're completely mistaken. There is no such thing as having an acceptable profit margin (and no higher) if you are a publically owned company such as MS.

Yes, that would be one of the features of business practice that I find abhorent. The most important thing is to make more money! It doesn't matter how you do it! The company needs more money! The shareholders need more money! GET MORE MONEY!!

Microsoft turned a $4billion *profit* in one quarter - after wages, materials, R&D budget, the rest of it. During a recession. $4billion per quarter *net profit*. The fact that we place no social limit on greed doesn't mean that unlimited greed is a good thing...

I still don't believe there are - people who pirate windows are doing so for reasons other than cost (no matter how much they might claim otherwise).

Fair enough; there's not a lot else to be said then, I guess. I'm not here to try to change your beliefs...

And I guess it's my scientific background coming through, but as far as I'm concerned something has to be significant for it to actually have an affect.

I have a scientific background too, which is probably why I pulled up against your comment that:

Price isn't going to affect piracy rates one iota either.

Given that the first result of my Google search for iota defines it as a tiny or scarcely detectable amount, I think I am quite justified in raising issue with your statement. I stand by my position that some people would choose to buy rather than pirate if prices fell, and I believe the reverse is almost certainly true - if the price went up piracy rates would increase. Therefore price would affect piracy rates by *at least* one iota...

[kalniel]

Yes, that would be one of the features of business practice that I find abhorent. The most important thing is to make more money!

Correct.

It doesn't matter how you do it!

Absolutely wrong. How you make money is of vital importance to the future of the company.

Microsoft turned a $4billion *profit* in one quarter - after wages, materials, R&D budget, the rest of it. During a recession. $4billion per quarter *net profit*. The fact that we place no social limit on greed doesn't mean that unlimited greed is a good thing...

It's the only thing that works - people are greedy, that's a fact of life, but if you at least make them work to satisfy their greed then it can be managed and end up benefitting all. The alternatives (and the ultimate expression of pirating, I guess) just get society in greater trouble because they require a premise that people aren't greedy.

Case in point - pirating ends up giving MS more profit because you are destroying the competition for them. Buy a competitors product (because it's better value for money) and you force MS to compete by offering better value for money themselves, possibly reducing their profit.

[scaryjim]

Wow - so you could justify paying for a server OS but not the client? Otherwise obviously you wouldn't be using AD. Or did you feel that the Server OS was too expensive, so pirated that too?

Not that this is really my reply to make, but I think that Windows 2003 SBS, which includes Exchange server, was reasonable value at the ~ £350 I bought it for a few years ago. Certainly better value than 4 copies of Windows XP Pro, which would've cost about the same amount...

[Splash]

Not that this is really my reply to make, but I think that Windows 2003 SBS, which includes Exchange server, was reasonable value at the ~ £350 I bought it for a few years ago. Certainly better value than 4 copies of Windows XP Pro, which would've cost about the same amount...

The problem is that that £350 is pretty useless without some sort of client to access it, and some hardware to run it on.

[scaryjim]

It's the only thing that works - people are greedy, that's a fact of life, but if you at least make them work to satisfy their greed then it can be managed and end up benefitting all.

No!!! It matters where the money comes from and how it gets moved around!

Sorry, that's inaccurate. It should matter where the money comes from and how it gets moved around. I'm aware that I live in a society where people don't care about that. That still doesn't mean it's right.

I'm very strongly of the opinion that the current system doesn't work - but apparently even a huge economic downturn and global recession isn't going to make people realise that. No-one *needs* to make any more money than they can comfortably live on - and that's far less than most people realise if only they took a minute out of their convenient self-serving lives to look at what they actually *need*. Microsoft are clearly charging more than they *need* to for all their software and services if they can make well over $1billion each month - and that's profit remember, not revenue - so that's after they've paid everyone's wages, all their materials and service bills, the R&D department etc.

Anyway, social justice and economics is probably just a little far off topic for my tastes today. I know that not wanting everything for myself puts me in a freakish minority, but that will always be my position, and it is why I will never be happy with any major corporation; Microsoft included...

[scaryjim]

The problem is that that £350 is pretty useless without some sort of client to access it, and some hardware to run it on.

Can't argue with that Just saying I could understand a financially-motivated pirate paying for Win Server (good value) but pirating their clients (bad value). It would be internally consistent, at least.

[kalniel]

No-one *needs* to make any more money than they can comfortably live on - and that's far less than most people realise if only they took a minute out of their convenient self-serving lives to look at what they actually *need*. Microsoft are clearly charging more than they *need* to for all their software and services if they can make well over $1billion each month - and that's profit remember, not revenue - so that's after they've paid everyone's wages, all their materials and service bills, the R&D department etc.

Are you talking about individuals or companies?

Either way, if you cap how much profit is made, what do you offer as incentive for excellence in its place? Lets not forget - the very reason windows 7 is so good is because MS are trying to make as much profit as possible. Without that incentive we would end up paying the same thing (or, in fact, more) for worse products.

[scaryjim]

Are you talking about individuals or companies?

Both, actually. If individiuals were less greedy then there would be less drive for companies to make huge profits, steamrolling all lesser mortals (sorry, companies) before them.

Either way, if you cap how much profit is made, what do you offer as incentive for excellence in its place? Lets not forget - the very reason windows 7 is so good is because MS are trying to make as much profit as possible. Without that incentive we would end up paying the same thing (or, in fact, more) for worse products.

Profit is the only incentive for excellence? What happened to pride in a job well done? What happened to any kind of corporate responsibility? By your argument every product released should be perfect, and we all know that's just not the case. In fact, chasing profit alone is more likely to result in a poorly conceived or poorly finished product due to attempts to cut cost.

By your argument, companies that release bad products are not trying to make as much profit as possible. So did Microsoft suddenly become ambivalent towards profit when they released Vista? Or could it be that your argument is fallacious?

I'm not interested in capping profits. I am concerned about the drive towards more profit regardless of cost. The simple fact is that we live on a finitely resourced planet. There is only so much "stuff" to go round; only so much "value" that we can create. You cannot have a situation where *everyone* continually gets richer. So, somewhere someone is losing out. And that concerns me.

[Splash]

And now we move onto "why capitalism is baad, mkay".

[kalniel]

What happened to pride in a job well done?

Doesn't work - people aren't interested.

What happened to any kind of corporate responsibility?

That hasn't gone anywhere, but isn't any replacement for achievement rewards.

By your argument every product released should be perfect

Eh? I don't follow that. You also say that by my argument products should be poorly conceived or poorly finished, which is it?

In fact, chasing profit alone is more likely to result in a poorly conceived or poorly finished product due to attempts to cut cost.

Your logic is baffling me - why would you want to ruin your product? That isn't how you make profit in the long run at all.

By your argument, companies that release bad products are not trying to make as much profit as possible.

What?

So did Microsoft suddenly become ambivalent towards profit when they released Vista? Or could it be that your argument is fallacious?

I'm still confused. Microsoft made the product they thought would generate the most profit in the long run. Vista is a good product, but Windows 7 is even better.

I'm not interested in capping profits. I am concerned about the drive towards more profit regardless of cost. The simple fact is that we live on a finitely resourced planet. There is only so much "stuff" to go round; only so much "value" that we can create. You cannot have a situation where *everyone* continually gets richer. So, somewhere someone is losing out. And that concerns me.

If you think that's the case then you don't understand business. You do not need someone to lose out - in fact that's really the last thing you want if you want sustainable business and therefore profit. There is no such thing as driving towards profit regardless of cost if you want long term profit. Especially odd to be talking about finite resources - software is a good example of the fact you do not need raw materials to create value - services and skills are equally viable commodities.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

kalniel is not giving up is he lol!! kudos to u hehe

[shaithis]

I'm not saying it is, but humour me in this instance - if you steal a Ferrari from a factory that's got a bunch of cars sitting there unsold, how is that all that different from pirating Windows?

The difference is that to take the Ferrari, you are taking something physical and therefore taking ownership of something that does not belong to you.

With piracy you are not taking anything away from anyone that they had before. You could argue that you are depriving them of a potential sale but the difference is night and day.


I fully understand the need for IP laws, I just think that what we pay for software is vastly inflated and not worth it. When Microsoft keeps posting profit figures, you cannot help but feel fully justified in pirating their software. They are fleecing people and you want others to feel guilty about "depriving them of a potential sale"?

No sympathy here....at all.

[kalniel]

The difference is that to take the Ferrari, you are taking something physical and therefore taking ownership of something that does not belong to you.

So taking ownership of code is different than ownership of something physical, even if that physical something was surplus? There was a good analogy posted earlier - consider the theft of a spare windows CD compared to pirating it.

With piracy you are not taking anything away from anyone that they had before. You could argue that you are depriving them of a potential sale but the difference is night and day.

Well with the physical surplus you're not depriving anyone of a potential sale either.

I fully understand the need for IP laws, I just think that what we pay for software is vastly inflated and not worth it.

Then don't use it if it's not worth it.

When Microsoft keeps posting profit figures, you cannot help but feel fully justified in pirating their software. They are fleecing people and you want others to feel guilty about "depriving them of a potential sale"?

I don't - I'm suggesting one should feel guilty about helping them post bigger profit figures by pirating their software. But if you're in favour of them getting bigger profits then by all means support piracy.