Windows 7 / Software Piracy thread split

[DeludedGuy]

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?

Take a guess...

[Splash]

Take a guess...

I guess that makes it ok then, eh? You *needed* the domain features and all the other gubbins because you *needed*the server OS too, but it wasn't worth paying for? Oh well, assuming it was for corporate use (because really, who needs a domain at home?) I guess you have the joys of BSA audits etc.

[DeludedGuy]

I guess that makes it ok then, eh? You *needed* the domain features and all the other gubbins because you *needed*the server OS too, but it wasn't worth paying for? Oh well, assuming it was for corporate use (because really, who needs a domain at home?) I guess you have the joys of BSA audits etc.

I was learning how to setup and configure AD at the time, I saw no point in forking out £400+ to experiment with some software.

[Splash]

I was learning how to setup and configure AD at the time, I saw no point in forking out £400+ to experiment with some software.

I see... Did you consider something like a Technet account? It's kinda targetted at exactly what you were doing, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your response will be the same as before - "why pay when I can pirate it for free?" - am I right?

[DeludedGuy]

I see... Did you consider something like a Technet account? It's kinda targetted at exactly what you were doing, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your response will be the same as before - "why pay when I can pirate it for free?" - am I right?

You are wrong.

I have never heard of it, and never knew such a thing existed, if i did, I would have tried that first, and if it sucked, then yes I would pirate.

If I decide to pirate something, it simply boils down to cost, were not all in the same financial boat, I imagine you to be a 30 something IT guy with secure job, I however am a 22 year old student still learning new things, doing some self study on the side. I cant afford it.

[TheAnimus]

I have never heard of it, and never knew such a thing existed, if i did, I would have tried that first, and if it sucked, then yes I would pirate.

If I decide to pirate something, it simply boils down to cost, were not all in the same financial boat, I imagine you to be a 30 something IT guy with secure job, I however am a 22 year old student still learning new things, doing some self study on the side. I cant afford it.

You know they offer 180 day time limited versions for free because of that!

Also the academic institute your enrolled in should be a member of a software scheme.

It sounds to me like you couldn't be bothered to find a legal alternative, even the ones that cost nothing. Ignorance of the law, or lazyness isn't really the best moral defence.

[Splash]

I don't believe there was ever a time limited trial of XP, but certainly the majority of server OS/applications are available in that format. And as TheAnimus points out, pretty much all educational establishments have some form of MSDNAA or similar scheme. Then there's Dreamspark and The Ultimate Steal...

At the end of the day you've made your decision, your moral compass is set and it's unlikely that you'll change your opinion however infringing copyright is wrong, regardless of the excuse you come up with. I guess I'm safe in the knowledge that my licenses are all above board, you choose to run the risk of the legal implications of your choice. C'est la vie.

[Dreaming]

Despite the fact that taking sales away from competition and cheaper versions is only going to make MS's position even more dominant? It's not legitimate at all, unless it's legitimate for you to shoot yourself in the foot in order to run faster.

I didn't mean to imply that piracy was legitimate. What I meant, if we assume prices were 'balanced' by good competition (and we can agree that competition routinely fails to operate properly) then there would be some level of piracy, lets assume 'x'. This is the natural level as it were. People who want, but whose need dont warrant and are stealing for the hell of it.

However, it is fact that Microsoft inflates the price because a) they can b) it is more profitable for them. You can't really blame Microsoft for that. Piracy rises to level x + y where y is the otherwise legitimate transactions (people who would gain from the product at it's actual value, vs. its inflated price). So my contestation was simply that rather than seeing all of piracy as 'x', we should see some of it as price sensitive, in fact some of it even due to Microsoft inflating their prices. Pretend the average cost to Microsoft for one copy of windows is £15. Imagine a school has 10 pc's, and the school / society would gain the equivalent 'value' (from students increase competence with windows, perhaps) of £300 by upgrading all it's PCs to Windows.

However, Microsoft charges £60 per licence. So we have an issue whereby even though Microsoft and the school would very much benefit from a transaction with a price above Microsoft's costs (£15) and the school's willingness to pay (£30), that transaction does not occur. Then the argument can be made, that if the school chooses to pirate, then society still gains that £300 value that had the markets operated efficiently would have been created anyway. Thus, it is a legitimate need that *should* be met, but isn't because of market failure (i.e. monopoly).

[DeludedGuy]

You know they offer 180 day time limited versions for free because of that!

Also the academic institute your enrolled in should be a member of a software scheme.

It sounds to me like you couldn't be bothered to find a legal alternative, even the ones that cost nothing. Ignorance of the law, or lazyness isn't really the best moral defence.

I didn’t enrol for any MCSE course I was learning it by myself at the time and yes, I probably couldn’t be bothered to find a legal alternative, and I am not pleading innocent to anything, I know full well what I done, and to be honest, I really didn’t care, it’s not like I was running a business using illegal software and making any profit, I was simply using it to study at home for 6 months, I would have loved to see MS track me down and take me to court, they have bigger fish to fry.

I don't believe there was ever a time limited trial of XP, but certainly the majority of server OS/applications are available in that format. And as TheAnimus points out, pretty much all educational establishments have some form of MSDNAA or similar scheme. Then there's Dreamspark and The Ultimate Steal...

At the end of the day you've made your decision, your moral compass is set and it's unlikely that you'll change your opinion however infringing copyright is wrong, regardless of the excuse you come up with. I guess I'm safe in the knowledge that my licenses are all above board, you choose to run the risk of the legal implications of your choice. C'est la vie.

Thanks for the tips guys.

[Splash]

I would have loved to see MS track me down and take me to court, they have bigger fish to fry.

So... because you figured you could probably get away with it that made it ok?

[Splash]

I didn't mean to imply that piracy was legitimate. What I meant, if we assume prices were 'balanced' by good competition (and we can agree that competition routinely fails to operate properly) then there would be some level of piracy, lets assume 'x'. This is the natural level as it were. People who want, but whose need dont warrant and are stealing for the hell of it.

You're missing a point that's been made a few times - you don't help the competition by simply pirating the market leader. The *only* thing you help by that is the market leader, so you can't whine about lack of competition when that happens.

However, it is fact that Microsoft inflates the price because a) they can b) it is more profitable for them. You can't really blame Microsoft for that. Piracy rises to level x + y where y is the otherwise legitimate transactions (people who would gain from the product at it's actual value, vs. its inflated price). So my contestation was simply that rather than seeing all of piracy as 'x', we should see some of it as price sensitive, in fact some of it even due to Microsoft inflating their prices. Pretend the average cost to Microsoft for one copy of windows is £15. Imagine a school has 10 pc's, and the school / society would gain the equivalent 'value' (from students increase competence with windows, perhaps) of £300 by upgrading all it's PCs to Windows.

Define "inflates" please. They charge what the market will bear, it's how most companies work. The retail price of a product isn't necessarly the cost of the materials and a fixed markup - the amarket will bear different prices in different regions. Put yourself in the shoes of a Microsoft shareholder - how would you feel if you went to them and they said "public perception of us is bad, so we're dropping the cost of one of our flagship products to potentially sell more and potentially reduce piracy, but it's going to cause us to take a kicking to our profits. As such, your payout this year may be smaller or there may even be none". Would you be happy? Or would you be most annoyed because they'd deliberately taken an action to reduce the value of your investment?

However, Microsoft charges £60 per licence. So we have an issue whereby even though Microsoft and the school would very much benefit from a transaction with a price above Microsoft's costs (£15) and the school's willingness to pay (£30), that transaction does not occur. Then the argument can be made, that if the school chooses to pirate, then society still gains that £300 value that had the markets operated efficiently would have been created anyway. Thus, it is a legitimate need that *should* be met, but isn't because of market failure (i.e. monopoly).

...Actually based on your example the licensing for Windows Vista Business with Software Assurance comes in at around £86 based on your numbers (according to the Microsoft Licensing Advisor), but what do you think the odds are that the PCs came with the Vista license? Or did the vendor sell them for £15 too?

[DeludedGuy]

So... because you figured you could probably get away with it that made it ok?

You can continue to bash me all you want, I don’t mind, but the reason I initially posted in this thread was to state that the cost, more than anything was the reason I pirated, and I am sure there are thousands like me, if not millions.

I know of other people who also have pirated copies of Windows XP and other bits of software, it simply comes down to cost, if MS priced their software cheaper, than I am almost certain most of the people I know would pay, as its not worth the hassle in the long run.

I am not justifying it any way, I haven’t come out and said what I’m doing is right, I am simply saying why me and other people have done it - cost!

Now I'm sure your probably wondering what I think a fair price of Windows Vista Ultimate is - £35. Now, you are probably thinking, "hey, that’s what you pay for a game", but I don’t pay £35 for a game, I wait until the price comes down.

Maybe if my finances were as good as some peoples none of this would be a problem.

[Splash]

Maybe if my finances were as good as some peoples none of this would be a problem.

So.... do without? It's what I do when I can't afford something.

[shaithis]

Define "inflates" please. They charge what the market will bear, it's how most companies work. The retail price of a product isn't necessarly the cost of the materials and a fixed markup - the amarket will bear different prices in different regions. Put yourself in the shoes of a Microsoft shareholder - how would you feel if you went to them and they said "public perception of us is bad, so we're dropping the cost of one of our flagship products to potentially sell more and potentially reduce piracy, but it's going to cause us to take a kicking to our profits. As such, your payout this year may be smaller or there may even be none". Would you be happy? Or would you be most annoyed because they'd deliberately taken an action to reduce the value of your investment?

I think most people understand this but when you have a product that can be duplicated easily and sent over the internet, then you need to weigh up the pros and cons of profit v piracy.

Microsoft have decided to keep the cost as high as possible, therefore they should expect piracy....and I am sure they do.

I had XP bought for me, I bought Vista myself. I broke the EULAs by upgrading my motherboard with an OEM license (3 times with Vista so far), which essentially makes me a pirate, even though I bought the software.

If retail licences were under £100 for Ultimate and OEM for £30, I would buy retail and feel that my money was well spent.....but paying £100 for OEM with its silly restrictions has really annoyed me to the point where I will go out of my way to give Microsoft as little as possible. When a company has the dominance that Microsoft has, yet think of no one but their share holders when setting prices, they deserve to lose money IMO. The whole "lets make Vista a bit more usable and then flog it again without offering Vista users a free upgrade/service pack" has pushed me over the edge as well.

If I buy anything again, it will be me and a number of freinds chipping in to buy a technet sub and sharing the keys out. If they want to try and maximise profits at all costs, I will try and minimise my expenses and at all costs....I think that's fair.

[Splash]

I think most people understand this but when you have a product that can be duplicated easily and sent over the internet, then you need to weigh up the pros and cons of profit v piracy.

So because it can be easily copied it's ok?

Microsoft have decided to keep the cost as high as possible, therefore they should expect piracy....and I am sure they do.

Again, I'm pretty certain that they set the prices to maximise profits, as any succesful business will do. I'm pretty sure that they factor the cost of the pirated copies in there somewhere, so there's a pretty strong chance that people who buy the software are to a certain extent subsidising those that pirate it. Ever thought that in pirating Windows you're actually serving top force the price up, whereas if you used a competing product you'd have a good chance of helping bring the price down?

I had XP bought for me, I bought Vista myself. I broke the EULAs by upgrading my motherboard with an OEM license (3 times with Vista so far), which essentially makes me a pirate, even though I bought the software.

So you admit that you should have bought a retail license but chose to buy the cheaper option and then break the terms of the license. How much did those 3 motherboards cost?

If retail licences were under £100 for Ultimate and OEM for £30, I would buy retail and feel that my money was well spent.....but paying £100 for OEM with its silly restrictions has really annoyed me to the point where I will go out of my way to give Microsoft as little as possible.

See above - how much did those 3 motherboards and other associated goodies come to, when the single retail license would have covered the use legitimately?

When a company has the dominance that Microsoft has, yet think of no one but their share holders when setting prices, they deserve to lose money IMO.

When a company has the dominance that Microsoft has who do you think they'll be thinking of when setting the prices? And as I've pointed out, if you want to reduce their dominance by pirating their product then you're going about it the complete wrong way.

The whole "lets make Vista a bit more usable and then flog it again without offering Vista users a free upgrade/service pack" has pushed me over the edge as well.

Just like they did with that Windows XP, right? After all, it was obviously just a servicepack.

If I buy anything again, it will be me and a number of freinds chipping in to buy a technet sub and sharing the keys out. If they want to try and maximise profits at all costs, I will try and minimise my expenses and at all costs....I think that's fair.

Your call at the end of the day, but it doesn't make you right.

[aidanjt]

Again, I'm pretty certain that they set the prices to maximise profits, as any succesful business will do. I'm pretty sure that they factor the cost of the pirated copies in there somewhere, so there's a pretty strong chance that people who buy the software are to a certain extent subsidising those that pirate it. Ever thought that in pirating Windows you're actually serving top force the price up, whereas if you used a competing product you'd have a good chance of helping bring the price down?

Chicken or the egg springs to mind.