Windows 7 / Software Piracy thread split

[scaryjim]

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

Yes. Well, no - I don't want to have that discussion here, because it's not particularly relevant, but my opinion is that capitalism is bad and doesn't work. I believe I'm entitled to hold that opinion, and I believe a lot of people agree with me, so I don't see why it's a problem that requires you to mock me in a public forum...?

Your logic is baffling me

You claim that chasing profit incentivises good product design and execution. It's reasonable to assume that *all* businesses want to make as much profit as possible, so by your logic either companies would never release sub-standard products; or companies that do are not interested in making a profit. Since the market is littered with appalling products, something doesn't tally.

If you think that's the case then you don't understand business.

No, I understand business perfectly well. I just don't agree with most of its principles. Again, that's an opinion I believe I am entitled to hold. There are other ways to approach business, maintain profitability and ensure product quality. But, apparently, most people are too greedy to even consider them.

[Splash]

Yes. Well, no - I don't want to have that discussion here, because it's not particularly relevant, but my opinion is that capitalism is bad and doesn't work. I believe I'm entitled to hold that opinion, and I believe a lot of people agree with me, so I don't see why it's a problem that requires you to mock me in a public forum...?

Apologies, it wasn't intended to mock, rather to point out that Microsoft are a publicly owned business operating in a capitalist market and as such they succeed or fail based on the laws and logic of such a marketplace. Reducing price if they don't believe it will increase profits would make them less succesful by the way they are measured. Disagree all you like, but your (and others too) points here seem to imply that because Microsoft make loads of money it's ok to pirate their product. This plainly isn't true.

You claim that chasing profit incentivises good product design and execution. It's reasonable to assume that *all* businesses want to make as much profit as possible, so by your logic either companies would never release sub-standard products; or companies that do are not interested in making a profit. Since the market is littered with appalling products, something doesn't tally.

But the companies that don't maximise their profits are doomed to fail, it's kinda survival of the fittest.

No, I understand business perfectly well. I just don't agree with most of its principles. Again, that's an opinion I believe I am entitled to hold. There are other ways to approach business, maintain profitability and ensure product quality. But, apparently, most people are too greedy to even consider them.

You're entitled to whatever opinion you like, as is everyone here. Sadly greed is a core part of human nature, possibly why some people think it's ok to hold onto their cash and just take other people's stuff - isn't that just another form of greed?

[scaryjim]

Apologies, it wasn't intended to mock

Apology accepted

your ... points here seem to imply that because Microsoft make loads of money it's ok to pirate their product. This plainly isn't true.

I was actually making the point that *other people* think that. I personally don't, but it is used as a justification by a lot of people. As with most points of view, the fact that it's wrong doesn't stop people from holding it!

But the companies that don't maximise their profits are doomed to fail, it's kinda survival of the fittest.

True, but they can maximise their profits by producing cheap rubbish, as well as producing expensive quality products. So profit alone is *not* the motivation to produce good quality products.

Sadly greed is a core part of human nature, possibly why some people think it's ok to hold onto their cash and just take other people's stuff - isn't that just another form of greed?

Very much so - greed / profit is a primary motivation for piracy. People buy dodgy DVDs off a market stall because they're £2 less than the real thing in Tesco. Sad, really...

[kalniel]

While we're on Piracy, interesting to see the BBC article on Digital Britain talking about some of the theories. Apparently US criminologists Sameer Hinduja and Jason Ingram came up with the neutralisation theory (why people pirate even though they know it's wrong):

- Denial of responsibility: factors apparently beyond individual's control come into play eg: urgent need for software
- Denial of injury or victim: no one suffers from one's actions
- Condemning the condemners: assuming those against a behaviour engage in their own kinds of unauthorised activities, or somehow deserve any damage they sustain eg: loss of earnings
- Appeal to higher loyalties: such as obtaining unauthorised material to help family member

[scaryjim]

They all sound very plausible to me - I'm pretty sure I've heard each of those excuses at some point. Combine any two of those and it's easy to see how people can convince themselves their actions are justified...

[peterb]

<----snip

True, but they can maximise their profits by producing cheap rubbish, as well as producing expensive quality products. So profit alone is *not* the motivation to produce good quality products

That is true, but while a publicly owned company has a legal obligation to its shareholders, it needs its customers tto generate those profits, so if it sell rubbish for a long time, those sales will fall. While Vista may not have been rubbish, it was perceived (initially at least) as being a poor product and sales fell - and for something like Vista, there is a certain number of sales required to cover both the development costs and the cost of ongoing support.

However that breaks down (to some extent) where a company has a monopoly or near monopoly in the market place, or engages in dubious commercial practices to maintain its position.

It was rumoured that MS used unpublished APIs to maximise the performance of Word (in the 1990s) and changed others to damage the performance of the then market leader, Word Perfect. Similar issues have been raised about the bundling of IE to damage the market position of Netscape (remember them), and that is where regulation is required. It is unfortunate (IMHO) that MS do have a near monopoly, although a counter argument can be made that at least that ensures some standardisation - it isn't a perfect argument, but one can be made along those lines.

<----Very much so - greed / profit is a primary motivation for piracy. People buy dodgy DVDs off a market stall because they're £2 less than the real thing in Tesco. Sad, really...

People generally like to think they have got a bargain, and I'm sure many of those buying counterfeit DVD's delude themselves that they are genuine. There is also a perception that big corporations somehow deserve to be ripped off - Microsoft is (i would think) not generally popular among sections of the community, the film and music business is another. That is partly because of the monopolistic (or near monopolistic) position they appaer to be in. Governments acting (or perceived to be acting) in a regulatory manner to protect that position (such as DRM) rather than the interests of consumers do nothing to counter that; however intellectual property is something that does need to be protected. Copying a piece of software that someone has produced is no less theft than photocopying a book that someone has written. It is just that the costs of photocopying a book probable exceed the purchase price, whereas downloading software is seen to be a low cost activity, coupled with the perception that the internet is (or should be) a free runbounded esource - which is also erroneous.