3 ms·

I personally think its a chicken and egg problem. I've been on both sides of this... A small team of us took over a company that was failing a while back, we

I personally think its a chicken and egg problem. I've been on both sides of this... A small team of us took over a company that was failing a while back, we spent enormous amounts of time using 'warez'd software to get things rolling. We always had on our road map - "get legal - software compliance"... Guess what, we did. One year in, profits were up and we made the purchases to get everything legit. I think you could rest easier if you asked to have it put on the road map, and worked towards getting it paid off as a goal. ALSO - when its on the road map, you start questioning if everyone really needs the software. At one point, all the Customer Support Reps had Microsoft Office. The reality is they didn't need it. We offered up openoffice if they really needed to create doc files but didn't support it (typically they would use software for "personal" things on the job) ... Disclaimer: Company is 3rd to 5th largest in niche, 20m a year revenues, 100+ employees.

kls 16y ago
Yep, that is kind of the untold story in the polarized positions on the subject. There are a lot of large volume purchases who would not exist today had they not relied on pirated software early on. It would be nice if there was a program by the major software vendors that a small company just starting out could get a 2yr grace period on licensing and then pay a small overage when the time was up. The reality for most of the small shops 2 years is going to weed out the ones that could not survive and most that do could cover the cost of licensing by then. I was with a company that did the same and went on to become a very large Adobe product purchaser. Adobe made millions of the fact that this company pirated software to get off the ground. We also had an agreement that we make it right ASAP. I agree that when that is in the charter people become more aware of the tradeoffs because when it comes time to make it right they want that number to be as small as possible. Personally I am torn on the subject, small start-up are using the money to put it into developers pockets and pay the bills, in doing so they can grow to revenues that allow them to purchase the licences. Usually more seats than they would have got up front because the company has now grown. So in the end the software companies are getting revenue that would not have existed in the first place had they not relied on pirated software. On the other hand there are some shops that never plan to make it right and that is just not cool. As with everything in life when you peel back the onion it's never black and white. For me personally, if they had plans to make it right when revenue supports it then I would be cool with it. As well, as a software vendor, I would be cool with a company doing this (I would never put it in writing). If they become profitable everyone wins, if they don't well then the software vendor would have never seen that revenue anyways.
- tzs 16y ago
  > There are a lot of large volume purchases who would not exist today had they not relied on pirated software early on. Or they would have made do with less expensive alternatives--Pixelmator on Mac instead of Photoshop on Mac, say. And with enough companies buying those cheaper alternatives, there would have been enough competition in these areas for a wide range of, say, Photoshop alternatives to develop. This is an often overlooked consequence of piracy. Yes, someone who just can't afford a $1000 package is not a lost sale for that package. But there probably IS some price point they could afford, and their piracy does represent a lost sale to whoever would have provided that less expensive alternative.
  - kls 16y ago
    If they where never viewed as an alternative, (whether legitimately or not). Then it does not represent a lost sale. That is the problem with the lost sale doctrine, it supposes someones mind and intentions without any relevance to their perceptions. If the company or persons never saw the alternative as a legitimate choice then it was not a lost sale for the alternative vendor. While Pixelmator is a great tool, and I recommend it all the time as the best alternative to PS, it has not always existed. I think it hit the market around 07, meanwhile Photoshop was 82. There was a pretty long spread of pay or pirate between those dates because before Pixelmator there was no realistic alternative to Photoshop. As well there are still people that do not see it as an alternative. I want to be really clear on this though, I do not in any way condone piracy, I do not think it is justified. I was merely pointing out that some software piracy does lead to revenue for the Software vendor. And in some cases it is revenue that they would not have seen without the piracy and sometimes more than what they would have seen had the company paid for licenses up front.
- chollida1 16y ago
  > t would be nice if there was a program by the major software vendors that a small company just starting out could get a 2yr grace period on licensing and then pay a small overage when the time was up. As has been mentioned numerous times on this page. Microsoft has such a program. It's called http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/

kls 16y ago

Yep, that is kind of the untold story in the polarized positions on the subject. There are a lot of large volume purchases who would not exist today had they not relied on pirated software early on. It would be nice if there was a program by the major software vendors that a small company just starting out could get a 2yr grace period on licensing and then pay a small overage when the time was up. The reality for most of the small shops 2 years is going to weed out the ones that could not survive and most that do could cover the cost of licensing by then. I was with a company that did the same and went on to become a very large Adobe product purchaser. Adobe made millions of the fact that this company pirated software to get off the ground. We also had an agreement that we make it right ASAP. I agree that when that is in the charter people become more aware of the tradeoffs because when it comes time to make it right they want that number to be as small as possible. Personally I am torn on the subject, small start-up are using the money to put it into developers pockets and pay the bills, in doing so they can grow to revenues that allow them to purchase the licences. Usually more seats than they would have got up front because the company has now grown. So in the end the software companies are getting revenue that would not have existed in the first place had they not relied on pirated software. On the other hand there are some shops that never plan to make it right and that is just not cool. As with everything in life when you peel back the onion it's never black and white. For me personally, if they had plans to make it right when revenue supports it then I would be cool with it. As well, as a software vendor, I would be cool with a company doing this (I would never put it in writing). If they become profitable everyone wins, if they don't well then the software vendor would have never seen that revenue anyways.

tzs 16y ago
> There are a lot of large volume purchases who would not exist today had they not relied on pirated software early on. Or they would have made do with less expensive alternatives--Pixelmator on Mac instead of Photoshop on Mac, say. And with enough companies buying those cheaper alternatives, there would have been enough competition in these areas for a wide range of, say, Photoshop alternatives to develop. This is an often overlooked consequence of piracy. Yes, someone who just can't afford a $1000 package is not a lost sale for that package. But there probably IS some price point they could afford, and their piracy does represent a lost sale to whoever would have provided that less expensive alternative.
- kls 16y ago
  If they where never viewed as an alternative, (whether legitimately or not). Then it does not represent a lost sale. That is the problem with the lost sale doctrine, it supposes someones mind and intentions without any relevance to their perceptions. If the company or persons never saw the alternative as a legitimate choice then it was not a lost sale for the alternative vendor. While Pixelmator is a great tool, and I recommend it all the time as the best alternative to PS, it has not always existed. I think it hit the market around 07, meanwhile Photoshop was 82. There was a pretty long spread of pay or pirate between those dates because before Pixelmator there was no realistic alternative to Photoshop. As well there are still people that do not see it as an alternative. I want to be really clear on this though, I do not in any way condone piracy, I do not think it is justified. I was merely pointing out that some software piracy does lead to revenue for the Software vendor. And in some cases it is revenue that they would not have seen without the piracy and sometimes more than what they would have seen had the company paid for licenses up front.
chollida1 16y ago
> t would be nice if there was a program by the major software vendors that a small company just starting out could get a 2yr grace period on licensing and then pay a small overage when the time was up. As has been mentioned numerous times on this page. Microsoft has such a program. It's called http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/