13 ms·

Used to pirate a lot as a poor kid in eastern europe, as there was no way I could either afford it, find a legal copy or both. Now as a paid developer I always

• antisthenes 5y ago
  > They might own multiple cars and expensive real estate, but still pirate their windows as a matter of principle. Not paying for recent version of Windows seems like a poor example, because not paying for spyware is a pretty good principle.
  • dandelany 5y ago
    The principled thing to do about software you consider spyware is to not use it. Not paying for a paid product you use daily and continuously derive value from is hard to justify in my view.
    • jhasse 5y ago
      You're forced to use Windows due to multiple reasons.
      • ifdefdebug 5y ago
        You're forced to drink water for much stronger reasons yet you pay for it if you don't dig up your own.
        • DrSiemer 5y ago
          Digging up and purifying your own water source is a bit more effort than installing a widely available and well documented crack
          • fenomas 5y ago
            What does that have to do with anything? I mean, it takes no effort at all to copy/paste AGPL code into a proprietary project. But you're still not supposed to do it, right?
        • 8note 5y ago
          you can get a free glass of water from bars and the like
          • DocTomoe 5y ago
            ... in the US. In most of the world, water in restaurants costs money.
            • nix23 5y ago
              In most country's the water is free in restaurant too, you pay for the drinking glass.
        • nix23 5y ago
          I most country's water is free, you pay for the infrastructure that brings it into your household and cleans it.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • imtringued 5y ago
        I'm not forced to use Windows at home and I don't have to pay for it at work.
    • Bancakes 5y ago
      I'd rather donate to w10privacy, ameliorated, and such windows fixing scripts.
    • pydry 5y ago
      I dont use windows but I've still paid for multiple licenses unwillingly because it always comes preinstalled on every laptop. This is Microsofts doing. As far as Im concerned this makes pirating windows totally ethical.
    • antisthenes 5y ago
      I did pay for a version of Windows that does not contain spyware, so I am consistent with my principles. Speaking of principles, which principle is responsible for taking a working, perfectly stable OS and releasing "updates" for it that introduce spyware? I just want to make sure we're holding companies accountable to the same degree we're holding individuals.
  • adar 5y ago
    Using something you consider "spyware", even without paying for it, sounds like just as much of a self-own.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• unishark 5y ago
  I see this same issue with books Particularly with international students (who are ironically paying the most in tuition and housing oftentimes). Though I go out of my way to find cheaper textbooks sometimes, or accommodate older editions that can be bought dirt-cheap used, students will still just find a scanned version somewhere and share them with each other. There's online networks where they do this apparently.
  • powersnail 5y ago
    Well, to be honest, university textbooks (at least in US) is in general a predatory market. There are courses that require $800 worth of textbook. > who are ironically paying the most in tuition and housing oftentimes It's not ironic. They have no choice (other than not attending the university of course). If there is a loophole that lets students not pay the tuition fee without any punishment, a good amount of students would not pay.
    • unishark 5y ago
      Diamonds are sometimes absurdly expensive with no valid reason. Do you believe this justifies robbing diamond stores?
      • DocTomoe 5y ago
        I think it is ethically ok to rob diamond stores if somehow you are forced to possess diamonds and diamonds are only available through a prohibitively expensive and exploitative market. Like textbooks written by the professors actually holding the lecture that change tiny bits every semester, especially in information relevant to coursework, to make used textbooks essentially worthless.
        • unishark 5y ago
          No we don't do that. One of the most popular questions the first day of class is whether a prior edition of the textbook will suffice. It is very commonly accepted, especially if changes are minor. Authors offer big sweeping improvements to attract buyers. Used textbooks are a robust business. And the simple fact is you are not forced to possess textbooks nor attend the university, no matter how beneficial it may be to do so. This is how people rationalize all forms of crime.
• csomar 5y ago
  Doesn't that approve of the thesis of OP. People who are not going to pay for a license, are not going to pay for it. No matter what. It makes more sense to have light license keys.
  • michaelt 5y ago
    They are in agreement about the fact poor people will never pay no matter what. They disagree about whether 99% of people who can afford the game (i.e. successful adults) will pay.
• dijit 5y ago
  My ex-girlfriend (Estonian) will not buy software because to her it's not "worth money". So, similar mentality. I ended up buying all her software (Office, photoshop etc;) but she said it was a waste of money.
  • fho 5y ago
    Well ... depending on the usecase it _is_ a waste of money. Libreoffice, Gimp and Inkscape are perfectly viable alternatives to MS and Adobe products if you are a casual user. That said, I don't believe anybody who has used the 'real' office/photoshop/etc is easily able to go back to a 'lesser' alternative, but that's mostly due to sunken cost and lock in ... but, I don't think a casual user will make good use of the better features in the better software.
    • dijit 5y ago
      I think those are good arguments for allowing teenagers to pirate software. If you learn how to use photoshop then you’re unlikely to relearn GIMP. And companies are less likely to pirate software. (Though I have heard of some small ones that do)
      • La1n 5y ago
        >If you learn how to use photoshop then you’re unlikely to relearn GIMP. We currently see something related to this in the Pharmaceutical industry. There are a lot of statisticians/programmers that learn R or python in university, while most large-pharma companies are using SAS. There is a movement within the industry to pivot or try to pivot to R due to the scarcity of SAS programmers or/and the cost of teaching new employees a new programming language. If SAS would have more accessible trainings/certifications I am sure R would never even be considered.
  • La1n 5y ago
    >Estonian I think an issue here is that in lower-income countries software without regional pricing is considerably more of an expense. Something like Office or Photoshop is also quite different than a videogame imho, those are skills that are valuable (or often expected) on the labour market.
• wink 5y ago
  I think it's unfair to lump windows into the mix, because the monopoly still is very real and for certain circumstances (like, wanting to play certain games) there's no way around it. This is not a pro or contra buying or pirating argument, and I actually know lots of people who will happily pay for software that is not windows.
  • robertlagrant 5y ago
    I don't think Windows changes anything. Wanting to play games it not a moral imperative.
• throwawayzq 5y ago
  As a poor kid in eastern europe i couldn't afford a car. I would steal one as people would have it covered by insurance and the factory makes thousands of copies each month anyway. I know a lot of people who still have such sensitivities, they have money and houses and still steal cars just because that's how the grew up. See, that logic of theft, be it software or hardware, doesn't really make sense. Stealing software is just as bad.
  • carlhjerpe 5y ago
    Except that when you copy something you don't steal an existing copy. If the person were not going to buy something because they couldn't afford it, they're not a lost sale. This means there's no monetary loss for the company selling the software, it might even be beneificial as free marketing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
    • throwawayzq 5y ago
      Sure. Worth mentioning cars are also insured, so there is no loss for the owner as they get a "refund". That means there is monetary loss for them. The car maker is also happy to sell them a new car. The only people losing are those in between. Just like with software. You know, those people also work for money.
      • carlhjerpe 5y ago
        I disagree with your way of looking at this, There's monetary loss from the insurance company because someone has to pay someone to make that one specific car that you want to steal, while the software is already written and distribution is free. In the case of software, nobody pays. Hardware, someone always has to pay.
      • imtringued 5y ago
        >Sure. Worth mentioning cars are also insured, so there is no loss for the owner as they get a "refund". The owner of the copyright infringed car would just download his copy of the car again from the manufacturer. Why would insurance be involved?
• fogihujy 5y ago
  In Finland (and probably elsewhere as well), people have the right to make physical copies of copyrighted works, for private use, and private use extends as far as giving copies to family and close friends. That means we copied a _lot_ of tapes in the 80's. Legally. That mentality simply carried over when the IT boom hit and back then it didn't occur to anyone that copying was a bad thing.