6 ms·

"You're stealing from people who count on your honesty to make a living."

90 points by makimaki 18y ago

ardell 18y ago
Great strategy, just be honest with your "customers"... "Hey, we built this awesome piece of software that will help you do [x]. We love building software for our customers. Help us continue building great software by paying $[y]."
thomasmallen 18y ago
And it's only $20...I can understand why people steal Microsoft Office and the Adobe Suite, but I can't understand the incentive in stealing something like Transmit or TextMate. It seems that some people can't accept that some software costs money. And while we're on the topic of small Mac software shops, can we safely call ShapeShifter abandonware yet?
- tdavis 18y ago
  I don't think it has anything to do with accepting software costs money. When I was younger and had basically no money, I would pirate software that I needed to improve a skill or something along those lines. Once I got older and started having disposable income, I started buying software. Hell, I even legitimately own Adobe CS3 Web Premium. Nowadays, if I use a piece of donationware that provided a useful service, I donate. I donate to Open Source projects which have been particularly useful to me. The oddity here is, I'm far from fiscally well-off; I have about $3,500 to my name. So, it seems to me at least, that these things become habit. There were times I used to pirate software (or anything, really) just because I didn't feel like paying for it. Once I became accustomed to paying for software, I kept paying and even started donating. Now, I don't have a single piece of pirated software on my computer. Although, I do have some paid-for software which I no longer use. For instance, I have a license for SteerMouse (http://plentycom.jp/en/steermouse/ http://plentycom.jp/en/steermouse/) which I no longer use, but am also barred from transferring it (I was going to give it away just now) per the license agreement. This is just silly. The less restrictive a piece of licensed software is, the more likely I am to buy it.
  - gaius 18y ago
    Companies could definitely be smarter about non-commercial licenses.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
- Tichy 18y ago
  Not to defend piracy, but if you shell out 20$ for every small desktop enhancement application, it adds up very quickly.
  - tom_rath 18y ago
    How much did the otherwise empty computer and operating system cost? Value doesn't materialize out of good thoughts. Actual work has to go into it.
    - Tichy 18y ago
      I am not saying that it wasn't work to create those programs. But the fact is, there are plenty of free alternatives for most software. That is just the way it is. Putting work into something doesn't make you entitled to get paid. If nobody else feels like buying your stuff, you are out of luck. Personally I am using Linux with 0 commercial software installed. I do pay for the occasional computer game, though. Btw, it is not only "being cheap" that makes me stick to open source software, it has other benefits, too. For example OS software can be bundled with Linux and in many cases be installed via the package manager. Also, I get the "security verification" I don't get for commercial software (I know it is not a guarantee, but it is better than nothing). Also, I know that I will be able to use the software everywhere. I don't have to buy a new copy if I buy a new computer, or find myself at a computer somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Also, put it into perspective: Windows allegedly is more complex than the Space Shuttle, yet sells for 130$ or so (don't know exact prices). In comparison to that, 20$ for a text editor is a lot of money. I know 20$ is not much (like 2 visits to the cinema or 3 coffees at Starbucks), but I think one can't help thinking like that when deciding to shell out money for software.
      - tom_rath 18y ago
        Then why not use the free option rather than pirate? If someone prefers the commercial version, they should be willing to pay for that added value.
        18y ago
sh1mmer 18y ago
This is great. I think "shameware" is much more compelling than DRMware. If you remind people that they are costing a small developer business and then let them pirate anyway then you are going to catch the people who might pay. The people who are going to pirate will do it whatever. Also USB Overdrive is a great product. So I'm glad to see them trying something to keep their business viable.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  They won't pay due to shame. Not at all. People steal music from indie artists just as readily as they do Madonna. They're not out to get someone by stealing from them, they just want stuff for free. They rationalize it largely as they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    That's stealing more (in terms of dollars) from the labels than it is from the artists/talent. Personally, I would pay for more music if the artists saw more than 5% of the proceeds. If you really want to support an artist: go to the concerts, donate directly or tell your friends about them.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      I doubt most people know that though. People are unaware of the economics of the recording industry and don't really care much. It's the same with software.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Well, we can try to help them :). http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
    - lux 18y ago
      Indie artists listed on iTunes (for example) make more than 60% on each song/album sale. It's way higher since there are no middle men involved. And it's easy to get listed through services like cdbaby.com. So "stealing" music from indies does hurt more in those terms. But even with being a musician, I lean on the side of piracy myself because it's a virtual loss not an actual one, and it's natural for people to want to share the music and things they appreciate. Any long-term successful solution will have to account for and will likely encourage that. Copyright is becoming less and less relevant, and artists (including software developers) will continue to forge an existence in a post-copyright world too. Funny story, I was playing a show the other day and some kids came up after to tell me they liked the show. One of them bought a CD and the others said they'd "totally buy one" but had no cash. So I told the first kid to just rip it for his friends, and the look on their faces was priceless. They were like "wow, awesome!" but you know he was probably going to do it anyway so why not acknowledge it? :)
illumen 18y ago
To hackers: please don't look through our code for GPL violations, because surely you'll find some. Hopefully no one finds all the code I copy/pasted from, or the documentation I learnt from. To hackers: I used GPL software to compile this program, but I won't give you the same pleasure... you are not free to use my programs.
- tb 18y ago
  Compilers licensed under the GPL do not transfer their license to their output. This is explicitly stated in the GPL.
  - illumen 18y ago
    That is almost true1, but completely misses the point. They are using tools(gcc) by people who count on their honesty to give people the same freedom they are given. Get a better business model. Software copying has been happening since the beginning(since before people were charging for software)... learn from history. People who still complain about copying software are very silly, they haven't learnt from over 50 years of history. 1 not a lawyer, however -- with certain compiler switches you can include GPL software with gcc. For example if you link in GPL covered object code.
    - patio11 18y ago
      The GPL: because what use is freedom if you can't control what people do with it.
      - Herring 18y ago
        what use is a gimp if you can't lock her away in your basement?
- delackner 18y ago
  "or the documentation I learnt from..." Because of course, whoever teaches you owns all the ideas you build thereafter.
axod 18y ago
I think websites should start popping up a similar message when adblock is detected. I realise this is an unpopular view around these parts, but it's a bit of a "jerk" thing to do.
- Herring 18y ago
  The irony here is you're supporting click fraud. What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile? But you're perfectly happy to take money for worthless views & that sounds a lot more like actual stealing.
  - axod 18y ago
    I'm in no way supporting click fraud. I don't care if you view adverts and decide not to click on them. I do care if you aren't even prepared to entertain the notion that at some point you might find an advert intriguing enough to click on it. How is the relevancy/usefulness of adverts going to increase if you're not prepared to listen? It's fine to be hostile to websites that use horrible techniques - flash, popups, etc etc many of the news sites seem to do it now - "Here's an advert while the article 'loads'"... But I think the non-jerk thing to do is to give websites at least a chance. IF they abuse your trust, and advertise intrusively in your face, it's probably best to just not go to that website any more. By installing a blanket earplug mentality, you're refusing to trust any website to treat you properly. Which IMHO is pretty antisocial. >> "What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile?" Do people using adblock never buy anything? Do they never find information useful or interesting? Are they really immune to all forms of useful communication? Never read a product review and then decided to purchase? I'm skeptical. </rant>
    - Herring 18y ago
      It probably depends on the person, but it's clear worthless views are rather overrepresented. Look through the adblock reviews on addons.mozilla.org. When I'm choosing a new graphics card, I ask around forums instead of looking at ads. Antisocial or not, you'd be wasting your advertiser's budget by trying to target me.
greyman 18y ago
I don't endorse pirating software and I don't use one myself, but I never agreed with the notion that using pirated software is stealing money. Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it would be not be possible to use it without buying. Maybe a few would, but this amount is compensated by the marketing value the pirating provides. To sum it up, the company would not make more money if pirating would not be possible. Again, I am against pirating, but don't agree fully with the text in that popup dialog.
- gaius 18y ago
  Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it That is a fallacy. If it were not of some value to them, why would they even want it? It's more a case that they simply feel entitled to it.
  - Herring 18y ago
    Have you ever walked through a department store? Try it sometime & see if you pay for everything you'd take for free.
    - lbrandy 18y ago
      Ok I'll bite. By the very fact that you'd take it, it means it has some value to you. Of course you are going to take something for free that you believe has non-zero value. If you are taking something for free that has value to you, you are profiting. How is that not stealing?
      - decode 18y ago
        If the definition of stealing is "taking something for free that has value to you", then I steal with every breath. If copying is the same is taking, then telling a story is the same as burning a book.
      - Herring 18y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality Thinking of it in terms of morals is rather unproductive. It's just one of the ways markets fail.
jmtame 18y ago
Ouch. I would not feel interested in writing a keygen for that app.
petercooper 18y ago
You could only improve on this by having a picture of the developer with his kid or something :) Shame is a good motivator in this case. Shame works as a motivator for people who probably could pay, but aren't (or just want to "test" the software). Shame does not work as a motivator for criminals or heartless freeloaders, and they'd never pay anyway.

90 points by makimaki 18y ago

Great strategy, just be honest with your "customers"... "Hey, we built this awesome piece of software that will help you do [x]. We love building software for our customers. Help us continue building great software by paying $[y]."

thomasmallen 18y ago

And it's only $20...I can understand why people steal Microsoft Office and the Adobe Suite, but I can't understand the incentive in stealing something like Transmit or TextMate. It seems that some people can't accept that some software costs money. And while we're on the topic of small Mac software shops, can we safely call ShapeShifter abandonware yet?

tdavis 18y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with accepting software costs money. When I was younger and had basically no money, I would pirate software that I needed to improve a skill or something along those lines. Once I got older and started having disposable income, I started buying software. Hell, I even legitimately own Adobe CS3 Web Premium. Nowadays, if I use a piece of donationware that provided a useful service, I donate. I donate to Open Source projects which have been particularly useful to me. The oddity here is, I'm far from fiscally well-off; I have about $3,500 to my name. So, it seems to me at least, that these things become habit. There were times I used to pirate software (or anything, really) just because I didn't feel like paying for it. Once I became accustomed to paying for software, I kept paying and even started donating. Now, I don't have a single piece of pirated software on my computer. Although, I do have some paid-for software which I no longer use. For instance, I have a license for SteerMouse (http://plentycom.jp/en/steermouse/ http://plentycom.jp/en/steermouse/) which I no longer use, but am also barred from transferring it (I was going to give it away just now) per the license agreement. This is just silly. The less restrictive a piece of licensed software is, the more likely I am to buy it.
- gaius 18y ago
  Companies could definitely be smarter about non-commercial licenses.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
Tichy 18y ago
Not to defend piracy, but if you shell out 20$ for every small desktop enhancement application, it adds up very quickly.
- tom_rath 18y ago
  How much did the otherwise empty computer and operating system cost? Value doesn't materialize out of good thoughts. Actual work has to go into it.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    I am not saying that it wasn't work to create those programs. But the fact is, there are plenty of free alternatives for most software. That is just the way it is. Putting work into something doesn't make you entitled to get paid. If nobody else feels like buying your stuff, you are out of luck. Personally I am using Linux with 0 commercial software installed. I do pay for the occasional computer game, though. Btw, it is not only "being cheap" that makes me stick to open source software, it has other benefits, too. For example OS software can be bundled with Linux and in many cases be installed via the package manager. Also, I get the "security verification" I don't get for commercial software (I know it is not a guarantee, but it is better than nothing). Also, I know that I will be able to use the software everywhere. I don't have to buy a new copy if I buy a new computer, or find myself at a computer somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Also, put it into perspective: Windows allegedly is more complex than the Space Shuttle, yet sells for 130$ or so (don't know exact prices). In comparison to that, 20$ for a text editor is a lot of money. I know 20$ is not much (like 2 visits to the cinema or 3 coffees at Starbucks), but I think one can't help thinking like that when deciding to shell out money for software.
    - tom_rath 18y ago
      Then why not use the free option rather than pirate? If someone prefers the commercial version, they should be willing to pay for that added value.
      - 18y ago

sh1mmer 18y ago

This is great. I think "shameware" is much more compelling than DRMware. If you remind people that they are costing a small developer business and then let them pirate anyway then you are going to catch the people who might pay. The people who are going to pirate will do it whatever. Also USB Overdrive is a great product. So I'm glad to see them trying something to keep their business viable.

mattmaroon 18y ago
They won't pay due to shame. Not at all. People steal music from indie artists just as readily as they do Madonna. They're not out to get someone by stealing from them, they just want stuff for free. They rationalize it largely as they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  That's stealing more (in terms of dollars) from the labels than it is from the artists/talent. Personally, I would pay for more music if the artists saw more than 5% of the proceeds. If you really want to support an artist: go to the concerts, donate directly or tell your friends about them.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    I doubt most people know that though. People are unaware of the economics of the recording industry and don't really care much. It's the same with software.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Well, we can try to help them :). http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
  - lux 18y ago
    Indie artists listed on iTunes (for example) make more than 60% on each song/album sale. It's way higher since there are no middle men involved. And it's easy to get listed through services like cdbaby.com. So "stealing" music from indies does hurt more in those terms. But even with being a musician, I lean on the side of piracy myself because it's a virtual loss not an actual one, and it's natural for people to want to share the music and things they appreciate. Any long-term successful solution will have to account for and will likely encourage that. Copyright is becoming less and less relevant, and artists (including software developers) will continue to forge an existence in a post-copyright world too. Funny story, I was playing a show the other day and some kids came up after to tell me they liked the show. One of them bought a CD and the others said they'd "totally buy one" but had no cash. So I told the first kid to just rip it for his friends, and the look on their faces was priceless. They were like "wow, awesome!" but you know he was probably going to do it anyway so why not acknowledge it? :)

illumen 18y ago

To hackers: please don't look through our code for GPL violations, because surely you'll find some. Hopefully no one finds all the code I copy/pasted from, or the documentation I learnt from. To hackers: I used GPL software to compile this program, but I won't give you the same pleasure... you are not free to use my programs.

tb 18y ago
Compilers licensed under the GPL do not transfer their license to their output. This is explicitly stated in the GPL.
- illumen 18y ago
  That is almost true1, but completely misses the point. They are using tools(gcc) by people who count on their honesty to give people the same freedom they are given. Get a better business model. Software copying has been happening since the beginning(since before people were charging for software)... learn from history. People who still complain about copying software are very silly, they haven't learnt from over 50 years of history. 1 not a lawyer, however -- with certain compiler switches you can include GPL software with gcc. For example if you link in GPL covered object code.
  - patio11 18y ago
    The GPL: because what use is freedom if you can't control what people do with it.
    - Herring 18y ago
      what use is a gimp if you can't lock her away in your basement?
delackner 18y ago
"or the documentation I learnt from..." Because of course, whoever teaches you owns all the ideas you build thereafter.

axod 18y ago

I think websites should start popping up a similar message when adblock is detected. I realise this is an unpopular view around these parts, but it's a bit of a "jerk" thing to do.

Herring 18y ago
The irony here is you're supporting click fraud. What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile? But you're perfectly happy to take money for worthless views & that sounds a lot more like actual stealing.
- axod 18y ago
  I'm in no way supporting click fraud. I don't care if you view adverts and decide not to click on them. I do care if you aren't even prepared to entertain the notion that at some point you might find an advert intriguing enough to click on it. How is the relevancy/usefulness of adverts going to increase if you're not prepared to listen? It's fine to be hostile to websites that use horrible techniques - flash, popups, etc etc many of the news sites seem to do it now - "Here's an advert while the article 'loads'"... But I think the non-jerk thing to do is to give websites at least a chance. IF they abuse your trust, and advertise intrusively in your face, it's probably best to just not go to that website any more. By installing a blanket earplug mentality, you're refusing to trust any website to treat you properly. Which IMHO is pretty antisocial. >> "What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile?" Do people using adblock never buy anything? Do they never find information useful or interesting? Are they really immune to all forms of useful communication? Never read a product review and then decided to purchase? I'm skeptical. </rant>
  - Herring 18y ago
    It probably depends on the person, but it's clear worthless views are rather overrepresented. Look through the adblock reviews on addons.mozilla.org. When I'm choosing a new graphics card, I ask around forums instead of looking at ads. Antisocial or not, you'd be wasting your advertiser's budget by trying to target me.

greyman 18y ago

I don't endorse pirating software and I don't use one myself, but I never agreed with the notion that using pirated software is stealing money. Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it would be not be possible to use it without buying. Maybe a few would, but this amount is compensated by the marketing value the pirating provides. To sum it up, the company would not make more money if pirating would not be possible. Again, I am against pirating, but don't agree fully with the text in that popup dialog.

gaius 18y ago
Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it That is a fallacy. If it were not of some value to them, why would they even want it? It's more a case that they simply feel entitled to it.
- Herring 18y ago
  Have you ever walked through a department store? Try it sometime & see if you pay for everything you'd take for free.
  - lbrandy 18y ago
    Ok I'll bite. By the very fact that you'd take it, it means it has some value to you. Of course you are going to take something for free that you believe has non-zero value. If you are taking something for free that has value to you, you are profiting. How is that not stealing?
    - decode 18y ago
      If the definition of stealing is "taking something for free that has value to you", then I steal with every breath. If copying is the same is taking, then telling a story is the same as burning a book.
    - Herring 18y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality Thinking of it in terms of morals is rather unproductive. It's just one of the ways markets fail.

jmtame 18y ago

Ouch. I would not feel interested in writing a keygen for that app.

petercooper 18y ago

You could only improve on this by having a picture of the developer with his kid or something :) Shame is a good motivator in this case. Shame works as a motivator for people who probably could pay, but aren't (or just want to "test" the software). Shame does not work as a motivator for criminals or heartless freeloaders, and they'd never pay anyway.