4 ms·

Sure, if the pirate just stored the file in their collection as a trophy (as many do). However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value

Sure, if the pirate just stored the file in their collection as a trophy (as many do). However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value. Having a thief (sorry, 'copyright infringer') take your software rather than pay for it may eventually provide some word-of-mouth advertising, but they're likely to tell other pirates and repeat the cycle of revenue loss rather than become vocal advocates for a purchase. Outside of edge-cases like Microsoft (whose Windows dominance was arguably helped by piracy) it seems that 'piracy is good advertising' is a fallacy used by pirates to make themselves feel better about denying income to people they otherwise like. Can you name three small software producers whose revenue grew stronger as a result of piracy?

jamesbritt 18y ago
"However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value." Or done without. Or done with something different. But it's false to assume that anyone glomming a copy of some software would pay for it were it not free.
- tom_rath 18y ago
  If a pirate is using a program, they're deriving value from it. They are not 'doing without' even though that option is available. If the pirated option was not available, they would have made a purchase (yours or a competitors) or made do with freeware. That they've not chosen the free option indicates that they prefer your product -- one which they would have paid for.
  - modoc 18y ago
    Not true. I prefer Photoshop over GIMP. But I use it so rarely, that if I had to pay full price for Photoshop, I'd just use GIMP. Given my infrequency of usage, I'd be willing to pay some amount for Photoshop: $30 or $49.99 or whatever, but I simply don't use it $699 worth. I do pay for all the apps I use daily, and thankfully they're all "reasonably" priced: MyEclipse, Transmit, Parallels, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, TextMate, and so on.
- jcl 18y ago
  I didn't see that assumption being made. The parent's point is that it is (likewise) false to assume that everyone "glomming a copy of some software" wouldn't pay any price other than free, were piracy not an option.

jamesbritt 18y ago

"However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value." Or done without. Or done with something different. But it's false to assume that anyone glomming a copy of some software would pay for it were it not free.

tom_rath 18y ago
If a pirate is using a program, they're deriving value from it. They are not 'doing without' even though that option is available. If the pirated option was not available, they would have made a purchase (yours or a competitors) or made do with freeware. That they've not chosen the free option indicates that they prefer your product -- one which they would have paid for.
- modoc 18y ago
  Not true. I prefer Photoshop over GIMP. But I use it so rarely, that if I had to pay full price for Photoshop, I'd just use GIMP. Given my infrequency of usage, I'd be willing to pay some amount for Photoshop: $30 or $49.99 or whatever, but I simply don't use it $699 worth. I do pay for all the apps I use daily, and thankfully they're all "reasonably" priced: MyEclipse, Transmit, Parallels, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, TextMate, and so on.
jcl 18y ago
I didn't see that assumption being made. The parent's point is that it is (likewise) false to assume that everyone "glomming a copy of some software" wouldn't pay any price other than free, were piracy not an option.