17 ms·

Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

248 points by Breakthrough 14y ago

siliconc0w 14y ago
The side effect of privatizing what could be a public good is that is means denying to billions what they could have for free so that a relative handful will have an incentive to pay for it.
- yason 14y ago
  This, exactly this. Moreover, I think that piracy mostly happens because either it's the only way or because it's way too cheap. The first case is similar to how I was as a kid: I pirated all my games and software and copied all my music, and then bought the best games and the best albums that I could afford. I owned the games and cds that I considered the best, and worth owning. I paid for them so that I could own them: not because I would've wanted to make sure the authors could make a living. No amount of piracy laws and copyright enforcement would've added anything to the funds I had at my disposal. I already spent whatever I had. The second case is why some people hoard files. They download full discographies and filmographies of nearly everything there is because copying is so cheap it's practically gratis, copying can be fun, and just to make sure that if the world comes to an end they'll still have years of entertainment in their hands. They probably watch and listen one percent of what they're downloaded, and they probably actually buy one percent of that one percent. There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less.
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    >There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less. I think this is (close to) the case of people who are actually a problem. The first two cases don't represent much lost oppurtunity. In this case, the people pirating might go out and buy the stuff. Because of this, the oppurtunity cost of them already having some of the stuff is far more significant than in the first two cases (where there was minimal oppurtunity lost)
natural219 14y ago
I say the same thing about audiobooks / lectures. In high school, I spent most of my part-time job listening to lectures about economics, game theory, linguistics, all sorts of topics. This was enabled 100% by piracy. Some of these lectures are worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, which I obviously could not have afforded as a high schooler. Still, the fact that I got all of that content and learning for basically free is in some sense, in my mind, a good outcome of piracy, even though I don't advocate for piracy (in fact, I think it's a large problem). For the record, now that I have money, I purchase the lectures that I listen to. Maybe if I become wealthy, I will go back and buy the ones I listened to.
antidaily 14y ago
Nice story, but I was hoping this was about actually becoming a pirate. Arrr.
imjared 14y ago
I'm not really surprised to read this. These cases, I'm sure, are a dime a dozen. I did the same thing in middle school; I pirated Photoshop and started to learn the ins and outs. Led me to getting an internship which led me to getting a job and settling on a decent career path. Now I own most of the thousands of dollars of software I used as a kid. I can agree and sympathize with this until he said that most people pirate out of need, not greed. Not sure that's really accurate but I'm also not sure it's measurable.
chasing 14y ago
I'm glad things worked out for Vlad -- when I was younger, I pirated a fair amount of software and games, and, like him, I think it enabled me to get inspired to learn more about computers in general and, indeed, now I stare at them all day for work. But. I'm not sure what the bigger point is, here. Should we be okay with piracy as long as the pirate is using it for self-betterment? Do games count for that? What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? (Or, to take a wild leap: Is it cool for a kid to steal a car if he learns how to be a mechanic from it?) Today, I do feel there are some motions towards providing better access to software and hardware in poorer parts of the world. Which is great. And, to be frank, the quality of both cheap hardware and open source software is insane relative to twenty years ago. So, again, I'm not sure what Vlad's bigger point is. If the point is to justify piracy, I think he only does it in the very narrowest of ways: Considering the state of technology in the 1990s, piracy enabled people in poorer parts of the world (and kids in wealthier parts of the world) access to the growing information technology industry. I'm not sure that argument exactly holds in the same way today. Finally, Microsoft can survive a fair amount of piracy. But not every software company can. What happens when this "it's cool because I'm using it to educate myself" stance kills software companies? Or game companies? Or media companies? Is that better for everyone? --- EDIT: I'm not equating the act of stealing a car with the act of pirating Windows. I am merely wondering about the general nature of morally justifying a crime based on it being done for self-improvement. If we say it's okay in a case of software piracy, are we okay with it in other contexts?
- fossuser 14y ago
  There are much better arguments for justifying piracy, notably the original intent/purpose of copyright. http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...
- Devilboy 14y ago
  Stealing a car deprives someone of a car. Copying a car does not.
  - chasing 14y ago
meritt 14y ago
It's always been rumored that Adobe software, especially Photoshop, has been easy to pirate to encourage adoption with a user base that might otherwise seek alternatives. As those people hone their skills and eventually find jobs, Photoshop is the norm and what their employers purchase licensing for.
- lumberjack 14y ago
  Same with Windows and Office. It's better to have them pirate your program than run somebody's else.
  - wting 14y ago
    "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." -- Bill Gates during speech at University of Washington http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9 http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropir...
    - jfoster 14y ago
      It's similar to many startups. Free initially to ensure growth, but always with eventual monetization in mind.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Sadly that didn't stop them from claiming that piracy was a $1.5B$ problem because the retail price of Office was $495. Even though even a child would tell you that no sane individual would spend more than 1/2 their annual salary to buy a copy of a buggy, but ubiquitous, set of tools. In fact they were willing to pay $2 for a pirated CD on the streets so the actual "loss to piracy" was $6M ($2 per each of those 3M machines) but that sounds so much less of an actual problem.
      - 14y ago
rcush 14y ago
On the one hand this chap, "[downloaded] an infinite number of games and software - all illegally," while also refers to people who pirate out of greed as - and this is verbatim - "bumholes". Despite the obvious hyperbole, it seems very likely that this man himself was once a bumhole. The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available. This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak. There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  And with this regional pricing crap, the same companies are petitioning Congress and SCOTUS to ban first-sale doctrine on "stuff" coming in from abroad. "Sorry bub, you bought that X from the company who makes them, in another country. And because they sell stuff cheaper in THAT country, you have no rights to what you buy past yourself. Even if I did sell to you." Regardless that companies use price arbitrage on everything under the sun, including the workers and the WHOLE company (to get away from higher tax regimes). We peons aren't allowed to use the same tools the big guys use.
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
How intelligent is it for companies to go after people who trade and know your program, that are not paying _now_? Seems a waste of resources attacking who might be your customer, in both money and good-will. Example: I'm in school for drafting/design tech. Due to the school which I am taking classes, we learn Autocad and Solidworks. Both have student versions available, and both are with nasty "We'll send you the serials sometime next week". So I went onto the local pirate archive and grabbed a copy of both programs. Half an hour later, they're installed and they work flawlessly. Fellow students are still waiting for the serials through email sometime next week. I do think its different for a for-profit enterprise to go out and pirate everything under the sun. If you make money, you should pass the buck, so to speak. Read my history to rehash the 1 day old long drawn out argument about DRM. No sense in repeating all of that.
sergiotapia 14y ago
Point in case, I've been trying to buy Windows 8 in Bolivia for the past three weeks and STILL can't buy it legally anywhere. Every option has been exhausted and I'm kind of annoyed. I wanted to ditch my pirated version of Windows 7 and finally go legit now that I can afford it, but Microsoft just won't take my money. A torrent just works.
- keithpeter 14y ago
  I'm calling this 'the oatmeal argument' and it has considerable force. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones Is Windows 8 not available for download in Bolivia? If so is that some silly regional trade reason? Or are network speeds too low?
  - sergiotapia 14y ago
    Windows 8 isn't available for sale, for some reason. I don't know why. I can download a Windows 7 pirated version easily in 7 hours, I doubt network speeds are the culprit here.
samuellevy 14y ago
It's not just developing markets like Romania. I grew up in poverty in Australia, and pirating software was simply the only way to access it. Without access to the software, I would never have been able to learn the skills required to earn the money to pay for the software now. I'm not saying that piracy should be accepted for that reason; I'm saying (and I believe the OP was saying) that piracy is simply the only way to access the tools required to get out of poverty for many, many people. This shouldn't be how it is, but some serious thought has to go into how to make things available fairly to those people who would otherwise just pirate it. Some money is better than no money, and software that is frequently pirated is obviously in demand with people who can't afford it.
CoryG89 14y ago
Until Microsoft Dreamspark, this is how I was able to teach myself to program. This really happens. However, I think programs like Dreamspark are the answer to this. Microsoft will let you download Visual Studio if you go to school. Not word (but it's only $99 for a student, affordable). Article is a little misleading when it comes to paying for Adobe CS in general. If you are a student you can usually pick it up for $199. Still a little much for Adobe to be selling it to students in my opinion though.
- gfodor 14y ago
  Not certain but Dreamspark requires some type of "student verification" process, which may be prohibitive to many young people who could stand the most to gain from access to these products. I certainly can't imagine my 13-year-old self, who was a big enough geek to be giddy warezing Turbo C++, getting access to Dreamspark.
  - yozmsn 14y ago
    Yeah, you need to have a .edu email address, which if I understand correctly is not something high schools or middle schools give out anymore, as the .edu domain has become exclusively for higher education (Universities, etc), still most of the tools you get from Dreamspark aren't all that important and the open sources alternatives are often better.
    - robryan 14y ago
      This might not be true if your goal is to develop games for windows.
- hdra 14y ago
  In case of learning to program though, I think the express edition is more than enough. Hell, I even know some company who are using the express edition for their main production tool.
polskibus 14y ago
Information wants to be free. Nothing will stop it. Humanity has been copying "proprietary" information forever. People gossip about work and other secrets, copy other people's notes, etc. Computer software is just yet another example of it, the scenery of old Soviet block just puts a bit more contrast to it in comparison to Western experiences. Now, generating a trend, by for example making your information the dominant one (ie. Microsoft and MS Office) is a great tactic, that bears long-lasting fruits.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  > Information wants to be free You might be too young to have read this in Phrack, but I feel it's apt: Let me tell you something. Information does not want to be free, my friends. Free neither from its restraints nor in terms of dollar value. Information is a commodity like anything else. More valuable than the rarest element, it BEGS to be hoarded and priced. Anyone who gives something away for nothing is a moron. (I am indeed stupid.) I can't fault anyone for charging as long as they don't try to rationalize their reasoning behind a facade of excuses, all the while shouting "Information Wants to be Free!" Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free! http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree.txt http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree...
  - qu4z-2 14y ago
    I feel like you and your source misunderstand the phrase. It is worded confusingly, so it's not all that surprising. Perhaps a better wording would be "Information tends to spread". It's really about the arrow of time. It's much easier to give someone information than to take information away from them. Taking public knowledge and making it secret is a lot harder than taking secret knowledge and making it public. > Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free! Personification confuses the issue here, but assuming those examples were meant as "want to be secret" rather than the much weaker "don't want to be free ('cause they're information, and have no will of their own)" then I should point out that it's actually YOU that wants your credit report to stay secret, and the army that wants troop placements to remain secret. The information wants nothing, but will tend to spread. There's nothing to stop you working against this natural tendency, but it requires you to put in a certain amount of effort and maintenance. Water tends to flow downhill, but we can make hollows and dams and the like to keep it in, and that's a very useful thing to do. But in a sense water could be said to "want to flow downhill". Of course, if someone argued against dams because "water wants to flow downhill", that would be ridiculous. I'm sure that a lot of (most?) people who use that phrase mean it in exactly the way that you interpret it, which is unfortunate as it is then reduced to something more like "I feel we have a moral imperative to share information". And surely there's a better way of phrasing that. So maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. But I like my interpretation better.
BadDesign 14y ago
I think he's completely unaware of the GNU/Linux distributions and the gratis software that comes along with them and the freedoms that that software offers to the user. " “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. " https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- gfodor 14y ago
  I don't see how Free software has anything to do with his post. First, there is only good Free software for certain things. Especially when the author was younger, there were no good Free software alternatives for many popular commercial products. Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office, and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up. The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in many domains as well.) And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing.
  - reidrac 14y ago
amy_seqmedia 14y ago
I grew up in Silicon Valley in the 80s and I was not one of the fortunate---anything more than $5 was crazy expensive. But having a way to access the technology definitely changed my life trajectory. I don't condone piracy but I understand it. And yes, now I work in high tech and I pay for everything---even donate and occasionally volunteer because of all of this. I think the article wasn't so much about the glory of piracy and how you can make a profit out of it. Rather, it is a perspective on desire and finding a way to feed it. I think that this is the one of the best things about living in our current state of the internet: if you can get the initial tool (the computer or the smartphone) you open up access to so much opportunity.
kstenerud 14y ago
I'm one of those people who would pirate just because I could. It was almost a game, trying to amass as much warez as I could, to the point that 90% of the stuff I got I either never used, or used only once. That changed over time. As my time became more valuable, I couldn't spend all day fiddling with software anymore. I became more focused, downloading only stuff I used a lot. And then it hit me: It would be far easier to just buy the damn thing for $10, $20, $50, whatever and not have to hunt shit down, find a keygen, or in the worst case crack it myself. So now I don't pirate anymore. It's not out of a feeling of moral obligation, but rather because I appreciate the convenience. And, realizing that pirates are people at various points on the price/effort spectrum, I don't even worry about my own software being pirated. Why should I, when I get income aplenty from it even with pirates in the equation?
- glomph 14y ago
  Private torrent trackers are also fuelled by this drive. The 'game' abstraction has been made so real with ranks, stats, leaderboards and so on. It really is quite amazing how willing people are to sink time into providing a service, moderating, sourcing, encoding (people sink LOADS of time into learning the finest details of x264), cracking, uploading and distributing all for for no material gain outside 'the game'.
  - kruk 14y ago
    I don't think it's just about the game. I believe many people involved in distribution of illegal content do it out of a genuine desire to share. For every released movie, every song, a book or a piece of software there exists a group of people with no means of accessing it in a legal way (and probably another, much larger, of people who can't afford it).
    - Nav_Panel 14y ago
      Additionally, some of the content (music) is actually completely or almost completely unavailable (even legally) outside of these sites. For example, old rare/obscure records - people rip them because they want to share, and people download because there is literally no other way to get a copy without potentially spending $100+ (not to mention the costs of a decent vinyl setup).
aes256 14y ago
In addition to gaining experience through the use of pirated software, I think there is also a lot to be said for knowledge and experience gained through the process of committing piracy and attempting to do so undetected. As a matter of course, pirates often find themselves becoming quite knowledgeable about topics (audio and video encoding, protocols (FTP, NNTP, BitTorrent, etc.), tools such as BNCs and VPNs, encryption, storage methods, etc.), all of which have valid uses aside from committing piracy, that they would otherwise have little motivation to explore. The desire to commit piracy undetected acts as a motivation for people to gain a deeper understanding of the systems they are interfacing with, and this is often a good thing.
mappu 14y ago
Even now that i can afford it, i'd still choose pirated software over DRM and phone-home license checks. Pirates always get the better product (with the possible exception of AAA online multiplayer games).
- robryan 14y ago
  You could always buy a copy and then use a pirated one.
  - slavak 14y ago
    I've actually ended up doing this in some cases. But I have to say: If the guy illegally copying your software and working on it via debugging and disassembly can give me a better user experience than you can, then you are doing something very, very wrong.
mtgx 14y ago
I remember when Bill Gates came to Romania to launch their Microsoft branch here, and in front of the public the country's president himself told him how helpful the pirated version of his Windows has been for Romania. It was quite hilarious and a ballsy thing to say to Bill Gates. But I think Microsoft and Bill Gates have learned to accept that, because imagine if China, India, and all the other poor countries out there were forced to use the free Linux instead of the pirated version of Windows. Then Windows would've had 50% or less market share in PC's, and that would've meant they wouldn't have had a monopoly in browsers, nor in Office anymore. So having Windows everywhere, even pirated, has helped Microsoft a lot to get its monopoly position. I think in the next decade, it will be Android which will be what Windows was for all these kids in poor countries. It will be much cheaper to even get the hardware for it than it was to get a PC 10 years ago, and this time the software will actually be free and open source. I truly believe Android will revolutionize the world in this sense. It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Apple are trying to slow it down right now, and make the devices more expensive than they should be through bogus licenses and lawsuits, but they won't stop it.
javert 14y ago
I’m just saying that it’s not all black and white. It is black and white. It's theft. The issue of whether you shold steal in certain conditions is a separate issue, as discussed some in the article. But it is black and white, it's theft.
- alecst 14y ago
  He's not arguing that you should steal. And anyway, I think what you're saying is baloney. Theft is not always bad. Do I really have to give examples to illustrate the shades of gray?
- vacri 14y ago
  It's only black and white if you narrow the question down to "is it theft or not?". The author was talking about piracy as an overall issue, not the strict definition.
- barrkel 14y ago
  Are you using black and white to mean a clear distinction, or to mean moral good and bad? It's not black and white to me. It's obvious that copyright violation is not directly equivalent to theft on a black and white basis; there are clear differences, such as theft depriving someone else of a physical good, so under the "clear distinction" interpretation of your statement, it is plainly wrong. And as to moral interpretation, it's not obvious that theft is always wrong either.
  - javert 14y ago
    I use it to mean a clear distinction.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  There is a lot of accepted theft in our society. For example, American settlers stole all the land from Native Americans. Might as well direct your anger at that.
  - javert 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Xcelerate 14y ago
I realize mine is a pretty unpopular opinion on Hacker News, but I probably would not hire anyone who thinks pirating software is morally acceptable. The way I see it, any argument for piracy is simply rationalization. The point is that someone has invested a lot of time and money into creating something and they are offering the usage of that software for a price. If you use it without paying that price, then you are disrespecting the person that created it because you are ignoring their wishes for the thing that they have invested a lot of time into. It just feels very wrong to me.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  With all due respect this is pretty ignorant. If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered. The very nature of the action of them trying to get your creation - even though they don't have money - is testament to the value they think you have created. If they keep pirating your stuff every time you release a new version - you really should re-consider your pricing options or your distribution strategy. It means you are likely leaving money on the table.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    "It means you are likely leaving money on the table." Wow, and for the past X (10? 20?) years, we've all been told "pirates wouldn't have bought anyway, so the 'lost revenue' is only $0'.
    - marcamillion 14y ago
      Well...all you have to do is look at the most pirated movies and the highest grossing movies. There is a strong correlation there. Also, the same can be said about software. It seems to me that the firms that create the most pirated software (from MSFT, Adobe, Apple, et. al) are doing ok.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    > With all due respect this is pretty ignorant. Ignorant? Do you know what that word means? Let me quote dictionary.com for you: "Lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned". I don't appreciate you calling me ignorant, seeing as how I do not meet the definition in any way. > If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered. If someone goes to the lengths/peril required to rob your bank, you should be flattered. Sorry, this argument holds no water with me. How I "should" feel about something is not up to anyone else. If they don't have the money to afford my creation, they should talk to me about it. If I think they have a good reason for needing it, I'll give it to them for free. If I don't think they do, then it really should not be their decision to just take it anyway.
username3 14y ago
Copying for educational purposes is fair use. Are educational versions sold to make us think we cannot use software for free under fair use?
skwosh 14y ago
I would be interested to hear how piracy can justified, not for multi-million dollar corporations and defunct organisations, but for small businesses and individuals. Adobe and Microsoft can sustain their products being pirated wholesale partly because it undermines their smaller competitors. It's easy to justify downloading episodes of syndicated television shows, platinum albums, or computer games from 1992, but as a startup-centric site, it seems more relevant to question the impact of piracy on small independent businesses/artists/producers. Maybe they should be "grateful for the publicity", or "flattered" that their product has been downloaded thousands of times on thepiratebay.org. Maybe the losses incurred are made up for by a wider audience and more sales once the user has reached maturity...
louischatriot 14y ago
Pirating is part of how I learned to make software. To me it was a game at the time but disambling programs/debugging them while they run was a great way to understand how they work.
cotsuka 14y ago
I responded to the people justifying piracy using this article here: http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/ http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/ In short, I think Vlad is trying to explain that piracy was only a last resort for him. And it should only be a last resort.
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  > There are many commentators online trying to split hairs and say that pirating is not the same as stealing. As such, it isn’t a crime. Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post) but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.
julienmarie 14y ago
Interesting point here. But it forgets that it is a well known reality from software vendors, who basically choose how well protected their software can be. As an example, an interesting move was Apple's one with Logic Pro. I remember previous versions being uncrackable, needing a USB dongle. And then, as a move to conquer market share, the only protection is now just a serial number (I'm not even sure if Logic calls home to check it... ). The more people can use your technology for free in a training / learning / amateur way, the more you will become a standard, the more you will sell licenses to your customer base : the professionals.
ktf 14y ago
Downloading a pirated version of Visual Studio 6 over a 56k modem definitely changed my life in high school, and allowed me to write code I wouldn't have otherwise been able to. (I still have those discs, mostly for nostalgia's sake.) Of course what changed my life even more was subsequently downloading Slackware Linux (on that same 56k connection!) and realizing that I didn't need to pirate an expensive IDE to write code...
drcube 14y ago
"Of course cheap and accessible software would be a lot better, but there’s so little of that going around." GNU. I have no problem with pirating (except for the word). But why illegally download an expensive OS when better, free versions abound on the net? Stay legal, and have a more powerful, hackable OS to go with your clean conscience.

248 points by Breakthrough 14y ago

The side effect of privatizing what could be a public good is that is means denying to billions what they could have for free so that a relative handful will have an incentive to pay for it.

yason 14y ago
This, exactly this. Moreover, I think that piracy mostly happens because either it's the only way or because it's way too cheap. The first case is similar to how I was as a kid: I pirated all my games and software and copied all my music, and then bought the best games and the best albums that I could afford. I owned the games and cds that I considered the best, and worth owning. I paid for them so that I could own them: not because I would've wanted to make sure the authors could make a living. No amount of piracy laws and copyright enforcement would've added anything to the funds I had at my disposal. I already spent whatever I had. The second case is why some people hoard files. They download full discographies and filmographies of nearly everything there is because copying is so cheap it's practically gratis, copying can be fun, and just to make sure that if the world comes to an end they'll still have years of entertainment in their hands. They probably watch and listen one percent of what they're downloaded, and they probably actually buy one percent of that one percent. There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  >There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or movies, and they would subsequently buy less. I think this is (close to) the case of people who are actually a problem. The first two cases don't represent much lost oppurtunity. In this case, the people pirating might go out and buy the stuff. Because of this, the oppurtunity cost of them already having some of the stuff is far more significant than in the first two cases (where there was minimal oppurtunity lost)

natural219 14y ago

I say the same thing about audiobooks / lectures. In high school, I spent most of my part-time job listening to lectures about economics, game theory, linguistics, all sorts of topics. This was enabled 100% by piracy. Some of these lectures are worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, which I obviously could not have afforded as a high schooler. Still, the fact that I got all of that content and learning for basically free is in some sense, in my mind, a good outcome of piracy, even though I don't advocate for piracy (in fact, I think it's a large problem). For the record, now that I have money, I purchase the lectures that I listen to. Maybe if I become wealthy, I will go back and buy the ones I listened to.

antidaily 14y ago

Nice story, but I was hoping this was about actually becoming a pirate. Arrr.

imjared 14y ago

I'm not really surprised to read this. These cases, I'm sure, are a dime a dozen. I did the same thing in middle school; I pirated Photoshop and started to learn the ins and outs. Led me to getting an internship which led me to getting a job and settling on a decent career path. Now I own most of the thousands of dollars of software I used as a kid. I can agree and sympathize with this until he said that most people pirate out of need, not greed. Not sure that's really accurate but I'm also not sure it's measurable.

chasing 14y ago

I'm glad things worked out for Vlad -- when I was younger, I pirated a fair amount of software and games, and, like him, I think it enabled me to get inspired to learn more about computers in general and, indeed, now I stare at them all day for work. But. I'm not sure what the bigger point is, here. Should we be okay with piracy as long as the pirate is using it for self-betterment? Do games count for that? What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? (Or, to take a wild leap: Is it cool for a kid to steal a car if he learns how to be a mechanic from it?) Today, I do feel there are some motions towards providing better access to software and hardware in poorer parts of the world. Which is great. And, to be frank, the quality of both cheap hardware and open source software is insane relative to twenty years ago. So, again, I'm not sure what Vlad's bigger point is. If the point is to justify piracy, I think he only does it in the very narrowest of ways: Considering the state of technology in the 1990s, piracy enabled people in poorer parts of the world (and kids in wealthier parts of the world) access to the growing information technology industry. I'm not sure that argument exactly holds in the same way today. Finally, Microsoft can survive a fair amount of piracy. But not every software company can. What happens when this "it's cool because I'm using it to educate myself" stance kills software companies? Or game companies? Or media companies? Is that better for everyone? --- EDIT: I'm not equating the act of stealing a car with the act of pirating Windows. I am merely wondering about the general nature of morally justifying a crime based on it being done for self-improvement. If we say it's okay in a case of software piracy, are we okay with it in other contexts?

fossuser 14y ago
There are much better arguments for justifying piracy, notably the original intent/purpose of copyright. http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...
Devilboy 14y ago
Stealing a car deprives someone of a car. Copying a car does not.
- chasing 14y ago

meritt 14y ago

It's always been rumored that Adobe software, especially Photoshop, has been easy to pirate to encourage adoption with a user base that might otherwise seek alternatives. As those people hone their skills and eventually find jobs, Photoshop is the norm and what their employers purchase licensing for.

lumberjack 14y ago
Same with Windows and Office. It's better to have them pirate your program than run somebody's else.
- wting 14y ago
  "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." -- Bill Gates during speech at University of Washington http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9 http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropir...
  - jfoster 14y ago
    It's similar to many startups. Free initially to ensure growth, but always with eventual monetization in mind.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Sadly that didn't stop them from claiming that piracy was a $1.5B$ problem because the retail price of Office was $495. Even though even a child would tell you that no sane individual would spend more than 1/2 their annual salary to buy a copy of a buggy, but ubiquitous, set of tools. In fact they were willing to pay $2 for a pirated CD on the streets so the actual "loss to piracy" was $6M ($2 per each of those 3M machines) but that sounds so much less of an actual problem.
    - 14y ago

rcush 14y ago

On the one hand this chap, "[downloaded] an infinite number of games and software - all illegally," while also refers to people who pirate out of greed as - and this is verbatim - "bumholes". Despite the obvious hyperbole, it seems very likely that this man himself was once a bumhole. The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available. This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak. There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
And with this regional pricing crap, the same companies are petitioning Congress and SCOTUS to ban first-sale doctrine on "stuff" coming in from abroad. "Sorry bub, you bought that X from the company who makes them, in another country. And because they sell stuff cheaper in THAT country, you have no rights to what you buy past yourself. Even if I did sell to you." Regardless that companies use price arbitrage on everything under the sun, including the workers and the WHOLE company (to get away from higher tax regimes). We peons aren't allowed to use the same tools the big guys use.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago

How intelligent is it for companies to go after people who trade and know your program, that are not paying _now_? Seems a waste of resources attacking who might be your customer, in both money and good-will. Example: I'm in school for drafting/design tech. Due to the school which I am taking classes, we learn Autocad and Solidworks. Both have student versions available, and both are with nasty "We'll send you the serials sometime next week". So I went onto the local pirate archive and grabbed a copy of both programs. Half an hour later, they're installed and they work flawlessly. Fellow students are still waiting for the serials through email sometime next week. I do think its different for a for-profit enterprise to go out and pirate everything under the sun. If you make money, you should pass the buck, so to speak. Read my history to rehash the 1 day old long drawn out argument about DRM. No sense in repeating all of that.

sergiotapia 14y ago

Point in case, I've been trying to buy Windows 8 in Bolivia for the past three weeks and STILL can't buy it legally anywhere. Every option has been exhausted and I'm kind of annoyed. I wanted to ditch my pirated version of Windows 7 and finally go legit now that I can afford it, but Microsoft just won't take my money. A torrent just works.

keithpeter 14y ago
I'm calling this 'the oatmeal argument' and it has considerable force. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones Is Windows 8 not available for download in Bolivia? If so is that some silly regional trade reason? Or are network speeds too low?
- sergiotapia 14y ago
  Windows 8 isn't available for sale, for some reason. I don't know why. I can download a Windows 7 pirated version easily in 7 hours, I doubt network speeds are the culprit here.

samuellevy 14y ago

It's not just developing markets like Romania. I grew up in poverty in Australia, and pirating software was simply the only way to access it. Without access to the software, I would never have been able to learn the skills required to earn the money to pay for the software now. I'm not saying that piracy should be accepted for that reason; I'm saying (and I believe the OP was saying) that piracy is simply the only way to access the tools required to get out of poverty for many, many people. This shouldn't be how it is, but some serious thought has to go into how to make things available fairly to those people who would otherwise just pirate it. Some money is better than no money, and software that is frequently pirated is obviously in demand with people who can't afford it.

CoryG89 14y ago

Until Microsoft Dreamspark, this is how I was able to teach myself to program. This really happens. However, I think programs like Dreamspark are the answer to this. Microsoft will let you download Visual Studio if you go to school. Not word (but it's only $99 for a student, affordable). Article is a little misleading when it comes to paying for Adobe CS in general. If you are a student you can usually pick it up for $199. Still a little much for Adobe to be selling it to students in my opinion though.

gfodor 14y ago
Not certain but Dreamspark requires some type of "student verification" process, which may be prohibitive to many young people who could stand the most to gain from access to these products. I certainly can't imagine my 13-year-old self, who was a big enough geek to be giddy warezing Turbo C++, getting access to Dreamspark.
- yozmsn 14y ago
  Yeah, you need to have a .edu email address, which if I understand correctly is not something high schools or middle schools give out anymore, as the .edu domain has become exclusively for higher education (Universities, etc), still most of the tools you get from Dreamspark aren't all that important and the open sources alternatives are often better.
  - robryan 14y ago
    This might not be true if your goal is to develop games for windows.
hdra 14y ago
In case of learning to program though, I think the express edition is more than enough. Hell, I even know some company who are using the express edition for their main production tool.

polskibus 14y ago

Information wants to be free. Nothing will stop it. Humanity has been copying "proprietary" information forever. People gossip about work and other secrets, copy other people's notes, etc. Computer software is just yet another example of it, the scenery of old Soviet block just puts a bit more contrast to it in comparison to Western experiences. Now, generating a trend, by for example making your information the dominant one (ie. Microsoft and MS Office) is a great tactic, that bears long-lasting fruits.

Domenic_S 14y ago
> Information wants to be free You might be too young to have read this in Phrack, but I feel it's apt: Let me tell you something. Information does not want to be free, my friends. Free neither from its restraints nor in terms of dollar value. Information is a commodity like anything else. More valuable than the rarest element, it BEGS to be hoarded and priced. Anyone who gives something away for nothing is a moron. (I am indeed stupid.) I can't fault anyone for charging as long as they don't try to rationalize their reasoning behind a facade of excuses, all the while shouting "Information Wants to be Free!" Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free! http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree.txt http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree...
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  I feel like you and your source misunderstand the phrase. It is worded confusingly, so it's not all that surprising. Perhaps a better wording would be "Information tends to spread". It's really about the arrow of time. It's much easier to give someone information than to take information away from them. Taking public knowledge and making it secret is a lot harder than taking secret knowledge and making it public. > Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free! Personification confuses the issue here, but assuming those examples were meant as "want to be secret" rather than the much weaker "don't want to be free ('cause they're information, and have no will of their own)" then I should point out that it's actually YOU that wants your credit report to stay secret, and the army that wants troop placements to remain secret. The information wants nothing, but will tend to spread. There's nothing to stop you working against this natural tendency, but it requires you to put in a certain amount of effort and maintenance. Water tends to flow downhill, but we can make hollows and dams and the like to keep it in, and that's a very useful thing to do. But in a sense water could be said to "want to flow downhill". Of course, if someone argued against dams because "water wants to flow downhill", that would be ridiculous. I'm sure that a lot of (most?) people who use that phrase mean it in exactly the way that you interpret it, which is unfortunate as it is then reduced to something more like "I feel we have a moral imperative to share information". And surely there's a better way of phrasing that. So maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. But I like my interpretation better.

BadDesign 14y ago

I think he's completely unaware of the GNU/Linux distributions and the gratis software that comes along with them and the freedoms that that software offers to the user. " “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. " https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

gfodor 14y ago
I don't see how Free software has anything to do with his post. First, there is only good Free software for certain things. Especially when the author was younger, there were no good Free software alternatives for many popular commercial products. Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office, and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up. The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in many domains as well.) And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing.
- reidrac 14y ago

amy_seqmedia 14y ago

I grew up in Silicon Valley in the 80s and I was not one of the fortunate---anything more than $5 was crazy expensive. But having a way to access the technology definitely changed my life trajectory. I don't condone piracy but I understand it. And yes, now I work in high tech and I pay for everything---even donate and occasionally volunteer because of all of this. I think the article wasn't so much about the glory of piracy and how you can make a profit out of it. Rather, it is a perspective on desire and finding a way to feed it. I think that this is the one of the best things about living in our current state of the internet: if you can get the initial tool (the computer or the smartphone) you open up access to so much opportunity.

kstenerud 14y ago

I'm one of those people who would pirate just because I could. It was almost a game, trying to amass as much warez as I could, to the point that 90% of the stuff I got I either never used, or used only once. That changed over time. As my time became more valuable, I couldn't spend all day fiddling with software anymore. I became more focused, downloading only stuff I used a lot. And then it hit me: It would be far easier to just buy the damn thing for $10, $20, $50, whatever and not have to hunt shit down, find a keygen, or in the worst case crack it myself. So now I don't pirate anymore. It's not out of a feeling of moral obligation, but rather because I appreciate the convenience. And, realizing that pirates are people at various points on the price/effort spectrum, I don't even worry about my own software being pirated. Why should I, when I get income aplenty from it even with pirates in the equation?

glomph 14y ago
Private torrent trackers are also fuelled by this drive. The 'game' abstraction has been made so real with ranks, stats, leaderboards and so on. It really is quite amazing how willing people are to sink time into providing a service, moderating, sourcing, encoding (people sink LOADS of time into learning the finest details of x264), cracking, uploading and distributing all for for no material gain outside 'the game'.
- kruk 14y ago
  I don't think it's just about the game. I believe many people involved in distribution of illegal content do it out of a genuine desire to share. For every released movie, every song, a book or a piece of software there exists a group of people with no means of accessing it in a legal way (and probably another, much larger, of people who can't afford it).
  - Nav_Panel 14y ago
    Additionally, some of the content (music) is actually completely or almost completely unavailable (even legally) outside of these sites. For example, old rare/obscure records - people rip them because they want to share, and people download because there is literally no other way to get a copy without potentially spending $100+ (not to mention the costs of a decent vinyl setup).

aes256 14y ago

In addition to gaining experience through the use of pirated software, I think there is also a lot to be said for knowledge and experience gained through the process of committing piracy and attempting to do so undetected. As a matter of course, pirates often find themselves becoming quite knowledgeable about topics (audio and video encoding, protocols (FTP, NNTP, BitTorrent, etc.), tools such as BNCs and VPNs, encryption, storage methods, etc.), all of which have valid uses aside from committing piracy, that they would otherwise have little motivation to explore. The desire to commit piracy undetected acts as a motivation for people to gain a deeper understanding of the systems they are interfacing with, and this is often a good thing.

mappu 14y ago

Even now that i can afford it, i'd still choose pirated software over DRM and phone-home license checks. Pirates always get the better product (with the possible exception of AAA online multiplayer games).

robryan 14y ago
You could always buy a copy and then use a pirated one.
- slavak 14y ago
  I've actually ended up doing this in some cases. But I have to say: If the guy illegally copying your software and working on it via debugging and disassembly can give me a better user experience than you can, then you are doing something very, very wrong.

mtgx 14y ago

I remember when Bill Gates came to Romania to launch their Microsoft branch here, and in front of the public the country's president himself told him how helpful the pirated version of his Windows has been for Romania. It was quite hilarious and a ballsy thing to say to Bill Gates. But I think Microsoft and Bill Gates have learned to accept that, because imagine if China, India, and all the other poor countries out there were forced to use the free Linux instead of the pirated version of Windows. Then Windows would've had 50% or less market share in PC's, and that would've meant they wouldn't have had a monopoly in browsers, nor in Office anymore. So having Windows everywhere, even pirated, has helped Microsoft a lot to get its monopoly position. I think in the next decade, it will be Android which will be what Windows was for all these kids in poor countries. It will be much cheaper to even get the hardware for it than it was to get a PC 10 years ago, and this time the software will actually be free and open source. I truly believe Android will revolutionize the world in this sense. It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Apple are trying to slow it down right now, and make the devices more expensive than they should be through bogus licenses and lawsuits, but they won't stop it.

javert 14y ago

I’m just saying that it’s not all black and white. It is black and white. It's theft. The issue of whether you shold steal in certain conditions is a separate issue, as discussed some in the article. But it is black and white, it's theft.

alecst 14y ago
He's not arguing that you should steal. And anyway, I think what you're saying is baloney. Theft is not always bad. Do I really have to give examples to illustrate the shades of gray?
vacri 14y ago
It's only black and white if you narrow the question down to "is it theft or not?". The author was talking about piracy as an overall issue, not the strict definition.
barrkel 14y ago
Are you using black and white to mean a clear distinction, or to mean moral good and bad? It's not black and white to me. It's obvious that copyright violation is not directly equivalent to theft on a black and white basis; there are clear differences, such as theft depriving someone else of a physical good, so under the "clear distinction" interpretation of your statement, it is plainly wrong. And as to moral interpretation, it's not obvious that theft is always wrong either.
- javert 14y ago
  I use it to mean a clear distinction.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
There is a lot of accepted theft in our society. For example, American settlers stole all the land from Native Americans. Might as well direct your anger at that.
- javert 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Xcelerate 14y ago

I realize mine is a pretty unpopular opinion on Hacker News, but I probably would not hire anyone who thinks pirating software is morally acceptable. The way I see it, any argument for piracy is simply rationalization. The point is that someone has invested a lot of time and money into creating something and they are offering the usage of that software for a price. If you use it without paying that price, then you are disrespecting the person that created it because you are ignoring their wishes for the thing that they have invested a lot of time into. It just feels very wrong to me.

marcamillion 14y ago
With all due respect this is pretty ignorant. If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered. The very nature of the action of them trying to get your creation - even though they don't have money - is testament to the value they think you have created. If they keep pirating your stuff every time you release a new version - you really should re-consider your pricing options or your distribution strategy. It means you are likely leaving money on the table.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  "It means you are likely leaving money on the table." Wow, and for the past X (10? 20?) years, we've all been told "pirates wouldn't have bought anyway, so the 'lost revenue' is only $0'.
  - marcamillion 14y ago
    Well...all you have to do is look at the most pirated movies and the highest grossing movies. There is a strong correlation there. Also, the same can be said about software. It seems to me that the firms that create the most pirated software (from MSFT, Adobe, Apple, et. al) are doing ok.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > With all due respect this is pretty ignorant. Ignorant? Do you know what that word means? Let me quote dictionary.com for you: "Lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned". I don't appreciate you calling me ignorant, seeing as how I do not meet the definition in any way. > If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you should be flattered. If someone goes to the lengths/peril required to rob your bank, you should be flattered. Sorry, this argument holds no water with me. How I "should" feel about something is not up to anyone else. If they don't have the money to afford my creation, they should talk to me about it. If I think they have a good reason for needing it, I'll give it to them for free. If I don't think they do, then it really should not be their decision to just take it anyway.

username3 14y ago

Copying for educational purposes is fair use. Are educational versions sold to make us think we cannot use software for free under fair use?

skwosh 14y ago

I would be interested to hear how piracy can justified, not for multi-million dollar corporations and defunct organisations, but for small businesses and individuals. Adobe and Microsoft can sustain their products being pirated wholesale partly because it undermines their smaller competitors. It's easy to justify downloading episodes of syndicated television shows, platinum albums, or computer games from 1992, but as a startup-centric site, it seems more relevant to question the impact of piracy on small independent businesses/artists/producers. Maybe they should be "grateful for the publicity", or "flattered" that their product has been downloaded thousands of times on thepiratebay.org. Maybe the losses incurred are made up for by a wider audience and more sales once the user has reached maturity...

louischatriot 14y ago

Pirating is part of how I learned to make software. To me it was a game at the time but disambling programs/debugging them while they run was a great way to understand how they work.

cotsuka 14y ago

I responded to the people justifying piracy using this article here: http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/ http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/ In short, I think Vlad is trying to explain that piracy was only a last resort for him. And it should only be a last resort.

qu4z-2 14y ago
> There are many commentators online trying to split hairs and say that pirating is not the same as stealing. As such, it isn’t a crime. Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post) but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.

julienmarie 14y ago

Interesting point here. But it forgets that it is a well known reality from software vendors, who basically choose how well protected their software can be. As an example, an interesting move was Apple's one with Logic Pro. I remember previous versions being uncrackable, needing a USB dongle. And then, as a move to conquer market share, the only protection is now just a serial number (I'm not even sure if Logic calls home to check it... ). The more people can use your technology for free in a training / learning / amateur way, the more you will become a standard, the more you will sell licenses to your customer base : the professionals.

ktf 14y ago

Downloading a pirated version of Visual Studio 6 over a 56k modem definitely changed my life in high school, and allowed me to write code I wouldn't have otherwise been able to. (I still have those discs, mostly for nostalgia's sake.) Of course what changed my life even more was subsequently downloading Slackware Linux (on that same 56k connection!) and realizing that I didn't need to pirate an expensive IDE to write code...

drcube 14y ago

"Of course cheap and accessible software would be a lot better, but there’s so little of that going around." GNU. I have no problem with pirating (except for the word). But why illegally download an expensive OS when better, free versions abound on the net? Stay legal, and have a more powerful, hackable OS to go with your clean conscience.