Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I don't know why piracy prevents people from sending user feedback to open-sourcers, unless the open-sources require you to register or whatever before contributing.

Well, I wonder how many people pirate Photoshop and then send user feedback to the GIMP (^_^;;
Piracy usually means that commercial software is acquired illegally because it seems good/advantageous to the pirate.
Thus, the commercial side is deprived of the payment for their services (obviously).
And why should the pirate who has obtained the commercial software that already fulfills their need actually bother to download and install the open source software as well, much less use it? After all, if they wanted to use the open source software, there would be no need to pirate the commercial software.

In addition, I at least have found that people who take piracy for granted do not really have a great interest where things come from. I have seen it with the digital art section where people redistribute and redistribute without even knowing the name of the artist or their homepage or whether that art is really freeware. And I don't see how pirating would further genuine feedback. I would be surprised if someone using an illegal copy of Photoshop sent Adobe an email with detailed information on their user experience (and as I said, they probably wouldn't be using GIMP at that point).

Deathworks

[Grakelin]

It's true that pirating the commercial software prevents you from purchasing. That would naturally lead us into the argument of whether or not the person would buy Photoshop or just use GIMP if they could not pirate it, which would naturally lead us into the argument of whether or not that's relevant. Let's not go there.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Well, if there was no pirating possible, what are the alternatives?
1. Not using any software of the kind.
2. Using the commercial software (benefits the commercial developer).
3. Using the open source/free software (benefits the open source/free developer).

Are there any other options?

Of course, I am aware that there would probably a good share of people who would go for option 1. And those people are indeed of no relevance for any argument. However, I am also sure that there are people who would go for option 2 or 3 if pirating was not available (more for option 3, I would guess, for Photoshop given the price tag (^_^;; )

Thus, I see the harm done by encouraging potential 2. and 3. cases to go for pirating as the most cost-efficient alternative (provided you don't get caught, of course). And with pirates campaigning about their heroism and how proud they are about "fighting those evil corporations", they are actually trying to reduce the inhibitions to do so. After all, they offer the feeling of "Robin Hood" (fighting the bad guys in the corporations) together with a little bit of thrill (you get into trouble when caught).

Deathworks

[PTTG??]

I work for a software company and I can tell you that when we aren't swimming in our giant pool of money, we're chuckling over our ill-gotten gains and thinking of all the poor computer users forced to choose between using our product and getting little Jessica's medicine.
 
Bwahahahahaha.

[Virex]

Thanks for that awesome piece of satire


Anyway, what I've experienced in my direct surroundings is that many don't even pay heed to the idea that piracy may be bad. Piracy is just like speed limits on the roads: something the government invented to hand out more fines. If you get caught it's just bad luck...

[DrPizza]

I don't know why piracy prevents people from sending user feedback to open-sourcers, unless the open-sources require you to register or whatever before contributing.

People narc on things they pirate all the time.

Exactly what feedback would a Photoshop pirater provide to the Gimp's developers?

[Virex]

I don't know, but considering the amount of people that call tech support for a problem with a pirated game...

[Grakelin]

I know you're a very intelligent man with a great deal of reading comprehension skills (because you keep telling me you are), so I assume you're just kidding around and realize the following two points:

A) If people pirate something, even if it's free (though I do not understand why you would), they can still comment on it
B) It is actually of great benefit to a developer of anything to get a comparison of what other people are doing

[Deathworks]

Hi!

A) If people pirate something, even if it's free (though I do not understand why you would), they can still comment on it

Ahem, you are missing the point:
Commercial software primarily needs to generate money so that the salaries of the programmers can be paid. If that money does not come in, all the feedback they get is meaningless as they can't do any programming to meet those demands.

And as I said before, people pirate commercial software, so that we are talking about people who, for example acquire Photoshop illegally. Now, how is someone using Photoshop supposed to give GIMP any useful feedback about GIMP? Or do you seriously believe that someone who has Photoshop installed, taking actually a small risk in acquiring it, will do any extensive work with GIMP? So, pirates are not a likely source of feedback.

In addition, pirates (except for those who spawn the copies but they are vastly outnumbered by their consumers) do not acquire the software from the original vendor or homepage. So, if they wanted to give feedback to the original source, they would suddenly need to go to a place they had not visited before. Comments to the buddy who gave you an illegal copy of Photoshop may be technically feedback, but I doubt that it benefits the developers of Photoshop (who, as I said, need the money to buy their food) who will probably remain unaware of its very existence.

And, as I also pointed out before, piracy actively encourages an atmosphere of disrespect, which basically puts creators on a level lower than the pirates and thus actually unworthy of being contacted. As I said, I have seen that with the digital art scene where people take it granted not to care about the source and not to give any feedback at all, regardless of whether they like something or whether they have any ideas for improvement.

B) It is actually of great benefit to a developer of anything to get a comparison of what other people are doing

[SARCASM]Oh, I guess it is a great comfort to see that your software was so well-designed that everyone illegally copies it.[/SARCASM]

I don't really see what point you are trying to make there. Piracy generally does not create any new information but only undermines the business model of commercial software and the community model of open source and freeware. Or do you mean that the open source programmers should pirate commercial titles to study them? That is the only comparison I can think of where any useful data is generated.

I don't know, but considering the amount of people that call tech support for a problem with a pirated game...

This kind of reminds me of the smart internet thread. After all, most current piracy is done via the internet (^_^;;

But technical support questions are not as useful as actual money for the commercial title. While feedback is useful for them, they also need to generate the funds to pay the programmers to actually make those changes. In addition, technical support calls may actually increase the loss if the technical support number is provided for free.

Deathworks

[Vigilant]

I could respond to the original topic of whether we need copyright protection, but I'll tackle piracy since that's what's going on here.

Anyone that really thinks piracy helps : is extremely confused. A simple example as to why :

Some guy is selling candy (no van is nearby : it's safe). You don't have enough money so you opt to just take some and run away really fast.

The next time you see the guy, will this behavior encourage the guy to
A) Lower his prices
B) Punch you in the face

Enter ACTA, i.e., punching you in the face. The companies that don't punch you in the face don't do it because they like piracy, they've just opted that it's more trouble than it's worth to try and fight it. These would be the candy sellers that are out of shape and don't feel like chasing after you, or realize that any chases or fist fights are going to prevent them from getting to the paying customers.

And yea, it's a matter of reducing the amount of money lost to piracy rather than vengeance that motivates them, sure, but the example still works. Most people respond to hostility in kind. It's natural, and the alternative of giving up to demands and pressure is shameful and unattractive.

[Mfbrew]

We might be overestimating the value of written/spoken feedback here.

The GIMP guys probably already know what Photoshop has that they don't have.  They just don't have the time/manpower to put it in yet.

Have you ever met software developers who were bored with nothing to do/add, and waiting eagerly for suggestions?

[Vigilant]

What to add only composes a very small amount of feedback. The vast majority of free and/or open-source software is essentially in perpetual beta. Feedback is important so they know what's broken and/or not working as well as it could be.

Wasn't this apparent from the dev cycle for DF?