Software Piracy Bad for Open Source

[deadowl]

Okay, I have friends that look for cracks of things like Photoshop and Windows.

Every time I suggest an open source alternative, they refuse to even try it.

The latest was a friend of mine looking for Photoshop CS3. I told them once the GIMP gets an interface overhaul, it probably wouldn't even be worth using Photoshop. I told her the three things I don't like about the GIMP in general.

1. the multi-window interface
2. brushes not resizable by default.
3. the lack of a feature that isn't in Photoshop, either.

The response I generally get is, "but I like using <pirated software name>."

It's annoying that people refuse to appreciate free software. Really annoying.

[vexorian]

People like illegal things, nothing you can do there, besides of waiting for the next GIMP version which seems to address plenty of things abe really cool

[@trophy]

Okay, I have friends that look for cracks of things like Photoshop and Windows.

Every time I suggest an open source alternative, they refuse to even try it.

The latest was a friend of mine looking for Photoshop CS3. I told them once the GIMP gets an interface overhaul, it probably wouldn't even be worth using Photoshop. I told her the three things I don't like about the GIMP in general.

1. the multi-window interface
2. brushes not resizable by default.
3. the lack of a feature that isn't in Photoshop, either.

The response I generally get is, "but I like using <pirated software name>."

It's annoying that people refuse to appreciate free software. Really annoying.

I'm confused... you gave them three good reasons to prefer Photoshop to the GIMP. They reflected on the fact that obtaining either is trivial, and the chances of being caught were nil, and went with Photoshop. That's to be expected.

[juxtaposed]

People arn't going to switch for no reason. If they have photoshop and it works great for them, and they have no reason to use the gimp, then they won't. Just like someone who uses the gimp and has no reason to switch to photoshop won't switch. This isn't as much about pirated software as it is about software in general, and choices...

As much as I like both open source and pirated software, they are competing. More open source means less piracy (because more open source means less closed source, and piracy always comes along with closed source).

[dasunst3r]

I remembered the days when I pirated software real rampantly. Open source brought that to a screeching halt and helped me clear my conscience of any guilt.

[reyfer]

Okay, I have friends that look for cracks of things like Photoshop and Windows.

Every time I suggest an open source alternative, they refuse to even try it.

The latest was a friend of mine looking for Photoshop CS3. I told them once the GIMP gets an interface overhaul, it probably wouldn't even be worth using Photoshop. I told her the three things I don't like about the GIMP in general.

1. the multi-window interface
2. brushes not resizable by default.
3. the lack of a feature that isn't in Photoshop, either.

The response I generally get is, "but I like using <pirated software name>."

It's annoying that people refuse to appreciate free software. Really annoying.
So, you tried to convince your friend by telling her about the negative sides of GIMP, and you wonder why she went with PS?

[sloggerkhan]

multiwindow interface is improved if (in the 'the gimp' window) you do:
file > preferences> window management
and set the window hints to 'utility window'

[loudmouthman]

Ironically Piracy is better for long term acceptance and enablement of a software business. How much adoption would Word or Autocad have received had their anti piracy measurements been more robust and their costs been higher ?

Piracy helped these companies establish a foot hold.

[DoctorMO]

People arn't going to switch for no reason. If they have photoshop and it works great for them, and they have no reason to use the gimp, then they won't. Just like someone who uses the gimp and has no reason to switch to photoshop won't switch. This isn't as much about pirated software as it is about software in general, and choices...

Right but copyright infringement is _bad_, I'm not saying it's theft or anything stupid like that; I'm saying here in the Free Software world we are giving people moral choices all the time and people are throwing those choices back in our faces because of functional bias, trademark bias and general stupidity. It's one thing to copy software that you really need and there is no other way of doing it, it's quite another to take software without permission when free software that does exactly the same thing exists.

These people are an insult to common decency and logical reason. And I will dislike anyone who follows in their path.

[juxtaposed]

Right but copyright infringement is _bad_, I

That really is subjective. I don't reconize copyright as an actual form of ownership (no, the government telling me that it is won't make me reconize it) and therefore I have no problem infringing on it.


'm saying here in the Free Software world we are giving people moral choices all the time and people are throwing those choices back in our faces because of functional bias, trademark bias and general stupidity.

I use open source software because most of the time it is better. Linux works better for me then windows. Much better.


These people are an insult to common decency and logical reason.

Logical reason would suggest that people can't own something after they sell it to someone or transfer posession of it to someone else in any way.

[smoker]

Okay, I have friends that look for cracks of things like Photoshop and Windows.

Every time I suggest an open source alternative, they refuse to even try it.

why would they if they are using an app that costs the same as the open source equivalent, and that they are familiar with?

no doubt, if they had no other option but to pay for the app, they would soon start using alternatives.

the fact is though, that if proprietory software was sold at a reasonable price, there would be very little piracy around.

whether this is good or bad for open source, i don't know. personally, i don't care if someone is paying for, or using a pirate copy of an app, it is up to them.

[eljoeb]

I don't know why, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of downloading music I haven't paid for. I still like buying CD's and having something to show for what I paid for. I think people should be able to download an artist's music free if they (the artist or the company they have signed with) allows it. If they don't well, I would rather not. I guess that makes me weird.

As for the "Why use open source when you could pirate proprietary software", I again, would never pirate it. However, if the proprietary version is better (in my eyes), I have no problem shelling out the cash for it.

[sloggerkhan]

Sometimes I think a return to the bardic tradition would be nice. Other times I don't. But I don't give money to major labels. I am willing to use magnatune sometimes, and to by used CDs at local stores, but I will not spend a penny of my money to help the RIAA destroy freedom to protect 'copyright'.

[deadowl]

Sometimes I think a return to the bardic tradition would be nice. Other times I don't. But I don't give money to major labels. I am willing to use magnatune sometimes, and to by used CDs at local stores, but I will not spend a penny of my money to help the RIAA destroy freedom to protect 'copyright'.

I am less concerned about piracy and more concerned about .individuals not exploring their choices.

It will probably come about in the next century that intellectual property will become a service, and anything beyond that will either be community-centric or advertisement-based. Until then, we have Adobe, Microsoft, etc.

For instance, in regards to service-based help, a business has to create a schedule for employees, and a computer program would greatly improve the efficiency in which they could do this. They could either license software, or hire someone to make something for them.

Speaking of which, anyone have any idea of how to apply a GPL-like system to investment? Or is that simply referred to as incorporation?

[Frak]

I'll be honest, if I had a chance to get proprietary software for free, when its way better than the open source alternative, then I'll do it. I'm familiar with it, and I don't mind the extra time.
And also, what we should be worrying about is piracy of Open Source. That gives a bad name to OSS.

[macogw]

To @trophy & reyfer:
If you read what the thread-starter said, 2 of the complaints apply to Photoshop as well. One was "multi-window interface," and well, last I checked, Photoshop had a multi-window interface too. The only one I know of that's in one window is once-Jasc now-Corel Paint Shop Pro. Another was "it doesn't have a certain feature and neither does Photoshop"

[@trophy]

To @trophy & reyfer:
If you read what the thread-starter said, 2 of the complaints apply to Photoshop as well. One was "multi-window interface," and well, last I checked, Photoshop had a multi-window interface too. The only one I know of that's in one window is once-Jasc now-Corel Paint Shop Pro. Another was "it doesn't have a certain feature and neither does Photoshop"

The mac version of Photoshop isn't all in one window, but the Windows version is.

[Hex_Mandos]

And also, what we should be worrying about is piracy of Open Source. That gives a bad name to OSS.

What does exactly "piracy of open source" mean?

[Dimitriid]

Piracy of proprietary software is an indication of failure of everything it stands for: Both as a design decision and as the economical model behind it. If people are not willing to pay for your product it can be reduced to 2 fundamental reasons:

1) Your product or the platform based on ( Windows ) is just not good enough for people to buy it, regardless of their ability to afford it.
2) People simply cannot afford to pay for your product which is a reflection of much larger problems and disparities: its no coincidence that piracy is more rampant on weaker economies where they are luxury items for that 1 to 5% of the population.

All crime, even petty cybercrime, can be traced back to fundamental social inequities, direct result of capitalism.

[@trophy]

What does exactly "piracy of open source" mean?

Funny Answer: downloading it via bittorrent.

Serious Answer: using GPL'd code in your proprietary product.

[Hex_Mandos]

Funny Answer: downloading it via bittorrent.

Serious Answer: using GPL'd code in your proprietary product.

While I agree with the serious definition, that's clearly not what Frak meant. In which way companies abusing GPLed stuff are "giving a bad name to OSS"?

[@trophy]

While I agree with the serious definition, that's clearly not what Frak meant. In which way companies abusing GPLed stuff are "giving a bad name to OSS"?

Yeah I don't know what he meant either.

Perhaps it was "It used to be about the muuuuusic." as in companies are just getting into OSS for the money, and once they start making some that product will magically go closed source (I'm looking at you, Skype). And I agree that that sucks, but there's not a lot we can do about it. It comes with the territory.

[argie]

What does exactly "piracy of open source" mean?

He could have meant copying a Mandriva CD. Or more likely, he's talking about copying ideas from other Operating Systems.

Out of curiosity, to the non-anti-piracy people, if you did some really good work in your company, and your boss gets a raise out of it would it make a difference to you?

[MetalMusicAddict]

multiwindow interface is improved if (in the 'the gimp' window) you do:
file > preferences> window management
and set the window hints to 'utility window'

lol. Wow. I missed that one. :) I wished the "Utility Window" minimized with the "Normal Window".

[AndyCooll]

It is perfectly possible to "pirate" open-source stuff. Copying a paid for version of a Xandros or Linspire CD for instance, or any other open-source app where a charge is made for owning it.

:cool:

[Frak]

It is perfectly possible to "pirate" open-source stuff. Copying a paid for version of a Xandros or Linspire CD for instance, or any other open-source app where a charge is made for owning it.

:cool:
Thats what I mean, pirating Open Source that cost money.

[AndyCooll]

Software piracy is bad for open-source simply because it perpetuates the use of an expensive proprietary app rather than users trying an alternative, open-source or otherwise. After all Microsoft themselves have said in the past that if someone is going to use pirated software they'd rather it be theirs.

And the upshot of this is continued dominance of an app in its particular field. All those users of pirated Photoshop for instance would have to find an alternative approach if a pirated copy wasn't available. Some might buy it, some would do without, and some would seek an alternative. Some of those seeking an alternative might then stumble upon an open-source version.

It is why Microsoft Office (for instance) is just as familiar to users in Africa, China and Russia, and has such a stranglehold even in these countries where most individuals are highly unlikely to be able to afford to buy a copy.

However, why seek an alternative when you can always get hold of a pirated copy of an app you are familiar with? In such instances their are only a few reasons why someone might change; if the alternative open-source app is noticeably better, if the the pirated version becomes unavailable for some reason, or if their conscience is stirred in some way.

:cool:

[deadowl]

Thats what I mean, pirating Open Source that cost money.

You cannot pirate GPL'd software unless you distribute a derivative work in which the source code isn't available, or you distribute it under a license that is incompatible with GPL'd software. The service that companies provide you with open source software, and also the physical cost of the medium, is what costs you with Red Hat and Novell. They may also charge for additional proprietary software.

[Frak]

There is software that is open source that cost money. Pirating that software IS AGAINST THE LAW!!! (Void in Canada)
Lets say I start a distribution in the U.S., it costs money. Lets say you also live in the U.S., and you pirate that distribution. I have the right to file a lawsuit against you for stealing my software that I charge for.
See what I mean?
(Pioneer Linux is this way)

[Hex_Mandos]

IF software is open source, then it can be copied and redistributed for free (or for a fee). It's not piracy. If a product can't be copied (like Linspire, Xandros... or OS X) it can't be considered open source as a whole (it's effectively a proprietary OS with free/open source components)

[Hex_Mandos]

There is software that is open source that cost money. Pirating that software IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!

Nope. For a license to be OSI approved, it must permit redistribution (both free and commercial). You can charge as much as you want, but someone can resell your software (See RHEL, CentOS and Oracle Linux, for example).

[goumples]

I'd take the other side and say software piracy is GOOD for Linux. As in, if lots of people out there pirate copies and windows and cant get updates and patches from microsoft, then they'll end up fighting all kinds of malware and end up having a bad OS experience.. disillusioned people look for alternatives.

[Samhain13]

...end up having a bad OS experience.. disillusioned people look for alternatives.

Precisely the reason why I lurk in these forums right now! :)

[juxtaposed]

As in, if lots of people out there pirate copies and windows and cant get updates and patches from microsoft, then they'll end up fighting all kinds of malware and end up having a bad OS experience.. disillusioned people look for alternatives.

Most pirated copies can get updates.

[goumples]

Most pirated copies can get updates.

It has to be hacked very very well.. I had a bootleg copy of XP once that couldn't update..

Edit: Although I have heard that some guys hacked Vista so well not long after its release that It would register as genuine on Microsoft's update page.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I am counting down the days until Windows XP stops getting support and my family can't manage to pirate Vista. At that point, I will finally be able to switch them to Ubuntu :)

Crossing my fingers, too. For once, I wish Microsoft all success (in locking out the pirates).

[EXCiD3]

Yeah, well if you are good enough with XP, you can obtain a key from a college, which is used for teaching students how to install XP. This special key has an unlimited number of uses and validates every time. However, i think they probably removed this stupid problem from Vista, but yes, those hackers can get updates with their software, depending on the program of course.

[juxtaposed]

Many pirated vista copies are OEM, and if microsoft shut them down then a lot of legit users would go down too.

[Frak]

It has to be hacked very very well.. I had a bootleg copy of XP once that couldn't update..

If you change the key, using something such as jellybean key finder, and the key is not being used, you are 100% genuine copy.


Many pirated vista copies are OEM, and if microsoft shut them down then a lot of legit users would go down too.

Many pirated versions of Vista are VLK due to the fact that Microsoft has no control over VLK keys.