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

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

img171.imageshack.us

90 pointsmakimaki75 comments

This is great.

I think "shameware" is much more compelling than DRMware. If you remind people that they are costing a small developer business and then let them pirate anyway then you are going to catch the people who might pay. The people who are going to pirate will do it whatever.

Also USB Overdrive is a great product. So I'm glad to see them trying something to keep their business viable.

They won't pay due to shame. Not at all. People steal music from indie artists just as readily as they do Madonna. They're not out to get someone by stealing from them, they just want stuff for free.

They rationalize it largely as they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

That's stealing more (in terms of dollars) from the labels than it is from the artists/talent.

Personally, I would pay for more music if the artists saw more than 5% of the proceeds. If you really want to support an artist: go to the concerts, donate directly or tell your friends about them.

Indie artists listed on iTunes (for example) make more than 60% on each song/album sale. It's way higher since there are no middle men involved. And it's easy to get listed through services like cdbaby.com. So "stealing" music from indies does hurt more in those terms.

But even with being a musician, I lean on the side of piracy myself because it's a virtual loss not an actual one, and it's natural for people to want to share the music and things they appreciate. Any long-term successful solution will have to account for and will likely encourage that. Copyright is becoming less and less relevant, and artists (including software developers) will continue to forge an existence in a post-copyright world too.

Funny story, I was playing a show the other day and some kids came up after to tell me they liked the show. One of them bought a CD and the others said they'd "totally buy one" but had no cash. So I told the first kid to just rip it for his friends, and the look on their faces was priceless. They were like "wow, awesome!" but you know he was probably going to do it anyway so why not acknowledge it? :)

Theoretically some piracy replaces sales. A pirated CD is not one less you'll sell, but it's more than 0.

But yeah, might as well except reality and just use the extra exposure to sell more concert tickets. If you can't beat em...

It could be less than 0, as a pirated CD can be seen as a form of advertising, and could potentially gain customers who would not have discovered you without it. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it's a possibility that makes it even more difficult to calculate the economic harm of piracy.

It seems unlikely it's negative in terms of CD sales. The amount of people who pirate a CD and then buy has to be pretty close to 0.

Well, a commercial soundtrack on a catchy flash animation is also copyright infringement unless royalties were paid, but there have been a couple of times when this has lead me to investigate a particular artist.

You're right, but that's the exception not the rule. Unfortunately, most artists that people want music from (or know about) are still with the big record labels.

That's a great story. How do you feel about sites like favtape.com?

I think sites like that are great!

It's great to see people experimenting with new ideas around sharing music, and while I'm not sure which of them will provide the ultimate successor to the current music industry structure, or which combination of them will, the more experiments we put out there the faster we'll find out.

Ultimately, whatever does emerge as the best solution will be one where artists and listeners are much more connected and in control than before, so while there may be short term losses, I think we'll get to a net win in the end :)

I doubt most people know that though. People are unaware of the economics of the recording industry and don't really care much.

It's the same with software.

Well, we can try to help them :).

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The rationale is that nobody is getting hurt. Which is true. The other side misuses words by calling it "stealing", which they rationalize by saying that not giving people money is the same as stealing money away from them.

Well, it's not true. One group (bands, record labels, distributors, companies that press the cd, etc.) is getting hurt when you pirate a CD you otherwise would have paid for. However another group, often including the band you pirated, makes money when you pirate a CD you wouldn't have paid for, like it, and then go see a concert you otherwise might not.

In the end, the net effect is certainly bad for a lot of people, but possibly good for some.

Either way, it is unpreventable and isn't going away, so the question any more isn't so much "who is this hurting and how much?" as "what do we do given the new realities of the industry?" But just because the focus has changed doesn't mean that piracy isn't hurting people. It clearly is. Not as much as they'd like to claim (record industry lawsuits always assume every pirated CD would have been purchased, which is clearly far from true) but still, people are getting hurt.

While it might be true that people just want stuff for free, I guess it is more because of the close-to-zero marginal costs. Knowing that it costs almost nothing to make a new copy of a software or music album it is easier to rationalize and have a clear conscience. I guess we haven't met this kind of zero-marginal-cost intellectual property stuff throughout our evolution, and this might not be a bad thing.

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

Again, I am against pirating, but don't agree fully with the text in that popup dialog.

Yes stealing is not the right word.

I always think its odd - the one thing, really the only one thing that computers do really really well, flawlessly, better then any other tech in history is copy information without error. And yet the primary business model of successful software is (or was) charging people for the copying of those bits (allowing, rightly so, the creators of those bits to get paid for the content creation).

I am not saying its wrong, not at all, it just feels like a kind of arbitrage, and can't last. Well I guess that's one business reason why software is increasingly moving online.

I guess the same is true of any content creator. I am happy to pay for content and software, and do, but kids these days....

I am not saying its wrong, not at all, it just feels like a kind of arbitrage, and can't last. Well I guess that's one business reason why software is increasingly moving online.

Well said. Software is moving from "making computers do something" to "making computers do something together". This changes the economics of software completely.

"... in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it would be not be possible to use it without buying."

In economic theory, the demand curve is (basically) constructed from the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of people. It is assumed that people with a WTP > Price (P) buy the good, and those with a WTP < P don't.

Your statement would be true if we could determine that only people in the WTP < P group use illegal copies. They would not affect a supplier's sales when they use illegal copies.

But there's no causal relation between one's WTP and one's ability to use an illegal copy. Thus, people in the WTP > P group are just as likely to do so as people in the WTP < P group.

Well, this is not quite right, for we may ask: Who's more likely to be motivated to make or search for illegal copies? Who's gaining the most profit by investing time and effort to search file sharing networks? Those with a rather high WTP or those with a rather low WTP?

If this sounds uncommon to you, ask yourself: What software is more likely to be found in any file sharing network: The popular ones -- that is: those with many people having a high WTP -- or the unpopular ones? According to my observations, the popular ones are more likely to be found. The same holds true for other products such as movies and music.

Whether these losses are compensated by advertising effects, is a matter of the circumstances: To make this reasonable, a supplier needs to sell (more) copies. People with illegal copies may advertise a product, but they are also likely to distribute illegal copies: What good is advertising if it does not increase sales?

Even if we assume that -- in the beginning -- only people in the WTP < P group distribute illegal copies and advertise them, it should be clear that it will also spread to people in the WTP > P group. The longer illegal copies are around, the more likely it will affect the sales of the suppliers.

Overall: Yes, it's possible that illegal copies do no harm to suppliers and may even help them to sell more legal copies. But these are likely to be exceptions to the rule. In general, using illegal copies decreases the wealth of suppliers.

In the long run, it also decrease the wealth of users who want or need software, for it decreases the incentive of suppliers to improve their products or invest money to make new ones.

Well put. If price were the only determinant of software success, free/open-source software would have long ago crushed its competitors. It's free without needing to be pirated, so it gets all that free "advertising", right? :)

No, you are correct that software largely gets pirated because it's popular rather than the other way around. Pirates who think they are doing software authors a favor through "advertising" are fooling themselves -- and ignoring the systemic damage done by piracy. (Where are all the big Chinese consumer software companies?)

Sure, if the pirate just stored the file in their collection as a trophy (as many do). However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value.

Having a thief (sorry, 'copyright infringer') take your software rather than pay for it may eventually provide some word-of-mouth advertising, but they're likely to tell other pirates and repeat the cycle of revenue loss rather than become vocal advocates for a purchase.

Outside of edge-cases like Microsoft (whose Windows dominance was arguably helped by piracy) it seems that 'piracy is good advertising' is a fallacy used by pirates to make themselves feel better about denying income to people they otherwise like.

Can you name three small software producers whose revenue grew stronger as a result of piracy?

"However, if the pirate is actively using the product and deriving value from it in their work, they would have paid for the product (or another like it) to receive the same value."

Or done without. Or done with something different. But it's false to assume that anyone glomming a copy of some software would pay for it were it not free.

I didn't see that assumption being made. The parent's point is that it is (likewise) false to assume that everyone "glomming a copy of some software" wouldn't pay any price other than free, were piracy not an option.

If a pirate is using a program, they're deriving value from it. They are not 'doing without' even though that option is available.

If the pirated option was not available, they would have made a purchase (yours or a competitors) or made do with freeware. That they've not chosen the free option indicates that they prefer your product -- one which they would have paid for.

Not true. I prefer Photoshop over GIMP. But I use it so rarely, that if I had to pay full price for Photoshop, I'd just use GIMP.

Given my infrequency of usage, I'd be willing to pay some amount for Photoshop: $30 or $49.99 or whatever, but I simply don't use it $699 worth.

I do pay for all the apps I use daily, and thankfully they're all "reasonably" priced: MyEclipse, Transmit, Parallels, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, TextMate, and so on.

Because in most cases, the people using pirated software would not pay for it if it

That is a fallacy. If it were not of some value to them, why would they even want it? It's more a case that they simply feel entitled to it.

Have you ever walked through a department store? Try it sometime & see if you pay for everything you'd take for free.

Ok I'll bite. By the very fact that you'd take it, it means it has some value to you. Of course you are going to take something for free that you believe has non-zero value. If you are taking something for free that has value to you, you are profiting. How is that not stealing?

If the definition of stealing is "taking something for free that has value to you", then I steal with every breath.

If copying is the same is taking, then telling a story is the same as burning a book.

Stealing is when someone has something that they value, and you take it from them. It doesn't matter how much you value the object. What matters is that they value the object, and that after it is stolen, they no longer have it.

Are you really saying that if you profit without paying for something, then you must be stealing? What if you have some wood, and you make a table out of it. You've profited by the difference in price of a table and a pile of wood, but you've not paid anyone for anything. Who have you stolen from?

What if this wood was a tree in someone's garden? They have a sign up that says "help yourself to apples", they must mean it's OK to take the whole tree, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Thinking of it in terms of morals is rather unproductive. It's just one of the ways markets fail.

There is a gap between what an item costs and what it's worth to you. I have a copy of Vista Home that came bundled with my machine, I would pay 20$ for a copy of Vista Ultimate 64 bit, but that's about it.

Wha...? Most thiefs would not pay for the things they steal...

While the current IP laws may not be so good, it'd sound less like rationalization of people would make good arguments.

And it's only $20...I can understand why people steal Microsoft Office and the Adobe Suite, but I can't understand the incentive in stealing something like Transmit or TextMate. It seems that some people can't accept that some software costs money.

And while we're on the topic of small Mac software shops, can we safely call ShapeShifter abandonware yet?

I don't think it has anything to do with accepting software costs money. When I was younger and had basically no money, I would pirate software that I needed to improve a skill or something along those lines. Once I got older and started having disposable income, I started buying software. Hell, I even legitimately own Adobe CS3 Web Premium.

Nowadays, if I use a piece of donationware that provided a useful service, I donate. I donate to Open Source projects which have been particularly useful to me. The oddity here is, I'm far from fiscally well-off; I have about $3,500 to my name.

So, it seems to me at least, that these things become habit. There were times I used to pirate software (or anything, really) just because I didn't feel like paying for it. Once I became accustomed to paying for software, I kept paying and even started donating. Now, I don't have a single piece of pirated software on my computer.

Although, I do have some paid-for software which I no longer use. For instance, I have a license for SteerMouse (http://plentycom.jp/en/steermouse/) which I no longer use, but am also barred from transferring it (I was going to give it away just now) per the license agreement. This is just silly. The less restrictive a piece of licensed software is, the more likely I am to buy it.

Companies could definitely be smarter about non-commercial licenses.

Not to defend piracy, but if you shell out 20$ for every small desktop enhancement application, it adds up very quickly.

How much did the otherwise empty computer and operating system cost?

Value doesn't materialize out of good thoughts. Actual work has to go into it.

I am not saying that it wasn't work to create those programs. But the fact is, there are plenty of free alternatives for most software. That is just the way it is. Putting work into something doesn't make you entitled to get paid. If nobody else feels like buying your stuff, you are out of luck.

Personally I am using Linux with 0 commercial software installed. I do pay for the occasional computer game, though.

Btw, it is not only "being cheap" that makes me stick to open source software, it has other benefits, too. For example OS software can be bundled with Linux and in many cases be installed via the package manager. Also, I get the "security verification" I don't get for commercial software (I know it is not a guarantee, but it is better than nothing).

Also, I know that I will be able to use the software everywhere. I don't have to buy a new copy if I buy a new computer, or find myself at a computer somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Also, put it into perspective: Windows allegedly is more complex than the Space Shuttle, yet sells for 130$ or so (don't know exact prices). In comparison to that, 20$ for a text editor is a lot of money. I know 20$ is not much (like 2 visits to the cinema or 3 coffees at Starbucks), but I think one can't help thinking like that when deciding to shell out money for software.

Then why not use the free option rather than pirate?

If someone prefers the commercial version, they should be willing to pay for that added value.

Of course, I didn't think the discussion was about buy vs pirate.

Although I must admit I can't condemn pirating completely. When people don't have much money, I can see why they don't feel too bad about pirating.

Great strategy, just be honest with your "customers"...

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

I think websites should start popping up a similar message when adblock is detected.

I realise this is an unpopular view around these parts, but it's a bit of a "jerk" thing to do.

That's fine, and you have every right to do so.

I will then use the 'adblock detected popup message'-blocker.

Is the proportion of adblock users actually high enough for the ad-buyers to care about their impact?

I'm not sure... as a single data point I measured usage on the Mibbit main client for a while (Mainly early adopter fx3 tech types), and it was 8% or something for the main client.

Of course it isn't too important as adblock is useless in blocking all but the most simple adverts.

In the general population the % is probably much much lower though, so you're right - probably not worth worry about until you're a very big site.

It's more the antisocial attitude I disagree with.

Looking at ads is social? Only on HN, I suppose. :)

The irony here is you're supporting click fraud. What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile? But you're perfectly happy to take money for worthless views & that sounds a lot more like actual stealing.

I'm in no way supporting click fraud. I don't care if you view adverts and decide not to click on them.

I do care if you aren't even prepared to entertain the notion that at some point you might find an advert intriguing enough to click on it.

How is the relevancy/usefulness of adverts going to increase if you're not prepared to listen?

It's fine to be hostile to websites that use horrible techniques - flash, popups, etc etc many of the news sites seem to do it now - "Here's an advert while the article 'loads'"... But I think the non-jerk thing to do is to give websites at least a chance. IF they abuse your trust, and advertise intrusively in your face, it's probably best to just not go to that website any more.

By installing a blanket earplug mentality, you're refusing to trust any website to treat you properly. Which IMHO is pretty antisocial.

>> "What advertiser would want to waste ads on people who are obviously hostile?"

Do people using adblock never buy anything? Do they never find information useful or interesting? Are they really immune to all forms of useful communication? Never read a product review and then decided to purchase? I'm skeptical.

</rant>

Maybe someone should create a better adblocker then. Recently I would actually have been willing to turn the adblocker off for some sites that ask kindly, but it is very inconvenient to do so. It seems AdBlock plus only let's me either turn the whole thing off or on at once (or I could wade through the thousands of default filters - no, I won't). It would be nice to have an easy way to enable ads for certain sites.

Although in general I think it is stupid - I wonder if for people hostile to ads, the ads might actually have the opposite effect (hate of the product instead of desire to buy). So actually it would be better for the advertising companies to not show ads to such people (like me).

Another thing: if I want recommendations, I am definitely not hoping for some ad provider to get it right. I will go to a site that gives me recommendations directly.

I use AdBlock Plus and if I right click on the status bar icon, I get two menu items, "Disable on <domain>" and "Disable for this page only". It saves this preference across sessions.

Hm, what do you mean by "status bar icon"? I also have Adblock Plus (installed via apt-get on Ubuntu), but I don't see those options anywhere?

Edit: Oh OK, found it - had to enable the status bar icon in the settings. Thanks!

It probably depends on the person, but it's clear worthless views are rather overrepresented. Look through the adblock reviews on addons.mozilla.org. When I'm choosing a new graphics card, I ask around forums instead of looking at ads. Antisocial or not, you'd be wasting your advertiser's budget by trying to target me.

I wouldn't be wasting anything if it was a % per sale.

So an advert such as "Get 10% off [the graphics card you are about to buy] by using this link" wouldn't interest you at all eh?

Also, it's pretty probable that some of the forums you look at are in fact just adverts. They don't look like adverts, adblock doesn't think they're adverts, but they may well be.

Ok, if it makes you happier, I'll turn off adblock the handful of times a year I'm shopping online. The signal-noise ratio is so bad, I doubt it'll make a difference to either of us.

"Also, it's pretty probable that some of the forums you look at are in fact just adverts..."

I ask on the sites I usually post.

How about a better idea - only enable adblock for sites that annoy you with their ads.

Isn't that a bit like giving money to beggars? I mean not that one shouldn't donate, but I think economists recommend donating to causes you actually want to support. In India beggars can get their limps removed to get more donations out of pity - by giving to them, one gives them an incentive to cut off their limps???

That was a bit sidetracked, I guess one should also help the occasional beggar. But switching off adblock would give more sites an incentive to put up ads, which is definitely not something I would like to encourage. TipJoy to the rescue?

I'd actually say the reverse is true. By using adblock you're decreasing pageviews for certain ads, which may make some websites put more adverts up for those not using adblock.

I really don't get the 'tipping' idea. You seem to see adverts as an evil begging tool rather than an extremely useful device that connects an advertiser with an interested consumer.

Advertising is supposed to be useful to you. If it's not, then it's just bad advertising. But don't assume all advertising is bad.

Advertising is first of all supposed to be useful to the advertiser.

In theory it would be fascinating to create useful advertising, but I don't think the technology is quite there yet.

That is why I watch Google, because in my opinion they compete with themselves. On the one hand they want to be the best search engine, on the other hand they want to live off advertising. But if their search was perfect, there would be no more need for advertising.

OK, even if there was perfect search, it might still be interesting to get interesting cross-references (ie you are looking for cars and get adverts for car insurance). But then the problem remains that there would only be advertising for commercial things. The perfect search engine would also cross-reference me to non-commercial things.

As for begging, I don't think ads work that way (less ad viewers implies more ads). In the long run, the ads would go away if nobody would be watching them (beggars can't go away if they truly have no other choice, so here the analogy falters). Maybe along with the ads, many "free" services would disappear, too. On the other hand, if ads weren't an option, maybe other payment schemes would suddenly gain traction.

"But if their search was perfect, there would be no more need for advertising."

A percentage of their revenue is from adverts generated from searches, but a ton is generated from adsense on peoples websites, in gmail, etc etc

I really don't put much hope on other payment schemes taking off. Advertising is a pretty good proven model, with premium options for the smaller set of users willing to pay.

No, a "get 10% off" link sounds like a scam.

You should start being a bit more trusting and less cynical.

Trust in advertising? I don't know...

How many "get 10% off" offers can there likely be? When I shop for products, I usually check with price comparison sites anyway. They usually have shop ratings, too. What good could a random "10% off" offer do? If they are really cheaper than the competition, why wouldn't they just register with the price comparison site, so that I could find them that way? And if I go to their site through an ad, I don't have any ratings for them.

Ultimately I prefer to shop with Amazon anyway, because their customer service is reliable...

The chances that an ad pushes something into my face that I really, absolutely need but simply forgot about are rather slim, I think. In conclusion, all good an ad could do to me was to make me buy stuff I don't really need.

You do realize the price comparison sites are essentially large adverts, and they get commission when you buy through them?

Yes, but at least I only get to see the advert when I want to see it.

Not sure if the commission is more than other costs for advertising, but I guess it shouldn't be.

You could only improve on this by having a picture of the developer with his kid or something :)

Shame is a good motivator in this case. Shame works as a motivator for people who probably could pay, but aren't (or just want to "test" the software). Shame does not work as a motivator for criminals or heartless freeloaders, and they'd never pay anyway.

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

To hackers: please don't look through our code for GPL violations, because surely you'll find some. Hopefully no one finds all the code I copy/pasted from, or the documentation I learnt from.

To hackers: I used GPL software to compile this program, but I won't give you the same pleasure... you are not free to use my programs.

Compilers licensed under the GPL do not transfer their license to their output. This is explicitly stated in the GPL.

That is almost true1, but completely misses the point.
They are using tools(gcc) by people who count on their honesty to give people the same freedom they are given.
Get a better business model. Software copying has been happening since the beginning(since before people were charging for software)... learn from history. People who still complain about copying software are very silly, they haven't learnt from over 50 years of history.

1 not a lawyer, however -- with certain compiler switches you can include GPL software with gcc. For example if you link in GPL covered object code.

The GPL: because what use is freedom if you can't control what people do with it.

what use is a gimp if you can't lock her away in your basement?

"or the documentation I learnt from..."

Because of course, whoever teaches you owns all the ideas you build thereafter.

No one ever owns ideas. It's true, look it up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com