If I may, I'd like to look at some common myths.
"It was a time of myth and legend, when a hairy midget threw jewellery into a volcano and a shabby loner had delusions of kingship.."
No, not that kind of myth.
"Myth November enjoys rollerblading, nude volleyball and world peace..."
Definitely not that kind of myth, either. The myths I'd like to take a look at are those surrounding software piracy. Every single time this issue comes up amongst the tech community, the same old hoary myths are trotted out, and like most myths, they're a load of absolute bovine manure, at least in my not so humble opinion.
Myth #1: "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so the company has lost nothing by me having it..."
I must remember this one the next time I walk past a luxury car dealership; I've always fancied a quick spin in a Ferrari. Somehow, I don't think the police will be buying this argument any more than I do. This is perhaps the most prevalent myth out there, and it's all too easily demolished. Put simply, we live in a capitalist society where goods and services are exchanged for cold, hard cash. You pays your money and you gets your goods. If you don't have the money, you don't have the goods. If said product is beyond your means, then it's beyond your means and you don't have any ownership rights over it at all, period, full stop. The argument that the company hasn't lost a sale because you never would have made one doesn't make your piracy right or correct in any way; if you think the package is worth your time to download, install and use, then you should be recompensing the owner of that property, and if you can't afford to do so, then don't.
Myth #2: "Software piracy isn't theft, it's copyright infringement."
This is a favourite of the nit-picky crowd; the argument goes along the lines that by copying code you're not depriving the company of a physical good; ergo it's not theft, but copyright infringement. This fallacy is then usually loaded on top of the 'copyrights are unfairly weighted' argument -- which is a separate case -- to justify individual piracy, or just to blast away mindlessly at anyone who declares software piracy to be theft. The problem is that the argument falls over at step one. If I'm a software vendor, I vend.. .wait for it... software. I may vend my software in a physical form, but due to the nature of the product, I may choose to only vend it in code form, via Net delivery. It's still my product, and my call as to how I control its distribution. You copy it, and you're not only infringing on my copyright, but you're also thieving something. OK, perhaps in some far off fairy-land where Tinkerbell lives, you might only copy the code but never run or distribute it, but I believe we all live in the real world here, and those copying the code are either distributing it on or using it themselves; that's actually both theft (I have not been able to realise the value of my product) and copyright infringement (you copied it).
The 'copyright is unfair' argument is often used to justify piracy; while I think that current copyright law is somewhat unfairly weighted -- a topic I've written on before -- it is a separate issue to whether or not you feel like you're entitled to a free copy of Microsoft Office.
Myth #3: "I haven't pirated it, I'm just testing it out prior to buying it.."
Great. Delete it now, then. Right now. And all the files you created with it. What, you don't want to do that?
There are very few programs out there that don't offer some kind of trialware or demonstration version, and of those that don't, it's generally quite possible to glean whether or not the package would be suitable for your needs from specification sheets and vendor web sites. I'm well aware that at the expensive end of town, where packages cost more than the average family car, they don't really offer download trials, but at that end of the pricing spectrum they'll more than likely have a sales force that's happy to provide a trial period for you, especially if you just casually mention that you're also looking at a competitor's product. I could also just casually mention review sites -- I seem to have seen one around here recently -- that assess software and hardware packages, which can give you an early heads-up on all kinds of products. It's just an idea, mind you.
This does bring up a slightly different issue, as I do think you should be quite free to return software if it doesn't meet an advertised specification, although even I'll admit how you police that versus people claiming it doesn't meet a need and just pirating it anyway is conceptually tricky, if not outright impossible.
Myth #4: "If it were cheaper, I would buy it. They're charging too much, so I pirated it just to show them."
Yes, little Timmy, I'm sure the judge will see it that way too. To relate back to my Ferrari, I do think that most cars are overpriced, but that doesn't allow me in any way to lob a brick through the window of the dealership, hotwire one and go for an alarm-blaring spin. I doubt that my act of auto acquisition will make the dealer think twice about lowering prices; investing in some more solid security would seem a little more sensible. Oh, and enquiring with the police if they'd mind kicking my head in, too.
I've saved my favourite piracy myth until last, and it's a doozy.
Myth #5: "Software piracy costs manufacturers millions, and that's why software prices are so high"
Rubbish. Balderdash. Horse Hooey. While I don't doubt that lost sales to piracy do hurt companies, both big and large, the relationship between piracy and pricing is nowhere near this simple. In any case, it's a very fundamental economic principle that you charge for a product what the market will bear. Windows XP is my favourite example of this; Microsoft claimed at launch that its product activation anti-piracy measures were effectively bullet-proof. That wasn't entirely true, but if the company believed that, why didn't OS prices drop?
You could take the view that it's because the anti-piracy measures cost money, and that's undoubtedly true, but presumably Microsoft isn't that insane that it would implement a scheme that cost it more than the value of the pirated software it was trying to eliminate. I'm just saying presumably; I don't have access to Bill's latest psychiatric reports. Just for the record, by way, I'm not on the "Micro$oft" payroll, I have no access to their "black budget" and I don't take brown envelopes. For a start, brown just isn't my colour, and if I was on the take, do you think I'd just be fantasising about driving a Ferrari?
No, the reason that prices don't drop is because the market will bear it, and while it will bear it the software companies can look at healthier profit margins. Charge too much, and people will start looking at the costs associated with moving to alternatives -- and that's exactly how some open source options are gaining traction in the market. Not because they're free, but because they're an alternative where the TCO may (depending on whose figures you believe) be lower than the paid software alternative.
What do you think? Are any of the piracy myths justified, and if so, how? Do you think there are cases where software piracy is justified? Let me know at edit@zdnet.com.au
1%
4%
