The Pirated Software Discussion Thread!

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by Chai

DYKT: There are MS Office Student & Teachers edition which you can easily afford?

DYKT: No money to afford original software is a lame excuse?

DYKT: I agree!

[Maximus_Detritus]

DYKT I really would buy original software if I could?

DYKT : my parents would never fund it? (Tell me that non-IT ppl would see the point in paying 999 us dollars for Photoshop, or the equivalent for Macromedia Studio MX, etc etc etc)

DYKT : i have tried explaining to them why it costs so much, but heck, they still won't listen? And I'm sure that many students face the same problem.

DYKT : not all students are geeks or techies, thats why they dont dare touch open source stuff, and not all of them have the time to learn about it (especially with the way courses are run in our public Unis)?

DYKT : It's not that I condone the use of pirated software, it's just that I see why its usage is so prevalent?

DYKT : At least I try my best to buy whatever original software I can? (yes, that extends to all the games I buy)

[Maximus_Darling]

DYKT : I think there aren't any shops in miri which sells original software.. at all?

I think there used to be one but ppl wouldn't go there to buy the stuff cos it's just too expensive and u still get same thing from all the pirated copies.

[Maximus_Darling]

Originally Posted by Maximus_Detritus

DYKT : At least I try my best to buy whatever original software I can? (yes, that extends to all the games I buy)

Eyy... then why were u all like, 'i can't believe u buy original games' when u came over?

[Adrian Wong]

DYKT : I personally believe students should receive application software for free, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes.

DYKT : Doing so will not only better define and reduce piracy, it will also encourage students to self-train themselves on the software and actually encourage companies to adopt those software?

DYKT : Companies should only charge licensing fees if the person buys it for commercial use. Or at least working adults.

[zy]

Originally Posted by Chai

DYKT: There are MS Office Student & Teachers edition which you can easily afford?

DYKT: No money to afford original software is a lame excuse?

DYKT : i'm not working ??

Originally Posted by Adrian Wong

DYKT : I personally believe students should receive application software for free, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes.

DYKT : Doing so will not only better define and reduce piracy, it will also encourage students to self-train themselves on the software and actually encourage companies to adopt those software?

DYKT : Companies should only charge licensing fees if the person buys it for commercial use. Or at least working adults.

DYKT : i thought of the same too ?

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Maximus_Detritus

Then I'm sure EVERYTHING on your PC is original software then? (=

Actually, yes, they're all original. This doesn't mean I'm rich. It means there's very little software on this PC

Originally Posted by Maximus_Detritus

DYKT : alot of us students cant afford our own PCs, let alone software?

DYKT : some colleges have open licenses ?

Originally Posted by Maximus_Detritus

DYKT : Alot of our parents arent techies, and would really question the need to spend (for example) U$999 on Adobe Photoshop CS? (convert that. 4000 ringgit.)

DYKT : you maybe can use an open license, or you can call it an investment in your education ?

Originally Posted by Maximus_Detritus

DYKT : OpenSource apps are a way to get around that problem, but alot of those supposed 'students who wish to rip off other ppl' are clueless about it and not really educated enough on the subject to dip their toes in it?

DYKT : you're probably right ? and there are no open-source equivs for many popular software programs. Still think commercial ones are better sometimes.

[Papercut]

DYKT: There is lots of software available online that already has that sort of scheme. Eg. ZoneLabs' ZoneAlarm and Lavasoft Adaware. For home users, you are allowed to use the program for free, albeit without some of the extra features that are provided for paying users. Come to think of it, 3DMark also probably falls into this category.

DYKT: My beef, however, is solely with Microsoft. Bill Gates is really a genius and a monster rolled into one, and I'll try to explain why. He knows that every computer needs an operating system. He also knows that at the moment (and for the past ~8 years), there are no worthy competitors to Windows for home/office users. When there is no competition, (and this holds true for any market/product/industry), then he can charge as high a price as he likes because, as we say in Economics, the demand is inelastic. People NEED an OS, so they are forced to buy Windows at exorbitant prices. In a market where there is fierce competition, eg. Nvidia vs. ATI, the competing producers are forced to lower their prices so as to remain competitive. They may also find new methods of production to lower their production costs. This is not the case with Microsoft. There is no incentive for them to lower prices, and the revenue they generate exceeds their costs of production by (I'm estimating) several hundred %. And what happens to the huge profits? It ends up in Mr. Bill Gates' bank account, of course. So, do you see the logic in my argument now?

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wong

DYKT : I personally believe students should receive application software for free, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes.

DYKT: it sounds different if the shoe is on the other foot ? Can I photocopy your book, as long as I don't use it for commercial purposes ?

DYKT : doing so will not only better define and reduce piracy, it will also encourage students to self-train themselves on the software and actually encourage companies to adopt those software?

DYKT : authors should only charge royalties if the person buys the book for commercial use. Or at least working adults.

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Papercut

DYKT: There is lots of software available online that already has that sort of scheme. Eg. ZoneLabs' ZoneAlarm and Lavasoft Adaware. For home users, you are allowed to use the program for free, albeit without some of the extra features that are provided for paying users. Come to think of it, 3DMark also probably falls into this category.

DYKT: My beef, however, is solely with Microsoft. Bill Gates is really a genius and a monster rolled into one, and I'll try to explain why. He knows that every computer needs an operating system. He also knows that at the moment (and for the past ~8 years), there are no worthy competitors to Windows for home/office users. When there is no competition, (and this holds true for any market/product/industry), then he can charge as high a price as he likes because, as we say in Economics, the demand is inelastic. People NEED an OS, so they are forced to buy Windows at exorbitant prices. In a market where there is fierce competition, eg. Nvidia vs. ATI, the competing producers are forced to lower their prices so as to remain competitive. They may also find new methods of production to lower their production costs. This is not the case with Microsoft. There is no incentive for them to lower prices, and the revenue they generate exceeds their costs of production by (I'm estimating) several hundred %. And what happens to the huge profits? It ends up in Mr. Bill Gates' bank account, of course. So, do you see the logic in my argument now?

There actually are alernatives. And Windows is dirt cheap. Do you know how much SCO charged for XENIX ?