
Editorial: "How piracy changed my life" - Breakthrough
http://www.neowin.net/news/editorial-how-piracy-changed-my-life
======
kstenerud
I'm one of those people who would pirate just because I could. It was almost a
game, trying to amass as much warez as I could, to the point that 90% of the
stuff I got I either never used, or used only once.

That changed over time. As my time became more valuable, I couldn't spend all
day fiddling with software anymore. I became more focused, downloading only
stuff I used a lot. And then it hit me: It would be far easier to just buy the
damn thing for $10, $20, $50, whatever and not have to hunt shit down, find a
keygen, or in the worst case crack it myself.

So now I don't pirate anymore. It's not out of a feeling of moral obligation,
but rather because I appreciate the convenience. And, realizing that pirates
are people at various points on the price/effort spectrum, I don't even worry
about my own software being pirated. Why should I, when I get income aplenty
from it even with pirates in the equation?

~~~
cageface
It probably depends on the business, but I know several developers of music
production software that can correlate huge drops in sales with the release of
new cracks of their software _to the exact day_.

I think we are a little too quick to assume that a pirated copy is not a lost
sale.

~~~
kstenerud
That would make sense, considering that music production software tends to be
viciously expensive, and music producers tend to not have much money.

~~~
keithpeter
and there is resistance to using the free software alternatives, thus leading
to a cycle where the free software alternatives don't get feedback/criticism.

Teenagers especially are really influenced by brands. I keep suggesting that
'industry standard' = 'same as all the others' and that being a bit different
might be a good idea. No dice.

~~~
jdietrich
The free software alternatives are all absolutely terrible. Ardour is the
leader amongst free DAWs, and is very nearly as good as Pro Tools was ten or
fifteen years ago. There's no good free sequencer, no good sampler, no good
reverb. Audio software is just too niche and too difficult; It requires a lot
of skills that are rare in the free software community.

~~~
keithpeter
Well, some people seem to manage with these tools! And if more people were
introduced to them, perhaps the feedback and number of interested coders would
increase.

I admit I was thinking more of supercollider and puredata, so more 'sonic
arts' I suppose.

~~~
cdawzrd
Until there is a open-source program that replicates what Ableton Live offers
(seamless and easy-to-use integration of audio recording and nonlinear editing
with MIDI production), no one will consider using an open-source tool.

The biggest hurdle from my point of view is that low-latency audio on
operating systems that are not Windows or OS X is a joke. Some organization
needs to sink and huge chunk of developer time into either improving the user
and developer experience of JACK or writing something new. Maybe once that is
in place and starts shipping in vanilla Ubuntu (no special kernel requirement
either!) the user software developers will be able to start catching up with
the tools available on the Win/Mac platforms.

~~~
koide
Easy to use? I've played with some of these tools, including Ableton Live and
I've never found any that is actually easy to use.

They are all too stuck in the sliders/knobs metaphor. I'm not sure it's an
adequate metaphor for people who has not produced in the physical world
before.

------
meritt
It's always been rumored that Adobe software, especially Photoshop, has been
easy to pirate to encourage adoption with a user base that might otherwise
seek alternatives. As those people hone their skills and eventually find jobs,
Photoshop is the norm and what their employers purchase licensing for.

~~~
lumberjack
Same with Windows and Office. It's better to have them pirate your program
than run somebody's else.

~~~
wting
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't
pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going
to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and
then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

\-- Bill Gates during speech at University of Washington

[http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-
micropir...](http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9)

~~~
mappu
"Number two market share goes to Windows pirated, or unlicensed ... That's a
competitor that's tough to beat, they've got a good price and a heck of a
product, but we're working on it."

\-- Steve Ballmer, 2009 <http://www.osnews.com/story/21035>

~~~
ihaveajob
Another quote by Ballmer, heard in person a couple of weeks ago: "In Russia,
we have a great market share, but a bit of a problem collecting".

------
mtgx
I remember when Bill Gates came to Romania to launch their Microsoft branch
here, and in front of the public the country's president himself told him how
helpful the _pirated_ version of his Windows has been for Romania. It was
quite hilarious and a ballsy thing to say to Bill Gates.

But I think Microsoft and Bill Gates have learned to accept that, because
imagine if China, India, and all the other poor countries out there were
_forced_ to use the free Linux instead of the pirated version of Windows. Then
Windows would've had 50% or less market share in PC's, and that would've meant
they wouldn't have had a monopoly in browsers, nor in Office anymore. So
having Windows everywhere, even pirated, has helped Microsoft a lot to get its
monopoly position.

I think in the next decade, it will be Android which will be what Windows was
for all these kids in poor countries. It will be much cheaper to even get the
hardware for it than it was to get a PC 10 years ago, and this time the
software will actually be free and open source. I truly believe Android will
revolutionize the world in this sense.

It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Apple are trying to slow it down right
now, and make the devices more expensive than they should be through bogus
licenses and lawsuits, but they won't stop it.

------
chasing
I'm glad things worked out for Vlad -- when I was younger, I pirated a fair
amount of software and games, and, like him, I think it enabled me to get
inspired to learn more about computers in general and, indeed, now I stare at
them all day for work.

But.

I'm not sure what the bigger point is, here. Should we be okay with piracy as
long as the pirate is using it for self-betterment? Do games count for that?
What about pirating Game of Thrones episodes? (Or, to take a wild leap: Is it
cool for a kid to steal a car if he learns how to be a mechanic from it?)

Today, I do feel there are some motions towards providing better access to
software and hardware in poorer parts of the world. Which is great. And, to be
frank, the quality of both cheap hardware and open source software is _insane_
relative to twenty years ago. So, again, I'm not sure what Vlad's bigger point
is.

If the point is to justify piracy, I think he only does it in the very
narrowest of ways: Considering the state of technology in the 1990s, piracy
enabled people in poorer parts of the world (and kids in wealthier parts of
the world) access to the growing information technology industry. I'm not sure
that argument exactly holds in the same way today.

Finally, Microsoft can survive a fair amount of piracy. But not every software
company can. What happens when this "it's cool because I'm using it to educate
myself" stance kills software companies? Or game companies? Or media
companies? Is that better for everyone?

\---

EDIT: I'm not equating the act of stealing a car with the act of pirating
Windows. I am merely wondering about the general nature of morally justifying
a crime based on it being done for self-improvement. If we say it's okay in a
case of software piracy, are we okay with it in other contexts?

~~~
eshvk
Since the car analogy isn't working: Let me try another one, equally with
flaws no doubts. :-) Piracy as we known it is rampant of the coasts of Somalia
(Yes, I am talking about real world pirates). One of the reasons why that is
happening is the systematic breakdown of the livelihoods of fisherman in the
region due to dumping of toxic wastes of those coasts and the free flow of
arms. Now, it is arguable that those fisherman are using the monetary flow
from piracy to lift themselves from poverty which is a good thing. However, I
do wish to point out that that analogy is based on my philosophy that e-piracy
is not a victimless crime, as long as you have at least one data point of a
person who would have paid for the game/movie/software but didn't do so
because he/she had easy access to a torrent.

To be honest, I don't care about people pirating stuff. It is the moral
justifications that seem rather specious at best. What is wrong with accepting
that you are doing something wrong and... keep doing it if you wish?

~~~
demetrius
>> What is wrong with accepting that

>> you are doing something wrong and...

>> keep doing it if you wish?

Because we believe there’s honestly nothing wrong with it.

Paraphrasing you: I don’t understand what is wrong with accepting that pirates
are doing something right and... abstain from doing it if you wish?

~~~
Domenic_S
> Because we believe there’s honestly nothing wrong with it.

Your belief is not required. Laws are laws.

~~~
demetrius
Laws are not set in stone (and when they were, in Hammurapi’s time, it didn’t
help much), and some laws are clearly stupid and vicious. For example, in
imperial China, it was once illegal for an ordinary person to keep
astronomical tools at home (if I remember corectly, there was a death penalty
for this). I believe copyright laws are just like this.

------
BadDesign
I think he's completely unaware of the GNU/Linux distributions and the gratis
software that comes along with them and the freedoms that that software offers
to the user.

" “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community.
Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change
and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually
and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential
freedoms:

\- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

\- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your
computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.

\- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
2).

\- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to
benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you
should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications,
either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being
free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask
or pay for permission to do so. "

<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

~~~
gfodor
I don't see how Free software has anything to do with his post. First, there
is only good Free software for certain things. Especially when the author was
younger, there were no good Free software alternatives for many popular
commercial products.

Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office,
and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up.
The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and
has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in
many domains as well.)

And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most
popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate
about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because
that's The Thing.

~~~
reidrac
You're right, there was not other option back in the early 90s: piracy or
nothing (specially in countries where it was impossible to acquire some
specific software legally). I remember going to a computer shop when I was 13
trying to buy a C compiler, and they gave me a floppy with Turbo C (IIRC) and
"copy it and keep it secret".

Things have changed though. It's not a free vs Free philosophical debate, it
is about doing something illegal when you have a choice.

This is not just about teenagers. I can tell you that a legal copy of
Microsoft Office for home use in Spain is really rare. Same for Photoshop, and
other "essential" software that every home computer has installed, but nobody
paid for it. It is, in practice, free.

I believe piracy is one of the reasons free software is not more popular, but
well... I may be wrong.

------
natural219
I say the same thing about audiobooks / lectures. In high school, I spent most
of my part-time job listening to lectures about economics, game theory,
linguistics, all sorts of topics. This was enabled 100% by piracy. Some of
these lectures are worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, which I
obviously could not have afforded as a high schooler. Still, the fact that I
got all of that content and learning for basically free is in some sense, in
my mind, a good outcome of piracy, even though I don't advocate for piracy (in
fact, I think it's a large problem).

For the record, now that I have money, I purchase the lectures that I listen
to. Maybe if I become wealthy, I will go back and buy the ones I listened to.

------
siliconc0w
The side effect of privatizing what could be a public good is that is means
denying to billions what they could have for free so that a relative handful
will have an incentive to pay for it.

~~~
yason
This, exactly this.

Moreover, I think that piracy mostly happens because either it's the only way
or because it's way too cheap.

The first case is similar to how I was as a kid: I pirated all my games and
software and copied all my music, and then bought the best games and the best
albums _that I could afford_. I owned the games and cds that I considered the
best, and worth owning. I paid for them _so that I could own them_ : not
because I would've wanted to make sure the authors could make a living. No
amount of piracy laws and copyright enforcement would've added anything to the
funds I had at my disposal. I already spent whatever I had.

The second case is why some people hoard files. They download full
discographies and filmographies of nearly everything there is because copying
is so cheap it's practically gratis, copying can be fun, and just to make sure
that if the world comes to an end they'll still have years of entertainment in
their hands. They probably watch and listen one percent of what they're
downloaded, and they probably actually buy one percent of that one percent.

There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the
products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what
they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a
collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem
since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff
to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or
movies, and they would subsequently buy less.

~~~
gizmo686
>There's a third case of "piracy" which is just casual copying, to sample the
products. People first download music and torrent movies and sample what
they've got. If they find a good director or a good band, they buy a
collection or a set of albums. I don't really consider these people a problem
since they're consumers at heart and they use downloading mostly to find stuff
to buy. If they couldn't download, they wouldn't find much music or games or
movies, and they would subsequently buy less.

I think this is (close to) the case of people who are actually a problem. The
first two cases don't represent much lost oppurtunity. In this case, the
people pirating might go out and buy the stuff. Because of this, the
oppurtunity cost of them already having some of the stuff is far more
significant than in the first two cases (where there was minimal oppurtunity
lost)

------
imjared
I'm not really surprised to read this. These cases, I'm sure, are a dime a
dozen. I did the same thing in middle school; I pirated Photoshop and started
to learn the ins and outs. Led me to getting an internship which led me to
getting a job and settling on a decent career path. Now I own most of the
thousands of dollars of software I used as a kid.

I can agree and sympathize with this until he said that most people pirate out
of need, not greed. Not sure that's really accurate but I'm also not sure it's
measurable.

------
sergiotapia
Point in case, I've been trying to buy Windows 8 in Bolivia for the past three
weeks and STILL can't buy it legally anywhere.

Every option has been exhausted and I'm kind of annoyed. I wanted to ditch my
pirated version of Windows 7 and finally go legit now that I can afford it,
but Microsoft just won't take my money.

A torrent just works.

~~~
keithpeter
I'm calling this 'the oatmeal argument' and it has considerable force.

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones>

Is Windows 8 not available for download in Bolivia? If so is that some silly
regional trade reason? Or are network speeds too low?

~~~
sergiotapia
Windows 8 isn't available for sale, for some reason. I don't know why. I can
download a Windows 7 pirated version easily in 7 hours, I doubt network speeds
are the culprit here.

------
samuellevy
It's not just developing markets like Romania. I grew up in poverty in
Australia, and pirating software was simply the only way to access it.

Without access to the software, I would never have been able to learn the
skills required to earn the money to pay for the software now.

I'm not saying that piracy should be accepted for that reason; I'm saying (and
I believe the OP was saying) that piracy is simply the only way to access the
tools required to get out of poverty for many, many people.

This shouldn't be how it is, but some serious thought has to go into how to
make things available fairly to those people who would otherwise just pirate
it. Some money is better than no money, and software that is frequently
pirated is obviously in demand with people who can't afford it.

------
rcush
On the one hand this chap, "[downloaded] an infinite number of games and
software - all illegally," while also refers to people who pirate out of greed
as - and this is verbatim - "bumholes". Despite the obvious hyperbole, it
seems very likely that this man himself was once a bumhole.

The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today.
Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional
pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online
distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big
name brands become available.

This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure
what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-
Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today
is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through
piracy is left looking rather weak.

There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite
convincing. This is not one of them.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
And with this regional pricing crap, the same companies are petitioning
Congress and SCOTUS to ban first-sale doctrine on "stuff" coming in from
abroad.

"Sorry bub, you bought that X from the company who makes them, in another
country. And because they sell stuff cheaper in THAT country, you have no
rights to what you buy past yourself. Even if I did sell to you."

Regardless that companies use price arbitrage on everything under the sun,
including the workers and the WHOLE company (to get away from higher tax
regimes). We peons aren't allowed to use the same tools the big guys use.

------
amy_seqmedia
I grew up in Silicon Valley in the 80s and I was not one of the fortunate---
anything more than $5 was crazy expensive. But having a way to access the
technology definitely changed my life trajectory. I don't condone piracy but I
understand it. And yes, now I work in high tech and I pay for everything---
even donate and occasionally volunteer because of all of this.

I think the article wasn't so much about the glory of piracy and how you can
make a profit out of it. Rather, it is a perspective on desire and finding a
way to feed it. I think that this is the one of the best things about living
in our current state of the internet: if you can get the initial tool (the
computer or the smartphone) you open up access to so much opportunity.

------
aes256
In addition to gaining experience through the use of pirated software, I think
there is also a lot to be said for knowledge and experience gained through the
process of committing piracy and attempting to do so undetected.

As a matter of course, pirates often find themselves becoming quite
knowledgeable about topics (audio and video encoding, protocols (FTP, NNTP,
BitTorrent, etc.), tools such as BNCs and VPNs, encryption, storage methods,
etc.), all of which have valid uses aside from committing piracy, that they
would otherwise have little motivation to explore.

The desire to commit piracy undetected acts as a motivation for people to gain
a deeper understanding of the systems they are interfacing with, and this is
often a good thing.

------
mappu
Even now that i can afford it, i'd still choose pirated software over DRM and
phone-home license checks.

Pirates always get the better product (with the possible exception of AAA
online multiplayer games).

~~~
robryan
You could always buy a copy and then use a pirated one.

~~~
slavak
I've actually ended up doing this in some cases. But I have to say: If the guy
illegally copying your software and working on it via debugging and
disassembly can give me a better user experience than you can, then you are
doing something very, very wrong.

------
julienmarie
Interesting point here. But it forgets that it is a well known reality from
software vendors, who basically choose how well protected their software can
be. As an example, an interesting move was Apple's one with Logic Pro. I
remember previous versions being uncrackable, needing a USB dongle. And then,
as a move to conquer market share, the only protection is now just a serial
number (I'm not even sure if Logic calls home to check it... ). The more
people can use your technology for free in a training / learning / amateur
way, the more you will become a standard, the more you will sell licenses to
your customer base : the professionals.

------
ktf
Downloading a pirated version of Visual Studio 6 over a 56k modem definitely
changed my life in high school, and allowed me to write code I wouldn't have
otherwise been able to. (I still have those discs, mostly for nostalgia's
sake.)

Of course what changed my life even more was subsequently downloading
Slackware Linux (on that same 56k connection!) and realizing that I didn't
need to pirate an expensive IDE to write code...

------
drcube
"Of course cheap and accessible software would be a lot better, but there’s so
little of that going around."

GNU.

I have no problem with pirating (except for the word). But why illegally
download an expensive OS when better, free versions abound on the net? Stay
legal, and have a more powerful, hackable OS to go with your clean conscience.

------
cotsuka
I responded to the people justifying piracy using this article here:
<http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/>

In short, I think Vlad is trying to explain that piracy was only a last resort
for him. And it should only be a last resort.

~~~
qu4z-2
> There are many commentators online trying to split hairs and say that
> pirating is not the same as stealing. As such, it isn’t a crime.

Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post)
but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just
because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a
crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a
whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.

------
skwosh
I would be interested to hear how piracy can justified, not for multi-million
dollar corporations and defunct organisations, but for small businesses and
individuals.

Adobe and Microsoft can sustain their products being pirated wholesale partly
because it undermines their smaller competitors.

It's easy to justify downloading episodes of syndicated television shows,
platinum albums, or computer games from 1992, but as a startup-centric site,
it seems more relevant to question the impact of piracy on small independent
businesses/artists/producers.

Maybe they should be "grateful for the publicity", or "flattered" that their
product has been downloaded thousands of times on thepiratebay.org. Maybe the
losses incurred are made up for by a wider audience and more sales once the
user has reached maturity...

------
Xcelerate
I realize mine is a pretty unpopular opinion on Hacker News, but I probably
would not hire anyone who thinks pirating software is morally acceptable. The
way I see it, any argument for piracy is simply rationalization.

The point is that someone has invested a lot of time and money into creating
something and they are offering the usage of that software for a price. If you
use it without paying that price, then you are disrespecting the person that
created it because you are ignoring their wishes for the thing that they have
invested a lot of time into. It just feels very wrong to me.

~~~
marcamillion
With all due respect this is pretty ignorant.

If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you
should be flattered.

The very nature of the action of them trying to get your creation - even
though they don't have money - is testament to the value they think you have
created.

If they keep pirating your stuff every time you release a new version - you
really should re-consider your pricing options or your distribution strategy.
It means you are likely leaving money on the table.

~~~
Xcelerate
> With all due respect this is pretty ignorant.

Ignorant? Do you know what that word means? Let me quote dictionary.com for
you: "Lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned". I don't appreciate you
calling me ignorant, seeing as how I do not meet the definition in any way.

> If someone goes to the lengths required to pirate & use your creation you
> should be flattered.

If someone goes to the lengths/peril required to rob your bank, you should be
flattered. Sorry, this argument holds no water with me. How I "should" feel
about something is not up to anyone else.

If they don't have the money to afford my creation, they should talk to me
about it. If I think they have a good reason for needing it, I'll give it to
them for free. If I don't think they do, then it really should not be their
decision to just take it anyway.

~~~
marcamillion
Well...let me ask you something, which do you think is worse...making
something no one cares about or making something so successful that you can't
"monetize" every copy.

I guarantee you, if you make something that so many people want such that they
go to great lengths to pirate it, you are in a good position and should feel
flattered that they do it.

Ask Peldi from Balsamiq. He handles piracy in the best possible way.

Balsamiq is widely pirated, yet if you email him and tell him you want his
software but can't afford it, he will likely send you a license free.

~~~
Xcelerate
Let me put it this way. If I ever made something to be so popular that a lot
of people wanted to pirate it, I wouldn't be too concerned about the piracy in
a business sense.

But the problem is that every business has to tolerate some level of immoral
activity whether they like it or not. Department stores have to tolerate some
employees stealing merchandise. Restaurants have to tolerate employees giving
meals away to their friends. Gas stations have to tolerate the occasional late
night robbery. With regards to profit, there is an optimal amount of resources
you should spend on fixing behavior like this. Spend too much and your company
will lose money. Spend too little and everyone's going to see what they can
get away with. Same with software.

However, just because this stuff _happens_ and people are expected to deal
with it and build it into their business plan _does not mean it's okay_.
Cities deal with murder and theft on a daily basis; they shouldn't be
flattered that their city is so popular that is has a lot of crime.

I am unfamiliar with Balsamiq, but he has a certain model that works for him.
Great. But why should everyone else be forced to adopt the same model he does?
There's a gas station where I live that gave me free water once when I was on
a run. Does that mean every gas station should be forced to give me free
water? If they don't give me free water, should I just take it anyway? It's a
negligible loss to them; they won't notice anyway. In fact, if I hadn't taken
the water then I wouldn't know how great their water was to come back and buy
some more or tell my friends.

Do you understand what I'm getting it? There's a difference when arguing
piracy on an optimal business basis vs a personal moral basis. I am arguing on
the personal basis. I think we both agree on what makes the most business
sense (as should any intelligent businessman).

P.S. I'm still curious why you called me ignorant. What field do I lack
training or knowledge in that pertains to this discussion?

------
antidaily
Nice story, but I was hoping this was about actually becoming a pirate. Arrr.

------
javert
_I’m just saying that it’s not all black and white._

It _is_ black and white. It's theft.

The issue of whether you shold steal in certain conditions is a separate
issue, as discussed some in the article.

But it is black and white, it's theft.

~~~
barrkel
Are you using black and white to mean a clear distinction, or to mean moral
good and bad? It's not black and white to me.

It's obvious that copyright violation is not directly equivalent to theft on a
black and white basis; there are clear differences, such as theft depriving
someone else of a physical good, so under the "clear distinction"
interpretation of your statement, it is plainly wrong.

And as to moral interpretation, it's not obvious that theft is always wrong
either.

~~~
javert
I use it to mean a clear distinction.

------
polskibus
Information wants to be free. Nothing will stop it. Humanity has been copying
"proprietary" information forever. People gossip about work and other secrets,
copy other people's notes, etc. Computer software is just yet another example
of it, the scenery of old Soviet block just puts a bit more contrast to it in
comparison to Western experiences. Now, generating a trend, by for example
making your information the dominant one (ie. Microsoft and MS Office) is a
great tactic, that bears long-lasting fruits.

~~~
Domenic_S
> Information wants to be free

You might be too young to have read this in Phrack, but I feel it's apt:

 _Let me tell you something. Information does not want to be free, my friends.
Free neither from its restraints nor in terms of dollar value. Information is
a commodity like anything else. More valuable than the rarest element, it BEGS
to be hoarded and priced. Anyone who gives something away for nothing is a
moron. (I am indeed stupid.) I can't fault anyone for charging as long as they
don't try to rationalize their reasoning behind a facade of excuses, all the
while shouting "Information Wants to be Free!"

Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be
free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free,
CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't
want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free!_

[http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree...](http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/2600/infofree.txt)

~~~
qu4z-2
I feel like you and your source misunderstand the phrase. It is worded
confusingly, so it's not all that surprising.

Perhaps a better wording would be "Information tends to spread". It's really
about the arrow of time. It's much easier to give someone information than to
take information away from them. Taking public knowledge and making it secret
is a lot harder than taking secret knowledge and making it public.

> Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be
> free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be
> free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information
> doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be
> free!

Personification confuses the issue here, but assuming those examples were
meant as "want to be secret" rather than the much weaker "don't want to be
free ('cause they're information, and have no will of their own)" then I
should point out that it's actually YOU that wants your credit report to stay
secret, and the army that wants troop placements to remain secret. The
information wants nothing, but will tend to spread.

There's nothing to stop you working against this natural tendency, but it
requires you to put in a certain amount of effort and maintenance. Water tends
to flow downhill, but we can make hollows and dams and the like to keep it in,
and that's a very useful thing to do. But in a sense water could be said to
"want to flow downhill".

Of course, if someone argued against dams because "water wants to flow
downhill", that would be ridiculous. I'm sure that a lot of (most?) people who
use that phrase mean it in exactly the way that you interpret it, which is
unfortunate as it is then reduced to something more like "I feel we have a
moral imperative to share information". And surely there's a better way of
phrasing that.

So maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. But I like my interpretation better.

------
CoryG89
Until Microsoft Dreamspark, this is how I was able to teach myself to program.
This really happens. However, I think programs like Dreamspark are the answer
to this. Microsoft will let you download Visual Studio if you go to school.
Not word (but it's only $99 for a student, affordable). Article is a little
misleading when it comes to paying for Adobe CS in general. If you are a
student you can usually pick it up for $199. Still a little much for Adobe to
be selling it to students in my opinion though.

~~~
gfodor
Not certain but Dreamspark requires some type of "student verification"
process, which may be prohibitive to many young people who could stand the
most to gain from access to these products.

I certainly can't imagine my 13-year-old self, who was a big enough geek to be
giddy warezing Turbo C++, getting access to Dreamspark.

~~~
yozmsn
Yeah, you need to have a .edu email address, which if I understand correctly
is not something high schools or middle schools give out anymore, as the .edu
domain has become exclusively for higher education (Universities, etc), still
most of the tools you get from Dreamspark aren't all that important and the
open sources alternatives are often better.

~~~
robryan
This might not be true if your goal is to develop games for windows.

------
louischatriot
Pirating is part of how I learned to make software. To me it was a game at the
time but disambling programs/debugging them while they run was a great way to
understand how they work.

------
username3
Copying for educational purposes is fair use. Are educational versions sold to
make us think we cannot use software for free under fair use?

------
TheAmazingIdiot
How intelligent is it for companies to go after people who trade and know your
program, that are not paying _now_? Seems a waste of resources attacking who
might be your customer, in both money and good-will.

Example: I'm in school for drafting/design tech. Due to the school which I am
taking classes, we learn Autocad and Solidworks. Both have student versions
available, and both are with nasty "We'll send you the serials sometime next
week".

So I went onto the local pirate archive and grabbed a copy of both programs.
Half an hour later, they're installed and they work flawlessly. Fellow
students are still waiting for the serials through email sometime next week.

I do think its different for a for-profit enterprise to go out and pirate
everything under the sun. If you make money, you should pass the buck, so to
speak.

Read my history to rehash the 1 day old long drawn out argument about DRM. No
sense in repeating all of that.

