Do you Use Pirated Software?

[vernplum]

When it comes to software, free does not denote cost. A computer application is a compilation of mathematical processes, thus proprietary software (and software patents) is like proprietary geometry (likewise geometry patents); nonsense. However, other forms of service and material that come with the software can have monetary and intellectual value, such as books and support. These "pirated" software are not "free", they are still proprietary but obtained free of cost.

I'm not sure I understand your statement on proprietary software and software patents being nonsense and can't see the analogy with geometry here. Are you saying that computer software should be 'unpatentable' and therefore shouldn't be charged for?

 

[joel68]

When you talk about Piracy...if anyone had gone to Jakarta..and seen those shops in leading malls selling all kind of warez stuff under the price of S$5 for a CD and S$10 for DVD.. you would be more more tempted...as they even sell Sample files (akai, reason refills and more...

What can you say about this in a country where piracy is legal

Lucky, I never buy them at all...as I was happy with What I got...

 

[gutturalpiss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
http://www.gnu.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen#Statements_and_perspectives

Software is math. Algorithms, functions, variables etc. Knowledge is free. Math is free. Cost is only incurred for mediums, like books and teachers. Same goes for software, it's perfectly fine to charge for manuals and lectures, which are basically part of services. Well, my point was to provide the definition of free software, which is not the term for shareware or proprietary freeware

if [ x != 0 ]; then
echo "Error"
else
echo "Success"
fi

The core reason behind charging for software is generally specialized algorithms. I'm now a little less philosophical on this point, I believe it's alright to use such closed source software in some cases. For example, there is little chance of exploit for DAW software as they are rarely connected to (or can do without) the internet, and most of those who do use them on a regular basis are earning revenue. Patent-wise, I still stick to the mathematical analogy.

 

[widdly]

When you talk about Piracy...if anyone had gone to Jakarta..and seen those shops in leading malls selling all kind of warez stuff under the price of S$5 for a CD and S$10 for DVD.. you would be more more tempted...as they even sell Sample files (akai, reason refills and more...

What can you say about this in a country where piracy is legal

Lucky, I never buy them at all...as I was happy with What I got...

Sim Lim Tower used to be just like that until about 5 years ago.

 

[vernplum]

Guttaralpiss

Interesting viewpoints you have there.

Don't agree with you on your math analogy though and think that's somewhat of a spurious connection. Software is not math. Sure, it can include mathematical manipulation and it contains algorithmic logic that to the leyman resembles math, but it is not math. Software is intellectual property in the same way that a book or a musical work is, i.e. somebody had to dream them up and put in intellectual effort to create it, using logic, imagination, intelligence and creativity. By your argument because words are free, as are musical notes, then authors or musicians should have no business charging for their works either.

 

[gutturalpiss]

Have a good read on those references, and you'll understand Software = Math I deal with software a lot as I'm an OSS hacker, and sure it's a challenging affair like what you mentioned, but what matters to me is sharing the knowledge more than keeping it to myself just because I had to do some hard thinking. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates - they didn't charge for their findings.

If you're a hacker/coder yourself I would expect you to at least agree that Software is entirely Math. It is way different from the arts, and whether it warrants Intellectual Property claims or patents, as noted in the above sources, is largely debated. So we can say it's still a grey area where you and I can both be right.

 

[widdly]

Software is not entirely maths. That is a fallacious argument put forward by hard line FOSS advocates that is out of line with the reality of modern software.

Look at the kind of work that goes into creating a piece of software like say World of Warcraft. To say that Wow is purely mathematics is naive. Character design, level design, sound design, music, interface design etc. etc. Without these WoW would be a pretty sad piece of software. Sure mathematics is a component of it but software encompasses many disciplines.

...and for the record I work as an embedded Linux developer.

 

[Ratboy]

Have a good read on those references, and you'll understand Software = Math I deal with software a lot as I'm an OSS hacker, and sure it's a challenging affair like what you mentioned, but what matters to me is sharing the knowledge more than keeping it to myself just because I had to do some hard thinking. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates - they didn't charge for their findings.

If you're a hacker/coder yourself I would expect you to at least agree that Software is entirely Math. It is way different from the arts, and whether it warrants Intellectual Property claims or patents, as noted in the above sources, is largely debated. So we can say it's still a grey area where you and I can both be right.

are you saying that everything that runs on a computer system is binary
thus either one or zero
so if its ones/zero being all maths
and therefore should be free ?

translating that example
the amount of monies in say a bank is also pure maths
and thus should be freely shared among us to ?

 

[gutturalpiss]

For a Linux embedded systems developer (do you work on the kernel?) to call that statement fallacious is truely disappointing. For something to be a fallacy, there has to be a firm definition of the said subject. In this case, the whole motion "Software must be free in all sense" is still under heavy debate, thus you can't call it baseless preaching.

When we refer to software in technical terms, we refer to precisely the technical aspects, the application (read: apply). That excludes any form of non-software elements, such as audio and video. Games are definitely much more than just software, no doubt about it. In fact, I'm not really sure we can call computer games "software", just because there are 100,000 lines of C++ and Lua. What I'm talking about are the essential tools; the image viewer, the audio player, the video player, the file manager, the web browser, the visual operating system etc. For games, that would be the modelling and animating programme such as http://www.blender.org/. A new game is on the way, see how they license it and still earn revenue off it.

Moglen believes the idea of proprietary software is as ludicrous as having "proprietary mathematics" or "proprietary geometry"...patents can only be granted to "processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter". In particular patents cannot be granted to "scientific truths" or "mathematical expressions" of them...The court essentially ruled that while algorithms themselves could not be patented, devices that utilized them could. This ruling wasn't as straightforward as many would have liked, forcing many electronic device makers into the courts to establish that their inventions were in fact patentable...

Bills? I'm not quite sure how in this world you could equate the safeguarding of monetary or valuable items to "pure math", aside from the accounting which has no relation whatsoever to this discussion. Please read some of the linked content. "Runs"? Yes. Anything that is converted to machine code, is mathematics. Any multimedia content that you may have in your computer is just digital representation, there is no machine code involved. Coding is like writing a recipe, and what good is the recipe without sharing it? Look above, I've already mentioned that my view on this is a little different now. I no longer say all software have to be free to tango with freedom

If you've got the time, this video sums it all up: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409

 

[ac]

software is definitely != math.

I think you've got to go back a little in history to the point where even having something that can play anything, viewers, etc, are definitely not considered essential tools, but luxury items.

 

[gutturalpiss]

I don't know why you find it so difficult to comprehend that software is mathematical processes. No qualified mathematician or computer scientist has ever disagreed or challenged that fact.

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

At the lowest level, software consists of a machine language specific to an individual processor. A machine language consists of groups of binary values signifying processor instructions (object code), which change the state of the computer from its preceding state. Software is an ordered sequence of instructions for changing the state of the computer hardware in a particular sequence.

YOU have got to go back to the 1960s, the early computing days of MIT and AT&T Bell Labs where UNIX was born. Software began as something to be shared and distributed. It all changed when certain people saw big money in the equation, particularly a very wealthy man speakers today use as an example of a "wealthy" man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_hobbyists

Today's "Free and Open Source Software" are what I'd like to call a "Software Renaissance" And no, software was never a luxury to begin with. What you are talking about is hardware. Only today do we see software (for personal use, not corporate) costing more than hardware.

 

[Cheez]

OK. Let's give another scenario according to the "software=math" argument.

Alphabets are free. Just a, b, c, d etc. So why are books copyrighted? Why do we even buy books? Perhaps we should just pay for the print, the paper etc, but not for the writer writing, since words and letters are free. That will significantly reduce the cost of books.

And for that matter, music consists of just musical notes. Why are we accounting monetary value to music written by people - using the exact same notes as everybody else?

I realise that this argument is not exactly the same as intellectual copyright is slightly different from software copyright, but the basis for the argument is similar. If you look at the software engineers and writers coming up with the algorithms, they are similar to just plain intellectual property. It's not just the math, but how the math are done. Even if I study programming, there's no way I can come up with the exact algorithm as another person that makes a software tick. Similarly, with the same black and white keys of a piano, I can never write a music exactly the same as Chopin. I have 24 alphabets like everybody else, but I can't come up with a novel like Rowling.

Views?

As for the high cost of software, I think the cost has more to do with just copyright issues. There are people working on the software constantly to address bug issues, come up with patch updates, etc. There's also the marketing department, public relations who listen to consumers feedback, creative department who comes up with GUI/artwork/design, etc. They have to pay for their staff.

But I DO DISAGREE to exhorbitant pricings. Music software is already pretty low compared to other industry software - and music software has different pricings suited to different kinds of users (eg a home user doesn't have to get a high-end product meant for studios; there are home users versions). Not to mention names, some software packages are just plain day-light robbery. A year ago, I had to purchase a statistical software for research purposes for my organisation. It cost a whopping 1500 USD for a single user license. When we approached them asking for a discount as we deal with poverty alleviation in 3rd world settings, they refused. But we had to get it, so we paid. Then we realise that the package is not complete. We need to pay an extra 800 USD for add-on modules - also single-user license. And they come up with a new version every year with minimal tweaks. Once a new version comes up, they will discontinue previous versions. And plug-ins only work for the same version. So I can now no longer purchase a plug-in even if I want to, because my version is one year old and the new one doesn't support it. I would have to pay for an upgrade for the entire package, which including the plug-in will cost another 1000-2000 USD. Needless to say, I didn't go that track - I decided to get help from colleagues and profs in universities in various countries to help me out in the calculations. NOW...that is daylight robbery! With that money, we can save many more lives in 3rd world countries. Music software comes nowhere close to this!

 

[gutturalpiss]

I realise that this argument is not exactly the same as intellectual copyright is slightly different from software copyright ...

You've got it right there and answered yourself It's a nice Sunday morning.

Ok first we talk about books. Alphabets? Yes, free. Printing? Not free. I have probed a few authors and writers about their revenue. Now the interesting fact is, average writers do not earn much. What many have told me is that bulk of the gross profit goes off to pay for the production of the books. And of course, the intellectual value is there as a service, so there is charge for that definitely. Books are physical representations of and are also intellectual properties, take note. Books of free software are also sold. Books are the same as CDs and tapes, they are mediums. Some 10 years ago, as the internet wasn't as fast as today, people bought free software. The software is free, the code is free, you are not obliged to sign any contract, you are not bound by imaginery rules.

Music. The arts. This is where most of the copyright action is, basically. Having existed for centuries, and dating back as far as the first cromagnon, contents of such intellectual value have always been equated to money. Entertainment has always been valued, in fact, valued very well. We visit ancient Rome and we see, albeit from historical evidence, that musicians and artists of those days were treated fairly and always given something for their talent. Simply said, the arts consists of many trains of thought and must always be given some sort of value. We pay for the entertainment we get, we pay for the concert hall, we pay for the lighting, etc.

Software on the other hand, is not anywhere near the above two. Software is making use of existing techniques, existing knowledge, and practising logic to come up with better ways to complete tasks. Mathematicians and scientists are always studying and finding new ways to do things among various other fields. Computer scientists are pretty much doing the same thing. When the internet was born, it was free. The creators of the internet wanted it to be free, a free portal. We pay for the mediums, we pay for the books, we pay for the CDs, we pay for the manuals, but we should not pay for the knowledge itself, which is the code. However, when software incorporates the arts, say fine arts or music, there has definitely got to be a price. This is where some programs differ from others, and many corporates are purposely bundling them together (we could do without the bundles as we just need the program to finish our job) so as to strip you, the blind consumer, of any rights and wealth. How are Free and Open Source Software companies earning money? Well, simple. Services. And no, one can earn a good deal of dough from offering services.

I particularly have nothing against some software companies. I love their products and think every single penny is worth paying for. But then there are some.....let's not talk about that :mrgreen: And Cheez, that is a very sad experience

 

[ac]

I don't know why you find it so difficult to comprehend that software is mathematical processes. No qualified mathematician or computer scientist has ever disagreed or challenged that fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software YOU have got to go back to the 1960s, the early computing days of MIT and AT&T Bell Labs where UNIX was born. Software began as something to be shared and distributed. It all changed when certain people saw big money in the equation, particularly a very wealthy man speakers today use as an example of a "wealthy" man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_hobbyists

Today's "Free and Open Source Software" are what I'd like to call a "Software Renaissance" And no, software was never a luxury to begin with. What you are talking about is hardware. Only today do we see software (for personal use, not corporate) costing more than hardware.

It's rather you're having a little difficulty understanding the effort and creativity put into writing software, and it's precisely the effort linking the algorithms into a usable application, that makes software!=math. If you understood the start of computers, you'd also get that in the beginning, any working software is a luxury, free or not.

Somehow the prevalence of good free software in this day and age somehow has influenced a lot of folk into taking the efforts of application programming for granted.

The cost of software and digital information in this century has yet to be fully resolved. It's not going to be an easy thing, what with uneven technological development, income distribution and plain human greed in the way. And it's going to be linked into traditional brick and mortar businesses, and how we value ideas, culture and goods.

 

[gutturalpiss]

Nah. I understand the effort very well. Uninformed people may be taking free software for granted, but I definitely do not fall in that category as a coder. Software + hardware = luxury, hardware - software = luxury, software - hardware != luxury. There is working software, because there is working hardware. I never mentioned proprietary software (and proprietary mathematics) couldn't have value, albeit indirectly. Services, documentation, support are that value. It's the same in the education sector, you have books and teachers. Companies of such proprietary software often put a high price on the code itself, and we'd never know whether the algorithms are indeed efficient and worth paying for. What you are talking about is basically the bundling of the code with other IPs, like original music and art. Unfortunately the mass understands that as being "software".

Apparently, proprietary software designs are based on surveys and market research. The companies always ignore minorities, so the applications are never flexible. Compatibility issues aside, everyone who has heard of it and used it knows OpenOffice is just as capable as Microsoft's (Office) and Sun's (StarOffice) proprietary offerings in creating a variety of digital and printed documents. In Sun's case, it is a little different because they cater to corporates. The same cannot be said for Microsoft, as they purposely bundle IPs which many people could do without to justify putting a steep price and some imaginary bindings on common knowledge (licenses, patents). Your programs are only as good as your hardware. It is ridiculous to pay a ridiculous sum for just mathematics that would make a hardware component tick.

A good example of a company who (almost) knows how to deal with software is Apple (they do value the minority, just look at how they introduce people to alternative software at their site, and how much open source programming their OS is based upon). At first glance, it may look like you'd be paying a premium for the programs, but in reality your money goes to the overall experience of hardware, enhanced by quality applications, art and music. DRM aside, a Mac OS X machine is truely a work of art; much more than math indeed. Apple isn't a software company in the first place, because the truth is - it's all in the hardware.

Anyway, my point here in this thread is that there is no reason for "piracy" when there are a lot of free, as in really free, software available for you if the original is too much to pay for. It's better to live with imaginery and psychological limitations than to take the risk.