Helping people with computers... one answer at a time.
Commercial software can be expensive. Does not being able to afford it justify stealing? You can guess my answer, but better: theft isn't necessary.
We all admire your moral stance regarding finding subscriber's passwords etc. and for your belief that we should pay for software and not use pirated versions.
But how do you feel about folks who are desperately poor with no chance in their lifetime of ever reaching even American poverty level income?
•
A reader posed this question some time ago.
As you know I do take a fairly hard line against piracy and theft, but this reader wants to know if poverty might qualify for an "exemption" of sorts.
His note continues...
•
|
A computer friend of mine originally came from Kashmir, an Indian state which he visits every few years to see his remaining relatives. He told me that on his last visit he took with him several software programs such as XP, Office,Cad and Publisher which he bought at the local computer store. He gave them to a techie friend who duplicated hundreds of copies which were sold for no more than $5. The buyers, young people who had become computer literate on old cast-off PC's were then able to use the programs, especially Excel and Access and improve their knowledge using the vast resources of XP. I asked him if he did not consider the use of pirated software a form of theft from Microsoft and he replied that the average annual earnings for the people of Kashmir might be $200, that the price they paid for a burned disk was often a month's pay, especially for women who might earn a few rupees a day weaving carpets or decorating shawls. I have given it much thought and have concluded that most of us in America live so well that such practices do not really impact our standard of living. In other words,if we demanded strict adherence to the laws, those Kashmir users would never be able to save the $125 or so to purchase legal copies. And if they did it is unlikely they would ever be able to avail themselves of the "support advantage" since there are no ISP's in many areas of the world. |
I have two reactions to this scenario:
-
Theft is still theft, no matter how you look at it.
-
This kind of theft is simply no longer necessary anyway.
•
It's the "Robin Hood" argument that says it's ok to steal from the rich and give to the poor.
I suppose there's a line somewhere where that becomes true - food, perhaps - but computer software isn't it, in my opinion. It's still theft, no matter how much the recipients "deserve" it. And that's part of the argument: that somehow because they are impoverished they are entitled to cheap or free copies of software that others pay dearly for.
I don't agree.
The argument is also much like the argument against the record companies ... "they'll never notice" or "they're not losing any money because they wouldn't have gotten any anyway".
That's not the point.
Theft is still theft. Wrong is still wrong. Stealing is still stealing.
It's not your choice to do, or justify doing, what you want with something that belongs to someone else.
You wouldn't apply your logic to, for example, automobiles would you? Software is no different.
OK, there's one difference: it's not that easy to copy a car.
•
My question back to you is simply this: why bother?
The scenario you raise is an incredibly important one. Worldwide there are millions of people who's quality of life could be improved by better access to information and education that these technologies enable.
Not only do I believe that theft is not the answer, I also believe that it's not even necessary.
There are plenty of totally free alternatives that will enable the same level of education and opportunities that more expensive commercial software would.
Heck, assuming they're running on less-than-current hardware, it seems like many of the free alternatives would be a much better fit, given their typically lower hardware requirements.
For anyone in this situation, be it here in the U.S. or elsewhere on the planet, there are so many serviceable free alternatives that I can't see needing to resort to piracy as a way to provide the education that would benefit those many folks so inclined.
•
I'm not going to accuse your friend of anything, because I simply don't know, but in the majority of situations such as you describe, the individual doing the copying and distribution is actually making a profit. For example "hundreds of copies which were sold for no more than $5" can quickly add up. A one time purchase of a package such as Office for, say, $400 in the U.S., illegally selling 200 copies at $5 each doubles the investment. All of a sudden the effort doesn't look as altruistic as we think.
In fact, I would go so far as to consider whether someone doing this when there are totally free alternatives might not actually be taking advantage of the very people he claims to be helping.
Again, I'm not accusing, but I am saying that the reasons to resort to piracy have diminished so greatly that I'd definitely question carefully the motives of those who persist.
For those who believe that the pricing model of commercial software vendors is somehow "unfair", using the free alternatives instead is a great way to make a statement as well.
Article C3340 - April 4, 2008
Leo A. Notenboom has been playing with computers since he
was required to take a programming class in 1976. An 18 year career as a programmer at Microsoft soon followed.
After "retiring" in 2001, Leo started Ask Leo! in 2003 as a place for answers
to common computer and technical questions. More about Leo.
Personally if you want them to learn about technology go down there and start selling Linux distros for 75 cents each.. The price of the disk. Then your not breaking any laws. Linux is under the GNU license ( General Public license) Meaning its legal to copy and distribute the software. And many disks come packed with programing software. Windows does not meaning if you gave them windows and told them to program the would have to know exactly what their doing already because they have no internet to download a ready made c++ coder. It is essentially a waste to send windows without internet. It was mearly a man trying to make a profit. Not to mention if these are indeed older machines then windows most likely will have problems running on them anyways. You can get distros built for older machines running on as little as 24 mbs of ram. Personally I think your friend is a con artist. If he really want them to learn he would 1. Bring linux instead Or 2. Bring aditional software for windows enabling them to learn. As well he would not charge 5 dollars he would charge little more then the cost of making the disk. Personally I have thought of taking software to poor countrys and it always falls on free.
Posted by: Eric at July 19, 2008 4:31 PMok, here's a question...a friend of mine bought a new computer with winxp on it, no cd came with it. His os quit and he had to format to get it back, he bought vista but didn't like it so he downloaded a pirated xp and is using that. All he's doing is still using the xp license he bought, just a diff one. How is that wrong??
Posted by: David at July 31, 2008 4:36 PMDavid July 31 @ 4.36:- That is MS or the OEM doing wrong. They are allowed to cos they are corporations. Law is just for the poor and ordinary
Posted by: rob at March 17, 2009 10:56 AMThe local grocery store will not give me food just because I am poor -- even if an accident has caused me to become unable to work. I know this because I tried it once and ended up spending that summer in a jail cell! That was 25 years ago. Since then, I recovered from the accident, put my life back together -- and then got into another accident, this one rendering permanent damage. (And people ask me why I'm an atheist!)
Since the second accident, I have subsisted at less than 70 percent of the US Poverty Level. I pay $400 for my HMO now that I cannot work.
Still, I own a top-notch computer (3.40g dual Pentium with 3g RAM) and recently upgraded Corel Draw and the Adobe CS4 Suite (the whole banana), paying the same prices that you would.
Of course there are many things in life that most Americans take for granted that I choose to do without, beginning with an automobile (I don't drive and never have, although my wheelchair costs more than most pay for their cars) and ending with a television set (I've never owned one of those things, either).
No. What I want is to work on my web site and enjoy the company of my various pets, so I do without just about everything else. It can be done without breaking laws or doing anything immoral.
Of course, many good things can be had without paying for them (and I didn't say "for free").
Posted by: Cliff Walker at March 24, 2009 9:00 AMI just had a thought! it may be here already but got to page 2 and didnt see it...
anyway, my input is...
i am 100% against stealing, i wont associate, or entertain a thief, however, it seems to me that the only person that is stealing or committing an illegal act is the "cracker"/"programmer", because they are GIVING it to us?!! AND with installation instructions, "our" suppliers are waving it in our face..... its similar to buying a stolen car.. or a car with stolen parts... its not the new owner that has committed the crime... fair enough the vehicle will be confiscated if caught, and the unsuspecting victim has been left out of pocket...
in my personal opinion, i think that borrowing software, for non-profit making reasons is generally ok "within good moral reason", like borrowing a paid for movie or book off of a friend, but making any form of money, whether covering "running" costs etc is just plain wrong! most companies offer evaluation periods etc... and i could probably guarantee that hardly one person hasnt borrowed something from someone in their life?
using pirated anything to make money is very very wrong, that IS stealing! movies are stealing.. if you cant afford it, watch it on tv in a year or less! etc... get a few mates together and fork out all of £2.50-3.00 between 4-5 people is completely possible... i do believe the "essence" of pirating has been bleached from existence... companies that rely on companies have their profits, but people, like you and me, that have a passion for something, their dreams come true, they get that album/contract etc, really do deserve our support! where will the movies come from if we dont pay their wages? if this keeps up, all entertainment media will soon be kept, and to use it you will have to pay-per-view etc... even games too! no publicly available media will be possible.. its already starting... iTunes etc....
Posted by: Phil at May 10, 2010 2:54 PM