A look at the problem of piracy
In many media we hear only about copyright piracy. Pirates stole here, then an honest citizen lost profit. But is it?
I once had a thought. So this is all OpenSource with their GPL, BSD and many other free licenses affected! That they received less profit. And those who are screaming at every corner about the lack of profit are cunning. I will give a few examples. Let's start with the "beloved" of Microsoft. How many times has this poor company received less profit from stealing its products. Although stop! Why is the system so widespread? Why is its software dominant in the market? The answer is simple. Initially, everything was distributed by pirates. And no one even put sticks in their wheels, let alone attempts to protect their copyright and imprison someone for spreading counterfeit goods. Flywheel unwound. Windows 3.11, then 95, then 98, then 2000, then XP seamlessly penetrated users' computers. Even the super powerful XP protection unexpectedly “broke down” with the efforts of Microsoft itself, since A “corporate version” was released with the appropriate activation patches, and some very bad hacker was posted on the network to a keygen! I'm just sure that keygen has its roots in the corporation itself. Windows XP has become dominant in the market. Still would. It could put anyone. And Linux? Yes nafig this Linux is needed when there is a human-oriented system here, and even for free. And there are no "consoles". More in confirmation of my words that large firms are not particularly fighting for the protection of their copyright. Well, for example, everyone still remembers the case of a simple school principal from the Perm region. It was a loud case. However, from the first statements, it became clear that Microsoft has no complaints about the director. Here I understand the policy of Microsoft. Let even in school there are pirated WIndows, they all go to the future super-profits of the corporation !!! To hell with copyrights, the benefits of fuytes and children sit down! Wouldn't Microsoft have done this?
Take other areas of software. Graphics. There is the full power of Adobe with its Photoshop. Even any processing of photos for the majority of people is “photoshop”. Nobody says gimp. By the way, with Gimp a separate question. Its developers are very affected by pirates. While the free photoshop was heard to the right and to the left their product was not in demand. It developed a small (in relation to the number of photoshop users) a group of enthusiasts actually for themselves. I strongly doubt that Gimp is in demand in organizations, especially large ones. And without their support, the project cannot develop intensively, as Photoshop developed in due time thanks to the entire mass of Priat version users. These clients recaptured the "free" Photoshop. It would not have been desirable for these organizations to switch to Gimp now, but thanks to the policy of the state, they had to buy photoshop. And what to do, used to. This is the "standard".
You can greetings and other examples, such as AutoCAD, which successfully drove the domain torrents.ru and MathCAD into the grave. Due to its “free”, all consumer inquiries were directed specifically at these products, and not at alternative OpenSource, which have completely different mechanisms for earning money. And there are no users, no profit, no development.
I think, on the face of slyness of the organizations fighting for copyright. Often we have the opposite picture, this is not a shortfall in profits - this is super-profit due to piracy, which takes even larger scales due to court decisions. And users of "free" Windows, Photoshop, AutoCAD, MathCAD? Think !!! It is you who help corporations to develop high-priced products and then submit to you as court decisions the need to pay for them. Think about whether you need these expensive products? I do not urge you to change your point of view. Products are nice, of course, but are you ready to pay for them from your own pocket? Why should you, and not your employers, who also pay the same corporations as you, instead of financially supporting OpenSource projects that have the same goals as paid products, should pay?
I once had a thought. So this is all OpenSource with their GPL, BSD and many other free licenses affected! That they received less profit. And those who are screaming at every corner about the lack of profit are cunning. I will give a few examples. Let's start with the "beloved" of Microsoft. How many times has this poor company received less profit from stealing its products. Although stop! Why is the system so widespread? Why is its software dominant in the market? The answer is simple. Initially, everything was distributed by pirates. And no one even put sticks in their wheels, let alone attempts to protect their copyright and imprison someone for spreading counterfeit goods. Flywheel unwound. Windows 3.11, then 95, then 98, then 2000, then XP seamlessly penetrated users' computers. Even the super powerful XP protection unexpectedly “broke down” with the efforts of Microsoft itself, since A “corporate version” was released with the appropriate activation patches, and some very bad hacker was posted on the network to a keygen! I'm just sure that keygen has its roots in the corporation itself. Windows XP has become dominant in the market. Still would. It could put anyone. And Linux? Yes nafig this Linux is needed when there is a human-oriented system here, and even for free. And there are no "consoles". More in confirmation of my words that large firms are not particularly fighting for the protection of their copyright. Well, for example, everyone still remembers the case of a simple school principal from the Perm region. It was a loud case. However, from the first statements, it became clear that Microsoft has no complaints about the director. Here I understand the policy of Microsoft. Let even in school there are pirated WIndows, they all go to the future super-profits of the corporation !!! To hell with copyrights, the benefits of fuytes and children sit down! Wouldn't Microsoft have done this?
Take other areas of software. Graphics. There is the full power of Adobe with its Photoshop. Even any processing of photos for the majority of people is “photoshop”. Nobody says gimp. By the way, with Gimp a separate question. Its developers are very affected by pirates. While the free photoshop was heard to the right and to the left their product was not in demand. It developed a small (in relation to the number of photoshop users) a group of enthusiasts actually for themselves. I strongly doubt that Gimp is in demand in organizations, especially large ones. And without their support, the project cannot develop intensively, as Photoshop developed in due time thanks to the entire mass of Priat version users. These clients recaptured the "free" Photoshop. It would not have been desirable for these organizations to switch to Gimp now, but thanks to the policy of the state, they had to buy photoshop. And what to do, used to. This is the "standard".
You can greetings and other examples, such as AutoCAD, which successfully drove the domain torrents.ru and MathCAD into the grave. Due to its “free”, all consumer inquiries were directed specifically at these products, and not at alternative OpenSource, which have completely different mechanisms for earning money. And there are no users, no profit, no development.
I think, on the face of slyness of the organizations fighting for copyright. Often we have the opposite picture, this is not a shortfall in profits - this is super-profit due to piracy, which takes even larger scales due to court decisions. And users of "free" Windows, Photoshop, AutoCAD, MathCAD? Think !!! It is you who help corporations to develop high-priced products and then submit to you as court decisions the need to pay for them. Think about whether you need these expensive products? I do not urge you to change your point of view. Products are nice, of course, but are you ready to pay for them from your own pocket? Why should you, and not your employers, who also pay the same corporations as you, instead of financially supporting OpenSource projects that have the same goals as paid products, should pay?
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/91275/
All Articles