With news that a single application for the iPhone will 'crack open' any iTunes purchased app, the spectre of mass piracy arrives on the latest platform. It's a problem that every mature platform has to deal with, and it boils down to a simple phrase. Read on...
Read on in the full article.
A quite funny - and reveiling - quote from the linked article about "Crackulous":
There was a hint of irony during November 2008 as the future of Crackulous was put in doubt. An early version of the software leaked out and SaladFork retaliated by threatening to cancel the entire project saying, “I personally think this leak is absolutely disgusting, and downright insulting.”
As the developer of a Windows shareware, I came more or less to the same conclusion as Ewan in this article. The simplified, short version: For many genres (not all, but many) and for good programs cracks tend not to overwhelm legal sales or even make them impossible.
And it you're a user, here's my advice before you too start moaning about the app scene on Symbian. Look at your phone. Look at the applications. And go and register a few. Drop a few pounds in a PayPal box for the freeware.
The thing is, fewer and fewer people actually do that. The more things are free, the more people expect them to be free, and moan if they have to pay for anything. It's got to the point where people don't even understand why they have to pay for something.
If you look at official producers' clips of programmes on Youtube, there are lots of comments like "why do they just show clips? why don't they upload full episodes?". They're not being anti-capitalist or anything, they're just genuinely baffled as to why they should pay for a full video.
Even when an unlimited unrestricted full version of Reset Generation was officially given away by Nokia totally free of charge on the web, including all online modes, there was STILL a crack of the mobile version distributed by pirates. Why? The game itself got excellent reviews, it's a great game, you can use it completely free at resetgeneration.com, so what is the moral argument for cracking the identical commercial mobile version? The only possible explanation is that even people who enjoyed the game didn't want to pay for it.
I ran a site which gave away free original videos, got lots of e-mail praising it, lots of people saying they were really grateful for it and how much they appreciated it. Thousands of people a day visiting, hundreds of thousands of downloads over the course of a year.
I had a donation system, and got about 20 small donations in total, which didn't even cover the hosting of the site let alone the video production. Over the course of the year, thousands of people were prepared to comment and send emails in praise and demand more videos, but they weren't prepared to pay even the tiniest amount for the content.
The prevailing attitude seems to be that it's stupid to pay for something voluntarily.
On a more real world level I used to be involved with a local group promoting Fairtrade products (where the poor growers of the raw materials get a better share of the price than usual). We tried to visit all kinds of places and ask them to convert to buying fair trade versions of existing products, which generally cost a bit more. Very often people would say "I can't afford it", even when it was just paying 50 cents extra for a jar of coffee.
Even places like churches somehow felt that it was ridiculous to pay more for what they saw as the same product. They just could not see what benefit it was to them that the farmers received a fair wage, even though you'd think it was their Christian duty to do so.
Unless there is some material advantage for the people who pay, piracy will gradually make people stop paying. The whole moral argument about keeping the manufacturers going is meaningless when people have no direct connection to the maker of the product. All they see is the product and the money in their pocket, and make their decision based on those two things.
Tzer2 wrote:
The prevailing attitude seems to be that it's stupid to pay for something voluntarily.
I see that more and more: Not only am I constantly asked why I continue to buy CDs and books, or pay for downloaded software, but some people actually call me an idiot for doing so. I find it baffling.
As rbrunner posted, I find it simply amazing when pirates actually watermark the content the pirate. They are so blatant that they put the name on their site on the video and I guess they don't want someone else to claim credit for their "effort."
To be honest, something that puts many people off buying software/music etc. is the undue restrictions that get placed on it. You can obtain unlimited music with your Nokia "Comes with Music" account, but you can't transfer the music to a new phone. There are some limitations with transferring purchased n-gage games from one handset to another, which Nokia may or may not address.
I personally hate copy-protection on CDs. If I buy a CD, I expect to be able to rip it for my own covenience (ie. to put on my phone, iPod, to stream around the house etc.). However, copy protection makes this difficult, if not impossible.
The stupid thing is, piracy IS a massive problem which has not been prevented by the use of DRM, copy protection, etc. so it clearly doesn't work. However, what it does do is say to the person who has actually spent his/her money buying the official product "we don't trust you". This kind of attitude definitely contributes to users preferring to download illegally rather than pay for products.
While it is impossible to stop the large minority of users who have absolutely no intention of ever buying anything, it is possible to "reward" purchasers by acknowledging the fact that they have done the legal/right thing by spending their hard-earned money, rather than stigmatising them as potential copyright infringers.
buster wrote:
I personally hate copy-protection on CDs. If I buy a CD, I expect to be able to rip it for my own covenience (ie. to put on my phone, iPod, to stream around the house etc.). However, copy protection makes this difficult, if not impossible.
Are there companies still doing that? I've been lucky then: I buy a lot of CDs and haven't come across a copy-protected CD in for at least 3 or 4 years now.
I'd have thought they'd have figured it out by now, but perhaps not.
I think the trick is to produce good software but with a strong services element. Ideally, the software itself is free and provides a useful function.
e.g. SatNav software.
TomTom are really cheesed about piracy of their software. But if people want to have regular traffic updates, they need to subscribe. They now offer a subscription based 'Live' service on their hardware solutions.
If they offered this on S60 and WinMob as well, I bet they would sell lots more copies of TomTom.
Why ?
Because most people would not be comfortable trying to buy a subscription knowing they were using a hacked version of the software. Too risky.
Another one, is EverNote.
Software is free. Basic service with reasonable amount of data bandwidth for casual use is free. But higher bandwidth use requires a monthly fee.
Just an option for all you struggling developers out there to consider.
Zuber
This is probably one of the better discussions on the net! I used to think like Ewan, but reality is exactly as Tzer2 and tym79m describe. I recently bought some apps for my Nokia E71 which I trialed by using a cracked version. When a program meets my expectations and is sold for a reasonable price I won�t hesitate to purchase it. This was in fact the case with GooSync, C2Doom, Route 66 and two Psiloc apps. When I told a friend I actually purchased those while having the cracked versions at hand he asked me if he should take my temperature.. He really is a smart and decent guy, but according to his beliefs (and many ppl with him) paying for software just isn�t cool. Every author of any single freeware app I used and found compelling has received a donation accordingly. I wish more people would be less selfish and support the authors who provide them with fresh software.