Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • puttybrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    416·
    11 months ago

    If I made software that people cared enough about to crack and pirate, I’d be happy that it’s popular enough for that to happen.

    I am a software developer but I’ve only worked on SaAS and open source projects.

    • zerofk@lemm.eeEnglish
      262·
      11 months ago

      I work on software which is pirated. It is even sold by crackers, who make money off my work. This does not make me proud.

      What does make me proud is when a paying customer says they love a specific feature, or that our software saves them a lot of manual work.

    • poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      11 months ago

      Pride unfortunately doesn’t pay the bills. It’s terrific that you contribute to open source, but not all commercial software can be open sourced.

      • psud@aussie.zoneEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        Popularity opens other ways to make money. Open source is profitable for GNU. Cory Doctorow does fine.

        • poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect every commercial product to find profitability through exposure. I can attest to this first hand as I had published an open source Android game that was republished without ads. This led me to ultimately make the repository private, because I could not find a way to remain profitable while offering the source code and bearing the costs of labor and various cloud services.

          On the flip side I guess I can take credit for the millions of installs from the other app… except they didn’t publicly acknowledge me.

          • psud@aussie.zoneEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            Was it under a “copyleft” licence (like GPL) that forces the other one to also be open source? Did you use a licence that requires you are acknowledged?

            If you did the first, you at least pulled someone else into open source work

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Most people who work on open source projects have a lucrative job and work on Open Source on the side. I also volunteer, but I still need a job that actually pays me as well.

        Reading some of the comments here it feels like speaking to little children who believe money magically appears on their account.

    • aksdb@feddit.deEnglish
      232·
      11 months ago

      Tell me which so I can develop a competing service and steal your userbase!

    • satan@r.nfEnglish
      744·
      11 months ago

      I’d be happy that it’s popular enough for that to happen.

      of course you would. you would actually give them your house and wife, because you’re so proud now. right?

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        161·
        11 months ago

        Ah yes, because downloading Shark_Tale.mp4 is exactly the same as someone taking your house away from you and obtaining your wife and owning her as personal property.

        Get some fucking perspective. I usually try to be polite online but this is just straight up moronic and you need to be told so bluntly.