The problem is that a piece of software isn't something you can hold, like a book.

I also think that EA's new internet verification idea has a lot of merit. If Stardock sold a lifetime subscription to their game instead of a copy of it, then they could much more easily defend it.

A lifetime subscription is something that makes a lot more sense to people not to steal than does an idea.

You cannot hold a concert, nor hold a play.

One cannot handle education.

We pay for that.

And... why should it make a difference anyways?

Yes, but people do not buy the play, they buy admission.



Ah, but you buy a degree, not the education. Otherwise I would just go out, pirate some text-books (i would be suprised if you could actually do this), and save myself a lot of money.

You're also not buying the software here either, you're buying a license to use it.

To some people however,budget restraints are a key factor.A case in point,my recent post about AVG. Am I happy with the software/service? Yes. Is it worth paying for? Certainly.Can I afford to be without anti-virus protection? Absolutely not.Should I spend some of my now limited income on something that has a free and equally capable replacement? Right now,no.I was truly impressed by the objectiveness of the replies. Nobody "bashed" any products,just offered up an opinion of what they were using. If Stardock was to charge for ObjectDock Free or CFX Free tomorrow, I would have to do without it for now.That does not make it a bad product, I'd have no reason to whine or bash Stardock. I'm not entitled to it.It's a trial,it's all good and I'll gladly upgrade to the paid versions...when I can. I paid for my WC sub and ODNT was a gift but I know that doesn't mean I get everything on the site for free.I may be in the minority,but that's my thinking on the subject.As for bootleg,pirated,warez,cracked,or whatever they want to call it,it's still stolen,it's still wrong,and imho,no different than robbing someone at gunpoint. Using a mouse shouldn't make it any less criminal.

You already said it all, IslandDog.

In fact, it's all been said, a million different ways, a million different times in an even greater number of situations.

This whole topic is mostly moot.

There'll always be those who complain; baseless or not.

We already know, logically, their complaints are baseless.

We know they're likely, in some capacity, not considering everything:

We know they're likely buying lunch out often.

Or driving when they can walk.

Or ordering in more than their budget allows.

Or just bought that new gaming console.

Or game for the console.

Or that $150 dollar pair of jeans.

Or buying that new power tool.

Or new couch, sofa, ottoman.

Or that new computer monitor, PC speakers, DVD player.

Or buying that little bit of 'extra', sometimes necessary, other times not.

Or in some way having a champagne taste on a beer budget.

In all corners of this globe you'll find those who complain about being tired all of the time, while taking no dietary steps to improve it. Or ensuring their sleep patterns are constant.

In all corners of this globe you'll find those who complain about others while doing little to improve the situation themselves.

In all corners of the globe you'll find people's actions contradicting their words; their lifestyle habits, choices, betraying their spoken rhetoric.

Why these kinds of things are always topics will always evade me. I truly don't understand the modus operandi of a topic like this. While I'm not bashing anyone in this thread, including who started it: I simply don't see the point in discussing these things ad nauseam when all who know: agree, and all who do not: will not.

What you're really addressing is some people's seemingly endless living contradictions: something all logical people know is bad and do their best not to engage in themselves.

I do understand, and wholly agree, with your sentiments though, IslandDog.

"Never explain; your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you.
- Elbert Hubbard"

All budgets are limited. And making people to pay for something (twice) they already got isnt going to win a popularity award for you. Since the linked thread was about more or less "optional" content.

People never rant about software they have to buy to get it at all. If they never got it they would never visit its forums to do so.

........if these people havent worked out 'by now' that money makes the world revolve.....then they need to get out more.. I dont complain to K Mart because I have to pay for shoes, or the supermarket because I have to pay for my 3 bottles of cola and 20 packets of 2 minute noodles.......

why should stardock and its software ect, be any different? its not, they need to get a grip imo.

It's a matter of expectation. Take EditPad, for example. I downloaded the free EditPadLite when I got tired of Notepad. It's a decent text editor. EditPadPro has more features, but a price tag. I don't care about those features (if I want to edit specialized files, I have programs I paid for that do them better than EPP). Then I found NotePad2. It has many of the features of EPP. But it's free.

Thus, the expected value of EditPadPro is nil. When you can get 90% of the features of something for free somewhere else, then version that have a cost are meaningless.

Contrast this with the oXygenXML editor. This is the best XML editing tool possibly in this galaxy. It also has a substantial dollar value attached to it. But no free tool comes anywhere close to having the featureset (Emacs with proper add-ons can come semi-close, but Emacs has the worst user interface this side of VI). So the expected value of the product is substantial.

When you can get something great for free, and you've been able to do it for years, you get used to it. You expect it. And thus, you are disappointed when it is no longer free. Indeed, it can feel very much like a bait-and-switch when it happens. But if it's always cost money for something, then people don't have a problem with it continuing to cost money.

I cant believe someone actually advocated Bioware/EA's nasty new copy protection scheme. Are you mad?

It basically comes down to this, as someone else mentioned, people dont like it because to them its not tangible.

I don't see it this way and dont mind paying some money for good software but that might be because I work for a software developer myself.

I think its because few people actually understand what actually goes on behind the scenes in order to develop a piece of marketable software.

It is a time-consuming process and to scoff at the idea of someone charging for a piece of software they created that had a significant amount of effort put into it is just silly.

I have no issue paying for a piece of software but I do have issue with renting it.

It used to be that when you bought software you actually owned something. You owned the functionality that you spent your money on. You didn't buy free upgrades and you bought the software "as is" but you did purchase and own the ability to run that software forever.

Just like in the old days if you bought an album you actually owned it. You could play it anytime you wanted, you could record it onto to any other media that you wanted, you were only prohibited from selling copies made, but the idea is that you bought something that would not disappear simply because some artifical time limit expired.

20 years later you could dust off that floppy and boot up that old 286 machine and it would still work the same way it did 20 years ago. That is what I spend my money for. I object to having to spend my money on something that gives me a time limited right to the functionality but at some later date I no longer have rights to.

Some things like anti-virus stuff is inevitable and in fact makes some legitimate sense in that without updated virus definitions the software becomes useless. But it really pisses me off that every year I have to "buy" a new firewall. The firewall is a set functionality that requires no update to operate. Why suddenly at some point in time does my firewall stop working? Because the software developer put in extra development time (and thereby made the software more expensive) to put in code to specifically make it work that way. That extra effort put in by the developer certainly is not for my benefit, I neither asked for or want such functionality.

The problem is I object to renting things, I prefer to own. In real life I refuse to pay interest. I pay my credit card off each and every month. I pay cash for my cars. I believe that the only legitimate purchase on credit is a home and even then I'm a 20% down fixed 30 year (actually 15 year is far better) kind of guy.

I have no problem buying software that I like. I just hate having to rent it. But perhaps in this modern age software is just like love.

You can't buy it but you sure can rent it. I guess this implies what kind of business the software business has become.

"You cannot hold a concert, nor hold a play.

One cannot handle education.

We pay for that.

And... why should it make a difference anyways?"

LordZarth, i disagreed with your universal generalization that we pay for our education. It depends on where one lives, in Canada, the Canada, education is subsidized by the Canadian government, and in some European countries, education is free because the public pays taxes to subsidized education. Health care in canada is a public good too in canada, hence it is heavily subsidized.

However i agree with the rest of your point, if people like to be compensated for their creative work, then they are entitled to charge others for it at fair market price.

Excellent responses Slydrivel! I read and came to comment, and saw where you had given the answer and dotta the eyes.