[analog31]

At one point, I developed a hypothesis that for a big software vendor, turning a blind eye to piracy was like a form of "dumping" on the market. Consider a vendor like Microsoft. They could make their money selling legit copies to businesses, and through package deals on new computers.

Meanwhile, anybody who tried to sell a simpler or even better product at a lower price was forced out of the market by the "free" copies of Microsoft that were widely available.

The same "free" software gave Microsoft an advantage in the platform wars (e.g., Windows vs Mac) as well. Though most of the mainstream software was available for both platforms, people would buy a computer that could run the software that they could get for "free," often by copying the disks at work.

I remember a conversation with a friend. He was buying a new PC. I suggested getting a Mac (around 1996). He said: "The Mac doesn't run AutoCAD." I suggested that he couldn't afford AutoCAD anyway, and he just gave me a wink and laughed.

I don't know how this applies to movies and music, i.e., what a "cheaper alternative" looks like. When I was a kid, we would never see a first-run movie. Instead, we'd have to wait until it showed up at the discount theater, where we could see it for a buck. Today, there may be no reasonable business model for providing a lower priced channel for content, because content competes with pirate content.

[pandler]

> At one point, I developed a hypothesis that for a big software vendor, turning a blind eye to piracy was like a form of "dumping" on the market. Consider a vendor like Microsoft. They could make their money selling legit copies to businesses, and through package deals on new computers.

I have anecdata to support this, actually, though I won't name names. The company in question prided itself on the fact that bootleg copies were being sold for something like $5USD in (I think) Romania, whereas their competitors software was being sold for a few dollars less. For comparison, a single commercial license could set you back over $1000-$4000.

The way I see it, it's the same as offering free or next-to-nothing licenses to students. Not only can students not afford the software, you're competing for the mindshare and the number of people who put "I know how to use this software" on their resume.

[digi_owl]

Heh, i have a lovely anecdote about those student discounts.

The only guy i knew that had heard anything about Apple before the iPod craze was a hobby musician i grew up alongside. Once he reached college the first thing he did was buy himself a Macbook using the student discount.

[digi_owl]

I could have sworn that MS had to be dragged into strengthening their anti-copying measures from XP onwards by the BSA.

Never mind that MS tries to argue that their products have a lower total cost of "ownership" for businesses, as potential employees are familiar with MS products by having used them already. Thus they require less training if hired.

I think there is even a statement from Bill Gates somewhere about how he would rather see people use unlicensed MS products than FOSS alternatives.

[ethanbond]

Autodesk (maker of AutoCAD) gives out several thousand dollar pieces of software to anyone with an .edu these days. That's totally the strategy behind it.