How Corporates Profit from Warez - Revealed

It's been a while since I last read a good 'ole warez debate on the forums.

Press play!

Think of any popular brand in software - Cubase, Reason, FruityLoops, Photoshop, Dreamweaver etc. - and you will see a brand owing at least some of its success to the "freedom-fighters" of the web: the software crackers.

A side to the warez debate that often goes overlooked is it can potentially be worth $millions to the right company, with the right software. I'm gonna show you how this works using a forum post written by a member called Prime:

... a sound engineer I know said he will give me the full Korg Legacy collection. I just cant resist accepting the offer. I would say it is ok(ish?) at first to use cracked software as I'm fairly new to producing music. When I make something good and outta college and got money I would definitely purchase real copies
Am I just making excuses?

It's a double-edged sword, IMO.

Clearly, there is a considerable loss of revenue because of it - which is harmful.

On the other hand, Prime say's:

[When I'm] outta college and got money I would definitely purchase real copies

...which illustrates a potential benefit.

Why? 'Cos people like Prime who mess about with, and become proficient with, a particular app later go on to get jobs using that software.

Now I wonder how many programmers at Propellerhead, Yamaha (Cubase), Adobe (Audition/Photoshop) and others, owe their jobs to using cracked software back in their early computer-days when they were learning to code or make tunes?

Further, these people later become managers, or company owners, buyers, or whatever, gaining influence over staff-training and software budgets... and so it goes on.

This is a business aspect the software industry must either accept, but keep quiet about when launching their attacks against warez in public, or they are just plain ignorant (unlikely).

What would happen if warez didn't exist?

Well, less users, for one...

... and with that, less brand recognition too. You might never have used Dreamweaver before, but you may well have heard of it and know what it does - and that's still worth a lot to a brand.

If only a few people know about your great app, you're gonna need to spend a far greater proportion of your money marketing it = less money going into software development.

But that's only part of the story: the crucial bit is to get at the budget-spenders; get to them, and the people influencing them, and you can become a market-leader.

But there's even another, but...

Education

People need to be trained to use software. That means convincing colleges and private course-providers to teach it. However good that software is, it's going to be difficult to persuade them without an established user-base and brand.

Warez is free advertising, helping to build brand recognition which can be worth £millions - don't underestimate that.

So you're sat there thinking: "Fookin' hell, are you saying warez is good?!"

Well, with the music-industry struggling (because of piracy), and with gifted software-makers unable to ride-out the revenue-drain warez definitely entails, how could I?

No, but I'm giving a side to an argument often not vocalised. Clearly, as much as warez giveth, it also taketh away, too.

Software is not just gibberish code

The fact is, writing good software is not all about code: it's also about interface design and functionality - a completely different skillset to programming.

It's also about documentation and support.

IMHO, the main differences between market-leading software - in any sector you care to mention - and software that is - or potentially could be - equally as good, is the documentation; ie., a thorough, easy-to-use and clearly written help system.

If you take Cubase, Logic, Reason et al, and compare their help docs to the freeware/shareware you also own, almost without exception, this is where you'll see the most glaring differences. The reason? Time, cost, and the skillset needed to comprehensibly document a good help-system.

Don't underestimate the documentation.

Concise planning goes into writing good software. Couple that effort with the fast-pace of technical progress, and you begin to appreciate the pressures of getting product out of the door before it becomes outdated = considerable upfront investment.

And therein lies the damage warez mostly wrecks: if you're a small or independent software-house, warez can stop you getting into a position of positive cashflow - cash that could make your product stronger and better.

If that cash doesn't come back quick enough you can't fund updates and further innovation.

The sad fact is, there is much software out there which are better than the brand-names we've come to know and love. With our general resistance to adware, however, and the propagation of warez, the choices remaining for software-makers are to plod along as open-source, shareware, or freeware, and hope that just maybe, perhaps, one day some big fish will come along and gobble them up. Very few get that far. For those that do, a huge amount of blood, sweat and tears has often been contributed by a (sometimes large) number of dedicated people working in their spare time.

Against The Muso Ethic (or... in your shoes!)

As a breed, muso's tend to be anti-establishment/corporation, and pro "freedom-of-creativity". So you must square your actions against the impact your choice of ownership means for the tools you're using today, and those that will, or will not, follow tomorrow.

While warez can help promote software in the long-run (IMO), surviving the long-run is much more difficult today. And the cost of that - to everyone - is lost innovation and livelihoods.

Consider the business issue from your position: you might get a buzz from folks downloading and playing your tunes - hey, who wouldn't! - but if you wanna quit your day-job, how do you make the leap from free, to: 'Oi, now ya have to pay'?