BSA Claims 35% of Software is Pirated 617
hdtv writes "Business Software Alliance says 35% of packaged software installed on PCs globally is pirated, and estimates the losses at $34 bln. From the article: 'The countries with the highest piracy rates were Vietnam (90%), Zimbabwe (90%), Indonesia (87%), China (86%), and Pakistan (86%). The countries with the lowest piracy rates were the United States (21%), New Zealand (23%), Austria (26%), and Finland (26%).' TechDirt analysis debunks some of the myths: 'The BSA claims that all of these "lost sales" represent real harm to the economy. It's the same bogus argument they've trotted out before, which is easily debunked. Much of that unauthorized software is being used to make firms much more productive than they would be otherwise -- probably benefiting the overall economy quite a bit.'"
not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Each pirated copy, contrary to the BSA (interesting, what does the BS stand for?) claim, not only is not a lost sale, but potentially an extra sale.
BSA's claim is akin to the MPAA/RIAA's claims each downloaded/pirated DVD/CD is a lost sale. And, there have (AFAIK, and I've researched this many times) been no studies coming close to showing causal relationship between pirating and decreased sales.
Interestingly, one of the most damning contra-examples was the huge spike in CD sales corresponding to the spike in file sharing at the emergence of the original Napster. Of course, once the RIAA and music industry managed to rein Napster in, the dropoff in shared files was matched almost identically for a decline of CD sales.
People, especially in the poor couuntries, are running pirated software because they otherwise would run no software at all. And, if with this pirated software, they manage to bootstrap their own situation, or that of their business out of the netherlands they become much more likely to buy and pay prices for non-pirated software.
Sir specious, at your service. (Score:2, Insightful)
Flip a coin. There's your "potential".
"BSA's claim is akin to the MPAA/RIAA's claims each downloaded/pirated DVD/CD is a lost sale. And, there have (AFAIK, and I've researched this many times) been no studies coming close to showing causal relationship between pirating and decreased sales."
And yet people have no problem with a "causal" relationship showing a b
Re:Sir specious, at your service. (Score:3, Interesting)
If the price I have to pay for the free distribution of creative content is knowing that someone can spin my work and make it theirs, I would pay it with a smile on my face and shake the person's hand afterward.
Part of creativity is not just creating something but also being able to modify anothers' work for the better.
In all actuality, the GPL
Re:Sir specious, at your service. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the GPL uses copyright and license terms to force developers to release work under the GPL that they built upon the foundation of other GPL'd code. If you want to mimic a world without copyright, you use the BSD license, because a world without copyright doesn't translate into people sharing code.
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Insightful)
As a contractor I have worked for several companies where the reason why their was (a lot) of pirated software being used by the company because employees installed software onto their own systems. The company I am currently with has avoided this because they are (very) strict on what software is alowed on your system. Many companies have large budgets to purchase software that go unutilized because their employees don't even ask for software packages.
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:5, Insightful)
If Joe Blow on the street is pirating a $700 program, chances are that he wouldn't be willing to pay $700 for it even if that was the only way to obtain it.
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The cheaper, perhaps less-feature heavy but perhaps perfectly adequate program might genuinely be losing sales and market share to unauthorized copies of the more expensive program. After all, how many people infringe Photoshop vs. infringe Paint Shop Pro, even though most people can perfectly make do with the latter?
It's total hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:2)
Most wouldn't download Gimp, they wouldn't know what Gimp is. They would stop using their PC for photo editing. And as their PC would become progressevly useless they would stop using it at all and wouldn't
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:5, Funny)
Why the BSA can be good for small biz and OpenS.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? If there was a market for a cheap/free photo editing tool, somebody would fill it. In fact, there are several lower cost (and free) photo editing tools made by small companies that sell to people who don't need/can't afford Photoshop. And *these* are the companies that get screwed over when people warez software.
Joe six-pack may not spend $600 on Photoshop, but he would probably buy a $19.95 alternative (or his buddy might show him where to find Gimp). But if he can just get the top-of-the-line product for free, why the hell would he bother trying anything else?
In short, it isn't Adobe taking the lose as much as the independent and Open Source developers.
GIMP - yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
When its being used for amateur things then its ok.
I believe that using unlicensed software within a business is wrong however, a business is there to make money and if thats the case they can support the economy and buy their toolset.
Re:Quaint (Score:4, Insightful)
It just doesn't work in the non-western world.
Who cares, we couldn't afford it anyway is the usual answer....
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry but the average home user doesn't have the cash for a copy of Photoshop, so yeah, they pirate it. If they couldn't pirate they wouldn't go out and buy photoshop, they'd download the Gimp.
Enter Photoshop elements - it's cheaper ($90), works similarly to PS, and is limited in ways that are likely only important to graphic artists, who can afford a copy of PS along with Illustrator, Maya, etc.
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe they go and buy a copy of Paint Shop Pro or GraphicConverter or one of the other quite-capable yet reasonably-priced alternatives that do everything that most home and many business users want?
The simple fact that someone chooses not to buy Photoshop yet has a potential valid use for it doesn't mean they pirated Photoshop. That kind of argument doesn't account for the fact that alternatives ex
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
They threaten a lot of them.
Look back at this story:
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/07/07/1829241.s html [slashdot.org]
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/02/07 33256 [slashdot.org]
I've known a lot of people who have a business license for whatever venture of the week they had. They never did anything with the business, and let the license expire.
The BSA will gather
Re:It's total hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
The bad thing is that they go after running and operative b
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh! But were the CDs blank?
Paid the Windows tax, Running Pir8 XP Pro (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution: learn every genuine advantage workaround, repeat them, and distribute pirated copies of windows. If you want to screw me over, I'm happy to return the favor.
In a similar situation, I find myself out of town and I accidently left my laptop power cable at home. I go to the store to get a replacement and it costs $120. Highway robbery if I ever saw it. My solution: return the new cable when i get back in town. If it cost less than $50 I would just keep it, but if they want to rob me, I have no problem robbing them right back.
Moral of the story: If you screw me over I have no problem returning the favor.
Re:Paid the Windows tax, Running Pir8 XP Pro (Score:3, Insightful)
(Also, I expect you can get updates if you go through some kind of activation procedure with the license key from your legal copy)
Re:Paid the Windows tax, Running Pir8 XP Pro (Score:3, Informative)
Most OEM versions of Windows are now activated via OEM BIOS verification, a method called SLP, rather than WPA. The solution to get XP to activate via this method is to copy the OEMBIOS.* files from the OEM version (probably on the recovery disc or on the hard drive) onto your retail XP CD (or into your installation if you've already installed it).
Theres information on this here [pcreview.co.uk]
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Having "everybody" running MS software is to MS's advantage -- especially when they're trying to talk MA out of going with ODF.
Where the real falacy is is declaring these theoretical sales to be money "Lost to the economy" -- when the truth is that most of the hush money people pay for software immediately leaves the country (going to the Bahamas, or Ireland or wherever it is the gives Microsoft the best discount on income tax).
Countries like Canada don't even have the advantage of a significant income from R&D spending to offset what is actually lost to the national economy from via Microsoft Software sales.
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Interesting)
However they wont BUY the software. Its way too expensive for what it is in Pakistani currency. Implement sophisticated authentication mechanisms to prevent piracy and watch Linux boom. I'd like to see that happen. Less software will be pirated, and even less will be bought.
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:3, Insightful)
If I walk into a store, nab a CD and run, then I stole it. If I download some binary data somewhere, it's not stolen. Can people (including BSA and *AA) stop mis-applying the term? It's illegally copied, a violation of a totally different part of law than the one that governs theft.
Someone who downloads and uses digital "intellectual property" (a term invented when they stopped making works of art) does not misappropriate one of th
Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies are some of the wealthiest in the world, I have not seen a single case of any of these companies, not a single case where a software engineer was let go because of poor sales and lack of profitablity.
The amount of the loss is debatable, but is it reasonable to suppose that piracy has no impact on the software engineer? It is difficult to quantify unrealized gains, but neither can we say with certainty that there are none. As for companies being wealthy, does that mean that their property rights are any less valid?
One company has even had a judgement or two against it for how onerous its "terms" are
This is probably true, but as both you and I have said we chose not to use their product because we don't like their terms. It is unfortunate that the terms suck sometimes, the old "I am taking my ball and going home if you don't like those rules" reaction by some companies, but I cannot expect others to respect my rights if I don't respect theirs.
I'd consider (my opinion) this guilt money, considering how Gates has amassed his wealth.
The poor people who benefit are happy whether he gave the money out of goodness or guilt; it is all the same to them. As for Gates using it to promote Microsoft products with freebies...well he has a ways to go with meeting the basics before he can begin to do that. If he does eventually give them free computers with Microsoft software in order to "get them early" then you can chalk it up to his reward for helping them get that far with the basics.
The BSA is making claims about lost sales that really aren't, and getting leverage with this bogus saber rattling
The BSA is playing up their side and others are downplaying their arguments because that is how politics works. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. The BSA is not completely right but neither can it be proven that they are completely wrong.
But if every single piece of "pirated" software were somehow magically able to be taken from users today, the net result would not be additional revenue and sales, quite the opposite in fact could and would likely (in my opinion) occur.
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but people should consider the consequences of not paying for their software if the license does not make it freely available. The world is interconnected and my ability to pay my bills is contingent on my employer being able to pay me and their revenues are contingent upon people paying for the products and so on. I am not convinced that a reduction in piracy would NOT result in some more sales, but I suppose that on that point will we simply have to agree to disagree.
Easy answer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds like a challenge, and I accept.
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Funny)
I ran #gnuwarez on EFnet for a year or so. Zero-day Debian releases, FreeBSD -- you name it, I had a vast network of affiliate networks capable of getting it out to you. Mad greetz to the SourceForge guys.
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's the opposite. I can take open source software like OpenOffice and rebrand [comparesoft.com] it as my own, even sell it, and it would be perfectly legal for people to "pirate" it. However, when it comes to free but not open software, like Zone Alarm's free firewall, I'm not even allowed to mirror it on my website without their permission, let alone rebrand and sell it.
Desperately trying to figure this out (Score:5, Interesting)
I also don't get TechDirt's hostile opinion towards the idea that--gasp--piracy is wrong and shouldn't be happening, and that it costs people money. Of course it does. The idea that some section of the economy is magically enhanced because they got to use pirated software ignores the section of the economy hurting from lost sales. And none of it matters anyway, because you don't magically have the right to pirate software just because it would enhance your company. What a selfish and amateurish opinion to have. My company would do better if we could hack into competitors' computers and copy their valuable trade secrets for ourselves, but we don't have the right to do that just because it would enhance our business.
Finally, I don't get why so many pro-piracy opinions exist in Slashdot comments, invariably with some mention of the "MPAA/RIAA," as though scapegoating some lobby group somehow justifies making sure some musician or filmmaker or software engineer doesn't get paid for something they worked hard on to release and make a living from. I think rooting for piracy is a weak, lazy mindset. It's the easy route to take, and illustrates that one has not thought through it at all. They likely are high school or college students who haven't had to go out into "the real world" and perform work in exchange for income. They're used to running Kazaa and eMule all day long, downloading everything they can find, and they get so used to such convenience that they get bitter and defensive when the free ride is taken away.
But, I don't expect the amateur opinions around here to change. People will continue to scapegoat the RIAA and MPAA as a lame justification--"The RIAA made me download System of a Down's latest album!" "The MPAA made me download a camrip of X-Men 3!" Slashdot will continue to post vaguely pro-piracy articles such as this one, while ignoring its own Slashdot heroes like John Carmack (id Software was estimated to have lost millions of dollars when Doom 3 was leaked the weekend before its release date). Outside of the green and white bubble of this website, the rest of the world will continue to run on capitalism, the least bad economic system on Earth, and the antithesis to the pseudo-socialist worldview of "share everything and worry about the consequences later" that permeates the discussions.
Just my two cents.
Re:Desperately trying to figure this out (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between "pro-piracy" and "anti-equating-illegal-copying-with-theft-or-pira
Is this another one of the "those that aren't with me are with the enemy, the terrorists" ploys?
Re:Desperately trying to figure this out (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call it pro-piracy as it is as much as Anti-BSA or Anti-Microsoft or Anti-establisment.
Personally, I buy all my games because I have the money and I often feel like giving back to indie developers. (Go Darwinia! Go Red Orcherstra!)
But! I am highly suspicious of BSA's tactics and their claims of monetary loss which companies will use for tax purposes which I suppose directly is akin to "Tax Avoidance" which of course means it costs me indirectly anyways through higher taxes (Yeah I know it is a stretch)
They assume that if a person pirates software, they would have bought the software if they couldn't have pirate it. For some reason they cannot comprehend someone just doing without and finding something else to do.
If nothing else... Piracy hurts FOSS more than pay proprietary because with piracy there is no need for a free alternative, hence the lack of interest in those programs and hence less development. But I digress...
My second point I would have to raise with the BSA is how in the heck do they know that there is all this piracy in the first place? From my understanding they aren't going around house to house doing polls or making phone calls to everyone in the world and saying "Do you pirate software?"
Even if they did, no one in their right mind would say "Umm... Yes, I pirate software!"
Do they base this on figures of how many people they caught and then through a random multiplier with a dice roll and say "Here is our loss! Now give us a tax break!"
This is why I think most people on Slashdot appear to be pro-piracy.
And the fact these are faceless corporations or wealthy individuals aren't helping either.
A 14 year old kid won't stop to think as he is downloading Doom 3 torrent that John Carmack and go "bless his soul for his hard work in the 3d industry and without his hard effort we'd never have all the 3d games we have today", but rather "Gee... That man has 3 Ferraris! I'm sure this won't hurt em!"
Re:Desperately trying to figure this out (Score:3, Insightful)
Moving from "when" over to "why", I imagine because it's gotten really convienient. For example, a few clicks away there are TV shows for download. Didn't have to know what channel they're on or how to program my VCR/PVR, they'll download faster than I could walk over to a buddy and borrow his tape. Not that they actually air here anyway. They're also free of ads, though we
Re:Desperately trying to figure this out (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly antipiracy opinions are not modded down automatically I read your post at +5 (although I do upgrade insightful and interesting posts and downgrade unfunny funny posts).
Propiracy opinions exist on slashdot so do proponants of free software and people who think everything should be properly paid for and licienced.
If the software is making firms more productive.. (Score:2)
Re:If the software is making firms more productive (Score:2)
Re:If the software is making firms more productive (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to the free market, pal. Adapt or die.
Part of adapting is adapting to your competitors. If your competitors are pirating software, they're gaining an adv
Re:If the software is making firms more productive (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes [wikipedia.org].
~Rebecca
Re:If the software is making firms more productive (Score:4, Insightful)
How much does it cost you if I copy one of your CDs?
See the difference?
Re:If the software is making firms more productive (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they didn't have enough money to start their business in the first place. Software licenses are supposed to be a cost of doing business. Would it be ok to squat in an abandoned building because they couldn't afford rent when they started their company?
At least 35% (Score:4, Informative)
Liberal Estimate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How did you arrive at that conclusion? (Score:2)
Wrong counter argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the WRONG counter to their claims. The correct counter is that an unauthorized copy of a piece of software is NOT the same as a lost software sale.
In fact, if companies are using unauthorized copies of software to increase their business, that's when it's morally wrong to not pay for your software in my mind.
To me, it's like watching a illegally downloaded movie for personal (potential) entertainment vs. selling it on the street. The latter is the one I have a moral issue with and represents a more realistic loss of sale for the copyright holder.
Re:Wrong counter argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO it's one thing for me to pirate Photoshop because I want to piss about with some photos and see what I can do with it, when there's no way in hell I can afford to pay for a legit copy. It's quite another for a company to make a profit using pirated copies of Photoshop because they don't want their bottom line affected by a couple of licenses from Adobe.
Re:Wrong counter argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know a lot of people who have started off pirating software like photoshop and dreamweaver. They played around with it and learned how to use it. Eventually, they started making money off of it and went out and paid for a legit copy.
Speaking for myself, I know that this is what I've done with some software. I used a pirated copy of Photoshop back in highschool, and eventually I got pretty good with it. Now I make m
Re:Wrong counter argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
An extension of this argument might be, "If make 20,000 unauthorized copies of Word in my basement, did I single-handedly just deprive Microsoft of millions of dollars?"
You wouldn't even need that much hard drive space. Just copy the
W
Re:Wrong counter argument. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wrong counter argument. (Score:3, Interesting)
To give you a clue on how rich Microsoft is:
Let's say it's a 150MB CD. Let's also assume that we have a 3Gb/s (but 10 bytes with error correction, so 300MB/s) SATA controller and a RAID array to saturate it. At that speed, copying 150MB takes 0.5 seconds. In one week (604800s), you would be a
Re:Wrong counter argument. (Score:4, Funny)
So c'mon, guys! If we're gonna get this job done quickly, we're gonna need your help! Everybody chip in, and we'll have 'em out of business in no time!
Numbers are skewed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Numbers are skewed (Score:2, Insightful)
So why don't you?
Re:Numbers are skewed (Score:2)
1. Lost sale - piratee would have bought the software
2. Lost lower sale - pirate would have bought a cheaper version of the software ie Photoshop Elements
3. Lost competition's lower sale - pirate would have bought Ulead PhotoImpact
4. Lost nothing - pirate would have used GIMP or Picasa or nothing
You would have to do a large survey to figure out the "real" cost of pirated software.
Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
-WS
Wow the US is low (Score:5, Funny)
free advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also worth noting that it's a bad thing for the open-source movement if, say, everybody in Vietnam runs a pirated copy of MS Office on a pirated copy of Windows
Re:free advertising^W dominance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:free advertising^W dominance (Score:3, Informative)
Re:free advertising^W dominance (Score:3, Insightful)
Words aren't actions.
Re:free advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
MS secretly loves that, because Vietnam wasn't a potential market for them anyway in the near future (too poor), but may be in the future.
More to the point, if everybody in Vietnam pirates windows (to run on their Ox?), then it isn't a potential market for anybody else either.
too many sheep (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah we have too many sheep here in NZ.. of course we have a low piracy rate.. That'd require people to know what a computer was
LOSSES ??!?! WHAT LOSSES ?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they ALREADY count our money as theirs, and deem it as loss ?
Nay, sire
In the history of this world, there has NEVER been piracy UNLESS commodities' prices were not set in standards of highway robbery.
I aint giving me money to you sir. Not at THESE prices at least.
Not that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Along those same premises, let's say, hypothetically, that I had a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop on one of my PC's. I'm not a graphics professional, and have little use for it beyond making my own wallpaper. Are we to assume that I would actually pay the $699 price tag for this software? HELL NO.
What I would very much like to see is a poll comparing what people have pirated against what people have pirated and would pay for if they could not pirate it. I don't have any statistical evidence to back me up, here, but I'm going to hazard a guess that piracy leads to a lot less in actual losses than the BSA or the RIAA/MPAA assumes. And that is ignoring the fact that there are a rare few people that actually purchase a product just because they were impressed with the pirated copy, and wished ot support the author/creator.
Haven't we heard enough of this "piracy is going to kill our economy" bullshit? Why are we focusing on this, when the our (America's) trade deficit with China is over $200,000,000,000/year [census.gov] (yes, that is 200 billion dollars a YEAR at the current rate). Seems to me that this piracy thing is small potatoes, in the end.
Re:bah (Score:3, Informative)
In one small shop I had just joined a few years ago, I demanded that we get legal and it cost nearly $45k to do so - with just 12 people. That's not an insignificant amount of potato chips to Adobe, Quark, Macr
That's FUD! (Score:3, Funny)
Cease your pirate propaganda, slashdotters are too smart to fall for it. There's been credible studies that have come to the conclusion that piracy costs $11,440,939,650,000 [donnysblog.com] per month. In fact,
Re:bah (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this reasoning, is that had you not 'hypothetically' pirated Adobe Photoshop, instead of purchasing photoshop, you probably would have purchased a cheap tool that met your needs, or used a legal
Losses at $34bln - outstanding sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Here, I'm not in debt, but I sure could use an extra, say, $50,000 a year.
I could file my taxes at a $50,000 a year loss and claim it on wages not paid.
Isn't that the same thing they're doing?
At least make your arguments realistic (Score:3, Interesting)
That's B.S. So a firm might be more productive (and profitable?) using a software package, thus contributing to the general economy. No argument with that. But I fail to see how this debunks the BSA's arguments. Is techdirt (or Mike, or whoever) arguing that the same firm would be less productive if it had paid for instead of pirated the software?
they're just waiting till everyone's hooked (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, they could threaten these countries with ejection from the WTO or other treaty-based organizations, but they won't... until those countries are economically viable enough to pay the exorbitant licensing fees.
And then they will win, because they can lock people in to their proprietary formats. They call themselves the Business Software Alliance. But they are really the Proprietary Software Alliance.
Meh (Score:2)
Who loses. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fight!!! (Score:5, Funny)
If the BSA members collected the losses: what? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of those dollars the BSA is claiming as economic losses are actually being spent elsewhere. It's not a situation of money that should be out working loafing safely in a shoebox. Would we all reap more economic benefit from shifting money away from the other things into the software industry? I reckon not. Microsoft is probably one of the biggest claimants of the BSA loss statistic, and it is difficult to suggest that we would all be better off if they had more money or more freedom to make/improve software.
This is more of that smoke and mirrors trickle-down voodoo-economics gobbledygook. The BSA overwhelmingly represents the entrenched interests of large enterprises (you think big government is wasteful? How about big business..) against entrepreneurial business (where we see the most real economic growth).
Doh (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite the fact that it represents some pretty screwed up values, it just doesn't make much sense. If a company can experience growth related directly to the stealing of software, then they could have purchased the software, and they still should have grown. Buying software is just a cost of doing business, and shouldn't be having that much of an impact on the bottom line all by itself. Perhaps we should all just start bending the rules and pirate and steal our expenses away because hey, we're hiring more employees, we're paying our investors, and we're making more profit, which is good for everybody, right? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me.
When it comes piracy on the private, home use level, I think that the piracy numbers they always come out with are ridiculous. Just because the software is installed and being used does not mean that a sale was lost. This isn't a defense of piracy, just a reiteration of distinction between piracy and theft. They are not the same thing. But if we decided to treat them as the same thing for the purpose of creating an accurate yet misleading argument, then oh no, Software Company X is out a gazillion billion dollars!
As a member of the third world (Score:2, Insightful)
Software Licensing Compliance (Score:2)
Microsoft makes it almost impossible to figure out how licensing should work if you are a small or medium size business running their servers (outside of sending them blank checks every year for Software Assurance). I would venture a good portion of the "pirating" the BSA is complaining about involves confusion about regarding how many CAL's, and what kind of CAL's a business should have. Even Microsoft admits that CAL licensing can be a complicated area. [microsoft.com]
What is this productive software? (Score:5, Funny)
What is this software, and why isn't it available for Windows?
BSA Monopolists (Score:3, Insightful)
The same situation exists in region-coded DVDs - it's not piracy-preventing, it's profit-maximizing.
duh (Score:2)
real harm to the economy (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, piracy may help the economy achieve a kind of uniformity of software that is very easy to work with. For example, even is a small firm cannot afford a copy of MS Windows and Autocad, they can always pirate a copy. We benifit because the draftperson does not have to learn multiple systems, and, as the skillset is much easier to garner, can be hired much cheaper than a traditional draftsman. OTOH, as Autocad has no compitition, they probably charge quite a bit more that market, and can continue to do so as they do not need to cater to the small shop.
So, the primary harm that piracy exacts is probably in terms of promoting high prices and reducing the responsiveness to consumers. In competative markets, like the database, there is an effort to get versions out to users that are either low or no cost. This allows the student or amatuer to gain the experience with product without paying professional prices. This is similiar to what once would happen with equipement, such as typewriters. One could buy an old selectric and gain expereince.
In noncompetatve markets, however, the only way to get a low cost version of many applications is to pirate. MS would like us to believe that we can buy a used PC, but we must buy a new license to the OS. The student edition of MS Office is $120, which is already way too much, but to get access it rises to $200, which is really a joke. They are charging more for Access than Foxpro! Autocad is little better charging $150 per year. Mathematica is little better. Labview shows what can happen when a competitve market exists, with a version at $80.
So, what we have is situation in which piracy has lead to extreme economic damage by promoting monopolies in certain sectors. The vendors are perfectly happy to allow the piracy, as it is partially why they are succesful. I will always remember the time in the late 80's when my boss told me he was going to get his first PC because he would not have to pay for any software, unlike on the Mac where most of our software was properly acquired. However, a vendor cannot survive with no sales, so the BSA tries to create opportunity costs, at least for certain customers, that are higher than acquisition costs.
As a student I got MS Office, Mathematics, Foxpro, etc, for a song, so I did not prirate. If I were a student, or new to the IT industry and just wanted to learn, I would think long and hard about buying the software at the offered prices or borrowing a copy.
Ideally I would like to see most piracy stopped. I would like to see offer prices that are in line with what a competative market will bear. I also hope that the BSA pulls the rug on china and forces either the software vendors to cut thier price of the Chinese to find another solution. We will then learn hard and fast what it means to not communicate with an important trading partner.
Basic economy...? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll wonder if they can see the common denominator among the piracy levels and these countries.
Looks to me like high piracy goes for less rich countries.
Wow, could BSA's issues have mostly to do with too expensive software [microsoft.com], rather than a general evilness among people?
Naah, it can't be that simple, can it?
I claim 35% of all planets have life on them (Score:3, Funny)
I haven't been there, so I have no way of actually knowing. But I'm sure it's true.
Turnabout is fair play (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, we have a (probably BS) estimate on how customers are screwing over software companies. Where's the estimate on how much software companies have screwed over customers? Oh, wait, we're not supposed to give a damn about that, are we? It's okay for the software companies to screw over people but not the reverse.
This is why people don't give a crap -- including me. My first computer came with Widnows ME which caused me no end of trouble because it was buggy as hell. I was running Norton's Internet Security Suite and kept it fully updated. Within a month a worm downloaded itself into my system when I went to (of all things) a charity site. The worm wrecked my system and I had to get everything reinstalled. After that I downloaded a shareware anti-worm program to supplement Norton's. It worked fine, or seemed to, so I bought it. They sent me a keyfile in my email and told me how to install it. It didn't work. The program responded as if the time had run out and loaded my screen with one pop-up box after another to inform me that I needed to buy it. I literally could do nothing with my comuter because of all the pop-up boxes; I'd estimate that there were two hundred piled on top of each other when I had to force shut-down my computer.... and then reinstall Windows. Did I get my money back? No.
So, if you're not keeping score here, I got screwed by Microsoft, Symantec and one of the small software companies you guys are defending so ferociously. But no one else is saying anything about this sort of thing happening. Here's a clue: until the protection goes both ways we, your potential customers, don't give a damn. People have been screwed over enough that they assume that the software companies are trying to screw them over -- and a great many are -- so they don't care about you. But no one is even trying to do anything about that happening; no, all the effort is directed at trying to prevent piracy, not software makers abusing licenses and committing outright fraud. Until an actual effort is made to curb that people won't care. And why should they? I wouldn't be surprised if the guys who sold me that anti-worm program posted in this thread.
Oh, and btw, I'm a *nix-user now, so when a program doesn't work or screws up everything I can at least console myself with the fact that I wasn't defruaded out of money for it. Plus I know that someone will eventually fix it, instead of hoping that the software company will. All too many software companies never will fix their buggy software, or if they do they release it as the new version and expect you to pay for it all over again just to get a copy that workd even though you've already paid for it once. But it's okay for them do that but not for the customer who got screwed over with the earlier buggy version to pirate the new version, isn't it?
So, maybe I used a pirated copy of Photoshop... (Score:3, Interesting)
First error. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have about a dozen or so of good original games. The rest of my games is pirated, and you can be sure I wouldn't spend money on them. Legal? No. Fair? Maybe yes, maybe not. Harming economy? Total bullshit. The worst harm to the economy comes from me playing these games instead of working. If I didn't pirate them, the authors wouldn't see a single penny from me just the same. I just wouldn't play them.
The situation about utility software is even more twisted - same "not pirated=never used" often applies here too. Except pirated means using the software for profit and eventually purchasing originals when you can afford them (earning money on the pirated version first). Means the authors WILL eventually get their fair share. If I'm too afraid of get busted for pirating the software to use it though, they won't see a penny from me.
Last but not least, Postorder. Opposite of preorder. Preorder is when you pay now, get program later. Postorder is when you download the program now, pay later, at your leisure. Don't worry, Bethesda! I will pay for that copy of Oblivion I got... eventually!
Realistic Perspective vs Business Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
The claim that the business LOST $34 billion is flawed, since, in fact, business cannot LOSE what it never HAD: the $34 billion.
If we correct the grievance claim, and postulate that the business' suffered $34 billion of income deprivation, then that claim, too, is probably flawed. I suspect that most unlicensed, duplicated software is to the benefit of financially poor computer users, who might not otherwise have ANY access to the duplicated, unlicensed software.
Therefore, I postulate that the only real cost to the corporate world is the tax deductible charity receipt for helping the poorest of the poor with their computers.
If it were not for "piracy" laws, then they might be able to arrange for some kind of tax deductible charity receipt for unlicensed, duplicated software for low income computer users. But while such laws are in effect, it is unlikely that they will find low income users to be cooperative with any such effort.
piracy is vital for sw companies (Score:4, Insightful)
And of course they know this all too well, since you can't sanely think these companies employ and rely on stupid people. But they just love to talk about big number of hypothetical fairytale lost sales money to impress sixpacks and politicians.
Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Welcome to the Business Software Alliance UK website. We are here to help businesses avoid software licensing problems.
If that is truly their aim, they should be pressing for businesses to use Open Source software. Searching for "Open Source" on their site reveals that the term occurs only once, in one document. They could also point out the dangers of investing your companies future in proprietary solutions. e.g. I work for a company that has invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in Visual Basic (pre
Reported to the SEC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:haha foolish Americans (Score:2)
Re:this may be so but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, noone argues that copyright violation is illegal. But it is not universally unethical - it depends on where you stand on other issues.