Slashdot Mirror
Pardon, Is This Your File?
Teknogeek writes "The BSA says piracy is thriving. At least, according to this article. Note one interesting statistic: '...the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software.' How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?" On a similar note, an Anonymous Coward writes: "MIT Technology Review reports on the process of scanning the entire internet for digital signatures matching copyrighted work (watermarking not required), and automatically emailing threats to the offenders and their ISPs."
"What we found is a disturbing behavioral trend that violates copyright laws and costs billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs every year,"
If they can't get it for free, what are the odds of them paying for it?
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Still feeling secure about downloading that latest single?
Yeah, sure. Sharing it on the other hand may not be so anonymous. Who says it doesn't pay to be a leech?
Actually, at least some of that 45% might be attributed to people who get their stuff for free from the internet, but would not consider themselves pirates. A lot of people don't want to admit that they are a "pirate." Of course, I'm practically certain a large portion of that 45% is open source. I don't know the statistics, but I'd bet that's an improvement over a few years ago.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
If piracy is SO damaging for sales you have to ask yourself how did Harry Potter break box office record.... and what about Spiderman ? Hmmm makes you wonder who is actually telling the truth.
MIT Technology Review reports on the process of scanning the entire internet for digital signatures matching copyrighted work (watermarking not required), and automatically emailing threats to the offenders and their ISPs
The problem with this and all automated law enforcement schemes, be they traffic cameras or facial recognition, is that they create a substantial assumption of guilt that is almost impossible to refute. "The computer says you're guilty, so you must be"
People find it hard to believe a system that is actually catching lawbreakers can make a mistake, until the mistake lands *them* in trouble.
I'm a bit confused here...two different sources quoted in the /. article seem to indicate that copyright automatically implies licensing. Has there been some change in the copyright law in this regard? A copyright, under US Law, is automatic: The creator of the work is automatically granted the copyright. This post is copyrighted by me, and under the law I'm not required to note that anywhere (although doing so will make it easier for others to recognize the copyrighted nature of my work). According to BSA and MIT, the mere existence of this copyrighted work (my post) automatically implies a license between myself and anyone who chooses to view, cache, or copy this post. How have we allowed the notion of copyright to become so twisted?
What I would like to know is how this security company can obtain a user's email address. Doesn't that mean that they must have access to all of the ISP's user's information? And if so, wouldn't that be illegal for the ISP to disclose that information?
mund freud.
Confessions of a Reformed W4r3z D00d:
In my MS Windows days every single piece of software I used was pirated. Windows 98, Office, Photoshop, the works. Now that I'm 100% Unix, I still get all my software for free, but legally now. I know that some of you never pirate software and MP3's, but you've got to admit that you know a whole slew of folks that do.
I don't think anyone contests that piracy exists, but even the existence of rampant piracy doesn't prove that software companies lose money due to piracy. Would I have bought a copy of Photoshop had I not been able to get it for free? Hell no! Same with Office 97 -- I wouldn't have paid hundreds of dollars for something when Lotus SmartSuite came free with my computer and worked just fine. The connection between unauthorized use of w4r3z and lost income is really hard to establish.
Steve
How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?
How much do you want to bet that a study about software piracy conducted by the BSA is about as unbiased as a study about communism conducted by China?
Doing anything with these numbers is silly, we all know it's just a bunch of bullshit.
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Right. That's why I think the 57% number is low. If you've used the web at all you've downloaded copyrighted text, images or software. 43% of the people didn't realize they downloaded things that were covered by copyright or realized the intent of the question.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Almost everything on the web is copyrighted. When you click on a link your browser downloads it in order to display it to you. 100% of web surfers never or seldom pay for the copyrighted web pages they read.
(There are a few specialty markets, e.g. academic journals, where copyrighted web content is available by subscription only. But most of the web is gratis to all.)
Practically everying I download is copyrighted, including the slashdot page I'm typing this into. Most of it is freely available. Copyright doesn't imply that payment is necissary. It's unfortunate that the people with the most money available to buy laws with have the narrowest view as to how the existing laws work.
(1) They lie. Or at least mis-represent. 57% of people admit to downloading software they haven't paid for. So what? Whether the idiots at the BSA realize it or not, non-costware is much more popular among the people than is costware. Shareware, Freeware, Adware, OSS, and FS software are much much much more popular than costware; not only because they're free (or usually free in the case of OSS / FS), but also because they're just better. With OpenOffice, you get a completely functional presentation program (Impress) that can edit power-point files: for free. MS PowerPoint ALONE costs 300 dollars. Lets say that OpenOffice's Impress costed 1 dollar. Is MS PowerPoint really 300 times better than OpenOffice Impress? No, that's laughable; in fact, some claim that Impress is superior. So, in short, yes 57% of people probably have downloaded software from the internet without paying; its probably more like 100%, just the other 43% were too stupid to understand the question, or understand that at one point they probably DID download software without paying for it.
(2) Piracy costs "hundreds of thousands of jobs a year". LOL. Please, that is pure bullshit. 100,000 people in the US software industry were fired last year? Oh, sure, if you include janitors and other people that "work for software companies" but have nothing to do with software, then maybe 100,000 people were fired. Maybe. But come on, get real. 100,000 programmers were not fired last year. Lying bastards.
(3) On MIT tracking copies of pirated software. Traitors. Clearly sellouts for academics, siding with the powerful intellectual property industry against the academics who realize the importance of balance. As for them knowing "you" downloaded a song, bullshit. I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell they can track the activities of all the file-sharerers even in the US alone. Furthermore, let them prove it. All they have is digital records, all of which can be made up and faked. Finally, even if they convince some idiotic judge that you in fact downloaded the latest S. Twain song w/o paying for it, so what? Firstly, its not a criminal offense. Secondly, pay the $19 dollars that that CD albulm costs; big deal. You'll make up for it by all the stuff they didn't catch.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Please don't use the world pirate as a noun or a verb to describe copying bits. Seriously -- when you use this bullshit terminology -- "they" have already won the first battle.
In the last few years various entities have *really* learned to use the language against us, we drive "pre-owned cars", we "pirate" music, we get blown up by "suicide bombers" (although some news stations are now calling them "homicide bombers"). We don't goto war we have "operations" ... I could think of a million others
When someone wants to call a thing something i'ts not -- they are trying to color your perception
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Imagine being the CIA and saying "there's no one spying on us". It's about the same as being the BSA and saying "no one is pirating software".
Whether the threat is real or not: You can't have a crusade w/o someone to crusade against.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
A while ago I stopped using pirated software and listening to mp3s of musicians who don't distribute them freely. It is theft and as such morally wrong, I think it is worrying that people will not care about right or wrong as long as there's personal gain. The interesting thing to me is that piracy is apparently a "socialist" thing as it is about sharing, but is deeply rooted in a savage capitalist philosophy of getting an advantage regardless of the means. The numbers may be wrong, it doesn't seem to be a well conducted survey, but those numbers aren't even important in face of the real issue of piracy being censurable even if it's consequences are/were mild.
Yes, I'm referring to using the library to consume written (and audio-visual) works for free, without paying a dime. Maybe you've heard of this, the library? It was brought to our culture by Benjamin Franklin, publisher and promoter of the patenting concept which gave rise to the notion of intellectual property.
Infact, there is nothing discongruous between a patent or copyright and a library where such works are consumed freely by many people. Sharing a work wasn't the crime--misattributing someone else's work as one's own was the offense. But I digress.
Where is the concept of the library of software? If my local library began offering donated titles on a check-out basis, would not Microsoft, through its front called the BSA, demand it to cease and desist?
Today I spent the day at a library and at a Barnes and Nobles reading technical books on a subject I am not familar with, trying to (1) become familar with the subject matter and (2) to find good references that I would then purchase for my own collections.
If the BSA went after published works as well as software, I would have had to purchase 30 books on Java, XML, RMI, XML-RPC, RSS, EJB, etc., to accomplish what I did today. It wouldn't have happened.
Actually, I do the same with software. I'll borrow a friend's copy or use LimeWare, et al, to find a working copy of a program I want to evaluate (unless they have a true trial version to use; Office X preview was not a true trial version--it didn't work just like the real thing). Once I try it I'll make a decision: buy it or delete it. I don't continue to use it unless I buy it, because I want the updates and other goodies--and if I like it I don't mind paying for it. Just like my book scouring at the library/bookstore.
I propose that we establish software libraries--donated purchased software licenses that can be checked out (for evaluation purposes and short-term use). I propose that these be mandated by law to accompany the ever stricter copyright/patent laws so that the "intellectual" benefit to society of Intellectual Property not be lost ensuring the "property" benefit to private concerns.
Free software, on the other hand, falls into the library/copyright paradigm perfectly. Freshmeat, SourceForge, Savanaugh (sp? sheesh), are today's libraries for software. And it is Microsoft, not the FSF, that was fined for piracy--passing off the work of another as one's own. BSA and Microsoft: against casual sharing (like a library) and not respecting the copyright law. How un-American!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello