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."

Comments

Article Says:

[flewp]

"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?

Re:Article Says:

[flewp]

The article also says that the proliferation of internet auction sites also contributes to the piracy?
I don't get it. Is it perhaps because someone bought a program(or whatever) and then decided to sell it, but made a copy of it?

Re:Article Says:

[alouts]

Well, that and in many cases the licenses forbid you from selling the software you buy. Especially OEM versions of software. Even if I delete it from my machine, and give you all the discs I've ever had it on, with all the docs, it's still "illegal" (provided the EULA stood up in court) because it's not a product per se, but a license to use it on that particular physical piece of hardware. And they blame the auction sites for letting me sell it to you.

Re:Article Says:

[Sc00ter]

BUT, if you never use it (format the drive right away). Then how can you agree to the license? Usually it's in a bag. Don't open the bag, don't boot up into the OS without fdisking the drive first with your handy linux boot disk.

Re:Article Says:

[br0ck]

hundreds of thousands of jobs...

So the BSA is claiming that 5-10% of the 3 million unemployed people in the US lost their jobs to piracy. Does anyone know what these numbers are based on? I guess all that success that the RIAA is having hasn't helped after all.

Re:Article Says:

[alan_d_post]

From the GNU site:

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''

Re:Article Says:

[kilroy_hau]

Also from the article:
In a study of 1,026 Web users released Wednesday, the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software.


I dont' believe it. We need a new poll
Have you bought copies of a copyrighted work?
-Never, everything I buy is original
-I don't buy, but I have free copies
-I copy when the price is too high, I copy stuff that I would never buy
-I copy everything I can, even when I can pay

(see how I don't use the term "pirate"?) I don't know who to send this poll proposal

Re:Article Says:

[stevew]

As I recall - there was a recent court decision that invalidated any part of a EULA that prohibits selling of the software to a 2nd person assuming that the software has been removed from your machine. This was equated to reselling a book that you had purchased legally. So any EULA language that prohibits this is just so much hot air.

Re:Article Says:

[prockcore]

Yeah, and now those unemployed can't afford to buy music and software, so they resort to piracy as well.. causing more jobs to be lost, resulting in a never ending spiral to the end of the world.

At least that's the story Hilary Rosen reads to me at bedtime.

Re:Article Says:

[Roosey]

I believe you're referring to the case Softman Products Company, LLC v. Adobe. The decision basically states that software bundled with another product can be unbundled and sold separately if you haven't used it at all.

The ruling was made in November of last year, however - I'm not sure whether or not it's been appealed since then.

Re:Article Says:

[spectecjr]

Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''

Redacted for accuracy:

"Sharing someone else's legal intellectual property with someone who doesn't have the right to use it, therefore breaking the law"

Simon

Re:Article Says:

[spectecjr]

When you make a copyright violation, you are forfeiting someone copyright grant and that is a civil offense. Nobody except the grant receiver may prossecute you.

Sorry, but that's not accurate as of 1992. You snooze, you lose. Copyright violation is and can be a federal felony offense. That is, a criminal offense.

http://www.cybercrime.gov/CFAleghist.htm

FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
(COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND TRADE SECRETS)
VI. APPENDICES

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT

H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102ND Cong., 2ND Sess. 1992, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3569,
P.L. 102-561, CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
DATES OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE
Senate: June 4, October 8, 1992
House: October 3, 1992
Senate Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-268,
Apr. 7, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
House Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-997,
Oct. 3, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
HOUSE REPORT NO. 102-997
October 3, 1992
[To accompany S. 893]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the Act (S. 893) to amend title 18, United States Code, to impose criminal sanctions for violation of software copyright, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the Act as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Section 2319(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section-

"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500;

"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.".

Re:Article Says:

[glitch!]

I wonder who actually starting calling "prohibited copiers", pirtates.

I think it was around 1984 or so that a friend of mine told me about a BBS back east (Boston?) called "Pirate's Bay" or "Pirate's Cove". I don't know if there are many earlier references, but that is what I remember.

I may also know one of the earliest computer viruses (Apple II, around 1983), but that's another story :-)

Re:Article Says:

[DrSkwid]

*BSD, that's so retro

plan9 is my geek OS of elitism

I'm even wearing my plan9 tshirt as I type!

Re:Article Says:

[DrSkwid]

-I copy everything I can, even if I never use it

^^ that's more like the state of play for most people I know that copy software. They've got all the latest stuff but virtually *never* use it. It's all about saying 'I've got Photoshop X' in irc

lets get this straight

[Roadmaster]

the BSA spends millions each year conducting audits and scare campaigns against pirates (a lot of them "alleged", i guess). And still, piracy is rampant and increasing every day.

Gee, could this mean a) their tactics don't work, b) they're not doing their jobs as vigorously as they should?

Downloading? No problem.

[alouts]

From the TR article:

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?

57%

[Telastyn]

Only 57% of users save pr0n? disappointing...

It might not all be open source

[sean23007]

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.

Re:It might not all be open source

[SecurityGuy]

Darn it, my moderator points seem to have expired. Ah well, I'll just have to reply then. :)

I used to work with someone who was an avid napster user but vehemently denied she was doing anything wrong. I have no problem believing 80% of pirates don't see themselves as such.

If Piracy is So Bad why Did Harry Potter ...

[kila_m]

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.

Re:If Piracy is So Bad why Did Harry Potter ...

[Cramer]

They want ALL the money, not just A LOT of the money. And to date, I've yet to see any actual proof of the numbers the various industries throw around.

Re:If Piracy is So Bad why Did Harry Potter ...

[Arandir]

The answer is simple. I would much rather pay $8.00 to see Spiderman on a 30 foot screen with awesome theater audio, than see it for free on a tiny 320x200 window and cheap Labtech speakers.

It's like comparing apples to oranges. Neither side is going to look too intelligent using this bit of data to support their case.

the problem

[oni]

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.

Re:the problem

[ArsonSmith]

when it is there it is there. You are just argueing that you no longer have the right to put your word agenst a police officers or other person. Now it's your word agenst a photo of you commiting the act.

It isn't fair now that I can't get away with breaking the law.

PS I am a big fan of much stricter enforcement of laws, but also a much bigger fan of reduceing the number of laws and makeing them much more lenient. Especially when we can have things like traffic monitors and stop light cameras.

Re:the problem

[meta-monkey]

When it comes to getting you botted off your ISP, the constitution doesn't really come into play. If they send enough threatening letters to your ISP, your ISP can just drop you for fear of being sued. Read your service agreement with your ISP sometime. They say in there that you can't do anything illegal with their service, and they reserve the right to can you at any time. When the RIAA is threatening your ISP with lawsuits valid or not, marching down to their office waving a copy of the fifth (and maybe sixth) amendment(s) probably won't help you get your service turned back on.

Re:the problem

[cybermage]

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"

Of course this means that it could be bypassing a persons presumption of innocence. I wonder if this could be constitutional grounds from throwing such evidence out?

Well, to answer your question, let's dispense with the premise above. The only thing these automated things can do is substantiate Probable Cause, which is the standard used by law enforcement to make arrests, request search warrants, etc. In some circumstances, for example, traffic violations, Probable Cause almost inevitably translates into guilt. If a cop clocks you going 80mph and hands you a citation for it. There's a very good chance you'll be found guilty by a judge, if you let it get that far. However, that doesn't mean Probable Cause equals guilt. The evidence in a traffic violation is usually enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: The officer testifies he was tracking your vehicle, the officer testifies that the radar gun said 80mph; the officer testifies that radar gun was in good working order; and based on license surrendered to the officer at the scene, you were driving the car. Not a lot of room for reasonable doubt there.

Using a computer to analyze facts and come to a conclusion of Probable Cause is perfectly fine. The only thing that can then be used in court is the facts from which it drew the conclusion. If you're mailed a ticket from a traffic camera, the facts are a) the light was red, and b) there's a picture of you running the light. The software correlates these facts and sends a citation based on Probable Cause.

Probable Cause does not equate to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a decision for humans to make; and since none of us have computers for peers, that's how it will stay.

Re:the problem

[foniksonik]

Tom Cruise will be showing up at your door soon with a warrant for your arrest, stating that you were thinking about thinking about planning to kill some one who just cut you off on the freeway in some near future incident.

You are guilty of course... I mean of thinking that is.

Re:the problem

[bryan1945]

Main problem with red light cameras is that they don't take a pic of your face, only your license plate. Even if you were not driving the car, well too bad, you were _probably_ driving the car and therefore you are guilty.

No I'm going through a NJ EasyPass toll both, and the sensor registers me going 110Mph. Unless you somehow get a toll both worker that remembers my car, license plate, and my face, you just have to rely on the sensor. Did it malfuntion? Well, it probably didn't malfunction, so I'm probably guilty.

This is the point- without actually human interaction at the time of the crime, you DON'T know who did it (this is for car stuff where they don't get your face, not where robbing the 7-11 and getting your mug on camera with you holding the gun).

As the guy said, with the traffic stuff, you're screwed.

Re:the problem

[bryan1945]

If Tom Cruise ever showed up at my door and accused me of "thinking", I'd remind him of Scientology and breaking up with Nicole Kidman, and then bitchslap him with a salmon and then an aardvark.

Re:the problem

[fishebulb]

in the case of radar. they are rarely accurate. %19 percent of the time they are right, the other times they are not.

Re:the problem

[ArsonSmith]

Although the charge for photo radar will be dropped if you are not in the picture are you saying that a car that is owned, regestered, and insured by you speeding or running a red light not evidence enough to atleast bring you up on charges. Sure you are inosent until proven guilty, but you also have the responsibilty of personal accountablity, and you may need to defend yourself if need be.

Re:the problem

[mosch]

The real problem with automatic traffic law enforcement is that it doesn't save lives.

Speed limit cameras can't tell if your car is weaving, indicating that you're dangerously drunk and a risk to the public.

Stop light cameras increase the likelihood of people to slam on their brakes when they see a yellow light, thus resulting in chain-reaction rear-end accidents that would be safely avoided if the driver proceeded through the yellow.

I respect the police, I just want them to protect and serve. Putting a speed limit camera on a downhill portion of a wide highway that's marked with an unreasonably low speed limit, and has an extremely low accident rate does neither, it merely generates revenue.

Re:the problem

[The Cat]

Threatening with or filing an invalid lawsuit is called "Abuse of Process" and is actionable in itself. There is also Rule 11 in Federal Court, and likely a variety of other possible problems, like Contempt charges, et al.

IANAL either.

Re:the problem

[cybermage]

It is not a picture of "you running the light",

The sample photos I've seen showed the plate and the driver. Admittedly, these photos aren't taken from the best angle/lighting and photos at night are probably useless.

I don't know if your premise has been tested in court. Certainly, if you cannot see the driver you can create some doubt. However, citations can be issued to the owner of a car for other reasons. If your car is illegally parked, the ticket's yours (having the car stolen is probably an affirmative defense, I'm sure.) Perhaps these camera tickets are treated like parking tickets under the law.

As to getting stuck in the intersection when the light changes, don't do that. You shouldn't enter an intersection that you cannot leave before the light is red. If traffic gets backed up through an intersection, wait on the other side. It is illegal to stop in an intersection (even one without a light.)

As to the issue of stolen plates, well DMV knows your car's make and model. Take the picture, the police report and your registration to court and viola: instant dismissal.

Re:the problem

[gartogg]

if someone said that there was a 5% chance that if you invested you retirement income in a fund, that you would go bankrupt, i would have a resonable doubt about the strategy of putting money in the stock.

At what point is a doubt unreasonable? 5%? 1%? 1/10 or 1/10,000 of 1%?

Re:the problem

[MaxVlast]

If you really want to get their attention, go down to the office waving the Second Amendment. =)

Re:the problem

[ninewands]

The officer testifies he was tracking your vehicle, the officer testifies that the radar gun said 80mph; the officer testifies that radar gun was in good working order ...

... and right there is where any decent criminal defense lawyer will attack the ability of the cop to determine the proper functioning of a hand-held radar gun.

Hand-held units are NOTORIOUSLY unstable ... rarely handled with the proper degree of care ... hells belles, they operate in the X band (3 cm wavelength), how much banging around in the trunk do you think they'll take before they lose calibration???

A buddy of mine who did a lot of misdemeanor defense work had a former Navy Radarman on tap to testify as an expert on the care, feeding and calibration of mobile radar equipment. I don't think he ever lost a ticket when the client was willing to pick up the expert's (extremely reasonable) fee.

Re:the problem

[smiff]

As to the issue of stolen plates, well DMV knows your car's make and model. Take the picture, the police report and your registration to court and viola: instant dismissal.

One reason to steal a license plate, is so that if a cop runs a random check on it, it will come back clean. If the thief is driving a different make/model, the cop will know right away. So a thief would likely steal a plate from a car of the same make, model, and color. Of course, if the thief is smart enough to do that, they will probably be careful enough not to run a red light.

I would hope that simply stating under oath that your license plates were stolen would be grounds for dismissal.

This still doesn't address my biggest concern. At a place I used to frequent, the parking lot exit was right next to a stop light.

| |
| |
____| |___________

____ ___________
| | _________
| |_|
| parking
| _ lot
| | |
| | |

I would exit the parking lot and enter the intersection while the light was green. The light would turn yellow, and then red before I left the intersection. It happened all the time. The yellow light always seemed long enough when I drove down the street at 30 MPH. Checking the speed doesn't matter since my car has picked up speed by the time the light turns red. If there were a camera at that intersection, I would have gotten a half dozen tickets.

One more problem. A person does not know they've been accused until a citation shows up in the mail. To contest the allegations in court, you have to remember the incident. How is a person supposed to remember every single intersection they have driven through for the past couple days?

Re:the problem

[cybermage]

Hey, nice diagram :)

Regarding the stolen plates, for the most part I agree. Although, you can beat having to say so under oath by reporting them stolen to the police. Then you've got a copy of the police report on your side.

That intersection you've diagrammed seems annoying. I guess it depends on how the cameras are placed. I would think that if you entered an intersection at even 5 mph while the light was green, you'd be well past the middle before it was red. If that camera is taking pictures of the front of the car it would need to be down the street, I would think, to see your plates. If there's a signalled cross-walk there, you might want to glance to see if says walk or don't walk. Usually they'll start flashing 'don't walk' something like 15 sec's before the light starts to change.

Hypothetically speaking, if you were stopped at a green light and began to move through an intersection while it was still green, you should be through before the light changes fully to red. If not, they may have short-changed you on the yellow light. The yellow light should be good for 4-5 seconds. Given a second of green, that's 5-6 seconds to cross.

In regards to remembering which intersection, I would think the citation would identify it. Might be a good idea to go time the yellow there before court. Bring a video camera. You're not expected to lock up your brakes in order to stop for the light. If a yellow light only lasts 2 seconds on a 30 mph street, anyone going the speed limit can't be more than three car lengths from the intersection and expect to get through without running the red. At three car lengths from the intersection, you'll lock your brakes into a skid try to stop before it.

Re:the problem

[ColaMan]

Red light cameras (here in .au anyway) are wired to a set of sensor cables embedded at the entrance to the intersection.

You have to pass over them to trigger them, and the light has to be red whilst you are doing so, so if you are in the intersection and the light goes from orange to red, then you're ok.

In fact, people often set them off by being just a leeeeeeetle bit over the line where you are supposed to pull up. That's why normally they take at least 2 shots to see if you are actually moving.

You can normally tell when a camera takes a photo from the *very* bright flash used - ditto with speed cameras.

Also in .au, if you can prove (reasonably) that someone else was driving , and they are OK about copping the fine, you can sign a statutory declaration that it was somebody else, and the fine goes to them. Problem solved.

Companies/businesses who can't figure out who was driving their company cars get to pay twice the normal fine. Good if you're in cahoots with your manager ;-)

Re:the problem

[oni]

Thanks, but I'm not sure I want to show that link to anyone. I suspect many people will be satisfied by this:

the probability that the disease is present [A] if the test result is negative [~B] (i.e., the probability that a negative test result will be a false negative) = 0.0005

In other words, the test does a good job of identifying the innocent - or so it would seem.

Re:the problem

[gr]

If they send enough threatening letters to your ISP, your ISP can just drop you for fear of being sued.

Threatening suit without ever actually filing for it is called barristry, and it is, in fact, illegal. Sue back.

No, man!

[Tackhead]

> "Pardon, is this your file?"

"No, man, I was just hostin' it for a friend, man!"

Radio Ads

[dead sun]

Around the Milwaukee area there have been some radio ads about how ex-employees can "get back" at their former employers by reporting suspected piracy. It doesn't even have to be real, it can be just a mean spirited act of vengence to get the good old BSA fired up now. And they're advertising this.

My question is what legal right do they have to storm in and do an audit? I wouldn't think that they'd just be allowed in, and I'm pretty sure they would have to go through legal channels to squeeze money out of people, unless they're dead scared. If a company is pirating and destroys all the evidence before the BSA gets them in court what sort of case do they have? I mean, "Yes your honor, we took a lead from an ex-employee hell bent on vengence, and we have no real evidence," doesn't sound like a case winner to me.

Whatever, my boss would just give them the finger if they showed up here, then probably call the cops.

Re:Radio Ads

[oni]

the BSA shows up *with* the cops

Do you have any documentation of that? Because I find it hard to believe.

Re:Radio Ads

[RickHunter]

Have you read anything about the BSA raids? I believe that it was standard policy to return with the cops and a warrant if you refused, based on the logic that your refusal proved you had something to hide. They may have decided to just skip the first step and move straight to the cops to prevent destruction of "evidence".

Re:Radio Ads

[Kindaian]

You can refuse all audits.

However, you can't refuse a court ordered search... As you see... there is a little diference.

And if you are victim of a search... be sure that all people involved in it has authorization and authority to be there. Would be funny to see the cops be the only ones with authority to enter to do the search...

As for damage to non-windows boxes... well... you can sue them for damages! If they don't know how to do the job they shouldn't touch it!

Cheers...

Since when does copyright imply a contract?

[pongo000]

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?

Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract?

[ArsonSmith]

Because there is money involved, and lots of it. When ever someone starts putting 7+ zeros onto the right side of a number older laws start to look more and more like what ever can produce the most money. Its an old law of capitalism: "whenever you find people haveing fun for free, find a way to charge for it."

Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract?

[Jordy]

More importantly, all software except for that which is released to the public domain is copyrighted, including things like the Linux kernel. Just because something is under copyright doesn't make it commercial.

In a study of 1,026 Web users released Wednesday, the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download.

This could very well mean that people are downloading shareware, free software or otherwise and simply decided not to pay for it.

Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract?

[GeorgeH]

Reminds me of when I was in high school. This was 1997 and the school had to be online (just don't ask why the emperor is naked). So the school sprung for a new lab of 486s running Windows 3.11 and a box that had a 56k modem and a TCP/IP stack that did NAT - now the school could harness the power of thespot.com and the Trojan Room's coffee pot.

Before you can let anyone actually use the computers, of course, you need them to sign an agreement saying that they won't do anything evil, like express negative opinions about the school online. Personally I never saw an end to the school's dictatorial powers that would necessitate signing away any rights, but I'm sure that there were some lawyer-parents who would if their perfect child got in trouble for downloading pr0n.

So I was reading the agreement and anyone who signed it agreed not to download copyrighted material online. I pointed out to the vice-principal who was handling the signings that all material online was copyrighted, either explicitly or implicitly. She said that if I was downloading copyrighted material I was pirating software. I finally convinced her that it was only unlicensed software that was piracy (I'm still not a fan of that word) and she said I should just sign it because they weren't going to enforce it anyway. I didn't sign and didn't use the Internet at school that year, not a big loss as the only thing the computers were used for was seeing Yahoo.

Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract?

[binaryDigit]

A copyright, under US Law, is automatic: The creator of the work is automatically granted the copyright

But there is an implicit license between you, the copyright holder, and us, the readers of your content. That license, which is set by the copyright laws, gives a standard set of restrictions on your work. Because of these copyright laws, you don't have to have an explicit license agreement, unless you want to grant/deny rights that are not covered by standard copyright. So how does copyright NOT imply a license?

Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract?

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

So how does copyright NOT imply a license?

A license is a contract between two parties, in this case the creator and the user. Copyright is a doctrine of federal law, designed to promote the creation and dissemination of original content and (shocking but true) their eventual release into the public domain. If anything, copyright is an agreement between the creator and the government, not between the creator and the user.

Put another way: the fact that I can't go up to you and punch you in the face does not imply that we "have a license". (Except in the very esoteric context of social contract theory.)

In any case, copyright is neither here nor there when it comes to the BSA and software "piracy". (ARRRRRRRRR, matey!) Copyright law prohibits someone who is not the copyright owner from making copies and distributing them. It does not prohibit someone from buying or otherwise obtaining a distributed copy. When it comes to downloading software off the Internet, it's a little murky, because you are in some sense causing a copy to be made even though it is the other guy's machine, not yours, that is doing the copying. (He/his machine is definitely infringing.) But this is a load of BS; by the same token, the use of a browser cache is flagrant and unambiguous copyright infringement.

Point is, using software that someone else burns to a CD and gives to you is not copyright infringement. If it's commercial software then it's probably against the license, though...

Just a tiny flaw in the plan....

[EkiM in De]

How do they know my email address? I'm reasonably sure
... hang on I'll just check ...
Yup my username is not my email address, so it looks like their plan falls on one of the hurdles.
As to emailing the ISP, well Deutsche Telekom is my ISP and they have just announced a massive loss, so I don't think they will be too quick to try and get rid of paying punters.

A problem of terminology

[Alea]

I would like to see the questionnaire and how it was worded. One interesting problem is that the term "copyrighted" probably has a hazy meaning to most respondents. I'm sure many of them will automatically associate "copyrighted" with "commercial", so I really doubt that much of the gap is due to open source, etc. Still, without more specific details on the survey, it's impossible to interpret the results. There's also no indication of how they sampled and from what population.

They're probably right in concluding that people are stealing, but the statistics as presented are meaningless.

Signature Practice has Sucked Badly in the Past

[TechyImmigrant]

I recollect that while working at a previous employer, they sent around some software that compared the CRC of files on the hard disk against a database of commercial software CRCs and then flagged the matches.

This was rendered completely pointless since
1) The CRC they used was 16 bit. I worked for a large CAD company and every had a *lot* of files laying around as a result. The number of false positives drowned out the real positives.

2) It is a trivial excercise for anyone to create files with a predetermined CRC, so digital decoys can easily be scattered around the internet

Re:Signature Practice has Sucked Badly in the Past

[bhurt]

CRC-16's are trivially easy to find matches. At somewhere around 256 files (I'm too lazy to do the math) you have a 50/50 shot of two having the same checksum. CRC-32's mildly harder, requiring ~64K images. One hopes that they are using a cryptographically secure hash, like MD-5 or SHA, where the chances of "accidental" collisions are astronomically remote.

This whole idea is trivially easy to defeat, however. Simply make minor modifications to the copyrighted work before reposting it. Take that picture of Natalie Portman, load it up into the GIMP, and change one pixel to a slightly different shade. Then post. One important feature of cryptographic hashs (like the aforementioned MD-5 and SHA) is that changing a single bit flips, on average, about half the bits. I.e. small changes in the picture make for large changes in the hash value.

Opps. Did I just fall afoul of the DMCA?

BayTSP, Cyveillance

[Dr. Awktagon]

Yeah, those guys have been trawling the web for a while, looking for lord knows what. I have a ModRewrite rule in my httpd.conf that feeds them a bunch of garbage whenever they come by (thanks, Sugarplum). I ought to feed them some Jennifer Lopez files next time, see what happens...actually I should just firewall them away.

Cyveillance netblocks:
65.118.41.192 - 65.118.41.223
63.148.99.224 - 63.148.99.255

Anybody know what blocks BayTSP uses for their spiders?

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[WetCat]

What about giving them /dev/urandom for downloading?

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[follower-fillet]

> What about giving them /dev/urandom for downloading?
And get busted for eventually supplying every copyrighted digital work ever produced?

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for Cyveillance as one of their IT Admins. In fact for a while I ran the data center.
The best part of the job was getting all the irate emails that we were hacking people's networks. They say their spider is an IE client because they claim that some websites give false data to spiders which is probably true. I do know that if you send them an email to abuse@cyveillance.com and ask them they'll add you to the spiders ignore list. Configuring the spiders was tricky because we could easily DDOS an entire website faster then any slashdotting. When I worked there the biggest thing we did was check images and porn sites for copyright violations. They had a snapshot of each website they visited that would make the Feds envious. However, eventually they outgrew their system and couldn't get the new one online fast enough, which led them to lay people off including myself. Great place to work though at the time.

Oh and as a note when I left those weren't the only IP ranges they were scanning from. And I know they planned to bring some more online including one hooked to an onsite T3 line.

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[kindbud]

I got a funnier idea: go ahead and put up some copyrighted material. Configure the webserver to ONLY offer the material to the Cyveillance netblocks. When they send you the DMCA takedown notice, compose your response and deny that the material exists. Only Cyveillance will see it. Everyone else - including your ISP - will agree with you that the material does not seem to exist, despite Cyveillance's claims.

Could be fun if repeated over and over!

RIAA dude: Hey, Cyveillance guy, why are you billing us for all these takedown notices where the material never actually existed? I went to look at some of these sites myself and despite my fervent wish to nail somebody for something, nothing was there.

Cyveillance guy: TILT

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[orkysoft]

Isn't their mirroring the sites they visit a copyright violation in itself?

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[zoward]

Sounds funny...but presented with a threatening letter from the [RI|MP]AA, many ISP's won't even bother to check if the files are accessible from your access point; they'll just cut your connection. I've spoken with several people who've had this happen, including one who was never serving anything at all (or so he says ;-)). Besides, serving files illegally to Cyveillance is just as illegal as serving them to the rest of the world, and I'm sure the [RI|MP]AA would be just as happy to screw you on the technicality.

Not a karma whore, just bored

[Otter]

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?

I have no idea what that quote means. I went to the BSA press release, but the ZDNet wording is lifted directly from it. Moving on to the report itself, it says:

57 percent of downloaders either seldom pay or never pay for the copyrighted software they download. And 36 percent of all Internet users say it is not likely they will ever pay for software they download.
Of all Internet users, 12 percent admit to acquiring unlicensed commercial software.

I _think_ what that means is that 57% of the people who download software, who make up 12% of all the Internet users in the survey have downloaded and used software in violation of the license terms. But, who knows? Clearly the person who wrote the press release couldn't make sense of it either.

I really should just go home and watch the Simpsons...

Re:Not a karma whore, just bored

[NanoGator]

"57 percent of downloaders either seldom pay or never pay for the copyrighted software they download. And 36 percent of all Internet users say it is not likely they will ever pay for software they download. "

Okay, I'd like to pay for all the episodes of That 70's Show I downloaded. Oh wait, I can't! Gee, talk about a biased survey.

FUD Mongering via Language

[4of12]

In this day and age of information overload, I could not help but notice how the article sometimes let drop the "copyright" modifier describing the downloaded works.

Dropped.

As if there were no such thing as genuinely free software that was copylefted. Software that was free and legal to download without paying anyone any money.

I wonder if the BSA will succeed in giving the word download a bad connotation, or whether they'll have to invent a new term.

The word pirate has such a nice strong ring to it, while duplicator of copyrighted material just doesn't seem to get people's dander up.

Re:FUD Mongering via Language

[gartogg]

umm, it's theft if it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.

If I borrow your car without asking, but return it, refill the gas tank, pay you for the milage, and make sure the car is still in the same shape, is it theft?

Re:what's a copyrighted work?

[www.sorehands.com]

I'm probably just talking out my ass

You are. Most things that have been written or recorded in the United States since 1978 are copyrighted automatically. From the copyright office:

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device.

And in other news...

[cabalamat2]

A survey found that 92% of apologists for the content industries thought that making unauthorised copies was morally equivalent to taking a ship by force, often brutally raping and murdering its crew.

Well, DUH, this is how copyright law is written

[vkg]

The person breaking the law is the person with the file. You scan the internet for the files, write them tickets, and move on with your day.

In case y'all hadn't noticed, those copyright holders (yeah, remember the GPL rests on copyright law too) aren't just going to go away: they're going to keep trying to enforce the current law and make new laws to suit their estate.

Well, in Fairness

[Stephen VanDahm]

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

Cutting their throats

[PD]

I've been ripped off too many times by these idiots.

1) I download and keep MP3's of things that I have the CD for.
2) I download things that I do not have for the purpose of trying them out.
3) If I like what I hear, I buy it. If not, then I delete it.

That's my terms. If you don't agree to them, then you obviously don't want my money.

Wanna Bet?

[phyxeld]

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.

Re:Pick your own outcome by picking your questions

[eXtro]

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.

The other 43% are lying

[andrel]

57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download.

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.)

I never pay for the copyrighted work I download

[mocm]

because the GPL doesn't require me to pay. The fact that a work is copyrighted doesn't mean it costs money, a fact that some people can't get into their heads.
In my view copyright is not mainly about making money, but about acknowledging the originator of a work and his or her right to decide what is to be done with it.
That is also why copyright infringement is not comparable to stealing but more a lack of respect for the work of others. The fact that the so called content providers see that differently is because they lack that respect themselves especially when they are only providers and not creators.

Yarr! Business as usual...

[Mulletproof]

"...costs billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs every year."

Of course, this assumes that the pirate would have actually shelled out the $600+ to buy Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to begin with. I know I have tons of pirated software that I never would have bought in the first place. It's simply a convenience factor. If I would have never purchased the software, but have it now, it's actually a wash when it comes to profit/loss statements. That's not even factoring how many people buy the software after they find they like it. But, hey, the argument works for MP3's, why not software? No, those jobs disappeared because your product sucks, not because of Piracy. I don't see Adobe folding anytime soon and last I saw, Id was alive and well despite how much Doom, Quake and Wolf were/are pirated. It's that new math, gotta love it.

Broken statistics

[ivan256]

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.

Re:uh oh

[RollingThunder]

It's probably even better than that.

Hypothetical shareware program's terms: try free for 15 days, don't like it, delete it. Like it, pay $15.

I download, I try, I don't like, I delete.

I now have downloaded commercial software that I have not paid for. Never mind that I did so 100% within the bounds of it's license.

Lying bastards

[dh003i]

(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.

Re:Lying bastards

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

The actual press release says "57 percent of those who have downloaded software either seldom or never pay for the copyrighted works they download". So those 43% were already excluded. The other 43% surveyed apparently said they pay for the software they download more often than seldom.

Re:Lying bastards

[gillbates]

100,000 people in the US software industry were fired last year?

Yes, I can believe this; I know of numerous programmers with more experience than I who have been downsized. However, they weren't writing commercial software - like most programmers, they make their living writing custom software for in-house use. Which means, of course, that it was not piracy which lost them their jobs, but rather a downturn in the economy.

Strangely, the BSA seems to believe that any loss of profit by a software company is due to piracy, in spite of the recent recession and the poor quality of commercial software. What the BSA fails to realize is that companies in financial straights tend to utilize the more fiscally responsible alternatives to commercial software, and that this resulted in a loss of revenue for commercial software companies. It wasn't piracy, but that companies woke up to the demands of the shareholders and the reality that free software was a more viable option than the commercial alternatives that the BSA advocates

Re:Lying bastards

[dh003i]

Lets see, comparing OSS/FSS and proprietary ware. Lets say you have 1,000 computers. MS WinXP Pro costs 300 dollars. But businesses get special "deals". So lets say it costs 10 dollars for a business; that amounts to 10,000 dollars for all 1,000 computers. For that $10,000 dollars, you get an operating system that's: (1) Plaqued with security issues; (2) Has stability problems; (3) Is bloated and slow, and loaded with bloatware; (4) Violates your privacy; (5) Includes DRM technology. In addition, you have to spend resources keeping track of your proof of purchase. The icing on the cake is that you get the priviledge of panicking over a BSA investigation. When a BSA investigation comes, you get the priviledge of paying lawyers bills, losing money from bad press (2) the other usability advantages such as sticky menus; (3) stability advantages; (4) no risk of BSA; (5) it doesn't take 15 minutes to add a simple feature like hyphenation, as it does with MS Office. The simple fact is, that OpenOffice can do almost anything MS Office can do; the features MS Office has that OpenOffice doesn't are useless or annoying ones, like automatic formatting or the stupid M&M help thing.

One final note, idiot, if a company does use OpenOffice and notices deficiencies in it, or that it doesn't exactly meet their needs, they can HIRE programmers to customize it, as its FSS software. Unlike in the case of MS Office. If there's something in MS Office hte company doesn't like, its tough shit. The amount of money it costs a company to hire someone to tailor it will probably not be more than they would've spend had they bought an MS product.

"Opportunity cost" jobs that were lost? In other words, its theoretical and the industry can shove any bullshit numbers they want down our throats, because its all based on unprovable assumptions and conclusions.

I never said that only programmer's jobs matter. Didn't hooked on puh-honix work for you? My point was simply that they are being mis-representive. They are trying to imply that it has cost 100,000 programmers their jobs. Firstly, if it has had an effect, it has been more on the beurocracy than the programmers. When software companies are looking to fire people, they don't fire programmers first. Secondly, the statement itself is a complete distortion. If you believe their hodge-podge methods of estimating "hundreds of thousands", then it is in jobs that they couldn't give people: not because of firings.

Again, next time think before you speak. It can save you from banging your head in the wall, trying to defend statements which were obviously not well thought.

By the way, next time you have something incredibly stupid to say, you might not want to be an ass in the way you say it. It might save you from such a harsh correction.

And?

[A_Non_Moose]

respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download

By that logic a piece of shareware I tried, did not like, and deleted...I'm a pirate?

Sounds like the BSA's logic.

The Smart-Ass in me thinks; "Since when did the MPAA start offering SVCD's? I must have missed that announcement."

Oh, wait...

Nothing like a scientific sampling...

[ThatTallGuy]

Oh please. Let's:

Skew the respondent audience by making it a web survey

Spin the questions and couch them in terms with multiple interpretations ... and call it a valid representation. Check the so-called survey results... there is just short of zero (and I'm being generous) information about how this study was conducted.

I have downloaded copyrighted software and not paid for it. Was it illegal? No -- it was "free for personal use" (e.g. WebWasher.) You know how guilty I feel about that? Not at all -- until now. Now, I feel terrible, because I helped the BSA fudge better numbers by fitting into that 57%.

Jackasses.

Silly me, I'm upsetting the BSA

[NewtonsLaw]

Oh dear, I must have been doing it wrong.

I paid the optional (I think it was) $10 for WinAmp when they were soliciting payment for their product after I donwnloaded it and found it useful.

I paid for Paintshop Pro after I downloaded a trial version and discovered that I liked it.

I paid for MultiEdit after I downloaded it and discovered that it was a pretty damned good programmer's editor

In fact I'm so dumb that I've paid for all commercial or semi-commercial software I've downloaded and found useful.

Hell -- I hope the BSA don't trace this posting, they'll probably send a hit man around to take me out so that I don't skew their stats!

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (MOD UP)

[SirSlud]

AHAHAH .. so you sit 20 (okay, just one) /dev/urandom devices down on a keyboard and get Shakespeare? Man, thats even cheaper than the monkeys I'm employing now ...

Just one question

[Larry_Dillon]

If I record a song from the radio and play it back later, that's legal, right? (time shifting)

If I convert if to mp3, that's legal, right? (format shifting)

If I have a mp3 of a song I've heard on the radio, what's the substantial difference?

Re:Just one question

[happyclam]

If I have a mp3 of a song I've heard on the radio, what's the substantial difference?

Just playing devil's advocate here, but the difference is that someone else likely made the copy and gave it to you. It's the distribution aspect that is the sticky wicket.

Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[Monkelectric]

my peg leg is bigger then yours, my parrot knows twice as many songs as yours (he learned them from mp3s), and *my* eye patch is jewel encrusted.

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

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[sean23007]

Which might go further towards proving my point. People download proprietary software from the internet without paying for it, but would not call themselves a "pirate." Perhaps they disagree with the terminology.

And if I may ask one question about your little rant in the middle of that, what would you call a "suicide bomber?" Isn't that a person who blows you up with a bomb attached to themselves that in turn kills them (suicide)? I mean, what else can they be called?

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[Darby]

.. I could think of a million others

We are no longer "citizens", we are "consumers".

We don't have "laws designed to create an industry of incarceration and create an industry for government agencies to make money destroying foreign nations", or a "war on personal freedom", we have a war on drugs.

who can keep it going?

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[Darby]

And if I may ask one question about your little rant in the middle of that, what would you call a "suicide bomber?" Isn't that a person who blows you up with a bomb attached to themselves that in turn kills them (suicide)? I mean, what else can they be called?

They could be called "a person who is being repressed by other nations with such superior fire power that they have no other possible way of defending themselves".
Of course, the accurate description is somewhere in the middle of these two. Don't kid yourself, the Israelis (and the US) are every bit as much terrorists as the Palestinians just on a much greater scale.

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[sean23007]

I know. But "a person who is being repressed by other natinos with such superior firepower that they have no other possible way of defending themselves" is so... I don't know, bland? And it sure isn't as catchy as "suicide-bomber."

Every reasonable person on the planet knows the US is the most violent and unjust nation in the world (at least in foreign policy issues).

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[Darby]

Every reasonable person on the planet knows the US is the most violent and unjust nation in the world (at least in foreign policy issues).

If this is true, then 99% of the population of the US are not reasonable people.
I don't know if you're an American or not (I am), but it is terrifying to see the lengths people here will go to to ignore any and all evidence that America is not absolutely 100% the only free country in the world and we would never do anything that wasn't perfectly morally pure.
I was talking to one of my brothers about some of the things going on and since he actually takes seriously his responsibility as a member of a free society to inform himself, he knew about what I was saying. His wife on the other hand didn't want to hear it and when questioned said, "I just don't want to know".
She actually wants to have kids.
How sickening is that that a person who is scared to even look at the world she lives in wants to force aniother person to live in it.
I'm not ranting against people who have kids, but if you don't do it with your eyes open you are a very disturbed person.

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[spectecjr]

my peg leg is bigger then yours, my parrot knows twice as many songs as yours (he learned them from mp3s), and *my* eye patch is jewel encrusted.
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.

How about criminal then?

As in "he is a criminal, because he copies and utilizes other people's intellectual property without their permission, and in direct violation of the law".

Simon

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[sean23007]

Well, I don't know if the percentage is quite that high... maybe only about 75% of Americans are unreasonable. I too am an American, and I am constantly disappointed by the stupidity of so many of my countrymen.

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[MaxVlast]

I felt that way for a while, then I went to other countries and was surprised that they were 75% unreasonable. America's just more unreasonable in public. We don't have the monopoly on it, just the export license =)

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[MaxVlast]

I'm a criminal because I parked in a no parking zone today when I picked up my friend. Crime! I did it in direct violation of the law. I knew I was breaking the law. I'll probably do it again within a week. Criminals! Crime!

Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate

[Tim C]

Yup, that's fine. Unauthorised copying and distribution of copyrighted works is, as you say, a crime.

What it is not, however, is anything at all like boarding and taking a vessel at sea by force, and robbing and probably killing its crew. That is piracy, this is merely copying stuff you're not supposed to.

I can't object to being called a criminal (and most of us are, in one way or another, at some point in our lives, even if it's just speeding a little because we're late), but I can and do object to being called a murderer because I copy stuff without permission from time to time.

Cheers,

Tim

bet?

[anthony_dipierro]

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?

I'll take that bet. C'mon, how many people do you know who paid for netscape back when it was shareware? How many people you know continue to use WinZip after the free trial period? I bet the percent of people who are pirates is closer to 90 percent than 57.

"Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs"

[happyclam]

"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," BSA CEO Robert Holleyman said in a statement.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS EVERY YEAR?

Give me a break. Not only is that figure rediculously inflated even for the very imaginative, but I have yet to see any evidence, statistical or otherwise, that there is a NET job loss because of software piracy.

Much of the meaningful software piracy I've seen (beware the sample of one) is by people who need it to get a certain job done but who can not afford it at the moment. The intent is eventually to pay for it, most likely with a version upgrade, once there is money in the bank.

I think this is especially prevalent in software startups, which need the cash relief immediately but which intend to pay later. This type of "piracy" has probably generated more jobs in the past 10 years than it has cost. (Count up the new lawyers and lobbyists, for a start!)

But now that I know that hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every year due to piracy... wow, that must mean that there was no internet crash and that all those failed dot-coms were actually pirated out of existence rather than going bankrupt due to mismanagement!

SHEESH.

Re:The future of copyright

[binaryDigit]

I tend to believe it will shift the economy, and move it in a new, more promising direction

Care to elaborate?

Of course I want content to be free, I want cars, houses, and food to be free to, but I realize that a great many things can not be, because these things are not free to create (I know a lot _can_ be free, but there are a great many things that can't/won't/shouldn't). If content is free, who pays those who create the content? Seems to me that the web is an excellent example of this. When things first started, most sites where free, but now that reality has struck, many free sites are either gone or now charge (or push ads). Also, it's not like the concept of "free" content came about with the internet age, off the air tv and radio are the ultimate (and very, very, old) examples of "free" content.

Ahhhhh

[Chris Johnson]

I love it, more rabid crazed assaults of lawyers and automated computer hacking to BEAT THE HELL out of those HORRIBLE PEOPLE who are EVIL and WICKED enough to SHARE stuff...

News fucking flash, Einsteins: if you don't want people to copy your material?

STOP SELLING IT.

I'm not joking. Do you think X many people downloaded copies of the Spiderman movie because it was an artistic high-water-mark for filmic experience? How many people download copies of the best indie art films versus the worst Hollywood experiences in cynicism and lowest common denominator?

It's not even ABOUT the content. It's about the marketing. Some people seem to not even care what the hell they're producing- they'll tailor it to their crude notion of what 'everybody' will like, and then dump tons of money into marketing, trying to get everyone without taste to go 'duh, I'm gonna see that!' And they are surprised when people end up doing this in unauthorised ways?

I have a dream- perhaps it is an unrealistic dream, but it is my own- that one day, if I spend years of my life producing say a film or CD or something, and have no resources left for MARKETING, that it will go out there into a world where groups of people, innovative companies, Big Media outlets have taken on the role of scanning through all the Content people have produced all over the world. Not searching for unauthorized copies of overmarketed, cynical garbage, but searching for stuff that's GOOD. Finding ever-finer subgroups of people who'd think a certain thing was good. Finding ways to hook those people up to the other people in the world producing Content.

That I'll see a day when George Lucas goes on strike... and nobody notices.

Anyone with me? If you are: screw the mass market, find something you love and do it to within an inch of its life. The weirder, the more personal, the better. Be READY. Because we can't have this world until we give up being consumers and start being human beings, individuals, until we're ready to say 'you know, come to think of it most people WOULDN'T like this thing that I like, but I don't even care anymore'.

Fingerprinting thwarted...

[scubacuda]

What happens when someone changes one insignificant thing on the song? (e.g. an extra drum beat, second of silence at the end, etc.)

This would change the hash that they search for. (This obviously applies to people who've altered company logos on Photoshop, etc.)

Trying to stamp out the illegit stuff out there is too big of a task. The only way that they can maintain their hegemony is to ONLY allow their "legit" stuff to play...hence the recent actions of companies to lock down home computers, DVD players, etc.

Re:I'll take that bet....

[jedidiah]

Gratis software has never been limited to Linux.

Re:Corporate Hacking?

[Moonshadow]

Well...using something like Tiny Personal Firewall (or ip(chains|tables)), just deny their IP blocks before you open your filesharing port. They never see you. Whoop-de-do.

The blocks in question being:
65.118.41.192 - 65.118.41.223
63.148.99.224 - 63.148.99.255

Re:I love firewalls.

[ncc74656]

they're not cracking your system and scanning your hard drive. However, if you're running Morpheus or something and sharing an mp3 or a copyrighted work, they'll see it just by doing a search for that title, downloading a little piece of it from you, comparing it to the digital signature, and then busting you.

If you blackhole their traffic, they can't get the "evidence" they'd need to rat you out.

iptables -A INPUT -s 209.95.126.0/24 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -s 204.92.244.208/28 -j DROP

This blocks Ranger Online, an "IP rent-a-cop" outfit mentioned here some time ago. Repeat with the appropriate netblocks for any other similar companies you know about. If they try to access your machine in any way, it'll be as if your machine doesn't even exist. Traceroute won't even show the hosts between them and you. Since search results on Gnutella are returned by peers (who will have access to your system) but files are transferred directly between hosts, the most they can get is a list of filenames. Without being able to download the file, how will they know that "Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3" isn't really a picture of your dog?

exactly

[martissimo]

Everytime you hear discussions on proposed bills like the CDBTPA which would make hardware manufacturers responsible for copyright protection there is a lot of the response that, "why should they be responsible for this, it's the copyright holders responsibility to enforce it"... and this is exactly what they are trying to do here.

you cant have it both ways, and given the options of either crippled hardware, or the RIAA trying to track down indivual violations at their own expense, i would certainly say the second the second option is far and away the better solution.

The figures are way too low!

[mwa]

Since the Berne Convention acknowledges copyright on any work produced, and since all web pages are "produced", and since virtually 100% of the people on the internet download web pages with executable content (e.g. JavaScript). then 100% are not paying for copyrighted content and "pirating" (assuming you use that word to mean "making a copy of copyrighted material") software. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed to discover that only 12% of the people surveyed were honest about the fact that they're thieves.

I think the BSA needs to "study" some more. They're really missing the boat if they can't fudge figures better than this.

Re:I love firewalls.

[joto]

If you own the work, you should probably not share it with others. There are perfectly ok ways to protect files from others while still have access to them as yourself remotely. Most common file-transfer software has such things as password-protection (e.g. ftp, smb, ...)

On the other hand, if you downloaded it from a file-sharing network, then you can just pretend to be ignorant. ("Oh, is this file copyrighted? Sorry, I'll delete it at once!")

Do they have authorization for scanning?

[mangu]

Suppose I have the following warning in my website: "downloading these files for any law enforcement purposes is hereby prohibited". Will UCITA let me sue them on licence violation issues?

Slashdot is right... go figure

[kaphka]

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?

I've been trying to fight the urge to post to Slashdot lately, but when I read that quote, I was all set to rant about it. Surely, by "copyrighted works" the researchers meant "unlicensed, commercial copyrighted works", and someone had stupidly or deceptively misinterpreted their point.

So, I checked the ZDNet article. It said the same thing. "Ah," I thought, "typical ZDNet incompetence, twisting the words of the press release."

Next, I checked the press release, and found the same claim yet again. Now I was starting to get worried, but at least the press release provided a link to the actual report (PDF). The report says,

A significant percentage of Internet users knowingly
violate copyright laws.
57 percent of downloaders either seldom
pay or never pay for the copyrighted software
they download. And 36 percent of all Internet users say it is not likely they will ever pay for software they download.
Of all Internet users, 12 percent admit to acquiring unlicensed commercial software.

There you have it. In the (distressingly significant) opinion of the Business Software Alliance, any individual who downloads a copy of Linux, Netscape Navigator, the latest Windows Service Pack, or any other software provided without charge, is "knowingly violating copyright law." That's terrifying.

(I apologize for taking so much time just to repeat what was said in the original submission, but accurate hyperbole is so rare on Slashdot that I thought it should be highlighted.)

As an aside, I'm actually very surprised that 41% of those surveyed indicated that they pay for downloaded software "most times" or "every time." I've been on the net since Pipeline NY (those were the days...), and I have paid for downloaded software perhaps 3 or 4 times in my life. Even in today's "internet economy," it's awfully hard to find someone who will sell you software without including an oversized box and ten marketing flyers. I strongly suspect that this survey was poorly designed, and that the results are garbage; however, that only makes the BSA's interpretation of it more disturbing.

Re:Slashdot is right... go figure

[bluebomber]

I have to wonder: would most of the respondents really know the difference between free software and "encumbered" (illegitimate) software?

Re:what are they thinking?

[TheAwfulTruth]

More or less it is a moral issue. But not that people are becoming more immoral so much. It's more like pirating music is seen as less and less immoral every day. After a while, when every person and their grandmother is doing it. It really stops seeming to be immoral. It of course IS still VERY immoral. But the perception of that immorality is fading as time goes on.

That 45 percent gap...

[Speare]

How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?

I'd much rather wager that the 45 percent gap is the group of people who don't know what "copyright" is, beyond a vague sense that it's the little © symbol that's pictured next to the Hamburglar characters on a McDonald's placemat cartoon.

Well ... just do what they do....

[Bake]

Sue them. That's what you guys do in the US, right? ;-).

After all they are performing a sort of a DoS by checking everything you have, it's even borderline trespassing, so unless they have a searchwarrant (which I doubt) anything they discover is not permissable as evidence in court. Also if you are "clean" you could perhaps squeeze in a slander charge seeing as they wrongfully accuse you (by searching) of stealing software/other copyrighted material.

It's not even about software

[Cato the Elder]

Actually, note that 57% of respondents didn't pay for "copyrighted content" they downloaded from the Internet. That includes music. The 12% that pirate software probably don't pay for their music either, but it's a completely seperate issue. It's not surprising that fewer people pirate software. First, there's the virus problem. Second, software is on the whole more reasonably priced and/or comes with your computer.

The real problem with those figures...

[Transcendent]

...is when the people in charge of the government hear that. They won't realise that the true figure is the 12%, and not the 57 "unpaid for" software which is simply shareware or freeware... they're ignorant, and the BSA is milking it.

Another example is 3D Studio Max 4.2 That i have which i didn't pay for..... I got it through the First Robotics Competition for free (i can license it to myself with no problem... it's what im supposed to do), and that will fall under that 12%... yet again, the government "decision makers" won't know the difference, and legislation will be passed on numbers which don't tell a bit of the truth...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Buttle or Tuttle?

[ktakki]

Although the charge for photo radar will be dropped if you are not in the picture are you saying that a car that is owned, regestered, and insured by you speeding or running a red light not evidence enough to atleast bring you up on charges.

Was that an 8 on that license plate or was it a 3? Sure, they're both Ford Tauruses (Tauri?), but you own a red one and this one is...well, it's hard to tell with monochrome film.

Sure you are inosent until proven guilty, but you also have the responsibilty of personal accountablity, and you may need to defend yourself if need be.

But then the prosecution introduces a series of expert witnesses (at $10K per appearance) who will swear that the system is infallible and that it's an 8 on the license plate, while you've had to take a second mortgage on your home just to be able to afford a semi-competent defense attorney (while your tax dollars pay the District Attorney's salary as well as the cost of that photo radar that nailed you).

k.

Re:Buttle or Tuttle?

[gartogg]

If i get nailed on a charge ike the case being discussed, i would fightit in a quarter second, because i have nothing better to do.

Some people will say that anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. I am that fool!

Re:Buttle or Tuttle?

[ArsonSmith]

I am guessing that you have never seen the pictures these things take. It is nothing like the security cameras at seven11 or circle K. These are high resolution pictures with extreem detail. Talk to someone who has seen the pictures, they will tell you.

(atleast they are in my state AZ)

They're just justifying their own existence...

[borgheron]

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

Morals

[nfk]

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.

�bots scanning the net & everything attached t

[texchanchan]

Next: ©bots alphabetized under c-bot

Depending on type, they will, upon finding unlicensed copyrighted material in your system:

• Extract money from your bank account
  
• Delete the copyrighted material
  
• Turn you in
  
• Some combination of the above
  

Re:well no wonder

[MaxVlast]

Now _that's_ a lesson in capitalism!

�bots allowed in license

[texchanchan]

er, I meant: ©bots (alphabetized under c-bot)

If these don't exist now, they will in short order. And, I can see a consortium of major copyrighted-material producers (software, music, video companies) joining forces. The license for anything you legitimately install/download/play from any one of these companies contains a clause that you will allow ©bots to access your system looking for unlicensed material from any consortium member.

"By installing the Software I agree to allow access to my information storage devices for the purposes of copyright protection only...."

In the US, copyright infringement IS a crime

[yerricde]

Firstly, [copyright infringement is] not a criminal offense.

Yes it is, at least in the United States. When you unlawfully copy a copyrighted work, you are deriving "private financial gain" equal to the manufacturer's suggested retail price of a copy. Deriving private financial gain from a copyright infringement is a federal felony (17 USC 506).

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.

No. In the U.S., even not considering criminal penalties, copyright infringement makes the infringer liable for something called "statutory damages" of up to $150,000 (17 USC 504), no matter how small the actual damages to the copyright owner.

Works for me ...

[ninewands]

Personally, I think this is a GREAT idea ... let the labels, studios and the BSA pay their private cops to scan the 'net for bootleg (I REFUSE to call them "pirated") |\/|p3z, \/\/4r3z and |\/|0\/13z (damn, that last one looks like a regex I once typed) ... let them pay for the bandwidth it wastes ... let them pay for PRIVATE counsel to pursue CIVIL actions against infringers ... I SUPPORT PRIVATE enforcement of copyright.

What REALLY pisses me off is when these multi-billion dollar corporate purveyors of crap content want the government to spend MY tax dollars to enforce THEIR private property rights!

I paid a total of US$20 (including popcorn and Coke) to see LOTR:Fellowship of the Rings. It was an entertaining flick, but I haven't seen anything since that has motivated me to go back to a movie theater. I DID spend $80 to take a date to LIVE theater, though ... and I MIGHT go see Spider-Man when it hits the Dollar theater ... as for Attack of the Clones? I have no desire to go see YAABGLTMTF (Yet Another Attempt By George Lucas To Milk The Franchise).

I have approximately 90% of a T-1 pipe available at home 24/7, on average. For a home connection, that's a damned fat pipe ... yet ... my math tells me that it would take about 7 HOURS to download a DVD ... 1.5 hours to DL an iso of a vcd ... I just don't see bootlegging of movies to be a reasonable activity. If I wanted a PARTICULAR movie, I might download it ... but ... pay for the bandwidth it would burn to share the DL'd copy out to a bunch of strangers??? Not a chance. I pay for the pipe for MY use and there aren't enough "coolness points" in the world to reimbuse me for what it would cost to share out bootleg movies on a Napster-like network.

I guess the upshot of this rant is that I don't CARE what the ??AA do, privately, to enforce their rights. When they start calling on the government to enforce their rights FOR them, my back goes up and my claws come out.

Besides ... I'm behind a packet filter AND a TIGHT proxy server ... all my content is legal and I'm prepared to prove it, but THEY have to come up with probable cause for a warrant before I have to furnish ANY proof.

BTW, IAA (non-practicing) L

57%, they've GOT to be kidding ...

[ninewands]

Okay ... time to hit geocities with the /. effect ...

I've never received a penny from the couple of hundred hits my personal website has gotten in the 5 years it's been up (updates are kinda spotty, though), ... and since the "automatic copyright" has been in effect since 1978, I'd say, from personal experience, that the "non-paying download" percentage is closer to 100%.

<Proudly using Free (as in speech) Software (for everything but gaming, but we're working on that) since 1997>

Organized IP Sharing: the American Way

[rjamestaylor]

I spent the whole day downloading and consumming copyrighted material and didn't feel the least bit guilty. As a matter of fact the facility I used to do this non-buying consumption provided the tools and an organized database for me to pratice my skill at intellectual property consumption. The facility is not afraid of the police, infact it is located next door to the police station and the municipal court system--and they use this facility, too.

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!

Doesnt play out in the real world

[delong]

How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?"

That would be, by any standard, quite a leap of speculative faith.

It has been my experience that people, myself included, simply steal their software and music. Unapologetically. Hell, I know at least one POLICE DEPARTMENT that is a hell-bent software and music "pirate den." I always hear the argument about music downloads that people who download music invariably buy more music. I have never seen that argument proved in practice, quite the opposite. They are the same people who invariably criticize when someone remarks that they have bought a CD. "Why did you buy the CD when you can get it for free?" I have never heard someone say that they downloaded this really rad song or program and they like it so much they're gonna rush out to Fry's and buy a retail copy in the morning. Never.

Derek

Re:what's a copyrighted work?

[pacc]

It would be every thing that MIT has a copy of but you shouldn't have. How else would they match the fingerprint.

Freeware/Opened Source

[Jace of Fuse!]

How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?

None at all. That's a bet I simply won't take.

You're not only being unrealistic, you're being naive.

Most people don't even know what opened source is, and in those same people's eyes, freeware is a mythical thing that you only chance upon once in a blue moon. Or worse, freeware is anything you can get away with copying and not paying for.

To recap a conversation I recently had with a friend of mine, paraphrased of course...

Him: I need to burn a copy of Office.
Me: Why? Just get Star Office, it's free.
Him: Uh, I'd rather just have the real thing.

I tried to explain to him the advantages of just using free software, but he wouldn't have any of it. He sadly represents the vast majority; The same type that will pirate Windows instead of using Linux or FreeBSD.

When people pirate commercial software, It's also a loss to the free software cause!

Re:Corporate Hacking?

[Moonshadow]

Looking at my apache and firewall logs, I got quite a few people "searching" for my computer, and trying to get in. It's not like this is a new thing.

The fact that it's going corporate is hardly a suprise. Dirtier tricks require more clever preventive measures :)