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?
Only 57% of users save pr0n? disappointing...
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.
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.
"No, man, I was just hostin' it for a friend, man!"
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.
If not now, when?
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?
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
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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?
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
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
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.
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 ...
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
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'.
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.
I think the BSA needs to "study" some more. They're really missing the boat if they can't fudge figures better than this.
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,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.
MSK
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
... 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).
... 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'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.
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
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
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
BTW, IAA (non-practicing) L
utter rubbish
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