Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Inflates BSA's Piracy Claims
crazney writes: "According to this article in The Age, the BSA do not count the effect of free software when calculating piracy rates. The article suggests that free software has made piracy statistics look worse and hence encourages governments to create harsher laws ... Could someone pass The BSA a cluebat?"
How much of a drain does the application software (as opposed to high-end and/or custom software, which if anything could be HELPED by free software...SOMEONE is getting paid to adapt that software to an organization's needs) industry put on the economy, compared to the benefits it offers?
How many jobs will be created in businesses that rely upon commercial application software as a result of costs cut through cheaper software?
Shouldn't free software, apart from it's impacts on the application software industry, be seen just like tax cuts are?
Well, unless tax cuts aren't all they're cracked up to be.
For those that do not know... LART == Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool. See e2 for more info.
It's a hacked version of item 5.1 on this page. They're referring to piracy, not open source.
That's debatable. What isn't debatable is that the vast majority of their income is derived from the huge fines etc that they levy even if their victim then buys a site licence.
The motivation is all wrong: the BSA (and in Oz, the BSAA) stand to make more from hurting people than from helping software companies.
Here in Oz at least, when they send an audit demand, the correct answer is `ummm...' followed by some hurried quick checking. If the checking ain't too disastrous, you proceed to `OK, send your guys around when you're ready' - you see, the EULA gives them the right to audit, not the right to force you to audit.
If they do bother to come around, you make everything as difficult as possible, e.g. by only allowing them to audit a machine when the user is present (privacy regulations, you see), then arranging for a skeleton staff when they do arrive so that the minimum number of computers are available for checking, and make finding out who `owns' a computer as difficult as possible. Meanwhile, all the time, so sorry, wish we could hurry things along a little but can't break these rules.
Depending on your situation, you should be able to cut them down to six computers a day or less. Over 3 working man-weeks to audit a hundred-screen shop. Make them earn their fines. And keep harping on about your reliable Linux servers, your bulletproof OpenBSD network machines, and how you're testing Linux Terminal Server technology for your desktops and wondering whether it's worthwhile cutting over to it...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I can personally testify to this. My company, a fabric manufacturer with sites worldwide, was recently approached by Microsoft with an offer for a 'maintainence plan'. Since we have a full IT team, we didn't need it. A week later an e-mail appears in our CIO's mailbox saying that we're being audited by Microsoft. Now every morning, he walks into work and says "Alright, what can we do today to get rid of more windows boxes".
As a "rampant free market ideologue" (Libertarian), I will be the first to point out that you have confused the meaning of free-market economics (i.e. capitalism), which implies the absence of government interference (coercion) in the market, with a hypothetical regulation, imposed through coercion, which happens to favor one particular group over another. Capitalism does not necessarily imply profit but only the absence of coercion in the market. Free market economics is grounded in voluntary cooperation, not coercion (which is the definining prerequisite of any government). Hence, open source software falls squarely into the category of free-market enterprise, and in fact, to a greater degree than any software vendor which relies on patent law to sustain a business model. (Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.)
See free-market.net if you are interested...
Software development isn't cheap. Anyone can tell you that. Programmers make quite a bit more money than I do.
And I can definitely see your point of view. Since I now use entirely free software, I don't have to worry about copyright anymore. But copyright is an issue with proprietary software. For the most part, it isn't right to pirate software (such an awful term) because copyright is the law and these industries are honest in basing their business on the law. But there is a rather large ethical exception to this, in my opinion.
Its when developers use copyright as a means to force upgrades. Believe it or not, people don't always upgrade their software because of some compelling feature or improvement in the software. Some people are being charged an arm and a leg just to remain compatible with everyone else. Thankfully, some clear-minded people have decided to use free software in the infrastructure of the internet. But we still have the same problem in other areas. People upgrading to the next version of Word so that they can read the files they recieve. And what about in third world countries. It sounds like they can not even install a proprietary operating system, simply because the price is not adjusted to their economy. No wonder piracy is such a large problem there. I see no ethical problem here, either.
Also there is the matter of the technical divide. I honestly don't know a lot about it, but it seems that the difference between the haves and havenots is also one of technology. Now computer prices have gone down quite a bit, but software seems to have not have. Is it legitamate to pirate the software in this case? I'm not really certain.
Also, there's the problem of when your friend wants to borrow your Windows CD because he lost his or he has to reinstall the OS that came with his computer. If I'm not mistaken, some software licenses won't allow you to resell the software, or disassemble it. At this point, its no longer an issue of copyright but of control.
The law it seems is relatively well defined compared to the ethical issues copyright raises. So if you want argue against piracy on ethical grounds, there has to be more than "look at all the hard work and expense they put into this software." And it should be noted that free software removes all these ethical problems since the effects of copyright are reversed.
When software was a luxury, things were a lot more excusable. But people need softwarwe. If they can't afford it, they will take it. And a system that says "if you can afford the software, pay, if not, just take it" wouldn't work either (who decides?).
(I hope no one takes this an in depth analysis because its all off the top of my head, and I'm rather baffled by these problems, personally)
Businesses should darn well acquire their software legally. If the software they want is commercial, it should be paid for. However, the BSA assumes that every user is convicted thief who must be monitored. The cost of an audit can devastate a school district or city.
If can go to Best Buy and purchase a DVD player, a PS2 game, a big screen televison, some music CDs, some magazines, a car stereo, some speakers, a phone card, a strategy guide book, and some computer software. How I pay for each of things looks identical. Only the computer software attempts to change the sale into a license after I get it home and try to use it. With the exception of the computer software, I'm free to modify or copy any of these things (Assuming I'm capable of copying them) for my personal use. And only the computer software exposes me to the possibility of having to pay to have an audit prove that I didn't steal it.
The BSA is leading this charge, "You're a thief unless you can prove otherwise." They damn well deserve all the flak they get.