Slashdot Mirror
Malaysia Says Piracy (Might Be) OK for Learning
mkbz writes "a Malaysian newspaper published a story quoting Malaysia's Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, who condemned the use of pirated software for business, but also said they may turn a blind eye to piracy when it comes to education: "But for educational purposes and to encourage computer usage, we may consider allowing schools and social organisations to use pirated software." is learning more important than copyright enforcement? could each of the pirated works found in schools be written off as donations? how can this benefit both the people AND the software makers? Read the full article here."
Why are they better than me? I'm a student and because I can't afford proprietary software licensing schemes, I use Linux. There are other less costly yet equal or superior systems out there. Just because you can't afford to buy something doesn't give you the right to steal it.
Company A is a relatively new, but wealthy graphical effects company that does effects for commercials, promotional vidoes, and traning multimedia. They need graphic artists capable of using a new modelling and animation tool we'll call Tool B.
Tool B costs 1500 dollars and has a complex registration system that involves connecting to a registration server. (Yes, high-end tools do this.) University graphical art programs would rather use Tool C which costs $150 and a 'normal' registration system so that they can install it on more than one workstation. (1st instance of 'piracy)
Artist D knows 3d animation and modelling concepts. He's even spent a few hundred dollars on software. He is capable of doing the job for Company A, but doesn't know the tool. There is no way he can possibly afford to buy Tool B, but he *can* download it and the crack for its registration system of alt.binaries.3dtools.yadda.yadda... (2nd Instance of Piracy)
After Artist D demonstrates his mad graphic skilzz in his interview, Company A hires Artist D, justifying licensing of a new copy of Tool B at $1500 a pop. Despite 2 instances of piracy, the makers of Tool B have gotten their money and have a user who is using their tools in the industry.
The bottom line here is that because Tool B was used in an educational sense, it makes more money than it would if it weren't being used.
There are many high-end graphical tools that you can very safely plug into the 'Tool B' slot, like 3DSMax, Maya, Lightwave, and Even Photoshop/Illustrator. Despite the fact that these high-dollar tools are the most pirated pieces of software out there with the exception of games, the companies that make them are still raking in the dough. They scream and cry about 'lost sales', but they know as well as we do that if there wasn't at least some piracy of their products, they wouldn't have nearly so many business users.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
If the software is for educational use - why not just charge whatever it cost to get the physical product to the user. So, if a copy of Office is being bought for educational use it costs say $10 - the price of the packaging, materials, shipping and handling. If the software is being used by a FOR-profit organization, the retail pricing applies. This allows educational institutions to legally own the software, while not 'hurting' the software company quite as bad. It would simply require selling more in the retail sector to make up for the R&D and programming costs. I do understand that you can get NFR copies of software, but even then the prices of these products are way over the physical cost of the product.
Make software more affordable and people will buy it instead of pirating it. Yes, you will still have people who insist on having a free lunch, but I think this would curtail the problem considerably.
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
I'm not sure they should even call it piracy under the circumstances. In theory at least this could be considered fair use; at least one purpose of fair use is to promote knowledge and education. I know current US case law regarding fair use would hardly uphold such an interpretation, but it is not that far-fetched.
As tempting as it is to say "its for the children", software piracy is not really in theirs or anyone's best interest. I see the reasoning for piracy in schools; students trained in the latest/greatest software will have an advantage over those who don't. I've known several people to even pay for their college education by working as programmers/temps/etc. But by pirating what you are really doing is keeping software costs high, and possibly limiting competition.
Part of the reason we like Linux is because of its low cost. If Windows were free, however, Linux's use might wavier. Schools will immediately use the most famous choice, ignoring competition if things are free. School heads are idiots; don't expect anything from them other than the bottom line.
I think the best solution is to have government or local contributions to pay for reasonably priced software. A competitive software company will price their software reasonably if they have a large school base to purchase their software.
Really the temptation for piracy only exists because software/music/videos are not priced so that normal profit can occur. All these markets are in excess, but I think because of the danger of losing it all to piracy, smart companies will soon price things more reasonably.
I will gladly pay $20 for my operating system. I will dance with glee to spend $50 on Photoshop. I am willing to pay for software, and my community's software if priced to compete. Don't take competition out of the equation.
Rob
As a Free Software user, I have deep respect for copyright laws.
I expect everyone to act responsibly and condemn piracy. It is a task for government to act against software piracy. That is a way of keeping the market open and honest.
Monopolies were born from and are sustained by piracy. How do you think Microsoft software got so widespread?
The corporate world abuses the lack of government attention to software piracy in any way they see suitable to their own corporate strategy.
By not reacting against piracy, you allow a convicted monopolist to undercut competitors (Free Software in this case) on pricing. And education is a key area where finally some competition might be taking off in the near future.
But not if this minister gets away with his irresponsible deed. Maybe we should ask the BSA to react if they haven't already?
Proprietary software vendors bend over backwards to give out discounts to educational institutions. Why? Because people who become comfortable using a specific piece of software will want to buy that software later for home and work purposes. In fact, Apple's strategy for the past 20 years has been to give discounted computers to educational institutions in the hopes that this would spur consumer adoption of the Macintosh.
.Net is available for $30. At these prices, there is absolutely no incentive to pirate the software. If you can't afford $5 for Windows XP, how can you afford $8 from Linux for Cheapbytes, or the bandwidth for downloading the ISOs, the CD burner and blank CDs to burn them?
Microsoft gives ridiculously deep discounts to educational institutions. I have friends who go to Indiana University. At the bookstore there, you can pick up Windows XP Professional (no activation required) for $5. The entire 5-CD version of Visual Studio
Condoning pirated software in these cases is simply unacceptable. I find it discouraging that a government would encourage educational institutions to pirate software instead of ironing out legitimate deals with software makers.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
You are stealing intellectual property by warezing, no matter who you are. You can rationalize all day and night, but at the end of the day, it's illegal here in the USA to do that. If companies want to give software for free to beginners, that's great and probably sensible, but you're not giving them the option if you just go and warez it.
Anecdote:
If you steal a Stratus from my car dealership, use it to earn money and buy a Viper, and return the Viper to me in exchange for the Stratus two years later, you've still committed a crime, whether or not the Viper is worth more and is a fair trade. Maybe I would have agreed to a deal (Stratus for Viper in two years) - but you have to give me the option, first.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Ok, first, it's not stealing, it's copyright violation. Now, if the copyright law in Malaysia is changed so that this is NOT a copyright violation, what exactly is illegal here? :)
Considered harmful.
man, the software vendors *only* lose money when someone warezes their product if it keeps them from buying that particular product. Do you honestly believe a 15 year old can afford photo-shop? Or that his parents are going to buy it for him (unless they are rich). Your analogy is seriously flawed, copying something is very different from stealing a physical product like a car.
Well it really depends how you look at things. In one country one does one thing and another one does another.
For example, drugs are illegal, death penalty is legal, carrying a machine gun is legal in the USA. In Holland drugs are legal, most other "western" countries death penalty is illegal, machine guns in most places are illegal.
Now before you say this is stealing, it depends what you consider software to be. Is it a product or is copyright. If it is a product then by American definition there must be consumer protection against defects. Oh yeah wait, if you have bugs, tough! Therefore it is not a product, but copyright. And in copyright there is a concept such as fair use and host of other issues. And copyrights are held to different levels in different countries in different settings. Just like said here, education fine, corporate usage not!
So before you start comparing that quick lets first figure out what software really is!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
While in school, I had to pirate software. I simply could not afford it, but I needed to learn it, so I bit the bullet and did it. Once I was out and working in the market, I made it a point to buy the full versions of all the software I use on a regular basis, and I'm religious about it.
I benefitted by having the software on-hand to learn with, and since I became so familiar with it, and needed it for my career, I became a repeat customer of the products. Had I not done this in the first place, I'd be slinging fries (hey, my degree is in English) and Adobe, Macromedia, etc., would be out a paying customer. It became a win-win situation.
Stealing = taking away something that is legally someone elses, DEPRIVING THAT PERSON OF THE USE OF THEIR PROPRTY
Which is misusing their property - using it as the owners did not intend their property to be used. Pirating software is stealing, like it or not, and it's not harmless. It's not harmless because companies spend lots of money and development time on trying to make it harder to warez - thus increasing the costs for people like me who actually pay for the software.
How many times do we have to repeat this?
Copyright infringement != Theft
Yes, it's illegal, but it's not theft. It's a different offense covered by a different part of the criminal code. Calling it theft equates intellectual property with physical property which is false.
"And would I (as owner of that car) mind, knowing I (my car) possibly saved someone's life? I didn't need the car, and I didn't loose anything, when the car's returned. This leaves me with a _positive_ feeling, and no personal loss."
So do you return the software when you are finished?
There is no comparison between stealing a car in a life threatening situation and stealing software. That's about the lamest analogy I've ever heard.
There is never an excuse to steal. Period. Justifying and rationalizing it because you claim it fulfils a *need* of yours is just egocentric and self-serving.
You don't *need* the software. You *want* the software. I agree that there is not necessarily a monetary loss involved in illegally copying software.
No 15 year old *needs* PhotoShop. No 15 year old *needs* MS Office. They want. And taking what one wants without regard for the law is called - gasp - theft.
If you want to protest the current state of the industry through theft, fine. But call a spade a spade and be prepared to pay the piper when he comes calling. Stop attempting - poorly - to justify your illegal actions through some amoral viewpoint you hold. Your morals and mine are irrelevant. It's the law.
If you don't like the law. Change it.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything?
Stolen? No, of course not. The words "theft" and "stealing" are wrong for this situation.
I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either.
That is true, and your point makes sense when we apply it to the cost of the physical materials and the direct labor to make the copies. The car company has obviously not lost those assets.
There is another factor, however. That is the value of the engineering. The car company spent money to create the information needed to build the car. This includes intellectual labor, like mechanical design, software, compliance with government regulations, documentation, and all kinds of other things. Someone has to pay for all this. Normally, the car company will simply add it to the sales price and everyone is happy.
With your scenario, the car company spends all that engineering money, and gets paid how? Do you expect that your neighbors will pay the cost so that you don't have to? Or do you suggest that the "rich" (eg, everyone else) pay for the engineering?
In many cases, scarcity is a major component of the "value" of an item. Making counterfeit goods reduces the value of the legitimate goods. For many cars, this is another important factor. If you make an unauthorized copy of a Ferrari, you are reducing the value of the cars owned by people who bought the legit ones.
Scarcity can also be an important factor in the value of software. Suppose I pay $1000 for a program that will do amazing things, for which that I can get consulting dollars. Part of the value in this purchase is knowing that my competitors will also have to pay $1000 before they can compete with me. Just like paying for an exclusive license or exclusive territory for something, the price I had to pay might be an important competitive advantage. I have paid for that advantage, and I do not think it is fair that some kid (who cannot afford the program) can use an unauthorized copy of the program to compete with me.
A dingo ate my sig...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pirating software is still stealing software, no matter how you look at it.
No. If I steal your installation disks, I have stolen your software. But if I merely copy them (which is not real piracy[1] at all), I have stolen (deprived someone of) nothing. All I have done is illegally copied them. It may be an offence, but it isn't the offence called THEFT.
Think of a hammer. If I take your hammer, that is theft - I am depriving you of the use of your hammer. If I see some gadget you have made, and I build an exact replica - I haven't deprived you of anything. You still have your gadget exactly as it was before I copied it.
What's more, I haven't even deprived you of the money you might want me to pay for copying the gadget. Why? Because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it at the price you charge. That is why estimates of the value of illegally copied software are quite ridiculous - they assume that the demand would remain steady even if the price were severely increased (from zero for illegally copied software to hundreds or thousands of dollars if bought) ... I really doubt that demand for any software is THAT inelastic. Only some users must have a particular version - most others can use alternatives. Even MS sells Works for people who won't buy Office. That is why so many companies are now considering Linux instead of paying MS's new prices. The software market IS price-sensitive.
Illegally copying software is illegal - but the government can determine which instances of copying are legal and which are not. A government could pass a law saying that software licences do not apply to educational institutions. Of course, the governments of other countries may fight against such laws. And the country with the most significant software companies (the US) carries a lot of clout in international markets and trade forums. The Malaysian government is trying to have a bet each way, I think: Retain "strong" copyright laws as required by international trade agreements, but wink at breaches in certain local circumstances. Trouble is, the rest of the world can see them do it.
[1] When did you ever see a pirate movie where the raiders came on board and COPIED the contents of their victim's ship? (Gee, great gold chain you have here. Could I make one just like it?)
I am anarch of all I survey.
Second, if more people posted .txt, .rtf and .html, we wouldn't have this .doc problem.
.doc for its technical merits. Doc files are prevalent because it's "a word file". And even that level of understanding can be pushing it in some cases.
You're forgetting that most people don't really even know what a file format IS.
Why do you think Microsoft no longer displays file extensions on files? Such things thoroughly confuse a large number of users. When you write something on paper it's not in a different "format", so formats don't fit into their paradigm of how documents should be. This is why you often find users trying to open documents in the wrong program.
Nobody really chooses
Talking about the virtues of formats like rtf and html won't make them prevalent. Only if they are the default format will they become prevalent.