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."
If there is really no other software available to do what needs to be done, and your schools honestly do not have the money to pay for it... morally, I think it's okay for the schools to just copy it, legal or not. Knowledge trumps money.
A lot of software, though... you don't really need that commercial version, you can get something free, especially in educational institutions. If all you need is office software for writing papers, then get Linux and OpenOffice, don't pirate copies of Microsoft software.
Maybe this should be common sense, but it seems like common sense really isn't all that common, especially when it comes to intellectual property issues.
WARNING:
All files contained in this ftp are for EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY and must be deleted within 24 hours. No members of any law enforcement or governmental agency or anyone affiliated with stated agencies are allowed, and you must disconnect now.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
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 a Malaysian, I am ashamed to read on Slashdot that a Malaysian minister actually says that it's okay to pirate software, never mind that it's for educational purposes. Pirating software is still stealing software, no matter how you look at it.
:)
Like the Slashdotters who have posted before me, I've resorted to using Linux and other open source alternatives instead of pirated software.
Having said that, I do understand the reasons that motivate many Malaysians and other citizens of developing and third-world countries to pirate software. One of the main reasons is that commercial software is usually sold at the equivalent price of US dollars. This means that software is almost four times as expensive in Malaysia. A US$100 software sounds relatively cheap here in the US, but in Malaysia it would cost almost RM400 (RM = Ringgit Malaysia). Many individuals, educational organizations, and so forth find such prices ridiculously high. Imagine buying 10 licenses: it would cost US$1,000 here, but it'll cost RM4,000 there. Therefore they resort to pirating software.
It would be good if software companies here in the US provide alternative prices for developing countries. It's really unrealistic to expect people to pay for software at such prices. Maybe they already do that, but I don't know.. I use Linux.
Actually it would be even better if governments advocate the use of open source software. But first, open source software must get its act up as a viable alternative for commercial software. At the moment, it's not "there" yet, for many desktop applications anyway.
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
Already is free for non-commercial use check out their download page for details.
Its an interesting point but Maya is an example of a company that has already thought of this....
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Educational (at least publically-funded primary and secondary schools, i.e. high school) institutions frequently lack cash--so as a result, they either use pirated software (dangerous and illegal) or simply do without necessary software (i.e. half the machines don't have MS Word because they can't afford licenses for them.)
By allowing the software companies to write off software used in nonprofit institutions, they are in essence getting the same thing as if they sold the profit--only the number goes on the other end of the stack, on the debt side, and cancels a part of it. It keeps them happy (there is a simulated positive cash flow), and keeps the nonprofit organizations happy because they don't have to spend as much on licenses.
Perhaps if a large software manufactuerer were willing to announce such a policy in the United States...If you're an educational organization, catalog the number of pirated copies of Microsoft software, and send it, along with a copy of a certificate of tax excception and a signed affidavit of compliance to Microsoft Piracy...the promise being MS won't take action against you for the declared copies. Forget to declare some, and you're in trouble...
The Malaysian government has a very different stance than we have here in the US, but it seems to be one that will be beneficial for all parties involved.
That stealing is ok if the cause is deemed just?
Copyright infringement is not theft. If you steal something from me, you have it and I no longer do. If a school in Malaysia pirates a copy of Photoshop, Adobe has no fewer copies than they did before the school pirated it.
From an ethical standpoint, a more meaningful consideration is whether the school is depriving someone of revenue. In other words, are they pirating the software to avoid paying for it or are they pirating it because they are unable or unwilling to pay for it? If a 14 year old kid that gets a pirated copy of 3D Studio Max -- a $3,500 software package, who is being hurt? The publisher had no reasonable expectation that the kid could have purchased it.
Please keep in mind that the above is a discussion of ethics, not law. The law has made many ethical acts illegal. Just look at the effects of the DMCA, for instance. Or consider that it is illegal for you to exceed the posted speed limit even if you are transporting someone to the emergency room after a serious injury.
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!
There's a catch-22 here, though. Since we're all willing to use a warez copy of expensive applications in order to get enough familiarity with them to do the work, businesses have no reason to provide training or other tool-exposure time, since we're doing it for them, even if it is piracy.
Wouldn't we be better off if businesses recognized that 3D SuperMagic Dot Net cost $5k per copy and required a testicular implant -- and thus people with the background and skills to learn the application and do the job weren't likely to walk in with those skills and should instead be exposed to a training period where they (A) learned the application in a productive fashion that helped them get productive faster?
As long as we're willing to do the industrial training businesses want ourselves, why should we expect them to hire us without work-for-pay experience?
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.
What crap! I understand that many people don't like Microsoft and are glad to screw them, but as a legal principal this makes no sense at all. What if you are a small company making educational software? How would you feel to suddenly hear governments discuss that maybe it was perfectly OK for your customers to steal your product?
Here's a more reasonable solution: Catch a big monopoly misusing their monopoly in the market with abuses that are clearly illegal, prove it in a trial, and rather than letting the monopoly choose their own punishment or threaten to break them into two monopolies, nationalize the bastards! Then you could give that software to any schools you want and still not muck with the copyright laws. The income could be used to lower taxes, and the extra layers of government mismanagement would help ensure that the smaller companies could compete!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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"
It's easy to say in ignorance that companies should sell software to companies and give it free for people to learn, but they assume you'll pirate it anyway. Like Adobe said it wanted Skylarov jailed, but they didn't EXPECT it to actually happen. "Put all the software pirates in jail" is something the sales department would say (and they talk VERY loudly and forcefully). The CEO on the other hand would definitely recognise the learning effect of pirated software, but the massive cost of consulting lawyers to actually release two tiers of the product and splitting/forking the codebase to give a different free version are prohibitive. It took me 10 days to make a minor alteration to a shareware contract just to allow distribution. This is because at the end of the day every lawyer knows that a Judge can spend 8 hours debating the meaning of one word, and that your entire case will depend on the outcome.
This is why the BSA targets corporations only, they know that if they went after the public that the ACLU, FSF would bring a whole pile of trouble on their heads, and BSA's customers won't want to be associated with this so the BSA would lose its funding.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
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
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.