Slashdot Mirror
P2P Networks Blamed For Software Losses Doubling
L1TH10N writes "CNET News is reporting that software manufacturers have doubled their losses to $29 billion dollars, according to a BSA survey, which is blaming P2P networks for their misfortune. Seems a little too far-fetched to me - a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software, just too much chance that you are downloading a trojan onto your computer. Me thinks the Business Software Alliance are jumping on the bandwagon and vilifying P2P networks just as the Senate is taking aim at P2P providers."
I download the most software from Usenet, not that I condone that sort of activity! :)
In newsgroups you have many people downloading a single copy of the file, and a method of feedback on the post. You will see people post replies if they find the program infected with a virus, or discover a trojan horse. The feedback makes newsgroups safer than P2P downloads.
It seems like everyone has a copy of Adobe Photoshop these days... Im fairly certain that not even 1/4th of them actually bought this software.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Why steal software? Many software packages are reasonably priced, and many are offered with rebates and upgrade coupons. See more here
On the other hand, most of the truely great apps are written for linux. They are usually feature packed, have very little security problems, etc.. Examples would be MythTV, Apache, MySQL, the GIMP, Mozilla and Firefox, etc... The list goes on!
--
Craploads of deals updating in real time from all the best deal sites.
Could it be that some percentage of their sales are actually being lost to people who are using Open Source Software and other free (as in beer) alternatives? Nah, let's just blame P2P. Maybe we can sue our customers when they don't buy the newer versions of our software while we're at it (hey it works for the music industry)!
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
"About 36 percent of software installations worldwide are pirated copies, the study by trade group Business Software Alliance and market researcher IDC showed."
And the 36% is no doubt climbing higher by the hour at the moment. I am running a "pirated" copy of Mozilla. Nor to mention the "pirated" copy of Open Office. Didn't Microsoft classify Open Source as piracy.
Personally, I download Open Source software. Warez and Crackz are great for teenagers, but I don't really have time or energy for this stuff. If an Open Source piece of software does the job, I'll use it. If only a commerical piece of software does the job, I'll buy it. Unfortuately for software makers, I'm buying less and less. Either the product has to be REALLY good, or it has to do something no other product does. e.g. My last few purchases were WMA Recorder, PalmBasket, and BudgetBook. Otherwise I use Firebird, OpenOffice, Azureus, GIMP, FileZilla, EnZip, etc.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If Joe Schmoe wasn't going to buy your software to begin with. It's not a loss whether he uses it illegally or not. These statistics are screwed up beyond all hell.
And if he really did use it illegally, consider it spreading your market share.
Yeah, as someone already said, everyone has Photoshop nowadays.. But would they have bought it if they couldn't get it for free?
I think this is always a weird issue with intellectual property "theft." If I steal a car that I wouldn't have bought since it's too expensive, I not only have that car, but someone else is now lacking their car. But if I "steal" a copy of Photoshop, nobody else is missing anything of their own...
BSA is the group that was mass-mailing towns a couple years ago, giving small business owners 30 days of 'amnesty' to get their licenses caught up.
Thing is, the BSA had zero proof that anybody was doing anything wrong. They just got a list of small businesses from the local town hall, and sent mass letters to everyone in the town. I got mine.
Point is, don't believe anything the BSA says or does.
At least they didn't blame Open Source Software. Then they might actually be right, and we can't have that.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Most of the people who obtain "pirated" software just don't want to pay for it. I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of this crowd would like our free (as in beer) software.
I don't bother with downloading anything. Almost everything I use is open source software. I can find alternatives for everything I need and I can imagine other peolple can also. I think many of the students who used to downoad look for oss alternatives also it is easier than trying to find a crack or possibly get something with a trojan.
So what happens when they manage to ban all forms of P2P and they are still losing money?
:-)
Who will they blame when there is no one left to blame but themselves? If they would make a product that was worth paying for, or not change more than the average person makes in a month, then they would sell a lot more. I'm not a big fan of microsoft products, but they have been smart recently with their variable pricing levels for the office products. The home user and Education users get a better price than the pro edition.
Now if I could just get Adobe CS Home edition
The movie industry just had a billion dollar month and is whining about piracy. The software industry isn't able to continue it's double digit growth and says piracy is due to their failed projections.
Here's a hint: not a lot of people buy software as often as they used to. Old versions of MS-Office are in use around the globe, old versions of Windows itself. Hell, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". People and companies no longer pay the upgrade tax automatically. (not to mention free software and how it's doing.
Trolling is a art,
In other news, software is more overpriced than ever before....
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
Back in highschool, I did a project on software piracy. The old SPA website provided this formula for revenue lost: (software installed - software shipped)*price of software = revenue lost At first glance this *sounds* ok, but under further scrutiny, does not. An important factor to consider is that many users install pirated software not because they *need* it, but because it's *free*. How many people have Photoshop installed? Yet, how many of those people would have gone out and bought it if they couldn't download it from some bittorrent site? The numbers decrease dramatically. Therefore - at best, the "lost" revenue is an assumption, and not an accurate statistic.
I say we start a thread here listing the best Linux software package that compete directly vs windows software and describe why the linux software is better (or worse if it actually is) and why you like it. Many people usually don't know which linux packages are the best and it takes an experienced linux user to point out the packages that are must have. ie:
Apache vs IIS
Apache is free and has less security problems
Mozilla vs IE
ditto above
the GIMP vs Photoshop
Not a graphics person here... Need help.
Please list more.
--
Tons of deals from all the popular deal sites. Save money!
this company has seen a 200% increase in software purchases because of P2P.
smd4985
I mean, the BSA still sucks. That will never change.
What kind of loss is this?
For example, when a company's expenditures outpace income a loss is reported.
When a development on a product is costing more than revenus from the product that is a loss (even though the company makes money).
The company did make as much money as the expected, (ie their market share dropped) so that is a loss. (Even if a profit is made)
The company's marketshare grew at a reduced rate.
All of these are reported as losses at one point in time or another (depending on the way that statistics align), but the biggest distributor of pirated software in all of these cases is NOT P2P but a much more dangerous network: sneakernet. Friend finds copy of windows 2003 Ent Server he gives it to a friend to friend to a friend etc etc. Or some guy buys a few cd's off the hobo on a blanket in central park. In asia you go into a thrift/secondhand store and pick up what you want. But rarely do you get illegal software from P2P.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
The article based this on a BSA survey of installed software, and got the numbers from the assumption that if P2P and other distribution methods weren't available, people would have bought all the software they had installed.
This is wrong.
I personally have installed a great deal of pirated software. Most often it's to test something out completely, when the foolish 15-day trial doesn't give me enough time.
While some people undoubtably pirate software instead of buying, cases like mine actually promote sales (in the case of quality software, at least). $49bn my ass.....
BSA affiliates want to tell their investors something that doesn't sound anything like either "people don't want to buy worthless upgrades" or "those Free Software guys are pushing our products into obsolescence." Things like that hurt stock prices.
I think an increasing number of business computers are running little more than what comes with MS Windows and MS Office, and perhaps another MS product or two, with the only third-party software perhaps being an antivirus and/or some remote backup tool. In other words, Microsoft's control of an increasing amount of the software marketplace is squeezing out other software vendors.
I steal hardware. Not my fault XP was on the drive.
I don't know about how you guys feel, but imo piracy has the effect of improving the IT industry, increasing IT revenues through legitimate sales. Take a look at it this way. If I did not personally obtain a copy of Photoshop for my own use, how am I going to recommend my company buy a copy to make whatever it is that it wants made? Do I know if Photoshop provides the correct functionality that I need? Am I willing to buy a manual or undergo training to thoroughly research the product? Am I, as a home user, going to fork out a four figure sum to purchase that software that I don't even know about, and is generating me 0 revenue, on my own damn machine? I think the answers speak for themselves.
On the other hand, I wouldn't condone piracy in a business environment. Certainly, if a software improves the ability for a company to turn a profit, then it's only fair that some of the cash flows the way of the developer. Over the past 20 years Singapore has been a hotbed of piracy and IT innovation (sadly no more, the authorities have cracked down hard on the bootleggers). The net result of piracy was to raise the IT proficiency of the average nerd by the age of 10 to that of an office secretary. Not something you'd see if we were required to spend money on every piece of software you install.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
I've downloaded a ton of software off P2P networks for years and haven't gotten a virus or trojan yet. One time I downloaded an infected file about a year ago but my antivirus detected it. If I ever get infected I'd just reinstall the OS. Everything is backed up so it's not much of a problem.
These days 99% of the software I pirate are games. The only games I buy are ones that require online activation with a CD key, or have monthly fees like City of Heroes. In the old days you needed to know how to use IRC or know someone with passwords to ftp servers to pirate software. These days all you need is Bittorrent. I'm not surprised the industry is losing more money now that piracy is becoming so mainstream. E.g. I don't know anyone with an Xbox who actually pays for their games. Arrrr matey, piracy is here to stay!
TO be honest, more software is being pirated via shoddy pirated CDs or even DVDs with a whole compilation of software on it. It is sold on streets or from someone who knows someone type sales. Here is Sydney, I remember, a proper shop set in the main street was selling pirated software/movies (In good packaging) for very low prices for months before they got shut down.
P2P is an easy scapegoat - probably easier to bring more attention to piracy if you point the finger at P2P. People travelling and having stopovers at any asian country can get bundles of software costing them only a few dollars. Cracking down on these type of software pirates is what should be done.
I am not a graphics person either, but when I tried to get a designer I work with to use The Gimp, he balked. While it appeared to have all the featureset we needed for the project, he would have lost all of the muscle-memory he had developed using PhotoShop.
The training costs to get him to change would exceed the costs of using pirated software for the application he needed.
Again, I reiterate -- if DRM existed, and he could NOT run a pirated version of PhotoShop, I bet he'd be much more interested in learning Gimp on his own nickel.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
I'm poor!!!!! I'm GLAD ALL OF YOU people have either:
a.> THe time to configure OSS
b.> The money to buy the closed source stuff
Looks like you fools have forgotten what it's like to be a high schooler or a college student. Let's not forget that most people who have any kind of experience with computers got that by learning new software. It's nice to see you still expect kids to be allowed to install linux on thier computers and then mess around with them until they can get them to work correctly. I for one learned all of my windows skills of pirated copies of Dos (Dr DOS at that!), Win3.11 / 95/ 98. And photoshop forget about it. The student version of it costs well over $100.00 at my school. WTF do i get that money from? Looks liek you guys are jsut out of touch. I expect that most people in CS have pirated.
Lastly, piracy could be a try before you by deal. (Don't tell me "fully functional" demos cripled by some mark in the output are a good alternative).
In short- You (as in you you) suck!
This mistake is that if John Doe downloads a copy of Photoshop, it would count as hundreds of dollars of lost revenue according to the article. But who says John Doe would have bought that software if P2P or whatever method he used weren't available to him? If someone goes to a library and reads through a bunch of books, did some publishing company just "lose" $100? Of course not!
These people need to do their homework. To they think that stopping p2p is going to end file sharing? I don't use p2p anymore, too dangerous, but guess what, there are so many other ways of getting files I don't enough fingers to count them. The "war" on piracy is like the war on alcohol in the 20's, you can try to stop it, but a tech-savvy community will always be 10 steps ahead of any task-force, and a mile ahead of any bureaucracy (i.e. congress). Obivously they won't give up the fight from my little comment, but they should at least have the mental capacity to realize that kazaa and winmx aren't the be all end all of file sharing Oh, and the RIAA can bite me.
It costs a lot of money to develop software hence the software manufactures have to charge a substantial amount of money for it. Customers balk at paying for the software and some look at 'alternative' methods of getting that software. Software manufactures see their sales dropping and drop prices to increase sales but can't as they have to cover their costs. Hence they try and drop their costs and look to cheaper methods of manufacturing i.e. outsourcing. And we all know how /.ers feel about outsourcing.
While the major manufactures can wear the cost of piracy (to a certain extent) it has major impacts on smaller operators. For example look to the PC games market, how often do we hear of companies going tits-up. Software piracy might not be totally to blame but it certainly will have an impact.
a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software, just too much chance that you are downloading a trojan onto your computer
Why do you think the trojans are there? Because there are so many people on there downloading software.
Bittorrent is P2P too, and it's changing the scene. It used to be the elite got fast connections to 0-day stuff, bittorrent by it's design makes the hottest most popular stuff the most available.
Now, I believe the industry is shrinking due to natural causes. There's frankly enough software there. People have programs to do the stuff they want, they really don't see the need for new ones.
Of course I'm talking about "not games". But I've been using the same handful of apps dialy for years.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
People aren't buying the damn software!
:)
We've been in a major economic downturn and to top it off the people that are technical (that would buy lots of the higher end stuff) are getting laid off. No one has the cash for Photoshop, 3D studio, or anything else that is on the top rung of the scales. These people crying about their losses are the same people the fired off 10,000 workers and replaced them with people from India, China, and Indonesia. f**k 'em... Use gimp, openoffice, and one of the many FREE operating systems. Send a clear message, and maybe they'll get these hits:
1) The software is too much money for a guy that now has to deliver pizzas. Pizza guys make $1/$2 an hour, and about $20/$30 in tips a day. Software = $40+, productivity apps range $150-$1000+
2) The software is no better than the stuff that can be downloaded for free, and occasionally it is worse. Gimp = 98% of photoshop (minus the bits no one uses), Openoffice = 120% of MS Office (the extra 20% is the time you do not have to worry about the application virusing you.) etc..
3) People that cannot afford the package and truly need it will bootleg it and apply a crack if they cannot find a free alternative. (This has always been the case, since the dawn of computing.) If you think it is going away or ever will, you are simply insane and delusional. Price your wares fairly and you will sell more.
4) Nothing called software is worth over $100 unless it is used to control missile launches, perform nano-surgery. compute orbital tragectories to neptune. Ok, this is just my opinion... You may have another.
-Mind
Global Software Piracy Study[sic]
See if you can figure out the model they used to arrive at their figures.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Using the word "lost" is an abuse of the language. There is revenue that has not been realized, but quatifying how much would have been realized without piracy is difficult.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The 'average' user on the other hand...
They simply can't wait to 'Stick it to the Man!' and snag that 24kb copy of UT2K4!
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
On the other hand, if I use the softeware to make money or my life easier I will pay for it.
Example 1:
My work was interested in runing some basic 3d software to make certain things easier. I hop onto a H.L. server and download the 4 biggies, try them all out. We find the one that is appropriate to our needs. That company now has a sale (Did this one 2 weeks ago). 2 out of the four I downloaded did have "trial" editions, but guess what, the trial editions did not tell us what we most wanted to know, ie, how the renders were.
Example 2:
I personally pirate shareware all the time. I hate "functionally limited demo's" (see above, there is always something missing). Usually, I install, use it for a while, then discover it is useless to me and delete. If I find I am using their software regularly, I will pay them for it.(For those keeping track, I will also donate to OSS if that is the solution, you get what you pay for.)
Example 3:
My career of choice is 2d graphics, the print world. I find video effects mildly interesting...as a hobby. There is no I could pay the $1000+ that most high end video editing software requires. Especially considering that none of this software is the do-it-all sort. So I have lot's of pirated video software. However, I feel no guilt on this. I am making no money off of their product. And they have not "lost" a sale, as I would not have bought it in the first place. On the other hand, if someday I do a freelance job these companies that have unwittingly supplied me with a learning tool will be the first to receive my money.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
I'm not a mathematician, so I really don't know, but does Maxima compare well to Mathematica and does Octave compare well to Matlab? I'm really curious how a side-by-side comparison of these packages looks like by those who used them.
Engineering and the Ultimate
It's worth reading, even if there is not much information. Their methodology is still laughable. Any statistican who reads their study would throw it in the wastebasket immediately. Or rather, he would use it as an example of "what not to do" for his first year students.
So the study don't say anything about opensource -- so as mentioned before, anyone who uses OpenOffice counts as a pirate. The press releases of BSA say that this factor has been taken into account but (1) I haven't seen anything in the report and (2) you can't, except if you accept very wide error margins.
Talking about which, their report do not provide any kind of estimation about the errors, which is a good indication that the people who made it are not competent. For example, BSA insists on the difference between an illegal copying rate of 32% in Australia, versus 29% in other countries -- there is NO WAY that such a difference can be significant given their methodology.
The worst thing, as mentioned by other people, is that this piece of crap will be shown to every government on the planet to lobby them to enforce IP laws and make new ones if "necessary".
Zorglub
No trip to CompUSA, no order from Buy.com or Amazon, and no messing around with QTparted or other tools.
Yes, I lost karma points and I know I stole... P2P makes it easy to get what I need without effort. Do I believe that software companies are loosing revenue - ABOLUTLY.
Is is right - in short, no
What is the right thing to do... I will tell you if Acornis had been $5.00, I would have purchased it without thought. $49.95 for a program that I use once a year, in an emergency is not acceptable. There was no, easy opensouce way to do what wanted without a lot of time and research.
I believe in the free market. I also know that there is software that I will use once in a blue moon or games/music that I would never look at twice. Is using/listening once from software poached from BitTorrent or eMule stealing? I'm not sure but I feel a twing of guilt and I know things are not right.
I do believe however, that micropayments are a major part of the solution. I would have, without hesitation, paid $5.00 for the software to solve my problem tonight. I would also expect that it would be $4.00 next time I needed to partition a disk and $3.50 the time after that, etc. I will pay to have the latest and greatest, just not $50 to have something that I use once a year and then becomes obsolete.
The system on software and software distribution is broken but I don't see an easy solution without easy, ubiquitious, micro-payments on an almost per-use basis for many(most) software packages. I think the technology is there, the paridigm is what is broken.
...linux has matured to the point where that's all I use. Sometimes I donate a little to various projects.
I wonder what Qt has to say about this...after all, they give most of their stuff away free, and for the most part it is full-featured. They depend on the honor system (more or less) for their license sales.
Hopefully someone with a brain will interview Qt and ask them what they think about these issues...or hell, anyone from Linux or the various Linux projects.
Take your pick. Retailers blame sales losses to weather/rain/snow/heat/cold. Sales of music down to piracy, etc. Sales of applications down due to piracy, etc etc etc. Car manufacturers blame a downturn in the econonmy.
Instead, the retailers need to open more lanes so they move more people through and stop making people wait 10-15, the music sellers need to lower their prices, applications need to be cheaper, car manufacuturers need to make better cars. It's so easy, and so elusive. Does no one get it? Do retailers in general realize how many people just abandon their purchases, and what to save $7 an hour in labor to open another checkout?
I read how a lot of people have photoshop 7 pirated. This is hands down the best program for it's task. The gimp is slower and it's interface sucks. That's my opinion and don't waste your breath on a flameware. Anyway, piracy has helped photoshop, in my opinion. All those teenagers interested in graphic arts start learning by downloading photoshop, 3d studio max, flash mx, etc. When they go to work for a company, they are hired because they already are very familiar with the software. If adobe and the others made it very difficult to pirate, people would become familiar with another program and their employers would want them using that. I think these companies should relax about the teenager pirating software and focus prevention of piracy at the corporate level.
And these numbers were probably based on if everyone actually was going to buy the software. Most people who have photoshop wouldn't have shelled out $700, however their employers are happy they are experts on it and they pay for it.
Zorglub
Major Study Finds 36 Percent of Software in Use Worldwide is Pirated
I enjoy reading these corporate PR releases bundled as news. For example, this is not that the software industry was $29 billion in the hole last year, it's that if you totalled all the pirated copies of software that the BSA feels exist, and you sold them all at full price, it would total $29 billion.
But heck, if the software industry were bleeding money (it isn't) then what could be the cause? Could it be P2P networks? Why yes, it could. Could it be an unfair monopoly? Pshaw! No one ever heard of a monopoly stifling innovation or competition, don't be silly. (Rubbing chin and looking thoughtful...) Although... I could name some companies that didn't lose money last year. Like, Netscape! Or... Quarterdeck! Try Ashton-Tate, Fox Software, Central Point, Stac, Digital Research, Banyan, and Borland. None of these companies lost money because they either went bankrupt, had to merge, or faded into obscurity. What happened to Wordperfect, the pre-eminent word processor? Harvard Graphics, the ultimate presentation graphics package? Lotus 1-2-3, the world's most popular spreadsheet? dBase, the most popular database? DESQview, the best multitasking environment? Visio was bought. FoxPro was bought and run into the ground. Netscape was crushed. Central Point, Stac, Spyglass, and 3COM (OpenServer NOS AKA LAN Manager) all did a deal with the devil and were forced out of the market. How much of that alleged $29 billion do the boys from Seattle claim is their slice of the pie? Yeah, maybe P2P is to blame. Maybe not...
What else to expect from BullShitAgency
P2P in Asian countries? Why? You can buy most common items, like Windows, for a few dollars on the streets there. Why would you need to go to the effort of downloading it?! I guess I only know of this in India, but I'm sure it's probably fairly prevalent in China also.
All of these figures assume that every pirated instalation would result in a sale. The fact is, the majority of people who use pirated software are not potential buyers and those who are probably have a higher probability of purchasing a legitimate copy because of the pirated use.
outlawing half the functionality of the internet? If you generalize 'P2P', couldn't I really classify almost anything, i.e. VOIP, email, IM, etc. as P2P? If I set up a SQL server the right way you can email it queries and I can set it up with tables listing what's on my machine. Throw in a list server that can deal with attachments and voila... poor man's napster.
What if I UUENCODE my software and paste it into an IM tool? When you get right down to it, even the web itself is P2P - I can search, I can download files from a specific address, I can chat with other users. A large percentage of users (no, I don't know what the percentage actually is) have their own websites now so I'm no longer just searching central servers, but rather the servers of individual users.
I can see going after someone like napster (easy on the flames, I used it too, this is pure devil's advocate) because they have a central entity and are a specific company. But consider this question - if we outlaw P2P and then phone companies and broadband providers merge via VOIP, then technically wouldn't the firmware of a standard phone be outlawed?
My suggestion to the BSA is, price the software within the reach of people who are going to use it anyway, with the pricing plan favoring volume, customer loyalty, etc. (maybe a cheap site license for a home?) and go with the shareware model - let people pirate a stripped down version but require MS/XP-style activation to get the full features. This also has the added benefit of putting the most restriction and highest profit on the features that are most unique and probably took the longest to conceive and develop, while not wasting everyone's time protecting the oh so precious code to save a file, edit text, etc., a lot of which is based on standard MS controls anyway.
Everyone I know has bootleg Windows software on their computers. From copies of Autodesk used in a home business to many many copies of Office, Photoshop, Frontpage, XP and on and on. My least favourite feature of Windows is how its users don't know they can't afford to use it. Until the proprietary software world gets a handle on bootleging of their software Linux has zero chance of making it to the desktop in a big way. As a Linux user trying to tell people about "Free" software, I get looked at like a raving lunatic. They already have tons of "free" (and easier to use) software on their computers.
Michael
inflated figures, misrepresenting the amount of product duplicated, overpriced product, and the ridiculous notion that everyone who uses the product would've bought a legit copy. look...these guys lie about these figures. they have no real idea about how much software was duplicated. the formula used to come up with these figures thinks that every copy downloaded would've have been paid at retail price and finally... 80% of the people who download pirated software would never buy it in the first place. that's the same argument the RIAA had and it's just as false now as it was then.
Is it 5:30 yet?
With the availability of sites such as Suprnova and such, it wouldn't suprise me. If P2P gains a strong foot hold to the average joe sixpack, exect software companies to migrate to dongles and subscription based system were the program physically has to log onto a site (behind the scenes) on the Internet to work. Encrypted of course
Life is not for the lazy.
I used to spend some money on software. I don't anymore. It is not P2P, it is the massive integration of software in the OS, the lack of interesting innovation, and availability of free software. These factors mean that I pay significant money to Apple, but not much to anyone else. The most relevent is that most sofware people need comes with the computer. Most people are not to pay to upgrade software. They will just buy a new machine in a couple years. The upgrade fees will be half the cost of the machine!
But the most interesting of these to me is the lack of useful innovation, the corollary to which is the inclusion of stupid or harmful features. The best example is Quicken. I I still use my copy from many year ago. They haven't really done anything new that I need, and they keep pissing me off with their anti-customer scheme. Instead of continuing to build a good product, they wasted time on websites intended to squeeze more money from customers. I need to buy a new copy for OS X, but I don't trust them anymore. I will probably try an OSS instead.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
For some reason, double the amount of losses just doesn't seem to match up.
I always believed these companies wrote off loss as "piracy" because "mis-management" doesn't look good on an annual report. But to think that somehow "piracy" losses DOUBLED from 2002 to 2003 just doesn't add up. Perhaps some reputable source could gather statistics on P2P network usage comparing 2002 to 2003? I highly doubt the P2P statistics doubled in parallel.
The movie industry made 1 billion last MONTH...yes month and these people that DL the software, well most of them wouldn't buy it anyway (can't afford it) so I fail to see how there is a loss.
I'll tell you one thing I know people that have done this and time and time again I hear the same thing "thank god I didn't pay for this crap" try returning crappy software sometime, you simply can't do it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You rely on Mathematica, and yet somehow it does not justify its academic version price?
If you are living in the U.S. and pursuing a 4 year degree, and "rely" on Mathematica, how can the academic version price not be justified?
Have you considered buying less beer?
Just because you can get by without paying, doesn't mean you should.
I think its simply pathetic that Adobe or MS honestly cares so much about its ability to profit from Zimbabwe that its willing to plunge these nations into the technological dark ages instead of just letting the country get familiar and locked into its products through piracy. It's the usual mistake that authority figures often make; becoming detachted with what gave them the monopoly to begin with.
Photoshop, Windows are both decent products in their own right, but so many of these apps wouldn't have hit the tipping point of adoption had they not been piratable.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It's just the "flavour of the month", so to speak. Their primary concern at the minute is that they want rid of piracy, so that's how they interpret their statistics, or at least how they publicly interpret them.
So, they neglect the loss of sales due to people using free software alternatives. They imply that P2P filesharing is responsible for 100% of software piracy. They make the assumption that 100% of the pirated software counts as a "loss", and that every single piece of software would otherwise be paid for, which is not the case. Then they go running to the government with their facts and figures, crying about how P2P networks are destroying the economy, and demanding action.
And if they succeed in that action, and damage/destroy the P2P networks? Well, then it's time to move on to free software. It's anti-competitive, they'll cry! It's un-american, and it's destroying the economy, because people are opting for free software over proprietary options! Then they'll demand for stricter software patents, and continue to push their enforcement in other parts of the world, and they'll try to find a variety of equally harsh and unfair restrictions to try and hurt free software. It's not exactly an unheard of concept, is it? People are already describing free software as a virus, it's just that the BSA doesn't consider it their biggest "enemy" for the time being, with Microsoft and SCO already being on the case.
I'm sure they're only too aware as to how inaccurate their figures are, but it suits their arguement, so they'll obviously interpret them as they like.
Bull Shit Artists
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
I am one of them who downloaded from P2P. But the reason for me to download those software is just because I have some spare time and the download is free (as in beer).
I download the software last night, install it in a pirated copy of Windows at the morning, play it around, and finally find that it is a rubbish at evening and I removed it.
Why I did so? Just because I wanna keep myself in touch with the software trend. I wanna know what software is available and what is their capability -- and incapability. Other then these, I have no other sense to "really" use it: I am a loyal Linux user!
If I don't have P2P network, I will just find out another way to spend my spare time. I won't feel anything missed if I don't have the software. So if the software maker is so powerful that killed all P2P network of the world and charged for every copy of their software, I won't pay to any of them either!
Now, you can see that:
If I have P2P, the world has one more user of the software, the software makers' revenue from me is zero.
If I don't have, P2P, the world has one less user user of the software, the software makers' revenue from me is also zero!
So the revenue of the software makers don't change. Do you say I cause you any loss among the $29b?
http://www.ieaa.org/~adrian/
I really don't think there are all that many killer apps out there anymore.
I went to a trade show, and most of the software they were trying to sell for windows already comes for free on Linux. Any admin worth their salt knows how to get most business oriented software running for free on a UNIX/Linux system (with the exception of a few programs like Oracle for example)
I see software for boot passwords for windows (When GRUB is free), and disk encrytion for Windows (Linux has cryptoloop, dm-crypt, and Windows already has encrytion built in if anyone cared to ask about it!)
Most of the software sales I see are for application on Windows where a free software version already exists from download.com OR for Linux. People are paying $50 a pop for internet firewalls for example, whereas a firewall for linux is what.... a pagelong free script off the internet? How about internet speed up tools? With a bit of skill, anyone can hack the proc settings of a Linux box to get the same effect. Cost to me = $0
Many clueless users DO see the value in having particular services set up for them, but once they find out from their PC savvy friends that they're being ripped off..... uh-oh.
To me, there seems to be no killer software ap out there that I need to buy, UNLESS I had a specific need for it... and I don't. Other than Windows, the only other app that I felt compelled to buy was Nero and a firewall. I found the rest for free. Not to mention that I got a load of bundled software which came included with my PC hardware (and that does the job quite nicely!)
And I dual boot with Linux as well.
Average users these days just don't understand the concept of software anyway. They just expect their box to work and have everything set up and in there. They're not looking for a computer, they're looking for a home appliance... on par with the reliability of a TV and fridge.
When their boxes get filled full of spyware, spam, and god knows what else... they feel ticked off that they should have to pay more money to keep their systems ACTUALLY WORKING! They don't see the value in software, because they feel as if they are being TAXED! So maybe this is where piracy comes into the picture.
Also with so many free alternatives out there, it's a wonder much commerical software is getting sold at all. There's only so many word processors that people need, you know, and the market has matured. We're not still using VisiCalc anymore.
Online content is a different story however... and I think the only way to deal with that situation is to overhaul copyright law. The genie is out of the bottle.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Me thinks the Business Software Alliance are jumping on the bandwagon and vilifying P2P networks just as the Senate is taking aim at P2P providers."
The irony being, of course, that the vast majority of their claimed losses are outside the US, where a United States P2P ban would have absolutely no effect.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
We are currently building a data center that will contain all firm data that is to prove the extent of Software Piracy of our members products. The program is referred to as: 'Misapropriation of Your Application Software System' (MYASS). Next Monday at 9:00 am there will be a meeting in which I will show MYASS to everyone. We will continue to hold demonstrations throughout the month so that all employees will have an opportunity to get a good look at MYASS. As for the status of implementation of the program, I have not addressed the networking aspects, so currently only one person at a time can use MYASS. This restriction will be removed after MYASS expands. Several people are using the program already and have come to depend on it.
Just this morning, I walked into a subordinate's office and was not surprised to find that he had his nose buried in MYASS.
I've noticed that some of the less technical personnel are somewhat afraid of MYASS. Just last week, when asked to enter some information into the program, I had a secretary say to me, 'I'm a little nervous, I've never put anything in MYASS before.' I volunteered to help her through her first time, and, when we were through, she admitted that it was relatively painless, and that she was actually looking forward to doing it again. She went so far as to say that, after using SAP and ORACLE, she was ready to kiss MYASS.
I know there are concerns over the virus that was found in MYASS upon initial installation, but I am pleased to say the virus has been eliminated and we were able to save MYASS. In the future, however, protection will be required prior to entering MYASS. We planned this database to encompass all information associated with the business. So as you begin using the program, feel free to put anything you want into MYASS. As MYASS grows larger, we envision a time when it will be commonplace to walk by an office and see a manager hand a paper to an employee and say, 'Here, stick this in MYASS'.
This program has already demonstrated great benefit to the company during recent MPAA and RIAA reviews. After requesting certain historical data, the agencies representatives were amazed how quickly we provided the information. When asked how the numbers could be retrieved so rapidly, our Piracy Statistics Manager proudly stated, 'Simple, I just pulled them out of MYASS'.
Mostly Microsoft?
If a company like Microsoft loses money because people don't like their product, it's an easy out to be blaming P2P networks again, isn't it?
Software has traditionally ALWAYS been easy to copy.
And we know the movie and recording industry just reported massive profits...
So P2P must not be the reason for the reported losses.
Businesses are typically completely LEGIT, because they CAN'T mess with something like piracy. And home users are usually a smaller market than business.
So why are those numbers falling? And which company, exactly?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
And what's up with the BSA? Where do they get all their power? It's almost as if they are a government agency. This is what happens when we let the lobbyists write our laws.
Smeghead every day of the week.
The notion that the software industry can and should expect a constant stream of growth or even just stable revenue based on upgrades and otherwise selling mostly the same functionality over and over again is simply flawed. That's like Madonna expecting flat or growth of revenue based on selling Borderline version 1.0, Borderline 3.0, Borderline XP. People have had it with constant upgrades, both software and hardware. Why exactly do I need a 3Ghz machine and Word XP when I type my letters perfectly fine with a P5-166 and Word 95 ? And with the downturn in the economy, I'm simply going to spend my smaller budgets elsewhere. Nicer to blame P2P and the boogyman instead, I suppose...
The Linux Mirror Project
I know that five years ago, when I wanted software to do something, the first place I looked was a CompUSA or such. Today, the first place I look involves the link above.
When I wanted software to back up my DVDs, I spent a bare minimum of time searching around before I found free, open-source solutions on-line, where once I might have paid $100 for shrink-wrapped software.
And I do not think I am the only one.
Yes, P2P is responsible for all the lost money buy the movie, music, and software industry. It is also responsible for world hunger, poverty, disease, the flat tire you had yesterday, your picnic getting rained out and for your favorite team losing a game.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Remember the whole CD recording thing? They must have gone to the same fuzzy math school...
BTW, we all know that BSA stands for BullShit Association, so I'm pretty sure everyone knows to ignore them.
list of software i've downloaded: fruityloops reason soundforge sonic foundry sonic vegas final draft final cut pro photoshop adobe premiere adobe after effects painter pro macromedia studio mx frameforge 3d studio 3d studio max phonetools expert I'm a filmmaker. I want to produce product with a high degree of aesthetic quality and detail; I want the story told how I see it to the best of my ability. The tools are costly, but otherwise available, and they make my work better. So it's a no brainer.
un burrito me trampeó.
Seems a little too far-fetched to me - a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software, just too much chance that you are downloading a trojan onto your computer.
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?" Why do you think all the games companies are so eager to move to consoles now?
Pirating software is so easy that entire websites have sprung up for the ed2k protocol alone. Warez groups compete with each other for the earliest pre-retail leaks. Even back in late 1999, a friend of mine had a retail version of Windows 2000 before it was out in stores. This was on 56k dialup.
Windows XP must be one of the most pirated pieces of software out there, to the point that both SP1 and SP2 refuse to install on known pirated product keys.
Let's not get stupid here. Software piracy alone is probably more rampant than mp3s and movies. If you're a shareware developer looking to make a living, forget it. Shareware is dead. Freeloaders just aren't willing to follow a valid system of try before you buy--they just want the whole thing for free. Morality and ethics are gone in a new era of hax0r kiddies who hang out in IRC all day and never even dream of heading to a software store to buy something.
People here love to hate the RIAA and MPAA, and few if any people here are musicians and filmmakers so it's easy to ignore the rights of those groups of content creators, but I'm curious to see how Slashdot's general position will change when software piracy begins to have a real effect on the people here who make a living developing software. Or is free OSS the only way to go now?
Doom 3 will be out on ed2k networks before it hits retail, I guarantee it. And that's "far-fetched?" Whatever. It's fact, it happens, and it's growing as more and more people have highspeed connections. At some point, people will be forced to face it head-on and decide--what are we going to do? Allow it to happen or actually come out and say that it's wrong? At this point come some college dorm room unemployeds who lecture me about "finding a new business model," whatever that means. I could have sworn making something and selling it was a business model. Guess I was wrong. That's the new era of computing. "GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE! GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE!"
If you disagree, reply. But don't mod me down. Just my opinion (which I feel is supported by the facts). It's stupid to turn a blind eye toward this ever-growing section of the Internet that is pirating everything.
Honestly, I don't think that these losses can all be attributed to software piracy. That's not to say that the industry isn't loosing money from pirated downloads, but I think there are a lot more things going on than simply P2P piracy. I think that open source and freeware programs are also contributing to this, as people see that there are alternatives to the "mainstream" programs that are used today, some of which are better than software that can be purchased out in the market today. I wouldn't be suprised if we're going to see companies trying to blaim their losses on Open Software as well. Sheesh. Oh, and what's that saying? Every time they arrest a pirate two more take their pace? Something like that. Pirating isn't going to be stopped just as much as other illegal content on the web hasn't been fully stopped. All they are doing is forcing people to swap files in digital dark alleys; oh wait, it's spread out further than that now. No amount of legislature is going to stop that. Just like they cant stop drug traffic in real life.
I have a friend who uses Matlab for a living and he uses Octave at home because it's essentially the same thing (except all the user contributed toolboxes that cost extra in Matlab).
...pirating software is wrong. Legally and ethically. Right? Right?!...
Hmm. I feel like I'm an empty voice in the wind here. I guess I never realized that part of it was forgotten. It's never even mentioned in these types of discussions...y'know...someone taking something without paying for it when they're supposed to. I mean, that's bad, right?
I guess I was just raised a certain way. I actually work for and buy shit when I want it. I had to buy my own car growing up. When I wanted WarCraft II, I worked for and bought the fucking thing. Nowadays kids just pirate. A lot of the young generation these days have their cars bought for them. I think that's not just coincidence when you look at what else is freeloaded in today's society.
Everyone suddenly thinks they're entitled to everything. In the many years I've been lurking here since the 90s, that selfish attitude has grown and grown. It's a bit startling to me. But, that's me.
Maybe more people are running Linux?
could you guys fix up them gun laws, guns are killing a lot of people. And in this case, peoples lives would be saved, not an increase in profits for corportations ;)
I recently found myself cracking a piece of software that I shelled out $150 for (hey, I'm a college student.. it's a lot). It's probably the only complex piece of software that I push to its limits on a regular basis.
I was reinstalling and it said it reached the max number of installs, and I would not be able to save or print until I call them and blah blah. Right, so I got myself a handy crack and that was that.
I'm supposed to call home every time I reinstall? Um, I'm a computer enthusiast. I mess around. No thanks. I'm kinda sorry I even bothered paying for it, since they're just going to piss me off and give me a hard time!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
This is in response to the article posted on cnet, the author makes a good point. Over charging for software inflates "losses."o rumID=1&thr eadID=1285&messageID=5862&start=-1
http://news.com.com/5208-1014-0.html?f
Actually, its much much much higher
Posted by: Limewire Anime
Posted on: July 7, 2004, 1:45 PM PDT
Story: Software piracy losses double
I wrote a simple program in BASICA and tried to sell it for $10,000,000,000. Nobody bought it, BUT, I accidentally left it posted to the internet. Somebody downloaded it without asking and without a license. So there's at least ten trillion in piracy right there.
Pronto! someone! make a GIMP skin for PS people so they don't get lost and need near_zero training
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Could it be the BSA (Which is Microsoft) doesn't want to admit that they are losing business to Linux and FOSS like Open Office, and this is why they are losing money?
It's easy to blame "piracy"... Which is a red herring these days.
Corporatism != Free Market
No, it's not as nice to use but it is free and quite capable. Kinda like comparing GIMP to Photoshop.
Can't they consider that "maybe" they are loosing the market share for the growing of Free Software??
There are a lot of good stuff on the "wild" these days. And most of them are available for free with the same (or better) functionalities of their payed counterparts.
You just need to download it and you are set to go.
Maybe it is much easier to get on the bandwagon of blaming P2P software than improving payed-software quality for a good old competition with free software.
It makes sense if you think that they can also get some cash back on the courts! My guess is that it must be easier for the company to invest on the juridical department than investing on software development. =)
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Piracy is not always a bad thing...I'm specifically thinking of Microsoft here.
Microsoft once mentioned that they would rather people pirated their software than use competitor's software. It's strategic...they simply want to maintain their monopoly.
And here i thought it was the high software prices that cause people to pirate.
There are more illegal photoshop users than legal. If Adobe had the balls to sell it for $50 a box... Adobe would do pretty well.
Is it not possible that they simply suck at doing business, and thus are losing sales? Gid forbid they should have to blame themselves for a change. It always seems to end up that if there is a possibility that we "the priates, hackers and P2P Crack Kiddies" are causing even the smallest problem then we deserve all the blame.
That really is my homepage, no kidding.
The BSA is a bunch of bull shit attorneys akin to the RIAA and you can't reasonably expect them to, well, be reasonable. Their goal is to intimidate business and individuals so that they will ante up more dollars to their client companies. Oddly enough, that is also rather RIAA-like.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Color me confused, but one day I hear the Slashdot crowds screaming the evils of copy protection while the next day I hear how we would be better served by stronger copy protection.
Now, I understand that Slashdot is composed of various camps, and this may simply be one of those cases. However, the feeling I get from the previous posts is if it supports OSS, it's all good - the end justifies the means. How is this different than certain corporations' business tactics?
Should I be allowed to make a backup copy of my software even if by being allowed to do so OSS is hurt? Should I forgo my right to create a backup for the common good of promoting OSS?
If you ask people if they paid for all the software they use... F/OSS users will say NO and be categorized as pirates. Just because you didn't pay for it doesn't mean you were supposed to. They don't blame open source, but I bet they try to use it this way.
I think that it would be more accurately stated that SOME companies lose money because of P2P apps. Some even profit from them through advertising and nasty adware programs, not that I agree it is ethical. I would wager that companies in general lose more lose money as a result of corporate software piracy.
Why should spammers be buried 100 feet deep? Because deep down they are very good people.
Alot of folks here are missing the point. Lets go back and look for a second here. MOST people using computers today have done so because their work requires it. In 20 years that might change... but not right now. And, what do work computers have in common? They all run the big name - super expensive - programs like MsOffice, XP, Photoshop, and so on. What else do the MAJORITY of users have in common? They look at the computer as a simple tool, like a butter knife or a fork. They want the basic model that gets the job done. They are not going to buy an electric knife to cut a loaf of bread. Meaning, that you folks going on about Linux, Gimp, and all the other "alternative" programs out there don't have a chance in the world of seeing your dreams come to fruition, because people don't want to spend the time and hassle having one complete system at work and trying to manage a completely different one at home. Even with draconian DRM, people will STILL be buying or trying to get ahold of those programs because they DON'T want to put forth all the wasted effort of trying to learn an entirely new system!!!!!
The only software I get from P2P are Linux ISOs. Got to love bittorrent.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
i personally don't even buy any software anymore, besides games. i have a (legal, it came with the burner)copy of nero 5, a copy of MSoffice (got it free at the local computer shop. they didn't need it as they had updated to office 2003), and most of the other software i use regularly is free. i make good use of GIMP. my music player is Winamp. i have numerious pieces of software that are trial versions (non time limited) like getright and such as they are free and do what i need them to do.
frankly the BSA's "29 billion dollar loss" is BS. if i go to the library and take out a set of books worth $100 and read them, and return them to the library, then by the BSA's reasoning, the publishers just lost $100. i know this was mentioned before, but it bears repeating.
this kind of issue started a day-long debate in my economics class last year. my reasoning won
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Fair enough general point, but I think you started your "good enough" list too early for Photoshop - while I have felt no need to install any MS Office app after Office97, I would say that PS5 would be the minimum starter with Photoshop, primarily due to the lack of multiple undo.
(I upgraded to PS7 due to it's transparent gif handling, but have seen no real reason for me to pay for the CS upgrade yet)
A stray thought...
In my packrat punk youth, I used to swap copies of anything I didn't already have. Heck - a large chunk of the software I had squirreled away was never touched after the initial copy (much less used). Yet I grabbed a copy. If the BSA had gotten their hands on me back then... I would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand dollars in "damages".
Now I'm an adult with a profession in IT. The projects I have spearheaded and pushed myself have lead to easily more than 3 million dollars in purchases. That doesn't include purchases made for projects by a team which I was a member or purchases that I've generally supported or not outright objected to.
All things considered, I would say the IT industry has done fairly well by my dicking around with illicit data as a kid.
IE & Outlook -> Mozilla
MS word -> OpenOffice.org
MS Excel -> OpenOffice.org
Powerpoint -> OpenOffice.org
Visio -> OpenOffice.org
MS Project -> Mr Project or GanttProject
Media Player -> VideoLan or MPlayer
SAP / Peoplesoft -> Compiere
Photoshop -> Gimp
Illustrator -> Inkscape or Sodipodi
3D Studio/Maya -> Blender
Matlab -> GNU Octave
Mathematica -> Maxima
MS Windows -> Linux
There are more that I can't think of right now and my list is a nice HTML doc with descriptions and links to all the web sites. Perhaps I'll put it on the web some time. Also note that almost ALL of these have windows versions available.
I use Linux. I haven't paid for software in years.
This sig no verb.
But if you've a network that could cause financial loss to a corporation, your right to use it is in jeopardy. And who's going to stop it? The all-powerful geek lobby??? Time for geeks to take a cue from the NRA and fork some money over to the EFF.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
While I think the figures in this article are exaggerated, I thought it would be interesting to see the real cost of the pirated software that most people I socialise with have on their computers. These are the retail figures of a typical setup (in Australian dollars):
$290 Windows XP Professional (OEM)
$665 Microsoft Office
$1255 Adobe Photoshop CS
$90 Cracked PC Game #1
$90 Cracked PC Game #2
$90 Cracked PC Game #3
So that's an average of $2480 per PC that software makers aren't getting due to pirated software.
P2P does have an impact on software sales.
Actually, at first I thought of this in a joking way... but then I thought about it a bit more seriously. Open Source IS becoming a strong competitor to closed software. It's not yet as noticable as P2P, but it's definately growing faster.
Current patent legislations etc etc can be used to kill OSS. Interoperability... sure, until an MS patent kills OpenOffice, or somebody pulls another GIF like Compuserve (valid patent, but played like a hidden card after it was widely used)...
You can bet your ass that you will see something very equivilent to the P2P wars with Open-Source Software sometime in the future. In fact, it might even be bloodier, and it's easier to track the makers/hosters of an OSS project than it is those that seed P2P.
Whenever I see a program I like/need, I go through a mental process:
-Exists for pay, but is expensive...
-Expensive... check OSS
-No OSS... check bank
-If bank is low, consider finding off the net at least until I know whether the software meets its claims (and/or until bank balance is higher).
The last non-OS piece of software (DVD authoring) I really wanted but couldn't afford was within the $500-600USD range. More than I can justify at the moment. I've seen some linux projects that do similar, but they aren't quite as mature yet. Giving it another six months to a year: either the 'nix/OSS projects will mature, it will come down in price, the bank will be unusually full, or perhaps another commercial product will be cheaper (as it's becoming a more popular variety).
"That's like Madonna expecting flat or growth of revenue based on selling Borderline version 1.0, Borderline 3.0, Borderline XP" ...
...
But that's exactly what Madonna does! All her songs are the same, they just have different titles. Indeed that describes most modern mass produced music
As bandwidth increases it becomes almost trivially easy to download any program, movie, etc. I see it happening all the time at my current job and past jobs as well. And it is only going to get much, much worse as more people learn how to do it. Look how popular Napster was before it was shut down. 80 million people were using Napster at its height.
Virtually all software only anti-piracy methods are powerless to stop unlawful copying.
I fell the inevitible result will be that major PC software developers/publishers move to a subscription payment model.
Why do you think there have been a flood of massively multiplayer online games of late? Because you can't play if you don't pay. No easy way around that.
Its the same reason Microsoft has tried pushing this subscription model so hard for their OS and other software suites.
Chew: You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
Roy: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
> Me thinks the Business Software Alliance are
> jumping on the bandwagon and vilifying P2P
> networks just as the Senate is taking aim at
> P2P providers."
Yeah, sure... These people have *nothing* better
to do than sit around and make up ficticious
reports based on bogus data just so they can
villify those P2P networks. Did it ever occur
to you that they really are losing money? And
if so, that means trouble for open-source as
any casual observer can deduce is very dependent
on handouts from commercial (proprietary)
companies. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
If you have ETHICS, you don't steal. You don't steal from a shop, you don't steal from Bill Gates. It's about ETHICS.
NOT Bill Gate's ethics (or lack there of), not the RAII / BSA's ethics (or lack there of), it's about YOUR ethics.
Stealing from The Donald is still stealing.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Note that many, many people are currently infected with trojans, then do the math.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
This modest experiment suggests that most people, if given the chance, will not pay for software that they should pay for.
The experiment found that only about 1 in 5 will "do the right thing" and pay.
That attitude of yours. Taking something without paying for it is illegal...and inethical.
Am I the only one anymore who has fucking morals? I've posted a couple of other times about this. I just can't justify to myself taking something that I know some poor guys slaved over late hours into the night to get out the door for the publisher to stick on the shelves down at my local Wal-mart, people who are working to make money and make a living in this world. Then a bunch of kiddies and college dorm room "anti-capitalists" come along and rip them off, complete with a preset list of ideological justifications.
The statistics aren't "screwed up beyond all hell." Just because you weren't going to buy something still doesn't give you the right to suddenly have it without paying for it. Where does this backwards-ass sense of entitlement come from? Doesn't anybody care about the basic ideas of morals and fairness anymore? Even two year olds quickly grasp the simple concept of getting something by giving in return. And guess what, that's how it works in the real world when you get out of school (I say that because I know most of you are college guys).
If someone used pirated software illegally, he used it illegally. Don't spin it into "spreading your marketshare." Some real human beings who created that software didn't get paid for that marketshare. Or is it "free advertising"--the most laughable of all spins?
I know you guys love OSS, but just because you're used to one set of apps being free (not just beer, but speech) doesn't mean all apps are supposed to be free (as in loading). Note that this isn't an indictment of everyone on Slashdot. But I do know this applies to the majority viewpoint around here. I wish this site went back to more of the hard tech news of yesteryear and not these abstract ideological movements pre-designed to create page hits in the discussion threads.
First these figures are completely made up.
Second if everyone was forced to buy the software before it could even be evaluated it wouldn't even sell. Many people swear by Photoshop, if they had to pay the $700 for it every time and for every new release I think you'd see far fewer criticisms of the GIMP.
Third in the West many people pirate when they are young and have no money, in third-world country they pirate because they have no money. Notice the money theme? I note with interest that in order to try and curb piracy in Thailand Microsoft has tried to propose a *really* low cost version of Windows.
Fourth corporations do pay licences. The altenatives are expensive audits and those were well publicized some years ago. Notice how we don't hear from them anymore? The message got through and everyone who can afford it is fully licenced now, and that's only fair.
If the BSA wants to shoot itself in the foot they should certainly continue the strong-armed tactics of spot audits and uncircumventable DRM systems. This is pushing people in the arms of Free Software.
Conclusion: those who can afford the huge price of software are fully licensed and paid up, or very nearly so. Those who can't pay do pirate, but still wouldn't pay if they were forced to, because they can't. The result would be a lesser market penetration for all players involved for little or no financial gain.
And best of all, making "pay up!" noises is great for OSS. Nothing that the BSA does has any significant impact on the bottom line, except if somehow they would succeed in making Free Software illegal. This is not going to happen.
BSA is facing a reckoning in a few year's time. Software is becoming commoditized everywhere. Soon Windows will have to be given up for free or very nearly so (as it is now in Thailand), and the rest will follow suit. Look forward to either a full version of Photoshop for $25 or equivalently a fully featured GIMP as good as photoshop is today for $0, and not only that, but the quality of software will go up across the board. Notice how Windows is slowly getting more secure and feature rich? The alternative is oblivion for Microsoft.
BSA members have become super-rich by gouging the public. People who use Free software are seeing through their game: great software doesn't have to come at the price of an arm and a leg. How can Microsoft justify its $40B in the bank? In a properly functionning market where people have a choice, these sorts of insane margins cannot exist. Slowly and surely, the end of these practices is coming, and not a moment too soon.
No. Nobody expects you to upgrade a thing. If you want to use a 24 pin dot matrix printer (if you remember what those were) and your tried-and-true word processor, go for it. But, if you *choose* to use newer "whatever", you should pay for it.
I will not disagree with the BSA on their arguement that software piracy is rampant, especially in geographical areas where software piracy may be more acceptable due to economics or cultural mores.
However, I would like to see how they actually determine the quanitity of pirated software.
I have a sneaking suspicion that one of their key methods of determining the quantity of pirated software is related to the amount of hardware sold. If this is in any way true then I call BS on the BSA stats.
I purchase and use a significant amount of hardware even for a western computer geek, I think(3 epia based systems, 4 white boxes, and a 6 node cluster), and not one of these pieces of hardware uses software from the BSA affiliates. They all run FOSS software downloaded legally off the internet.
If they are counting my 14 systems that were purchased without any software licenses from a BSA affiliate as potential piracy candidates they are bunch of morons.
And besides, it seems there is a conflict of interest here when you have the enforcers of licensing giving you statistics on the revenue lost due to piracy. That alone is good cause to call BS on their report.
burnin
Old versions won't be around long if big companies can help it.
Not picking on MS, but our company is on board with the upgrade and pay plan from MS. The company bought into the yearly software licensing(spelling?) plan and mandatory upgrades. Go figure, for a smart company we do some odd things.
As part of getting on board with other software companies besides MS, the company has classified anything OSS, Freeware, Shareware etc as unsafe and illegal. (actually against the code of ethics of the company) THis policy resulted in the forced removal of Mozilla, Trillian, Cygwin, Adobe with addins(too new a version, not on the contract schedule), and etc.. Killed me when they said uninstall or take a walk.
Just food for thought,
Laters,
Tojosan
Washington does it by projecting budgetary growth of 10%/year. If only 5% more is allocated, the budget was CUT by a Draconian FIVE PERCENT, even though we spent more money!
is better consumer laws for software. Here is one I'd like to see: 30 day return policy on software. Hell, I could go to Kmart and retunr used underware, but I can't return the piece of software that doesn't do what it says it does. This is exactly why I will download something and see if it's worth my money, If it is,Then I buy it. If it's not, I remove it.
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
Wheee, Microsoft is going out of business. :-D
Ya know what? This is as absurd as those idiots that come up with the argument that guns should be outlawed because they kill people. The unfortunate, sad truth is that GUNS do not kill people, PEOPLE kill people, guns are just the instrument of their demise.
Just as this, P2P networks are not the CAUSE of this problem, in fact, the software producers, studios, theatres, etc are their own cause for the popularity of P2P networks. If they weren't in such a hurry to rip people off, and offered a product at a price that's reasonable with the product, then people would be less inclined to return the favor of ripping them off. As an end user, why the hell should I pay $3000 for a video encoding software for hobby use, when I can get it for free and give the producer the shaft? It's not like *I* make any money with that $3k piece of software like those bafoons up at the RIAA do, then charge me $7.50 a frelling ticket to see a B movie and then bitch because everyone would rather download it for free because the RIAA should be paying US to see it, not the other way around...
Morons.
I swear, stupid people should just be shot... but only by other stupid people weilding slingshots... oh wait, those would be outlawed too. Tards. Yea, I'm ranting. I'm sick to frelling death of people screaming "I'm being ripped off!" when they're the ones casting stones from the glass house to begin with. As a general rule, people are complete retards. Present company excluded, for the most part.
-Phyre
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thom
L1TH10N, I hate to tell you this, but you are not the only one who has ever heard of or used P2P. ... /. crowd) doesn't do something a specific way, doesn't mean that those who aren't as brilliant as you don't do it.
There are millions of people who use one p2p software or another, and they don't just use it to download legal mp3s from their favourite indie bands offline.
Software piracy has been around before p2p was ever thought of, and as long as there's a means to do so, it will be around for a hellova lot longer, via p2p, ftp, usenet, bittorrent
Just because you (or even the majority of the
Software sales are down because the god damn tech sector is down. For gods sake, did these people sleep through 2003-2004? Do they not see unemployment numbers, people unable to afford this crap and companies making cut backs? Just because sales are down doesn't mean people are stealing. Maybe the software sucks and people aren't buying, maybe they are content with what they have or maybe people just can't afford a grand for a freaking photo manipulation program.
It's pathetic how every corporate organization now needs a scapegoat for their own shitty business practices. Forced upgrade policies, lock ins, price gouging etc etc. It's all coming back to bite them in the ass but wait.... there is this new buzzword called P2P, let's blame that!!
There are currently tons of articles flying around the net from the BSA and one of them actual comes out and says the BSA statistics came from a BSA survey.
So how accurate is a survey going to be that asks people if they have committed a crime.
This is just BS.
burnin
My comment to c|net on the story
Posted by: Limewire Anime
Posted on: July 7, 2004, 1:45 PM PDT
Story: Software piracy losses double
I wrote a simple program in BASICA and tried to sell it for $10,000,000,000. Nobody bought it, BUT, I accidentally left it posted to the internet. Somebody downloaded it without asking and without a license. So there's at least ten trillion in piracy right there.
Even if folks here were artists or authors, I don't think that would have a huge effect on their stance. There is some small consolation that piracy hurts large industries. Small programs aren't pirated as much and they're harder to find. If you do find them, it's less likely you can find a crack for them. Same with small musicians.
Of course, this isn't an excuse for piracy, but lets be clear about exactly who it hurts; the largest corporations in the music and software industries.
And there is piracy going on on the other side of the fence. I bought windows XP, microsoft frontpage and MS Office. I've had each of these programs remotely disabled, despite the fact that I PAID for them. This is piracy every bit as much as IP infringement. When the US government allows the patenting of naturally occuring genes, this is theft from the public domain. Nobody has a right to own these things that they're claiming to possess. Same with copyright extension. It was intended originally to remunirate creatives for their work. Now it's been extended so that what should be public domain is held in private hands indefinitly.
And with the passage of UCITA, software vendors are now able to disclaim all liability for their products that extend beyond the purchase price and enforce shrinkwrap liscenses that you didn't get to read before purchase.
They are also able to prevent you from reselling your 'liscense.' A similar thing happened at the beginning of the century, when the publishing industry tried to prevent used book sales. The sales were eventually allowed to proceed.
You're right that people are greedy. Some of these people, unfortunatly, are well connected and funding very powerful organizations. They've used their own dirty tricks to get and keep their power. Why do you think certain songs are played repetitivly on the radio? (I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy right now). MS got out of a government antitrust trial with a punishment that was actually a reward; donating software to schools, so the kids would know how to use/buy MS products. There are dozens more examples. I'm sure you can think of a few.
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing a quality decried when average people possess it, but lauded when businesspeople use it to make money. If breaking the rules, abusing distrobution methods for illicit personal benefit and taking whatever you can get are to be decried in the American public, they should also be decried in the businesses that practice these same tactics, and who use their influence to avoid competing on a level playing field.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
1. People who don't know better receive software for free with their computer and begin to think that is the way it should be. They shouldn't have to go out and buy software, they should just get it for free because they have bought a computer.
2. People who do know better realise they've already paid a fortune for software they have never used because they know the cost of their computer/s actually included the cost of the OEM software that came with it (which is often crap). They go out and find better alteratives and if it's free all well and good but those companies complaining about piracy have actually stolen real $$$ from them. I can understand why some of those people "find" software and fail to compensate said companies even more $$$.
BTW I use Macs and open-source software and I get even more than I pay for _ now that is a crime.
Opportunity cost is not a loss. Software marketing is such a field of lies that they have no way to estimate how many people, who pirated copies of programs, would have paid for them if they had to. So even their opportunity costs are fake. The reality is that, if you copy something, it does not diminish the amount; rather it increases it, according to the economic "network effect". And therefore increases the value of every copy, including those for which people paid. So those pirated copies actually justify the high prices paid for the paid copies, representing a recouped marketing expense (without spending money), rather than representing losses. Sounds like a great way to make a living - which is exactly why everyone wants to do it.
--
make install -not war
The nagging 'profit losses due to software piracy' debate all rests on one very shakey assumption-- That the majority of people who pirate a given piece of software would have actually bought that piece of software to begin with. Key to understanding how overblown these stories are is the fact that you don't lose physical inventory to piracy. So not only do you have to assume that every pirate equals a sale, but now you have to assign a dubious dollar value to a product that can easily be duplicated over and over again for nothing and at no cost to the original creators.
I mean, let's take everybodyies favorite pirated software, Photoshop. Just because Fred downloads Photoshop from his local warez site doesn't mean Fred would have actually dropped the $300+ to buy a legit copy. Fred was and is a null value in terms of sales revenue. Not only that, but the company didn't lose physical inventory when Fred procurred the not-so-legit copy of PS. Now it might be a different story if Fred couldn't do his job without Photoshop since you sould prove actual revenue lost, but so far the company is out absolutely nothing. Even if the pirate resells a disk at $5 in Kowloon (you know where I'm talking about), the originating company only suffers a lose if the pirate customers would have bought or couldn't live without the software.
No, this isn't an endorsement for piracy, but this is another area that's just as distorted as anything the RIAA could dream up. You didn't lose billions simply because billions probably didn't need or would have bought your product to begin with.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
What they don't count as a gain, is a loss. Now, initially, that makes perfect sense. However, they would have never gained in the first place. People who actually download this, are the ones who can't really afford it in the first place. The companies drone on how they're losing billions, but only because they see each copy of the pirated version a possible sale. That's just not so, on the whole. They're lying (stretching the truth) to see the complete distruction of these networks. Personally, I've found that "pirating" (again, misuse in terms) software enabled me to learn fields that would have otherwised been out of my reach.
How about the rise of FOSS Software? Linux and FOSS software has been on the rise in our town where I am a Computer Retailer, and I also push the use of FOSS for people on Windows, if they Don't go the Free OS route.
The only software I bought for Linux was UT2004.
- MUD
I've never pirated software, and I'm a college student, but then again I'm also mac user. Sometimes I wonder if mac users spend more on software because they're willing to spend more, or just because they can't pirate from any of their friends.
Call made from client. Code executed on server. Result sent back to client. End of piracy.
Wake up you silly people. Coming soon to an interWeb near you.
Just a thought, but in the past I've bought software v.1.5 with functionality I needed. I get the software out of the box and install it. The functionality is so poor it is unusable and crashes either the program or my system. I can't return squat because the box is open.
... and those are just the companies have done this to me. The next time I plan to make a software purchase over $100, I'll download the trial. If there isn't one, I'll find a friend with broadband and have them download it for me. I have no problem paying for the software that I use, I just want to get what I pay for.
Now the software v.1.5.1 comes along and they have the functionality I was promised before working properly, but want me to upgrade at two-thirds the cost of the full package. But I've already paid for that functionality. Had I been smart, I would've pirated the program first to see if the functionality was what I wanted.
Adobe, MS, Apple, Macromedia
Just my thoughts
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
It is better for Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. to have "regular consumers" pirate their software than for these consumers to discover cheaper alternatives that work almost as well.
If these companies _seriously_ cracked down on piracy, people would simply flock to the cheaper products or the open source alternatives. This would threaten the market/mind share these companies have, which allow them to demand large figures for site lisences to corporations.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
But by all means, if this is actually how you feel, please leave your front door open so that I may help myself to whatever is in your fridge... Please ve sure to by some cheap beer for me.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I would have expected the cause to be Microsoft raising the prices of their products to poorer countries so that they cost the same to everyone. If the price has quadrupled, you can claim that the piracy losses quadrupled too, if you're the kind to misrepresent facts like the BSA by calculating losses as pirated copies multiplied by MSRP, rather than actual lost sales due to piracy, which is no doubt a teeny tiny fraction of their outrageous $29 billion claim.
Yes, why of course you must be shocked and appalled! Why, I bet you happened to have eMule installed just to download the latest Linux source release, as well as 'stay informed' about what 'brazen and audacious acts of copyright infringement' that go on these days!
If you're gonna be Mr. Righteous and condemn all 'piracy' as being equally reprehensible, at least own up to your own use of these networks. Otherwise, sit back down--copyright law is complicated enough without the hypocritical hue and cry from armchair moralists such as yourself.
I don't know, isn't that the difference between entry level software and pro software. I mean, iMovie is for the hobbyist and Final Cut Pro is for the professional. If you're just cropping some images and doing some drop-shadows, you hardly need photoshop.
I remember back when I was starting out in 3D graphics I used to use Ray Dream for modeling, and KPT Bryce (now Corel Bryce) for landscapes. I didn't really need Pro quality application. Now I use Cinema 4D (which I paid quite a bit for) since I've learned more about it and can actually use all the features.
Is there an entry level program that might meet your needs? I'm sure some of them have a good interface, and all the features you need. I myself use GIMP at home. I'm pretty skillful with graphics and I like having all the extra features. Mostly I just use Photoshop on the school computers (my student fees at work) since, as you say, the interface is a lot better and it's a bit faster.
Anyway, if you don't need pro software, use entry level software. Pirating photoshop at least denies Adobe the possibility of selling you an entry level program. If you aren't willing to buy any software for that purpose, use GIMP, don't pirate.
Here's my $10 billion exclusive software product. :-)
If three of you downloaded this, I can claim I lost $30 billion.
Thank you for your downloading
int main(){printf("extremely expensive software product!!\n");}
"factor in the third-world were people may be lucky to make $1000 a year"
It's no wonder they can't afford the software, they already spent at least half their annual income on a computer.
Y'know, I just have what I need already.
Word processors are essentially perfected, though I mainly use plain vanilla Textpad...
Graphics programs already do far more than the average user needs for them to do...
I'm happy with Foobar2K and Winamp 5 for my EAC ripped VBR MP3s...
I'm very happy with my Opera and Thunderbird combo...
There's a buttload of free CD burning, DVD ripping and backup stuff out there already...
I'm using a NAT router, I use free firewall and antivirus software...
What the fuck do I need to spend money on software for?
Do they really think I'm going to spend more and more money every year to have to relearn new interfaces and suffer with DRMed software schemes?
Once upon a time - I did buy Photoshop at full retail. Never again - it does what I need it to do. And I have heard too much about the new DRMed versions to be pursuaded that they offer anything I need - so, no thanks.
Seriously - do you buy new dishes and flatware EVERY fucking year? I sure don't. I've got the same set of carbon steel knives I've been using and maintaining for over 10 years.
Maybe we should send these economic geniuses a list of all the shit we don't buy new EVERY freaking year!
So that means that $51 billion dollars could be, theoretically, pumped into open source development per year?
If linooks is chalked up to $1 billlion dollars, does that mean if there was a seismic shift in software, and peoples said "hey lets put our money into a renewable resource", would the world produce 51 whole new linookss per year??
Or...
How about one _complete_ new operating system ($1 billion)
one _complete_ new "database system" ($1 billion?)
one _complete_ new "office system" ($1 billion?)
one _complete_ new Guttenberg/Library ($1 billion?)
and (just for shizngiggs) one space elevator ($5 billion) What I'm obviously trying to say is the possibilities are endless; if Open Source was funded ANYWHERE near what Suckers^h^H^h^H^h^H^h^H consumers are willing to pay (even the legitmate licensees!), the world would be a much better place
_every year_
shame the boomers have wrecked everything so badly...
B^)
p.s. my list of "foo" systems is poor, what am I obviously forgetting, and how much would you estimate it'd cost to _complete_ such a new "foo" system
SIGLET: open source works because the programmers aren't paid to sit around on the job, filling time...
Oliver's Law: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
Home | Products | Photos | About | Contact | Press | UPI Investigations | Terms
One-third of software pirated in 2003
By Dar Haddix
UPI Business Correspondent
Published 7/7/2004 11:12 PM
WASHINGTON, July 7 (UPI) -- More than one-third of software installed on computers worldwide in 2003 was pirated, a study released Wednesday by the Washington, D.C.-based Business Software Alliance said, and such piracy could worsen even as industry groups and governments ramp up efforts to crack down on the problem.
The study, conducted by Massachusetts-based information technology market research firm IDC, looked at $80 billion worth of software installed on computers last year, and found only $51 billion was legally purchased, resulting in a $29 billion loss. Worldwide, the average piracy rate was 36 percent.
"For every two dollars' worth of software purchased legitimately, one dollar's worth was obtained illegally," the study said.
"Software piracy continues to be a major challenge for economies worldwide," said Robert Holleyman, president and chief executive of BSA. "From Algeria to New Zealand, Canada to China, piracy deprives local governments of tax revenue, costs jobs throughout the technology supply chain and cripples the local, in-country software industry."
An April 2003 study commissioned by BSA showed that reducing piracy by 10 percentage points over four years would add more than 1 million jobs and grow the world economy by $400 billion.
The study looked at various segments of the software market, including operating systems, consumer software and local market software, in 86 countries categorized into six global sub-regions. IDC computed their piracy numbers by comparing the amount of software sold directly, plus the software pre-installed on PC's, to the amount of software in use in each country based on surveys of consumer and business users.
Regionally, the Asia/Pacific piracy rate was 53 percent with $7.5 billion in losses. Eastern Europe saw piracy rates of 71 percent and $2.1 billion in losses. In Western Europe, the piracy rate was 36 percent with $9.6 billion in losses. The average piracy rate in Latin America was 63 percent with $1.3 billion in losses. Fifty-six percent of software was obtained illegally in the Middle East and Africa, with $1 billion in losses. The North American piracy rate was 23 percent, with about $7.2 billion in losses.
China and Vietnam led the Top 20 Pirating Countries list with the highest piracy rate of all countries examined in the survey, 92 percent. They were followed by Ukraine, Indonesia, Russia, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Tunisia, Kenya, Thailand, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, and India.
The United States had the lowest piracy rate of any country, 22 percent, followed on the Bottom 20 Pirating Countries list by New Zealand, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Israel, South Africa, Reunion, and the Czech Republic.
More than half of the 86 countries had piracy rates above 60 percent.
Software piracy is most rampant in developing markets, the study showed. "The emerging markets in Asia Pacific, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa account for more than 30 percent of PC shipments today, but less than 10 percent of PC software shipments," according to the report.
A software market's size as well as piracy rates are what determine actual losses. A larger percentage of software was pirated in Ukraine than in Britain in 2003 -- 91 percent compared to 30 percent -- but because the British PC software market is much larger than the Ukraine's, losses from British piracy totaled $1.6 billion, about 17 times the losses from Ukrainian piracy, $92.1 million.
"A number of factors contribute to the regional differences in piracy, including local-market size, the availability of pirated software, the strength of copyright laws, and cultural differe
You have no idea how true this is!
...or pay off Senators to draft draconian punishments.
Why, just the other day I got a call from the people over at GIMP telling me what a bastard I was for not going out and purchasing their software.
I'm sorry, but I doubt the guys at Alias Wavefront are going to go after the high-school kid that jacked a copy of Maya. If it weren't free to him, do you think he'd shell out the $10,000 just to fuck with it?
The same goes for apps like Photoshop. In fact, I'd argue that Photoshop piracy actually helps Adobe. You figure if that app was impossible to copy, people would be flying to the GIMP like crazy...the GIMP gets more development done due to greater use, starts to develop a feature-set equal or greater than that of Photoshop, Adobe's sales decline because people are getting what they want for free and bang...another vendor bites the dust because they were worried more about piracy staying on top of their game...
People are going to steal software no matter what. The successful company is the one that figures out how to cope....
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Very well said! BTW, that's more like $600.00 for a new copy of Photoshop. Frankly if Photoshop were only $300.00 it might be pirated less and therefore Adobe could sell more copies and ultimately make it up in volume...
But by all means, if this is actually how you feel, please leave your front door open so that I may help myself to whatever is in your fridge... Please ve sure to by some cheap beer for me.
Sure, but being unethical doesn't mean I have to tolerate unethical behavior in others. Help yourself to my poisoned cheap beer...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The issue of software piracy comes down to the unique qualities of intellectual property, the cost of duplication of the product (in this case, nothing) and the true potential revenue that a company is losing to piracy. Most software companies estimate the number of illegal copies of their software and multiply that figure by the cost of their software. This is a flawed metric. In the non-digital world, this would be akin to BMW saying that everyone that stole a beamer would have bought one if they weren't so easy to steal. Furthermore, it would suppose that BMW could make an unlimited amount of cars without paying more material costs per unit, since digital piracy exacts no material costs on the producer. The first flaw is that everyone that obtained the program could afford it. As a Photoshop 'dabbler' would I pay $400 to play with the program? Hell no. Many of those who pirate do so as a hobby and rarely use the program to generate revenue or to complete a job. The second flaw is to look at information as a tangible good in terms of cost per unit. As an infinately duplicatable product, the cost of copying a program to another computer costs the producer nothing. Do the math: if even an infinite amount of people like your program but are not willing to pay money for it, you still make nothing. The true costs of piracy come from companies that use pirated copies of software to generate revenue, and in the bandwidth costs associated with moving large pirated files across networks. We all pay this overhead. Piracy slows existing networks (much like email spam) and benefits a minority of users (or at least, users a minority of the time, unless you're a warez addict).
The article was put out by the Business Software Alliance, a political lobbying group for the software industry which has been responsible getting through the government things like remote disabling of software and legal right of software companies to disclaim all damages in excess of the software purchase price using the shrink wrap liscense.
They claim 'losses' of 29 billion. This assumes that if piracy didn't occur, they would have made an extra 29 billion dollars. But this isn't true. The article notes that most of this figure comes from countries like China, the Ukraine, and Vietnam, areas where most people would have trouble purchasing software at the regular purchase price.
Also, this article blames P2P networks. Given, P2P networks are used for piracy. But they're not the reason for piracy in countries like China, where you can buy software CDs on the street for under $1. Kill the P2P networks, you'll still have piracy in these countries. The incentive to sell CDs on the cheap is too high and China doesn't really want to eliminate software piracy. What incentive does it have?
Of course, those who do purchase their software might have a stake in eliminating piracy. After all, everyone wants the operating costs of their competitors to be higher.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Listen, your perspective is painfully and tragically well-represented, in my opinion. On Slashdot you may be a minority, but you'll be pleased to know that almost every person I've talked to outside of the concentrated, activist internet is at least well acquainted with this spuriously 'common sense,' 'moral' approach to parsing the copyright debate -- usually they don't understand any other perspective.
It makes very repeatable, catchy, and above all simple sense. But listen, bucko--these 'kids these days' are not going around stealing cars and bubble gum just because they don't want to buy it. They understand the morality of stealing, and the wrongness of taking something without paying for it. There is no moral decay going on. How do you explain increased copying then?
Here's an argument that needs to be made, though you've no doubt already heard and marginalized it as 'lawyer speak' or 'splitting hairs' or what not: Copyright infringement is different than 'taking without paying,' or 'stealing' (the word you were conjuring without actually saying). Copyright infringement is instead 'copying without paying.' Is this illegal? In many cases, yes. But it shouldn't surprise you that the specter of copyright infringement deters people less than than stealing does -- the explanation is simply that they're different things, and infringement is only a moral wrong to those who, quite simply, do not understand American copyright law, and choose instead to rely on some fictitious 'old fashioned' 'moral' outlook. The argument sounds great, but really is only a blind for their (somewhat understandable) laziness at truly understanding the mountain of legalese and unprincipled patchwork that is current copyright law.
I've been a broken record on Slashdot lately, but people keep making at least this same misinformed argument. So those who have heard it before, forgive me, but: 'back in the day' the Framers of the Constitution expressly rejected a moral outlook on copyright because it would take us back to pre-Statute of Anne copyright monopolies. Recently however, your 'moral' stance, soundbiteable and infectious meme that it is, has taken hold of the American copyright psyche. And, lo and behold, legislation is making copyright more and more like the centuries-spanning, creativity-impeding pre-Anne copyright. That is bad for obvious reasons.
So please: Copyright has nothing to do with ownership. If you have an argument against copyright infringement, great -- but what you are putting forth right now is spurious at best, and at worst is contributing to the destruction, not the salvation, of copyright.
I use Dreamweaver MX Studio on a daily basis. I thought about upgrading to MX 2004 Studio for better CSS support. That is the only thing that is really improved and it is more like a bug fix than an upgrade. $499 for a bug fix = a good deal?
I have gone back to hand coding. I rough out my pages in MX and add the fancy bits by hand.
The other piece of commercial software I use is VMware - the current version isn't compatible with my CPU. I am very happy with version 3.
I run a MS OS from the 90s on VMware. It doesn't use much RAM and Dreamweaver runs quite well on it.
Why buy software when you don't need it?
realkiwi
you don't. but, your little brother or son might think "dad is so old fashioned!, I want the latest gizmo that /. people talk about. I wanna be a real NERD"
Make a mildly usefull bit of software, release it for $5 a pop. Then come tax time, claim to the tax man, that you estimate there to be 1000000 pirate copies of your $5 wares, so you deserve $5m tax deduction, the tax man goes, "man thats a bit high, how about 100k", you go sure whip it up baby, and now you get to keep all of your $60k salary instead of giving up 35% of it.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Copy protection on software has generally proved to be more of a pain to legitimate users than to w4r3z d00ds.
One of the reasons I first started downloading some software in college is to get versions of software without annying protections - so any software protection (like requiring CD's, hello game makers!) actually DRIVES people to find sources of pirated software to make the software they have PURCHASED more usable! And once you've found the fountain, it's pretty hard to stop drinking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My post makes more sense when you add in the fact that I already owned and paid for some of the software I initially downloaded, it was just that usually there were protections I found annoying.
I know some people are going to come out and say "well then if you don't like it don't use it". But why do that when they have the money and I hvae a means of making the software work the way I like? I'm hard-pressed to see how one can say any crime has really been comitted (despite current laws that would say otherwise).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even though I'm a self-employed software developer, I like to download pirated software because it's free and illegal . My only complaint is the length of time it takes to download large files.
Well, from reading earlier posts, I think it's fair to say that the slashdot community is above and beyond searching for wares on p2p networks such as kazaa. We use methods such as IRC, Usenet, etc. These networks are much safer, because they contain a much smaller percentage of lamers.
Ok, so lets go under the assumption that there's more lamer computer users than techies like us. They don't have the knowledge or brain capacity to understand IRC and usenet (sarcasm). So they turn to the p2p networks, like kazaa. It's true. Do a search on kazaa for "Photoshop" or "Nero" and you WILL come up with results. That's proof that people use p2p networks to trade wares. And if more people use p2p networks, than use IRC or Usenet, there may be a connection between p2p networks and software losses.
Oh, and lets not forget. In the past year or so, BitTorrent has become HUGE. There are dozens of sites now that offer trackers for torrents. And let's be honest guys, a lot of it's usage isn't as legitimate as we had hoped. Anybody know if BitTorrent is included in these figures?
There's plenty of reasons to buy software legit:
- If you want a manual.
- If you want tech support.
- If you want a warranty.
- If you want a rebate on the next version, should it have copy protection not easily breakable.
- If you want to play online (games), if you don't want to deal with cracks/exe's every time a new patch comes out for the buggy retail 1.0
Try before you buy if you ever do is something that these greedy pigs are going to have to live with, else they won't live much longer.
June 201x, In recent news, software manufacturers have quadrupled their losses over last year. The BSA is blaming Open Source Software for this catastrophic loss. "As everybody knows, within the past year we have perfected absolute copy protection control and wiped out piracy completely, however our losses have only increased," stated Sum Guy, a public affairs officer for the BSA. "The threat of Open Source Software that does what our products do but doesn't cost anything is a serious problem." In response to this problem, congress is drafting a bill to make Open Source and other free software illegal, to fine and imprison the creators of such, and create massive penalties for the use of the software. "We feel that by removing this last threat to our business model, we can definitely increase our profits."
Unrealistic? Perhaps not...
@Whee
If billion dollar companies can play with numbers, so can I.
;)
Let's see the potential damages done to my unemployed self, had I purchased the products over the past year (on my windows box).
Windows XP Pro: $279.99
Office XP Pro: $147.75
Adobe Photoshop CS: $597.99
MS Visual Studio: $949.99
Nero 6: $84.99
Norton Antivirus 2004: $42.99
Zone Alarm: $34.99
PowerDVD: $59.99
Flash MX: $489.99
Adobe Acrobat: $269.99
=======
Total: 3116.66
(prices taken from amazon.com)
That price is over 3x what I paid for my computer hardware! Also take into account product updates for software you already legitimately own. I would like to know where these multi-billion dollar companies find students who can afford all this.
Of course I could be using opensource applications for most of these, but then the statistics wouldn't look so great
Most of the software "pirated" by people is software that they would not pay for in the first place. If they "had" to pay for it, they would just skip it.
I do not think that the losses are as severe as stated. But I do not doubt that they exist at some level, especially gaming.
And if games did not cost $50 each, there would be less pirating there anyway.
--"I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it." Klaatu, The Day the Earth Stood Still(1955)
Why shouldn't kids follow the example of their owners? Most kids dream of riding stretches and jets. People who steal money from the kids' parents and call it taxation do ride those. The good thing is, we're not being incarcerated yet for refusing to use software. Takes time, I guess.
It's very good that everyone suddenly thinks they're entitled to everything. In a couple of generations it might lead to what Lennon described in 'Imagine'.
While file sharing networks play a part, I don't think they are the primary cause of falling sales and revenue.
I find it more likely that customers are simply discovering FOSS alternatives to retail software, especially the bigger customers.
Why should I pay for a DVD player system when I can get Xine? Why should I pay for Oracle or SQLServer when I can get MySQL? Why should I pay for Office if I can get OpenOffice? Why should I pay money for burning software if I can get k3b. Why should I pay for photoshop when I can get GIMP? Audacity? CVS? Firefox?
Admittedly some of these programs may not be for everyone, but are the tribulations of using xine really much worse than searching for warez on the net. For some yes, but I think if people know it's not pirated, they'll be more inclined to download it.
May the Maths Be with you!
The report is available in three languages at http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy. In it you can find an overview of their method for conducting the research.
Contrary to what CNET is claiming about a piracy increase the report states that since the method of meassuring is new for this year, and thus different from the previous ten years of testing, the results are not comparable.
Software piracy in these countries is NOT done with p2p programs, it's done with CD's and DVD's! The reason piracy is so rampant there is that the burners and medium has become really cheap! Not to mention that with hardware costs dropping in these countries, more people have access to computers, all of which need software to run.
The one BIG FLAW in all these arguements is this: How many of the people who steal software/music/movies would have actually bought it/them?Until this question is accurately answered (hint: it's not even CLOSE to 100% as the BSA, RIAA and MPA would have you believe), the debate on p2p will always be an invalid one, and the laws proposed and/or passed to "protect chldren" from the rampant dangers of copyright infringement will always be suspect.
... many businesses are just as bad as if not worse then thieves. Such as Price fixing, buying political power, buying questionable laws, etc. Piracy exists, sure we all know that but who here or your typical P2P or Newsgroup/IRC warez whore has the money and can afford to purchase all the warez or software they download? That's right. No one! If someone can get something for free without paying for it they will, if businesses can get a higher "return on investment" by shafting their employee's THEY WILL. Because businesses only significantly reward those at the top amd/or who are critical to business or who own the business while everyone else is a chump. Windows XP is $120-200 in Canada for a brand new copy. PC games are $49-79.99 each, Office which is probably the most pirated after windows XP the most is barely used for anything other then typing out the odd document which they could use wordpad, notepad or any other free half decent text/document alternative. Cry me a river! We live in a capitalist society and people's greed is what drive's companies to produce product so they can rape our wallets silly, piracy exists because overly greedy business people are just as bad as freeloaders. No one does any amount of work that justifies the kind of money people at the top of the food chain make, so what if the little guy steals? People at the top are also taking advantage of our ignorance of their production costs and true cost of their items. I'm sure we've been ripped off plenty at retail stores without knowing just how much markup they are making on said items. One can only wonder how much "work" went into windows 98 over windows98 or how about millenium over 98? Please for the average user there were no "real" justifications beyond "it's newer therefore better", what was significantly upgraded that warranted the purchase between 98, SE and ME? Any company would easily trade it's 'overpaid' workers for foreign labour if their was a justifiable cost reduction and increased profits, "people be damned", most businesses in this day and age don't care about workers, worker turnover is probably at it's highest level in educated jobs in history and it's going to get worse because we are inventing ourselves out of jobs and our economic model, tax system. No one wants to spend 16+ years of their life in school only to get out and have a job for 2-4 years if that and then either have to go back to university or hope to hell your skills will transfer to another job when we invent your replacement or we find cheaper labour in foreign country X, which the WTO has bee grooming as a pool for cheap labour for the interest of the multinationals who see that North american workers are too expensive, or will be given X amount of years.
I like to use the piracy arguments on the drug problem. For instance....
Many millions of people inject themselves with opiates.
You need to be a doctor to prescribe IV opiates.
Therefore, if the illegal supplies of opiates were stopped then those millions of drug users would go and train as doctors.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
The way this should be worked out is: number of users - number of people who would not buy versus number of buyers. Some people will download software illegaly and use it, but the assumption that they would actually purchase that software if they had not been able to download it is misplaced.
Of course, working this out is much harder and would change that statistic massively against the people who are actually financing the report.
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
haha heres a link for ya Pirates lose market share
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Could it be that the overall value proposition of most closed software today is declining? We hear this same noise over music. Today it is possible for groups to make their own music of good quality and distribute it directly to listeners. That is true for most kinds of software people need today.
Closed software is perfectly ok, so long as it runs in an Open Envronment. But, buying that software only happens when it is clear the producer has something of value in the solution beyond the usual lock-in sorts of value we see typically today. (CAD software, Analysis, and other specialized solutions qualify for this where office suites, and such clearly do not.)
I know I won't buy software anymore, unless I really need it. If I do, it had better run under Linux. Last resort, VMWare...)
These things together keep a lot of software out of my wallet. (And that is a good thing.) Most of us do not need all of the software we have now as it is!
I don't buy the warez arguements either. I know plenty of people who have tons of software. They don't use it, would never buy it. They have it only because they can get it. (Which does nobody any good.) Used to be one of these as recenty as a few years ago.
OSS, plus a broadband connection has really changed that for the better. (Thanks elflord for pointing that out long ago!)
Skipping the software purchases basically pays for the broadband. The broadband brings me more software and skill than I can find time to make use of. It only gets better from here.
Every friend I turn onto this catches the fever pretty quickly. No legal hassles, no bad feelings, just lots of rapidly improving software for the taking. Sure, they are not giving back just yet, but give that time. At least a growing user base helps us all win the numbers game in the short term.
Realistically, the software industry is beginning to lose out because their core values are being disrupted right now. The more they squeeze, the more people look for alternatives. Personally, I hope they squeeze hard because I stand to make a nice living helping people make a valuable transition.
The truth is a bit different from their little horror story in that the value is not going away. It is being redistributed. Instead of huge companies making all the money, folks like you and me all get to make more money than we did before, with a few of us hitting home runs.
IMHO, that's a damn good thing, given what I stated above.
Blogging because I can...
If you can get something for free and get away with it easily, why pay?
I think many people think it's alright just because they can do it, they do it.
But if everybody will do this, then at some point development will stop. If the people who make commercial software possible don't have any income for it anymore, they will have find another job.
I download lots of stuff myself, and i try out these full version softwares and i end up not using pretty much any of them. I usually prefer the open source or freeware version.
But it's been funny seeing a commercial product i worked on myself on some ftp servers for anyone to download. Now i'm not going to fool myself thinking i lost all this money because people download it, because i know i wouldn't buy 99,9% of the software i get if i couldn't get it for free.
But i'm sure there's also people who would have bought software. Maybe those are also the kind of people that use P2P. (i think getting software from Kazaa and the like is just for people who have no clue about ftp/irc/usenet, why download the latest Photoshop ISO @ 2k/s on Kazaa if you can get it off a 10mbit private ftp?)
The software piracy problem can only be solved by changing people, there simply isn't much respect for developers of commercial software. (maybe some software companies could do studies about how lowering their price might possibly get more people to buy it and how it might give them more profit even, i personally think many games are overpriced, at least here in europe)
The BSA is a bunch of bull shit attorneys akin to the RIAA...
...who are Really Idiotic A**hole Attorneys, and also similar to the Mega Putz Attorney's Association? I think they may also be related to Masters of In^H^Hexpensive Crud with Really Obsolete Security and Oversized Feature Traits.
(Sorry, it's 3 am, I'm at work with nothing to do, and I didn't get any sleep recently. *sheepish grin*)
@Whee
Artificial scarcity enforcement will always fail.
The DeBeers cartel are telling me different. They've done okay for quite a while.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
"software losses" should be "estimated lost sales". These companies are not losing 9 billion dollars a year, they reckon that they are losing out on 9 billion dollars of sales per year. Very different.
TFA shows no evidence. It's based on a survey. There is no evidence that any of the pirates would have purchased the software if they hadn't copied it.
Posters recognized by their sig,
"If you're a shareware developer looking to make a living, forget it. Shareware is dead" ...and yet, there is plenty of shareware out there. I suppose not shareware in the classic sense where you let out the whole version and hope people pay. But in the more contemporary sense where you release crippleware and then you attempt to force people to pay because features are limited or there is a time-bomb built in.
I just bought two piece of software this way...SpySweeper, which and WinAmp. WinAmp comes closest to being real freeware, with only a few minor features disabled. But they only charge $15.
So either I'm not typical or the "shareware" industry is alive and well. And perhaps because they're not charging a lot of money.
Maybe piracy is more rampant when you're charging $500 for what is just an update to an existing program? I don't know, and the people who really do know are telling us the truth.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
that people simply are not using payware any more? Is there really any common task that can only be done using closed-source, commercial software? Bearing in mind that once you have (Perl|PHP|Python) and know what to do with it, you have something like the equivalent of every programme ever written.
Mozilla does more than IE ever will, apart from aid and abet malware writers. OpenOffice is going from strength to strength, while KOffice and AbiWord / Gnumeric are creeping up. There isn't an outright MS Access replacement yet, but let's face it: most people just create a database once and keep adding stuff to it, so it's feasible to deploy a "proper" LAMP-based alternative; a trained monkey can write a bit of PHP to work with a MySQL database (just don't tell my boss), and there's always PHPMyAdmin -- your best friend. KDE has K3B which is probably the most user-friendly piece of software ever written. And, of course, your typical Linux distro contains more e-mail clients and text editors than you could shake a stick at.
You can surf the web [Mozilla or Konqueror], send e-mail [Evolution or KMail], write letters [OOo Writer] and do sums [OOo Calc] and burn CDs [GCombust or K3B]. You can run your own office mail server [Exim and Qpopper], intranet [Apache] and database server [MySQL or PostgreSQL].
Even if you don't move over to Open Source, any Closed Source software you have already paid for can still be used on your new machines. If you ever had a licence for Office 97, you can still run one copy of Office 97 on that licence -- that's covered by your statutory (and therefore inalienable) right of fair use. And if Office 97 was good enough for you seven years ago, why isn't it good enough today?
Perhaps the reason why people aren't spending money on software anymore is because they really don't have to?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"Also, let's remember that it used to be $400 per app"
Never.
Office was $130/app as late as 1997. I know, because I only needed MS Word, and I paid $120 for it at Egghead. You could also get the entire suite for $400, but it was unbundled back then. It was never priced at $400 per app. The most expensive app back in the "good old days" was dBase III+, and it was probably that price (or slightly more).
MS realized at some point that most people were better off buying the two most useful apps.... Word and Excel for $260 and not the entire suite for $400. However, they also realized that they were better off forcing you to pay then another $140 to get the entire suite. And you know why they were able to do that? WP for all intents and purposes died off leaving MS with a monopoly. Prices went up. What a shock.
So please, lay off the BS. A lot of us were alive and remember the "old days".
The New World Order way of doing business, which goes something like this:
"We were on top in 20th century, and we're too lazy and/or stupid to come up with a new business model to replace our failing one. Besides which, somebody out there might do better than us and outcompete us, and we can't abide a *real* free market - we could lose against actual competition! So instead we're going to buy the legislators we need to artificially prop up that outdated and outmoded model that our entire business depends upon. If that infringes on liberties, or spits on the principles of capitalism, do you really think we give a shit? Now shut the fuck up, consumer proles, and think what you're told to think."
Congress is clearly for sale, and everything under the sun can be patented or copyrighted for near-eternity, squashing anything remotely derivative for all time (Disney will make sure of that, with future Mickey Mouse laws). Why bother with the effort of coming up with something new, especially if that means you might fail against savvier competition? Stasis is good, mmmkay, because stasis is the best chance an old-style company has of maintaining it's position. If stasis can be bought and the worthless consumer cowed into submission or brainwashed into thinking that new copyright laws are Holy Writ (and so many slashdotters have demonstrated the success of this tactic), then why not?
Maybe this *is* the new business model, where free market capitalism is something to crush at all costs. And with it the best chance for the creation of new technologies, new companies, and new challenges to stodgy old ways of thinking. All the better if you can get the more brain-dead consumer fucks to actually argue your case for you....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
OK. It's only one; but TextPad is an outstanding shareware application, and quite the best text editor for Windows.
I have paid for about three copies...
--- My dad's political betting
Other than that, I agree. The whole report, especially the "methodology" section is a piece of crap. This is something that's written by drop-outs who never grokked anything.
There just isn't anything there, there is no methodology. They probably went out, wanted a result they could sell to the BSA, and BSA knows very well that nobody would ever question their results, so why commit itself to do a proper study?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Agreed. Filesearching.com is often a good place to start, and like-minded friends can set up password-protected FTP servers. I've never tried Usenet personally, but it seems to be the most popular for films.
First off, the software industry isn't really much of an industry any more. Ten years ago there were more choices and more competition. There's not a whole lot of innovation because there's not a whole lot of competition.
Second, there's a lot of crap software on the market that doesn't work. The quality of software has plummeted to an all-time low. Top-selling products are rarely the best -- merely the most heavily advertised. Consumers are tired of buying products that don't work as advertised.
Third, in the Windows arena, installing a new application is a scary proposition. You never know if it will be incompatible with your equipment or cause your whole system to become unstable.
Fourth, many publishers are crippling their products or finding creative ways to force consumers into subscription services. Purchasing software used to be a simple, straightforward process. Now you don't know if after 30 days or a few months or a year the program will cease working until you pay additional fees.
Fifth, support is virtually non-existent. Publishers dump these products on consumers with no (or lousy) printed documentation. Trying to contact someone who cares is the ultimate exercise in futility, IF you can even find the contact information, which most publishers take great pains to hide.
Sixth, there's a lot of price-fixing in the industry. Popular software prices have remained unrealistically high with huge profit margins, while quality and support have gone downhill. Most packages just aren't worth the money.
Seventh.. the "hardware hamster wheel". Developers nowadays compensate for bad design by requiring massive amounts of resources in order to achieve acceptable performance. Every new iteration of software is more bloated and demands more system resources. In 90% of these cases, it's bad design on the part of developers or attempts to drive hardware sales.
Eigth, version-mania. Publishers produce updates that are often inferior to the products they replace. They play games with upgrade schemes and often create new versions for the sole purpose of generating revenue with little benefit to the user, just lots of extra padded crap that make the newer versions junk.
Half the software on my machine is at least 6-7 years old. I have no desire to upgrade when things work well. I upgrade when there are definitive advantages, but many products just aren't worth upgrading.
I need a 3GHz PC because a P5-166 isn't fast enough to play the movies and roms I downloaded. I mean, what can you do with a P5-166? Play mp3s?
But no one claimed people were rational about their software choices. :-)
I love C++
Have you heard of Direct Connect ? DC++ specifically ? It's P2P with authentication and chat IRC style and yes there's TB of software to steal on it. They also kind of solved the empty file problem with hashes. Bad hash = don't download. Someone got a bad file, report them to an op or ask them to check it personally.
That aside, the BSA are legalised extortionists
and their bazillions of losses are meaningless if people wouldn't pay for the software in the 1st place.
My $0.02
I don't know about you, but I USED to spend ~$40 month on average on new software. That lasted for about 3 years until I started seeing that:
:-) and sometimes tools for my garage (which by the way will last a lifetime, unlike the software, which dies as soon as the hardware or OS morphs enough).
1) The new software more often then not did not include enough useful features to justify my purchase (i.e. didn't do anything different really, just had new icons)
2) I just got bored with it, and the new version didn't spice up my intrest.
3) I figured out exactly what I wanted to use my computer for and I already had all the software tools to accomplish those tasks (see #1).
4) I realized that I was spending $480 a year on stuff that didn't really enhance my life. Now I put that money towards our investments so I can retire early
5) I discovered Open Source. God Bless Open Source.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
...strategy, a lot of even the bigger (and smaller) software companies will be using p2p in future in some way. not to mention other bits and peices that will innevitably get wrapped up into any law.
I remember buying 5 XT clones in the late 80's. I asked the fellow if it came with software, and he he told me not really, but it wouldn't be a problem. When he delivered them he had floppies with copies of DOS, Lotus123, and a word processor. The computers was used for years this way. People were always passing around floppies of software. It wasn't legal, just want to point out piracy has been around as long as software, and they've always priced it accordingly.
The multiplayer notepad thing is on bash.org.
just so you know.
blame it on the p2p networks. divorce is also up - husbands swaping their women over p2p, or moms getting into Boys Over Ip. I've seen it. Believe me.
I'm sure there are a lot of posts here by people wailing about their civil rights and how music and software should be 'free dude!' but how many of you have tried to make a living making software full time (not part time as a hobby)?
I work very hard on the software i develop, and its a tough market, and hard to rbeak even, let alone make enough to pay the bills. Every game I sell earns me about $19.
I have to sell a lot of these to pay the rent.
So how do you think I feel when I see discussions like this on forums and newsgroups:
L33tD00d: Hey you played *game* it rocks!
UberKid:: Yeah Its kewl I got it yesterday. been playing it all day
L33tD00d: Cool, you buy it?
UberKid: Nah got it from Kazaa, want the serial?
L33tD00d: Yay!
I dont have a ferrari in the garage, I dont rip off my customers, they get an up front demo (shareware) so NOBODY can say they need to carck my stuff to test how it plays.
Yet thieveing warez kiddies steal my games every day.
What should I tell the bank manager?
"Sorry I can't pay my mortageg again, but remember d00d, software should be free"
Not every company losing out to pirates is Sony Microsoft or some evil mega-crop. Sometimes its some hard working Geek trying to pay the bills.
Remmeber that next time you l33t kidz hack my work.
I wonder how much of these losses are due to people switching to Open Source Solutions? I myself haven't bought software in a while, but I am using OSS quite extensively. I doubt it makes up more than half the reported losses yet (even if they did lose that much) but still it makes me wonder if P2P is to blame or if people are waking up and going to better software with far better prices.
Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
But what Adobe probably want is for all of the users to pay the full price. (I've seen $600 in a omcment here. Is that right?)
TiggsThe BSA and their ilk seem to think that the risk of heavy fines will actually cause all of these people to buy a full copy. I reality if they did put people off getting unlicensed copies, only a comparitive handful would actually pay for the legit copy at this price. Many would jump ship.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
I suppose it must be theft of property, and not just a downturn in the marketplace - since there are no downturns in the marketplace or employment when our supreme leader BushDick is in charge!
My son and wife can't find a job, I work for the Gub'mint (or is it G'Dubmint?) and am stuck using free software like Mozilla Firefox and Linux (actually, that's a good thing).
This actually reminds me of RIAAs complaint a few years back that kazaa, napster and P2P were ruining album sales. Huh, I would have thought it was the crappy music, but whatever. (I got sick of their whining, and haven't bought a CD since - why support that crap?).
In the past, I've taught classes on managing web servers, but no one is signing up anymore - someone must be giving out free instruction online!!! Quick! We must get all the information off the internet - teachers' careers are being ruined! Before our educational institutions all close, the internet must be destroyed! (or at least start charging customers $1/per character they download! at least I can still make a buck).
Back to reality, I'm left with one question. Is the dept. of homeland security passing out paranoid pills in DC?
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Copyright infringement is different than 'taking without paying,' or 'stealing'
Raising the pedantic semantics of the word "steal" is a desperate red-herring raised by those unable to justify their actions. The truth is that the people "infringing" software and music off the 'net have shaky ethics in ALL aspects of their lives. However, the inherent (or at least, perceived) anonymity of the Internet empowers them to actually go ahead and act on their impulses.
Downloading music/software/fonts/clipart/e-books/whatever without paying for them is WRONG. It is "taking something you don't deserve, without paying for it," whether you like to admit it or not. Someone invested effort in creating that work, and is requesting that you compensate them in exchange for you benefitting from the time and energy they expended. By "infringing" that work, you are basically thumbing your nose at that person. You're saying, "You've created something which has a value that I recognize (by virtue of the fact that I do indeed want it), however, I don't wish to abide by the terms of your implicit offer. Since I don't even know who you are, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever get caught, I will simply download a copy of it without paying."
The key to this whole thing is the perceived anonymity granted by the Internet. These same morally-bankrupt thieves typically wouldn't sneak onto a bus without paying, jump the fence and get into a concert without paying, or sneak in the back door of a movie theatre without paying, yet they'll boldly download gigs and gigs of software, music, and whatever else, that they haven't paid for and aren't entitled to.
The reason is they know they might get caught sneaking onto a bus, or into a concert or movie theatre. People actually see their face in those instances, and they might have to explain why they are a thieving, cheating prick. But when you can take those things in private, with nobody watching, they do it anyway, and come up with all sorts of ridiculous arguments to justify their actions. They have modded XBoxes and PS2's, and a rack full of CD-Rs of games they never bought. They watch 600 channels of TV on a black market cable box with a stolen, hacked HU card, stealing satellite signals.
Oops, crap, I used the "S" word. I was doing so well too, trying to play by your silly little rules of "calling it anything but what it really is." Piracy. Stealing. Theft. You can clean it up and call it "infringing" or "backups" or "sharing" if you want, but deep down, you know it's wrong. It's taking something without paying for it. You know that if everyone acted as you do, then nothing new and creative would be created anymore.
Sleep well, theif, knowing that thankfully, the honest folks like myself are picking up the slack and funding your freeloading debauchery.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
"It's taking something without paying for it. You know that if everyone acted as you do, then nothing new and creative would be created anymore."
Because noone has ever painted a painting, wrote a song, or even made a film without financial compensation.
Oh wait, I've done all 3. Nevermind.
Your statement is easily dismissed by real life examples that happen EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Hrm? Just because you have your own set of ethics (which may include helping yourself to my beer) doesn't mean that my own ethics need to include granting strangers access to that beer.
That said, if we're trying to relate to the surrounding discussion, you're more than welcome to use your matter-replicator to make yourself a free copy of anything in my fridge, including the results from my somewhat experimental Irish cream cheesecake recipe -- and the one beer I have you can make as many copies of as you like.
Oh, you don't have a matter replicator? Perhaps you shouldn't speak about copyright violation and removal of physical property as if they were the same thing.
Personally, I only use software with license agreements I'm willing to actually agree to -- those being almost universally Free ones. My concern in this discussion is what standard of behavious I apply to others: Thieves I consider immoral people on their face (to the point that I wish none among my friends), whereas those that break contracts or violate government-imposed monopolies (copyrights, patents) are not necessarily such bad people -- though I may be hesitant to contract with the former.
If you need it for school you could have bought the Student/Teacher edition for less than $100.
I don't usually respond to Anonymous Cowards like yourself, but I'll make an exception this time.
Because noone has ever painted a painting, wrote a song, or even made a film without financial compensation.
People who resort to sarcasm to make a point usually do so because they are unable to otherwise formulate a serious rebuttal. That said, I'll simply pose a question to you:
Wouldn't it suck if your favorite band only ever released one album, because they all had to have day jobs, being unable to make a living selling their music?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I took the wife and kids to see Shrek when it came out 3 times. Then I downloaded a pirate copy from Kazaa. We watched it many times, till the Shrek DVD came out.
Then know what I did? I purchased the DVD.
Why, because the quality was great, I wanted to support the studio,and the price was good.
Question: Did Dreamworks lose any money on me because I pirated a copy?
OTOH, I rented Josie and the Pussy Cats for a buck. After watching it, I wanted to submit a bill to the vidoe store for my time that they wasted.
I let EVERYONE know, how bad the movie was.
Question: Did Universal lose money on Josie because people were pirating it, or because people were telling thier friends what a piece of crap it is?
Moral: If you have a real quality product, and price it correctly, what little piracy there is, is just a "tax" on doing business. Produce a product that is crap, will will pirate it, or just live without it. Produce a quality product that is overpriced, and it will be pirated like mad.
From Article:
Vietnam and China had the world's highest rates, with pirated versions accounting for 92 percent of all computer software installed in each country, followed by the Ukraine with 91 percent, Indonesia at 88 percent, and Zimbabwe and Russia with 87 percent each.
Hardee identified Vietnam, China, India and Thailand as Asian countries that need to step up their fight against piracy.
"We need to see more (government) enforcement from these countries," he said.
No Sir! What we need is delibrate enforcement from our govenrment to those governments to stop ignoring the free will of their citizens and we have to stop working with them as IF they are in the line of good. Becuase They are not!
China is one of the most brutal regimes in the world as we all know how they try to impose their web filtering on normal internet-cafe's all around the country. Now all of the sudden we are "pleased" to work with Chinees Regime to crackdown poors again and ignoring all the economical facts in the region again.
Looking at the name of the other countries in the list gives us the same story too. Thialand, Zimbabwe and India are in the list of the countries who suffer the poorest population in the world.
It seems for Mr. Hardee, The ONLY thing that does *not* matter is the fate of Chinees people struggling for their freedom and democracy against a regime that works on a full power to annihilate anything comming from "outside" China.
It's clear as a sun that Those Corporations Who Fail, Will Always Ignore The Basics Of United States OF America and Go have a dinner with Brutal Dictators And Senseless Mass Murderers.
No Sir! First We Will Work Against Chinees Regime to stop filtering the web and stop ignoring the civil rights of a democratic society, rather than working with them to crackdown the-already-desperate Chinees people....
Murder, manslaughter... I mean, it's all killing people. And its definitely wrong. So they must be the same thing, right? Let's all be thankful that the law sees fit to distinguish between things that have different ethical dimensions, even if you don't.
"You know that if everyone acted as you do, then nothing new and creative would be created anymore"
Amazing. That must be why humans spent so long mucking about in caves. They had to invent copyright law first, so they could get on with inventing and creating our culture.
It's important to realise that copyright is not an obvious thing, that it has a very interesting history, and culture and invention predate it by, well, most of human history.
Have a look at the free, online book by Lawrence Lessig, "Free Culture". A very interesting read:
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
- The numbers given for piracy losses presume that every single copy that was duplicated would have been a purchased copy made at the full list price. With the typical deep discounts that software packages sell for over list, this makes the piracy 'loss amount' numbers look much higher than they actually are as many who pirate software would either use something else or not use the program at all if they could not copy it. When a single copy of a program costs the equivalent of ten times what the computer is worth - if it wasn't, say, donated equipment - and about a month or two of your entire income, there is no way you can afford to pay full list price and you would not have. Yet the industry would claim that they have 'lost' the net retail purchase price to this party's failure to purchase their product.
- These numbers imply there was an actual cash loss to the producing company, like software stolen from a store. These are non-sales, where the company doesn't sell a product to someone because they pirated the product. Since the company has no idea who is using that copy, the number is an estimate, a guess based on their imagination of how much they think the sale would have been, presumed on a full-list price retail sale.
- Are these losses being reduced by the amount of money each reproduced copy would have cost to make? If the product sells for, say, $425.00 and the materials such as the CD, box, manual, shipping and handling cost $25, then the alleged 'loss' is $400, not $425 since they didn't spend the money to reproduce that package that was never sold. And, of course, this again presumes a full-list-price sale did not take place.
Nobody has any right to the use of someone else's works; those who produce such material are entitled to be compensated for what is being used. But let's not overblow how much the losses are in order to make things look ridiculously worse than they are, or pretend the numbers are anything but a wild guess, and totally made up.Also, I'd like to point out that the term 'piracy' is being used to refer to the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted materials, and is a misuse of the word. Piracy was originally the hijacking of someone else's seagoing vessel, not to the unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work. Stealing someone else's automobile at gunpoint is piracy, reproducing someone else's material represents a violation of law, but calling it 'piracy' makes it sound worse than it is, like someone busting into the software developer's offices and stealing packages.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
"What the copyright holder owns is the copyright itself, not any particular copy of a work or the medium that it's contained on."
True so far.
"If the owner of the copy infringes on the copyright, he has violated the terms of the lien. This makes copyright infringement more akin to trespassing than to theft."
Here's where I have to dispute you. While violating copyright is not considered a physical theft, such as breaking into your car and stealing your stereo, it IS still considered a FORM a theft. Rather than comparing it to tresspassing, the closest correct comparison would be "theft of service"; like perhaps, parking in a commercial parking lot, and then skipping without paying (I use this one because I worked in a parking lot throughout college, and had some expierience here. When people skipped or cheated their way out, we'd get their tag, report and prosecute them). Some people, because they disagree with copyright laws, tend to rationalize that there's really no theft involved at all, but that's not true. When you're taking it without properly paying for it, theft is still being comitted, but as I said, it's more of a theft of service than physical theft.
Point is, it's still a FORM of theft.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The comment: "Seems a little too far-fetched to me - a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software, just too much chance that you are downloading a trojan..." Might be adjusted if you ... p2p_du_jour all of their
met with typical kids who have been freeloading
with napster, kazaa,
lives. They seem to accept living with bugs,
adware, trojans etc [stuff abhorant to nerds] as
a risk of piping in a stream of pilfered goodies.
As long as it doesn't crash them or slow down
the movie downloads...thats what the 3gHz is for.
I used to disconnect the household firewall when
junior was home from college with his
lap top and let him have the cable modem all
to himself. His computer hygiene has improved
slightly but "lie down with dogs, get up with
fleas" appears to be a tolerable digital lifestyle.
Is there an entry level program that might meet your needs?
For the most part, yes, Gimp will do a high percentage of what I want, and I use it at work, but Photoshop's UI is more usable, or at least more intuative.
If Adobe would either rent me a Photoshop license on an hourly basis (on the order of a buck an hour would be reasonable), I'd be happy to pay for it. I would not be interested in a cut-down version of Photoshop, if I were going to settle for less, I'd just use Gimp.
I just don't see any harm in using it. They aren't loosing any money on me as they don't currently have a licensing model I would pay for. There just aren't any compelling reasons, ethical or monetary, to not use it.
I didn't see anyone mention that the BSA is controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft created it. Microsoft runs it. They have an office in D.C. to lobby in Microsoft's (and allies') favor. They don't even operate in the general interest of the software industry. Some of their recommended policies go against the policies suggested by much larger and older industry groups. So the numbers may or may not be rediculous, but consider the source.
BTW, if you're going to complain I don't have enough proof, take a deep look into some of these 123,000 pages.
Developers: We can use your help.
Perhaps people aren't buying overpriced crap as much as they used to.
People have been copying software forever (it isn't piracy, piracy is killing and maiming people to steal their property). It's nothing new.
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
Yeah, but 'someone' isn't likey to. 99% of pirating isn't for profit, it's just some Joe handing a copied CD to their friend, or putting an ISO on kazaa. If somebody hacks into it, then oh well. 99% of pirates will just look for another game ( kinda like The CLUB - you can't cut it, but you can cut the steering wheel it's attached to with damn near anything, though most thiefs will just go to the next car) . This licensing scheme wouldn't be for 'corporate software', mostly for home user stuff. Corporate software doesn't need to protect itself from Kazaa pirates. Any company with a workforce risks being turned into the BSA by any employee with a grudge if they don't keep things legal. Most of what's pirated is games. The fraction of computers that are up-to-date enough to run a modern game that are not connected to the internet, owned by people who would play games is what? 0.5%? I would do this over https, so as to be able to make it out of most corporate firewalls, and be somewhat obscure.
This is just dirt cheap low effort 'security' to keep out the 'honest people' pirates which are almost all of them.
If you are paranoid that someone will bother to distribute a pirateable version with your phone home software hacked out, you can add a few checksums hidden around your compiled code in obscure places to ensure that obvious ways to tamper fail.
Eat at Joe's.
I've always thought MS FlightSimulator -> FlightGear is worth mentioning, but then you open a whole can of worms with games (unless you put it under simulators).
From the CNET article: (emphasis mine)
From the BSA report:
Yes, let's draw invalid but important-sounding conclusions and report them as news.
Actually, even if you're not a student or teacher, you can legally buy Office 2003 Basic (just Word, Excel and Outlook, which is all most people need) for about $135 at all kinds of places online.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Wouldn't it suck if your favorite band only ever released one album
No.
No amount of bold-text will change that.
1. That happens anyway (my favorite bands are mostly non-mainstream and most of them have to have day jobs to support their art... many produce only one or a small number of albums).
2. There is value in the purchace that goes beyond having the binary data that represents the songs, and THAT is why (even at what I consider obscene prices) albums continue to sell today.
3. You're not responding to the point he made: artists will produce no matter what, so what is the value of copyright (I have an answer, and so did the framers of the constitution, but THAT pact has been broken by congress via perpetual copyright terms, so I'm no longer sure why we enshrine copyright)? Remember that for most of history artists could NOT make a living selling their works (patronage was the way artists made a living).
4. Your comments like "I don't usually respond to Anonymous Cowards" and "People who resort to sarcasm to make a point usually do so because they are unable to otherwise formulate a serious rebuttal" are non-points and really don't serve to do anything but bias readers against your real points.
Oh gee.. I wonder why... oh.. I know.. they keep on gouging us on software. The way to lower piracy is to lower prices and make it feasable for people to be able to buy it. Keep on raising those prices while people are still poor and all you're going to do is keep on seeing the piracy rates go up. I just can't understand why it is that they aren't doing this.
- Jimbob
my favorite bands are mostly non-mainstream and most of them have to have day jobs to support their art... many produce only one or a small number of albums
Well, I don't know what to tell you. Pat yourself on the back for being such a special, unique, and non-conforming person. It just so happens that the bands I like do make a living at their art, and because of that, they're able to do it full-time and produce a lot more of it. And no, they're not what you'd call "mainstream" artists either. I don't think I've ever heard Underworld, Crystal Method, Fluke, or Delerium on the radio, but loyal fans like me who actually pay for their music enable them to do it full-time.
Imagine if Beethoven or Van Gogh had been unable to earn a living creating their art. Which of their symphonies and masterpieces would they not have had time to create? How much richer and more vibrant is the art world today because they were able to earn a living at it and do it full-time?
Copyright is a fairly recent invention, you're right, but only because copying itself is a fairly recent invention. Back when the constitution was drafted, everything had to be hand-copied. Piracy and "infringement" were non-issues, because of the tremendous tediousness in doing so. Nowadays, thanks to Kazaa and photocopiers, it is trivially easy and cheap to copy just about any art without permission.
even at what I consider obscene prices
CD prices are not obscene. They are a friggin' bargain. $15 for an hour's worth of high-fidelity, digitally mastered music that you can listen to over and over, for thousands of hours. And when you finally get bored of it, you can sell it for a few bucks and recoup at least some of your cost. What other form of entertainment provides such bang-for-the-buck? Movies? Opera? Ballet? Concerts? Pro-sporting events? Nope. No one should complain about CD prices. They are a steal.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
..steals a few drinks and is blames for drinking the world dry.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
... and the BSA squeezed it.
Now they want someone to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Why mention it at all, except to infuriate people? You are entitled to your opinion, to spend your money as you wish and to run all the cracked crap you can get your hands on. Great.
I'm happy with GIMP on Linux and most people should be. If all you ever needed was Paint Shop Pro, GIMP is more than you need. GIMP 2 has most of the features people complain are missing and menus that are as easy to use as any complicated program.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Imagine if Beethoven or Van Gogh had been unable to earn a living creating their art.
Ooops, you just stepped on a land-mine there....
Beethoven and Van Gogh are two examples of artists who DID NOT benefit from copyright. They made money based on patronage (the primary way that artists made money as pure artists, not counting trade-skills, until fairly recently in history).
My take is that patronage is the way to go if we're abandoning copyright terms. Why? Because copyright terms made copyright a "deal" between the public and the publishers (as a friend of mine points out, copyright is more about publishers than artists). The publishers get a lock on profits for a term and in exchange the publisher produces works that will enrich the public domain after the expiration period.
Without the public domain (and right now, it looks like the public domain has been doomed to a static existance, since Congress in the US has made it clear that they will extend copyright terms every time they are about to expire), what benefit does the public get from copyright? Not the art, unless you really want to say that today's art is richer than that of Shakespear or Homer's day. So, what is better about copyright than patronage?
Under a patronage system you don't need to have copyright. The value of an artist is in the ability to a) control the production of art as a symbol of status and power and b) to commission specific works of art or literature which meet specific needs.
This could apply equally well to software, and in fact is mostly how the open source software business works.
Now, I'm a realist, and I don't think we're going to go there in this country (the US in my case). However, the fact that a viable alternative has existed for centuries and has produced some of the greatest works of mankind certainly cannot be ignored in such a debate.
PS: Your snide comments about my "uniqueness" also serve to hurt your credibility in any kind of informed debade. Let's keep the ad hominem to a minimum please.
Interesting points. Although, in some ways, we are still operating in a patronage system. The big record labels give money to musicians to record their works, in return for control over the product.
They then sell and market the CDs, protected by copyright. The artists gets a little of this money back (minus costs, hidden costs, small print costs...), but it's the labels that make the real money by controlling the copy and distribution of the work.
So yes, copyright does appear to have more relevance to the publisher than the musician, who still needs the patronage of the labels to earn a living...
The underlying reason for software stealing that no one ever talks about is that software is absurdly expensive to produce. The average programmer does only dozen lines a day in working code. that sounds like a cocaine commercial
We need a whole new generation of software productivity tools that will increase the usable output of programmers by an order of magnitude. Stuff that is science fiction now, like comment compiliers where you describe what the program should do and the compilier generates the source code. Software tools that understand (to a degree) native spoken languages and generate code that is compilable.
Let's be real here, line-oriented languages like C, C++, Ada, Pascal, Perl, Visual Basic,...you name it... were great...twenty years ago. But as the hardware has come down in price a thousand fold, the software situation has stagnated. I realize that software is in a Sysiphusian position: every major hardware advance knocks the software development for it back to assembly language, like when microprocessors first appeared.
If software only cost one tenth of its current cost to develop, software development corporations wouldn't feel the need to call for jail terms and big fines for people who copy it and adapt it to their own use. Corps could get their development costs back and needed profits easier if the development costs were not so high. Moving development to places where programmers work for 1/10th the salary of American programmers isn't a solution, it's a delaying tactic to admitting the problem and developing a solution.
This is an area where the open source movement doesn't help. Open source simply takes the inherent inefficiencies of software development and spreads them over a larger group than a contracted development team.
One would think that Microsoft with tens of billions in cash would be applying huge amounts of resources to developing next generation software tools. But they get the best programmers for the current development tools for peanuts (compared to their resources), so better software tools would only disrupt their profit flow.
This is an area where the government usually would put up the R&D funds. But the government is now only interested in funding new, exciting, and expensive ways to kill people who don't shop at the Baby Gap. They say that the private sector should be funding this.
The situation just goes round in stagnant circles. Everybody just continues to struggle with braindead nitwit 1970's compiliers and languages like C, and complaining about the high cost of software.
Beethoven and Van Gogh are two examples of artists who DID NOT benefit from copyright. They made money based on patronage
Yes, that was exactly my point. Copyright didn't exist back then because copying was extremely difficult and rare. Only with the advent of mass-copying devices has the issue of Copyright come to the forefront.
Beethoven didn't have to worry about people downloading his concerts on Kazaa. He knew that if people wanted to hear his work, they'd have to pay at the door and come in and listen. You can rest assured that they had security staff at the doors making sure people didn't sneak in without paying (medieval copy-protection?).
Don't you get it? You're saying "Copyright is a new idea that they didn't have in the olden days, and they did just fine." I'm saying, "The reason Copyright is a new idea is because copying itself is a new thing!"
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
on any M$ blog. Fuck off, thank you.
I dont see what the problem is with blaming the economy for a change. THAT is the primary thing is causing most of the downturn of industries.. ( a secondary issue is people are tired of the upgrade-treadmill and are not upgrading on 'schedule' )
Is ford going to blame P2P for their lower sales?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Downtown in brazillian cities are chock full of people selling pirated CDs of software, games and music, one guy every block, sometimes several. A pirated software is about US$3, music is even cheaper, you can get it for a dollar. And there's a pretty good reason for the increased piracy: a copy of photoshop, for example, is two months of wages for an average graphical designer. A copy of Visual Studio, or Delphi, is from two to six months of wages for a programmer, depending on the version. And Brazil is by far not the poorest contry of the third world.
Many programmers try to push open-source alternatives in their companies, but if the company standardizes on Microsoft, and you want to train at home with the same tools you use at work, you either blow up months, possibly years of savings for that copy of Visual Studio, only to have to upgrade in another couple years, or pirate.
We still have public performance, which is a much better target for your comparison. Instead, let's talk about as close to real, brass-tacks, 'bit-for-bit' copying as we can. You realize, of course, that the entire classical world was one big "Kazaa" of theme, motive, and technique sharing though, right? I mean, Mendelssohn basically copied Beethoven's opus 132 almost exactly, substituting dotted eighth notes here where Beethoven had quarters there, etc. I mean, this was no 'homage,' though of course there's an argument for that there, too. No matter what his motives, this was effectively flat out copying and releasing for profit, which is a step further than just copying to enjoy the music (which, I have to point out, no matter what your stance on copyright infringement is is, outside of the dizzying internal 'logic' of copyright law, a very strange thing to punish as severely as we punish it now).
Of course, Beethoven was also still able to live from the publishing of his works, in a system far less equitable than the one we have today or had a hundred years ago. And as a little bonus, Mendelssohn learned how to write a string quartet and some argue produced more original works later (not one for Mendelssohn myself). If you wanted to use a better example, you could have at least used Mozart or Schubert, anyone who actually had a hard time surviving despite considerable creative genius.
Yet, again, these people did survive. You can of course cry "What if??" in bold and italic type all you like, but it appears this is entirely your problem both here and with your conflation of infringement and that particular brand of 'theft' which is indeed a moral wrong: potential and actual losses are different, and as appalled and outraged as one can rightly be for actual losses, potential losses are simply not in the same moral league, division, ballpark, stadium, or aquarium.
Don't get me wrong, I think copyright law is wonderful. Copyrighty law as our founders imagined it got us where we are, a balance between rewarding the past (the creator's stake) and insuring the future (the public's stake). But copyright law as people like you imagine it, as a moral principle, has a lot of implications-- chief being that its purpose changes from perfect balance benefitting both parties to perfect control by the party with moral high ground. Now we only have to reward the past since copyright is now a protection of a sancrosact act of creation rather than a pragmatic social mediator. Not exactly what I imagine good copyright doing.
In sum, please stop beating copyright with the big fat ham that is this internet-changes-everything, we need moral culpibility argumen. Let the pragmatic balance approach reign as it has since 1792, and we'll all be fine.
While I have stoped pirating softwhere I can tell you the cost of a 50$ game to a college student represents a fair amount of cash. So even at 5 hours of work your still geting paid 10$ an hour which is better than what most college students make. Once you start thinking about that as the basis of what a pirate is willing so spend to not buy your game your going to reolise that you just can't win. Thinking about Diablo II represented a great "pirate" example now I got it the day it came out. As did a few of my friends. But, several other people in our circle lacked the cash to buy it so we installed it on there pc's and downloaded the no CD crack after ever a new patch came out.
There is basicly nothing that can be done to prevent this type of piracy. As a software company your not alowed to distribute "fake" cracking software that messes with there pc's. Nor are you alowed to disable there pc's once there using it so you can diaable the game but anything that disables some verifiable function can be sorce code patched (excluding DRM in the OS ect). Now what make DII work was the relms an online world whre you had to have a valid CD key to enter. More than one person with the same CD Key on at the same time then they can deal with it. Which caused most of the players to buy the game once we stoped all playing on the same LAN.
Now DII was just about broke even when it came to piracy those damm install diskes kept geting lost / broken and so over I ended up buying DII about 3 times which made up for all the "pirates" in fact most of the pirates ended up buying a copy becouse the hastle was not worth it.
Ok that's the good but what about the bad. Afterall we have all watched a movie or played a game where aftwerword we said Damm. Well in most cases the company has already goten your money so your F*** but with a little piracy one of your friends tells the non pirate to leave it be. And sudenly piracy is hirting the company. OK, well like most people I don't think of this as a bad thing but as long as company's think of customers as somthing to be tricked into buying there product they will alwasy be people who lose money from piracy.
I think the idea of making a game and selling it for 50$ when it's only got a 50/50 chance of being worth plaing for 12 hours or so is a flawed model. I say make 1 FPS game enine and then make 30 well scriped plots with it. sell em for 20$ a pop and you will have tuns of people willing to pay for em. But aslong as company's think one engine one game there is going to be way to many things that can go wronge and piracy will hirt a lot of companys with shitty products.
copyright does appear to have more relevance to the publisher than the musician, who still needs the patronage of the labels to earn a living...
Ok, let's just talk about music for a minute....
Well, yes and no. I wonder how many artist web sites have Paypal links these days. Can you live on patronage today outside of the label system? Probably not. Is it viable as a model for the future? I would think so.
I think the problem right now is that the labels have made the process of patronage into fast food, and so very few people think in those terms. Still, symphonies rely on patronage. People like Danny Elfman make most of their money from commisioned works for film. Patronage is still alive and well, it's just that (as with most of our society) there are large corporations that do a very good job of marketting their product, and that makes it hard to tell that this sort of thing is still going on.
Problem being, I was unemployed, meaning $100ish was somewhat out of reach, considering living expenses. And the fact that I had no other (as I said) need or want of Microsofts crap product, and was only going to use it for the semester. Not a good investment.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
no text
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Investor's Business Daily reports, "Adobe Gets Sales Lift Without New Releases."
Thats right the MPAA has your money BSA. What you need is to sell tickets to the Oren Hatch VS. Jack Valenti Cage Match and settle the score. Last one breathing wins.
Yes. Good advice. Now convince the millions of retards that still click yes when promted "do you want to install and run ..." and can't figure out how to use Ad-Aware.
Welcome to the world of getting through to dense people.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
I agree, for the most part. Interestingly enough, I happen to fall into the #4 catagory more often these days. Doing without is an interesting option. Sometimes software does not get you anywhere faster or better, just differently. I think it is important to make the effort to try and recognize that and react accordingly.
Blogging because I can...
So, blame it on Windows users. I have a solution. Outlaw Windows. It is set up in a way that promotes pirating. Let's see...steal a software idea from Apple, manage to build a monopoly by getting computer manufacturers to sell their computers with your pirated software pre-installed, jack up the price for this pirated software that is now a monopoly...PROFIT! Blame a file sharing system for you failure to earn enough money to buy the world.
Perhaps Bill should just realize that there are other solutions out there that are legally free and more secure. The new generation grew up with computers and are less afraid to switch. Even running Windows, a large number of people are realizing that Open Source Applications are more secure.
Finally, blame the consumer for not being willing to be ripped off any more!
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
My God! Chicks should love us! Wait the second... They don't! Why?!
"Hey baby! See this server? It is just like a drag racing car! Really! And I have built it all by myself! You see? I am a hacker guru, which means, that I am really a drag queen--No! I mean king! King!!! Drag racing king! Oh, God damn it..."
Now I know why...
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I get all my software from rsync.slackware.com, mozilla.org, and sourceforge.net. Free software does me right.
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
In all seriousness, I ask you: Suppose I wrote some software and requested anyone who came by to make a copy not to do so without paying me. How would it not be an issue of morals if someone made a copy in violation of my request?