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."
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?
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...
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,
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.
Photoshop for 700$ seem resonable to you?
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.
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
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!
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 advocating software piracy, but outside the basic "home/office" applications, prices for software are quite large. Examples:
Protel/DXP - PCB design & simulation: $7,995 for single user
IAR Embedded Workbench: ~$2000 (IIRC)
*yes, there are *-gcc toolchains that can be used instead.
Mathworks Matlab: $1900 Commercial Use
I would think that firms that use such software actually pay for them, and that the people who are aquiring them in less legal ways are students/hobbists/enthusists who wouldn't be able to buy the packages in the first place anyway, nor use them for commercial purposes.
$cat
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.
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...
because, though $30 is better than $700 its still not free "stealing" is. A while back I used a cracked version of flash MX, when I first got it I didn't know how to use it but just wanted to mess around, I learned from a friend and used it to make an animation for a school project with him. Im sure that if your a cartoon company $3000 is nothing compared to the amount of time youll save not drawing every frame, but for two highschool freshmen, its unthinkable. If, the sold it for about $50, one of us would have got it, I know that they justify there price by the fact that internet and regullar cartoon companies can make a lot of money using their product but I just wanted to make a cartoon for fun and then later for school. For a normal Joe user to pay over tripple what his computer cost for a peice of software that he may not be able to use is insane, and yes, it does make "stealing" okay.
It will pay for itself within a month or two at most. ...Unless you're not doing anything revenue generating with it. I would bet that most people who use PS for their job have legal copies. Or at least less blatently illegal copies they brought home from work or something like that.
If you're just a hobbiest who occasionally uses PS, the $700 is completely unjustifiable unless you like throwing money down the toilet. (In such situations the Gimp would probably suffice and do quite well, but depends on your need.)
Or look at a 3-D modeling program. Maya, 3D Studio, etc. They are really fun to dabble with. Make a quick animation, share it with a couple friends, etc. Worth several thousand dollars? If you're doing commercial stuff with them, hell yeah! But if it's just a hobby, definitely not. (Again, Blender would probably do, but it has a bit of a way to go...)
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
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.
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.
Seriously. Honestly, I think a large portion of software pirating deals with people hosting it off of private servers, IRC channels, and well, just making a copy of it for friends. No one downloads software through P2P anymore... The KaZaA Boom is dead.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
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
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 meat of it - the amount of installed software in use - appears almost totally derived from interviews. Sounds vauge to me, but yet more interesting, by page 2 a disclaimer appears that, due to completely different methodologies, this year's figures can't be accurately compared with last's. So, what's the origin of this 'doubling' claim in the original story?
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.
...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.
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.
Unlike your typical slashdot user. Your average user has no idea how to download from IRC. Probably never even knew you could.
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.
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
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.
Kazaa died 2-3 years ago lol return of the fedi.
There are a whole bunch of other p2p services available which are much harder to shut down, most prominently because the servers are outside the US. Soon there will be encrypted networks to replace the current crop of kazaa replacements.
Any commercial p2p effort is going to involve (in addition to the aforementioned encryption) significant non-infringing uses first and then add p2p later. Work is already underway lol hint.
The real reason software is losing money:
Because software companies with mature products keep adding useless features to drive the upgrade cycle, not realizing that improved support for virus propogation is not a feature most people want in Word.
Honestly, Windows and Office were mature products somewhere back in the 97-2000 stretch. The past 4-7 years have seen most of microsoft's products develop lots of useless bells and whistles and lots of security holes and bugs. Why pay the MSFT tax when linux and staroffice are free and provide most of the features you really need. Shit, Firefox rocks just because it does simple browing really well and DOESNT run ActiveX controls or allow popups. Zing, like 100 security holes and annoyances removed in an instant.
This is why microsoft is:
-releasing a stripped down version of XP at a lower cost to compete with Linux (read, lower our prices because people dont find our new products any more compelling than our old ones that they already have)
tech.veolzie.com (off google)
-reducing costs (read- laying off thousands of their programmers and sticking to bug fixing and maintenance of their existing stuff)
www.newsfactor.com (off google)
I understand your confusion, and I think the difference boils down to this:
The problem with copy-protection on music CDs is that (as it is currently implemented) it infringes on our fair-use right to rip our CDs. Not to mention that implementations have been known to destroy speakers, render Macs inoperable, install unwanted programs on users' computers, and other nasty things.
Copy protection on software has generally proved to be more of a pain to legitimate users than to w4r3z d00ds. It's an extra hoop to jump through, and it's especially annoying when it prevents people from reinstalling software after a hard drive crash or suchlike. *If* a "perfect" copy-protection scheme could be devised, (perhaps a la Palladium) that does *not* prevent computers from running "unauthorized" OSS software, and does *not* prevent backups, reinstalls, and other such necessary things, but *does* prevent unauthorized duplication of, say, XP and Office CD's, then that copy-protection will be all right.
That said, the more annoying the copy-protection technologies become, and the more effective they become at preventing average people from installing pirated software, the more appealing OSS will look -- as long as those technologies don't prevent people from running OSS in the first place.
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!!
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.
I think the notion is that home users can't or won't. Nobody expects a businesses NOT to. Like you pointed out, the time of an employee is worth more than the hardware, and often, the software they're using, so it's worthwhile to spend an obscene amount of money on THAT.
The issue is that home users can't afford it, but they may like to try an unrestricted edition if they happen to do something that needs that tool. The nice part about giving away something like this to home users is that those home users may one day make a career out, resulting in a business buying one more license. Hell, sometimes you can get away with charging home users for it and they'll feel like they're getting a good deal out of it.
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
and do us all a favor: don't tell them...
1) that you can, or
2) how to.
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.
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.
I am not saying that the man hours put in, cost of distribution (online or shipping) and other costs don't justify a high price, but they do guarantee that most people will think twice or thrice before purchasing that software even when they reall really need it. Video game that I use 8 hours a day for months (Diablo 2 with expansion, anyone?) -- US$30-$50. And I would be willing to bet that it cost just as much to develop between writing, programming and developing the engine, sound, graphics, packaging, tech support, etc. than any version of Photoshop ever produced. Ok, I don't know that, but come on.
If your software only costs a small amount and people are willing to pay for it, don't you come out just as well (and with a larger user base, to boot) as the monster corporations that charge an arm, a leg, and a third extension and half less people buy it (but thanks to whatever method you use, just as many people using it?
One of Bill's long-term mistakes (and it's hard to take the richest man in the world seriously when talking about his "big mistake" - I should make such mistakes!) was believing that a product that can be duplicated for zero additional cost (after development) and which never wears out could be treated using the same economical models as cars and televisions.
There is an inherent difficulty in charging for "shrink-wrapped" software and that's why Bill wants EULA's to be enforced and all the rest of the crap that the non-OS industry generally are tryingto force on us through copyright changes and so on, they're trying to enforce their economic model through changes in the law. That's not going to work in the long term.
On the other hand, if Bill had an ounce of sense in him he'd be out enjoying his billions instead of being a arsehole and making everyone else's lives a misery by foisting crappy software and crappier laws on the rest of us.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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 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.
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.