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."

Comments

Re:Why steal software?

[dealsites]

If my job depended on it, I'd fork out the money. If you are a hobbyest, use something cheaper. Adobe offers rebates on thier add on packages. I don't track Photoshop, but I bet they probably offer discounts and specials from time to time.

Re:Ps

[ScrewMaster]

Jose Usuario

That is one of the funniest things I've seen on Slashdot.

New software not needed.

[mankey wanker]

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!

Open Source vs. "Piracy" -- $51B buys a lot of OS

[oxytocin]

From the newsblit:

"$51 billion was legally purchased"

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)

p e r

y e a r . . .

and that still leave $42 billion!!! (of "real sales" for the "industry" to, ummm, what _would_ they do if there was this pace of improvement -- oh yeah, create spyware! lol!)

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 ... in just one year? (and, what if, it weren't and mother earth were to disappear?!)

SIGLET: open source works because the programmers aren't paid to sit around on the job, filling time...