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

Newsgroups

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Newsgroups

[Anonymous Coward]

With EDonkey/Emule, you can leave comments on the files you share. Files with a negative comment are flagged in other clients. There are also many ways to search for fakes.

The emule users are really community-based. Many files are released in forums by people you can trust a lot more than the regular Joe Kazaa user.

Re:Newsgroups

[xp]

Interesting that software is being used to steal software. How long before people start stealing this software stealing software?
---
How to Create a Killer App

Re:Newsgroups

[SoSueMe]

How long before people start stealing this software stealing software?

In 5-4-3-2....

Re:Newsgroups

[Anonymous Coward]

People already steal software stealing software. Its called Kazaa-lite and it can be downloaded from Kazaa. Kazaa-lite: software that lets a user steal service from the Kazaa network, which is then used to steal other software software. Isn't technology fun?

Re:Newsgroups

[SphericalCrusher]

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.

Re:Newsgroups

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike your typical slashdot user. Your average user has no idea how to download from IRC. Probably never even knew you could.

Re:Newsgroups

[Cuthalion]

IRC is peer to peer.

Re:Newsgroups

[JPriest]

IRC is multiplayer notepad.

Re:Newsgroups

[Dizzle]

Then how come no matter how much I practice I can't win?

Re:Newsgroups

[BeerSlurpy]

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)

Re:Newsgroups

[kyle_b_gorman]

and do us all a favor: don't tell them...
1) that you can, or
2) how to.

Re:Newsgroups

[nmk]

The funny thing is that Bill Gates feels exactly the same way. Someone my parents know recnetly spoke to Bill for advice regading a software package his company is developeing. Bill esentially said that his big mistake was to charge people on a one time per license basis. He said something to the effect that he's now having to include useless bells and whistles in his software to try to get people to upgrade, but it isn't working. He's now trying desperately to move on to a subscription based model for most of his software (wow, thats original). Anyway, just thought slashdotters might find that interesting.

This could be considered offtopic, but I think not. This is where the software industry should look when trying to account for their losses.

Re:Newsgroups

[thulsey]

The reason the software industry is losing millions is their price point. I mean - come ON. The Operating System people run this software on doesn't cost half as much as the software itself. If you purchased all your software, you would have bought your computer 3 times by the time you were done. Prices for Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Maya, Office, or are just high. Some, such as Maya, which creates its own OS almost once you are inside it, are targetted at mostly professionals in an industry that just has to spend tons of money, anyway. But the rest?

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?

Re:Newsgroups

[nagora]

Bill esentially said that his big mistake was to charge people on a one time per license basis.

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

Re:Newsgroups

[julesh]

I would strongly recommend, for your own safety, that you do not use Kazaa to download software.

Kazaa (and any other software that uses the same networking protocols) uses a very simple file hashing mechanism to identify files. It is trivially easy to produce a modified file that confuses Kazaa into thinking it is the same as an original source file. This could be used to plant trojan horse software into your download.

If you insist on downloading software, use a network, such as gnutella, that uses a secure hashing algorithm (gnutella uses SHA1 -- edonkey et al use MD4 which is not as safe, but still much better than kazaa) to verify the file you downloaded is the one you wanted. And look up those SHA1 codes on a suitable catalogue web site (there are plenty of links from any P2P related site) before running the downloaded program.

Re:Newsgroups

[Anonymous Coward]

Now isn't this ironic for a company and a leader that pride themselves on "innovation"?

Where's that next killer app? Where are the real changes in the OS? Beyond just making silly changes in the desktop or changes solely designed to lock customers into the product line, there just hasn't been a lot of new things coming out of Redmond.

But that would be OK if they just offered real value in the form of new releases for their existing products. Microsoft has been so intent on adding new features that they rejected any notion of real quality in their products. I was interviewed recently because I signed up for their "get the facts" win2k3 evaluation package and, when asked what new features they could add to the product to make me choose Microsoft, I flat out told them "You don't need to add new features that bring in new problems. All you need to do is fix what is already there. It is about the bugs!"

As for subscription based licensing, Microsoft's first foray into that failed miserably! Their last round of licensing changes was intended to move customers in that direction. Under Licensing 6.0, customers paid more but were supposed to have access to upgrades that never materialized. Licensing 6.0 has turned out to benefit nobody but Microsoft. And it increased costs at a time when many of its customers were struggling under the pressure of a weak global economy.

I don't have anythig to do with P2P software downloads. I have personal experience with two of my clients that justifies this: one downloaded a copy of XP from a warez site while the second bought one of those "Get WinXP for $50" from an e-mail. Both got spam relay trojans built-in for no extra charge! In the end, the solution for both was to buy a retail copy of XP Home.

In short, Microsoft's problems have nothing to do with P2P and everything to do with their business model.

Re:Newsgroups

[IntlHarvester]

I don't think it was a "mistake" at all -- when Gates started, the dominate business model from IBM and those guys was Software Subscriptions. And the result was a bunch of slow-moving maintenance mode stuff that people paid an arm-n-leg for. After all, if the revenue kept coming in, why make any improvements?

Customers flocked to PCs and Microsoft/Lotus/Adobe/Apple/Novell because you could buy it once and forget it for 5 years. When Gates had something new, he usually made it better/sexy enough to get people to upgrade. For all your moaning, I don't see any laws forcing people to upgrade to Windows XP. Run Windows 3.1 if you'd like -- nothing stopping you but model year envy.

One big problem with "Enterprise Linux" is that it's basically Ye Olde IBM business model where you pay annually for stability. Which is fine for Oracle servers and the like, but probably will never be competitive with the featuritus of shrinkwrap software. This should be obvious if you compare the relative advancement of (say) Solaris against Windows in the 90s.

Re:Newsgroups

[sabernet]

With a car, you can choose the new 2004 model or get a second hand 2000 model that works as good.

With windows, you can no longer license windows 98(not that you want to, mind you) and are obligated to get Windows XP, regardless of if you preferred, required 98.

No, no laws are forcing this. A monopoly is.(Think as if Toyota were to prohibit anyone from selling any used cars to anyone)

Re:Newsgroups

[sabernet]

13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms.

You can sell it once, no more. I can sell a car that has been sold to me.

read the goddam EULA before you start spouting terms like "outright wrongness"

Re:Newsgroups

[hesiod]

> Can I sell or give away old versions of my products when I acquire an upgrade?

When you acquire an upgrade. That's not what you were arguing. If you buy a new, FULL version of the software, you can sell your old one.

Ps

[xOleanderx]

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.

Re:Ps

[ln -sf head ass]

And not more than 1/4 of them ever will. The other 3/4 wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get it free. This, despite whiny software industry protestations to the contrary, does not constitute lost revenues. But it makes good copy. Me, I hope they get their way--locked down DRM so their stuff can't be copied, with the death penalty for violators. I'll bet the alternatives get a damn sight better, and GIMP eats Photoshop's lunch.

Re:Ps

[YankeeInExile]

I actually agree, that bullet-proof anti-piracy techniques would greatly improve the Open/Free Software Community.

If Joe User (well, I live in Mexico, so Jose Usuario) could not go down to the flea market and buy a pirated Win2K for $10, or download it for free from some Russian w4r3z site, he would be more likely to find and use gratis software.

Re:Ps

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point.

Who cares if they would never actually buy photoshop for $$$$$$$, every person who steals photoshop is one less potential customer of a competing, cheaper product. Even adobe sells an image editor for $100 or so.

Every person who steals office is one less legal user of openoffice.

Re:Ps

[T-Ranger]

Extend that argument further.

Commercial software providers make it more and more difficult to get warez. More effective copy protection, better enforment, fines, etc. You have a huge class of people (say: those who dont live in the G7) who are used to getting software for zero cost. When they no longer can get the commercial stuff for zero cost, what will they do? But it, or go with OSS? Thats what I thought....

Re:Ps

[macdaddy357]

Isn't it interesting that piracy happens most in countries where one piece of software would cost more than people make in a year?

Re:Ps

[craXORjack]

Yah, and not 1/40th of them actually use it. Over the years I've known plenty of people who had illegal copies of software and most of them load it on their system and then ignore it, telling themselves they will learn how to use it... someday.

Monkey1: Dude, I've got Autocad 2005.
Monkey2: Cool! What do you do with it?
Monkey1: You draw pictures and stuff, like of the space shuttle.
Monkey2: Cool! Can I make a copy?

Re:Ps

[benjamindees]

True. But, notice the M.O. of these people. They don't attack what they say they're against. They say they're against something small and obviously dispickable, then they attack anything they damn well please.

Bush says he's against terrorists in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and then goes and invades Iraq and turns the US into some sort of Orwellian nightmare.

Microsoft says it's against piracy yet hands out free/$1 software to universities and governments and creates licenses (Academic License, gimme a break) that discourage, even *preclude* their following.

Now the Congress says it's against software piracy and attacks P2P, and legitimate Open Source distribution methods in the process.

Ask yourself: What are they really fighting against?

Re:Ps

[deadgoon42]

This is a good point. It makes me wonder how much of that $29 billion is actually lost sales.

I also wonder how much of this $29 billion comes from people just not understanding the concept of licensing agreements. They think that if you purchase a disc, you can install that disc on any computer you own. I've had a hard time convincing people that you can only install Office on one computer (unless you buy a site lisence or something). They think they can just buy the disc and install in anywhere, but technically they are in the wrong. Most people don't see this as piracy and never will and I agree with them.

This is why I also agree that nothing could be better for the open source community than strictly enforced DRM regulations. Once it becomes harder to steal Windows than it is to install Linux, people will come around.

Re:Ps

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

So what would you call Joe Six pack?

"Jose Cuervo"

Re:Ps

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already happening. I have convinced my 60 year old father to go with Linux, Openoffice, Evolution and Firefox.

In the olden days he would have bought a copy of MS windows then pressured me into installing a bootleg copy of MS office. Today I can point to the efforts of the BSA and requirements for product registration and he sees that Linux is the best (and safest) option.

My sister is savvy enough to install her own software, so has installed bootleg copies of most applications. Recent virus outbreaks have gone beyond her sys admin capabilities, so she has had to enlist my help. In the past my recommended cure has been 'install Linux', which she has refused, but even she is beginning to see that Linux is now the best alternative. Once my Dad is up an running, I'm pretty sure the remnants of her resisance to Linux will evaporate (thanks Mr BSA!).

Next on the list is my fiancee...

Re:Ps

[tokachu(k)]

Microsoft says it's against piracy yet hands out free/$1 software to universities and governments and creates licenses (Academic License, gimme a break) that discourage, even *preclude* their following.

Mind you that most of Microsoft's employees have degrees in Harvard -- good for doctors and business majors, bad for C.S. degrees.

They know how to make a sale. They also know that college students don't have any money. But they do know that if they give them something for free (or dirt cheap), the student (or any other consumer) will buy it again as soon as they have money. That little tactic is one of the first things you learn in business school, but left out of most Computer Science college curricula.

People who download software rarely will use it more than once or twice. The only business they're losing is business that wasn't their's to begin with.

Re:Ps

[martinX]

So true. Thanks to pirated software, I now have a huge list of things I have found I can't do due to lack of skills or intelligence:

1. Photoshopping
2. 3D modelling
3. Anything to do with music
4. Programming
5. Most games except for UT (which I bought)

I can however use iMovie, which is free :-)

Article text translated for non-BSA users

[YankeeInExile]

Software manufacturers lost $29 billion to piracy in 2003, more than double the previous year's losses, according to an industry survey released Wednesday.

Translation: Software manufacturers CLAIM $29bn in losses due to piracy.

About 36 percent of software installations worldwide are pirated copies, the study by trade group Business Software Alliance and market researcher IDC showed. In dollar terms, the losses were greatest in Western Europe, where piracy cut revenue by $9.6 billion in 2003, followed by Asia and North America. Translation: We assume that 100% of all people running pirated software would have paid full retail had they not found it for less in some other venue.

The Business Software Alliance blamed the rapid spread of piracy on so-called peer-to-peer networks, where Internet users illegally swap software and other files such as music for free or at discounted prices. Translation: We also assume that 100% of all piracy is via peer-to-peer networks.

"Peer-to-peer file-sharing services are becoming a huge problem for us," said Jeffrey Hardee, the Business Software Alliance's Asia-Pacific director. Translation: Sure sucks to be us.

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. Translation: Places with excruciatingly low per-capita incomes, for some reason don't want to spend the equivalent of a years salary for a substantially defective product.

Hardee identified Vietnam, China, India and Thailand as Asian countries that need to step up their fight against piracy. Translation: I bet governments in these places are cheap.

"We need to see more (government) enforcement from these countries," he said. Translation: So we will buy them.

By region, about 53 percent of software applications on computers in Asia was pirated in 2003, compared with 70 percent in Eastern Europe, 63 percent in Latin America, 55 percent in the Middle East, 36 percent in Western Europe and 23 percent in North America. Translation: Poor people don't buy software.

But the dollar losses were largest in Western Europe, North America and Asia because of the sheer size of those markets and the growing use of expensive, sophisticated software in developed countries, said Hardee. Translation: Even though the first world has the lowest per-capita RATES of piracy, they still have the most people who use software.

"In the Asia-Pacific (region), the governments really do want to develop strong IT sectors. And to do that, there's no question they have to bring down the levels of piracy. This will in turn benefit the Asian economies," he said. Translation: The best way for Asian governments to improve their IT sector is to ship major amounts of capital to Poughkeepsie, Redmond and Cupertino.

Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and South Korea are making progress in the battle against piracy, Hardee said. Translation: We are pleased with our rent-to-own program with these governments.

Why steal software?

[dealsites]

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.

Re:Why steal software?

[rawr90]

Photoshop for 700$ seem resonable to you?

Re:Why steal software?

[EvanED]

But a lot aren't. As much as I love the Gimp, the interface sucks in comparison to Photoshop. I have yet to see any program, free or non-free, compare to Dreamweaver. Visual Studio is the best development suite I've used. I know of no free program that does anywhere close to what Mathematica does. Or MathCAD. Or Matlab. All of these programs are ones that I use (even rely on) on occasion, but not nearly enough to justify the enormous pricetags (even for acedemic versions). I can certainly see someone pirating programs such as these. Fortunately, during the school year (when I use them the most) I'm within pretty easy reach of a computer lab with all of the above installed.

Re:Why steal software?

[ejaw5]

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.

Re:Why steal software?

[DrLZRDMN]

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.

Re:Why steal software?

[EvanED]

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...)

Re:Why steal software?

[QuantumG]

Visual Studio is the best development suite I've used.

Uhh, then you need to actually try some more. One more should do it.

Re:Why steal software?

[Noksagt]

I have yet to see any program, free or non-free, compare to Dreamweaver.
Quanta really isn't bad.

Visual Studio is the best development suite I've used.
I'm hooked on Anjuta. Others may prefer KDevelop.

Or Matlab.
Octave completely replaced the casual use of this for me.

Re:Why steal software?

[Nasarius]

Visual Studio is the best development suite I've used.

Try Eclipse. It's got awesome refactoring capabilities, CVS integration, and unlimited potential thanks to its plugin architecture.

Re:Why steal software?

[NTmatter]

On the topic of 3D modelling programs, a few of the major players are warming up to the fact that they can get a bigger pool of beta testers and end users by simply giving away nearly fully functional copies of their software. Among the foremost of these is Side Effects Software. Through their Apprentice program, they allow absolutely anyone to use the latest version of Houdini - a 3D suite that's made its way into some very big movies, like Spider Man, X-Men, Final Fantasy X, and so forth. They have both a Linux and a Windows version. More importantly, they have a sane approach to watermarking. Unlike the Maya PLE, which has so-called "unobtrusive" watermarks that actually make it rediculously difficult to work, or view renders, or even export any files, Houdini Apprentice has a small logo in the bottom-right of renders, and some tiny text in the bottom-right of viewports.

Aside from the watermarking issues, Houdini Apprentice is limited to 640x480 renders, which seems reasonable. These guys have their heads on straight. They offer a solution that benefits potential learners without making pirates of them all, as well as themselves without hemorrhaging insane amounts of cash.

Along the same lines, Oracle, mySQL and Trolltech's QT use a licence that allows free personal use, but require purchase for business use, right? I'd say that's a very good business model for any of the major software companies with multi-thousand-dollar software packages aimed at enterprise-level customers. Why keep trying to sue the pants off of the small fry when you can turn so-called piracy into free publicity (the positive kind) and advertising?

Damn Right

[tonyr60]

"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.

Work harder

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Complete Bullshit

[superpulpsicle]

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.

Re:Complete Bullshit

[Frizzle Fry]

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.

True. And if he was going to buy it, the it is a loss. So if you want to claim that software piracy isn't costing companies money, you have to be prepared to say that every single person who pirates software wouldn't have payed for it. Do you really believe that? It seems to be some sort of polite lie that everyone on slashdot is supposed to pretend that no one ever pirates something that they otherwise would have paid for.

Re:Complete Bullshit

[mark-t]

Indeed. When psychologically, just the _opposite_ is true... people will tend to _not_ pay for what they know how to easily get for free, even if it means "breaking the law"... it's in the same category in people's minds as "white lies". Harmless, and therefore okay. "After all... if it was really so bad, why do they make it so easy for anyone to do?" is not an altogether unheard of rationalization.

There are exceptions to this of course, exceptionally "honest" people with an overdeveloped conscience may not fit the above generalization, but they are regretably in the minority.

Now how many of those people would have paid for it if no free avenue had existed at all is another problem entirely... and can only be estimated, but should be directly proportional how valuable the commodity is to the people that use it. In the case of photoshop, I'd daresay that value is a lot higher than the grandparent poster would want to admit.

But Would They Have Bought It Otherwise?

[stevemm81]

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...

Re:But Would They Have Bought It Otherwise?

[johnnyb]

You're in good company. Thomas Jefferson made the same arguments. He has a great essay on it, including the following paragraph:

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

A fuller examination of this discussion can be found at K5.

Re:But Would They Have Bought It Otherwise?

[Mycroft_VIII]

I don't, have a copy of photoshop that is.
PaintShop pro works just fine for me. It's about $100 retail. They sell it for less on thier website, where you can get a fully working version for free, that times out if it discovers your system date is more than 60 days later than the install date.
The cheapest way to get is paid download, followed by odering a boxed ver from thier website (you can download the full version at the same time) followed by buying at the store.
It will use all the same plugins as the Adobe product will. I dunno what features Photoshop could have to be worth several times as much, but PaintShop has more than I'll ever use. The only thing I can figure is thier selling to the same demographic as Apple Computers.

Mycroft

BSA has zero credibility...

[jerkychew]

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.

Whew

[Apreche]

At least they didn't blame Open Source Software. Then they might actually be right, and we can't have that.

Re:Whew

[momogasuki]

I wonder how The Business Software Alliance determined that the software industry's $29 billion in losses were due to p2p networks, and not due to increased use of open source software.

What Happens?

[stang7423]

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 :-)

Re:What Happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when they manage to ban all forms of P2P and they are still losing money?

I believe the answer you're looking for is "the terrorists." :)

~~~

Uh huh...

[grub]

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. :))

Re:Uh huh...

[grub]

Actually at work we ran into a situation where we needed Win98. A custom controller board with software is in use off a serial port. The software requires hardware level access to the serial port so Win2K etc was out.

(that's another plus for open source, if we had the source we could modify it for this purpose)

Lost Revenue: Formula

[that_old_fool]

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.

Re:Lost Revenue: Formula

[mutewinter]

One way to describe this is to imagine cars as software. Instead of stealing a BMW, think of the thief "duplicating" it. Ok, so there will be alot of people who decided not to shell over $50k for a new beemer -- they could have, but the got it for free instead. Now add in all the people who can't afford $50k for the new BMW, but got one because it was free. The way the BSA (MPAA and RIAA are doing the same) is making these calculations is by saying everyone who is driving a BMW they didn't pay for is $50k in lost revenue. Then factor in the third-world were people may be lucky to make $1000 a year -- they aren't going to pay $20 for software much less $500.

Yes, software companies *are* loosing money to "piracy." Many are indirect losers. Lets go back to the BMW thing again. Who would buy a Ford if they could have a free BMW instead? Same with software companies, people aren't buying Paint Shop Pro because they got Photoshop for free. However, the BSA, MPAA, RIAA, and others are destroying their credibility by giving out ridiculously exagerated numbers. Remember the people who told you pot was as bad as herion?

Re:Lost Revenue: Formula

[Dlugar]

I read an AP wire two years back (wish I could find it--I made a copy somewhere) that detailed their current method of calculating piracy:

(computers bought - software purchased) = software pirated

So if 1000 computers were bought, and only 900 computers were shipped with Windows, and 50 copies of Windows were purchased, then they calculate that 50 copies of Windows were "pirated". They used this same trick for Photoshop, Office, and other programs.

So if you buy a computer and don't have Office pre-installed, and don't purchase a copy from the store, they count that as a "pirated" copy of Office, because obviously you need a copy of Office, right?

Ridiculous. I don't trust the BSA's stats farther than I can throw a truck.

Dlugar

Linux software vs Windows software

[dealsites]

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!

Re:Linux software vs Windows software

[ZeeTeeKiwi]

Thats what this list is for:

http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/tab le.shtml

Here's the link to Google's cache of that site, as it appears to be down at the moment:

http://snipurl.com/7lhd

What loss

[secondsun]

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.

This is just mausenscheiss for the investors

[JeffTL]

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.

Monoculture?

[edhall]

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.

-Ed

BUT I DON'T STEAL SOFTWARE!

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

BUT I DON'T STEAL SOFTWARE!

I steal hardware. Not my fault XP was on the drive.

Piracy supports IT industry

[initialE]

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.

DUH

[stratjakt]

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.

Maybe there is a clearer reason for the loss...

[mindmaster064]

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

Re:well I use open source

[EvanED]

Perhaps you can offer Free suggestions to alternatives to Mathematica, Dreamweaver, and MathCAD.

This is half an honest question and half meant to say "there are a ton of programs without an OSS counterpart"

Important question!

[John Harrison]

How much money has Microsoft lost on Windows in the past year?

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.

I admit it.

[Johnathon_Dough]

I steal software.

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.

Re:I admit it.

[aixou]

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.


That's what is so great about the Alias guys. They supply a free, fully featured version of Maya as a learning tool -- Maya Personal Learning Edition. There is a watermark on all the renders (and they obviously prohibit commercial use), but aside from that, its pretty much the real deal. I wanted to learn a little about Maya, so I downloaded it off of a p2p network. Then when I found out about Maya PLE, I ditched the p2p one and started using their free version, complete with snazzy tutorials. One downside: no linux version of the PLE.

Re:I admit it.

[ameoba]

You neglect to mention that, until a year or two ago, the student version of Maya was still several hundred dollars.

Free Software for Mathematicians

[johnnyb]

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.

Re:Free Software for Mathematicians

[roystgnr]

does Octave compare well to Matlab?

I keep most of my Matlab code Octave-compatible with little trouble, but that just works for the core Matlab features. Matlab has much better (and friendlier) plotting than Octave's gnuplot interface, a nice IDE, and nice (although separately sold) "toolbox" packages for dozens of different application categories. Even the parts of Matlab I don't like are still a step above Octave; Matlab's sparse matrix support is pretty weak, for instance, but (without some unpopular patches) Octave hasn't got them at all.

The BSA doesn't seem to employ any statistician !

[Zorglub1234]

Some more details about the study are available at http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/

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

Piracy can help in some specific cases

[Stevyn]

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.

Re:Piracy can help in some specific cases

[debest]

They are relaxed about casual pirating. Adobe knows exactly the point you raised: that pirated copies of expensive software (in the hands of students) is the perfect way of ensuring that employers (and therefore schools) will not look at cheaper competing tools, since the "standard" package is known by all.

AutoCAD has been riding this bus for freaking ever. Were it not for its installed base and every student getting their free copy, a competing (and certainly cheaper) CAD package would have knocked them off long ago.

They publicly claim to have their panties in a knot over this (after all, they might actually scare or guilt a few people into buying their copy), but in reality they know that if they succeeded in eliminating pirated copies, they would only be killing themselves in the long term.

Erm, nice reporting...

[coupland]

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...

If we outlaw P2P completely aren't we just...

[apillowofclouds]

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 - Everyone!!

[myklgrant]

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

Bit Torrents

[DigiShaman]

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

not worth the effort to 'steal'

[fermion]

You know, I violated copyright in high school. During college I got everything cut rate. After college I bought a lot of software. But in the past few years I have neither had to buy much software or violate copyright. It is so much easier to use what I have or download a free solution, or buy new hardware that comes with everything. It is not just worth the effort to steal. I doubt the kids who are just downloading (in my day it was strictly sneaker net) would buy the stuff anyway. Of course the best way to build the market is to let kids take it. I certainly bought the stuff as soon as I was able.

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.

Software less than necessary

[Neo-Rio-101]

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.

I guess expecting logic wouldn't be too logical

[xigxag]

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.

BSA statistics database

[SoSueMe]

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'.

Re:Ps (People have had it with upgrades...)

[neurocutie]

How about the point that most people would be perfectly happy with Photoshop 4.0. No need to buy 6.0, etc. Similarly, most people would be perfectly happy with MS Word 97. No need for Word 2000, 2003, XP, etc.

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...

I download my software on P2P all the time

[Noksagt]

The Linux Mirror Project

Re:"Study" available here.

[antiMStroll]

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?

I have another idea

[ThousandStars]

Maybe the BSA counts all this supposed lost money on account of this, as opposed to other sources.

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.

Of Course

[imemyself]

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.

Silly article summary

[rd_syringe]

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.

Re:Silly article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Read more carefully. He was clearly calling p2p silly, not piracy. Usenet or any other location where you can get feedback is more trustworthy if only because any one person can call into question the validity of something and provide a reason for such doubt.

This is how open source software works. This is how society works when you're in a crowded restaurant and someone claims that the food is poisoned. If everyone is in their own private booth getting food, the lack of communication does have the possibility of leading to harm. Until P2P offers feedback ratings on a combo hash and filename, there's little to be done with it to verify safety except to do one's own "best effort" and pray no one else is able to hide things better than you are able to find them.

Re:Silly article summary

[Waffle Iron]

I could have sworn making something and selling it was a business model.

Yes it was when the average citizen didn't have the capability to do mass duplication and distribution of your products. Piracy was less rampant in the old days not because people were more honest, but because it was harder to cheat.

The world has always been full of dishonest people. The current response to this mix of new technology and old-fashioned cheaters seems to be focused on government-dictated restrictions on what your computers can do and Draconian punishments for ever-expanding definitions of crimes. However, centuries of history have shown that this kind of approach often yields questionable results.

If those enforcement efforts fail, then the portion of the software industry that produces shrink-wrapped products will have to find another business plan, rightly or wrongly. That's life in the real world.

Re:Silly article summary

[Xabraxas]

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.

You're being a little overdramatic. Morality has not gone by the wayside because joe user downloads mp3's off the internet.

Microsoft wants four hundred dollars for Office. Four Hundred! It costs twenty dollars for a CD and ten bucks to get into a movie, nevermind the ten more dollars you spend on soda and a popcorn. There is a reason people infringe copyright (which is not stealing, you do not deprive another person of anything). The prices are too high and most of what is available is crap. This surge in "stealing" hasn't affected the auto industry or any other industry for that matter, because it's not stealing and it's not a fall into depravity. It's just the realization that we're all getting screwed.

When it comes to shareware, they just don't offer enough for the money. Who would pay fifteen dollars for a screensaver or an archive tool. It's rediculous. These things are a commodity. They have been for quite some time. People are also sick of being swindled by the software industry when learn that they have to pay a big chunck of change just to get their computer to do what they bought it for.

Re:Silly article summary

[DakotaK]

Um, I'm a musician, and I support sharing mp3s. Artists get a miserably tiny cut of the CD pie. Come see us live, that's where we do make the money.
Bear in mind I'm not supporting leeches - if you like the artist, you really should buy the CD, which is what I tell anyone on the subject, and a lot at least claim to.
I do agree with your points on shareware - I have a lot of friends who download the free trials and crack them. I'll admit that I cracked software a few times when I was running Windows, but only with things like image editors that are just fuck-around toys (ie Fark Photoshop contests) as opposed to something that I'd need for work or would profit from.

Re:Silly article summary

[tabdelgawad]

I think you're right about many things, but wrong about a few.

First, shareware may be dead, but it's mostly because freeware (open source or not) has killed it. I honestly can't think of single shareware (or even adware) application that doesn't have a near-equivalent, sometimes superior, freeware replacement. And I'm talking about Windows applications.

Second, the problem with software (and music, and movies, and soon books once electronic readers improve, basically all so-called information goods) is that it's what economists call a pure public good: it's nonrival in consumption (my consumption has absolutely no effect on your consumption of the same good) and non-exclusive (you can't prevent me from consuming it). This is a classic case of market failure and an underlying cause of the 'free-rider' problem.

So yes, basing your business model on the production of a pure public good is problematic. I'm obviously simplifying, but the public good nature of information is *the* heart of the 'piracy' problem and it's silly to try moral-suasion in the face of economic reality.

Re:Silly article summary

[An Onerous Coward]

All those pirate copies of Windows XP must be killing Microsoft. Why, I've heard that the entire company is making less than a billion dollars a month.

How do evil software pirates sleep at night?

People have been predicting that piracy would destroy the software industry since at least the mid-eighties when I started reading about it. You know what? It doesn't matter. Some people will pay for it, some people won't pay for it, and some people will pay for it only to get screwed by bad copy control mechanisms. It's the way it's always been.

You also seem to think that most software developers make their living selling the sort of general purpose, widely used software that tends to get pirated. Operating systems, popular applications, games, etc. But a great deal of development is for customized applications and software which solve problems that only the people who wrote the software actually needed solved. Ergo, it's effectively unpirateable. If you have the control code for an assembly-line machine, and there are only twenty like it in the world, you could put it up on Kazaa, but who would download it?

You claim, without proof, that "shareware is dead." Perhaps it is. But given the cheapness of distribution via the Internet, it takes a lot of freeloaders to cancel out the relative handful of people who actually pay money. If you're insulted that 95% of people will use your software without so much as a thank you, it's not the way for you to go. But if you can take a more mature attitude, and say, "I'm making a fair amount, and I'm happy that people like my software," then you stand a shot.

Without further proof of the deadness of shareware (as a business model. It's undeniable that there are still tons of shareware apps out there), I see no reason to believe you on that point.

Last thing: Business models. You are indeed correct. Taking something that is cheaply and easily copied and trying to sell it for far more than replication cost is a business model. Then again, so is picking leaves off your front porch, stuffing them in a paper bag, scrawling "delicious salad" on it in magic marker, and selling it on the street. Love it or loathe it, the effortless duplication of information is a fact, and it is far more sensible for companies to look for new revenue streams than to whine about the unfairness of it all, or to buy legislation outlawing general purpose tools that might be used to infringe.

Re:Silly article summary

[Saeger]

If those enforcement efforts fail, then the portion of the software industry that produces shrink-wrapped products will have to find another business plan

Artificial scarcity enforcement will always fail.

Even in the face of a draconian future where DRM is mandated to be wired into all hardware, and each person needs an identifying digital certificate to access the "SECURE internet", there will STILL be huge subchannels where information flows freely as well as a huge blackmarket for open hardware (from China no doubt).

The best business model for CREATORS to switch to in the face of this new reality is to GET PAID UPFRONT FOR THE SCARCE ACT OF (GOOD) ORIGINAL CREATION, instead of relying on many small forced payments for an artifically scarce copy (carried over from when the media itself was scarce and distribution expensive). The Street Performer Protocol is one such model; there are many more variations. These kinds of distributed patronage systems are the way to go, IMO; not lock and key.

--

Re:Silly article summary

[silverhalide]

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?

I would argue game companies are leaning more toward consoles because they are easier to develop for, sufficiently powerful now, and have reached a critical mass for an audience (Average gamer vs. L33t PC geek with his tricked out box).

Software piracy is probably not as common as you think. Here on slashdot, I guarantee a vast majority of users have at some point "borrowed" an application. The general population, on the other hand, the kids and average parents on AOL, probably have not.

There will always be a segment of the population that steals software. I am willing to bet, however, that this PERCENTAGE of users has not increased over the years (noting that the total number of users, therefore pirates, have).

There are two types of piracy in my book: the for-profit pirates, and the tinkerers. The former is what the BSA is (or should be) focusing on, such as Russian mafia groups burning windows XP cds and selling them and profitting from the stolen software. I think almost everyone can agree this is unacceptable in any form, morally and ethically.

Then, there's the tinkerers. The college kids who download that $700 photoshop program, or $2000 Matlab program, or $10,000 Maya suite for the purposes of learning it and toying with it. Here's the shocker, by these kids learning these packages because they stole them, they make the software more valuable. Once they get into a real job, and boss asks you to whip together some images, the kid who knows Photoshop is gonna make said company go out and buy that software.

Now granted, this is an idealization, and I'm sure businesses pirate software as well, but the larger the user base that knows your software, the more valuable it is and more likely it is to be purchased. I'm willing to bet Microsoft actively looked away from pirates back in the early days when their market share wasn't so certain, because these new users were using the software, getting hooked on it, and eventually landed in a situation where they had to buy the packages.
As far as games go, the reality is that almost every new game will have some sort of network functionality. Users may pirate a copy of a game, and play it in single player mode, but now they're hooked, and want to play online, where now it's very easy to check to see if your copy is legit. Again, another user roped in and hooked.

Still, a hax0r kiddie who steals a copy of Autocad is no skin off of anyone's back, because he was never a potential customer to begin with. But if he learns it, and eventually ends up in the business world, then that's one more license sold for Autodesk.

Re:Silly article summary

[0racle]

Microsoft wants four hundred dollars for Office
So? they're within their right to charge what ever they want, its their software. On the other hand if you feel this is an unfair price its your right not to purchase it. Just because you disagree with the list price of something does not give you the right to take it. I don't have the right to download Office because I can't afford it any more then its my right to jack a BMW because its expensive but I still want one.

You can argue that piracy isn't stealing till your blue in the face, one, it doesn't change the fact its illegal, two, you took something you have no right to , and three, the meaning of words change, language is not a static entity, so if the general population uses the word steal in the context of downloading music, movies or software, guess what it comes to mean. If you don't believe me, look up the word Gay some time.

Re:Silly article summary

[1u3hr]

>a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software
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?"

I think software piracy by P2P is far-fetched -- not that it doesn't happen, but that it's hardly the major vector. Also, looking at the FA: "Vietnam and China had the world's highest rates, with pirated versions accounting for 92 percent". There's no way P2P has anything to do with piracy there. If you've ever been to either country, or most 3rd-world countries, you'd know that Internet access is terrible and expensive, but CDROM (AND DVD) bootlegs are dirt cheap. I would imagine that in most 1st world countries, bootlegs propagate mostly by CDROM too, either free from friends or at a few dollars a disk, from boot sales, street vendors or the like.

Re:Silly article summary

[Xabraxas]

So? they're within their right to charge what ever they want, its their software. On the other hand if you feel this is an unfair price its your right not to purchase it. Just because you disagree with the list price of something does not give you the right to take it. I don't have the right to download Office because I can't afford it any more then its my right to jack a BMW because its expensive but I still want one.

Exactly. Did you actually read the part where I said that this supposed newfound "immorality" is NOT affecting the auto industry? People are not jacking BMW's at left and right because that is theft, downloading music, software, and movies IS NOT THEFT. It's something called COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It's a civil matter and people are sued in court but are not jailed. It is completely different than stealing.

You can argue that piracy isn't stealing till your blue in the face, one, it doesn't change the fact its illegal, two, you took something you have no right to , and three, the meaning of words change, language is not a static entity, so if the general population uses the word steal in the context of downloading music, movies or software, guess what it comes to mean. If you don't believe me, look up the word Gay some time.

There is also a point in being exact with your words. When you claim people are breaking some law, when they really are not, it makes a big difference what you say. The dynamic aspect of language does not change how laws work, nor should it.

Re:Silly article summary

[Danse]

The really sad thing is that I would do more time for using a camcorder to record a movie than most of these assholes get for stealing billions. The color of their collar earns them such leniency? No wonder people don't give a damn about corporations losing money. They see that it's all about what you get without getting caught. If corporate leaders are going to ignore the law with virtual impunity, why should anyone else do differently? Don't hate the player, hate the game, right?

Re:Silly article summary

[0racle]

When I claim someone is breaking some law, since I'm not a lawyer I am speaking colloquially. For instance if I refer to a crime as murder, as long as they killed someone, I am correct. A lawyer on the other hand may use words like 'manslaughter,' 'depraved indifference causing bodily harm,' and various degrees of murder, and they all mean different things. So when speaking of stealing as refering to anything that is covered by 'taking something that you have no right to,' I am using the word correctly.

However, since we're being so exact, lets look at some definitions, courtesy of Google.
Copyright Infringement: Violation of copyright through unauthorized copying or use of a work or other subject matter under copyright. The distribution of material protected by copyright restrictions without a author's permission.

Theft: Any act of stealing, including robbery and burglary. The wrongful taking of the property of another.

Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'

Now these are just dictionary terms, so lets take a look at how legally the term 'Theft' is used. From the Personal Insurance Federation of California Insurance Reference Book THEFT: This is the common word for "acts of stealing." There is no precise meaning in law.

It would seem that it is not so much of a leap to call Unauthorized copying wrongful taking of property, which would be theft, and since it has no precise meaning in law, it might be that its not wrong to call Copyright Infringement theft.

Re:Silly article summary

[BeerSlurpy]

Yes and this is the business model I follow. I get paid for my development efforts up front. If you are skilled engineer you dont work in a ford factory assembling the automotive equivalent of microsoft word. You also dont change oil, the automotive equivalent of being a consultant or a maintenance programmer.

The skilled engineer builds custom software for companies with deep pockets. The automotive equivalent of having a shop that builds race cars and does custom fabrication.

And this software I make is in turn sold to other companies with deep pockets. They like the assurance that a company will fix bugs if they find any and provide them with expert support on their setups. You dont get that with microsoft.

Re:Silly article summary

[jrockway]

And you paid for them. Hence his point.

If you're using photoshop to feed your family, you're going to buy it.

If you're blurring out your AIM window to submit a screenshot to 1337p30p13.com, Photoshop is not valuable to you and hence you pirate it.

Teenagers pirate games because they _have no income_. Therefore they can't afford $50 for a game. They can, however, use their parents' DSL to get it for free. So they do.

P2P networks aren't the problem. People are. P2P networks don't kill profit... people kill profit :)

Re:Silly article summary

[Waffle Iron]

Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'

What the copyright holder owns is the copyright itself, not any particular copy of a work or the medium that it's contained on. The only way to "take" this from the copyright holder would be by fraudulently claiming to hold the copyright youself.

Any particular copy of a work and the medium that contains it is owned by the person who bought it. The copyright holder does not own that copy at all; what he has is a "lien" that prevents the owner of the copy from making further copies in most cases.

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.

Re:Silly article summary

[medelliadegray]

You are correct, there are many people who simply wish to freeload.

at the same time, there are many more who believe that software (in general) is highly overpriced, and thus they are being severely ripped off (and will not tolerate being ripped off).

People will tend to buy what their familiar with:

OS $200
office suite $400
Antivirus package 40/yr.
Internet Access 120-500/yr.

Looking it at through most users eyes, You're looking at a minium of $800 in nothing tangible in their first year of having their PC. This is just for the 'essentials' a computer should have.

compare that price to the $500 their friend can build a good "barebones" pc for them, and its no wonder people feel that their getting ripped off.

Look at it this way: $800 for 4 cd's vs $500 for a whole pc!

If companies sold software to consumers at the price that they sell to OEM's, a lot more people would be a lot more willing to shell out for their favorite software package. at least, that is what i believe.

Re:Silly article summary

[Dun Malg]

Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'

Incorrect. The property is the copyright itself. Duplication of a CDROM doesn't take away their copyright, nor does it diminish the original.

Re:Silly article summary

[Xrikcus]

A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience. As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.

I would agree on low to medium cost software. High end software, on the other hand, is very different. A student will NEVER buy lighwave 3d, say, no chance, while he's still a student. I would actually argue that the authors would want that kind of person to pirate it because it means more people get into doing the 3d artwork in the first place, and some of those decide they want to do it "for real", and actually buy a copy. Had they not pirated it, they wouldn't have bought it, would never have experienced the artform, and wouldn't get into it professionally. Is it really worth a company's while suing schoolkids for thousands of pounds worth of software that they'd never have bought anyway?

This is in fact exactly the reason Microsoft has had the sense to give Visual Studio away free to students, they know they couldn't afford to buy it, but they get them hooked. It's taken them a while to realise that, but now they are doing it. Software vendors often don't see past their primary market, the people they know are willing and able to buy their software, MS is now (worryingly, in a way) working that out for themselves.

Though, on one point I'm not totally clear, I've spoken to people in some companies that provide this sort of software, and I know they don't care about piracy of this sort and actually like it. They would never admit that as an official line though, which is understandable as it seems like they are supporting piracy, but they also don't release "free for non-commercial use" versions or the like, which wouldn't seem like supporting piracy... not quite clear on why they don't do that, didn't get any good answers.

Re:Silly article summary

[gordo3000]

I love copyright arguments on Slashdot, for some reason people decide to forget the original points and argue about semantics so I`m just gonna use a slight disclaimer, IANAL so I don`t give a rat`s ass what any technical term I use means. Everyone here damn well knows what the speaker intends so we might as well just move on.

Personally, I don`t see why people say copyright infringement is ok if you find something wrong with what the person is offereing. Another disclaimer: no, not one post here has said it is ok. All that many slashdot users do is defend it by giving meaningless excuses like its too expensive or there are too many features that I don`t need. If this is all really the case, well, pick up and find a different program.

Unfortunately, I don`t by any of these arguments about how so many people feel this software is crap. There is really only one question to ask yourself and you`ll see my point, why would you waste time getting yourself a pirated copy of a program, possibly exposing yourself to great risks, when both the proprietary program is not good and there exist better open source alternatives. I`ll give you the most prevalent reason that so many people here won`t admit to, the software is perfectly fine and the reason you pirate is because it is good and you have found a reasonably safe way to get it illegally. Yes I do have some pirated software adn a lot of software that exists in a limbo like area(namely, I split the price of it and me and a friend share the thing). but you know, I didn`t get them for free because I thought the software was overpriced or not good, but rather I found a nice free alternative and I`m just not all that moral(UT04 is worth 50 bucks, I just had the option of getting it for free, go figure what I`m going to do). So I will admit it, software companies have lost money to my free alternatives.

Hey its the same with the movie theaters. If I want to check out a movie, I used to have to rent it. As I went to blockbuster, that was 4 dollars into their pocket, some of which makes its way back to the parent companies and movie studios. Well, every since I can get the movie for free, screw renting it, and when I find ultra high quality downloads, I don`t usually think about buying it either. If everyone on this site stopped arguing points like `they don:t know if I would buy it, so how can they say they lost money` and just took a long look at the things they ahve done, maybe they would see things a little different. I will admit that not all pirated versions of software are sales, but you know, I would bet a whole lot of them are and so while the industry might not have lost 29 billion, I will beleive they have lost a reasonable percent of that money.

and of course, my sematics tidbit: is it theft, I`m not quite sure, but I`m damn sure if I wrote an amazing computer game with incredible code and my program was so well set up that it didn`t require support, I would want some compensation for it. Now imagine I spent the last 5 years of my life working on this code and now everyone `infringes on my copyright` and uses it for free, I would be one pissed off person because my pleasure from seeing people like my game sure as hell wouldn`t feed me. Honestly, wouldn`t any of you be?
~Gordo3000

Re:Silly article summary

[Cederic]

Shareware is not dead. One of my close friends has paid registrations for his shareware software equivalent to approximately 30% of the devices capable of running it.

Of course, his software is useful and cheap - always a wise combination.

Still, 30% market penetration is stunningly good. (Shame for him it's a small market). And demonstrates the flaw in your statemetn that shareware is dead.

Fact is, people tend to pay when they perceive they're receiving value.
~Cederic

Re:Silly article summary

[kcbrown]

In any case, the hax0r kiddie who steals a copy of Autocad had better do so covertly -- for serious damages and possible criminal responsibility await if he gets caught.

[...]

All things considered, why steal software that isn't yours? If they won't give it to you for free on your terms, make your own.

Exactly. And this is why companies like Adobe who peddle high-priced software for the masses will eventually lose to Free Software. If the risk of using proprietary software when you can't afford to acquire it properly gets too high, then you'll use something that is truly free even if it isn't as good as the proprietary version -- as long as the truly free version is good enough. And when you eventually get to the point where you are in a position where you influence purchasing decisions, are you going to then encourage your company to buy the software that you have no familiarity with, or are you going to encourage them to use the same software that you are familiar with, and is free to boot? You'll recommend the software you're familiar with, and the fact that it's free to the company will be an extra bonus.

Multiply that by tens or even hundreds of thousands of times over and what do you get? A failed proprietary product, and possibly even a failed software company, that's what.

The only exception to this is software that has no true equivalent, such as operating systems, and software that's cheap enough that even the pirates and poor college students can afford it. Windows doesn't really have an equivalent because nothing else out there will run the programs it runs.

Re:Silly article summary

[Pofy]

>Copyright Infringement: Violation of copyright
>through unauthorized copying or use of a work or
>other subject matter under copyright.

What country's copyright law would that be? In most countries, the USE of work that someone holds the copyright is not at all covered by copyright law. Reproduction (making copies), distribution (usually only first sale though) and public performance are the typical actions that are covered by copyright law and given an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. everything else is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder. That is why I can read any book, even one I don't own, and not infringing on the copyright.

>Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to
>the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized
>copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'

Ehh, the only "ownership" it assigns is the copyright. It would not be ownership to each copy were the work that had copyright is fixed into a tangible form (basically made into a physical copy). Of course, the copyright holder will typically always be the first owenr of each such copy, but they are then usually sold and then there is no longer such an ownership othe individual copy. Of course, the copyright is not sold along with the physical copies. Hence there is a big difference in owning a copyright on something and owning the individual copies of the work. For example, I own the books in my own, but do not own any copyright on any of them.

You seem to equate the copyright to a property. That is, by holding or owning a copyright, you have a property. Fine, lets go with that. However, no one is stealing the copyright when copying a book (or computer software), you still have it, and they don't. They create a new copy (unauthorized since only a copyright holder can typically do that) so against the law, but they did now steal any property at all.

Re:Silly article summary

[gglaze]

There are two types of piracy in my book: the for-profit pirates, and the tinkerers. The former is what the BSA is (or should be) focusing on, such as Russian mafia groups burning windows XP cds and selling them and profitting from the stolen software. I think almost everyone can agree this is unacceptable in any form, morally and ethically.

I generally agree with your comments, but I believe you are missing a key segment of pirates here. In addition to the "for-profit pirates" and the "tinkerers", we should be discussing the "ignorant/lazy IT departments".

The BSA's focus is directed at more than just Russian Mafia groups, and rightly so. The BSA is also focused on IT departments inside companies, and particularly those where the majority of their software is not properly licensed. This has probably been the case at most companies I have worked with, both large and small.

While I agree with you that on one hand, the "tinkerers" are providing a good knowledge base for future business revenue for software companies, those same tinkerers are the ones bringing their culture along with them from university into business. When they get their first job, and they are asked to acquire software to fill a certain need, they are often (not always) prone to follow old habits. So my conclusion is that the "tinkerers" group has a good side and a bad side for software companies. I'm not sure what the ratio of good to bad is here, but it certianly seems to me like this gives the BSA the ethical right to go after that group as well, if they deem it necessary.

Re:Silly article summary

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Would you people please stop using this as a justification to not pay for something! I can't beleive what I am reading,

Learn to read, if you will. He wasn't justifying illegal copying, but pointing out that despite the GGP's claim that the software industry was effectively dying.

There are 1000's of people downloading software at no cost to them, which is normally sold for a price, how can that not hurt a company?

How would it hurt your company if those people hadn't bought your software otherwise? If someone copies Photoshop 8 in order to produce a few graphics on his personal homepage, is he stealing Adobe $1200? What do you think would've happened if he hadn't been able to pirate any image editing program?

1. He would've bought Photoshop (overkill for his purposes) for $1200.
2. He would've bought another company's simpler tool for $29.95.
3. He would've downloaded The GIMP for free.

Whether the correct answer is 2 or 3, it most certainly isn't 1. In both cases, he wouldn't have paid Adobe any more money than by pirating Photoshop. So in effect, piracy may hurt the competition, rather than the company whose product is illegaly copied.

So, based on all this crap people are trying to unload with regards to copyright and justifications based on prices or features, blah, blah. Let's just take the example of a Newspaper, there is copyrighted information in that and for the most part, this stuff is available online, so instead of reading the Times online, step into your local news stand, grab a copy and walk out, do you think that you will be stopped?

There is a real cost for printing a newspaper, and, more importantly, they might later run out of copies so they can't service paying customers any more. The same is not true for file sharing. Try stealing a hotdog. Do you think you will be stopped?

Lastly, have you seen the balance sheet on this company? they are making billions! How can they get away with this?

No, but if my company makes billions in software then I'm not supposed to whine all day about rip-offs, that's just ridiculous. Copying Photoshop or MS Office is illegal, but I'll spare my pity for those who're really in need, like kids in India whose parents can't afford $10 for diarrhea medication.

I posit that Adobe and Microsoft actually benefit greatly from piracy, and that it's the smaller competition instead which suffers. Why? If tomorrow was the day on which copying MS Office and Photoshop became impossible, what do you think would happen?

1. Lots of people would shell out the last $1700 hidden under their pillow in order to buy the most recent versions of Office and Photoshop.
2. Lots of people would switch to competitors' products, including free alternatives such as OpenOffice and The GIMP.

In the short term, MS and Adobe might see more profits, but in the long term, a lack of a private user base would hurt their business sales dramatically. Just consider that Microsoft is currently promoting MS Office over the OOo/SO competition by pointing out that people are already used to MSO and would need to be retrained expensively. Wouldn't this argument be reversed if home users actually preferred OOo? And then consider Microsoft's statement that they do not plan to enforce their copyright towards private users. Why not? Simply because a "stolen" MS product is still more useful to them than a legally purchased competitor's product. By far!

Who do you think hurts Microsoft more? A student who pirated Windows XP, or myself? I'm not running XP at all, I'm running Gentoo Linux. Moreover, I'm a software developer. Switching from Windows to Linux has made me aware of portability issues. All applications that I produce now (at least if I'm given the choice) are portable to just about any platform of your preferrence, or easily made so. I use wxWidgets for GUI, mult

Re:Silly article summary

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Theft: Any act of stealing, including robbery and burglary. The wrongful taking of the property of another.

Merriam-Webster: theft, n. 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it [emphasis mine]

Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder

No they don't. They grant a duplication rights monopoly on your product, but the actual copy is my property. If I give it to a friend, or burn it and stomp all over it, there's nothing you can do about it, unless specified differently in a valid contract.

Re:Silly article summary

[Alexis de Torquemada]

A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience. As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.

I'll let Bill Gates speak for himself:

Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

Man, you are just another drag on us all.

Could you explain this in more detail? Where did GP claim to illegaly copy software himself? What you don't get is that an uncopyable MS Office would be the death of Microsoft (unless they figured out a clever way to separate home use from business use while still keeping business prices up), so yes, some companies do profit a lot from software piracy. It's not that they wouldn't have taken hundreds of dollars if the student who infringes upon their copyright would have offered them to MS. But it's still way better for them if he copies their software, instead of going for the free OpenOffice. They know that bloody well, and this is why they do not enforce their copyrights towards private users. So in some situations, piracy may hurt the competition instead of the copyright holder.

Re:Silly article summary

[gordo3000]

I of course, must give credit where it is due, it is very true that the software industry is extremely healthy(screw healthy, that`s like saying gluttony in america is healthy;) but they have earned it. I think it and the dvd business is proof a high quality product will still be bought and no matter what you do, a high quality product will be pirated.

My only knowledge on this, there were about 200 people on the torrent at suprnova for UT04 a couple weeks back but I`m sure thousands probably bought it in that time period. And of course, I am very glad I got a pirated version of Halo first, because contrary to what the box says, it will not run on my laptop even though I meet all the requirements and turn everything down to a minimum, I blue screen and restart. That saved me a good bit of money. And I can also say depending on the time, my money usually shifts between movies and computer games, the only CD in the last 10 years to intrigue me into buying was the Evanescense cd(no, I cannot spell) so I think it might be a good point to say the RIAA has lost sales to DVD`s and computer games because most kids that I know are working on a limited budget. and no, I hadn`t thought that was a real possibility but after hearing it and thinking about my experiences, it does make sense.

And yes, I was being horribly melodramatic at the end of my post, I probably should more accurately say that if I was limited into only buying a BMW 5 series instead of that 7 series I always wanted, I would be pissed off;).

á

Re:Silly article summary

[1u3hr]

Theft: ...The wrongful taking of the property of another.
Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'

This is the essence of your argument. I hope you can see that "copying" isn't "taking" -- for a start, the copyrighted object has not been taken away. Making a copy or a derivative work is a violation of copyright, it isn't theft, stealing, robbery, or even really piracy, except that the latter term has somehow become attached to this particular act, though it has nothing to do with armed robbery on the high seas. There is a reason that the legal concept of "intellectual property" has evolved: it's because the concepts of "real property" fall apart in many cases when you try to apply them to ideas rather than goods. So whenever I see an argument beginnning "Think of this DVD/software as a car..." and going on to talk about carjacking, the cost of a Mercedes, etc, there's realy no way to answer, because the terms of reference are already far from the actual legal system.

Re:Silly article summary

[bit01]

Nonsense. An optional luxury item like a Rolex is in no way comparable to an essential work item like a wordprocessor.

M$ is a monopoly. They didn't go from nothing to being one of the richest companies in world by giving customers value for money. They did it by manipulating the market, by being lucky, by largely buying, not creating, a few good software products and by being the beneficiary of an unstable market with an extreme economic network effect leading to winner-take-all. They are currently being paid something like $30,000,000,000 plus per year for a dozen programs they largely wrote more than a decade ago. That's insane.

Any system which allows this to happen is badly broken. You can bullshit all you like about rights and how they've earned it but the simple fact is these so-called rights are simply bad law, not natural human rights, and they haven't even remotely earned it. Any bleating by past and present microsofties about "rights" is nothing more than parasites worried that they might lose their free ride.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Maxima

[gr8_phk]

Maxima is a staple in my free software collection. I'm not qualified to evaluate advanced features compared to Mathematica, but IMHO it is at least a MathCad replacement without the pretty graphics. If they add MathML output into a MathML renderer people will suddenly think it's just like Mathematica.

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).

Not to mention...

[rd_syringe]

...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.

Re:Not to mention...

[rd_syringe]

But for a society to thrive and function, there must be a common ground defined, a shared ethical framework that is fair to everyone. Software piracy is an unfair system--it's an inbalance of the equation. Eventually that inbalance is going to catch up and have severe effects, forcing the system to change. One example is the gaming industry's mass exodus to console gaming where piracy is much more difficult. That area is already being cracked as well.

That's not even getting into the ethics issue, an overlooked issue, in my opinion. Software developers are geeks like us, and you're not helping someone's life any by taking away from his sales. Keep in mind that when you download, not only are you getting it, but you're serving as a node for other people to get it off of you. It's the nature of P2P, and without realizing it, you're part of a much bigger web affecting the system.

In the interest of fairness, yes, I have pirated too. In fact, in high school I was quite the pirate. Having graduated college, gotten a real job and produced products, and actually experienced real life, your eyes are opened to how things really work. It's a cliche, but it's true. I'm curious how the system will be forced to change, because such changes will majorly affect people's careers.

From Cnet Commentary

[terrigena3]

This is in response to the article posted on cnet, the author makes a good point. Over charging for software inflates "losses."
http://news.com.com/5208-1014-0.html?fo rumID=1&thr eadID=1285&messageID=5862&start=-1

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.

And here i thought it was high software prices...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

Re:The BSA doesn't seem to employ any statistician

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Maybe PS 5.x - PS 4 a bit too lacking

[tieke]

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)

P2P piracy is a problem

[Castaa]

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.

Re:P2P piracy is a problem

[acceleriter]

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.

Exactly--the MM people are selling a service, because they've figured out the software is commoditized. Now these things aren't my cup of tea--if I'm going to buy a game, I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay a monthly fee on top of it. But the fact that this razor blade marketing has been shown to work in games provides hope for the other segments of the software industry. Unless . . . OpenOffice.org doesn't charge a monthly fee and $DOMINANT_WORD_PROCESSOR does. Therein lies the real threat.

Re:"Study" available here.

[achurch]

So, what's the origin of this 'doubling' claim in the original story?

Found in a Redmond trash can:

10 PRINT "2002 losses (billions)";
20 INPUT LOSSES#
30 LOSSES# = LOSSES# * 2
40 PRINT "2003 losses: $";LOSSES#;" billion"

You are not everyone.

[Lord Bitman]

Note that many, many people are currently infected with trojans, then do the math.

You know what's bullshit?

[rd_syringe]

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.

Re:You know what's bullshit?

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

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.

Non sequitur.

Whether or not it gives anyone the right to have it without paying for it is not the issue. The issue is whether BSA members would have had $39,000,000,000 more if all software piracy was prevented. Since a very large percentage of that software is used by people who either will not or can not pay for it, that figure is seriously flawed.

Let's say you paint a mural on the side of your garage and require everyone who looks at it to pay you a dollar because of all your hard work. You put out a can to collect the money. You check it a week later, and there are only five dollars in it. You saw three people look at your garage without paying. So you hire a guard to stand by the mural and make sure that nobody can look at it without paying. He chases away the three people: an art lover (thinks he has a right to it), a 6-year-old girl with only ten cents (can't afford it), and a blind man (can't use it anyway). Your can still has only five dollars in it.

None of those three people would have paid to look at the mural in the first place, so you have gained nothing by hiring that guard to prevent them from doing so. You can't claim that you lost $3 from "illegal staring" before you hired the guard, because it was $3 you never had and weren't ever going to get.

That's the problem with the BSA's figures: They're making up numbers for how much pirated software is out there, and then counting their "losses" as the full retail price of that software, disregarding the fact that a very large percentage of it is in the hands of people who will not or can not pay for it, and thus was never "lost sales" to begin with. If illegally copying software is wrong, then what is lying about statistics and deliberately misleading the public and the government?

BSA can't continue the BS

[HuguesT]

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.

Re:So is copy protection good or bad?

[sparrow_hawk]

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.

Re:Ethics

[pnot]

NOT Bill Gate's ethics (or lack there of), not the RAII / BSA's ethics (or lack there of), it's about YOUR ethics.

You've hit the nail right on the head. It's about MY ethics. What are you going to do if MY ethics don't equate copying software with property theft? Ethics, unlike laws, are not enshrined in statute books. Everyone has their own set.

Stealing from The Donald is still stealing.

Who's The Donald?

Sure, blame the messenger.

[phyrebyrd]

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

"far fetched"

[p0rnking]

L1TH10N, I hate to tell you this, but you are not the only one who has ever heard of or used P2P.
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 /. crowd) doesn't do something a specific way, doesn't mean that those who aren't as brilliant as you don't do it.

So horribly inaccurate

[geek]

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!!

mindless angry rant

[PsiPsiStar]

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.

OEM is the real culprit

[haitch]

These companies that are members of the BSA that put out OEM software should have a good look at themselves. They could solve a lot of their perceived piracy problem by just not doing OEM. There are 2 main reasons for this:

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.

What about stealing software we've paid for?

[The Woodworker]

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.

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 ... 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.

Just my thoughts

For many companies: piracy > competition.

[Maul]

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.

Another "moral stance" rebuttal

[MunchMunch]

"I guess I never realized that part of it was forgotten. It's never even mentioned in these types of discussions... ...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..."

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.

It's even a little worse than that

[SuperKendall]

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.

Damages

[syph3n]

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 ;)

Blow me, BSA!

[Newer Guy]

"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."

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.

Pirates lose market share

[future assassin]

haha heres a link for ya Pirates lose market share

..and yet...

[tkrotchko]

"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.

once again

[maxpublic]

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

Re:Diamonds

[cduffy]

The DeBeers cartel are telling me different. They've done okay for quite a while.

...but not much longer, given their artificial competitors.

The economy is fine - the people must be criminals

[louzerr]

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?

BSA is run by Microsoft

[truthsearch]

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.