Slashdot Mirror
BSA Piracy Study Deeply Flawed
zbik writes "Corante reports that The Economist has blown the lid off the BSA's recent report on software piracy (covered by Slashdot), referring to their methods as 'BS'.
'They dubiously presume that each piece of software pirated equals a direct loss of revenue to software firms.' The BSA has complained that the article is offensive but does not dispute their analysis. Score one for common sense."
Boy these people's heads are stuck so far up their asses that they can see through their mouths... you just can't make this stuff up.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
The economist is refusing connexion with Slashdot as referer. Simply copy/paste the link in a new tab.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
We know it's true, what's news is that The Economist has said so. Normal people and perhaps lawmakers are more likely to listen.
I am trolling
BSA or just BS?
May 19th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Software theft is bad; so is misstating the evidence
IT SOUNDS too bad to be true; but, then, it might not be true. Up to 35% of all PC software installed in 2004 was pirated, resulting in a staggering $33 billion loss to the industry, according to an annual study released this week by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade association and lobby group.
Such jaw-dropping figures are regularly cited in government documents and used to justify new laws and tough penalties for pirates--this month in Britain, for example, two people convicted of piracy got lengthy prison sentences, even though they had not sought to earn money. The BSA provided its data. The judge chose to describe the effects of piracy as nothing less than "catastrophic".
Intellectual property
But while the losses due to software copyright violations are large and serious, the crime is certainly not as costly as the BSA portrays. The association's figures rely on sample data that may not be representative, assumptions about the average amount of software on PCs and, for some countries, guesses rather than hard data. Moreover, the figures are presented in an exaggerated way by the BSA and International Data Corporation (IDC), a research firm that conducts the study. They dubiously presume that each piece of software pirated equals a direct loss of revenue to software firms.
To derive its piracy rate, IDC estimates the average amount of software that is installed on a PC per country, using data from surveys, interviews and other studies. That figure is then reduced by the known quantity of software sold per country--a calculation in which IDC specialises. The result: a (supposed) amount of piracy per country. Multiplying that figure by the revenue from legitimate sales thus yields the retail value of the unpaid-for software. This, IDC and BSA claim, equals the amount of lost revenue.
The problem is that the economic impact of global software piracy is far harder to calculate. Some academics have shown that some piracy actually increases software sales, by introducing products to people who would not otherwise become customers. Indeed, Bill Gates chirped in the 1990s that piracy in China was useful to Microsoft, because once the nation was hooked, the software giant would eventually figure out a way to monetise the trend. (Lately Microsoft has kept quiet on this issue.)
The BSA's bold claims are surprising, given that last year the group was severely criticised for inflating its figures to suit its political aims. "Absurd on its face" and "patently obscene" is how Gary Shapiro, boss of the Consumer Electronics Association, another lobby group, describes the new ranking.
You've just gotta love Brazil's response:
"We're against software piracy. We believe Microsoft's rights should be respected. And the simplest way to respect their rights is for Brazilians everywhere to switch to free software."
I hope so.
The Economist is great. However, they have say many things (That I agree with) that will *never* come to pass.
For example, the Economist staff openly advocates the legalization of Cocaine in the U.S.
Why?
Because this would be a more *effective* policy for reducing drug use in the U.S., let alone reducing the harms of the Cocaine economy.
Can you imagine the U.S. *ever* legalizing Cocaine?
I think not. Look for lawmakers to continue parroting the BSA (BS) line.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Clearly, the BSA has presented a strong argument. But the Economist's is also strong. Therefore, we would do well to download and read the BSA's 900 kB report on piracy. Each and every one of us can do our part to help eliminate piracy. ;-)
After all, I am strangely colored.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp
You know, this is waaaay off topic, and it's probably immoral of me to even be laughing at you instead of donating to a charitable organization that might be able to help your condition, but on the off chance that you didn't bother to read any of the article you linked to, here's the sumamry:
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Do they threaten businesses with frivolous, expensive lawsuits to get them to comply?
Most certainly.
They basically threaten you, and if you don't "comply" they show up at your company and interrupt your business for a few days, causing lots of lost productivity. In the end, you get fined for stupid things like having unregistered winzip and having a few extra copies of windows that you shouldn't be running. Your cost is several days of zero productivity, a hefty fine, and maybe jailtime. Their cost is the price of a few faxes, the lawyer costs for filing, and very little time helping with the raid.
It's more like extortion. The old "give me money or I talk" game. They don't really have to have any hard evidence of piracy to get a court order and a few federal officers to raid your business.
The best thing to do is to just be in compliance. If you don't have the money to spend on the software, find free alternatives.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?