Software Industry Shifting Piracy Strategy

Sensible Clod writes "The U.S. software industry's strategy against global software piracy is shifting to focus on claimed economic benefits of copyright protection in response to a new study released by the BSA, according to an article at Internet News. The study concluded that countries with high software piracy rates have more to gain economically by protecting intellectual property rights. The study even claims potential global gains of '2.4 million new jobs, $400 billion in economic growth and $67 billion in new tax revenues' by cutting the current global software piracy rate of 35% by 10%."

Comments

Software Piracy Rate?

[croddy]

What on earth is the "rate" of software piracy? This sounds awfully like more mystical math from an industry with a lot of motivation to deceive.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[Sique]

If they wouldn't pirate Photoshop, they would use GIMP, and complain about missing features, some of them would start scratching the itch and bringing GIMP on par with Photoshop, KPT would be recoded from scratch for GIMP, and finally even professional graphic shops would switch to GIMP and save the $700. So in the end no one would ever buy Photoshop, and the coders of Photoshop would be out of work and unpaid. Basicly piracy is the last thing that keeps Free Software from world domination.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[ScrewMaster]

I did, actually, for quite a few years. I had several industrial data acquisition products that I had developed and sold, and that was how I earned my living. And no, I didn't let anyone "pirate" it, although I had some competition that would have loved to do just that.

But I never lied to my customers or threatened them or took them to court for the price of a song. True pirates (i.e., those that bulk-copy a product and sell it) are easy to deal with, if you can find them. Hell, most of them are actually the same CD/DVD pressing plants that make legitimate stuff. It's hard to get reliable numbers on such things, but certainly that kind of blatant, felonious activity costs them significant sales. It's pretty clear-cut, in that case, that you're dealing with criminals, out to rip you off for a profit. They should and do go after those types.

However, the problem with casual copying of software and other media by ordinary consumers is that the customer and the {quote-unquote} "pirate" are one and the same. If the "pirates" (i.e. P2P users and the people that burn CDs for friends) would simply never buy software or music, and if people that buy music would never illegally copy it why, none of this would be a concern since there would be two distinct groups. Those who infringe copyrights, and those who don't. But it's not that simple ... people that copy and download also pay. And pay a lot. So while I understand the motivation behind DRM, the RIAA lawsuits and the BSA's bullshit arguments, they really have to understand that they are dissing their own customers to a degree that no other business on Earth would dare. Something is going to break, eventually, and it will most likely be their way of doing business.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[slackmaster2000]

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding you...

Are you trying to say that a software program is analogous to the result of a mathematical equation? If I know that the answer to X+10=20 is "10", and I make you pay me to tell you the answer, and don't allow you to tell anybody else, then I am restricting the flow of information. But, as far as I know there is no equation for which the answer would be the machine code for a word processing program. Software is not information. Software is a tool that is the result of information, and is often used to produce information. Difference.

RedHat makes money by intentionally holding back information about what is essentially free software. I don't see how that bolsters your argument.

And the fact that duplicating software is virtually free does not imply that the software itself should be free. Producing and maintaining software is costly.

I'm thankful that there are people out there who are willing to give their time and energy to produce free software tools, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think that others should have the same philosophy. I do think that the big software guys are charging way too much money for some of their basic products. I'd like to see more full-featured home applications with sub $100 price tags...and not watered down "here's every feature you need except that ONE thing" versions.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[laughingcoyote]

Actually, the BSA has a very interesting way of doing it. Decide on the accuracy for yourself.

In effect, they take the total number of computers sold, decide what percentage of those computers "should" be running a given piece of proprietary software, then look at the number of copies sold. The discrepancy between these numbers is the "piracy rate". This type of statistic-making in essence ignores free software/OS's, other types of freeware, "home-rolled" alternatives written by the user themself, and the like. (So, despite the fact that I'm in full compliance with my OS's license by downloading and installing it for free-according to the BSA, I've got a pirated OS!)

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[Dashing Leech]

"...and the coders of Photoshop would be out of work and unpaid"

This is the problem with many economic "beliefs". They are limited in scope. Companies that pay for Photoshop now would get a free (new and improved) GIMP and have lower overhead costs, which allows them to charge less or hire more. The people who pay less for their services also save money so have more to do things with. And so on, and so on. Not to mention that there'd be more people that could or would learn it, start companies, and so on and so on.

It's such a highly non-linear feedback driven system. Simple analysis won't do.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[werewolf1031]

If they wouldn't pirate Photoshop, they would use GIMP, and complain about missing features, some of them would start scratching the itch and bringing GIMP on par with Photoshop...

You're assuming that most users of Photoshop have the coding skills necessary to make useful contributions to FOSS apps like GIMP, which is simply not the case. Remember, in this particular example you're talking about artists, not programmers. Most graphic artists I know wouldn't know how to write code if their life depended on it, but that's ok -- writing code is not what they do. They're artists, not programmers.

Now, to zoom out a bit more and look at the broader picture, the vast majority of PC users dont' know the first thing about programming. Whether you're talking about "regular folks" like my sister, who just wants to be able to email, surf the web, and download music (that's a different rant, let's not get off-topic), or professionals who do graphic design, web-site design, etc., keep in mind that most of them are not programmers. They want tools (software) that let's them do their job, and that's pretty much it. Many of them are not the "roll your own" type, nor are they willing to -- let alone capable of -- making modifications to FOSS software that they may be using.

Programmers create software; everyone else uses software. The proportionate discrepancy between coders and users will always be larger in favor of users, and there's nothing inherantly wrong with that. You can't realistically expect every end-user to have the skills to make code-level modifications to their software, and as long as most users lack these skills, piracy will continue unabated, Photoshop will continue to be the default graphic-artistry app, and GIMP will never get its day in the sun.

Sad, but true.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[ultranova]

Remember that the temporary monopoly provided by software (or any kind of) patents is the incentive to create in the first place. Would we have drugs that take decades to create if the instant the formula was out the door, anyone could sell it at cost? Of course not - what would justify the investment of the millions of man-hours of the most highly trained (and expensive) individuals on the planet?

1. What do patents have to do with copyrights ?
2. What does software have to do with medicine ?
3. What stops the government from funding medicine research in a non-profit fashion ? After all, it exists to protect people, and keeping them from dying from horrible diseases fits this mandate very well.

You are correct in saying that tangible, "normal" property represents a share in somethingn you can hold in your hands. The reason for patents/intellectual property is to create the incentive for its creation.

Both patents and copyrights fail miserably in their purpose then. And the whole term "intellectual property" is just propaganda: an attempt to make people think as property something that is not property.

Re:Software Piracy Rate?

[bit01]

You are ignoring the statistics.

In a world of 6,500,000,000+ people and where free software can be copied millions of times all it takes is 0.000001% of companies/people/users coding. It is a statistical certainty that this will happen.

Similar statistics and the economic network effect are the reason why M$ is able to tax the world the ridiculous sum of $40,000,000,000+ per year for basically ten programs and various forms of crippleware.

IP law is currently broken and is getting even more broken as the world's population increases.

---

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.

hmm

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I'd love to know how software piracy hurts software vendors without spin put on it. Lately I tried a rom of Final fantasy Tactics Advance. On Monday I'll be going into the local game shop to purchase it. I've done this countless times on games I wouldn't have played other wise. So for every game I randomly downloaded and enjoyed I've added a sale. For every game I've downloaded and didn't like I've not taken anything away.. are these figures ever taken into account? No, because if people admit piracy just about balances out or may even help a company they'd have to stop using rootkits and DRM to take away your basic right to copy things for self use.

Re:hmm

[mc6809e]

I'd love to know how software piracy hurts software vendors without spin put on it. Lately I tried a rom of Final fantasy Tactics Advance. On Monday I'll be going into the local game shop to purchase it. I've done this countless times on games I wouldn't have played other wise.

This is wonderful and you're a great person for giving money to people that are working hard to make you happy.

The trouble is with the 80% of the people out there that aren't like you. They're selfish, short-sighted, and simply have the "you made it, I want it" philosophy. They enjoy the game that someone else worked to create and never will do anything for that person that helped make their life a little more enjoyable.

See, most slashdotters are (moderately) bright. They can be trusted to behave the way you do because they know money will keep the good games, gadgets, toys, and tech, coming. But most of the public aren't that bright. Piracy laws are for them.

"So how does piracy actually HURT software vendors?", you might ask. Well, what they lose is their time and effort. It's sort of like someone taking money out of your wallet. You haven't actually been hurt, but all that effort and work that went into earning that money was for naught. A bit of your life was wasted.

People that work hard to make software waste their time in a culture full of piracy. Oh, they figure it out soon enough and move on to other things.

Re:hmm

[Skreems]

Ok, but do you have studies to back that 80%? Or are you just guessing?

That's the problem the grandparent and others have with this whole thing, is we know some people use piracy to benefit everyone, and some just steal, but nobody REALLY knows how many do which.

Re:hmm

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I have that exact same urge though "screw it I have it, who cares about them". I have very limited money so what I buy really does matter to me. Games these days have become so short in most cases they arn't worth the price tag, you almost need to try them just to make sure it's not an hour or 2 long.

I understand supporting authors and I do as much as I can. Some times it's by buying merchandise and not the main product (in the case of anime fansubbed, since I don't wish to support the company who do vile English tracks). I also get that some people won't pay for stuff, but can you count these as lost sales since they never would of bought it in the first place?

Re:hmm

[Gonoff]

So how does it take money from them if someone makes a copy of their software? They will not get any money from this person under any circumstances. If they can't steal a copy, they certainly will not buy one.

As people here say so often, "piracy" can actually help producers. Someone copies a few games from company X. Eventually they may actually buy one. Why didn't they get it from company Y? Because they know that this lot makes stuff they like.

Re:hmm

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I don't work on economics, I work in what I feel is right. I believe in supporting things I enjoy.. so I do so. People who don't believe this never will support things.

Re:hmm

[Lifewish]

True, there are a number of people with the "gimme" mentality. However, there are a few other factors to consider:

1) Would these misers have been willing to splash out for the product anyway? Probably not. For example, a copyright infringer with 1,000 albums on his/her hard drive would never have been able to afford more than a couple of percent of that. In fact, being miserly, they probably wouldn't have bought more than five albums, if that, coming to a grand total of $15*5 = $75 lost sales at absolute maximum. Of course, the RIAA would count this as $15*1,000 = £15,000 of lost sales.

2) To what extent is this countered by the increased exposure of the target demographic to the product? Say the above miserly copyright infringer uploads 2,000 copies of assorted albums to other people. Now say just 5% of recipients are honest (probably a low figure), and go out and buy just 5% of the albums they receive. The money spent is then $15*2,000*0.05*0.05 = $75 - cancelling out the original "loss" to the copyright holder. (No I didn't fudge my numbers, it was just a flukey estimate)

3) (This one applies to music) How much of this actually goes to the artist? Since the misers who are forced to buy albums if the filesharing networks close aren't exactly publically-minded citizens, they'll just get their albums from the stores. By Courtney Love's arithmetic, the record label gets about $50 profit from the $75 spent, whilst the artists get a total of $2.38 profit. Now, if the albums are downloaded and then paid for, the recipients are likely to be individuals who are sympathetic to the plight of musicians, and hence will often donate via a band's site or buy from an ethical label, as I did just last night (despite being a poor student). Result: the artist is likely to get at least 1/2 the loot, a 1500% increase over the other system

4) (This one applies to software) What happens when people want to use a superb tool like Lightwave in a professional context? They have to license it, or recommend that it be licensed. So, by not shooting down the bored teenage downloader who'd never be able to afford this $800 software, Newtek is able to sell several copies to the company he/she ends up working for. It's like farming only not.

In conclusion, the positive side-effects of wide-ranging copyright infringement will often outweigh the negative side-effects, especially in industries where the content producers are getting shafted or where the product is most lucratively licensed in a professional context. There's probably an equivalent argument for films but my brain's dead.

Speaking of ruptured braincells, there's at least two errors in the above calculations. I'm too tired to figure out how to correct them, so I'll just say: please give bonus points to anyone who finds three mistakes :)

Re:hmm

[cblood]

For your argument to work you have to assume that all the people who make copies of programs would actually buy them if they were prevented from copying, A dubious assumption. The previous poster pointed out the positive effect of copying as an advertising medium. I don't know about video games but with music, the p2p sharing only helps emerging artists and has a small negative effect on established artists. It thus hurts the rich and helps the new struggling artists. Or to put it another way, It improves the diversity of the art pool. Also, people who down load and like your music, generally become fans. They will generally find other ways of supporting the artists they like, by going to shows.

The way to reduce piracy is to reduce the price of CD's, improve the physical package to give the tangible product more value and eliminate the copy protection crap. By handicapping their products, the vendors are just insulting and impeding their own customers.

Record companies justify the ridiculous profit margins by complaining about the high cost of promotion. Well we have a new medium that offers very low cost promotion. It is called the internet. It is time for media companies to take a hard look at their business model.

Re:hmm

[Z34107]

Your dilemma boils down to one of two mutually-exclusive choice:

• DO take the job and DO use Microsoft software
• DON'T take the job and DON'T use Microsoft software

Using one of their programs is not "giving into their monopoly." Open Office exists, and therefore Microsoft Office has no monopoly. Your aversion doesn't really seem to be based on anything tangible - i.e., Bill Gates raped me when I was little - but some kind of moral principle.

Principles are cool. Everyone needs 'em. But, can you articulate what yours are? I noticed how you short-circuited your principles for convenience by supporting/using the Xbox. If the sacrifice of whatever principles you hold is worth a game system, is it worth a job? You are willing to sacrifice the chance to start a career in the business of a wealthy relative that will (hopefully) forever bring prosperity to you, but you are not willing to sacrifice a game console.

Sort out your priorities. (I wouldn't choose the console over the job.) Articulate your beliefs. (Microsoft is evil? Whether it actually is or not, can you empirically prove why, at least within the bounds of your morals?) Define how much of your moral fiber you will sacrifice to convenience. (Once again, the Xbox over the job.)

Also remember that this isn't just a job to "earn money" - this could be the start of a career. Your family friend sounds influential - and who you know matters just as much as what you know. Do well, and it'll be a shiny gold star on your resume and will make the rest of your life much easier. Don't do it at all, and try getting the requisite job experience for a job you want without a job to get said job experience from.

This isn't a Nuremburg decision. No one will fault you for following orders, meshing with the system, and making everyone's lives more productive. Someone will fault you for blowing off a giant opportunity because of a radical stand on intellectual property.

Re:hmm

[AtomicBomb]

That depends on the type of software really. There are two sorts of software which has found an equibrium point that benefits from illegal copies.

Game (esp those with multiplayer component) is one of them. I am not a gamer. But, I find quite a few of my friends who never buy any software before have change habit. First, they are now working and have decent income. More importantly, once they enjoy the copied game and notice there is a multiplayer they will just pop to the game shop to buy the game. They at the end find it worthwhile.

The other sort of software targets corporates which has little scope for personal use (numerical package, design tools etc). At work, people do occasionally use "trial" software. But, once the guy tests that out and finds that useful, boss usually will have no hesitation to buy it. The reason is simple: if the IT dept roll out a project, the user may or may not want it... but, "tried out" software is a bottom-up process. If the engineers at the bottom find that useful, why don't just go ahead.

For other softwares, the winning formula has yet to be found.

Re:hmm

[Reziac]

Exactly. Frex, my first copy of WordPerfect was WP5.1 for DOS, as borroware of unknown origin. I got addicted to it, found uses for later editions, and over the years have bought every upgrade since (albeit mostly at OEM prices, but they still made sales to me) including some versions I don't even use, but I wanted to have a complete set. At last count I had 19 legal versions. All from one *highly satisfactory* copy of questionable provenance.

Note the critical point there: I was so happy with the, ah, "unlimited trial version" that I *WANTED* to become a customer, and get the real thing with all the trimmings -- over and over and over. None of which would have happened without borroware.

BTW that tagline of yours is old enough to vote :)

Question

[Spy der Mann]

how will poor countries suddenly become rich just by fighting piracy? I mean, don't tax revenues come from MONEY EARNED BY THE PEOPLE? And how will people pay taxes on some money they DON'T HAVE in the first place?

Yet another flawed "OMG look at all those stolen CD's we could earn so much money with this stuff" study.

Perhaps if Microsoft stopped charging $200 for Windows and $2000 for Visual Studio, more people would buy their products legit.

Re:Question

[Thing 1]

Especially when "fighting piracy" really means "paying Microsoft"...

Which ultimately means "all your base are belong to the USA".

Re:Question

[Taladar]

More importantly, how will they become richer and get more employment by shipping money out of the country to mostly US software vendors instead of buying whatever stuff they buy now with the money they save on software and probably spend for something produced locally (like food, rent, ...).

Re:Question

[Spad]

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of the software that is pirated in these countries is written and produced in the US and Europe, I fail to see how sending huge amounts of your GDP to foreign lands will help boost your economy.

False assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

'2.4 million new jobs, $400 billion in economic growth and $67 billion in new tax revenues'

It's interesting that these BSA studies always assume that the money that is not spent on software is not spent anywhere else either.

Re:False assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

2.4 million new jobs -WHERE? most software production involves some code jockey writing it, and then downloading it to a machine that pumps out CD's by the zillions... After that they're packaged by some low-paid factory-type, and shipped out...

So if you cut the supposed piracy rate by 10%, you mean to tell me that you're going to need another 1.2 million code jockeys, and 1.2 million factory-types to write and package this stuff?

BULLSHIT! And anyone on this site with a half-ounce of brains knows it too...

And what will be the cost of enforcing piracy?

[c0dedude]

It'll probably take more than 2.4 million new jobs, $400 billion in government spending and $67 billion in from tax revenues to cut the current global software piracy rate of 35% by 10%. Consider costs involved in prison and oversight of the millions of copyright violators, ignoring the burden of catching violators.

I highly doubt it...

[kebes]

I'm no expert in economics, but the numbers quoted in TFA just don't make sense to me. I feel like there is a hidden assumption in this analysis. They are saying that countries that currently have massive "piracy" would, if only "piracy" were elimianted, have a gigantic boom in their IT sector. They say that Russia and China would see a massive increase in IT jobs and so forth.

I don't think so. They are assuming that there is a limitless demand for IT professionals that is not currently being satisfied. I don't think this is the case. These countries have a host of other economic and political problems that lead to many things, including not respecting other countrie's copyrights (oh no!) and having limited jobs for IT professionals. If they suddenly enforced copyright (and by this, it is implicitly meant the copyright of other countries) I don't think there would suddenly be a huge demand for copyright-enforcing bureaucracy.

I just don't see why people who are used to making copies without obtaining permission will go along with, and support, such a system. Frankly the point of the whole article is "other countries have this nifty law that lets the government tax ethereal things... and it lets companies sue lots of people for ethereal things! These countries are rich! Do you want to be rich? All you have to do is impose laws that manage ethereal things (like ideas), and *poof* you have wealth out of thin air!"

I don't believe in generating fictitious wealth using laws. It's barely sustainable for the countries that are doing it now; I just don't see how it would make sense for countries that don't have a history of such laws.

Re:I highly doubt it...

[iseppo]

I can cite you an assumption hidden in the text: "Although GDP is a measure of government and consumer spending plus business investment plus exports minus imports, for the purposes of this project IDC did not account for exports or imports." this GDP measure is fundamentally flawed, and is the only reason why this study comes to the conclusions it comes. When your piracy rates are high, then reducing it by 10% means more spent on licenses, and everything that is spent on licenses is considered to be the GDP of the country here. While common sense would say, that most of it will go out of the country. So this study is bullshit. I want to ask from the guys in BSA - when You give as examples like this, why would you expect we would act honestly?

What does BSA stand for?

[Chaffar]

"When countries take steps to reduce software piracy, just about everyone stands to benefit," said Robert Holleyman, BSA president and CEO. "Workers have new jobs, consumers have more choices, entrepreneurs are free to market their creativity and governments benefit from increased tax revenues."

The problem that these people fail to see is that third-world countries can't afford to pay the "normal" (i.e US) prices for software. The numbers the BSA is throwing around is just mind-boggling... $ 400B in economic growth, what the fsck ever. I don't think most of those people would actually replace their pirated copies with the original, just because they can't afford it.

The message they're trying to convey is "OMG that's all we're missing out on because of piracy?", but it doesn't hold water. I'm not condoning piracy, but it really pisses me off when I see the "guys in the suits" blabbering inane propaganda and throwing around numbers to justify their existence.

And if the study includes PC games in the "pirated software" category, this makes it even worse, because the numbers will be again vastly inflated. In third-world countries, copies cost anywhere from $1 to $3, so anyone who goes out and buys games wouldn't leave without at least 3 DVDs, even they never play the games they bought. Which wouldn't be true if the prices were in the $35-55 range.

2.4 million new jobs

[TakaIta]

2.4 million new jobs ?? Wow. I wonder what those people will do. Would that be programmers that fix the bugs before software is being released? Or would that be programmers that build extensions to the software, so it can be sold at a higher price? Or are that programmers who build completely new innovative software products that will be sold?

Or will that be lawyers who earn their money in patent cases?

Somehow something is very very wrong with the reasoning that if people would have paid for what they pirated there would be a lot more money in the economy. If every one had unlimited money, then yes, ok, but then there would be unlimited money already. The whole point of money is that you can spend it only once.

Money that is not spend on a software product, because it is obtained illegally, is not mysteriously "lost", and can not be magically "recovered" by a reduction of piracy.

I can understand that a software company prefers people paying, and that that helps the financial situation of that particular company. But you can't just add up all virtual losses, and state that that is the total amount of money that will magically pop up when everybody would be paying.

If it wasnt for piracy

[future assassin]

Adobe/Macromedia/MS wouldnt have such a huge market penetration. Young pirated software users are the key. Get them hooked onto your product and most likely when they grow up they will buy your software. Kinda like me :)

Re:If it wasnt for piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, if that's true then it follows that free open source applications should be the market leader, because free open source apps are so much easier to copy than pro apps with activation and copy protection. Why aren't we getting young users hooked on GIMP and OpenOffice?

Maybe it's because once a young user turns into a pro user (who doesn't write code), they suddenly realize that to run their business they can either wait for open source engineers to code in the features they need, except that it would be more economically viable for the business to simply buy Photoshop so that the already-present desired features could be put to revenue-generating uses immediately?

When will they release a study that finds...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

When will they release a study that finds affordable software prices sell more software and limits piracy?

Thats the real truth. Even the pirates understand that :)

You think they pirate software because they're trying to undermine their local economies? :) Dare i say, they are pirating software to IMPROVE the standard of life of all, giving ALL a fair chance to enjoy life in a world that says if you cant "pay" you cant play. A world that would leave the poor behind only because they cant afford to buy food.

The pirates arent going anywhere because the companies keep treating people like cash batteries. They're people that deserve a fair chance to enjoy $5000 software packages.

Jesus would pirate software ;)

Re:Global everything

[ClamIAm]

The reality is not that everything around the world is "the same", but that the world is an increasingly interconnected place. For thousands of years, people living on one side of a mountain wouldn't ever know about the huge city on the other side. Now, we have the ability to travel nearly anywhere on the globe, and we also have things like global supply chains. No matter what you choose to do, you will affect people all over the world, and millions of other people are affecting your life. Martin Luther King said something like "and before breakfast we have depended on half the world".

I think this is the first signs of a more cohesive

[PotatoHead]

atrategy for battling Open Source.

A few years back, I decided to abandon all software I was not either entitled to use (open source, freeware, paid licenses, etc...) and could not afford to own.

For a while It was a real bitch, but then things changed. While I've been a Linux user since the mid 90's, I really didn't fully explore OSS until about 2000. What I found was that a lot of software is simply not necessary. Using the software I had in more creative ways, or simply learning (again) to work without some software has had clear benefits to me, both in terms of dollars saved and in terms of just being able to work in the first place.

Today, I own a coupla pieces of commercial software and the rest is all OSS. That more than piracy is resulting in lost sales. If they really succeed in cutting down on piracy, the OSS side of things is just going to get a lot worse for them and they know it.

The only solid way to keep the proprietary, "pay as often as we can get you to pay to compute" model sustainable is to change the rules of the game such that OSS alternatives are driven back underground. This continues to happen where multi-media applications are concerned, but that's not enough. Getting Ogle from another country really does not affect anyone as the DVD player devices are all bundled with some goofy player anyway.

Getting OpenOffice, GIMP, web browsers, development tools, etc... back out of the mainstream will make a big difference. I suspect the approach will be to slowly move legislative opinion in this direction, then deal with citizen complaints through "access programs" very similar in nature to what the big phama companies do today.

Can't afford that lifesaving drug? Simple, if you beg and prove you really, really are gonna die without their property, they will "give" it to you rather than do the right thing.

Software companies are going to end up trying the same things, IMHO.

I regularly write my elected representatives about OSS issues. I let them know I write OSS software and why and what value the growing body of OSS software brings to anyone willing to participate. Participation can be as simple as just using the software of your choice or as involved as developing, training, distributing, etc... We all benefit.

Oh, the one biggie I always mention is the fact that OSS is unique in that value received is more than value contributed for everyone involved because no material goods are required to make use of the combined result. This is important because many industry (closed industry) lobbiests equate this value proposition as an "unsustainable ponzi type scheme" that does more harm than good as it takes advantage of contributors without "closing the value chain". Translation: We can't compete with free and the world (read government) needs us here.

Back on topic: The IP battle is imporant here in the US because we have outsourced darn near everything else, yet we still consume an awful lot per capita. Unless the world can be convinced that IP is viable, we are going to become increasingly hard pressed to restore that balance in the coming years.

On one hand, I'm not looking forward to us having to figure that out. And IP is an easy out. On the other, I sure don't want OSS going anywhere because it's primary value to me is not the cost savings, but the near total computing freedom that comes along for the ride.

One of my favorite computers happens to be an older SGI computer. OSS keeps that machine viable. Any of us, who know what we are doing, can take pretty much any combination of computing hardware we can get our hands on and be productive with it. As time goes on, I find this to be quite compelling in that I can continue to compute just the way I want to, not how I am told.

IP takes all of that away and I KNOW that's a bad thing, simply because being left with no alternatives means near total control of our computing environment. History has shown time and time again that scenario never is

The only thing that is different...

[kellererik]

...this time, is the fact that the BSA is distributing this BS (coincidence?) worldwide at the same time. The usual suspects (politicians, etc.) try to fall for it in a believable manner (you have to agree with statements of people who are actually paying you money to do so), and will try to enact the more severe punishments their real employers are demanding (to put it bluntly: politicians living on taxes are so 90s, getting paid for "consulting" in the industry is hip).
What's new?

Software Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Software will always be copied. It's not theft. It's not piracy. It's "copyright violation", which your country may or may not have laws for.
I highly encourage it. Why should I have to pay for something I can't afford when it can be copied?
What job do you have? I make shit for money and my prospects aren't looking to improve soon. Companies
spend millions on advertising and piracy is common, even sometimes allowed in order to increase market share (office, windows, adobe).
So piracy is ok when it fits a corporate model and illegal and immoral when it doesn't? Give me a break the corporations are fucking all of us over.

Why do you think gangsta rap is so popular. It's about have and have nots. No amount of moralistic legalistic bullshitting
will change that. Of course the well-off and privileged can't understand it. But the majority of us can.

Why can't a poor person in China, or anywhere have an equal right to own any piece of software produced? Especially if that is creative software. The answer is: if they can, they will and you can't do shit about it. The US is basically enforcing economic imperialism on the rest of the world through patents and IP.

I hope someone steals your tv, they would be doing you a favor.
fuckers.