BSA Claims 35% of Software is Pirated

hdtv writes "Business Software Alliance says 35% of packaged software installed on PCs globally is pirated, and estimates the losses at $34 bln. From the article: 'The countries with the highest piracy rates were Vietnam (90%), Zimbabwe (90%), Indonesia (87%), China (86%), and Pakistan (86%). The countries with the lowest piracy rates were the United States (21%), New Zealand (23%), Austria (26%), and Finland (26%).' TechDirt analysis debunks some of the myths: 'The BSA claims that all of these "lost sales" represent real harm to the economy. It's the same bogus argument they've trotted out before, which is easily debunked. Much of that unauthorized software is being used to make firms much more productive than they would be otherwise -- probably benefiting the overall economy quite a bit.'"

Comments

At least make your arguments realistic

[EZLeeAmused]

It's the same bogus argument they've trotted out before, which is easily debunked. Much of that unauthorized software is being used to make firms much more productive than they would be otherwise -- probably benefiting the overall economy quite a bit.

That's B.S. So a firm might be more productive (and profitable?) using a software package, thus contributing to the general economy. No argument with that. But I fail to see how this debunks the BSA's arguments. Is techdirt (or Mike, or whoever) arguing that the same firm would be less productive if it had paid for instead of pirated the software?

Re: not only NOT a lost sale, but

[darkonc]

It's a bit of both. Sometimes people who could easily afford to buy a copy of some software will still pirate it "because everybody else is doing it" --- The fact that microsoft officially winks at pirated copies doesn't quite help reduce the volume. Microsoft knows that if they were to press too hard on pirated copies, people would simply go to cheaper alternatives (including Free and Open Source) that do a completely adequate job.

Having "everybody" running MS software is to MS's advantage -- especially when they're trying to talk MA out of going with ODF.

Where the real falacy is is declaring these theoretical sales to be money "Lost to the economy" -- when the truth is that most of the hush money people pay for software immediately leaves the country (going to the Bahamas, or Ireland or wherever it is the gives Microsoft the best discount on income tax).

Countries like Canada don't even have the advantage of a significant income from R&D spending to offset what is actually lost to the national economy from via Microsoft Software sales.

Realistic Perspective vs Business Perspective

[the_REAL_sam]

First things first, take back the name. It's not PIRATED software, it's duplicated, unlicensed software. Nothing was PIRATED, because NOTHING WAS STOLEN.

The claim that the business LOST $34 billion is flawed, since, in fact, business cannot LOSE what it never HAD: the $34 billion.

If we correct the grievance claim, and postulate that the business' suffered $34 billion of income deprivation, then that claim, too, is probably flawed. I suspect that most unlicensed, duplicated software is to the benefit of financially poor computer users, who might not otherwise have ANY access to the duplicated, unlicensed software.

Therefore, I postulate that the only real cost to the corporate world is the tax deductible charity receipt for helping the poorest of the poor with their computers.

If it were not for "piracy" laws, then they might be able to arrange for some kind of tax deductible charity receipt for unlicensed, duplicated software for low income computer users. But while such laws are in effect, it is unlikely that they will find low income users to be cooperative with any such effort.

Desperately trying to figure this out

[Overly Critical Guy]

I'm desperately trying to figure out when Slashdot became pro-piracy. It's really become quite a pro-piracy haven these last few years. People think it's perfectly all right to steal software and not pay the author for it. They actually believe it's okay to download, for instance, Doom 3, and not pay John Carmack, even though he spent five years of hard work to release it. Even more hypocritically, you'll often hear that piracy isn't theft, but when a GPL violation is reported, it is referred to as "stolen code." Also, people act as though it's wrong for the RIAA or the MPAA to go after individual infringers (never mind that this is exactly what Slashdotters were calling for during the Napster lawsuit), but when there's a GPL violation, the EFF should get involved and sue the infringers. I just don't understand the disconnect. I have a feeling it really just boils down to money--people want to preserve the means to get stuff for free without having to pay for it. It has nothing to do with morality or ideals at all.

I also don't get TechDirt's hostile opinion towards the idea that--gasp--piracy is wrong and shouldn't be happening, and that it costs people money. Of course it does. The idea that some section of the economy is magically enhanced because they got to use pirated software ignores the section of the economy hurting from lost sales. And none of it matters anyway, because you don't magically have the right to pirate software just because it would enhance your company. What a selfish and amateurish opinion to have. My company would do better if we could hack into competitors' computers and copy their valuable trade secrets for ourselves, but we don't have the right to do that just because it would enhance our business.

Finally, I don't get why so many pro-piracy opinions exist in Slashdot comments, invariably with some mention of the "MPAA/RIAA," as though scapegoating some lobby group somehow justifies making sure some musician or filmmaker or software engineer doesn't get paid for something they worked hard on to release and make a living from. I think rooting for piracy is a weak, lazy mindset. It's the easy route to take, and illustrates that one has not thought through it at all. They likely are high school or college students who haven't had to go out into "the real world" and perform work in exchange for income. They're used to running Kazaa and eMule all day long, downloading everything they can find, and they get so used to such convenience that they get bitter and defensive when the free ride is taken away.

But, I don't expect the amateur opinions around here to change. People will continue to scapegoat the RIAA and MPAA as a lame justification--"The RIAA made me download System of a Down's latest album!" "The MPAA made me download a camrip of X-Men 3!" Slashdot will continue to post vaguely pro-piracy articles such as this one, while ignoring its own Slashdot heroes like John Carmack (id Software was estimated to have lost millions of dollars when Doom 3 was leaked the weekend before its release date). Outside of the green and white bubble of this website, the rest of the world will continue to run on capitalism, the least bad economic system on Earth, and the antithesis to the pseudo-socialist worldview of "share everything and worry about the consequences later" that permeates the discussions.

Just my two cents.

Re:Sir specious, at your service.

[HeX314]

The real hypocrisy is when copyright law gets bashed into oblivion by people who fail to realize that the GPL is completely and totally unenforceable without it.

If the price I have to pay for the free distribution of creative content is knowing that someone can spin my work and make it theirs, I would pay it with a smile on my face and shake the person's hand afterward.

Part of creativity is not just creating something but also being able to modify anothers' work for the better.

In all actuality, the GPL is intended to keep people from greedily stealing someone else's work and forcing copyright on the derivative (and locking up the source). If there was no copyright to begin with, everything would be free and the GPL wouldn't be shattered, it would be rendered moot.

Reported to the SEC?

[goldfndr]

Have these losses been reported to the SEC? If they truly are losses, then the BSA members have an obligation to their shareholders to report these losses.