Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Each pirated copy, contrary to the BSA (interesting, what does the BS stand for?) claim, not only is not a lost sale, but potentially an extra sale.
BSA's claim is akin to the MPAA/RIAA's claims each downloaded/pirated DVD/CD is a lost sale. And, there have (AFAIK, and I've researched this many times) been no studies coming close to showing causal relationship between pirating and decreased sales.
Interestingly, one of the most damning contra-examples was the huge spike in CD sales corresponding to the spike in file sharing at the emergence of the original Napster. Of course, once the RIAA and music industry managed to rein Napster in, the dropoff in shared files was matched almost identically for a decline of CD sales.
People, especially in the poor couuntries, are running pirated software because they otherwise would run no software at all. And, if with this pirated software, they manage to bootstrap their own situation, or that of their business out of the netherlands they become much more likely to buy and pay prices for non-pirated software.
That's an easy one because 15% of all software is just garbage. The rest is open source and you can't pirate that.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Personally I think 35% is a very conservative estimate.
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.
This is the WRONG counter to their claims. The correct counter is that an unauthorized copy of a piece of software is NOT the same as a lost software sale.
In fact, if companies are using unauthorized copies of software to increase their business, that's when it's morally wrong to not pay for your software in my mind.
To me, it's like watching a illegally downloaded movie for personal (potential) entertainment vs. selling it on the street. The latter is the one I have a moral issue with and represents a more realistic loss of sale for the copyright holder.
How many of these systems simply would not be running the software that is being pirated at all. For example, if I were not able to pirate PhotoShop, I'd probably run GIMP or Picture Publisher or something that doesn't cost $500 a license. So saying that pirated software=money lost is not true.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I suspect most of that is Windows software... I think that for Mac software it is probably a bit lower. Most Mac users I know are full on legit. There are a couple... but every Windows user I know has TONS of illegal crap. I wonder - is there a bounty?
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
I can't believe the US is doing so poorly in their rate of piracy. I guess I'll have to start pirating twice as much software just to help us make up the slack on the rest of the world!
It's also worth noting that it's a bad thing for the open-source movement if, say, everybody in Vietnam runs a pirated copy of MS Office on a pirated copy of Windows. MS secretly loves that, because Vietnam wasn't a potential market for them anyway in the near future (too poor), but may be in the future. It's just like Apple selling machines cheap to schools and college students; it's a form of advertising. What would really strike fear into MS's heart would be if everybody in Vietnam started using Linux.
Find free books.
New Zealand (23%),
:|
Yeah we have too many sheep here in NZ.. of course we have a low piracy rate.. That'd require people to know what a computer was
"Each pirated copy, contrary to the BSA (interesting, what does the BS stand for?) claim, not only is not a lost sale, but potentially an extra sale."
Flip a coin. There's your "potential".
"BSA's claim is akin to the MPAA/RIAA's claims each downloaded/pirated DVD/CD is a lost sale. And, there have (AFAIK, and I've researched this many times) been no studies coming close to showing causal relationship between pirating and decreased sales."
And yet people have no problem with a "causal" relationship showing a benefit from said action.
"Interestingly, one of the most damning contra-examples was the huge spike in CD sales corresponding to the spike in file sharing at the emergence of the original Napster. Of course, once the RIAA and music industry managed to rein Napster in, the dropoff in shared files was matched almost identically for a decline of CD sales."
Another "causal" relationship? Can I get a phone poll to go with that?
"People, especially in the poor couuntries, are running pirated software because they otherwise would run no software at all."
Like Linux.
"And, if with this pirated software, they manage to bootstrap their own situation, or that of their business out of the netherlands they become much more likely to buy and pay prices for non-pirated software."
For something that has no value, someone is sure getting their monies worth.
What losses after selling software at EXTRAVAGANT prices ?
... Consider it a market adjustment by the 'invisible hand' - an adjustment to balance out the ridiculous prices you sell software for.
Do they ALREADY count our money as theirs, and deem it as loss ?
Nay, sire
In the history of this world, there has NEVER been piracy UNLESS commodities' prices were not set in standards of highway robbery.
I aint giving me money to you sir. Not at THESE prices at least.
Read radical news here
The cost of pirated software is typically free, or at least highly discounted. There are naturally far more people willing to get it for free than would be willing to pay for it. So, every pirated use is NOT a lost sale. That's probably especially true in very poor countries. So, the amazingly high rate of piracy in 3rd world countries really doesn't present that big of an issue for the software industry. The 20+% in the U.S., though, should be causing them a lot of concern.
Along those same premises, let's say, hypothetically, that I had a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop on one of my PC's. I'm not a graphics professional, and have little use for it beyond making my own wallpaper. Are we to assume that I would actually pay the $699 price tag for this software? HELL NO.
What I would very much like to see is a poll comparing what people have pirated against what people have pirated and would pay for if they could not pirate it. I don't have any statistical evidence to back me up, here, but I'm going to hazard a guess that piracy leads to a lot less in actual losses than the BSA or the RIAA/MPAA assumes. And that is ignoring the fact that there are a rare few people that actually purchase a product just because they were impressed with the pirated copy, and wished ot support the author/creator.
Haven't we heard enough of this "piracy is going to kill our economy" bullshit? Why are we focusing on this, when the our (America's) trade deficit with China is over $200,000,000,000/year (yes, that is 200 billion dollars a YEAR at the current rate). Seems to me that this piracy thing is small potatoes, in the end.
/dev/random
I'd like to have the BSA negotiate a raise for me.
Here, I'm not in debt, but I sure could use an extra, say, $50,000 a year.
I could file my taxes at a $50,000 a year loss and claim it on wages not paid.
Isn't that the same thing they're doing?
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
The truth of the matter is that most people wouldn't buy that software if they couldn't get it for free. I'm sorry but the average home user doesn't have the cash for a copy of Photoshop, so yeah, they pirate it. If they couldn't pirate they wouldn't go out and buy photoshop, they'd download the Gimp.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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?
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
For now they are just talking. They can't take any enforcement actions, because those countries would simply switch to open source.
For example, they could threaten these countries with ejection from the WTO or other treaty-based organizations, but they won't... until those countries are economically viable enough to pay the exorbitant licensing fees.
And then they will win, because they can lock people in to their proprietary formats. They call themselves the Business Software Alliance. But they are really the Proprietary Software Alliance.
0% of free software is pirated.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
That techdirt line is great. If a company uses pirated software and makes profit they wouldn't have been able to make without that software, the BSA has a legitimate gripe with them. The heavy handed tactics are tiresome and they pretty much pretend with the statistics, but companies that generate profits exceeding the cost of a given program by pirating it are stealing in a very real sense.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I pirate my software and spend the money I save on CDs. I'll let the RIAA and BSA fight it out between themselves.
In the early days, Microsoft turned a blind eye to piracy in US / UK / Canada because "borrowing" the disks from work to install at home was the gateway drug that lead to the rise of Word as the dominant word processor. (WordPerfect Corp dropping the ball with WP for Windows didn't harm it either)
"She's furniture with a pulse"
All of those dollars the BSA is claiming as economic losses are actually being spent elsewhere. It's not a situation of money that should be out working loafing safely in a shoebox. Would we all reap more economic benefit from shifting money away from the other things into the software industry? I reckon not. Microsoft is probably one of the biggest claimants of the BSA loss statistic, and it is difficult to suggest that we would all be better off if they had more money or more freedom to make/improve software.
This is more of that smoke and mirrors trickle-down voodoo-economics gobbledygook. The BSA overwhelmingly represents the entrenched interests of large enterprises (you think big government is wasteful? How about big business..) against entrepreneurial business (where we see the most real economic growth).
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I've heard a lot of arguments about why software piracy statistics are bogus, but none as *dumb* as saying that companies using software illegally will be more productive because of the software, thus contribute more to the economy.
Despite the fact that it represents some pretty screwed up values, it just doesn't make much sense. If a company can experience growth related directly to the stealing of software, then they could have purchased the software, and they still should have grown. Buying software is just a cost of doing business, and shouldn't be having that much of an impact on the bottom line all by itself. Perhaps we should all just start bending the rules and pirate and steal our expenses away because hey, we're hiring more employees, we're paying our investors, and we're making more profit, which is good for everybody, right? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me.
When it comes piracy on the private, home use level, I think that the piracy numbers they always come out with are ridiculous. Just because the software is installed and being used does not mean that a sale was lost. This isn't a defense of piracy, just a reiteration of distinction between piracy and theft. They are not the same thing. But if we decided to treat them as the same thing for the purpose of creating an accurate yet misleading argument, then oh no, Software Company X is out a gazillion billion dollars!
I am sure that if it wasn't for piracy linux would have taken the world literally, the majority of PC users would be adepts to free software, instead piracy allows MS and other giants to retain their monomoply.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Welcome to the free market, pal. Adapt or die.
Part of adapting is adapting to your competitors. If your competitors are pirating software, they're gaining an advantage over you. With piracy in it's semi-legal state, it's bad business not to do it.
Oh, and fuck your stolen chairs and desks analogy. We both know what a pile of bullshit that is.
"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"
What is this software, and why isn't it available for Windows?
What the BSA wants is a bit absurd. They'd love to be able to do 3rd degree price discrimination - to charge one price in Zimbabwe and one in the US, maximizing their profit, unless, of course, you believe Windows would sell for 300 USD a copy in Zimbabwe. This is a monopolist tactic. It deprives consumers of benefit, and no global regime against it exists. Copyright violation acts as an illegal solution.
The same situation exists in region-coded DVDs - it's not piracy-preventing, it's profit-maximizing.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
My point is some companies HAVE to pirate software to do business. Sure they might buy legit copies after they end up making money but from the beginning most companies just can't afford to go out and buy several licenses of software that goes anywhere from $50-$10,000. You're comment about stealing chairs and desks is a bit moronic as well. If those struggling companies were forced to purchase licensed copies of said software than I'm sure they wouldn't have desks or chairs because they couldn't afford them. And if they could get some desks and chairs they'd probably look to a used furniture store or the like.
It's kind of hard to find 10 used licenses of any program on eBay.
My new laptop came loaded with a ton of scumware. Solution: wipe the hard drive and reinstall windows. The recovery cds dilligently reinstall all the scumware, so my only option is to run a pirated version of Windows. Now I can't get updates, even after paying the windows tax.
Solution: learn every genuine advantage workaround, repeat them, and distribute pirated copies of windows. If you want to screw me over, I'm happy to return the favor.
In a similar situation, I find myself out of town and I accidently left my laptop power cable at home. I go to the store to get a replacement and it costs $120. Highway robbery if I ever saw it. My solution: return the new cable when i get back in town. If it cost less than $50 I would just keep it, but if they want to rob me, I have no problem robbing them right back.
Moral of the story: If you screw me over I have no problem returning the favor.
For example, piracy may help the economy achieve a kind of uniformity of software that is very easy to work with. For example, even is a small firm cannot afford a copy of MS Windows and Autocad, they can always pirate a copy. We benifit because the draftperson does not have to learn multiple systems, and, as the skillset is much easier to garner, can be hired much cheaper than a traditional draftsman. OTOH, as Autocad has no compitition, they probably charge quite a bit more that market, and can continue to do so as they do not need to cater to the small shop.
So, the primary harm that piracy exacts is probably in terms of promoting high prices and reducing the responsiveness to consumers. In competative markets, like the database, there is an effort to get versions out to users that are either low or no cost. This allows the student or amatuer to gain the experience with product without paying professional prices. This is similiar to what once would happen with equipement, such as typewriters. One could buy an old selectric and gain expereince.
In noncompetatve markets, however, the only way to get a low cost version of many applications is to pirate. MS would like us to believe that we can buy a used PC, but we must buy a new license to the OS. The student edition of MS Office is $120, which is already way too much, but to get access it rises to $200, which is really a joke. They are charging more for Access than Foxpro! Autocad is little better charging $150 per year. Mathematica is little better. Labview shows what can happen when a competitve market exists, with a version at $80.
So, what we have is situation in which piracy has lead to extreme economic damage by promoting monopolies in certain sectors. The vendors are perfectly happy to allow the piracy, as it is partially why they are succesful. I will always remember the time in the late 80's when my boss told me he was going to get his first PC because he would not have to pay for any software, unlike on the Mac where most of our software was properly acquired. However, a vendor cannot survive with no sales, so the BSA tries to create opportunity costs, at least for certain customers, that are higher than acquisition costs.
As a student I got MS Office, Mathematics, Foxpro, etc, for a song, so I did not prirate. If I were a student, or new to the IT industry and just wanted to learn, I would think long and hard about buying the software at the offered prices or borrowing a copy.
Ideally I would like to see most piracy stopped. I would like to see offer prices that are in line with what a competative market will bear. I also hope that the BSA pulls the rug on china and forces either the software vendors to cut thier price of the Chinese to find another solution. We will then learn hard and fast what it means to not communicate with an important trading partner.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Or do they expect someone to come along and lock down everyones' computers for them in order to artificially prop up their business model?
Yes.
~Rebecca
What does the IRS say about these claims of loss? Surely if a company truely believed the loss was actual they would try to claim it. Does that actually occur? What would the guidelines be from the IRS?
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%).
:-p
I'll wonder if they can see the common denominator among the piracy levels and these countries.
Looks to me like high piracy goes for less rich countries.
Wow, could BSA's issues have mostly to do with too expensive software, rather than a general evilness among people?
Naah, it can't be that simple, can it?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Actually, Microsoft decried piracy as early as Altair Basic - their "An Open Letter to Hobbyists" is fairly famous for this.
I haven't been there, so I have no way of actually knowing. But I'm sure it's true.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Ok, we have a (probably BS) estimate on how customers are screwing over software companies. Where's the estimate on how much software companies have screwed over customers? Oh, wait, we're not supposed to give a damn about that, are we? It's okay for the software companies to screw over people but not the reverse.
This is why people don't give a crap -- including me. My first computer came with Widnows ME which caused me no end of trouble because it was buggy as hell. I was running Norton's Internet Security Suite and kept it fully updated. Within a month a worm downloaded itself into my system when I went to (of all things) a charity site. The worm wrecked my system and I had to get everything reinstalled. After that I downloaded a shareware anti-worm program to supplement Norton's. It worked fine, or seemed to, so I bought it. They sent me a keyfile in my email and told me how to install it. It didn't work. The program responded as if the time had run out and loaded my screen with one pop-up box after another to inform me that I needed to buy it. I literally could do nothing with my comuter because of all the pop-up boxes; I'd estimate that there were two hundred piled on top of each other when I had to force shut-down my computer.... and then reinstall Windows. Did I get my money back? No.
So, if you're not keeping score here, I got screwed by Microsoft, Symantec and one of the small software companies you guys are defending so ferociously. But no one else is saying anything about this sort of thing happening. Here's a clue: until the protection goes both ways we, your potential customers, don't give a damn. People have been screwed over enough that they assume that the software companies are trying to screw them over -- and a great many are -- so they don't care about you. But no one is even trying to do anything about that happening; no, all the effort is directed at trying to prevent piracy, not software makers abusing licenses and committing outright fraud. Until an actual effort is made to curb that people won't care. And why should they? I wouldn't be surprised if the guys who sold me that anti-worm program posted in this thread.
Oh, and btw, I'm a *nix-user now, so when a program doesn't work or screws up everything I can at least console myself with the fact that I wasn't defruaded out of money for it. Plus I know that someone will eventually fix it, instead of hoping that the software company will. All too many software companies never will fix their buggy software, or if they do they release it as the new version and expect you to pay for it all over again just to get a copy that workd even though you've already paid for it once. But it's okay for them do that but not for the customer who got screwed over with the earlier buggy version to pirate the new version, isn't it?
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
from the beginning most companies just can't afford to go out and buy several licenses of software that goes anywhere from $50-$10,000.
Then they didn't have enough money to start their business in the first place. Software licenses are supposed to be a cost of doing business. Would it be ok to squat in an abandoned building because they couldn't afford rent when they started their company?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
...when I could have paid. If someone offered it to me for $10 I'd probably pay it. I might even consider paying $12.50. But any more and I'd use the Gimp. So when they do their figures I hope that the BullShit Association counted that as $12.50 and not the $1,000 or whatever ridiculous price it is that Adobe charge.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The stupid assumption: If I didn't pirate it, I'd pay for it. No. If I didn't pirate it, I wouldn't use it.
:)
I have about a dozen or so of good original games. The rest of my games is pirated, and you can be sure I wouldn't spend money on them. Legal? No. Fair? Maybe yes, maybe not. Harming economy? Total bullshit. The worst harm to the economy comes from me playing these games instead of working. If I didn't pirate them, the authors wouldn't see a single penny from me just the same. I just wouldn't play them.
The situation about utility software is even more twisted - same "not pirated=never used" often applies here too. Except pirated means using the software for profit and eventually purchasing originals when you can afford them (earning money on the pirated version first). Means the authors WILL eventually get their fair share. If I'm too afraid of get busted for pirating the software to use it though, they won't see a penny from me.
Last but not least, Postorder. Opposite of preorder. Preorder is when you pay now, get program later. Postorder is when you download the program now, pay later, at your leisure. Don't worry, Bethesda! I will pay for that copy of Oblivion I got... eventually!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Haven't we heard enough of this "piracy is going to kill our economy" bullshit? Why are we focusing on this, when the our (America's) trade deficit with China is over $200,000,000,000/year (yes, that is 200 billion dollars a YEAR at the current rate). Seems to me that this piracy thing is small potatoes, in the end.
Cease your pirate propaganda, slashdotters are too smart to fall for it. There's been credible studies that have come to the conclusion that piracy costs $11,440,939,650,000 per month. In fact, unless piracy is immediately stopped, it will cost more than $132 trillion by the end of this year; your measly $200 billion is small potatoes compared to that!
How much does it cost you if I steal one of your chairs or desks?
How much does it cost you if I copy one of your CDs?
See the difference?
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.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
You haven't disproved his point. "Turning a blind eye to" something and "decrying" it are orthogonal.
Words aren't actions.
The Boy Scouts of America are the software Police now?
Shouldn't they be out eating Brownies?
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Huh? If there was a market for a cheap/free photo editing tool, somebody would fill it. In fact, there are several lower cost (and free) photo editing tools made by small companies that sell to people who don't need/can't afford Photoshop. And *these* are the companies that get screwed over when people warez software.
Joe six-pack may not spend $600 on Photoshop, but he would probably buy a $19.95 alternative (or his buddy might show him where to find Gimp). But if he can just get the top-of-the-line product for free, why the hell would he bother trying anything else?
In short, it isn't Adobe taking the lose as much as the independent and Open Source developers.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
A code of conduct that says "using pirated business software in your business is wrong."
It just doesn't work in the non-western world.
Who cares, we couldn't afford it anyway is the usual answer....
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
What I mean is, if there was no way to pirate high price commercial software, Linux and other FOSS software would have gotten much much more widespread. Piracy for commercial use (i.e. companies making loads of money with pirated sw) are ones which probably would have the money to pay but they don't so that could be called potential sales (and _not_ lost sales), but piracy for home use is nothing else than free promotion and advertising - it's not just about buying the software, it's about people gathering knowledge of use of these software and the potential sells for them later on. I think they just make too much fuss about this whole sw piracy issue. I'm not saying they should charge less or null for their software, but claiming that every pirated copy is a lost sale is just stupid and ignorant.
And of course they know this all too well, since you can't sanely think these companies employ and rely on stupid people. But they just love to talk about big number of hypothetical fairytale lost sales money to impress sixpacks and politicians.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
In short, noone argues that copyright violation is illegal. But it is not universally unethical - it depends on where you stand on other issues.
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
On the UK BSA website it says...
.NET) development and this investment has been blown away by Microsoft's decision to discontinue VB (VB.NET is not VB).
Welcome to the Business Software Alliance UK website. We are here to help businesses avoid software licensing problems.
If that is truly their aim, they should be pressing for businesses to use Open Source software. Searching for "Open Source" on their site reveals that the term occurs only once, in one document. They could also point out the dangers of investing your companies future in proprietary solutions. e.g. I work for a company that has invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in Visual Basic (pre
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.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)