BSA Says 41% of Software On Personal Computers Is Pirated

An anonymous reader writes "Individuals are turning to P2P networks and auction sites in staggering numbers to acquire or transfer illegal software and in doing so are harming the economy whilst exposing themselves to malware, identity theft and criminal prosecution, according to a report from the Business Software Alliance. Beyond P2P and auction site piracy, the report also draws correlations between Internet piracy and the spread of malware such as viruses, trojans and spyware, which often exploit vulnerabilities in illegal software that does not benefit from security updates provided by manufacturers. Although the correlation is not universal, geographies with high instances of software piracy suffer from high instances of malware."

Comments

Re:41?

[sumdumass]

Um, Citation Needed?

If you need a citation, then look up the various laws of differing nations on copyright, patents, and commerce. This isn't a secrete that you somehow missed, it's the way the world has been operating for the last 50 or more years which pretty much makes it your entire lifetime.

Or are you using the term in a tautological sense? "This is the way things are, because this is the way things are". Logically inescapable in a trivial sort of way, but doesn't imply any of the moral authority suggested by your use of the term.

Not at all. I'm saying that various laws around the world give ownership of rights of works or content and grant exclusivity to those rights. This exclusivity and ownership allows them to charge for copies and so on and that's what they have been doing. Legal authority is the only moral authority needed because morally, you are bound to operate in a lawful manor unless the law is unconscionable. Copyright and patent laws do not seem to rise to that level by any sane examination of them.

I'm surprised you're surprised. This is a techie/geek forum, not one dedicated to law or economics.

Well, that is exactly why I am surprised. Any Geek worth his salt would have spend a cursory attempt at understanding the world around them. They may not agree with how it operates or have suggestions for changes but it wouldn't be very geeky or techie of them to totally ignore it or how it works. Maybe I'm falling into the geek trap where I expect others to know as much as I do and I'm incapable of understanding how others could be ignorant about something as trivial as this.

Re:41?

[sumdumass]

So then you're basically trying to justify the morality of the BSA's position by pointing out that their position is entirely legal.

I'm not sure why your attempting to bring morality into the issue. Is it your position that the laws and ways people abide by them is somehow immoral and should be ignored or something? IF so, please back that up. The bottom line is that the law grants ownership to certain people. When they give rights or copies to others and charge for it, the moral way is the lawful way to obtain it. Unless you thin stealing is lawful and moral or something. Please expand on that too.

Actually, I think you'll find we're legally bound, not morally. Else, we're required to blindly accept any law on the statue books as moral, however unjust it may be.

Maybe you should look up what unconscionable means. Seriously, why did you even write that line? You are morally bound to act lawfully until the law is unconscionable is a pretty easy term that follows along with what you just said. If you can find something convincingly unconscionable about the current law, then plead your case. If you cannot, then morally you would be wrong to violate the law.

We've been around this loop before. I don't share your conviction that legality implies morality, and I doubt either of us is about to change the mind of the other this time around. I've got the clarification I was after; is there any need to discuss this further?

Obviously there is a need to discuss this further. You apparently do no understand what morality means or you are unwilling to disclose what you think is immoral after throwing the words around. I don't think it means what you think it means. And no, legality does not imply morality, but morality includes legality. I said the later nor previous.