Slashdot Mirror
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."
The BSA is every bit as corrupt, ignorant and greedy as the RIAA and MPAA, the difference is that they've got a pretend right to demand access to business networks to look for "pirated" software.
Well for one thing BSA has never went after normal people like RIAA/MPAA, so I wonder why you think they're "corrupt, ignorant and greedy". Those who use pirated software in their companies and work or who sell pirated software sure as hell deserve to be arrested.
However, you are not like the majority of computer users. Most computer users do not use Ubuntu, or Linux for that matter. In fact, as so much FLOSS whining attests to, over 85% of home computer users use some version of Windows.
I don't know why you are surprised that people do not want to have to learn a new operating system or a new application or both. Most people don't want to spend the time to do so. The "opportunity cost" is too high for them. And, remember, most FLOSS does not compare favorably to commercial software. FLOSS often has serious deficiencies in one of four areas: performance, ease of use, feature completeness, and user interface.
I don't care if it is OOo, GNUCash, Thunderbird, GIMP, or any of a hundred other FLOSS applications; FLOSS generally fails the user in at least one important way because FLOSS is not written with the user in mind, but rather it is written with the developer in mind. This is the critical flaw in the FLOSS model.
People would rather risk a possible malware infection, which they may never notice, than the certainty of having to spend time to learn something that will more often than not be inferior to what they want to use.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Your looking at the picture from only one side. While there is no automatic morality in law, there is automatic law in morality. You are morally obligated to be lawful until the laws become immoral. You have not stated were or why they are immoral. You have taken no effort to convince me or anyone why copyright or the current system in place around the world is immoral. I suppose one you do that, you will start seeing your own position crumble. I can't see any sane case that can be made.
If your going to arbitrarily make up definitions or use abstract meanings just to confuse the situation, then your not making a point, your attempting to hide one that's probably more valid then your own. When I suggested that you look a term up, I expect you to grab a dictionary or use an online dictionary or something and do what they taught all of us to do in second grade- look it up. I'm woefully sorry that is difficult for you and you need explicit instructions. But hey, lets look on the bright side, it might be a good opportunity for you to see your mom.
Oh, you thought that was an insult? Tell me, was it true or not? Did you disclose what you think is immoral? Did you mention any specifics about what you do not think is moral about the current system? All you did is repeat yourself claiming a law isn't automatically moral but failed to show how it wasn't moral. You use the word as if there is meaning to it but failed to show any substance to that meaning.
They can be both legal and moral terms. They do not need to be either or. And yes, you can justify them by the current model. You see, the morality of things would be that everyone plays by the known rules. The know rules which was supported by laws say that people have a certain amount of control of copyright and patents for content or media they create. They sell copies of the content to others because they have a legal right to control copies and initial distribution of the content. So far, we are all playing by the same rules.
So where the immorality comes in is when you start pirating software or music and refuse to play by the rules. Now your attempting to reject the reality everyone else knows and substitute your own. Let me explain this a little differently, Suppose you owned a store and kids shoplifted candy every day. Is it moral of them to not play by the rules? Is it moral for you to try to stop them? And do not inject the concept of physical property verses IP because as long as the law describes the right to it, it's tangible. So lets look at this in another way, suppose a company you have invested your retirement fund turns out to be fraudulently spending it on themselves instead of investing in the markets. Now this ponzy scheme, is it moral? It is lawful or ok?
Of course the answers are no because they weren't playing by the same set of known rules. That's what your claiming to have the right to do and your claiming that the existing laws aren't moral without backing them up. Your doing nothing but attempting to justify your incorrect position without backing those justifications up. Ever question presented to you about your position was pretty much met with a question, you even broke down when I suggested you learn what unconscionable meant.