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."
Sorry to tell this, but Open Source still cant compete with closed, paid-for applications that require a bit more. Yes, Linux is nice for servers. Apache is nice. MySQL is nice. All of that which has the most support is done quite good, but as soon as it gets a little bit off from that the quality drops dramatically. Open source's answer to Photoshop is still what, GIMP? Do any open source games actually compete good with commercially and professionally made games? OpenTDD is nice, but thats again one that has had good support (while still using data files and many parts and ideas from the commercial game).
On larger scale commercialization is required to produce quality software on other areas than where the most supporters are (apache, linux distros and so on).
While you're guessing with such precision, why not choose 42% and grab more nerd eyes?
Because pirating software is not the answer to life the universe and everything.
Pirating software is a fundamental human right, like freedom of speech.
>>>But it's true that piracy is hurting the industry (be that software, games, music or movies)
No it isn't. See my signature. One study estimated 5000 downloads per 1 lost album sale, and another study estimated 2500 downloads per 1 lost album sale. I took the more-pessimistic estimate. Both studies were done by college universities with no bias, unlike the studies coming from RIAA and BSA. (Use google to find them if you're curious, same way I found them.)
And the drastic drop in album sales is just a phase of the moon? I know you get an "Informative" for stating a non-fact and I will get a "Troll" for daring to speak the truth but pirating does harm businesses and artists. The argument that it isn't a 1 to 1 loss isn't the point the point is people are getting used to not paying for digital content. In the end everyone is harmed because the amount of content available will drop as will the quality, notice the quality of music has dropped as pirating has increased? I sure as hell have. I actually pay for software, a substantial portion of my income a year, and all the anti-piracy measures drive me up a wall. I can't really blame the companies because it's in self defense it's the pirate's fault. You would say it's a victimless crime yet I am a victim. I have to deal with added security and because I'm one of the suckers that pays I get to pay for your software and entertainment. Accept the fact that it's rationalization and embrace the fact you simply don't want to pay so you are taking what you want instead of earning it. That's the ugly truth. I'll have my "Troll" now please.
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.