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."

448 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. 41? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While you're guessing with such precision, why not choose 42% and grab more nerd eyes?

    1. Re:41? by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I'm actually surprised it's only 41% pirated software on personal computers, considering it's not often that people buy software applications for non-work purposes and most are free or have alternatives.

      But it's true that piracy is hurting the industry (be that software, games, music or movies). Yeah it would be nice if all of that would be free, but it's not a good model to sustain the development and producment. You can always argue that those who like doing it "just for the fun of it" will keep doing so, but it's not going work. The quality suffers and there wont be as many different options or products. There's a reason why everything isn't free already (because it could be - there's nothing to limit it). Market and income is how world works and is needed to produce products, in a way or other. Either by user directly paying for it, or from ad revenue ala google (and losing some of your privacy in the trade) or by other means like open source with support and sponsoring from other companies.

      And it's not really a surprise that you might get infected with malware when downloading from warez sites.

    2. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

      >>>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.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:41? by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So it is hurting the industry, but not as much as the industry claims.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    4. Re:41? by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:41? by sopssa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.)

      If it's on the internets it must be true!

      And anyhow, you say in your own post that it is hurting the industry, even if its on smaller scale. The funny thing is that it's also hurting open source.

      I've seen many of your pro-piracy comments in countless number of threads already, but you also cant just count solely on lost sales. Pirating MP3's also hurts streaming services like Pandora and Spotify too (but interestingly, spotify is so good that I havent needed to try to find mp3's since i started using it). Also it's obvious that if people couldn't pirate, they would buy more. *Not the same amount they pirate, but still more*. It's just because people can do it, they do. If I could pirate furniture, food and beer, why wouldn't I? (and no need to carry those beers from store either!).

      Getting everything for free sounds nice in paper, but it comes with tons of problems which has been discussed to death already.

      And the fact is that noone is making any artist/developer/movie maker to ask for that price. They can already publish it for free and upload to torrent sites. But they've decided to ask a price for it, and if you want to use it, you need to pay for the asked price. If it's too much, just be without it.

    6. Re:41? by Calydor · · Score: 3, Funny

      I disagree.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    7. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah just like getting bit by an ant "hurts" me, but not really. It's just an ant. Nothing to have a hissy-fit over like IRAA and the BSA seem to be having.

      BSA: "Oh noes! We've been bit an ant. The end is nigh"
      US: "Stop being a wuss."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:41? by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But they've decided to ask a price for it, and if you want to use it, you need to pay for the asked price. If it's too much, just be without it."

      Listening for free or not listening at all gives the exact same amount to the maker: 0. So why wouldn't I listen? I pay what I can, but I'm not going to deprive myself just "because", I act based on reason, not on some orthodox morality.

    9. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>>> Both studies were done by college universities with no bias, unlike the studies coming from RIAA and BSA.
      >>
      >>If it's on the internets it must be true!

      No it's in two university studies - published in peer-reviewed journals. Can you not read? Besides if you really thought the 2 studies I cited were wrong, then you'd go off and find some other university studies to prove that copyprivilege infringement is horribly high.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Pirating MP3's also hurts streaming services like Pandora and Spotify too

      Also radio, MTV, VH1. We need to bans the youtubes! We need to ban the cassette recorders! Ban VCRs and ban DVRs! Oh noes. ----- /end sarcasm

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:41? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Really? I only know a handful of people who actually have pirated software on their computers. Most people I know, especially the non-geeks, which is the majority, don't buy any software for their computers except games and only use what comes pre-installed. The rest buy the software they use because they need that particular piece of software. The few people I know who do have pirated software are generally college kids who can't afford the ridiculous price of CS to do simple picture and manipulation or folks who have a cracked copy of the full final cut instead of final cut express, for which they have legit licenses.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    12. Re:41? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But 2500 is far less than multiple millions. I don't believe the "pirating" of songs and videos has a large impact on the bottom line of these companies, and I wouldn't care if it did, to be honest, but to say it has no impact is just not true. The question of whether that impact is good or bad is simply a matter of perspective.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    13. Re:41? by Sgt.+B · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference here, you are comparing a roughly flat rate music industry to the software industry.

      Autodesk Maya 3D software is $1300.00 just to name 1. It is well worth the money but some kid trying to learn it might be tempted to pirate it because there is no way he can afford it. Thankfully they offer a free version for learning but you get the idea. A $16 music CD does not compare to a $1300 software package as it relates to lost sales.

    14. Re:41? by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But it's true that piracy is hurting the industry (be that software, games, music or movies).

      [citation needed]

      I'm sure it was the pirates. The global recession had nothing to do with it.

    15. Re:41? by Whitemend · · Score: 1

      Could we get links to these studies? It'd be nice to have actual documents.

    16. Re:41? by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it's true that piracy is hurting the industry

      Piracy may be specifically hurting IP industries, but it's a net win for the economy. The dead weight loss caused by monopoly rights damages the economy as a whole, probably by amounts that dwarf the whole revenue of those industries, and only piracy mitigates that damage.

      but it's not a good model to sustain the development and producment.

      At the efficiency levels seen in the monopoly industries it's obvious that neither is monopoly a good model to sustain development and production. At about 5% efficiency, as in the music industry, it's even worse than the worst of government run programs. Others, like productivity software, have a level of fungibility which has at least had some competitive effect. None, however, demonstrate anything remotely like what an acceptable overhead should look like in a competitive industry and together the IP industries are an albatross around the neck of todays western economy.

    17. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>Because pirating software is not the answer to life the universe and everything.

      Are you sure? On that somewhat-popular alternate universe called "Star Trek" TNG/DS9/&c, piracy is how everything works. People work and produce goods, and everyone else just takes them for free. They don't even use money anymore. That culture seems to make out okay so perhaps piracy is the answer - the path towards Roddenberry's utopia.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:41? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      What about software? That's the big question here

      --
      This is blinging
    19. Re:41? by nrgy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is how most learn VFX software and everyone in the industry knows it. The software companies don't really care except when people use it to make money, the personal learning editions are crippled most of the time in such ways that make them useless for learning. SideFX who make Houdini I think took the correct route and offer a fully functional personal edition for $99 US.

      One could go on about how many people are running around with Photoshop installed but I'll save that for another day ;).

    20. Re:41? by SirGeek · · Score: 1

      Also radio, MTV, VH1. We need to bans the youtubes! We need to ban the cassette recorders! Ban VCRs and ban DVRs! Oh noes. ----- /end sarcasm

      Since when does MTV/VH1 play music videos ?

    21. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      It's one lost sale out of 2500 downloaded songs. BFD. And also far from one lost sale out of 2.3 downloads (41%) like the BSA is falsely claiming about programs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:41? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I used to buy software (mostly games) many years ago, and found that many games were just total crap, despite glowing reviews.. For instance:

      http://www.mobygames.com/game/rise-of-the-robots

      Apparently "Amiga Joker" rated this 91%, and the box itself touted high 90s reviews.. The game itself was total crap, and the few honest reviews gave it laughably low scores.

      A lot of commercial non game software is also total garbage these days too, all bloat and fancy graphics to disguise horrific performance and showstopping bugs.

      As a result i stick to free software... Sure, much of it is just as bad as its commercial counterparts but free crap is a lot more acceptable than expensive crap.

    23. Re:41? by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's called communism, and it fails because humans are lazy and greedy. If you can somehow persuade humans to stop being lazy and greedy, then pretty much any system of government will suffice.

    24. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      So is that a lost sale when the kid can't afford to pay $1300? Heck even I can't afford that kind of money. My vote is "no" - it isn't a lost sale.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    25. Re:41? by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but so are the people that use open source, the people that refuse to use software that's overpriced and under featured. And of course you'll notice that they're whining about those bastards that buy software second hand as well.

      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.

    26. Re:41? by sopssa · · Score: 1

      On that somewhat-popular alternate universe called "Star Trek" TNG/DS9/&c, piracy is how everything works. People work and produce goods, and everyone else just takes them for free. They don't even use money anymore. That culture seems to make out okay

      You're really thinking that made-up scifi universe, which couple of writers write in their head, has considered all the aspects of economy and how the world works to provide an answer on where the world should be heading to? Really?

      Star Trek series is good, but you might want to stop watching it now and step outside. It's *not* a simulation to see how our world should develop. It's a written tv series for entertainment.

      Slashdot never stops surprising me.

    27. Re:41? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      The damage claims also hypocritical when in many industries it is accepted practice to tolerated some piracy as a mean for cheap advertisement. Especially when it comes to expensive professional software which you simply can't evaluate fully with demo version. Some vendors offer special time-limited versions of full products - but most do not.

      MS itself was admitting not once that they prefer people (in 3rd world) pirating Windows instead of adopting other competing OSs. (And something similar was happening whey they have been releasing first Windows versions - to spur the adoption of new system.)

      Fight with piracy is a double edged sword and BSA members knows it well. Regardless of what they -as managers of public companies- are obliged to claim.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    28. Re:41? by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      Also it's obvious that if people couldn't pirate, they would buy more. *Not the same amount they pirate, but still more*

      While this may be true in some cases, don't underestimate the number of poor college students like me who already spend 100% of their disposable income on entertainment.

      For example:
      Say I have 100 dollars left over after rent and food this month.
      I spend about $45 on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (on steam)
      I spend $5 on Hitman: Blood Money (steam again) because i know its a good game and I can't resist that price.
      I have to get my 13 year old sister a birthday present, so I spend $20 on whatever the latest Pixar movie was.
      I spend $20 on a concert ticket, and my last $10 on a t-shirt, because the band was awesome.

      Now they have 100% of what I have to spend. How can I buy more?

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    29. Re:41? by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And where are they claiming that its lost sales? They've just saying that 41% of software on personal computers is pirated. There's no talk about lost sales.

      Stop making stuff up.

    30. Re:41? by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "orthodox morality"?
      You have no automatic right to software. The fact there's no net cost to them does not make it right.

      I'm not going to 'deprive myself' of a place to sleep so I'll pick the lock (in a non-damaging way) of your front door and sleep in a spare room in your house. No cost to you so any complaints about my squatting are just based on stupid orthodox morality.

      Inane example yes but this sense of entitlement that some people have is sickening. By all means pirate but don't pretend you're not doing anything wrong by doing so.

    31. Re:41? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Do those conclusions factor in any added sales from increased exposure due to the downloading?

      If not, then it probably isn't hurting the industry at all, more like helping them, as many contend.

    32. Re:41? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But it's true that piracy is hurting the industry (be that software, games, music or movies)

      You are sure opening yourself to a lot of flak by that statement. For starters, define "piracy". Define "hurting". Define "the industry". Because I would argue that as a whole, society benefits from piracy. There is indeed no arguing against the hypothesis that if everybody would nicely pay for all software they have on their PC, the software industry revenue would increase. But what can be argued, is why all software should be paid in full by everyone, since the reproduction cost is virtually nonexistant. Also, I would argue that there really is no consumer-friendly pricing for most products: no one will pay $200+ if they're only going to use a program once or twice.

      And by "hurting", do you also consider that piracy is a form of word-of-mouth advertising? That when the local town-geek pirates a tool and recommends it to his peers, that some of that peers might actually buy the tool? That one pirate might lead to many customers (and of course, as many or more pirates)?

      And define "piracy". When I use my XP activation key that came with my laptop to install a virtual machine, am I pirating? What if I remove said software from my laptop first? I know Microsoft would probably say it is illegal, while the laws in my country (NL) expressly allow it. If I download a Windows7 iso using bittorrent, and subsequently activate it using a store-bought activation key, am I still a pirate? If I torrent a game to see if it will work under Wine (yay for no playable demos), am I a pirate or a cautious buyer? I still have a number of flac files on my computer that are ripped from my ex-girlfriends cd collection. Am I a pirate for not having deleted those files when we split up?
      I'm currently CNE certified. I achieved my certification for a major part by downloading the Netware OES iso's from Novell, and building my own virtual network with them. Am I a pirate for that? Because Novell's user base has only expanded since I achieved my certification...

      And finally, I will give you one example where the industry is hurting itself: a few months ago I needed to recover some data that was stored on XP encrypted user folders. I actually found a tool online that would decrypt them (elcomsoft or something like that). The tool cost $100, which is quite a lot for one-time usage, but since it wouldn't be my money, I decided to evaluate it, and recommend my client to buy it if it indeed worked. Well guess what: it didn't do anything. After I entered the user's password, most keys turned green and it allowed me to decrypt the files, but the resulting files were garbage (probably still encrypted). Then, when I tried to close the program, if gave a popup saying something like "you need to buy it before the program will actually work" - And now I had a problem. How could I recommend my client to spend $100 without proof that the tool would work? So, I ended up downloading a serial number and unlocking the program. Then, it did work. But at the same time, I no longer needed the tool...

      As for myself, I'm using Debian. But I do have libdvdcss2 and w32codecs installed. I don't know if that's legal around here, and I don't care. I would assert that it should be legal: the burden of license compliance should be on the content creator, not the end user.

    33. Re:41? by rgviza · · Score: 1

      College universities with no bias, ROFL. That made my day.

      That's like saying a democrat or republican with no bias. In case you haven't noticed, colleges are on the other side of the RIAA's beatdown stick.

      For such a study to be truly unbiased it'd have to be done by aliens, or someone who doesn't participate in p2p or beatdowns (and has no friends that do either). That rules out universities as a possibility to do such an unbiased study.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    34. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Harvard Study 5000 downloads == 1 lost album sale - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=5000+downloads+lost+CD+sales

      I can't find the other study, but it used statistical analysis to determine 2500 downloads results in just one lost CD sale

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    35. Re:41? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      At about 5% efficiency, as in the music industry,

      Where did you pull that number from? Is that economic efficiency (i.e. percent of buyer/seller surplus) or a completely unrelated form of efficiency?

    36. Re:41? by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 1

      Ok, thats well and good. However, I've seen estimates that suggest that multiple billions of song downloads have occurred over the p2p networks. While the impact is an order of magnitude less, a million lost sales is nothing to scoff at.

    37. Re:41? by PhilJC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well....

      Sixth Annual BSA-IDC Global Software Piracy Study (2008), Page 17, when describing how they calculate piracy:

      1. Determine how much PC packaged software was deployed in 2008;
      2. Determine how much PC packaged software was paid for/legally acquired in 2008; and
      3. Subtract one from the other to get the amount of pirated software.

      To calculate "deployment" they asked 6,200 people (p.17 of above report) how much software they install in a given year. Take into account that these 6,000 people are spread across 24 countries - that's an average of just 258 people per country for their survey! (For those that are interested they estimate the rest of the world based on these 24 countries)

      Software paid for/legally acquired comes from IDC estimates.

      They then get their magic 41% figure... Is it just me or does this seem as flimsy as a polystyrene tow-bar?

    38. Re:41? by kitezh · · Score: 1

      On that somewhat-popular alternate universe called "Star Trek" TNG/DS9/&c, piracy is how everything works. People work and produce goods, and everyone else just takes them for free. They don't even use money anymore. That culture seems to make out okay so perhaps piracy is the answer - the path towards Roddenberry's utopia.

      If you ever watched Star Trek, you'd know that they use a currency system for any purchases. Sure, they are called "credits" instead of dollars or guilders, but for the latest holo-novel or fashion clothing, they still use money.

    39. Re:41? by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · · Score: 1

      I like a plausible conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but what's the rationale for saying the BSA is corrupt? Or greedy?

    40. Re:41? by schon · · Score: 1

      Wow. I wonder how many lost sales are due to songs being played on the radio!

    41. Re:41? by rgviza · · Score: 1

      I buy all of my apps, or use open source alternatives for non-work stuff. Admittedly I used to use software from warez sites. I stopped that around 1999.

      Way too risky... I equate it to dollar cost, time and morals. If it takes me 6+ hours to rebuild my computer, get all of my apps reinstalled, and get my computer back to where it was, and my time is worth $80-120 an hour (depending on where I'm working), all of a sudden that $29.99-$59.99 game or software package doesn't seem so expensive if buying it mitigates the risk of my PC getting toasted by some new malware. I have no software that costs more than $600.

      I need my PC operational for making money. If I find a package useful, I like to support the developers.

      I just read lots of reviews and make sure I'm not buying crap first.

      One thing I miss is the lack of obnoxious copy protection... It's ironic how the people that actually pay for the software have to put up with an assload of frustration and people that steal it don't.

      -Viz

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    42. Re:41? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is exactly how I use my Pirated software.

      Through college I had the full version of Matlab/Simulink. I used toolboxes that the school didn't have when doing class projects. I learned everything I could about it and the toolboxes available.

      Now, 6 years later, I was able to talk my boss into buying a few extra special toolboxes for the work we do. Something close to $30k a seat a year. Had I never 'pirated' all that software I would have never been able to sell my self to my company, nor sell my company on Matlab toolboxes.

      Same goes for Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and quite a few other "Pro" applications that should they be needed, I can put them on a resume.

      The personal stuff I use at home. GraphicConverter, etc, I like to pay for.

      Octave is NOT an alternative for most of Matlab.

    43. Re:41? by AnnoyaMooseCowherd · · Score: 1

      Back in the day when Microsoft Office had more competition from the likes of WordPerfect, a business I was working for went out and bought Word for all its PCs (a couple of hundred) because a senior manager had a "pirated" copy at home.

      Unlike some other software at that time which employed dongles and other copy prevention measures, Microsoft didn't seem to have any real security on their software - you just copied the disks. It seemed as if they almost meant it to be copied a few times in order to get market exposure and more sales (looks like it worked as well).

      --

      This [ ] left intentionally [ ]
    44. Re:41? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      How this this get Modded up to 5? And how is it informative?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    45. Re:41? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't miss the fact that their biggest out and out, completely undeniable, absolute lie, was that piracy was hurting the economy. The truth is, when the money is not spend on licensed content it still ends up getting spent on others things in the economy, like food, clothing, accommodation etc. often things in the economy that are locally produced, have a much greater impact on employment within the local community and are often of far greater 'real' value.

      Technically speaking of course piracy is often far better for the economy as it keeps money in the local community and it even has environmental benefits as it cuts down on media manufacture and transport costs. Whilst it is true that piracy does interfere with the accumulation of huge profits for handful of individuals, in truth for the majority it provides economic relief and a bit of mindless escape in a difficult economic situation.

      To be fair, to crack down on piracy we would also have to crack down on the other side of software licensing, false advertising, non-warranties and cost recovery for damages caused by faulty software. So I have to think making the software companies pay the full costs for their deceits and misbehaviours would likely far out way realistic losses caused by piracy. It is also hardly surprising that an association that supports for profit publishing that adds no value to anything apart from a lot of false advertising is also opposed to P2P the free to publish network, where content creators can use the greater community to publish their works directly to other users.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    46. Re:41? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That would actually be an interesting study, and difficult to quantify. I've bought albums after hearing a track on the (Internet) radio, but I've also not bought albums because the songs have been played a lot and I'm bored with them. I suspect that the generated sales outnumber the lost sales, but it's difficult to be certain.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    47. Re:41? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Non-geeks don't buy or install software, but that doesn't mean that they don't have it installed. A computer shop near here used to put pirate copies of Windows, Office, and quite a few other things on every machine they sold. How many other non-geeks have machines set up by a geek friend or relative with 'useful' software on it?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    48. Re:41? by haruchai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The BSA operates like a SWAT team on small businesses and are very disruptive. Trust me, if you a small shop relying on a consultant for your support, you don't want them showing up.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    49. Re:41? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your spare room is not "abundant." You only have one of them, and it can only hold a finite number of people.

      MP3 files are abundant. Once they exist, there can be an infinite number of them at zero additional cost.

      You are kidding yourself if you insist that this fact does not change the moral landscape.

    50. Re:41? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is possibly a future sale. If kids learn your software and then they get hired, they may have the company purchase a real copy. If they don't know how to use it, there is no future sale possibility.

    51. Re:41? by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      What's this MTV that you speak of? Are you talking about that channel that only makes trashy reality shows for teens and drunk college kids?

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    52. Re:41? by Kirijini · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      No no no no no.

      42 is the answer.

      Pirating software is the question.

    53. Re:41? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it is hurting the industry, but not as much as the industry claims.

      Suppose a record sells 1,000,000 copies. In order for that to drop to 999,000 copies, there would have to be about 2,500,000 unauthorized downloads (by the worst estimate offered). So, record companies still make 99.9% of their "owed" income as long as downloaders only outnumber purchasers by a factor of 2.5:1.

      The RIAA member corporations want to assrape the constitution for this? To hell with 'em.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    54. Re:41? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      41%? I am not surprised at all. When I was younger, I used to know quite a few "pirates". Most of them had thousands pirated applications and games.

      if 1 in 1000 is a raging "pirate", and 99.9% of the other people had no pirated software at all and a handful of legitimate pieces of software. You could easily get 41% or higher.

      Most of these people were teens without significant income, so no sales are really lost. Only a generation of technically minded people familiar and enthusiastic about software they could not afford to learn on their own before entering the workplace.

    55. Re:41? by TheBlackMan · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to 'deprive myself' of a place to sleep so I'll pick the lock (in a non-damaging way) of your front door and sleep in a spare room in your house. No cost to you so any complaints about my squatting are just based on stupid orthodox morality.

      Bad example. What if 50.000 people did the same and slept in spare room of your house ? Wouldn't the bed wear out, damage or something ? Wouldn't the floor get dirty, so you had to make _extra_ ( = cost) effort to clean it ? Phisical things slowly lose their value when they are used by someone. This does not apply to intelectual property. And there is absolutely no real evidence that piracy is doing any harm to the industry... There is a logical paradox: why the titles that are most pirated also earn the most money ? Logically, if piracy damages industry, the _most pirated_ titles should be also the _most unsuccessful_ in sales.

    56. Re:41? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1
      Given the recording industry's slimy history of payola schemes with radio networks, I'd say the answer is obvious.

      "Radio is an entity unique to the music industry. It's an independent force that, much to the industry's chagrin, represents the one tried-and-true way record companies know to sell their product."

      And before someone gives me a great big "whoosh", yeah, I get the tongue-in-cheek nature of the parent's comment. My point is that they know that getting their song in contact with new ears for free is the only way to make big money in recorded music, and they have historically stopped at nothing to control the distribution channel by which that "free" music is delivered, ie radio. IMHO, "pirated" downloads do not represent a direct threat to sales as much as they represent a threat to big labels' ability to control the "free" music distribution channel.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    57. Re:41? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Inane example yes but this sense of entitlement that some people have is sickening. By all means pirate but don't pretend you're not doing anything wrong by doing so.

      Sense of entitlement vs. sense of moral superiority.... *reaches for popcorn*

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    58. Re:41? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      It seemed as if they almost meant it to be copied a few times...

      Yup. Like when each version of DOS came out, suddenly everybody had a copy of the installation discs. I very rarely met anyone who actually had the originals...

      Word Perfect, if I recall correctly had a code number you were supposed to input, but this was easy enough to fudge:

      WPnnn123456 where nnn was your country's phone dialling prefix, e.g. 044 for UK and so on.

    59. Re:41? by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with my view where I say yes, it is bad, but I'm have no interests in the BSA so it doesn't concern me? I know people aren't just burning the money they saved from it--so I can't see how can it be harming the economy as a whole. Is that not the broken window fallacy?

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    60. Re:41? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      So is that a lost sale when the kid can't afford to pay $1300? Heck even I can't afford that kind of money. My vote is "no" - it isn't a lost sale.

      That $1300 piece of software is marketted toward a corporation who is assumed to have the cash to buy the software. Most of the 'superhighpriced' softwares are targetted that direction, with very few $450 & up 'wares marketted for the home consumer.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    61. Re:41? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, 6 years later, I was able to talk my boss into buying a few extra special toolboxes for the work we do. Something close to $30k a seat a year. Had I never 'pirated' all that software I would have never been able to sell my self to my company, nor sell my company on Matlab toolboxes.

      That's makes you part of the problem. If you and everyone like you boycotted Matlab, they would go out of business and someone with less onerous licensing could take over the industry. No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    62. Re:41? by tenaciousj · · Score: 1

      I suppose he should follow the lame ass mantra that gets bounced around here. If you don't like it, "act with your dollars..". Well, guess what. That's what he and many, many other people are doing. Only they are doing it in a way that gets the attention of the people involved. And its grown to such a point that you think the people in charge would actually listen and think, "Hm. maybe we trying to force an over-priced product." But no, they are being dragged kicking and screaming all the way.

      Look I surely don't mind paying a fair price for anything. Business is business and profit is good. But for example, if you think I am going to pay US $30-40 for an freaking audio book, FUCK YOU. Not only will I say that verbally, but my actions will tell you the same thing.

      Did you ever copy a cassette tape or record a song from the radio. Have you ever shared a book with someone, or read a book that you didn't purchase? I be you have. Guess what, you're a criminal too.

    63. Re:41? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      No cost to you so any complaints about my squatting are just based on stupid orthodox morality.

      Your example is indeed inane, and it it is also inaccurate. Playing devil's advocate here, I could suggest that making an unauthorised duplicate of my software might not cost me any money, but you had better not even fart, let alone throw up in my spare room unless you are tired of living.

    64. Re:41? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Non-geeks don't buy or install software, but that doesn't mean that they don't have it installed. A computer shop near here used to put pirate copies of Windows, Office, and quite a few other things on every machine they sold.

      And Microsoft had a campaign a couple years back where you could turn in those corner computer shops for legitmate copies of your Windows/Office/Microsoft products. Somewhat successful one, from what I hear, though I haven't heard or read of any arrests & convictions.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    65. Re:41? by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

      How many downloads/day are there?

      Not a shill, just not sure that even 2500:1 makes the "lost sales" insignificant.

    66. Re:41? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Logically, if piracy damages industry, the _most pirated_ titles should be also the _most unsuccessful_ in sales.

      Perhaps, unfortunately when you are small, a small amount of piracy can kill your product, you go our of business, and your product never evolves to where it could if it wasn't pirated.

      On the other hand, some piracy serves as advertising for your product and introduces people to it that would never have heard about it. It's just not that simple.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    67. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, they can claim a lost sale for every copy in existance that wasn't made from fair use or fair dealings. This is because the current model is that the only way you get a copy is by a sale outside of fair use provisions.

      The fact that people wouldn't have otherwise purchased the product isn't important in this figure because the current model of distribution doesn't account for them. In other words, while it is a valid argument to claim they wouldn't have had 2500 sales, the fact that 2500 copies exist outside of fair use and legitimate copies means they would be entitled to 2500 sales when we look at the current system of distribution and copyright laws.

      Of course you can divide the 2500 into some average of the number of tracks on a CD or whatever and have a more accurate number. I'm just using the 2500 because it was already in use and stating that the two realities do not clash as being presented.

    68. Re:41? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The GP might sort of have a point though.

      Getting away from the subject of software for a moment: back in the days, for instance, when music came on those black vinyl discs with all that long-forgotten funky cover art on the cardboard sleeve, piracy was just as rife as it was today. But then, our copies on even the best cassette tapes were never as good as the originals, and if there was any choice at all we would go to much greater lengths to stump up for the original with the groovy sleeve.

      Now that 100% exact digital replicas of the media are simple to make, the vendors (record labels etc) need to come up with a means of value-adding (like the old album cover of yore) that can't be downloaded via bittorrent.

    69. Re:41? by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      This is true. In high school and college I used to pirate software left and right. Often times I would install it, decide it was crap within a day or so, and then just leave it installed never using it again.

      Now that I'm out of college and working, I don't really ever pirate software. I just use Linux instead.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    70. Re:41? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's true that piracy is hurting the industry (be that software, games, music or movies). Yeah it would be nice if all of that would be free, but it's not a good model to sustain the development and producment.

      So if Jimmy the Geeklet pirates Windows and Photoshop and MS Office, and then when he grows up to be James the Geek with a real job he already knows Windows and MS Office and Photoshop and expects to be able to use those at work and maybe even buys copies (err, licenses) for his own use at home, this is a net loss to the "industry" compared to his knowing and wanting to use KDE and the GIMP and Open Office?

    71. Re:41? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Such as? If you could give me a good, viable alternative to Matlab, Simulink and the Auto Coding functions I'm listening.

      *Everyone* uses Matlab. That level of support does not come cheap. Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, VW, Benz, Caterpillar, Deere, Cummins, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, Haldex, Samsung. I bet you can't go a day without using something Mathworks helped design. There are some people out there using it for Day Trading.

      It is almost to the point that electing to boycott Mathworks is like trying to boycott the i386.

      Tools cost money. Good tools cost more money. If I built houses for a living I'd buy a Dewalt. Even if 99% of slashdot scoffed at paying $300 for a 'cordless drill.'

    72. Re:41? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply have to point out that very little of the world's population makes anywhere NEAR "$80-120 an hour". Living in SW Arkansas, I don't think that I could find anyone making 120, but I might find a few making nearly 80. The highest paid individual in my extended family makes a little less than 30, and most make 12 or less. In fact, more than 1/2 make well under $10/hour.

      Pricing schemes look a whole lot different to a man who can purchase a game for one hour's wages, as opposed to a man who has to spend a day's wages for the same game. Especially considering that people who make $10/hr have little if any savings or investments.

      Just something to think about.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    73. Re:41? by arclyte · · Score: 1
      Of course, you could just as well claim the right to private property as inane and say that you have no innate right of ownership of the software in the first case. Isn't this why we're having so much trouble with the "reds" pirating goods? Most westerners assume that private property is an inalienable right similar to that of free speech, but that's just the status quo.

      I have no problem facing things honestly. I steal because I cannot afford things. As one of the previous repliers posted, it would be very difficult for most of us to accrue skills in much needed software if we were to have to purchase it on our own. I wouldn't be in the position I am today if it weren't for pirated software. But let's make a real division between software stolen for personal use and that stolen for commercial use. For personal use, I may steal Photoshop to frack around or edit my personal pictures, but I make no profit off of it. The bigger worry for Adobe should be businesses making profit off of stolen software.

      The problem I see with your argument is twofold. First, you assume that the current legal landscape is correct, or even if you do not you think that we should follow those laws regardless. Most pirates would argue that the laws are wrong and that they pirate as something of an act of civil disobedience. If Obama came on TV and said he passed a law that said "Thou shalt kill their neighbor" (while we're making inane arguments...) how many people do you think would kill their neighbors just because there was a law saying so? Well, copyright laws are similarly inane and even easier to break because they can be broken without your neighbor knowing about it. With personal, private property intact and no reasonable cause for search and seizure, most cases of copyright infringement almost come down to a matter of intellectual infringement. It's the data, not the medium, that they want to control.

      Second, your analogy with squatting misses the mark. Squatters squat in abandoned places that no one else is using, not the private homes of individuals. A squatter in the piratic sense (I just made that word up) would be someone who picked up CDs or albums off the side of the road or maybe bought them used (another topic altogether). Pirates do not break into peoples houses to steal their CDs or burn copies of them, those are burglars. Piracy is about spreading data around... giving what you have in exchange for what others have (unless you're just leeching, which is generally frowned upon... who says there's no honour among thieves?).

      And while we're on the topic... It seems to me that media is itself to blame to some extent. According to the theories put forth by memeticists (made that one up too), ideas can have a life of their own and want to be passed on. Add to that the wonderful work done by psychologists in ad companies to induce us to buy all their goods and it would seem to me that this current trend in pirating is a matter of them doing their jobs too well. As a consumerist society we're induced to always buy more more more. Have "The White Album" on LP and Cassette? Why not spring another $19.95 for it on CD? You say you have 1000 Dalmations on VHS? But I bet you've never seen it with the digital clarity that Blu-Ray can give you... People are induced to get more than they can ever actually obtain, so when the golden carrot of piracy is dangled in front of them, what do you expect?

      The fact is that most people don't feel guilt for downloading MP3s from TPB. The powers that be have tried to induce such guilt with exorbitant lawsuits (Jammie anyone?) but the fact is that it's not going to work. Has the death penalty stopped murderers? Child rapists? Pot smokers? No. Punishment does not deter crime, even in the punished. The only thing that will change the current situation is a paradigm shift, a fundamental shift in the way we a) think about the consummation of goods, and/or b) the way these companies run their businesses and treat their clients. And I think that's kind of what the pirates are all hoping for... cultural change. Hmm, civil disobedience doesn't sound so absurd in that light as when I first mentioned it. I think I'll go steal something now!

    74. Re:41? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Burma Shave

      --
      Squirrel!
    75. Re:41? by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      "their closest competitors (AMD) are somewhat behind and relegated to offering a cheap but clearly inferior option."
      But i run a winchip you insensitive clod!

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    76. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      This is because the current model is that the only way you get a copy is by a sale outside of fair use provisions.

      Which "current model" would that be? Who uses it? What authority can it be claimed to carry?

      Obviously, the current model used by the BSA is going to support the BSA's estimations, for instance. But by itself, that wouldn't make it fair or accurate or in any way reflective of reality.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    77. Re:41? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Inane example yes

      Your case will be much better supported with a non-inane example.
      I'm not just being nitpicky here; see if you can come up with one. If you can't, maybe that says something about your position, no?

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    78. Re:41? by xeoron · · Score: 1

      I agree, and how much of this "pirated" software is OSS?

    79. Re:41? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is not theft.

      If you steal my car,I can't drive it. If you copy my song, I still have the song, I can still play it, I can still perform it, but I did not get any money for the copy you made. See the difference?

      If copyright was actually helping artists more than huge corps, and it had reasonable limits, say 20 years, then I might view copyright infringers in a harsher light.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    80. Re:41? by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about album sales here. We're talking about software sales. I'm not saying your overall point is incorrect, but find statistics relevant to the topic at hand. And quite honestly, I'd say 41% is BS. Maybe 40% of Windows XP installations are pirated, but I know very few people who don't pay for things like Office, Photoshop, etc.

    81. Re:41? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Except when too many people pirate the application/game, then the company doesn't make enough money, and then they have to let people go. These people, now unemployed, are a real drain on the economy, as they can't afford to buy food or clothing or pay rent. Some may find a new job, but a significant portion will find themselves either perpetually out of work, or working the midnight shift at 7-11.

      Granted, I took the argument to an extreme, but no more than your claim that piracy "Helps the economy."

    82. Re:41? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      If you're relying on a consultant for support like that, and his actions cause the BSA to bring the hammer down on you, wouldn't the consultant be liable?

    83. Re:41? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      A lot of software companies are figuring this out now, which is why they have cheap, or sometimes even free, licenses for educational purposes. When I was in school, both the CS and ECE departments had unlimited licenses for just about every Microsoft product that they could give out to students, and it cost the department some ridiculously small amount of money.

    84. Re:41? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      That's the problem: People who pirate things may be acting with their dollars and getting the attention of the higher ups in the company, but in a bad way. Piracy is one of the reasons they are asking for tougher anti-piracy laws, coming up with stricter DRM, and in general making things worse for those of us who do pay for stuff.

      Like someone earlier here said: If you're gonna pirate, go ahead. We won't stop you, and probably couldn't if we wanted to. But don't pretend like you're doing us all a favor, or fighting some kind of crusade for our rights. You just don't want to pay $30 for the audio book.

    85. Re:41? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, check this shit out. I run Linux upon which I have a copy of VirtualBox with a pirated copy of Windows XP so I can run my pirated copy of Streets & Trips for GPS navigation. When a workable navigation solution is released for x86 Linux, I'll drop Windows like a hot potato. What percentage of my computer software is pirated?

      Basically, here's my take. Fuck Windows and fuck OSX. I have no respect for any software company that doesn't develop for Linux. I buy my Linux software when it's for sale and I want it. I'll die before I buy software that runs on a proprietary operating system. And that's why I pirate. And really, I couldn't give a fuck less whether anybody liked it or not. Matter of fact, I hope you don't like it.

    86. Re:41? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Interesting tidbit: In the Declaration of Independence, where it says that all men have a right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," they originally were going to put Property in there as well. However, several of the delegates got it taken out, as they felt that it would have encouraged the ever spreading practice of slavery.

    87. Re:41? by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      That's makes you part of the problem. If you and everyone like you boycotted Matlab, they would go out of business and someone with less onerous licensing could take over the industry. No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible.

      What exactly is the problem? MathWorks invests a lot into their software, and consequently are able to sell it. If someone else came up with a better solution at a lower price, I'm sure they would do well.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    88. Re:41? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      You know there's a lot more to producing a CD than just stamping out the disk and printing some liner notes, right? There's studio time to rent, there's audio engineers to pay, promotion of the band.

    89. Re:41? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you can somehow persuade humans to stop being lazy and greedy, then pretty much any system of government will suffice.

      To be fair to Star Trek, it wasn't a change in human nature that brought about their Utopian society, but the discovery/invention of a way of having practically unlimited resources. Redistribution of wealth will work just fine when the total available wealth is far beyond what the entire population could possibly use in their entire lifetimes.

    90. Re:41? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      If all you're doing is "simple picture manipulation," then you don't need Adobe CS. You would served just fine by their consumer product, Photoshop Elements, or even better, by some of the free photo editors out there, like Paint.NET or GiMP.

    91. Re:41? by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      Err this is /. I thought that was the point. I for one have not even RTFA but here I am commenting...

    92. Re:41? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Right and wrong should have valid reasons, or else they're just as valid as saying it's wrong for women to be in public without a burka. Give me a valid reason not do it and I'll stop.

      Oh, and by the way, if you want to crash by my apartment, feel free to do so, as long as you leave *everything* as it was, and be so discrete so I don't notice you.

    93. Re:41? by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      So if we go with the higher number of 5,000 sales == 1 lost album sale, according to this UNC study that's about 200,000 lost sales/week (going off their figure of 1 billion downloads per week). That's from 2004, so we can probably assume that downloads have increased since then.
      And every study has bias, that's just the way it is.

    94. Re:41? by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. See my signature.

      Yes because everything you read on the internet is true.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    95. Re:41? by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      Fine then.

      I create a program using GPL'ed code and distribute it in binary only.

    96. Re:41? by babyrat · · Score: 1

      Well I'm actually surprised it's only 41% pirated software on personal computers, considering it's not often that people buy software applications for non-work purposes and most are free or have alternatives.

      Your logic is a bit backwards here - if there are free alternatives then you should be surprised that it is 41% pirated software and not way less.

      If a computer has 9 'free' (ie not pirated, legally free) applications and one pirated commercial application then it has only 10% pirated software on it. The more free alternatives there are, the less pirated software there should be.

    97. Re:41? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Yet... They have a Credit system for Commerce across cultures. Some Humans work rather lowly jobs such as mining for profit not because they love the job. Non-commisioned personnel tended to live in multi-people dormitory living condition until the Galaxy class ship. Transporter Rations for the population... they didn't solve the problems they just pulled a pr stunt to stop people from bitchin about it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    98. Re:41? by photonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I started using Matlab in university and might even have bought a student license as an undergrad. Since then, I have used it extensively as a grad student and now at work. For tinkering at home, I have looked at Octave a few times, but as you said, it is not a real replacement (mainly the hard-to-learn plotting with gnuplot). I also looked at Scilab, but it was even worse (shitty graphics AND an incompatible language). A few years have passed since I looked at those (reached sub-guru status in Matlab meanwhile), but I have finally found a proper replacement: python+numpy+scipy+matplotlib. The syntax for array math is different than in Matlab, but not too much. The graphics are better (my Matlab version still does not do anti-aliased plots). Bonus points: python is a real object-oriented language, with tons of libraries for everything you can think of. And did I mention it is completely free and open source? For specialized topics (some toolboxes) it is not there yet, but it will be in a few years. Me and some colleagues have already converted some of our calculations and plotting to python now. I expected this to be a real competitor for Matlab, especially in academics.

      --
      karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    99. Re:41? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      So there's a start... but what about Simulink? IMHO the REAL power of Mathworks is Simulink. My company, and I imagine most others have compilers for their ECMs built in. You make a model. Mathworks compiles it, and you can flash it to your ECM. Beats the hell out of Raw Assembly :) (Especially for some of the non linear PID, rate limiting, saturation controllers that most people run these days).

      For those that aren't familiar, this is a list of the Matlab/Simulink Toolboxes Available: http://www.mathworks.com/products/product_listing/

      My group has probably cut some of our project man-hour times in half with System ID toolbox. No more step response stuff, feed it U and Y and it gives you the Nth order system and delay. Toss that into your simulink model as your plant, start swinging your controller around and full off line system minimal time.

    100. Re:41? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I'll take your word for it. I was fairly young when TNG was on, and I pretty much stopped paying attention after the clusterfuck they called Voyager.

    101. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      The current model is the distribution model used by industry and artists that is in place and supported by copyright laws as well as commerce laws around the world.

      Um, Citation Needed?

      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.

      I'm surprised you had to ask.

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

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    102. Re:41? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Not a good parallel either; the "compensation" demanded in that case is release of your code, which you actually are depriving others of if you distribute.
      A closer parallel to the piracy case would be to set the alternatives as you creating a GPL'ed program and not distributing it at all, versus not creating the program to begin with. In that case, your decision to take your action (creating the software) has no bearing on whether compensation will ever reach the IP holder.

      Though, I don't see that you'll convince many people with that one, since the GPL permits both those alternatives.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    103. Re:41? by cyberthanasis12 · · Score: 1

      Octave is NOT an alternative for most of Matlab.

      But python/fortran/numerical recipes is.

    104. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Yep, MSDNAA was fantastic. Two catches: 1) you can't use academically-licensed MS software for commercial purposes (so no selling that nifty little game you wrote with the copy of Visual Studio you got from MSDNAA), and 2) MS Office isn't available on MSDNAA.

    105. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>the fact that 2500 copies exist outside of fair use and legitimate copies means they would be entitled to 2500 sales when we look at the current system of distribution and copyright laws.
      >>>

      Multiple judges have already rejected that claim. i.e. Legal Precedent has been set that 2500 copies =/= 2500 lost sales.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    106. Re:41? by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 1

      Moral authority has nothing to do with it and saying "this is the current system" does not require citation or a logical explanation. It's a statement of fact, not of moral authority. Unless you are asking for citations that explain current methods of distribution and purchase, backing up this fact, but I think you know full well what they are :)

      What he is pointing out is that whether or not ./ers agree with it, there is a system in place. If you choose to bypass this system by pirating, you are doing something illegal and the companies have a right, legally, to cry foul and count it as a theft.

      Are these laws in any way correct or moral? That's a whole different debate. I happen to think no. If you think they are not, do as I do, actively participate, monetarily and with your time, in getting it changed.

      In most governmental systems change occurs via active participation, not posting on message boards. If you don't do this, you aren't effecting the change you want in any meaningful way and loose any moral ground to complain when the companies DO participate and as such get their way.

      Make enough noise and politicians WILL respond, they will investigate the outrageous claims made by these companies and perhaps set a framework for how to calculate such things. As of now however they mostly hear from the bad guys, so don't know any better.

    107. Re:41? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Haven't RTFA yet, but occurs to me to wonder if they're counting unregistered *shareware*.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    108. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>>> Also radio, MTV, VH1. We need to ban the youtubes! We need to ban the cassette recorders! Ban VCRs and ban DVRs! /end sarcasm
      >>
      >>Since when does MTV/VH1 play music videos ?

      Precisely. It's because of the rise of youtube and other video-sharing sites that MTV/VH1 lost audience and were forced to convert themselves into standard cable channels playing standard shows. It's horrible; absolutely horrible. /end sarcasm again

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    109. Re:41? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Useless Trash and TRIVIA -

      - When the music-quality compact cassette was invented in the 1970s, the sales of vinyl records fell off. Yes the companies did indeed blame it on piracy (recording music off the radio). It's just the same old song-and-dance routine with these guys.

      - Then CDs were invented which basically killed the record, while cassettes hung on as recordable media into the 90s.

      - Record companies were thrilled with CDs until the CD-R arrived and they tried to kill it off, but no success. Now it's MP3s that they want to kill. These people live in continual fear of new technologies.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    110. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      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.

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

      Legal authority is the only moral authority needed because morally, you are bound to operate in a lawful manor unless the law is unconscionable.

      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.

      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?

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    111. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to google them, but I apparently need a few more levels in google-fu. Mind helping us out with some links?

    112. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Moral authority has nothing to do with it and saying "this is the current system" does not require citation or a logical explanation. It's a statement of fact, not of moral authority.

      Right. But neither does it imply that the current system is morally justified, and attempting to suggest otherwise (as the GP seemed to be doing) is a tad disingenuous.

      By all means let's debate the morality of the issue. Just don't try and tell me "it's right because that's the way it is".

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    113. Re:41? by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you cook the statistic, if 100% of the "raging pirate's" programs were pirated (including the OS, just for thoroughness) and 0% of the other people's programs were pirated that would be 0.1% of people that had pirated programs.  If you say that "raging pirate" has 8,400 programs installed, and that the other people only have 100 programs each, then you can say that 41% of programs are pirated even though only 0.1% of the people are pirating. It also implies that 0.1% of the people have 41% of the programs, which may or may not be true IRL.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    114. Re:41? by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't see any moral arguments in the original statement. He was simply stating their claims weren't entirely incorrect in accordance with current law.

      Saying something is legal and saying it is moral are only some times related.

    115. Re:41? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I imagine the ratio is worse for software. Albums still go for $10-$20, but lots of software starts much higher. High enough that plenty of folks wouldn't ever buy it, and so they'd only ever encounter and/or use pirated copies. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ratio more like 25,000:1 for software. (For truly pricey stuff, perhaps higher.)

      When I was in college, I know my copies of Windows and WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were all pirated. Those together would have been a many hundreds of dollars all by themselves at full retail price. I knew plenty of folks that had a copy of Photoshop 4. None of us had $600 to drop on a copy though. I imagine the situation isn't too much different today.

      These days, I pretty much use Linux exclusively. Hurray free software!

    116. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Apparently (according to my wife) VH1 plays music videos at the following times:

      - During the late mornings, from 8am until around 11am
      - In the wee hours on Sunday mornings (around 3am)

      I probably have the times somewhat wrong, but since I'm at work during the week, and asleep on Sunday mornings at 3am, and I don't really care enough to look up the tv guide, I'll leave it at that.

      Now, I'm not sure what good this does them. Do they really only mean to have housewives, unemployed people, and really-late-night-tv watchers see their music videos?

    117. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Nor does it have anything to do with the crappy music, crappy movies, crappy games, or crappy software that seems to be filling shelves these days.

    118. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      To be fair they never fully explain how the Federation's economy is supposed to work, though they do claim there's no poverty on Earth - replicators will do that, I think. When you can create an infinite amount of food nearly for free, and there's only one worldwide government to oversee distribution, how could there be poverty? Seems like a win to me, even if they have to ration out transporter usage ;)

    119. Re:41? by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      So you used someone else's money to atone for you not paying for something? Do you even hear yourself? Do you honestly think no one ever gets a job using Matlab if they didn't have the benefit of pirating it in college, and that there is no way to learn about the special toolboxes without pirating them first? It's not like a company that successful would think of letting people try out something that expensive before agreeing to purchase it. The rationalizations I see on this topic never cease to astound me.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    120. Re:41? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      30 day trial. Thing is, that's an 'absolute' limit, not time actually spent.

      So I decide I want to try something out. I install it. Then I get busy with other classes. 30 days up. No more trial.

      I'm not saying no one ever gets a job without knowing Matlab nor do any companies ever buy software without having someone that has pirated work for them.

      If I go to my boss say "I tried this out for 30 days, we should risk it." If we had the budget, maybe. But if I go to him and say "I used this for 3 years in college. It's awesome and works. I even have this huge library of scripts." I have a higher chance.

      And if I never had put Matlab on my application, then I may have never gotten the job.

    121. Re:41? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. What exactly do you think is preventing someone from making a competing product just as good right now?

      And if they did take over the industry, how long do you think it would be before they went down the same path of onerous licensing?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    122. Re:41? by rdebath · · Score: 1

      Actually, very little in 'mainstream' sci-fi is original, the way the Startrek federation works and the conflicts between it and scarcity driven cultures have a very long history in fiction and some in real life. A great many people have though about the effects that various forms of 'magic' would have on people (such as the 'replicator') and have explored both the good and the bad sides in depth and with great clarity. What's more history has shown, especially recent history, that much of this magic can become reality. (startrek communicator anyone?)

      In a very real way science fiction is a simulation of how the world might develop, both how we hope it should and how we fear it will. The startrek universe is definitely on nicer side of that coin. (I haven't heard of them having a "bioweapons division" for example.)

    123. Re:41? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      True. But do you really expect such rigor in anecdotal evidence?

      But does the typical user have 100 programs if you don't include mal-ware? I was making the assumption that most people would have closer to 10 or 20 legit programs, and the unstated assumption that some undefined number were also incidental pirates with a small amount of pirated software.

    124. Re:41? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      While you're guessing with such precision, why not choose 42% and grab more nerd eyes?

      You know you have a unscientific study when they don't include either a measure of variance or confidence.
      Is it 41+-30% of 41+-0.1%? We'll never know if we can compare the bars in the bar chart.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    125. Re:41? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      not really though. Software is typically "thousands" not "hundreds of thousands" like music. Look at something on the Mac like Textmate for example because it's a "one man" deal. It sells for about $55 so if the guy can sell 2000-3000 copies he can make a living doing that. If he's got 10000 people pirating then just the act of them hitting his server to check for updates he's not going to give them is a big bandwidth bill that takes money AWAY from him and PAYING customers aren't getting support.

      On the flip side look at iPhone development. It's lucrative for the biggest reason that you get PAID almost all the time (jailbreakers are very few). If you try to sell Windows software (for any price) but for $5 nobody will buy it and everybody will pirate "because it's only $5 so it's not "worth much", even though everybody squeals software "costs too much". Yet 2-3 guys can pull down "keep the lights" kind of money making clever little iPhone apps. Because their little companies don't have to cover massive production outlays, and they're sure to get a big slice of pie$ from sales costs are much, much lower and without the corporate skimming that goes on.

    126. Re:41? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Except the LAW says that the publisher/artist/creator gets the SOLE right to distribute the work and collect the money. Sot that's 2.5M people that didn't pay ME for MY work. How do you like it when your boss shorts your paycheck a day's Overtime pay or makes you work 20 hours extra "salary". Should you be fine because they paid you "something"? Or do you want what the LAW says you should get?

      Most Pop songs are given away "freely" on the radio and one could make personal "fair use" recordings if they really wanted to and not break the law. What's happening on the P2P front is nothing more than petty lawlessness. No different than in LA or Detroit when people break windows and set trash on fire "because everyone else is doing it!"

    127. Re:41? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Multiple billions of songs have been downloaded legally thru iTunes in just a few years and they represent about 1/5 of the total industry now... and P2P was around LONG before so I'd venture a factor of 50 -100 per year over iTunes on places like TBP.

    128. Re:41? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sot that's 2.5M people that didn't pay ME for MY work.

      5,999,999,999 people didn't pay ME for MY work last week. In the entire world, my boss is the only one who saw fit to cut me a paycheck. The rest of y'all are just leeches.

      How do you like it when your boss shorts your paycheck a day's Overtime pay or makes you work 20 hours extra "salary".

      If a friend gives me an MP3, the artist did no extra work to produce that copy. Now, convince me that this is inherently worse than when we used to all pass around mix tapes.

      Most Pop songs are given away "freely" on the radio and one could make personal "fair use" recordings if they really wanted to and not break the law.

      So your position is that a song acquired via source A is fine, but the same song acquired via source B is evil and the ruination of western civilization. That doesn't strike you as absurd?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    129. Re:41? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      There is some truth to that. As an example, I never used Photoshop. Back on windows I used Paint Shop Pro (until it became a lame Photoshop clone with version 8) and on Linux and OS X I used (and still use) the GIMP. I've tried Photoshop but to me the interface is cluttered, confusing and much less clear than that of the GIMP.

      Is Photoshop's interface that much worse than that of the infamous GIMP? No, I just happen to have some experience with the GIMP and virtually none with Photoshop. Both have interfaces that expose a lot of functionality to you (= nontrivial interfaces). I go with what I'm productive with, which is the GIMP. Of course thet means that I don't see any point in ever shelling out money for Photoshop.


      Mind share builds market share. The question of how harmful piracy is (negative numbers considered possible) is very much dependant on whether the loss in sales outweighs the gain in mind share (which later drives sales). I'd assume that the mind share bonus should be more pronounced for applications like Photoshop or Word than for games.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    130. Re:41? by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      Most students who find it relevant can purchase a student version of Matlab/Simulink for $99. It might be expensive for a poor college student, but it was far more useful than some $150 textbooks I was told to purchase. I do not want to sound preachy, but for what is a full version of Matlab/Simulink, it is very good value for money. And getting your boss to purchase some toolboxes is as much of a justification for piracy as Octave is an alternative to Matlab.

      Disclaimer: I have not had to purchase a copy of Matlab since I've always had legal access to a personal copy or a machine with a licensed copy installed.

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    131. Re:41? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      If you're relying on a consultant for support like that, and his actions cause the BSA to bring the hammer down on you, wouldn't the consultant be liable?

      That might not help you if the disruption caused your customers to go to your competition.

    132. Re:41? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      I'm looking to setup some hypervisor VM type software at home (VirtualBox or ESX maybe both) so that I can learn about them for work use in our lab. I will use trials and free versions to do so but I'd use a pirated version if I couldn't use a trial. What I find works best will be purchased, in bulk, by my customer. To hear the BSA tell it this is madness and surely billions and billions of dollars worth of sales being lost. However the truth of the matter is that what geeks find works at home will often leverage a far larger sale or increase their ability to support that software in the workplace.
      .
      I'd also point out that software like OpenOffice is "free", works just fine, and I see no sign of it's ceasing to be developed, apparently that model works despite your assertion? Your assertions pretty much fly in the face of many Open Source projects but then I think you realized that. When exactly do expect Linux to no longer be free?
      .
      Lastly, if I goto an auction site and purchase software it's NOT illegal if the media is legit. I believe that AutoDesk recently learned this lesson the hard way. While software may be "licensed" First Sale Doctrine prevailed. When I recently needed a copy of Quicken I purchased it, with an original hologram blah blah, off of eBay for HALF of what it would retail for in a store. Boo Hoo cry me a river BSA - that was a legit sale no matter what they wish to claim. Hell yes I want to save money - deal.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    133. Re:41? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      You've never suffered a BSA "audit' have you? They make the Spanish Inquisition look fairly sane as they shut down your business and demand access to your network...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    134. Re:41? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      87% of statistics are made up anyway.

    135. Re:41? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Same goes for Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and quite a few other "Pro" applications that should they be needed, I can put them on a resume.

      Ahh, you evil scumbag pirate! If you had forked out your hard-earned minimum-wage dollars when going through college, you wouldn't be the evil scumbag pirate that you are!

      But you didn't! That makes you a scumbag pirate! (EVIL!!!)

      FYI, none of those companies care if you help spread their products. The evangelism angle hasn't convinced anybody that game piracy is good - I doubt it'll convince big greedy companies, especially when their illegally-stolen product from years past is helping you earn actual money today.

      But then again, I probably make less money than you do, so maybe being a software pirate pays off?

    136. Re:41? by stonefoz · · Score: 1

      $300 dollars for a Dewalt? Why? You're buying by name alone and it's not quality. Dewalt was bought by Black-n-Decker, the whole line has been in the crapper ever since. So yes, you're the problem, buying overpriced by name alone, just cause everyone else was.

      --
      I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    137. Re:41? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I know you get an "Informative" for stating a non-fact and I will get a "Troll" for daring to speak the truth

      That was a big sacrifice you made there, Mr. Anonymous Coward

    138. Re:41? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking of course those people only impact the local economy they are in, where as the cost is reflected in the greater community. This of course doesn't even take into account those that make not contribution at all, they just claim the credit and the profits. Always far better to focus upon direct personal service and support as the bulk of the income always remains within the local community, rather than bankrupting the local community to enrich a few isolated billionaires who invariably cheat on their taxes, offshore the profits in tax havens (to absolute no ones benefit but the other criminals that share and make use of that tax haven), driven by ego consume the planet's resources and generate pollution thousands of time beyond what the normal person would deem acceptable and to add salt to the wounds, corrupt the political system to further enrich themselves regardless of the harm caused to the rest of society.

      Now that is not taken to the extreme but is the reality, what is actually occurring now. So are intellectual protections still a benefit to society or have they become a destructive burden and, due to the insatiable greed of it's main proponents and benefactors (the already insanely rich) will it become even more destructive.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    139. Re:41? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      one worldwide government to oversee distribution, how could there be poverty?

      Oh I don't know...
      Well locations X,Y,Z didn't vote for me so I will give more resources to A,B,C so they can make diamond rings for their wives. Now they may not do this directly but they will probably just let resources rot and fail and be slow to bring it back up to speed.

      This group of people are not willing to follow by the world wide laws as they state it is against their morals so because they are not willing to play by the rules they will not get the services.

      The Star Trek Universe morality will only work if all people have good intentions and doesn't get distracted by others. That isn't going to happen. It is to easy to get corrupted, and way difficult to avoid it. The best intentions can go bad very fast.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    140. Re:41? by Grail · · Score: 1

      Of course they aren't. They're not counting anything, these numbers are pulled out of some marketing guy's alphabet soup in the morning.

    141. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it would work in reality :P

    142. Re:41? by atamido · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking a replicator won't make you a bigger house, or fix your current one. There is more to poverty than just having enough food. Although I suppose you could simply replicate a million large legos and build the house of your dreams? Vertically?

      Still, if food, energy, and materials are essentially free for all to use, just how does an economy work?

    143. Re:41? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      That's the mystery that the Star Trek writers never saw fit to answer ;)

    144. Re:41? by sootman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And where are they claiming that its lost sales? They've just saying that 41% of software on personal computers is pirated. There's no talk about lost sales. Stop making stuff up.

      How else are we supposed to interpret "harming the economy"?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    145. Re:41? by dasherk · · Score: 1

      Your spare room is not "abundant." You only have one of them, and it can only hold a finite number of people.

      MP3 files are abundant. Once they exist, there can be an infinite number of them at zero additional cost.

      You are kidding yourself if you insist that this fact does not change the moral landscape.

      true, and i wish that made it ok. the fact is, the talent and production (to make that mp3) came at a high cost, and the money to produce it - (depending on the recording company), is not abundant. just because you can make limitless copies of something, doesn't negate the value of the original work.

    146. Re:41? by dasherk · · Score: 1

      the song that the other guy took from you? it was your property. regardless of whether you can play it, or benefit from it or not, its yours. he had no right to take it. and this is what angers the RIAA, and others. whether it hurts them or not, is not the point. again... their actions make me sick, but i wont condone pirating no matter how disgusting the copyright owners might be.

    147. Re:41? by daver00 · · Score: 1

      *Everyone* uses Matlab.

      I know, it sucks doesn't it?

    148. Re:41? by daver00 · · Score: 1

      This. I was reading through your comment thinking I was gonna post and tell you to try out Python/Numpy/Scipy/Matplotlib, then you said it... You sir are totally awesome. I love Python for scientific computing, I really dislike Matlab. Anything matlab does you can do in python, but you can do so much more with Python than you can with matlab.

    149. Re:41? by conureman · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as right or wrong, you insensitive clod!

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    150. Re:41? by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      I'm actually surprised it's only 41% pirated software...

      So am I, since they're probably pulling the numbers out of their ass anyway.

      If you RTFA, there is a handy graphic which shows that the U.S. "piracy" rate is closer to 18%, the lowest of any country on the chart.

      What's missing is any explanation of how they arrived at the percentages. I know that when the RIAA was releasing "piracy" numbers, they counted a label as a CD, and counted a 4x CD burner as four burners. Without seeing how the percentages were arrived at, this "report" (or at least what we're allowed to see of it) cannot be accepted as fact. This is why teachers make schoolchildren show their work in math class.

      In addition to not showing their work, we have to take into consideration the previous intentional disinformation from the Fearless Pirate Hunters. As such, without additional information there's no good reason to take this "report" too seriously, much less its conclusions.

    151. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Is it your position that the laws and ways people abide by them is somehow immoral and should be ignored or something?

      My position is that there is no automatic morality in law. Bad laws are possible, and should be changed. To do this we need to discuss the morality of the law in question. To say "it is moral because it is legal" is both trite and unhelpful in such a context.

      Maybe you should look up what unconscionable means

      I knew you were going to say that, Unconscionable according to whom, then?

      You apparently do no understand what morality means or you are unwilling to disclose what you think is immoral after throwing the words around

      Insults already? It normally takes longer than that for you to run out of rational arguments.

      And no, legality does not imply morality, but morality includes legality. I said the later nor previous.

      Really?

      Actually is would be just as fair and accurate because once the copy is made, they deserve the payment

      It seems to me that "fair" and "deserve" are moral terms rather than legal ones. You can't justify that by invoking the "current model".

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    152. Re:41? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, that's probably the case -- I'd bet they looked at a handful of systems, then extrapolated based on the data they wanted to see. In other words, Made Shit Up.

      But as I recall from the last time the BSA threw around some wacky numbers like that, they WERE counting unregistered shareware.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    153. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't see any moral arguments in the original statement. He was simply stating their claims weren't entirely incorrect in accordance with current law.

      I don't have a problem with that. I don't believe the phrase "the current model" is quite a ubiquitous as sumdumass believes, however; certainly I'd never seen the term used that way, which is why I challenged it. As for the moral element, that entered the picture a little later:

      Actually is would be just as fair and accurate because once the copy is made, they deserve the payment

      Where we're suddenly talking about what's fair rather than what's legal, and about who deserves what as opposed to who is entitled under law to the same. So the argument morphs into a moral one.

      That said, I was the one who, initially raised the question of fairness. On the other hand, if no moral judgment was implied, all he had to do was say so, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    154. Re:41? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      What about software? That's the big question here

      The big question is where is my 41%, I'm getting screwed out of my 41% of pirated software and nobody seems to care !

      I'm going to pirate all of KDE and OpenOffice, that'll be a good start.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    155. Re:41? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The thing with infinite resources is that you can give A, B, and C diamond rings for their wives, and you still have infinite resources remaining to give to X, Y, and Z. And if someone that was that big of an asshole to withhold resources from a group of people for no reason (after all, that asshole can give the people whatever they want and still have infinite resources left for himself), all it would take is one or two charities with a few replicators to fill in the gap. Then again, it would also only take one group of freedom fighters (or terrorists, depending on who you ask) with a couple replicators to make some guns and overthrow the asshole.

      The majority of conflicts in human history have been over resources. Take away the competition for resources and you take away a lot (but most likely not all) of the conflict between people. So all we need to do is invite a method for generating infinite resources.

    156. Re:41? by imhennessy · · Score: 1

      If you built houses and bought a DeWalt, you'd be a fool. Makita is a far superior product, with better support.

      --
      Like to brew? Want to talk about it? Brattlebrew: groups.yahoo.com/group/brattlebrew
    157. Re:41? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Except when too many people pirate the application/game, then the company doesn't make enough money, and then they have to let people go.

      This is a variation on the "lost sale" theory. This is based on the false dichotomy that the only two possibilities are "buy" or "pirate". When it's also possible that people could get another piece of software to do the job or simply do without it. (With games there are plenty of alternative past times which don't involve software at all.)
      That's before you even consider situations like pirated copies where the software isn't even on sale or people buying then using a pirate copy to get around DRM (even bugs).

    158. Re:41? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Liable, sure. But that doesn't do you any good if your business can't function. You could always try suing the consultant but that's hardly a short term solution.

      Let's not forget that because they THINK you're infringing, doesn't mean you are but their tactics have been so heavy-handed ( at least here in Southern Ontario), that the tech-unsavvy are left helpless and crippled.

      A lot of small businesses who have servers onsite typically have only 1, sometimes 2 boxes doing EVERYTHING. If that gets messed with, or in several cases, confiscated, they're dead in the water.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    159. Re:41? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Matlab should be freely downloadable. Just look at how Oracle does it. Their software is mostly freely available, you use it to develop and learn and then you just buy it later on.
      In my country copyright is laxer when it is part of general education.

    160. Re:41? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Good luck to them attempting to gain access to my network.
      I keep my network clean, but due to some of the contracts we deal with, I could tie them up for years before they could legally set foot on the premises. I dislike bullys, so I would make a point to screw them as hard a possible.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    161. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Your looking at the picture from only one side. While there is no automatic morality in law, there is automatic law in morality

      No, I don't believe that is so. There's a moral case for being nice to your mother, but it is rarely enacted into law.

      Certainly there's a degree of overlap, but neither one is a subset of the other.

      You are morally obligated to be lawful until the laws become immoral

      Immoral according to whom? Who decides a law is immoral? Whose decision would you accept?

      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

      I ask a simple and unambiguous question and I get bombast. It seems as if you are the one who wishes to evade a point.

      Who is it, for you personally, who has to decide that a law is unconscionable in order that disregarding that law is no longer an immoral act? Your point hinges on unconscionablity - so how do you know when a law is unconscionable? The only abstractions in that question are ones that you introduced.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    162. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, I don't believe that is so. There's a moral case for being nice to your mother, but it is rarely enacted into law.
      Certainly there's a degree of overlap, but neither one is a subset of the other.

      But it's illegal to kill or strike your mom. being moral would mean not doing that. Stop twisting what I said into the law is moral and take it as I mean, morality means following the law. They are not the same.

      I ask a simple and unambiguous question and I get bombast. It seems as if you are the one who wishes to evade a point.

      Your doing it again. What part of existing law is immoral and shouldn't be followed? If you can't present that, then you can't counter the point that morality means you follow the law.

      Who is it, for you personally, who has to decide that a law is unconscionable in order that disregarding that law is no longer an immoral act? Your point hinges on unconscionablity - so how do you know when a law is unconscionable? The only abstractions in that question are ones that you introduced.

      Unconscionable rests on a personal and more importantly a community level. The point of it is that you have to make a case for why the law shouldn't be followed. You have evaded making that point and we are three posts into your attempting to do it. Your doing nothing but claiming lawful doesn't mean moral and ignoring that morality means being lawful. So here is your chance, point to how the law is not moral and why it shouldn't be followed. If you can't, then it's probably time you let it go.

    163. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Stop twisting what I said into the law is moral and take it as I mean

      With all due respect, I can't read your mind, and I don't necessarily know what you mean. all I have to go on is your words. I can make guesses and assumptions, but they are frequently wrong, doubly so when I'm posting on /. and doubly so again when talking to you, my friend. That's why I ask all these questions - to try and clarify what you do mean.

      morality means following the law. They are not the same.

      That's not a definition I've found in any online dictionary. Being law abiding means following the law. Morality means doing what is ethical. Since it is entirely possible to draft a law that it would not be ethical to obey, it therefore follows that morality cannot mean "following the law" since that would be a contradiction.

      What part of existing law is immoral and shouldn't be followed? If you can't present that, then you can't counter the point that morality means you follow the law.

      Why of course I can. I just did. There's no point in getting into specific cases, because the general principle upon which your position is founded is logically inconsistent. I can understand how you might like to sidetrack the discussion into specific instances since that would allow you to avoid confronting this inconsistency.

      You have evaded making that point and we are three posts into your attempting to do it.

      Don't blame me - it's taken you that long to answer my question.

      Your doing nothing but claiming lawful doesn't mean moral and ignoring that morality means being lawful

      I'm not ignoring it, I'm disputing it.

      Unconscionable rests on a personal and more importantly a community level.

      Which community? Who decides what the community thinks?

      Look at it logically. The matter of whether a law is unconscionable or not is ultimately either a personal judgement, or it is not.

      If it is personal, then since no two people necessarily make the same judgement, you cannot then tell someone that they are behaving immorally solely because they are breaking the law. You can claim that the act they are performing is itself immoral, but you have to justify that on its own merits, and without reference to the law. The law in question may be genuinely unconscionable to the other person, something which you can never know for sure. If they do hold the law to be unconscionable then they are, by your own definition, morally entitled to disregard it. Therefore, in this case, you cannot claim morality based on legality

      If it is not a personal judgement then it needs an objective test. The only test I can imagine that holds any degree of testable objectivity would be if a court were so to rule. There are a few problems with this model, but the biggest is that it renders the civil disobedience protests of Ghandi and Martin Luther King as immoral. The founding fathers of the US as well, for that matter. Since I doubt either of us would be comfortable with a model of morality that obliges the population to suffer tyranny gladly, I think we can dispense with this case.

      If there is no objective test to unconsiconability, then it boils down to a personal judgement once again. So you can say that your the community holds a law to be conscionable or otherwise, but in the absence of a referendum, it remains a personal judgement. Which reduces to the first case, where you have no rational basis to assert morality based on legality.

      So logically, there is no useful way to tell if a law is unconscionable that allows you to infer morality from legality. To suggest otherwise is to say, in effect, "the status quo is always correct, except where I say otherwise". Which itself more or less boils down to "shut up and

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    164. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I can't read your mind, and I don't necessarily know what you mean. all I have to go on is your words. I can make guesses and assumptions, but they are frequently wrong, doubly so when I'm posting on /. and doubly so again when talking to you, my friend. That's why I ask all these questions - to try and clarify what you do mean.

      If your can't read minds, then do follow what I wrote. I stated several times, including with the discussion of unconscionable that I mean morality includes following the law not that the law is moral. In a more easier terms, a+b!=b+a.

      That's not a definition I've found in any online dictionary. Being law abiding means following the law. Morality means doing what is ethical. Since it is entirely possible to draft a law that it would not be ethical to obey, it therefore follows that morality cannot mean "following the law" since that would be a contradiction.

      Being ethical does mean following the laws and same sets of rules as everyone else. Let me ask you, is it ethical for a CEO to ignore the law and spend corporate money on himself or his family? Is it ethical for a company to ignore the no dumping hazardous waste laws in order to save a dollar on the disposal of dangerous chemicals? Of course not, it's only ethical for them to follow the law as it's written unless the law somehow is unconscionable. In short, it's not ethical to change the rules to suit your own or personal agenda while expecting everyone else to abide by them. That doesn't mean the laws or moral, it just means that you have to respect them or get them changes when playing the game on the same field.

      Why of course I can. I just did. There's no point in getting into specific cases, because the general principle upon which your position is founded is logically inconsistent. I can understand how you might like to sidetrack the discussion into specific instances since that would allow you to avoid confronting this inconsistency.

      Actually, no you did not. Every law will probably have some fringe example of where it was applied improperly or didn't account for a specific situation. Fringe cases is not what you need to present. You need to present why current laws are immoral and make the case for why you do not think they apply. You have not to this point done that, you have only said they were immoral. It's not a side track, it's pretty much the meat of your argument so you really should back it up.

      Unconscionable rests on a personal and more importantly a community level.

      Sure and both have bounds and limits prescribed within them. However, violating the law isn't automatically the moral thing to do, not participating can create a completely more moral choice unless the law is mandatory participation. A law like that might be one of the old Nazi Germany where it was illegal to aid a Jew or even pre civil war America where it was illegal to aid an escaped slave. But an immoral law like mandating everyone with a drivers license to become an organ donor would have an out of just not driving if it conflicted with you. You have yet to explain why taking copyrighted programs or music is more moral then either following the laws, paying people for their legal property, or just not using them.

      If it is personal, then since no two people necessarily make the same judgement, you cannot then tell someone that they are behaving immorally solely because they are breaking the law. You can claim that the act they are performing is itself immoral, but you have to justify that on its own merits, and without reference to the law. The law in question may be genuinely unconscionable to the other person, something which you can never know for sure. If they do hold the law to be unconscionable then they are, by your own definition, morally entitled to disregard i

    165. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      If your can't read minds, then do follow what I wrote

      *sigh* You try to be nice to someone, meet them half way, and what do you get? I guess my fallible mortal brain just failed to wrap itself around the majestey of your perfect communication.

      I stated several times, including with the discussion of unconscionable that I mean morality includes following the law not that the law is moral.

      Hold that thought...

      So logically, there is no useful way to tell if a law is unconscionable that allows you to infer morality from legality

      Sure there is. Sometimes it's more obvious then others, but the point is that you have to justify your actions enough that others will side with you

      Hang on a sec, you just told me that

      morality includes following the law not that the law is moral.

      And now here you are telling me that you can go from legal -> moral.

      In a more easier terms, a+b!=b+a.

      Well, quite. Dude, you're all over the place on this. Are you sure you've thought this through properly?

      I'm saying that you have to justify not following the laws and otherwise follow them

      Still doesn't work though. Suppose you one day visit a third world dictatorship, and while you are there El Presedente passes a law requiring you to report your friend to the police for something utterly arbitrary. Bearing in mind that El Prez often makes his critics disappear without trace, do you really want to run opinion polls and focus groups before you feel you can morally ignore this latest dictat?

      So I guess the question here is "justify to whom?"

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    166. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      *sigh* You try to be nice to someone, meet them half way, and what do you get? I guess my fallible mortal brain just failed to wrap itself around the majestey of your perfect communication.

      I never said my communications were perfect, however, I did state on several occasions that following the rules/law was moral and that didn't make the rules moral.

      Well, quite. Dude, you're all over the place on this. Are you sure you've thought this through properly?

      I'm not all over the place, your just not willing to acknowledge that water flows down hill and are attempting to treat the trip upstream with the same amount of effort downstream. The problem is that they are different and will require different amounts of force. You can float on the current down stream where you need to add something to go up.

      Now, as we are going directions with that analogy, you must acknowledge the directions in which morality and the law coexist. Morality means following the law until it becomes immoral for you to do so. The law is neither moral or immoral on it's own. Seriously, a+b!=b+a as in the amount of effort to go downstream is the same as morality containing following the law, but the you have to applies effort to go upstream which is to say that law being moral is totally different.

      Still doesn't work though. Suppose you one day visit a third world dictatorship, and while you are there El Presedente passes a law requiring you to report your friend to the police for something utterly arbitrary. Bearing in mind that El Prez often makes his critics disappear without trace, do you really want to run opinion polls and focus groups before you feel you can morally ignore this latest dictat?

      You do not need to run opinion polls or focus groups. You are the one making the decisions whether to follow the law or not. You are the one who is deciding whether to report your friend or not. It all sits within your own morals and what you think is unconscionable or not. That doesn't mean you will not get into trouble if you fail to follow the law, it just means you have a choice to make based around your values. If your successful in justifying your position, then you may end up getting the law changed or not have it apply to you in certain circumstances. It's like the Quakers in WWII, they were against killing at all costs so while they were still drafted and served, as consciousness objectors, they had clerical jobs and did things where they wouldn't be in the position of life or death.

      So I guess the question here is "justify to whom?"

      First, you have to justify it to yourself. If you do no know why a law is immoral, then you have no moral right to not follow it. Second, you need to justify it to anyone you pretend to tell that the law is not moral. And if you violate the law and get caught, you have to justify it to your prosecutors.

      Laws are immoral all the time. People justify breaking them all the time. From the underground rail road to the freedom fighters of the revolutionary war to the french resistance of WWII or the families hiding jews in their attic because they knew of the horrors waiting for them. They justified breaking the laws to themselves, to their families, and as history eventually showed, they justified their actions to the world even though it took a while and many people were prosecuted, killed, imprisoned, and had other bad things happen to them.

      However, a lot of times, those justifications are utter rubbish. Dragging a man to his death behind a pickup truck just because he was black and they were bored isn't moral. Yet people did it. Following the law and not killing or assaulting someone is the moral thing to do. You have to justify why the law isn't moral to yourself then to others as your actions unfold.

    167. Re:41? by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Wow I didnt know Linux's market share jumped to 41% (Because you know like myself if you're not running Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X or a bunch of BSA members suites of software clearly you must be pirating it). You know their methods, Guilty until proven innocent.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    168. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      I never said my communications were perfect,

      And yet, when misunderstandings do occur, it always seems to be the other person's fault, doesn't it? There's never the least particle of responsibility attaches to your good self. Maybe your comunication skills are so massively above those of mortals that the difference, whilst finite, might as well be infinite for all practical purposes?

      I did state on several occasions that following the rules/law was moral and that didn't make the rules moral.

      Strictly speaking, you didn't. You said things like "morality means following the law". And since "means" is frequently used to mean "is the same thing as" then those of us with less than godlike communication skills might be forgiven thinking that was what you actually meant. Well, not by you, obviously. Just by normal people.

      In any event, that's still dodging the issue. You can say that we have a moral obligation to follow the law (something which I don't entirely concede) but that still doesn't tell us anything about the moral nature of the action that is the subject of the legislation. Passing a law against mouth-to-mouth resuscitation would not by itself make saving lives into an immoral act.

      I'm not all over the place, your just not willing to acknowledge that water flows down hill and are attempting to treat the trip upstream with the same amount of effort downstream. The problem is that they are different and will require different amounts of force. You can float on the current down stream where you need to add something to go up.

      Similarly, to those of us not resident on Mount Olympus, that sounds like a completely context free paragraph with zero relevance to subject at hand.

      The law is neither moral or immoral on it's own

      Thank you. That, good sir, has been my point since the very beginning. I believe I've may have mentioned quite frequently. Sadly, I don't have your Olympian skills, and so I expect that your failure to notice this over the last five or six exchanges will turn out to be my fault as well. I'll try not to let it dent my self esteem too badly.

      You do not need to run opinion polls or focus groups. You are the one making the decisions whether to follow the law or not. You are the one who is deciding whether to report your friend or not

      Also my point since the start of this debate.

      Laws are immoral all the time

      I'm sorry - did someone call "half-time" and we were supposed to switch ends? You appear to arguing my points as though I was in disagreement with them.

      You have to justify why the law isn't moral to yourself then to others as your actions unfold.

      No, no you don't. If I have a good moral reason for not following a law, and I decline to justify my actions to you, that does not imply that my action is immoral. It simply means I think my reasons are none of your business.

      Admittedly, I wouldn't expect you to appreciate the morality of my actions under such circumstances, but my refusal to enlighten you does not change the moral status of my actions.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    169. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And yet, when misunderstandings do occur, it always seems to be the other person's fault, doesn't it? There's never the least particle of responsibility attaches to your good self. Maybe your comunication skills are so massively above those of mortals that the difference, whilst finite, might as well be infinite for all practical purposes?

      As I said in the part of my reply that you didn't copy, I did state on several occasions that following the rules/law was moral and that didn't make the rules moral. I do not see how when I explicitly stated something, you not getting it is my fault. Please explain that one to me.

      Strictly speaking, you didn't. You said things like "morality means following the law". And since "means" is frequently used to mean "is the same thing as" then those of us with less than godlike communication skills might be forgiven thinking that was what you actually meant. Well, not by you, obviously. Just by normal people.

      Following the law means moral. The law being the law does not mean moral. I'm not sure how clearer it can be. I have never linked following the law with the law being moral, that's nothing but a construct you attempted to inject. If you really want to get picky about what things mean, then lets start from the beginning where I said

      morally, you are bound to operate in a lawful manor unless the law is unconscionable. You even quoted that statement in your next reply and I had to suggest that you look up the term unconscionable. I replied to your attempt to break down the concept with

      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.

      Further on that same page, you will find where I said

      And no, legality does not imply morality, but morality includes legality. I said the later nor previous.

      I can go on with more if you would like. I'm pretty sure that was enough to allow anyone to understand what was being said.

      In any event, that's still dodging the issue. You can say that we have a moral obligation to follow the law (something which I don't entirely concede) but that still doesn't tell us anything about the moral nature of the action that is the subject of the legislation. Passing a law against mouth-to-mouth resuscitation would not by itself make saving lives into an immoral act.

      Again, I do not think your understanding the principle here. You are morally required to play by the same rules as everyone else or the legal rules that effect and govern you until those rules become somehow immoral/unconscionable. If you think mouth to mouth resuscitation is critical to saving lives and the law banning it is immoral, then it's up to you to state or justify why it's immoral when you violate the law or encourage someone else to do so. Laws can be immoral but if you do not know why they are, then you have no standing to make the claim. You are not the church lady from Saturday Night Live, and her arbitrary declarations of morality was a joke, not a serious declaration of morals.

      Thank you. That, good sir, has been my point since the very beginning. I believe I've may have mentioned quite frequently. Sadly, I don't have your Olympian skills, and so I expect that your failure to notice this over the last five or six exchanges will turn out to be my fault as well. I'll try not to let it dent my self esteem too badly.

      I was never in disagreement with that poi

    170. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      And when the RIAA sues you or grandma, or the BSA estimates it's losses, you have no grounds to complain. That is after all, what we are talking about isn't it?

      Only to the extent that I don't believe you can morally justify the BSA's slanted and disingenuous loss estimations simply by pointing out that the numbers are supported by current law. If you want to have the "copyright infringement is immoral!/oh no it isn't!/oh yes it is!" argument, there are plenty other people on this board who'll be glad to oblige you. I'm interested here in the orthogonality of Law and Morality here.

      I'm a pretty reasonable guy. If you had real reasons for doing anything, I would understand. I do not need to know those reasons, but at the same time, I'm not going to excuse your actions without knowing them.

      I do not need your sanction for my actions to be moral. Neither yours, nor that of anyone else. That's my point.

      play by the rules until something obligate you otherwise, then you have to justify your actions if you want others to support you.

      Indeed. But the support of others does affect the morality of the action. As far as morality goes, whether or not something is "unconscionable" will always be a purely personal judgement. To believe otherwise is to abdicate your responsibility for right action

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    171. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Only to the extent that I don't believe you can morally justify the BSA's slanted and disingenuous loss estimations simply by pointing out that the numbers are supported by current law. If you want to have the "copyright infringement is immoral!/oh no it isn't!/oh yes it is!" argument, there are plenty other people on this board who'll be glad to oblige you. I'm interested here in the orthogonality of Law and Morality here.

      Well, so far the only person to object to my comments on that was you and some asshat with mod points. Under the current system, as I have stated in the past, once something is pirated, the copyright/patent holder are at a loss which they can count as a loss.

      I do not need your sanction for my actions to be moral. Neither yours, nor that of anyone else. That's my point.

      And my point is that if you want me or anyone else to look at you as anything other then immoral or a thief, then you need to explain your actions. If you want to be a pirate and take other people's property without payment, good for you. Just do not expect sympathy for your actions when your entire premise is hidden.

      Indeed. But the support of others does affect the morality of the action. As far as morality goes, whether or not something is "unconscionable" will always be a purely personal judgement. To believe otherwise is to abdicate your responsibility for right action

      Sure it's going to be a personal judgment. The problem is that if you only justify it to yourself, then nothing gets changed and you can't claim a moral argument to anyone buy yourself. You spent quite a bit of time attempting to convince me a moral argument could be made but failed because you never presented one.

    172. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Under the current system, as I have stated in the past, once something is pirated, the copyright/patent holder are at a loss which they can count as a loss.

      Sure they can. But that doesn't mean that the loss the claim is in any way representative of the revenues they would have gained had their copyright not been infringed.

      And my point is that if you want me or anyone else to look at you as anything other then immoral or a thief, then you need to explain your actions

      And if you go around raping and torturing defenseless grandmothers and then brag about it in public, then people are going to spit on you as you walk by. I just thought I'd drop that in, since we seem to be making purely hypothetical comments that nevertheless seem to suggest the other person might be engaged in wholly reprehensible activity.

      You spent quite a bit of time attempting to convince me a moral argument could be made but failed because you never presented one.

      I did nothing of the sort. My point was that you can't morally justify the BSA's slanted and deceptive presentation of the numbers is morally justified by citing the legality of their accounting procedures. Now since that point, you have appear to have explained that you meant to use the terms "fair" and "justified" in a purely legal sense. That was, as I said, the clarification I wanted initially. If you want to go back that far, then it's a mystery to me why we're still having, this discussion.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    173. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sure they can. But that doesn't mean that the loss the claim is in any way representative of the revenues they would have gained had their copyright not been infringed.

      Your right but at the same time, because of the infringement, it is a real loss.

      And if you go around raping and torturing defenseless grandmothers and then brag about it in public, then people are going to spit on you as you walk by. I just thought I'd drop that in, since we seem to be making purely hypothetical comments that nevertheless seem to suggest the other person might be engaged in wholly reprehensible activity.

      OK, we can work with that. Suppose I make the case for why that behavior is proper. Surely worse things have happened. Eventually, some people will stop spitting and maybe start doing and the laws will get changed making it legal. If I keep those justifications to myself, then I will be prosecuted/persecuted without anything coming of my actions. I mean your missing the entire point. If there is actually a good reason for the behavior or is the law is immoral/unconscionable, then claiming so would require an explanation.

      I did nothing of the sort. My point was that you can't morally justify the BSA's slanted and deceptive presentation of the numbers is morally justified by citing the legality of their accounting procedures. Now since that point, you have appear to have explained that you meant to use the terms "fair" and "justified" in a purely legal sense. That was, as I said, the clarification I wanted initially. If you want to go back that far, then it's a mystery to me why we're still having, this discussion.

      Ok, so I didn't understand you the way you wanted. It actually is morally justified because the current laws claim someone is entitles to payment for each copy and distribution. Once that happens, the companies the BSA represents is owed that compensation. This has nothing to do with the fact that most of the pirate never would have purchased the product. Look at it this way, you sell apples along side the road. Ten people pass buy before you sell one apple. You have ten apples. Now, if 2 of those ten people steal an apple, then your out 2 apples for ever sale of one apple. You are owed the cost of those two apples just as you are owed the cost of the third apple which is purchased legitimately. It doesn't matter if the two who took the apples without paying would never have purchased them, they are gone the deed is done. Now do not get hung up on the differences between apples and copyright. For all intents and purposes, they are the same here because the law (including international law) creates a legal right as property that makes them the same as apples in this context.

      Now you do not think that is moral or justified yet you have not explained why. Following the laws do not make the laws moral or justified, it's just if your going to act morally, then you need to follow the same rules as others until you can justify not doing so. IF you somehow think the laws aren't justified or moral, then make your case. What I said was nothing about the laws themselves but the environment they create. And in that environment, the accounting of losses based on pirated software is moral and justified just as much as it would be for the apple salesman who has apples stolen does. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't have sold the same volume of product, what matters is the volume is gone or in use and the law says he is entitles to compensation for it.

    174. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Your right but at the same time, because of the infringement, it is a real loss.

      Mmmm.... It's not as though anyone's been around their warehouses and stolen 25,000 units of product, so I can only assume you're using "real" in some complex, technical sense here. Feel free to enlighten me.

      And if you go around raping and torturing defenseless grandmothers and then brag about it in public, then people are going to spit on you as you walk by...

      OK, we can work with that. Suppose I make the case for why that behavior is proper

      Oh, well played, sir! Well done :)

      If I keep those justifications to myself, then I will be prosecuted/persecuted without anything coming of my actions. I mean your missing the entire point. If there is actually a good reason for the behavior or is the law is immoral/unconscionable, then claiming so would require an explanation.

      That's making a good case for the notion that the law isn't going to change unless the point is argued. I've never contested that. And if you find someone engaged in illegal activity then you're certainly entitled to demand an explanation. I don't dispute that, either.

      However, none of that means, in and of itself, that the action is immoral. And if the illegality of the action is your only basis for claiming immorality, if you can't show the immoral nature of the activity without bringing the law into the argument, then to my way of thinking, you can't support your argument at all.

      Going back to the example: in your hypothetical career as a multiple grandmother rapist, you have by definition committed acts of violence against one of the segments of the population least able to defend themselves, you have undoubtedly caused considerable mental trauma, and you've additionally created great anguish among the families of these unfortunate women. It is not difficult to show actual harm and clear immorality based on the actions themselves. I don't need to say "rape is illegal, and therefore you are behaving immorally" in order to make my argument stick in this case.

      All I'm asking of you is that, if you think the activity under debate is immoral, that you argue your point based on the actual immorality of the action. As opposed to trying to intimidate them with the law as though that were some absolute and unwavering moral compass. I honestly don't see what's so terrible about that.

      It actually is morally justified because the current laws claim someone is entitles to payment for each copy and distribution

      Hum. You've just expended considerable time and effort, and no small amount of sarcasm explaining to me that the law does not in fact imply anything about the morality of the actions it governs. Now you're telling me that an action is moral because the law permits it. I think you need to go into a little bit more detail here, because right now, it looks like you've just done a complete about face. Again.

      Furthermore, the fact that they may be entitled under law to payment does nothing to justify presenting the data in a disingenuous and self serving manner, which I believe is the case here.

      What I said was nothing about the laws themselves but the environment they create. And in that environment, the accounting of losses based on pirated software is moral and justified

      So presumably if I could cause to be enacted a law entitling me to seize all your property and sell your family into slavery, then I would be morally justified in doing so. The law would be immoral beyond a doubt, but I would be quite beyond reproach as I would merely operate within the framework created by that law. I'm sorry, but that still doesn't work for me.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    175. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Mmmm.... It's not as though anyone's been around their warehouses and stolen 25,000 units of product, so I can only assume you're using "real" in some complex, technical sense here. Feel free to enlighten me.

      As I attempted to state before, because someone has copied and distributed it, and because it's in use outside your explicit control as the law allows, then you are entitles to a payment or restitution for each time it happened. This is no different then someone taking 25,000 units from a warehouse, using it when your entitled to compensation for the use. You see, the law says you can charge for use, while it's true that if everyone had to pay, there wouldn't be as much use, but because the law says you can charge for use, then once it's in use, it's a legitimate loss if you didn't receive the fees for the use.

      However, none of that means, in and of itself, that the action is immoral. And if the illegality of the action is your only basis for claiming immorality, if you can't show the immoral nature of the activity without bringing the law into the argument, then to my way of thinking, you can't support your argument at all.

      So your saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is moral? It really has nothing to do with what the law actually says, it's about the character of the person who is immoral because they do not follow the law. If somehow they can justify that action, then the immoral can become moral but until it's justified, it's just someone choosing not to play by the same rules that bind everyone else. This is something that happened often, take insider trading for instance, is it moral for someone to take inside information or to manipulate the conditions to profit over others who aren't doing that because they follow the laws? It's immoral to not follow the laws and rules everyone else is bound to. Violating the law is automatically immoral unless it can be justified as moral and proper.

      Going back to the example: in your hypothetical career as a multiple grandmother rapist, you have by definition committed acts of violence against one of the segments of the population least able to defend themselves, you have undoubtedly caused considerable mental trauma, and you've additionally created great anguish among the families of these unfortunate women. It is not difficult to show actual harm and clear immorality based on the actions themselves. I don't need to say "rape is illegal, and therefore you are behaving immorally" in order to make my argument stick in this case.

      And at the same time, you do not need to say any of the rest to know that rape is illegal and therefore immoral. Let's change this a little but. Suppose that instead of raping grandma's we are playing a game of ping pong. Now you are following the rules and I'm placing things behind you to cause you to stumble and miss when attempting to hit the ball. Suppose I count out of bounds balls as good and penalize you a point while strictly doing this in my favor. I'm cheating right? Is cheating immoral? Is not following the same rules that everyone else is bound to immoral? If your answer is anything other then yes, it's immoral, then you really need to explain.

      All I'm asking of you is that, if you think the activity under debate is immoral, that you argue your point based on the actual immorality of the action. As opposed to trying to intimidate them with the law as though that were some absolute and unwavering moral compass. I honestly don't see what's so terrible about that.

      I think we are talking about separate actions. I'm saying breaking the law is immoral unless you can justify it as moral. I mean killing people is both illegal and immoral, killing someone who is attacking you or your family is neither. So breaking the law is immoral, breaking it for self preservation isn't. That's a rule th

    176. Re:41? by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, I now have $45 freed up in my budget since MW2 has self destructed...

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    177. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      As I attempted to state before, because someone has copied and distributed it, and because it's in use outside your explicit control as the law allows, then you are entitles to a payment or restitution for each time it happened.

      So going back the question that I asked, that would be "Yes, I am using the term 'real' in a highly specific, complex, technical sense, since the hypothetical theft of imaginary property would not be considered 'real' in the everyday sense of the word, except perhaps by those experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs, or undergoing a psychotic breakdown". Do please note that I am not disputing that the law entitles the rights holders to compensation, so you can probably stop explaining that part now.

      This is no different then someone taking 25,000 units from a warehouse

      Of course it's different. You've found a single point of similarity under law, That doesn't make all other differences go away.

      So your saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is moral?

      No, I'm saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is illegal. You cannot infer the morality of the action from its legality. Either way.

      If somehow they can justify that action, then the immoral can become moral but until it's justified, it's just someone choosing not to play by the same rules that bind everyone else.

      I'm fairly certain you already conceded this point. You do not need social consensus for your actions to be moral, any more than you need legislation. You probably need that social consensus to change the law (having a lot of money has been known to work, too) but since law != morality, that has no bearing on the morality of the initial action.

      Violating the law is automatically immoral unless it can be justified as moral and proper.

      The Devil take your "automatically!" Violating the law is automatically illegal, unless it can be justified in a court of law. It is not automatically immoral. The distinction exists because the difference is important.

      No, it's not disingenuous. While it's true that not as many people would use X is they had to follow the law and pay for it, it's also true that when the law says you can control and charge a fee for X and X is in use without you getting that fee, then each unauthorized version of X is a loss

      Yes, but that's not how they present the data. These figures are always presented with a strong subtext of "this is actual money that we would have had in out pockets if it hadn't been stolen from us by filthy pirates". It's the intention to deceive that I find immoral here. And since I doubt that they think that on-paper loss would have translated into actual sales, you don't think it, and I don't think it, then I don't think "disingenuous" is too harsh a term. If anything, I'm being rather restrained.

      You seem to be thinking that doing a do over and not considering the law being broken is proper

      Did you perhaps mis-edit that sentence? It doesn't make sense to me as written, and the most likely interpretations don't sound like anything I'm actually claiming.

      However, it's ignoring the fact that people are breaking the law and your product is in use without payment to you.

      I'm only ignoring it to the extent that I don't dispute either point.

      Again, your attempting to argue specifics

      Hurm. When I point out that your argument is broken in the general case, you howl with outrage and demand that I furnish a specific case. When I offer something tangible, you try to tell me that my point is not valid because I'm arguing specifics. Why not just admit that you're out on a limb with this one?

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    178. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So going back the question that I asked, that would be "Yes, I am using the term 'real' in a highly specific, complex, technical sense, since the hypothetical theft of imaginary property would not be considered 'real' in the everyday sense of the word, except perhaps by those experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs, or undergoing a psychotic breakdown". Do please note that I am not disputing that the law entitles the rights holders to compensation, so you can probably stop explaining that part now.

      So copying isn't real? Distributing something isn't real? I mean seriously, the only reason you own your house or car and I can't just come over and take it from you is because the law granted and recorded a legal right for you beyond any physical possession.

      Of course it's different. You've found a single point of similarity under law, That doesn't make all other differences go away.

      Not in principle. So stop attempt to conflate the issue.

      No, I'm saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is illegal. You cannot infer the morality of the action from its legality. Either way.

      Yes you can infer morality. That is unless you think breaking the law is always moral. If not, then you need to follow the law to act morally until it becomes conflicted with that morality. I can't believe that your actually saying it's perfectly fine for you to break the law at will and it's not a moral indecator when you do illegal acts.

      I'm fairly certain you already conceded this point. You do not need social consensus for your actions to be moral, any more than you need legislation. You probably need that social consensus to change the law (having a lot of money has been known to work, too) but since law != morality, that has no bearing on the morality of the initial action.

      Jesus fucking Christ man. I didn't concede that point. You're just refusing to look at it. You only need to convince others of the morality of your actions when you want or need them to believe the same as you. You do not need a community consensus to act morally or ethically, you can derive your values from your own experiences. But you as a person are morally obligated to be law abiding and follow all the rules that bind you and everyone else legally until there is a conflict in those rules and your morality. At that point, you have to justify to yourself and anyone you expect to side with you.

      The Devil take your "automatically!" Violating the law is automatically illegal, unless it can be justified in a court of law. It is not automatically immoral. The distinction exists because the difference is important.

      And being unlawful means you are not acting morally. You are in essence a cheater and not following the same rules everyone else has to. How can you justify getting special privileges that no one else has because you ignore the law as moral? You have to look at the specifics which is beyond the point I made. Is it immoral for me to randomly pick any law and violate it when dealing with you? Yes it is, because we are morally obligated to be law abiding.

      Yes, but that's not how they present the data. These figures are always presented with a strong subtext of "this is actual money that we would have had in out pockets if it hadn't been stolen from us by filthy pirates". It's the intention to deceive that I find immoral here. And since I doubt that they think that on-paper loss would have translated into actual sales, you don't think it, and I don't think it, then I don't think "disingenuous" is too harsh a term. If anything, I'm being rather restrained.

      It's not disingenuous, if the law says you can charge a fee for use, then each use without a fee being paid is money out of their pockets. The problem is as I sai

    179. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      So copying isn't real? Distributing something isn't real?

      My objection was not so much with the adjective "real" as to the way in which you applied it to the losses claimed by the BSA. You are now trying to establish the reality of Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy by pointing to the existence of Mud. It doesn't work. Sorry.

      So stop attempt to conflate the issue.

      Then stop trying to over-simplify it.

      Yes you can infer morality. That is unless you think breaking the law is always moral

      Uh-uh. If I thought breaking the law was always moral, that would be inferring morality from law, just as much as it would be if I thought it law-breaking was always immoral. Either way I'd be drawing an inference about morality from the legality of an action.

      I know you're fond of telling people to look up the meaning of the words you use; why don't you take your own advice, and go and see if the word "infer" actually means what you think it means.

      You only need to convince others of the morality of your actions when you want or need them to believe the same as you. You do not need a community consensus to act morally or ethically, you can derive your values from your own experiences. But you as a person are morally obligated to be law abiding and follow all the rules that bind you and everyone else legally until there is a conflict in those rules and your morality. At that point, you have to justify to yourself and anyone you expect to side with you.

      I agree entirely. What's your point?

      You seem to be saying that when following the historical accurate path, it's disingenuous because some hypothetical set of circumstances could have made it different. That seems to me like you are attempting to ignore it.

      OK, that's a little clearer, thank you. And no, I'm not saying that, at all. You seem to want to talk about apples and oranges, so let's do that for a moment.

      Suppose Joe sells apples. We'll keep the math easy and say he buys them for $1 and sells for $2, and that he's got a hundred apples in stock. One night a burglar steals all his apples. Joe now has a tangible, real loss of $100 worth of apples which he needs to replace (costing him another $100) before he can resume business. He also has a hypothetical loss of $200 for all the apple sales he might have made. Joe being basically an optimist assumes he would have sold the lot, and so he's out of pocket by $300.

      Now let's consider Pete, who sells digital oranges. If someone steals 100 units of his stock one night, his real loss is $0, since he still has his entire stock in hand and can continue business as before. He has the same hypothetical losses as Joe of course. However, since Pete's burglar can be expected to engage in some distribution of his own, then Pete's hypothetical losses are potentially somewhat than Joe's. In fact, Pete can pretty much pluck a figure out the air as to the extent of his losses. To present that hypothetical loss as "real" is outright intellectual dishonesty.

      Do note that I am not saying that burglar's actions are legal in either case. Nor am I saying that either party is not entitled to recompense for their stolen (or illegally downloaded) product. What I am saying is that there is a clear cut qualitative difference between the two cases, with the losses of one being far more precisely defined than the other. Attempting to present the two cases as identical is just plain deceitful.

      Look at the problem this way. I print a book of all the laws and rules everyone in our location has to follow and give it away to everyone in our area. Is it moral for you to randomly open the book, point to a law and violate it knowing nothing else about it?

      It is neither moral nor immoral. It is illegal. The distinction exists because the diff

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    180. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      My objection was not so much with the adjective "real" as to the way in which you applied it to the losses claimed by the BSA. You are now trying to establish the reality of Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy by pointing to the existence of Mud. It doesn't work. Sorry.

      Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm simple stating that if you create X, the law allow you control of it to the point you can charge Y for it's copying and distribution. When that happens without the fee being paid, you have a loss because X=Y becomes X alone. It's proper to count the difference between X and Y as a loss. It's simple logic and copying and distribution is only the mechanism to get X to equal Y.

      Then stop trying to over-simplify it.

      It's not that difficult in the first place. It basically comes down to as stated above, X=Y. Now if 4X happened, then 4Y is expected. When the law is violated and someone illegally copies and distributes X you end up with 4X=2Y which is a loss of 2Y. What you attempting to say is that if no one violated the law and things were magically different from reality, only 2X would happen at all. That may be true or not, we do not know because it hasn't happened. But that's all good and all, it just doesn't reflect the reality that the law was violated and and the current expectation is 4X. If you think that's overly simplified, then there is probably problems with your pretext that doesn't conform to the real world.

      Uh-uh. If I thought breaking the law was always moral, that would be inferring morality from law, just as much as it would be if I thought it law-breaking was always immoral. Either way I'd be drawing an inference about morality from the legality of an action.

      I know you're fond of telling people to look up the meaning of the words you use; why don't you take your own advice, and go and see if the word "infer" actually means what you think it means.

      It's not the damn law, it's your actions which are moral or immoral. The law can be either but what it boils down to is if you are willing to play buy the same rules that bind everyone else or are you going to be a cheating, perhaps lieing ass who ignores the laws and rules everyone else is stuck with. The morality is to play by the same rules until those rules become unconscionable. Again, this says nothing about the rules and laws and everything about your own actions. Sometimes you can justify those actions but most of the time you cannot.

      I agree entirely. What's your point?

      The point is that it's your actions in consideration, not the law unless your excuse involves the law being wrong somehow. You keep attempting to ignore your own actions and place the entire morality issue on the law which not appropriate at all.

      Suppose Joe sells apples. We'll keep the math easy and say he buys them for $1 and sells for $2, and that he's got a hundred apples in stock. One night a burglar steals all his apples. Joe now has a tangible, real loss of $100 worth of apples which he needs to replace (costing him another $100) before he can resume business. He also has a hypothetical loss of $200 for all the apple sales he might have made. Joe being basically an optimist assumes he would have sold the lot, and so he's out of pocket by $300.

      Now let's consider Pete, who sells digital oranges. If someone steals 100 units of his stock one night, his real loss is $0, since he still has his entire stock in hand and can continue business as before. He has the same hypothetical losses as Joe of course. However, since Pete's burglar can be expected to engage in some distribution of his own, then Pete's hypothetical losses are potentially somewhat than Joe's. In fact, Pete can pretty much pluck a figure out the air as to the extent of his losses. To present that hypothetical loss as "real" is outright intellectu

    181. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm simple stating that if you create X, the law allow you control of it to the point you can charge Y for it's copying and distribution. When that happens without the fee being paid, you have a loss because X=Y becomes X alone. It's proper to count the difference between X and Y as a loss. It's simple logic and copying and distribution is only the mechanism to get X to equal Y.

      So you were using "real" in a precise, technical sense. Good lord man, is your entire argument so very fragile that you can't afford to concede even such a tiny, common-sense point?

      Then stop trying to over-simplify it.

      It's not that difficult in the first place. It basically comes down to as stated above, X=Y. Now if 4X happened, then 4Y is expected. When the law is violated and someone illegally copies and distributes X you end up with 4X=2Y which is a loss of 2Y. What you attempting to say is that if no one violated the law and things were magically different from reality, only 2X would happen at all. That may be true or not, we do not know because it hasn't happened. But that's all good and all, it just doesn't reflect the reality that the law was violated and and the current expectation is 4X. If you think that's overly simplified, then there is probably problems with your pretext that doesn't conform to the real world.

      Most droll. Very Danny Kaye :)

      It's not the damn law, it's your actions which are moral or immoral.

      Then, as I may have mentioned before, argue the morality or immorality of the actions directly, rather than bringing up the damn law every time there's a question as to morality.

      The law can be either but what it boils down to is if you are willing to play buy the same rules that bind everyone else or are you going to be a cheating, perhaps lieing ass who ignores the laws and rules everyone else is stuck with

      And you're going to wind up doing serious jail time for the rape and torture of harmless old grannies, seeing as how we're back being hypothetica, again.

      And here is your problem

      I think you misspelled "opinion" there.

      It's not a hypothetical loss, it's a real loss in profit.

      In the technical sense of accountancy. Assuming we're not talking about estimated downloads, which we always are in these cases, since there's no way to know how many downloads have occurred. So the BSA or the RIAA or what-have-you say "we estimate everyone on the planet downloaded our IP. Twice, thats 12 billion downloads at the full price of the product (which is whatever figure I pull out of my ass) which mean we have a real tangible loss of more money than there is on the planet". Meanwhile the apple seller says "unless I can find $100 to replace the stolen stock, I can't trade".

      To try and present these cases as equivalent is asinine.

      But you know what? It's also utterly irrelevant. The BSA could be being completely honest and utterly scrupulous in their claims and it wouldn't matter a damn. Because it's still fallacious to try and justify their moral position by pointing to the law.

      Wrong, it's immoral to act in an illegal manner unless it's more moral to do so.

      Well, yes. In much the same way as up is up until it becomes down. It's immoral to do anything unless it is more moral to do so. That doesn't really help, however.

      If you know nothing else about the law, then you must follow the same laws and rules that bind everyone else otherwise you are taking an unfair advantage.

      If you know nothing about the law, you must do what you think is right and be prepared to accept the consequences of that action. To do otherwise is to abdicate m

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    182. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you were using "real" in a precise, technical sense. Good lord man, is your entire argument so very fragile that you can't afford to concede even such a tiny, common-sense point?

      You mean will I throw out logic and reality so you can inject a hypothetical that not only hasn't happened in real life, but there is no way to quantify it's actual implementation in order for you to claim I'm wrong? No I won't. Anyways, my argument allows for history to be different as your hypothetical suggests. The problem is that history is not different and therefore it's accurate to measure the current loss by the number of unauthorized uses. You can kill the baby and claim he would have grown up to be a doctor who could have saved himself, however that ignores the fact that never happened and will not happen because the act is already done. You seem to be wanting to forget that the act has already been done and concentrate on the if you didn't kill the baby. If you could go back in time and make things different, they would be, however, you can't and they aren't so treating it like it already happened when it did is fair and proper.

      Then, as I may have mentioned before, argue the morality or immorality of the actions directly, rather than bringing up the damn law every time there's a question as to morality.

      I have been arguing the morality of the actions directly. You need to be lawful to be moral unless there is a conflict. In other words, you have to set out playing by the same rules as everyone else in bound by until it becomes somehow unconscionable. At that point, you have to justify at least to yourself why not following the law or actually violating it would be moral. And yes, with copyright, there are two options to not following the law, one of which doesn't cross a moral line. If you find copyright to be wrong, you can simply not participate in it (ie, don't use the programs, don't buy the crap being pushed and so on) without ever coming into a morality quagmire. The other option is to take the product and use it without compensation as the law allows. In that case, you have to justify at least to yourself why that is more moral. One such justification might be passing out copies of CPR and EMT training materials to workers at a Free Clinic in unstable areas where the reference material could mean the difference between life and death. What I would consider an immoral justification would be that you don't like copyright so instead of not participating, you feel you have some right to just take the sweat and labor of others without payment.

      And you're going to wind up doing serious jail time for the rape and torture of harmless old grannies, seeing as how we're back being hypothetica, again.

      And the point here is what? WE already know it's a hypothetical that is outside the scope of following the law is a moral obligation until the law comes into a conflict with morality. Being a lawless bunch and taking the advantage of not following the rules that others are bind to is not moral in any sense.

      I think you misspelled "opinion" there.

      No, I got it right. It's problem not opinion because it does create a problem with the real facts as we know them.

      In the technical sense of accountancy. Assuming we're not talking about estimated downloads, which we always are in these cases, since there's no way to know how many downloads have occurred. So the BSA or the RIAA or what-have-you say "we estimate everyone on the planet downloaded our IP. Twice, thats 12 billion downloads at the full price of the product (which is whatever figure I pull out of my ass) which mean we have a real tangible loss of more money than there is on the planet". Meanwhile the apple seller says "unless I can find $100 to replace the stolen stock, I can't trade".

      It's actually mor

    183. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      You mean will I throw out logic and reality so you can inject a hypothetical that not only hasn't happened in real life

      I wouldn't count on logic and reality to help you out here. You abandoned logic when you started repeatedly contradicting yourself about whether it was possible to infer the moral status of an act from its legal state. And you turned your back on reality with your refusal to countenance that they could be any difference at all between the illegal copying of a bunch of bits and bytes which left the original unchanged, and the equally illegal removal of physical property that must be replaced if the business is to be resumed.

      Neither nor reality seem to have much interested you so far in this discussion; it seems a bit late to appeal to them now.

      I have been arguing the morality of the actions directly. You need to be lawful to be moral unless there is a conflict.

      Do you really not see the contradiction in those two sentences? I ask you to argue the point based on the morality of the action rather than legality of same. You state that you have been doing so, and then in the next sentence construct an argument entirely dependent on the legality of the action. You started out contradicting yourself from one post to the next. Now you're doing it from one sentence to the next. Do you want to see if you can get the contradiction inside a sentence, just for the exercise? I'll be impressed if you can.

      In other words, you have to set out playing by the same rules as everyone else in bound by until it becomes somehow unconscionable. At that point, you have to justify at least to yourself why not following the law or actually violating it would be moral.

      But since you cannot know the other party's justifications (since I assume you are not telepathic either) then you cannot say whether or not their actions are moral or immoral based solely upon whether or not those actions violate the law. So, what I have been asking is that, if you believe the action is (im)moral in its own right and without reference to the law, then you argue the case without reference to the law. It's not a difficult notion, really.

      Why is it fallacious to try and justify their moral position by pointing to the law.

      Because you can't know the other party's justification (or even lack of same) and therefore cannot assume (im)morality. Therefore it does not follow that a person who is in violation of the law is therefore behaving in an immoral manner, nor that one in compliance is behaving morally. The two concepts are fundamentally orthogonal.

      SO you think it's moral to ignore the law and not play by the same rules as everyone else?

      No, I think it is illegal to ignore the law. The distinction exists because the difference is important. Breaking the law in itself is neither moral nor immoral.

      That was my answer the last two times you asked that question. It is my answer this time, and it will be my answer the next time. Perhaps you could take that on board and go shopping for a new straw man; your current one is starting to look a little ragged.

      Actually, my point is that morality is personal, the law has nothing to do with morality, and that you neither justify nor condemn any action simply because of its legal status.

      Nonsense. If that were true, you could never make a statement about someone else' morals

      So then it should be logically impossible to construct a moral judgment without bringing the law into it? Let's test that: "by illegally downloading Super Visual Foo++ you are unfairly depriving other people of the reward for their hard work". Hmmm.... I just made a statement about someone's morality without reference to the law. So, no, that objection doesn't work.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    184. Re:41? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't count on logic and reality to help you out here. You abandoned logic when you started repeatedly contradicting yourself about whether it was possible to infer the moral status of an act from its legal state. And you turned your back on reality with your refusal to countenance that they could be any difference at all between the illegal copying of a bunch of bits and bytes which left the original unchanged, and the equally illegal removal of physical property that must be replaced if the business is to be resumed.

      Actually logic is the very defining mark of my point. It goes back to before and after the fact just like I previously said. It's a matter of A, B, C, and you are attempting to claim A,C,B or C,B,A. You even demonstrate this later in your reply. And no, I didn't contradict myself about legal status and moral status from the law, if you are moral, you are lawful until the law doesn't allow you to remain moral. At that point, you can take actions to remain moral which might violate the law or might not. As I said before, it has nothing to do with the law but your actions in regard to the law.

      Neither nor reality seem to have much interested you so far in this discussion; it seems a bit late to appeal to them now.

      I can see how you might think that when your basis for reality seems to be a bunch of what ifs and propbablys based on a course of action that has never taken place. However, to the vast majority of people, they wait to observe the facts and rely on the empirical evidence at hand.

      Do you really not see the contradiction in those two sentences? I ask you to argue the point based on the morality of the action rather than legality of same. You state that you have been doing so, and then in the next sentence construct an argument entirely dependent on the legality of the action. You started out contradicting yourself from one post to the next. Now you're doing it from one sentence to the next. Do you want to see if you can get the contradiction inside a sentence, just for the exercise? I'll be impressed if you can.

      Nothing is in conflict or contradiction there. It goes back to your inability to follow logic and insisting on putting C before A or B when everyone else in the world knows that it's A,B,C. To be moral, you have to be lawful until the law makes you immoral then it's your actions that dictate whether you remain moral or not. It's not a difficult concept.

      But since you cannot know the other party's justifications (since I assume you are not telepathic either) then you cannot say whether or not their actions are moral or immoral based solely upon whether or not those actions violate the law. So, what I have been asking is that, if you believe the action is (im)moral in its own right and without reference to the law, then you argue the case without reference to the law. It's not a difficult notion, really.

      Your right that I would be making an uninformed opinion but your wrong that the opinion couldn't be made. To be moral, you will have to be lawful and play by the same rules that bind everyone else until the law jeopardizes your morality. It's then your actions which will dictate whether you remain moral or not so by violating the law, I can assume your not moral until it's demonstrated that the violation made you retain your morality. If you do not justify those actions or they aren't obvious, I will be making an uninformed assumption but it's there to make.

      Because you can't know the other party's justification (or even lack of same) and therefore cannot assume (im)morality. Therefore it does not follow that a person who is in violation of the law is therefore behaving in an immoral manner, nor that one in compliance is behaving morally. The two concepts are fundamentally orthogonal.

      Yes, you can make assu

    185. Re:41? by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Actually logic is the very defining mark of my point.

      If you prefix it with the word "contradictory", anyway.

      Your right that I would be making an uninformed opinion but your wrong that the opinion couldn't be made

      I don't object you presenting an opinion. If that's all you want to claim, then fair enough. It's when you present that opinion as fact, that the problems start. By all means say "I think the RIAA are behaving entirely morally". Just don't try and tell me that "The RIAA's behaviour is utterly moral and correct because they have broken no laws".

      Your right that I would be making an uninformed opinion but your wrong that the opinion couldn't be made

      So what your saying here is that cheaters are moral by default and I can't claim otherwise. Interesting outlook on morality that you have there.

      I see you took my advice and patched up the straw man. I think it's going take more than a couple of patches to make this one convincing, however.

      No, you brought the law into the sentence in much the same way the understood you works in the sentence "go take out the trash".

      That's either absurd, or incoherent. Most likely both.

      No, you brought the law into the sentence in much the same way the understood you works in the sentence "go take out the trash".

      Actually, it does follow nicely if the builder followed building codes and got inspections as the code requires. However, being of sound construction does not mean it remains fit to support your weight. But yes, you can safely assume that any public building that has a floor that you are allowed to walk on will be of sound construction and be able to support your weight. If it isn't, you have recourse to sue for their failures.

      Yes, yes, yes. You absolutely right except in all those cases where you are wrong. That doesn't help however.

      If reading and logic hurts your brain or something, you should check into another past times instead of creating false dichotomies and uninformed opinions when the information is actually present.

      We seem to be rapidly leaving civility behind, so I'm going to bow out at this point before the discussion degenerates any further. As a final thought: earlier, you were keen to suggest that the reason I failed to agree with you was that I had a problem. Allow me to return that favour.

      Your problem here is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't want to claim the law as absolute morality, since that would get in the way of defending the actions of those corporate interests that you so vigorously uphold here on Slashdot. But you don't want to stop presenting the law as such when the law works in the favour of your clients. And so you introduce some wooly, ill-defined and untestable notion of justifying yourself to society, and then use that to try and hide the fact that you're changing your position from one paragraph to the next.

      The problem here is not my failure to understand. It is yours to adopt a consistent ethical position.

      Enjoy your final summing up, counselor. I shan't be reading it.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  2. Two of the three letters in their name... by ValentineMSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    are true. We'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which.

    --
    Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
    1. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Funny

      BA? None of them have Master's or PhDs? It's all arts, no sciences degrees? None are left with only high school diplomas or GEDs? None are high school dropouts?

      Next you'll say they all got degrees in the same subject!

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by GaryOlson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Speaking of two letter actions in TLAs:
      I'm curious....Was the BSA formed as a result of any actions by IBM?!

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    3. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by conureman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm doing an informal survey of Godwin posts, and whether they are on-topic, or trolls, and whether they are signed, or AC. Can anyone link a prior study? BTW, nice metaphor, AC.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    4. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

      "BS Alliance" doesn't sound right to you?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm doing an informal survey of Godwin posts, [...]

      You know who else did informal surveys? Hitl-*whack* <OW!> *thud*

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    6. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Wrong, and wrong. They're actually based in South Australia.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was wondering what the hell the Boy Scouts of America had to do with software.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    8. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by rockbottoms · · Score: 1

      BA? None of them have Master's or PhDs? It's all arts, no sciences degrees? None are left with only high school diplomas or GEDs? None are high school dropouts?

      No, some of them just moonlight on the A*Team

    9. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I believe their slogan is: "We put the BS in BSA."

    10. Re:Two of the three letters in their name... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I was wondering what the hell the Boy Scouts of America had to do with software.

      Ah yes. Those noble little ... bastions of democracy.

      ... we seem to have a convention here tonight? (I would like to state that I am not now and never have been ...)

  3. BSA invents statistics. by gavron · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I won't repeat previous postings on /. and CNET and PCnews and... and ... which have debunked BSA's "statistics."

    Their first graph (which is in percentages, but they don't label the scale LOL) shows remarkably low rates of malware, and an alleged piracy rate (whatever that is) that is 4-10x higher.

    Maybe they should check out http://garwarner.blogspot.com/

    BSA+RIAA+MPAA=organizations that make up stories and wait for their fake "facts" to be reused by their legislative bought henchmen.

    E

    1. Re: BSA invents statistics. by xiando · · Score: 1

      BSA's "statistics" & story is that my all-GNU/Linux computers I must be running pirated software since a) I bought computers and b) I did not buy the Wintendo.

  4. Well, if that's how they want to think about it... by Pollux · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then far be it from me to not meet their expectations.

    "Hey kids! Remember that new game you wanted? Well, I need to get us up to quota!"

  5. Because malware never comes with legal software... by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because malware never comes with legal software...

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  6. Right. by mukund · · Score: 1

    Not 42%?

    --
    Banu
  7. Oooooo pretty graph! by NoYob · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking as an MBA, their unsubstantiated numbers and pretty graphs is good enough for me. I'm going to delete 41% of the software on my machines to make sure I'm not a crook!

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Oooooo pretty graph! by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Start with c:\windows. As 95% of all malware hides in there. Bonus it ismost likely pirated anyways.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Oooooo pretty graph! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an MBA, their unsubstantiated numbers and pretty graphs is good enough for me. I'm going to delete 41% of the software on my machines to make sure I'm not a crook!

      You're lucky that you can. How the hell am I supposed to uninstall those 1309.13 Debian packages?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  8. Freedom by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the BSA was genuinely concerned about software piracy, they'd be actively promoting free and open alternatives.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    1. Re:Freedom by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They aren't, and so they won't.

      What they are concerned about is losing market share to open source, so they'd rather pretend it doesn't exist and try to eradicate the philosophy of free software in the public mind.

    2. Re:Freedom by GaryOlson · · Score: 1
      No, they won't promote non-proprietary alternatives. The alternatives function on a business method too foreign for the BSA and their constituents to understand.....competence. Since the OSS product makes money mostly on providing effective support for the product, and effective support costs money which detracts from the CEOs' bonus, the CEOs will never support a Business foo Alliance which promotes software which costs money to support.

      The BSA will also never understand the mitosis effect of OSS software which builds a larger base for their customers. They only understand ONE version of software foo. OSS community knows if more forks of the project are supported, then income can be earned supporting a larger customer base. This concept directly contradicts centuries of "competitive marketplace and IP protection" theories and practices.

      The best way to be rid of the BSA is to shoot them and cost their clients money to keep replacing them.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    3. Re:Freedom by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right so firefox, kde & gnome are all terrible? There are a few areas where commercial software is better than FLOSS (that isn't to say FOSS can't compete). Photoshop has tools pros need that gimp lacks, however for everybody else GIMP is a competitive option (if your a pro then just pay up!). Open Source gaming does suck but that is hardly representative and even then there are many games that are easily competitive in their sub-genres (wesnoth & 3d versions of nethack are good). Outside of gaming, OSS can compete with most desktop software so there is no excuse for pirating software.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:Freedom by redhog · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "Linux distros" contain, well, everything you'll ever need? Ref. Ubuntu Studio :P

      And the Photoshop equivalent is ZinePaint if you didn't know... :P

      The question is'n what the Free Software equivalent is to some unfree software, the question is the other way around; Please tell me what the unfree equivalent to FontForge is... or to Pidgin/libpurple (well, I don't know of any with nearly that many supported protocols), or to Firefox (well, maybe Opera, IE definitely isn't), or Apache (Duh, IIS isn't), or sqlite

      And by the way, windows as a server OS? Without LVM and software raid? Come on... And Solaris with ZFS is well, free nowdays...

      (Yes, I'm a troll today :)

      --
      --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
    5. Re:Freedom by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much true.
      1. Gimp is very good. It isn't as good as Photoshop but it is every bit as good as photoshop elements.
      2. CAD. There is not a good FOSS CAD system that is as good as TurboCad. Forget about touching Soldworks, ProE, or AutoCad.
      3. Video Editing. Still nothing as good as Premiere or Sony Vegas.
      4. Games.
      It is really a shame because Linux is actually really usable on the desktop except for that last 5%
      The other thing is that most FOSS programs are available on Windows. So you can use Gimp, Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Audacity, and most other FOSS programs on your Windows machine and still have access to those few must have Windows programs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Freedom by Leynos · · Score: 1

      It depends on the situation. For a great deal of tasks, GIMP is "good enough". That includes tha majority of image editing where CMYK or HDRI are not needed. Likewise, for a large section of charting tasks, Dia suffices where paying GBP800 for a Visio licence would be necessary. Similarly with Inkscape for producing lineart Illustrations.

      There are many situations where the OSS alternative may not be a match for a GBP500 piece of software, but for everyone else who needs 90% of the functionality, it delivers at 0% of the cost.

      And on the other hand, there are plenty of areas where the Free software has become the defacto standard, e.g., FTP clients, SSH clients, multi-protocol IM clients, file archiving.

      --
      "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
    7. Re:Freedom by iamacat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Open source's answer to Photoshop is still what, GIMP?

      GIMP's target audience is programmers who want to add some artwork to their software without having to pay $700 or learning to think as artists rather than engineers. For this audience GIMP is not only a superior alternative on price - even big companies do not get a license just so someone can draw an icon - but also has a far easier learning curve. For example, there is a single way to define a shape - selection - rather than one set of operations to select and another to draw. Or just the fact that unlimited undos are enabled out of the box rather than running into a rude surprise with Photoshop.

      Photoshop Elements is a better choice for non-technical home users, but there are also a number of basic open source tools for photo adjustment.

      Photoshop is really only an answer for commercially successful artists with deep pockets. It's not an audience likely to contain a lot of programmers or one that is going to attract attention of a typical open source developer. However these artists could have a better product by pooling resources to produce an alternative not tied to any particular company. Since they don't, I guess they are happy with Photoshop.

    8. Re:Freedom by ronark · · Score: 1

      > ZinePaint

      Never heard of it, which is a problem with FLOSS software, it doesn't get the same marketing.

      > Font Forge

      Fontlab Studio. Never tried it, but it came up in Google on my first search.

      > Pidgin

      Pidgin is crap for one, but not the question. Trillian is much better, and both free and non-free.

      > Firefox

      Slow but not the question (Chrome or Iron are great). There are no non-free browsers of significance.

      > Apache (Duh, IIS isn't)

      That's your opinion, which is worthless. Apache can't do ASP.NET so it doesn't compare to IIS. IIS7 is excellent by the way, try it. I prefer Apache for some things, IIS for another, as each has its strengths (IIS being great internally where it's less open).

      > SQLite

      Using SQLite will prevent a company from getting government contracts. Government agencies want SQL Server because it is remote (SQLite is machine local), and is in fact highly secure for their purposes (my company has a lot of experience in this department).

      > Windows as a server OS?

      Windows Server 2003 and 2008/R2 are fine if you know how to set them up (same as Linux/UNIX/Solaris). You need Windows Server for Exchange and AD, Samba simply isn't there yet for large organizations with multi-domain setups and integrated Exchange (again, my company's experience is here). I do hope Samba gets there someday and for a free Exchange alternative that does email, calendar, meetings, scheduling, etc.

      > Without LVM and software RAID?

      Don't do software RAID. Do hardware RAID with SAS. I don't bother with LVM, it isn't necessary in any setup I've ever seen.

      > Solaris with ZFS...

      Is dying, and can't support a Windows network setup. I only use Solaris in Windows environments for DNS and routing.

      > I'm a troll today

      That's fine, just take it easy and remember that Linux and FLOSS are not the solution to every problem and simply never will be.

    9. Re:Freedom by xiando · · Score: 1

      If the BSA was genuinely concerned about software piracy, they'd be actively promoting free and open alternatives.

      You do realize that BSA is a front for multinational software corporations only concerned with maximizing profits? They would claim that all free software is malware if they could get away with it. That seems a bit hard for them to do, so they just count free software users as pirated software users...

    10. Re:Freedom by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      If the BSA was genuinely concerned about software piracy, they'd be actively promoting free and open alternatives.

      No they wouldn't. BSA is a trade organisation of major software houses like Microsoft, similar to RIAA, except BSA actually does look out for its members' interests, to a point. For them to promote free and open alternatives to their members' efforts is shooting themselves in the foot.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    11. Re:Freedom by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      The alternatives function on a business method too foreign for the BSA and their constituents to understand.....competence. Since the OSS product makes money mostly on providing effective support for the product,

      But doesn't the need for support indicate that whoever wrote the documentation or designed the software in the first place was not competent, because it either confuses people or keeps needing to be fixed?

    12. Re:Freedom by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Windows does have LVM and software raid, software raid has been there since NT4 and LVM since 2000 i believe.

      That said, that are plenty of other things that make windows a poor choice for a server os, like a mandatory gui stack (even the command prompt only mode in 2008 loads the gui layer), and all kinds of other user oriented applications and libraries which come by default with a "server" install and which are difficult or impossible to remove. Not to mention general lack of modularity in the base system, and lack of coherent package management for third party apps.. The extremely weak choice of filesystems (one size does not fit all), the excessively complex proprietary services (rpc, netbios etc - how can you quantify risk when you don't know exactly what functions are offered by a particular network service?),

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:Freedom by mounthood · · Score: 1

      If the BSA was genuinely concerned about software piracy, they'd be actively promoting free and open alternatives.

      If X then Y. Not Y, therefore Not X.

      There was a time when I could have named that..

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    14. Re:Freedom by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      I prefer free software, but I have never used pirated software. That is why I mostly use free open source software which has been licensed under one of the several widely used free software licenses, such as the GPL license. In recent years, most of the best known open source programs, now seem much more mature and feature complete.

      On my main computer, I use Debian Linux and have download whatever free software I want from the thousands of properly licensed free open source programs in the Debian repositories. My only paid for commercial programs on the Linux computer are Autopano Giga and Crossover Linux.

      I also have a Windows XP computer and use several open source programs on it too such as OpenOffice, AbiWord and Gimp. I also have several commercial programs, which I have paid for and use, such as Sandboxie and SecureZIP. There has never been any pirated software on either computer.

      The BSA always seems to totally avoid mentioning the option of using free open source GPL licensed software instead. That bias, is presumably because they are representing many of the largest software companies. They do not want people to stay legal by switching from using pirated software to using free open source GPL licensed alternatives.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL

    15. Re:Freedom by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      But doesn't the need for support indicate that whoever wrote the documentation or designed the software in the first place was not competent, because it either confuses people

      Make something more idiot-proof, and all you'll get for it is bigger idiots.

      or keeps needing to be fixed?

      Bugs exist, no matter how good your development staff is. I'm not trying to say that customers should have to pay for bug fixes, but you do need to keep around at least a few programmers to fix bugs. Obviously this is cheaper for most open-source projects, since the programmers don't normally need to be paid, but you could charge a customer a little money to give to a programmer to make a specific bug a higher priority.

      You're also forgetting that many customers will pay for new features to be implemented or some specific tweaking that they want done for their version.

    16. Re:Freedom by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that some large corporations will only use software if it's "supported", whether or not they'll actually use that support.

    17. Re:Freedom by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Sorry to tell /you/ this, but GIMP has actually been running circles around Photoshop, in performance and usability, for at least 2 years.

    18. Re:Freedom by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      > Pidgin

      Pidgin is crap for one, but not the question. Trillian is much better, and both free and non-free.

      Pidgin has some quirks and annoyances, and there are several messengers that compare favorably to it.

      They do not include Trillian. It sucked for me. It didn't even run stably and fast on Windows; the text formatting was difficult to configure, the character encoding frequently broke special characters and umlauts, and some messages were just dropped silently.

      I switched from the official single-protocol clients to Trillian early 2004, then found out about Gaim (ie the precursor of Pidgin) in 2007 and never looked back. That's three years I put up with Trillian, and I actually bought the Pro version at one point, but I was just fed up eventually.

      Sorry, I'm not trying to FOSS-troll. I really have used both, heavily and for years. I can't imagine what use-case or feature rubric could be used to compare the two by that would result in Trillian beating Pidgin.

  9. Not to be confused with that other BSA by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Anyone up for a campout?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Not to be confused with that other BSA by ubrgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently it doesn't matter which BSA it is - tbey'll both try to bugger you.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
  10. its the economy stupid... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Most Americans live on McDonalds and foods filled with chemicals.... because no one has given the public anything else on such a large scale that is easily accessible and affordable in a timely manner.

    and McDonalds still makes a shit load of cash...

    1. Re:its the economy stupid... by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Most Americans live on McDonalds and foods filled with chemicals

      I tried living just on foods without chemicals, but I ended up getting very hungry...

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  11. Wow, their logic is crap by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    Here's how I read the summary:

    "Retail software is so full of bugs that you should run out and buy it immediately!"

    1. Re:Wow, their logic is crap by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one wondering how long before the BSA gets malware put into the software so that those pirates send them $100 for the privilege?

  12. Hmmm... by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a lousy article - all puff and no content:

    - The FA discusses online auction sites as a "hotbed" of trading illegal software. But it doesn't say whether the BSA distinguish between online auctions offering cracked copies for download, pirated installation media or perfectly legitimate resale of software which the seller has no further use for.
    - There's no real explanation of how they reached this figure - do they assume a single person using a torrent installs the software once? Twice? Never? Once then decides they don't really need it so uninstalls it?
    - Even if the BSA did explain how they reached this figure, how do we know that their methodology is sound and gives reasonably accurate answers? AFAIK there is no methodology that is generally known to give accurate answers to the question of "how many PCs have application X installed, where X may or may not phone home and there may or may not be cracked versions of X in the wild which modify any existing phone-home functionality?"

    Thing is, the BSA must know that these numbers are not reliable and that they can't get reliable numbers. I think the reason this article exists is the BSA are seeding the news wires. Who wants to bet that the next thing they'll do is lobby representatives in governments around the world using these bullshit figures and that's the only reason the figures exist?

    1. Re:Hmmm... by XMode · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They simply live in a world where all second hand software sales are piracy. Its the only possible way this figure could even be remotely correct.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Informative

      But it doesn't say whether the BSA distinguish between online auctions offering cracked copies for download, pirated installation media or perfectly legitimate resale of software which the seller has no further use for.

      Well, from the PDF of the actual report, they run through a bunch of 'case studies' which are by and large about who they targeted on these auctions sites like iOffer:

      In August 2009, BSA announced that its members won a $210,563 judgment in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against Matthew Miller of Newark, Del., who sold illegal copies of software through an Internet auction site. Software programs published by Adobe, Autodesk, and Microsoft were at the center of the case, which stemmed from a 2008 investigation by BSA. US District Judge Susan Illston awarded the plaintiffs $195,000 in statutory damages and an additional $15,563 for filing costs and attorneys’ fees. Miller was barred from committing future acts of copyright infringement involving Adobe, Autodesk, and Microsoft software products, and was ordered to immediately destroy any and all infringing copies of such software in his possession or control. According to legal documents filed on behalf of BSA member companies, the defendant “admitted he had ‘downloaded software, burned and copied CDs, and sold about 200 to outsiders for $8.00 to $12.00.’” Records in the case also describe how Miller used the popular iOffer Web site to sell unlicensed copies of BSA member software. In one particular instance, Miller was accused of offering approximately $12,000 worth of software to an undercover investigator for just $52, with an agreed price of $45 after some haggling.

      And another:

      In early 2009, Timothy Dunaway of Wichita Falls, Texas, was sentenced to 41 months in prison by US District Court Judge Reed O’Conner for selling counterfeit computer software through the Internet. Dunaway was sentenced to two years of supervised release, ordered to pay $810,000 in restitution, and forfeit a Ferrari 348 TB and Rolex watch. From July 2004 through May 2008, Dunaway operated approximately 40 Web sites that sold a large volume of downloadable counterfeit software. He operated computer servers in Austria and Malaysia; US and foreign law enforcement agents cooperated in the investigation. Dunaway purchased advertising for his Web site on major Internet search engines and processed more than $800,000 through credit-card merchant accounts under his control. The software sold by Dunaway had a combined retail value of more than $1 million.

      There are more. I didn't see anything in the report about illegitimate versus legitimate resale and replication. I'm guessing they rely on the license terms to determine whether or not it's legitimate for me to resell my Warcraft 3 CDs or Windows XP Key. I'm guessing that Blizzard & Microsoft would be the ones informing them that's not legitimate.

      By and large, however, the report focuses on people who pretty blatantly violate copyright and sell them on auction sites. A guy I knew in college did this and made a couple thousand on eBay before getting a seriously nasty letter from Microsoft. This would have been in ~2001 I think. I'm sure the same crap goes on with more serious consequences.

      I'm not defending the BSA but they list case studies of the kind of piracy they are targeting.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Hmmm... by conureman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why, yes, I distinctly recall, when I bought my last mainboard on the hotbed, er, Ebay, the pirates that sold it to me tried to offer me a CD of stolen drivers to go with it. Righteousness and morality took the field and I chose to download them legally from the manufacturers website. Thank the Gods.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    4. Re:Hmmm... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Funny

      A guy I knew in college did this and made a couple thousand on eBay before getting a seriously nasty letter from Microsoft.

      Whoah I'm in the wrong business.

      He made a couple of thousand on ebay and the only downside was a *letter*???

    5. Re:Hmmm... by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, except you're about 8 years too late. I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot more than a "seriously nasty letter" now.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    6. Re:Hmmm... by conureman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Close. FA means "Friendly Article" and TFA means "The Friendly Article". RTFA means "Read The Friendly Article". RTFG

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    7. Re:Hmmm... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Close. FA means "(very) Friendly Article" and TFA means "The (very) Friendly Article". RTFA means "Read The Friendly Article". RTFG

      The V is not included in the acronym because it is expected to be understood from context.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Hmmm... by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      They are in the business of selling a service meant to counteract software piracy. Any numbers they quote on the prevalence of same should be distrusted since they have a conflict of interest in reporting this accurately.

      Even with all best intentions, they are likely to make educated guesses in their own favor rather than with a balanced perspective... and since their numbers aren't based on an actual desktop population sample, but extrapolated from other sources, then the possible accuracy is automatically highly suspect.

    9. Re:Hmmm... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I'm guessing they rely on the license terms to determine whether or not it's
      > legitimate for me to resell my Warcraft 3 CDs or Windows XP Key. I'm guessing
      > that Blizzard & Microsoft would be the ones informing them that's not
      > legitimate.

      If you purchased the CDs they are your property. If they are your property and you sell them the buyer is the legitimate owner of copies of the software and therefor may legally use it under US copyright law. If at the time you purchased the CDs you also entered into a contract in which you promised not to sell the CDs Blizzard has grounds to sue you for breach of contract under state law but they have no claim against the guy who bought them from you as he was not a party to the contract.

      Contrary to popular opinion it is entirely legal to own and use software in the US without ever having entered into a license agreement with the copyright owner. One merely needs to be the legitimate owner of a copy.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    10. Re:Hmmm... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      I don't mind the idea of people downloading "copyrighted" software for free for personal use, or to give free copies to friends and family.

      I also don't mind some asshat getting busted for selling bootlegs. Those people are proof that the gene pool has a filter.

    11. Re:Hmmm... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      forfeit a Ferrari 348 TB

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Ferrari packed with hard disks.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Hmmm... by orngjce223 · · Score: 1

      Sibling post is itself close, but no cigar: the original meaning of the acronym includes an expletive.

      --
      Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
    13. Re:Hmmm... by Eil · · Score: 1

      Parent is correct. I hate to sound like the tinfoil hat type, but many people don't realize that it is 100% impossible to sell second-hand software bearing the Microsoft logo on eBay. Even if you have the CD, the manual, the original packaging, the COA. Even if the package is completely unopened and not tampered with. Microsoft has a team that literally sits around all day looking for people trying to sell MS software online. They make no distinction between legitimate sales and bootlegs. Any sales that they find, they send both a DMCA notice to the service provider and a Cease and Desist to the seller. To add further insult, eBay terminates your account permanently and keeps the seller fees. eBay and PayPal in particular have a special arrangement with Microsoft where they provide the complete account information (including email address, phone number, and residential address) to Microsoft simply upon request. Few other content producers have the same privilege. In fact, I've tried to report blatantly bootleg software on eBay and they completely ignore the request every single time.

      So according to eBay:

      • Selling legitimate second-hand software as permitted by the law on eBay will result in the threat of legal action and will get your account terminated
      • Pirating not-well-known software from independent developers and small software shops is perfectly fine

      Keeping it classy, guys. Keeping it classy.

  13. I have 0% by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    Not one single program on my computer is pirated.

    It's all purchased (XP, MS Office) or open source (firefox) or free-to-use (Opera). I think the BSA's 41% estimate is brown and smelly due to having formerly occupied the lower regions of their bodies.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  14. Piracy on home computers by rossdee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since the BSA is only concerned with business software, what they probably mean is that 41% of copies of MS Office on home computers are not legitimate copies, mostly copied from work. If those people didn't have a pirate copy of Office, that would probably be using OO.org or some other free equivalent, they wouldn't be paying for it.

    (I guess a lot of people have academic versions of Office, and other app;ications like Adobe's suite, and they no longer are students so I guess that makes them pirates too.

    1. Re:Piracy on home computers by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure what the deal is these days but for years, where I worked, there was a deal with Microsoft whereby employees could install Office at home for free. Pretty sure that was the licence arrangment with MS rather than the firms coughing up for licenses.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    2. Re:Piracy on home computers by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 1

      You are right. It is one of our favorite benefits.

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

    3. Re:Piracy on home computers by TimSSG · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am a student of life. So, all my student copies are still legit. Tim S.

    4. Re:Piracy on home computers by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      MS now sells an Office home edition for a very reasonable price ($150 I think for 3 licenses).

      This is an adjustment of their older policy of selling Office Teacher and Student version through normal retail outlets with no checking.

      I know when people ask me where to get Office now I tel them it is reasonably priced and if they feel it isn't worth it point them to OO.org.

      As for Adobe stuff, even the student one (which I believe becomes real ones you complete school according to the license) is a lot of money for someone who is not a professional or paying thousands/year to become one, so I am more sympathetic.

      Generally one needs a student ID to buy the student copy of the creative suite too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Piracy on home computers by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      would probably be using OO.org or some other free equivalent

      I know us geeks would, but beyond us, how many people would really use OO.org? People use MS Office because they've gotten used to using it at work or at school, and have come to rely on it and it's features. Or they hear their friends talking about "Word" and "Excel" and "Powerpoint". So, if they don't see those products, they're not interested.

    6. Re:Piracy on home computers by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      It would be possible for a small business look like they are software pirates when they have actually paid for all their software. For instance, suppose someone starts a small business and brings a desktop computer from home, to use at their small business. The receipts for the original software purchases (if can they still even be found), would not specifically mention the name of the business. The accounting records might mention using the computer which had originally been used at the business owner's home. But would that be sufficient to satisfy the BSA? I am not sure, and am not an expert on this.

      Suppose that computer from home had a student version of Microsoft Office, that had been installed on the computer, several years before, back when the owner of the business had been a student. The small business owner, might not realize that using that he or she is now a software pirate.

      As I said, I am not an expert, but here is another situation where the receipts might not make things clear enough about the fact that the business had actually purchased the software. Many small businesses pay for most things by check or cash, and do not have any kind of company charge card. If they purchased some software or a computer on-line from a company which does not accept checks or cash, they would have to use a personal charge card instead. The accounting records would record the owner, or other employee, being reimbursed for the software or hardware. The accounting records would also have attached the receipt to their records. But, would the BSA be satisfied with a vague roundabout complicated purchase, such as that?

      The BSA's figures most likely include small business owners, who have either unknowingly violated the licensing terms, or who can not adequately prove having paid for the software, to the BSA's satisfaction.

    7. Re:Piracy on home computers by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My wife basically begged me to buy Office for her, because she doesn't like learning new programs, which means she refuses to try learning OOo (I know, I've tried). It's the same reason she refuses to let me switch her computer to Ubuntu, even though everything she does can be done just as easily in Linux (almost all of it is browser stuff e.g. Facebook). It's not that she has anything against Linux; she just doesn't like new things.

  15. Rather odd then by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    That the vast majority of PC owners I know go 'what's that?' when you mention P2P, torrents etc. Sure, there's a hardcore that use it heavily, usually younger sorts (get off moi laaaand!) but most people I know have nothing but paid for sofwtare or more usually, tons of 'free' crap they've downloaded from some pop up advert or got from a magazine cover disk.
    Even amongst the hardcore, I'd wager a fair chunk are moving towards opensource/free anyway. My laptop has OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Aptana, NetBeans, iTunes, Audiograbber, VMware Player and any number of other free (to individuals) but fine sofwtare products.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  16. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by dyfet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe one reason for such a poor correlation between alleged copyright infringement and malware rates is that most who engage in and enable copyright infringement actually do have higher ethics than some companies which deliberately add creepy spyware and malware-like features to their applications in the name of controlling what user's do. Indeed, I wonder if some even explicitly choose copyright infringement sources simply to get spy and malware disabled versions of certain applications.

  17. Maybe software prices are too high? by Yacoby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they have never considered the fact that there is a correlation between the state of the economy and the amount of pirated software. Maybe they should consider that their prices are far too high to be able to afford. As for harming the economy, my money tends to go towards food rather than software. It isn't like I am saving the money and pirating software, I don't have any money to save.

    1. Re:Maybe software prices are too high? by selven · · Score: 1

      Which is why the majority of windows copies sold are $45 OEM licenses.

    2. Re:Maybe software prices are too high? by dword · · Score: 1

      But they need to keep the prices high, to pay their employees.

    3. Re:Maybe software prices are too high? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Well clearly a new computer plus Windows 7 will cost more than Windows 7...

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    4. Re:Maybe software prices are too high? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      It's probably helping the economy more than harming it. Office software and the like is not an end in and of itself, it's a means to achieve useful ends (running businesses, doing school reports, drafting the next great American novel). Free rider problem or no, the economy has demonstrated that it is capable of producing adequate quantities of office software. So just about everybody in the economy wins, except for Microsoft (/Adobe/etc).

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  18. I have to wave the bullshit flag on this one. by dotfile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, but wait... it's a BSA report, which means anyone with a brain already KNOWS it's bullshit. Unfortunately, that means most members of Congress thinking it's true, and I suspect that's their intended audience. It's certainly a not "report" aimed at us. Their goal is to get more laws passed to make them and their masters money, extracted by law from everyone whether they have ever used any of the software in question or not. Another tax on blank media, anyone? How about one on hard drives, CPUs and other components? Pay by the megabyte for connectivity, because obviously we're stealing software? All they have to do is convince Congress-critters it's a good idea, which seems to be shockingly easy to do if you supply enough cash.

    1. Re:I have to wave the bullshit flag on this one. by bwalling · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Now I'm depressed.

  19. Bloat by rant64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The other 59% of disk space occupied by legal software consists entirely of Adobe Reader.

    1. Re:Bloat by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Only slightly off-topic... am I the only one that thinks it's annoying that the only OS that doesn't come with a built-in (or preinstalled) PDF reader (when installed from the normal installation media) is the most popular one?

    2. Re:Bloat by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft and Adobe have tried to get Adobe Reader preinstalles but so far they haven't yet found a way to fit both Windows and the Adobe Reader installer on one disc. Hopes are that BluRay usage will take up as with current state-of-the-art compression Adobe Reader almost fits on a single BD-ROM.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:Bloat by atamido · · Score: 1

      I know that Microsoft for some time has been trying to push their own PDF replacement (XPS). However, I've never been able to get XPS files to work properly. And I've never met anyone that's been able to get them to work properly. (Sometimes creation fails with an error or you have a file that is too small to be valid, or nothing will open them up or have them look even vaguely correct.)

  20. 0% by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    None of the software on my computer is illegal, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    Thunderbird, Firefox, Chrome, OOO3.1.1, NetBeans, no, none of it's illegal.

    And I have paid-for software too: SQL Server 2008, Toad, AVG...

    What do you mean, something's missing? Not that I know of.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:0% by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I would be interested in a study (preferable not BSA) that broke down software use by free-software/freeware/free trial/paid for/pirated, for bonus points they could split it up by home/office/server use. These kinds of numbers are interesting, just not when the BSA/RIAA/MPIAA makes them up.
      I know how it stacks up on my computer 99% free software (fedora) + 1% freeware(flash) [ofc how you count "software" is a different question altogether]

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  21. Why doesn't the BSA promote Linux instead? by joeflies · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to bet that most of the people who are pirating software are doing so on Windows & Mac platforms. If the BSA wants to stop software piracy, why not promote Linux instead?

    1. Re:Why doesn't the BSA promote Linux instead? by dotfile · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because RedHat, Novell and the others aren't paying them to shill their stuff.

    2. Re:Why doesn't the BSA promote Linux instead? by sajuuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because corporate America considers Linux to be pirated as well. As well as all FOSS software for that matter.

    3. Re:Why doesn't the BSA promote Linux instead? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet that most of the people who are pirating software are doing so on Windows & Mac platforms. If the BSA wants to stop software piracy, why not promote Linux instead?

      Because Linux users use infringing software too. In the BSA's home territory, VLC media player infringes numerous patents.

    4. Re:Why doesn't the BSA promote Linux instead? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      If the BSA wants to stop software piracy, why not promote Linux instead?

      tepples said: VLC media player infringes numerous (Specious, applicable only in the USA) SOFTWARE patents.
      Emphasis mine. Download it from a non-US server.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  22. Re:BSA by conureman · · Score: 1

    Bull. Shit. Artists.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  23. Maybe if you count Open Source as 'pirated.' by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    Even on my parents' Windows machine, easily 60% of the software (not counting the OS, which really should qualify as 50% on its own) is FOSS. The real problem is that so many of these people are trying to build a business around solving problems that were solved 10 years ago, and dozens of times since.

  24. Wow, that's impressive by webreaper · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised it's so low.

    1. Re:Wow, that's impressive by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      That can not make the figure too high, or they would not be keep raising it, year after year.

  25. From BSA Figures: Most Piracy Is Not Filesharing by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even according to the UK Government's recent consultation, about restricting Internet access of suspected filesharers, the figures of estimated damages due to software piracy is a staggering 144 times that of music, TV and films from filesharing:

    The BPI claim P2P file-sharing costs the UK music industry £180m pa (2008) while IPSOS gives a loss in the UK for TV and films of £152m (2007). ... Figures for software - the biggest of the creative industries - are difficult to obtain, but it is estimated by the Business Software Alliance that the global business software industry suffers annual losses of some US$48 billion out of a total market of US$450 billion due to piracy. The bulk of these losses is caused by unauthorised copying of software within businesses, rather than by P2P.

    ( http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51703.pdf )

    So even though the Government has no reason to speak favourably of filesharing in this document, it still acknowledges that most software piracy is within businesses. So why does the BSA now focus on individuals and filesharing?

    Note that even if we assumed every download was a lost sale(!), that means the upper bound for damages is $974 million for a six month period, according to the figure in the article, a fraction of the BSA's own estimate for commercial piracy damages, at $24 billion over six months.

    the report also draws correlations between Internet piracy and the spread of malware such as viruses, trojans and spyware

    Oh, and Government plans to reduce the bandwidth of suspected downloaders - thus making it hard or impossible to download the large Windows security updates - won't effect the spread malware at all...

  26. The proprietary centerpiece.... by drjuggler · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...is the Online Auction Tracking System" previously used to prevent piracy of online FPS titles, software pirates have come to fear Quakers' OATS.

  27. Depends.. by Thyamine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it depends on the user. You have users who call their friend/family member/etc when they have a question, and clearly are not the ones pirating. Then you have the people who know what they are doing (and from my personal experience) quite often do. The reasons everyone gives are different, but there is often a good bit of it. And they are just as likely to install it on that friend/familiy member's computer when they call needing help with Office or whatever ('Oh, this is an old verson, let me upgrade you).

    I've mentioned it before. I have a friend that almost refuses to buy music when they can use whatever the current flavor of P2P is to get it. I had a different friend that gladly would download the newest games from torrents and play them. Not to mention the various other indiscretions I or other friends have done. Several people still will email me with a 'hey, do you happen to have a serial number for...' These aren't college students or poor workers from some low-end job. They are often well paid professionals (often in IT). They just don't want to spend the money. It's not some sense of 'information should be free!' or 'software shouldn't be patented!'. They just don't want to spend the money, so while these reports may not have numbers that everyone believes, I certainly have seen it day to day. Just without a metric that I can quote.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
  28. It needs to be said that... by sajuuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    1. Re:It needs to be said that... by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it doesn't. It's said way too much on this website, up to the point where it's a sign of lack of critical thinking.

  29. More like 0% here by thebrid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Ubuntu user, I can say precisely 0% of the software on my PC is pirated AND I have no issues with malware, viruses, trojans, etc. (according to ClamAV anyway). In fact, probably 99% of the software I run is free & open source. The only proprietary software I use for the time being is Adobe Flash and the ATI Radeon driver, both legally obtained.

    I know we'd all like to say that there is no link between illegally copied software (I refuse to use the word "pirated") and malware, but I'm sure we've all seen instances where relatives' PCs got infected by software downloaded from Kazaa, etc.

    What really surprises me is that, when given the choice between maybe catching viruses or getting prosecuted for downloading/installing illegal software and using the free and legal open source equivalent, so many people still choose to download their software illegally. I have to say, as a full-time user and software developer, Ubuntu's offering is really, really well put-together and a pleasure to use.

    1. Re:More like 0% here by PRMan · · Score: 1

      So you don't play DVDs, MP3s or WMA files on your Ubuntu machine? Because those patents are violated routinely by Ubuntu users.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:More like 0% here by lannocc · · Score: 1

      I can say precisely 0%

      You say precisely, but how accurate is that?

    3. Re:More like 0% here by thebrid · · Score: 1

      It's possible to play all of those things perfectly legally on Ubuntu. I suppose MP3 is the one most people will need. Luckily, a nice company called Fluendo have partnered with Ubuntu to provide free and legal MP3 decoders for all Ubuntu users. It's been a while since I did a fresh install but I believe Ubuntu offers to install these automatically when you first try to play an MP3 with RhythmBox or Totem.

      DVD and WMA are more complicated and, yuck, who uses WMA anyway? But, again, Fluendo offer a fully licensed DVD Player for Linux for a pretty reasonable €20. They also offer fully licensed codecs for other formats like WMA, etc.

      And all of this will soon be a moot point as some of the MP3 patents have expired already and the remaining ones should be expiring pretty much everywhere in the next couple of years.

    4. Re:More like 0% here by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I know we'd all like to say that there is no link between illegally copied software (I refuse to use the word "pirated") and malware, but I'm sure we've all seen instances where relatives' PCs got infected by software downloaded from Kazaa, etc.

      The majority of infected machines I have been asked to clean up have been infected by people using Limewire to download illegally copied music, only one of the ten or so where I could clearly identify the vector of infection was downloading illegally copied software. One of the others infected themselves by clicking to install "antivirus" software that a website told them they needed.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:More like 0% here by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      As a fellow Kubuntu user, I can honestly say that you are about 90% right. Kubuntu is pretty and easy to use, right up until you try to play a good game on it...Then its consult the interwebs, download, insert fix, try to run, groan, slam fist on desk, reboot, consult, download, insert fix....get sick of trying after an hour, and reboot into windows.

      -Oz

    6. Re:More like 0% here by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Because those patents are violated routinely by Ubuntu users.

      Patents aren't copyrights.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:More like 0% here by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I don't. There was this neat little thing called Flash invented a while back, which lets me play whatever I want from Pandora, Youtube, and Netflix without worrying about using those obsolete formats.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    8. Re:More like 0% here by steelfood · · Score: 1

      probably 99% of the software I run is free & open source.

      To the BSA, that's like saying 99% of the software on your computer was pirated. They stop reading after "free."

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:More like 0% here by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Right on.

      I can also say that 100% of my software is legally installed. My main laptop is a CentOS 5 system. My servers run CentOS and OpenSolaris. The Windows machines use OpenOffice, VLC, CDBurnerXP. Most of the software is image editing related, but these are also free or open (qtpfsgui, hugin, Picasa, etc..). There are also packages that I've purchased mainly because I need them for my business, or in some cases, the software is so goddamn unstable that I need vendor support (e.g., Pinnacle/Avid Studio).

    10. Re:More like 0% here by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Netflix uses a Silverlight player, if memory serves, and last time I tried, it refused to run in Linux, even when running Firefox under Wine.

    11. Re:More like 0% here by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      One of the others infected themselves by clicking to install "antivirus" software that a website told them they needed.

      My wife has a much better approach. When something pops up telling her she needs to do something, and she's not one hundred percent sure she needs to do it (she's never sure, even when she initiated the action) she asks me. I wish all end-users would do the same...

    12. Re:More like 0% here by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      This is the critical flaw in the FLOSS model.

      I don't think it's a flaw in the model so much as a flaw in the way the model is currently being used. The model itself just as easily sustains a piece of software written with the end-user in mind; in fact, I would go so far as to say that the open source model works better when that's the case.

    13. Re:More like 0% here by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You may be right, but alas the fanboys have decided that any criticism, constructive or not, valid or not, is just trolling.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    14. Re:More like 0% here by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Apparently. FWIW I agree with your point (despite what my earlier post might have implied).

    15. Re:More like 0% here by atamido · · Score: 1

      I will direct all end users I meet to email you before taking any actions. If we all try our hardest, I think we can fulfill your dream.

    16. Re:More like 0% here by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      :(

  30. How soon by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    before BSA claims that 100% of software on Linux is stolen?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:How soon by selven · · Score: 1

      SCO would like to have a word with you.

  31. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well:

    1. Is simply not true. Adware and spyware are common in commercial software.
    2. Also not true - the first thing a pirate does is strip out the crap.
    3. If you *have* paid for it, it could be infected. That's why you scan everything.

  32. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article is BS. There are probabilistic elements in software piracy and malware, but those statistics came from /dev/random
    If you know where to get your pirated software, then it's more than the distributors honor is worth, to let anything dodgy get into their release.

    The bit about "geographies with high instances of software piracy suffer from high instances of malware"; Ok that is probably true, and in S.Korea I don't think you can call legally sell it as a "computer" if it isn't full to the brim with malware.

  33. I didn't know... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ...that they transported so much software on the high seas...

    Seriously. Whenever someone uses that word in that context, I immediately stop reading, and laugh at him, for the retard that he is.

    Including every commenter here, who already bought into their FUD.

    It's like the children of the three Stooges, to look at the whole communication from the outside...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  34. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    - If you've paid for the software, it's highly unlikely that it will contain malware or adware.

    Unless it comes from Sony or Microsoft...

  35. Statistically worthless by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Can't measure it - you can't measure how many people downloaded your software through illicit channels because, by definition, those channels are usually unmonitored, don't keep logs, and aren't subject to easy investigation. You might be able to measure a particular computer at a particular point in time but any measurement being done on "behalf of" the BSA is going to be worthless. You'd have to randomly monitor thousands of PC's in dozens of categories (home, business, mobile, poweruser, etc.) and get permission to report on any "unlicensed" software there, and then chase it up with the company concerned to see if it was actually unlicensed (rather than just using the wrong VLK or similar for convenience).

    2) Can't compare it - the chances of those metrics being stable across such countries as Turkey and the US are unlikely.

    3) Can't correlate it - Just because malware goes up with pirated installations doesn't mean anything - it just means that the pirates prefer to download porn which may or may not introduce malware... it doesn't mean the malware is in the pirate software.

    Statistics are worthless quoted out of context. We have no idea what was measured, how, why, what bias was introduced by the measures, or anything else.

    To be honest, I imagine the percentage to be *higher*... I've seen dozens of people with Winzip on their computers who haven't actually bought it but they heard they needed it to open ZIP files. I've seen dozens of work laptops come back with full installations of football games, office, etc.... technically that's copyright infringement ("software piracy") because it's a breach of the license. I expect the true figure to be nearer 80 or 90%.

    But then you have the reasoning that it's somehow linked to malware in any way other than "people get malware too"... almost 100% of the home PC's I see have items of malware on them (again, depending on your definition).

    If you want to say "copyright infringement is bad and puts £5 on the cost of every game you buy, or £50 on the price of Office", people would listen. Making up bollocks statistics about nonsense correlations just makes me switch off and let's me know that, actually, you're just trying to scare me into buying things because you can't think any other way would work (and thus don't understand software "piracy" at all). I don't pirate, either at work or at home. I just move things to open-source if I can't afford the real package, and I never buy anything without a demo. No demo, no trial version, no purchase. I also don't buy anything with DRM that interferes with my usage of the product. I'm not alone.

    Stop spending your time analysing vague correlations and look at those statistics about why people pirate in the first place. Almost always it's cost, convenience and because a certain percentage of those "pirate" downloads are actually your own customers just trying to get the bloody thing working (I've had to break DRM schemes in work in order to be able to install compliant to our licensing - it was tons easier than our negotiating with the company in question to do the same thing). Be open with those stats and then things get interesting: How many pirates, on average, end up revealing upon further investigation that they *already* own the software in question, but the DRM got in the way? Or that they lost the install disk? Or that they needed original media to recover their PC's and it wasn't supplied by the manufacturer? I've seen all three of those and even done the second myself - I needed a particular install disk and it was an emergency and the person I was working for didn't have the original disk to hand. After I ensured that they were entitled to the licences, I just downloaded one and used that instead (after checksum verification). Does that contribute as being "another" PC with pirate software?

    1. Re:Statistically worthless by Sgt.+B · · Score: 1

      Very good points and well written. I'll add to it for the subject of security.

      Software Piracy definitely affects security. Most people would laugh if you asked them to run a .exe file that was emailed to them from a known software hacker but when people download a torrent of commercial software, the pirates often include a KeyGen to create a serial number. For some reason people run these without thinking twice. This keygen can generate the serial number and then install whatever the heck they want on your computer. A good hacker doesn't even need a keygen. They will just attach the code to the install script so you don't even have a chance. All of the sudden your network is running slow and you blame your ISP for limiting your bandwidth but its actually that zombie software you quite happily installed.

      Personally I think Pirating is old school and lazy. If a person would take the time and download Ubuntu linux live CD or Ubuntu Studio, they would get an entire operating system loaded with everything from office software to digital image editing, 3D design, 2D painting, audio and video editing, DVD burning, network management, etc. It even comes with it's own searchable database of other free software. That's where the lazy comment comes in. A person might actually have to learn something new.

      If all you can think is "ya but" when people talk about linux, consider Open Office, Paint.net, Aviary.com, Google docs.. On and on. There is so much out there, there really is no reason not to at least try some of it. Who knows, you might even find something that suits your way of thinking better than the commercial product you were trying to pirate.

    2. Re:Statistically worthless by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Next time it will be someone else's turn to make an Epic Rant on Slashdot, and nothing will be different. BSA has an audience, and you're not it. Worse, you can't convince its audience that it has no clothes. At least no one has succeeded yet.

    3. Re:Statistically worthless by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      You're preaching to the choir.

      The trouble is, we can't explain it in words small enough for the voting population, and the politicians are already bought out with lobbying, donations, and mutual back-scratching, and they, or the ones sponsoring them, are the ones with the advertising space between the X Factor and re-runs of Everybody Loves Raymond.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Statistically worthless by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Politicians wouldn't understand either, even if they were interested.

      The trouble is, most (all?) politicians are not technically inclined. If we want sensible laws in place for technology, we need to get computer scientists (to use the term broadly) elected to office. The trouble is, computer scientists aren't the least bit interested in running for office. Thus, the vicious cycle continues.

    5. Re:Statistically worthless by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      I've seen dozens of work laptops come back with full installations of football games, office, etc.... technically that's copyright infringement ("software piracy") because it's a breach of the license.

      I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, but technically, I think your reasoning here is flawed. Copyright grants the author six exclusive rights. Copyright infringement is the act of exercising one of those rights without the author's consent. Violating the license is a simple breach of contract.

      One could argue that the author's right to distribute or reproduce the work was infringed but that's not as clear-cut as breach of contract.

  36. Good by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    Good. With these numbers they're admitting this is beyond control of any legal measure.

  37. Re:BSA by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bull. Shit. Artists.

    In. William. Shatner's. Voice.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  38. What?? by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    "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. "

    Wow so this is is one of the cause of why our economy is going down the shitter; it's not the corporate corruptions, misused funds by the government, or banks handing out loans people can't paid back, but software pirating is what did us in "that's the straw that broke the camels' back"

  39. Admission of failure by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    An anti-piracy outfit claims nearly half of software is pirated. This sounds to me like they're saying that what they do is totally ineffective. Is this supposed to be an apology (to whom?) or a resignation letter?

    Obviously, no-one outside their little clique thinks this is important or they'd be taking action. The software vendors don't seem too bothered either - or they would have developed stronger ways to protect their stock in trade. It's not as if that would be outside the bounds of possibility. So who, exactly, is this particular stir of the FUD aimed at?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  40. Re:I don't buy it by noundi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    harming the economy

    Right, like they would have bought it if they couldn't pirate it.

    I love this bullshit. As you say, there's no way of telling how many percent of those who pirated would actually buy the software at hand. In my experience often people pirate because they're lazy, meaning they know some program from a while back and instead of looking for a free alternative they just pirate it because they're used to it. But also sometimes they actually need that program, however more often they don't.
    Also it's very easy to throw expressions such as "harming the economy" around. But let's think about what this means. If, and we have to remember the big if here, there would be a significant increase in such sales -- instead of people looking for free and/or open source alternatives (which by the way is already happening, anyway let's continue with the hypothesis) -- then in an international aspect this would harm the economy as the national currency would be weakened due to less trade. HOWEVER (one of those important caps moments) -- don't forget that piracy is also an international phenomenon, meaning if all countries have 10% piracy it would be -- in terms of economic balance, exactly the same as if we had 0% -- or 80%.
    What about national level? Well at national level the currency would merely shift towards those selling the software, as they collect the fees.
    What about the personal economy? Well you would have a slightly stronger currency (given that other countries ignore piracy) yet you would still, at a personal level, make a loss.
     
    Now let's ignore the moral aspects here, you can yell theft all you want but that's another discussion. This discussion was about the economy and how someone tries to bullshit you from this angle to change your mind. Change your mind for the right reasons, if you consider it theft then fine, but don't eat whatever crap that's thrown at you. By using the expressions such as "economy", a very big machine which can be difficult to understand, you can persuade somebody into a lot of things, since ultimately they will tend to feel stupid because they cannot break down the concept and understand how this hurts the economy -- you see no explanation is given, and that's the point of the argument. So if you feel stupid, that's even more of a reason to ask the question: why?

    --
    I am the lawn!
  41. Re:Well, if that's how they want to think about it by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Uuum, there are two kinds of software on my computers: The kind that is open source (literally thousands of packages) and the kind that is pulled off of BitTorrent.

    Software never was a product. And it never will be. It's a service. A service done once. And that work is what you pay for. Not the result. Because that would be the sick twisted view that Gates introduced back then. (Yep, you can thank him for that too.)

    Think if it like we all throwing money in a pot, to pay for a big software project. Then if there is no more work to do, and we don't think that what was done is worth more than what we already payed, we stop paying.
    And copies are free for all. (But you could ask for money, to get some of that back that you payed yourself.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  42. MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    BSA Says 41% Software On Personal Computers Is Pirated

    Well customers choose linux because Apps are easier to pirate. Steve Winfield of Microsoft's anti-FOSS Partner Technology Team (a.k.a. Delta Force) says so. It must be true.

    In other news, sources not partnered with Microsoft announce that Microsoft's desktop market share has dipped down to 59%. Between Conficker and Internet banking exploits, it could happen.

    Seriously, better check the BSA's definition of 'pirated'. Previous announcements like this turned out to classify any non-MS software as 'pirated'.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that presentation is superb. 'Linux is free! Yes, just like a puppy' I'm not really a Linux fan, but if it's just like a puppy then maybe I do want to use it after all.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      In other news, sources not partnered with Microsoft announce that Microsoft's desktop market share has dipped down to 59%.

      Cite?

    3. Re:MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Seriously, better check the BSA's definition of 'pirated'. Previous announcements like this turned out to classify any non-MS software as 'pirated'.

      Like my Microsoft-free desktop computer? Been a penguinista for over a decade now, and I still get a chuckle when they keep telling me Linux just doesn't get it done on the desktop.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      Woooooooooosh

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    5. Re:MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      Apps are easier to pirate

      'course they are. Lots of stuff is easier on Linux :-)

      To be fair, I believe he's referring to the phenomenon of people buying linux computers to wipe and put a pirated copy of windows on, since it's difficult to find a pre-built computer with a completely blank hard drive. Of course, those people aren't really "choosing linux."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    6. Re:MS reps say its easier to pirate on Linux by zary · · Score: 1

      Dude, i love you. That link was the most interesting and hilarious thing i've read since forever.

  43. 42% of what computers ? by Atreide · · Score: 1

    Most of people around me
    who are not nerds
    hardly understand what a "program" really is.

    and fewer know where to download "free" software.
    Even less know where to get pirate software.

    And most of humanity is like these people I know.

    I hardly believe this 42% figure.

    However it has been known for ages (80's)
    that pirate software often come with unwanted "goodies".

    --
    The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
  44. Re:I have 0% also by DevConcepts · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not one single program on my computer is pirated.
    Not one single program on my computer is paid for.
    Vista 64 Ult/Win7 64 Ult, Office 2007 Pro, VS 2005-2008 Std, MSSQL 2005-2008 Std-Etc.
    If you can get it all for free why steal it?
    And no I don't have a MSDS or other paid subscription, that would be paying for it.

  45. totally wrong correlation by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    " geographies with high instances of software piracy suffer from high instances of malware."

    Isn't this because the places you have to go in order to get free software aren't policed for malware? This really has nothing to do with the pirated software itself, but instead it has to do with the law preventing people from trading software for free in the first place. Software trading is outlawed == only outlaws will post software for trade (i.e. people already engaged in nefarious activities like malware).

    --
    stuff |
  46. vulnerabilities in illegal software by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Ya, sure it is. And 41% ? Where did they conduct their sampling, china?

    Lets just say for a moment that 41% is true. That number should tell you that something is wrong going on and software is far overpriced.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  47. Made up numbers by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey, it works well for the *AA's in perverting public opinion and getting laws enacted so why should the BSA be any different?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  48. BSA not PSA by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    Remember that the B stands for Business.

    That being said, am I, a simple user who occasionally needs to do graphics for my personal websites going to purchase photoshop?

    No fucking way. Nor should I be required to do so. I have used photoshop since 1998 when it was version 4. I am a moderately skilled photoshop user. I am still learning a lot. There is more than half left to go.

    If I want to get a job using my skills with photoshop, that business will have a licensed copy.

    I say all software should be free for educational purposes. If you want to learn a new application, you should have to pay to do so. That's exclusionary. It's also already part of the DMCA. Copyright will not be infringed if using for instructional purposes. I am using it for instructional purposes.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:BSA not PSA by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Or, if you're only using half of Photoshop, you could just try something like The GIMP and not have to have illegal copies of anything ;)

  49. Safer than buying by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    I've installed exactly two non-freeware, non-FOSS programs in the last few years: purchased copies of Quickbooks and Portal. Now, it's very possible that I have expired trial versions of software lurking around that I never bothered uninstalling, and the BSA would almost certainly count that as piracy, but screw 'em. The fact is that I'd trust "Iceland Hacking Team #87" more than I trust most BSA members when it comes to giving clean, malware-free installations. When was the last time a Pirate Bay crack installed something worse that Starforce?

    Honestly, many commercial apps are so laden with crap specifically designed to break parts of my computer that I just don't trust off-the-shelf software anymore. I think the BSA and their scummy members need to get their own houses in order before they start throwing accusations.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  50. Obligatory Reference by ijakings · · Score: 1
  51. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I wonder if some even explicitly choose copyright infringement sources simply to get spy and malware disabled versions of certain applications.

    Well, wonder no more. I can explicitly confirm it.

  52. Waiting for the corollary from the RIAA by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Something along the lines of "41% of Music on personal MP3 players is pirated"

    For now, this is a shameless piracy grab by the BSA. Other industry orgs will want to claim back their piracy shortly...

  53. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

    Take Spore for instance. I know many people who did not even want spore but pirated it on principle, just to make a statement about their "DRM". I also know of a few who bought a legal copy then downloaded a pirate copy just so they did not have to deal with all the malware thet EA published with it

  54. "Harming the economy"? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First off, aside from the questionable validity of this study, I wonder really just how much these guys are "harming the economy"?

    Personally, I've made an effort to avoid pirated software these days (I'll admit, I used some back when I was younger, but open source was less common back then and I had no money to spend anyways).

    I mean, almost everything has a free replacement available these days.

    Windows -> Linux
    Outlook -> Thunderbird
    Office -> OpenOffice.org (or actually Gnumeric and Abiword, which I actually kinda prefer myself)
    Photoshop -> GIMP
    Visual Studio -> GNU Compilers + lots of IDEs
    Numerous Commercial CD Burning Programs -> Numerous Open Source CD Burning Programs

    Don't get me wrong I know that for *professionals* GIMP often just ain't gonna compare to Photoshop. However, for personal computers at home, I think the vast majority of users are fine with the above. More to the point, I think that if the choice actually came down to paying retail price for the commercial versions or using free software (instead of their actual choice which was free pirated commercial software or free open source software), I doubt that very many at all would opt to shell out the cash.

    And therein lies the problem - if these people would rather use free software instead of paying when called on this, then the net change in income for the makers of the software is nothing. That's not harming the economy. Indeed, it's likely helping the economy as if more people were forced to use open source and free software at home, then when they got to work and their boss asked them what programs they need budgeted into next years budget, they might just opt to keep using the open source ones, which would result in a DROP in revenue for the commercial companies. Methinks they don't want to push home users too hard here.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:"Harming the economy"? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Just playing devil's advocate, Thunderbird isn't exactly a replacement for Outlook - it's more a replacement for Outlook Express. Outlook has other semi-important features (e.g. mass scheduling, to-do lists) that Thunderbird just doesn't have. There are other attempts at replacements for the server side of things, but I'm unaware of any OSS client apps comparable with Outlook in terms of features.

      Granted, this is mostly only an issue for businesses - but then again, the BSA surely knows that the majority of software piracy occurs in a business setting (and no, I don't have a source handy for that).

    2. Re:"Harming the economy"? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      On the contrary; the scheduling features in Outlook save us (in my workplace) tons of time that would otherwise be wasted on phone calls coordinating a time for six people to meet in the same room at the same time (since Outlook can just show me when everyone is available).

      Granted, that's not much of an issue for small six-man businesses, but for large several-thousand-employee businesses it's a huge benefit.

  55. And pros can write those same tools for GIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, they can write BETTER tools for GIMP because GIMP was created specifically from the ground up to be tooled up like that.

    PS "It doesn't do CMYK" is bollocks. Photoshop didn't do it once. Was it unsuitable then? Well people fucking bought it, didn't they?

  56. Help Net Security by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Since there are no user comments for this website or article, I suggest we all contact the editors of said website & let them know all about the BSA's shady tactics & troll statistics.

    mzorz(at)net-security(dot)com

    zzorz(at)net-security(dot)com

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Help Net Security by conureman · · Score: 1

      I think that net-security.com is drinking the Kool-Aid. YMMV, nice thought though.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  57. Not since the 1980 by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently it doesn't matter which BSA it is - tbey'll both try to bugger you.

    This hasn't been true for decades.

    The OTHER BSA, the one that goes camping has had a strong child-safety aspect since the late 1980s or early 1990s.

    The BSA requires adult leaders and Scouts to go through a sexual-abuse-awareness training program, and they even make those programs available to outside groups. They also have a 2-adult rule at all events and prefer 3 or 4 adults. They do not allow adults to be alone with Scouts unless there is an emergency or they are "alone" with but within eyesight of another adult.

    I would be far more worried about a similar group that didn't have a 2-adult policy than the Scouts.

    Oh, and as for the Business Software Alliance buggering you or more accurately your wallet, no argument there.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  58. High Instances... by sleeping143 · · Score: 1

    Although the correlation is not universal, geographies with high instances of software piracy suffer from high instances of malware.

    These areas also suffer from high instances of computers...

  59. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by Leynos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or Electronic Arts.

    --
    "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
  60. Re:From BSA Figures: Most Piracy Is Not Filesharin by click2005 · · Score: 1

    So why does the BSA now focus on individuals and filesharing?

    Because a headline saying "Company X fined £50,000 for illegal software" does nothing. A headline with an individual getting bankrupted by fines might scare people into paying for software.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  61. Re:82% of statistics by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

    What about the other 35% of statistics?

    --
    Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  62. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if some even explicitly choose copyright infringement sources simply to get spy and malware disabled versions of certain applications.

    I do, but they are not copyright infringement sources. If I already own a license, they are simply enhanced methods of distribution or a convinient malware-cleansing caching proxy.

  63. Pfft by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    More like 95%, at least on mine. HIGHFIVE!

  64. Why do they care if my PC has malware? by odin84gk · · Score: 1

    the report also draws correlations between Internet piracy and the spread of malware such as viruses, trojans and spyware,

    Why do they care if my PC has malware? Doesn't the malware act as a deterrent against pirating software?

    It is my PC, and not a government/corporation PC, so don't try to protect me.

  65. Accredited? by tepples · · Score: 1

    I am a student of life. So, all my student copies are still legit.

    Nice try, but "life" isn't accredited by a reliable source.

  66. Is the BSA a front for Microsoft? by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or, is the BSA just a bunch of extortionist thugs?

    From wikipedia:

    > According to an article in Mother Jones magazine,[4] the BSA discovered in 1995 that Antel, the Uruguayan national telephone company, had pirated US$100,000 worth of Microsoft, Novell, and Symantec software. The BSA's lawyers in Uruguay quickly filed suit, but dropped the suit in 1997 when Antel signed a "special agreement" with Microsoft to replace all of its software with Microsoft products. This has led to accusations that the BSA is a front for Microsoft, with its other members being enlisted purely to disguise Microsoft's dominant role.

  67. Flawed study... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    They forgot to throw in a connection to terrorism.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  68. Skeptical by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

    I could possibly see them claiming 41% of computers have pirated software installed, but I just don't believe that 41% of all software installed is pirated. I may not have paid for mutliple licenses to software installed on my laptop and desktop machines, but I have at least one legal license for all but 2 of the 200+ apps in my applications folder, and those are apps I'm evaluating for later purchase.

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  69. Re:From BSA Figures: Most Piracy Is Not Filesharin by IBBoard · · Score: 1

    Even better was the Computing magazine (I think - or possibly one of their letters) response to that lost money on business software piracy: If so much is lost when 50% of the software is pirated, just think how much is being poured down the drain and could be saved if they all moved to FOSS!

  70. Linux by fireheadca · · Score: 1

    Does this include open-source pirating?

  71. Bloat & price by dindi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I am a programmer and try to buy all the software I use I find it difficult with some products to keep up with the upgrades.

    BLOAT:
    For example Word & Excel (Office) - to keep bashing M$ - is a bloat. There is not really a version which is minimal enough for my needs. I really-really do not need all the crap that ships with MS Office. I do not use their mail, I do not use anything other than Excel and Word. I would be happy with a minimal version, or a second hand version of Office 2003 (the one I use on my Mac). Still, document formats are forced on people and most people just HAVE TO get it, and then do not want to pay because they feel they are buying the same product over and over. Oh, did I mention SPACE? Yeah, to read a document I really need to have gigabites of crap installed on my systems? I know I can select packages, but they still install a crap load of libraries and all that what would not be needed by just e.g. Word and Excel.

    PRICE:
    I use almost only free software to develop. Jedit, vi, whatever, but form time to time I need something that costs money. Most of the time I am faced with a price tag of $50-100 for an app I would use once (e.g. to decode a stored procedure or to save in a special format, or to repair an installation)....

    Version & function
    Here is Zend studio for example: I simply hate the new version, I cannot make peace with that eclipse bloated horror. I love the old version and the functions in it are more than satisfactory for my PHP needs. But can I buy it? No. I cannot/do not want to use the new version and I cannot buy the old version, so my option is: pirate it - since it is against my standards I am trying to use something else, but this old yet unavailable version is something I go back to from time to time.

    I think companies should have more options and combinations of their products, for the utility kind of things there should be a 10-day license too so people would more likely to buy the version they need instead of pirating it.

  72. n% of uses couldn't afford software anyhow by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Use whatever value of 'n' you wish, but the truth is there is some software that will have a higher piracy rate. If a piece of software is affordable, and useful, then you will have plenty of people buying it. On the other hand if you have to pay $500+ (USD), then expect non-business users to be pirating the software. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this is that what some of the publishers do, since anyone using the software at home will want to be using it as their job.

    One piece of software that comes to mind is Photoshop, uh I mean Creative Studio, which includes Photoshop. When you consider that it is more expensive than the average home computer (or at least price compatible), then it is hardly surprising that there is Piracy. Some thing goes for Catia, which would require someone to mortgage their house just for a one year license.

    Yes there is piracy, but we should first try to understand why certain software is pirated, and in what context.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  73. Pirated or Free ? by Vapula · · Score: 1

    Now that there are free alternatives likes OpenOffice, Gimp, Audacity, Blender, ... and that every personnal PC comes with Windows preinstalled and prelicenced, is it really 42% pirated or 42% "not bought from Microsoft and other" ?

  74. WOW, just wow. by Shivetya · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So you justify your piracy and that makes it OK?

    got to love people like you.

    I suppose I can come up with a reason for anything, like how smokers justify their health care costs because smokes cost so much?

    So you pirate music because of an arbitrary value limit you assign and that makes it alright?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:WOW, just wow. by dbet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you really surprised when most people justify their choices this way? Would you also be surprised to know that most people feel this way? Most people, when faced with the fact that the law isn't serving them, will start to ignore it.

      The RIAA doesn't deserve protection under the law anymore. And as much as I'll get flamed for that statement, we're all thinking it, and we're all acting on it.

      But if you want a non-inflammatory morally relevant statement - I've been paying taxes on blank media for years, paid directly to the RIAA, and THAT has bought me any free copies I want, of whatever I want. Because I've already paid for it. And so have you.

    2. Re:WOW, just wow. by TheBlackMan · · Score: 1

      I think that the fact, that there is no proof that piracy as whole damages the industry is what makes it alright.
      Just think for a moment: If piracy damaged the industry, wouldn't the most pirated titles be also the most financially unsuccessful titles ?
      Why is this in reverse, and most pirated titles are almost always the most earning titles ? Weird paradox.

    3. Re:WOW, just wow. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Who is hurt? Can you identify them? Can you demonstrate damages?

      If not then why should the state be used as a blunt instrument to do alleged criminals harm?

      Whining that some kid has a copy of AutoCAD is not sufficient to show real harm.

      The proposed "enforcement mechanism" should do no more harm to society than it's supposed to be correcting.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:WOW, just wow. by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      If you want to ignore the law to make a statement that's fine. Hell, that's how some of the most effective protests in US history went down. The difference is, when people burned their draft cards or refused to pay taxes for nuclear weapons, they accepted the concequences of those actions. And yes, the punishments for pirating music and software are draconian and way out of line, I'm not saying they're not.

      I'm just saying be aware of what you are doing and what the possible repercussions of that are. If you're willing to pirate to make a point and accept the concequences, that is protest. If you're only pirating because you want stuff and don't want to pay for it I can't agree with that.

  75. If it's that bad... by bmo · · Score: 1

    ... then institute impenetrable whips-and-chains bondage style copy protection. Immediately.

    It can be done. I dare you guys. I dare Ballmer to crank up the WGA and OGA knobs to 11 as he promised.

    End software piracy once and for all. DO IT!

    I want to see what would happen if everyone suddenly switched to legitimate software overnight. No more will companies be able to use software piracy to distort the market and shut out competitors.

    Let's see what Bill Gates thought of copyright infringement:

    "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates 1998

    Yeah, wishful thinking on my part, eh?

    --
    BMO

  76. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    Yes, pirated software is famous for being completely free from malware and torrent sites would never think about hosting ads that use exploits on visitors...

  77. sounds about right by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    The only two apps on my computer that actually cost money are Windows XP and Office 2003. And both of them are volume license copies from a previous employer, meaning I'm technically not covered under the volume license anymore. So for me it's 100%.

  78. And market share... by webdog314 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And let's not forget that even though I might pirate a certain bit of software from company X (for any of the reasons you mentioned), that I am NOT using a similar competing software from company Y. Even piracy increases market share.

    Of course, the BSA isn't going to mention that in their statistics.

  79. Why this is hard for me to believe by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Way back when, "pirating" a DOS disk was as simple as making a copy, and there was practically no risk.

    Now, pirating windows would be much more difficult, much more risky, and much more pointless.

    Practically all PCs sell with windows installed. This does not raise the price of a PC very much. So why risk the lawsuits from the BSA, why fight with all the DRM. Frankly, a "pirated" version of windows is not likely to work anyway.

    Putting a new version of windows on an old PC does not usually make sense from a technological perspective. Windows just keeps getting more bloated, and resource intensive. This may not be true of win7 vs vista; but isn't that a free, or cheap, upgrade anyway?

    Furthermore, re-selling software on ebay, even when it is legal, can be quite difficult. Try selling a legal, unopened, copy of Rosetta
    Stone.

    Also, doesn't comcast now choke the torrents?

    Considering the substantial legal, and technical, difficulties involved in pirating software. It is hard for me to believe these claims of widespread pirating.

    1. Re:Why this is hard for me to believe by minchazo · · Score: 1
      Did you even read your comment?

      Practically all PCs sell with windows installed. This does not raise the price of a PC very much. So why risk the lawsuits from the BSA, why fight with all the DRM.

      Putting a new version of windows on an old PC does not usually make sense from a technological perspective. Windows just keeps getting more bloated, and resource intensive.

      You pirate old versions of Windows, if you're going to pirate Windows at all! Maybe you get an old PC without the install disks because you don't need a powerhouse machine. There's no way to get Win98 through Microsoft. You've got to get it second hand or pirated.

  80. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    1. Which you can avoid 99% of the time by unticking boxes
    2. and replace it with their own. Only you won't know it's installing until it's too late. Also, in the majority of pirated software, you're forced to install the copy protection stuff anyway, then add a crack that bypasses it for that piece of software.
    3. malware and spyware in commercial software are the exception to the norm. Hence why it's big news when they turn up.

  81. Re:I have 0% also by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    You paid for all that stuff - it was included in the price of your computer. And if you had said to a company like amazon.com "I won't be using Windows OS" you could have got a $50 refund.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  82. Raising the curve by omi5cron · · Score: 1

    i am doing my best to bring up these rates. everything on all my computers is pirated, except for things like firefox and the here and there free source material. i copy and burn DVDs, burn music downloads, play games... all using pirated software or being pirated software. also no problems with virus or malware infections. i do know how to check for and prevent that. my comps run unhindered and nothing but my torrents use the bandwidth. last software that was purchased was a copy of XP for my first build. that was 6 years ago.soon after that, it was off to the races! of course, having said that, almost none of what i use would have been purchased even if i had the money. i don't know where that puts me in the BSA scale of things. i have never sold copies, just given away some. at least i am honest about what i do, not that what i do is honest!

  83. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

    I do that with most games that have bad drm or copy protection. Buy it if I like it, and run the cracked version instead.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  84. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    I've used legal software that I consider malware (Vista' s search indexer for example).

  85. Irony.... by kantos · · Score: 1

    Ironically from MS's point of view a pirated copy of windows running on a box is better than FOSS, they will never publicly acknowledge this for obvious reasons. But as far as MS is concerned if your using MS products, legal or not, that's better than using FOSS. Why? Because if your using MS's products you get used to MS's products and are more likely to buy them later, whereas if you are using FOSS you have removed yourself from the dependence cycle and won't make MS any money. As for this so-called study... it is almost libelous towards the regular user, many of whom have fallen to the scare tactics uses by the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA, the dinosaurs of our age. In the future the BSA might want to check with their financial backers before releasing such a study, pissing off your customer base doesn't sell anything.

    --
    Any and all content posted above may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or otherwise dismissed.
  86. ONLY applies to commercial OS'es by slashmais · · Score: 1

    We who use opensource software, and by that I mean mostly Linux users, do not need to 'pirate' any software. We usually have better free equivalents readily at hand, an apt-get, yum, or rpm away. The FA looks more like an attempt at FUD by (Microsoft - to avoid lying) commercial interrests - it's just another bought blogger/journalist.

    --
    time time everywhere and not a second to spare
  87. When will /. stop reporting this nonsense? by AlgorithMan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    every time the BullShit Alliance releases its "piracy survey" I have to say this again:

    Their Calculation goes like this:

    piracy = software necessity per PC (estimate) * number of PCs - sold software
    (see: Wikipedia)

    as you can see, they just have to raise their estimates of "how much software a PC needs" a little bit to skyrocket the piracy... also they don't consider people using free software or older versions of software, so all in all their piracy report means nothing more than "we would have wanted to sell THIS much more software!"

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
    1. Re:When will /. stop reporting this nonsense? by don.g · · Score: 1

      If their "software per PC" number is based on a reasonable survey of actual PCs, and they account for enough sold software, that might not be a bad way to estimate piracy.

      If they assume that everyone buys Windows, MS Office and random ghastly antivirus product ... then everyone running OpenOffice and AVG, even on windows, would add to their wildly-inflated numbers.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
  88. The Fix by bruthasj · · Score: 1

    The fix is relatively simple. Make all copyright software (and media) 100% findable and purchasable in a simple way across ALL geographies, and you can get more revenue. Say NO to physical media, it doesn't help prevent piracy.

  89. Ever think how much it would cost a person by TheMaTrIxBEL · · Score: 1

    to have all legal software? The OS, comes with the computer most of the time and often its illegally installed, without the knowledge of the consumer. Office, if its pre-installed, is often illegal without the knowledge of the consumer. Both are installed illegally by the vendor, because, if Office and Windows were put on legally, the computer would cost double. Then, sometimes a low grade burner app comes with a CD or DVD drive, but for a good current version of Nero, you have to shell out around 70€ and pay that again and again with new versions (although there are somewhat cheaper upgrade versions for many apps). If you do a lot of photo or graphics editing, a decent app for that sets you back a 100€ easily. Which again is recuring for eacy new version that comes out. If you do some video editing because you have a digital camera or want to do quality DVD rips to watch on your PC, rather then overusing and wearing out the DVD disks, you can often shell out 100€ for a version of Pinacle. If you want to chat on multiple networks, AIM, MSN, YIM, ICQ, ..., a client like Trillian Pro is very interesting, both because of support, skin ability and full featurednes, it'll set you back 30€ for every major version and 10€ for an upgrade each time a new major version comes out. A virus scanner costs you anywhere between 40 and 80€ for a 1 year subscription on the AV software and that doesn't always include the initial buying price. And thats just the tip of the iceberg of apps people generally use. It'll come down to well over 400€ a year just for keeping your basic software up to date. Then we haven't even looked at payed video downloads, iTunes or other payed music downloads, buying games (which at best have a 40 hour play value), playing pay2play MMORPG's like WoW, where you have to shell out 70-80€ to get Classic, Burning and Lich King, and then have to start shelling out 15€ a month to be allowed to play those expensive expansions which come around about 1ce a year and cost you between 20 and 40€ just to be able to play the new content, while still paying the monthly subscription. I also have Autocad, ETS3, several professional apps I need for specific business related things, FTK, Acrobat Pro, 3DSMax, FL Studio, 2 Windows 2008 servers, 1 MSSQL server and a dozen other apps I use at least 1ce a week which set me back several 1000€. How is anyone expected to pay all that for both entertainment and in my case work related tasks? How is anyone expected to pay all that when old entertainment, television and radio, were so ridiculously cheap? How is anyone expected to pay that when your already paying atleast 500€ a year for an internet connection? Also, most software developers give out cheap Light or free Trial versions, but lock down that 1 feature that you actually need, and to get that feature, you have to pay for the whole thing. Most people will then opt to search for the software for free, and leave the app installed, even though they only used and needed it once. Its not only consumers that are at fault here, software is to expensive and IMHO, the Apple appstore has shown that bringing all that software together, creating true competition, drives the prices down considerably. We need that for all software. Now there simply are to many apps that people DO need to have installed, which cost them 50$ per app, per year, just to use their PC, which itself already cost anywhere between 300 and 30000$ Quit bitching and vilifying your consumers when you yourself are the greedy cause of the underlying problem.

    1. Re:Ever think how much it would cost a person by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      So you think it's ok to steal stuff because it's expensive?

      I'll stick with Ubuntu and get all the software I need for the cost of downloading an iso and without breaking laws. I also get a better quality OS with security updates and regular releases.

    2. Re:Ever think how much it would cost a person by TheMaTrIxBEL · · Score: 1

      I don't think I said, implied or otherwise suggested its ok to steal stuff. I said its understandable and consumers aren't the only ones at fault in this situation. And the software list noted was only the stuff I have to pay for, other then the Windows servers, I have 6 Gentoo based Linux servers, 2 Gentoo terminals, 1 Gentoo desktop, several devices to which I installed a Linux flavor instead of the Windows CE or other OS that was on it, not to mention my phones, I'm working to get Android to work on my Touch HD and have a Hero which is rooted. Thing is, the software I stated above I pay for is Windows Exclusive and most of them have no equal in the Linux spectrum. And what I said about Music, Movies and games. You can run whatever wanabee Linux flavor you want, you still have to pay for those and your internet connection and several other professional and consumer apps available for Linux that don't have decent or any at all, opensource or freeware alternatives. You think that because you run Linux you can connect to WoW and download from iTunes for free all of the sudden? Man Its guys like you that give Linux a bad name, trying to bud into an argument with "blabla don't have to pay, blabla free, bla free, blabla free, blabla linux, yadayada" I say BULLSHIT, no matter if you run Linux, Windows or a frekin Apple, there are apps you need to pay for, period.

  90. I don't doubt it by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't doubt it, but on the other hand, Adobe, Microsoft, et. al really ought to lower their prices. Ever since Microsoft knocked Wordperfect/Corel Office and Lotus Smartsuite pretty much out of the market the price for Office Pro has quadrupled. Ever since Corel Draw became irrelevant and the graphics companies consolidated (Adobe buying up Aldus, Corel buying up Jasc, etc.) the Adobe apps have skyrocketed in price.

    They got where they are through piracy: if fark-reading college students didn't pick up photoshop off of "warez" sites and learn their suites, Adobe might not have been able to maintain such dominance in the industry. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry didn't "pirate" Microsoft Office, maybe the monopoly wouldn't exist. Maybe Microsoft just might be more interested in interoperability because it would benefit them. They got where they are through piracy, and then implemented strict "activation" schemes now. The thing is, activation schemes only penalize paying customers. People who run 'cracked' software don't have to deal with false positives. They don't have to call Microsoft and wait on hold for 20 minutes for manual craptivation after they've done their second semi-annual Windows reinstall or did their video card upgrade. "Pirates" just install their cracked and slipstreamed Windows and Adobe Creative Suite install and they're done. Activation and Genuine Advantage don't affect them in the slightest.

    It's pathetic when the "counterfeit" software is superior to the legitimate.

    What is the solution? When it comes to operating systems, there is Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other options - or even Mac OS X if you're adventurous enough to explore the hackintosh option (or just pick up a Mini). When it comes to office suites, download openoffice.org. With rare exception, the OpenOffice.org Suite will do everything you need it to do, and if you're an advanced user, you'll find that many features (such as integration with databases) is actually easier and superior in OpenOffice. Sure, the macro language is lacking in documentation, but if you're a coder, you'll be too busy appreciating knowing that your macro will actually work on a Mac to think about missing VBA.

    When it comes to graphic suites, unless you need things like layer effects, droplets, and other advanced features, gimp, inkscape, and xara extreme are very likely good enough for you. If you know what layer effects are, then no, gimp won't replace Photoshop, but your living probably does rely on Adobe product to some extent so go out and buy it; yes, it runs on Crossover Office (or even wine with some finagling).

    I run Linux about 95% of the time. F/OSS does it for me. Here is what I still need Windows for:

      * running my embroidery machine
      * Netflix (damn you, netflix! Bring the flash player back!)
      * syncing my iPhone (let's get with it, Amarok!)
      * several games that run on neither Crossover nor Cedega - and yes, a couple of them are Microsoft games

    Now, I had a really good Hackintosh install running for a while - but I had to wipe it to free up a drive for a job. When I go back to the Hackintosh I plan to install Snow Leopard. I would love to run OS X 100% of the time (Yes, it's legal. I do own a Mac but like PC hardware better; I use workstation motherboards and faster CPUs and video cards) but I find the KDE environment so productive with kioslaves in konqueror, it's hard to give it up and switch to the Finder. Most F/OSS software I run on Linux is also available on OS X. Worst case, it runs under fink.

    Seriously though: let's give companies what they want. They got where they are through "piracy" because tom, dick, and harry learned the apps at home and brought that knowledge to the office where it influenced purchase decisions. Download F/OSS instead, learn it, and bring that knowledge to the office. You'll see Adobe, Microsoft, etc. either lowering their prices or even "licensing" software free for personal use, much like the antivirus companies did.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  91. Re:They aren't patented here by carou · · Score: 1

    noncommercial use of patents is free.

    [citation needed]

  92. And what? by zebrilo · · Score: 1

    But nobody cares. In Russia there is far more than 41% pirated software, and some software companies do not care on piracy at all. What about correlation between subj and "the spread of malware" due to pirated software is not updated? Crackers are not stupid people, they make the software cracked and updateable.

  93. SPIN ... by the_rajah · · Score: 1

    Like a dervish.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  94. Software bought by auction? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they are counting "Used Software" as Pirated Software? Most software sold by auctions were used once and then sold via an auction to the lowest bidder. If one sold a book via an auction, it would not be considered pirated, but selling software via an auction is considered pirated? Some software sold via auction is still new and never used, is that pirated software as well? If so how is that different from a friend of mine buying the software new and then giving the copy to me to use as he bought two copies one for him and one for me to use. Is it pirated software then?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  95. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Me too, i specifically go for pirate copies of various things because they are typically free of phone home programs, onerous install requirements (eg license codes) and onerous runtime requirements (like putting the cd in the drive - who wants to carry around a stack of low capacity media like cds?)... The pirate copies are better, the fact that they're cheaper is secondary.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  96. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    No, it's true. Once I pirated a Sony music CD and got a really awful rootkit. No way a company would intentionally put that on the CD, so it must have been added by evil pirates.

  97. Re:The BSA thinks... by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Do you mean that the BSA thinks that if one does not pay for their software it is automatically pirated? Which means FOSS is pirated software because the user didn't pay for it? Linux is pirated, Firefox is pirated, Thunderbird is pirated, Google Chrome is pirated, The GIMP is pirated, Paint.Net is pirated, etc?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  98. foss by ascari · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is a reflection on last-century business models? "Piracy" doesn't occur in the Open Source world - I don't hear Red Hat bitching about piracy, and their stock is doing just fine thank you. They see each distributed copy as increased market share. Maybe it's time for commercial software companies, music industry et al to look closely at their practices and not rely on the "blame pirates" mantra to work forever? (That is unless TFA really was about a ship load of CDs nabbed by Somalian fishermen, in which case they would have reason to bitch...)

  99. Re: definition of "pirated" by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    Yep, these stats all depend on your definition of "pirated." I'm running a Fedora 11 install on my laptop, with zero "pirated" applications, unless you define "pirated" to mean "software I didn't pay for," in which case 100% of everything running on my machine is "pirated."

  100. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    The difference is where software is distributed by sneakernet or via the Intarweb. There's a lot of high-quality piracy going on out there, but it's mostly on the web. If you buy any pirate software, you are almost certainly getting some nasty bugs riding along with it. The only place I know of that people actually buy pirate software is in Asia, though, and usually that's in places where annual family income is in the hundreds of dollars per year, if that.

  101. Murky licences? by griffinme · · Score: 1

    Four computers at home.

    OS - Came with puter that I got second hand, MS really likes me and sent me a free copy, RC of Win7
    Office - MS really likes me and gave free copy, part of license from work (the guy that deals with MS told me that our license actually covers people taking it home, who am I to argue?) and OO.o
    AV - Avast free or AVG free
    Games - Paid for, Armor Games or Gamespot
    Utilities - Sysinternals, downloads.com etc. all free
    Graphics - paint.net, picassa, paid for Macromedia Creative Pack once.
    Programming IDE - MS really likes me and sent me a free copy.

    The only thing I have had to pay for were games and one of the graphics packages. I use the Macromedia suite for work so it really doesn't count.
    I am not going to count MP3's since most were ripped from CD's I own. The licenses for Office and Windows might be a little iffy but I don't feel bad since I provide free support to family and friends. I do try to actually have at least one real license for Office and Windows, but since I fill out survey's, beta test, and watch propoganda vids that is usually not a problem.

    --
    Is he strong? Listen bud, He's got radioactive blood.
  102. Re:They aren't patented here by dkf · · Score: 1

    noncommercial use of patents is free.

    [citation needed]

    It varies by jurisdiction; I believe that in Germany it's considered impossible for an end-user to violate a patent. It's necessary also to distinguish between practice and what the law says, since it's possible for a user's actions to be against the law and for prosecuting authorities to say that they won't take action for reasons of public policy.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  103. PK Fire, PK Thunder, PKZIP by tepples · · Score: 1

    I've seen dozens of people with Winzip on their computers who haven't actually bought it but they heard they needed it to open ZIP files.

    Why? Since Windows ME and Windows XP, Windows has come with Compressed Folders, which can read and write PKZIP archives. Were you thinking of WinRAR?

    1. Re:PK Fire, PK Thunder, PKZIP by ledow · · Score: 1

      Nope. And don't ask me either - it seems pretty common. I just slap IZArc over the top of it and they don't even notice.

  104. correlation is the first sign of causation by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the crime of jumping the gun and concluding correlation is causation is bad

    the crime of blindly rejecting causation when you see correlation is equally bad

    " going through the motions of critical thinking without really understanding it, is a lot better than not doing it at all"

    huh? you just contradicted yourself in those words

    it's like pavlov's dogs around here (speaking of correlation and causation): people describe a correlation in a story, and immediately begins the steady rain of chanting "correlation is not causation", "correlation is not causation" nitwit comments

    its not critical thinking in the least. its a mindless blind meme. its a replacement for critical thinking just as malacious and erroneous as thinking correlation is causation

    its like the dense brownie point seeking ass licker in class who sees the smart kid say something in class one day that the teacher rewards, so he decides to raise his hand constantly all the time and ape what the other kid said (only once) at every available opportunity

    saying "correlation is not causation" at this point is not a sign of intelligence or critical thinking. it is, in fact, an ironclad sign at this point of lack of intelligence and uncritical thinking. its like a salivating dog at the sound of a bell. its completely mindless

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  105. Re:Well, if that's how they want to think about it by kz45 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Software never was a product. And it never will be. It's a service. A service done once. And that work is what you pay for. Not the result. Because that would be the sick twisted view that Gates introduced back then. (Yep, you can thank him for that too.)"

    no, you are paying for the result, because the result is what you actually use.

    "Think if it like we all throwing money in a pot, to pay for a big software project. Then if there is no more work to do, and we don't think that what was done is worth more than what we already payed, we stop paying."

    I feel the same way about GNU software. It's my right to use it any way I see fit (including selling it an not giving back to the community). I'm glad we are on the same page.

  106. BSA credibility by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As always, it is unclear just what they consider "pirated". For example, if your company purchases 100% legitimate software via eBay, the BSA will not accept this as your software during an audit. They refuse to accept any and all eBay receipts. Hence, it is quite likely that they have counted all purchases via auction sites as pirated, even though this is clearly not true.

    This is only one of many "rules" they apply that make little or no sense. Did you know that possessing the complete packaging of a program, including the original CD/DVD and the enclosed license certificate is, according to the BSA, not proof of ownership? You must have an original receipt, with the company (or individual) name correctly spelled, which explicitly lists the product and version.

    The BSA may once have been a way to combat piracy'it has evolved into a monstrosity. Microsoft, Adobe and the other companies should terminate their relationships with it and start over.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  107. Re: definition of "pirated" by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

    They go farther. If you buy a used computer with Windows already installed and don't pay anything to Microsoft they classify you as a pirate even though that is entirely legal under US copyright law.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  108. Re:I don't buy it by noundi · · Score: 1

    Stealing is actually great for the economy... think about it.

    I understand your point, but let's move aside from the bullshitters (RIAA, MPAA etc.) rhetorics and ask the real question: is copying good for the economy? But let's elaborate and ask an even more important question, is copying good for humanity?

    --
    I am the lawn!
  109. Re:I have 0% also by DevConcepts · · Score: 1

    You paid for all that stuff - it was included in the price of your computer.

    Hmmmm......
    Added up the "cost" of the software above....(Might want to look closer at what software was)
    Was more then 20X the cost of the current rig...
    Still more than the cost of my rigs since 2005...

  110. true believers in 2003 by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    Wow, that presentation is superb.

    There's all kinds of good stuff in that one. It's especially interesting when you see that M$ started its jihad (yes, the movement leadership's own words) back in the 1990's. It sure looks like a political / ideological / religious movement that uses illegal means to push its agenda and at the cost of billions of dollars of damage. Isn't DHS suppose to be protecting us from people like that?

    MS-CC-RN 000001089959
    HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    MGB 2003
    7/7/2005 10:52 AM

    Assume Linux is in your account Someone is doing some research

    Find and Lean on your insider friend, 'the fox' Having a trusted MSfriend in the account is critical. Some people (unix Bigots) can think of lots of reasons not to have a MS solution. MS folks may not be the strongest voice but they are true believers (Protect them, make them look good)

    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09346.pdf

    We've all seen these saboteurs in action.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  111. Not necessarily by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    So it is hurting the industry, but not as much as the industry claims.

    No, or at least not necessarily. This 1 lost album per 2500 (or 5000) downloads must be offset against another widely documented statistic, namely the number of sales filesharing actually results in that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It has been widely documented, in numerous studies, that fileshares buy considerably more music than the rest of us (who don't give a shit about the current trendy **AA artists or the--mostly tripe and agonizing to listen to--music they promote).

    If you've got 10 sales being generated by the same filesharing habits that are costing the industry 1 sale, that's a net result of +9 sales for the industry, in which case filesharing is not only not hurting the industry, it's the only thing keeping it on life support.

    Which is saying a lot, as it has been years since the recording industry has produced anything worth buying.

    As an aside, all of my music is legal, owned on CD and ripped for my personal use on my mp3/ogg player. I don't share, upload, or download music. I listen to the radio, online streaming stations, and my CD collection (via one level of indirection, as ogg/vorbis files on my digital playback media). That said, I haven't bought a CD in at least 5 years, because, quite frankly, I haven't heard anything remotely worth paying for. This is not the fault of filesharers or non-sharing fans like myself. It is the fault of a moribund industry that has taken "safe" (read: vapid, lame, and uninteresting) music over innovative music and crammed it down our unwilling throats for at least two decades, arguably longer. They've grown used to stripping the authenticity and soul from our culture and selling us the remaining dregs at a 1000% markup, and we've grown tired of consuming it. Thus we've stopped buying their crap, and they are dying.

    Or at leat most of us have. Apparantly a few fileshares remain enthusiastic about this tripe and buy some of their music, keeping the dinasaurs alive for perhaps another generation. This won't change no matter what they do to digital media, the internet, or so-called pirates. It will only change when the industry reforms itself, or, even better, dies. Already decent indie artists are coming to the fore through alternative channels (internet radio, online sharing, etc.) ... the sooner the old school industry dies, X-Factor and American Idol are replaced with some decent sci-fi (OK, I'm dreaming, I know...), the better off we'll all be.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  112. Re:They aren't patented here by Cyner · · Score: 1
    Where the WTO Applies: Use of IP

    Where the law of a Member allows for other use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder ... or in cases of public non-commercial use

    --
    FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
  113. Re:From BSA Figures: Most Piracy Is Not Filesharin by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    Or it might make a sizable segment of the user base irate enough to organize legal resistance, obtain and use alternative software where possible, and generally make the BSA's existence hell. See: RIAA.

    I know that these suited thugs don't really understand good PR, but bankrupting an individual over a pirated copy of Windows or two is like clubbing baby seals on TV. I doesn't matter if you are entitled to or not. It still looks bad and pisses off people who didn't care before.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  114. Eh? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Don't underestimate this ant! I can hurt you a lot. >:)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  115. Re:It's true by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    Shut up and pass the rum.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  116. I did my own survey of desktops at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I did my own survey of desktops at work., and I found that 87% of the software installed was procured from a convicted monopolist at price that reflects a clear lack of competition in the marketplace. Is it any wonder that non-business customers are happier to buy a copy from a slightly dodgy man in the street, or to copy from a friend, rather than pay an origanised criminal 'software mafia' for it?

  117. The BSA are just one of MS's shills by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

    What would you expect the MS official line to say? They need people to be suckered into paying for 3rd rate software, not getting it free of charge, so they use the same old lines about it containing malware, supporting terrorism etc. Like any upstanding corporate crooks, they will pull figures from thin air to support their agenda and exagerate whenever possible. Their role is to pressure governments into giving their backers even more legally backed powers to shaft consumers and will use whatever sob stories (fact or fiction) to get that. When you see a story from BSA you may as well read that as a story direct from MS themselves.

  118. What makes up the 41% by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    I am wondering if the BSA's 41% is made up of software like OpenOffice.org, or VLS, or SAMBA, that they would claim contain there client's precious "IP".

    You just never know with the BSA or **AA.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  119. This is a crock.. by Tangential · · Score: 1

    I have 7 systems. 3 are linux, 3 are macs and 1 is an old w2k box I turn on occasionally. There is no pirated software on any of them. This is pretty clearly the BSA (a M$ flunky) positioning itself to be given even more power by the government.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  120. Re:They aren't patented here by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1
    According to the USPTO at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/#patent

    The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

    So, yes, the patent owner *can* exclude you from making his invention, but it's up to the inventor to excude you and the USPTO isn't going to help him.

    Most large companies will just ignore the patents of a small inventor and wait to be sued. Most people can use the same technique. Unless you are selling the invention, it's unlikely the inventor will ever find you.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  121. On my computer there is 0% pirated software... by Hymer · · Score: 1

    ...I'm using Linux, OpenOffice, gimp, Inkscape...
    ...and my favorite game is OpenTTD (and yes I've got an original, legal copy of TTD).

  122. The bigger picture by AnalPerfume · · Score: 1

    The BSA are a lobby group for Microsoft. They act in the interests of Microsoft. A major cash cow for Microsoft's Windows is that you really have to try hard to find any new PC without Windows already pre-installed. Microsoft know that average people don't know how to change that, and that they often sticj with what is pre-installed until it screws up badly enough that they go buy a new PC with the same flaws. They try to ensure that the customer never thinks there is any choice, that all PC's need Windows, when many other alternatives exist. They exploit people's ignorance.

    A key part of laws allowing this is the BSA / MS line that "if PCs are sold without Windows already on it, people would install stolen copies of Windows on it". This assumes they are the peoples choice, rather than the default that people can't avoid. The idea is flawed.

    People who are so desperate to use a version of Windows without paying for it, and have the skills to install an operating system (it's not hard but it does involve a little more technical knowledge than the average user possesses) will do so regardless of what OS comes pre-installed when they buy their PC. If all they could buy was Ubuntu and they couldn't live without their Photoshop etc they would wipe Ubuntu and put Windows on. If all they could buy was Vista and they wanted a more stable Windows they'd wipe it and install XP.

    Microsoft use these lobbying proxies to build pressure, compile favorable studies etc all pushing lawmakers to enshrine their practices, and protect against actually having to compete for customers. Using the emotional linkage to stuff most of us accept is wrong like terrorism, drug smuggling, arms smuggling, people smuggling, counterfeit gangs, prostitution etc they seek to blind us with emotional reactions rather than see the real picture going on.

    The whole proprietary model with hype making products the accepted product leader leads directly to illegal copies of software being sought after and installed by people who either can't afford the official prices, or refuse to see them as value for money for what they're getting. When companies "sell" software that's actually not a sale, it's a license to run a copy of that software under strict instructions, it's a deception right from the start. Microsoft have never "sold" a single piece of software in their entire history, yet they still claim to be the best selling OS and Office suite. Again this is exploiting people's ignorance.

    Remember the BSA's audience is lawmakers and Microsoft's corporate partners, not end users.

  123. It's Pretty Obvious Why by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

    It's pretty obvious why such a high percentage of apps are pirated. First and foremost, there's the price. The price is set for businesses, not people. Photoshop runs $700. Dreamweaver costs $400. You could get a used car for that much. That's a mortgage payment or a new appliance like a refrigerator or a new stove. Do they really think people are going to want to shell out that kind of money for a non-physical item that lets them be creative with imagery and web sites? The proper price should be more in the range of $50-$75, and that should buy access for an entire household.

    Which brings me to the next point - if you buy software, it should be usable by the entire household. The license should let you install it on every computer in the house and be used by all the kids. What if your refrigerator had a license attached to it that said only one person in a household could use it?

    And finally add to that the fact that your software effective expires unless you pay $200-$300 a year to keep it updated. I'd be fine with the copy of Photoshop I bought 6 years ago, except that it no longer runs. Since then Apple has updated its operating system and its processor. Unless I stay with the same computer and OS I have 6 years ago, the software is effectively gone.

    So how many people are willing to pay an extremely high price for a piece of software that you can't share with your family, has a high annual upgrade fee, becomes unusable in a year or two without paying, and has almost no resale value?

  124. What do they define as "Pirated?" by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    They say people have 41% software as "pirated" and people are getting it from "auction sites."

    How much you wanna bet they are counting used software as "pirated?"

    Somebody previously owned that legitimate copy of Windows 2000 that you bought on ebay? Pirate!

  125. Re:BSA invents statistics - higher ethics? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    I have to crack most of my legally bought games just so that I can play them in Wine xD But I found out that most pirated games are more or less rips and do not work in Wine so I went out to buy games so that I could play it when they supported the legal version of the game and the cracked versions at the same time :')

    --
    Here be signatures
  126. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    What is with search indexers anyway. I swear i have scanned folders i knew had particular files and xp search did not find it, while i went in a opened the file myself seconds latter. the indexing takes hours and hours and searching is also very slow. Personally i use a free substitute "agent ransack" It does not index, is multiple times faster then xp search, and always finds stuff you are looking for.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  127. As a mixed user by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly sure than none of my software on my PC is illegitimate either. I do, however, have a lot of software that is installed from a download,for two reasons:
    a) The download tends to have less crap attached
    b) It doesn't require CD/DVD-swapping, so I can leave the original in a safe place after I get the CD-key from my box
    c) Sometimes I order a game/etc, and - being in a slightly remote location - it can take quite awhile to arrive, so I download while waiting for the box to arrive

    As I have already bought and paid for a fully legit copy of the software, I have no problem doing this, and the BSA can go shove it up their backside after counting my boxes of original discs/licenses/etc
    For normal users, usually the most commonly copied software I saw was office, mainly because MS creamed the competition so there wasn't a decently compatible alternative. Nowadays I have seen OO replacing the pirated copies, and recommend it when I still run across others.

  128. Oh FFS!!! by M-RES · · Score: 1

    Oh ffs! RIAA, MPAA, BPI, PRS, AFACT, IFPI and now BSA.

    Just how many more people are going to jump on this bandwagon of 'teh evil interwebz are killing my business'?

    Software piracy is NOT a new thing, nor has P2P particularly changed things - how many people do you know who bought a WinPC from some small backstreet shop with Win95/98/2K/XP pre-installed along with a copy of Office. And they didn't have to pay for the software, they just assumed a PC always came with that stuff on it!? And that's just people using pirated software without even knowing it's pirated. Most small businesses can't possibly afford a multi-user license for half of the software they use, and I know most will buy a copy to be 'legit' and then install it on multiple machines for starters.

    1. Re:Oh FFS!!! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Jump on? JUMP ON???

      The BSA has been pumping this bullshit for decades--longer than the RIAA has been complaining.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  129. Insufficient Information by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

    One thing missing from the article is the percentage of personal computers with pirated software. Saying that 41% of software on personal computers is pirated is rather meaningless without knowing the percentage of personal computers using pirated software. If you are willing to use pirated software, odds are you will not likely stop at just one program. Why not have lots? It doesn't cost more to pirate a dozen programs than to pirate one.

    It's entirely possible that one or two percent of computer owners account for a very large percentage of pirated software.

    Between myself, my family, and my friends, I can think of only one person who might wittingly have pirated software on his computer. Either I belong to a very atypical group, or the number of people with pirated software constitutes a relatively small percentage of computer owners.

    I'd also be interested in knowing how they arrived at their conclusion of 41%. I don't know too many people who would allow the BSA to look at their computers especially if they knew that they had pirated software on their computer (I do know many people, myself included, who would happily suggest other things for the BSA to look at).

    --
    linquendum tondere
  130. Go hunt! by danme · · Score: 1

    So go hunt in China and other parts of eastern Asia then! Do not hunt in the western world!

  131. Actually, they *might* be correct with their #'s by cyberblade · · Score: 1

    As much as I hate to say this, (and not having read TFA) they might be very close with their numbers if (and this is a big if) they're looking at worldwide usage, and not just first world utilization.

    Having lived in South America, Africa and Asia (currently residing in the US) I can say that without a doubt that the majority of software (probably around 90% in my opinion) in most of those regions is pirated. I've had to fight, tooth and nail to get my employers to even consider licensing software when needed, that is, when a free alternative wouldn't work.

    The main reason for this is simply cost... Take the Philippines for example (because I've lived there more recently)-for a person with a "average" job, above the poverty line (which many people aren't) they'll take home about $300US a month. A legal copy of Windows Vista Home Basic costs $100US ( http://www.villman.com/Category/Software - that's a well known computer store there). A "pirated" version costs at the most $2US, whatever version you want. If you compare that to the person who makes $12US an hour, and takes home $20kUS a year that would be the equivalent of paying around $500US for your copy of Windows. Never mind buying MS Office, or Photoshop. Even if you disregard home use, of all the businesses, schools, internet cafe's, etc. that I've seen I'd still say that over 90% used pirated software-they would likely go under otherwise, as the cost is exorbitant for their market. The only other option besides "piracy" is free software, but that's an entirely separate struggle.

  132. Average USA wage is ~$20/hr before taxes by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    That's from the Social Security website, and the data is for 2007, so just a couple of months before the economy went into the shitter. Yes, you're in pretty rarified territory if you're making 80/hr (or 120/hr). I happen to bill between 115-130/hr, but I take home $33/hr before taxes. The rest is administrative, overhead, and everyone else who seems to get a little bit of my money before it finally gets to me. Now, that $33/hr doesn't include the profit I take out (which may be as high as my salary in very good years) - but that's also partly the result of many years building my client base, time that I didn't get any profit, and some years when I took nearly zero salary, too.

    I agree that the average person, when looking at two weeks (or more) of their total wages to purchase Photoshop/CS4 is going to be highly motivated to procure a cheaper copy. The fact that it's sold at that rate "for people who use it for a living" and they're only going to use it for "personal use" bolsters the moral case they make to themselves. Yes, Elements exists...but why should an individual have less features when messing with little Johnny's soccer pics? Might as well download the whole thing and not have to worry about not having that one thing that only the full CS4 has that you "need."

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  133. 41%, huh? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I wonder what their sample demographic was.

    I honestly don't remember the last time I pirated any software. I suppose running Linux since 2001 helps. I can't exactly say I've been FOSS-only since I still use Adobe Flash and the proprietary nVidia graphics drivers, but in general if I can't apt-get, yum, untar or most importantly /share/ it, I won't take it.

    Some software such as libdvdcss has dodgy legal status thanks to arcane laws, but that's definitely not pirated software by any definition.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  134. Re:I have 0% also by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    Getting the Windows tax taken off the price of a machine is often an exercise in futility. I tried to buy a Dell laptop without an OS two years ago. The sales person (a man named Michael or somesuch with a horrendously thick Indian accent) simply couldn't understand why on earth I'd want a laptop without an operating system. Eventually he just started repeating "sorry, we can't sell you a laptop without an operating system."

    I had wasted enough time already, so I finally asked for the cheapest version (XP Home) and wiped it out myself. I suppose I could have gone to MS about it, but they'd probably waste more of my time than it would be worth.

    But no, your parent post certainly didn't pay for Office 2007 Pro, VS 2005 and 2008 Standard, MSSQL 2005 and 2008 Standard, and so on, simply by buying a computer, unless he specifically selected those for inclusion with the purchase (and I don't know any retailers that offer VS bundled with a machine like that).

    I think he mistakenly forgot to enclose the first sentence of his post in a quote tag.... read that way, it makes a lot more sense.

  135. Legal piracy by ternarybit · · Score: 1

    Years ago I purchased a retail box XP Pro from the MS company store. Over the course of moves I lost the original key, so I downloaded the corporate/cracked ISO. Now I don't have to re-activate every time I feel like trying the latest Ubuntu (which I've subsequently switched over to, incidentally).

    Similarly I "pirate" the computer games I've purchased, since they come with DRM-free executables. I know I purchased them and did not resell them, so I have no problem "illegally downloading" myself a replacement copy if I lose or damage my install media.

  136. Re:The BSA thinks... by rdebath · · Score: 1

    I can't be bothered to look at the moment but there have been reports of companies being accused because they couldn't produce an invoice for Openoffice. Messing with statistics is even easier to beleive.

  137. Slashdot is a U.S. site by tepples · · Score: 1

    (Specious, applicable only in the USA)

    That's what I said: "In the BSA's home territory". Slashdot is also operated from the United States.

    Download it from a non-US server.

    It's still illegal to use unless I move out of the USA, and that's cost prohibitive.

  138. Re:The BSA thinks... by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Gah, I wonder if Sun would give anyone who downloads OpenOffice.Org a PDF of an invoice they can print out that says sales price is $0 or something. Just to get the accountants and BSA off of their backs.

    Maybe this is why corporations won't use FOSS software, they have no purchase invoice to show accounting or pass a BSA pirate software check.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  139. Re:I have 0% also by DevConcepts · · Score: 1

    Actually I didn't forget the quotes as the software is neither pirated or paid for (Unless you count a few hours time for each title), but maybe I should have worded the first line different.

    Launch events is where you get the MS stuff for free.

  140. Re:I have 0% also by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    Ah, well that makes sense too :)

    I'm starting to wish I had signed up to host a Win7 launch party... I'm using Win7 RC1, which I chose specifically so I didn't have to pay for Windows while still being able to play games, but I'm still not sure what I'm going to do when they disable the RC. Maybe I'll see if this guy I know (who happens to be an MS employee) can get me a cheap copy... ... or maybe I'll get my games to work under Wine. We'll see how much patience I have.

  141. Only 42? by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

    I used to run the skunk works for an office, testing software that the boss was too cheap to buy. Sometimes a decent demo wasn't available, or waiting for a sales droid to get back to me, so this meant some warez, and a few password crackers. I told my supervisor once if the softeware police show up he should toss an incendiary in my office and pull the door shut, the fire would be cheaper.

    --
    They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  142. what is the purpose by anonymous9991 · · Score: 1

    So what if the number is 1%,41%,99%, just what does BSA intend this data to do?

  143. BSA ... answer this question ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... what OS has the lowest rate of piracy?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  144. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    1. Is simply not true. Adware and spyware are common in commercial software.
    3. If you *have* paid for it, it could be infected. That's why you scan everything.

    That would explain why the documentation for most commercial programs say to turn off antivirus software before installing...

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  145. i dont see it by luther349 · · Score: 1

    unless there counting stuff like mp3s movies etc theirs no way the number can be that high. apps wise everything has gone free in some form. if your willing to look i guess. i dont have pirate softwhere on my machine anymore i dont need to any app i need has a free version. in some cases the free ones work better and use less system power to work the the paid version nero burning rom vs imgburn for example. or avast antivires vs anything paid. they have to be looking at games etc and not apps.

  146. from the summary... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    ...harming the economy? Come ON, that is the ONLY reason the BSA are bleating out this crap, it's hurting THEM!

    I run "pirated" software, by which I mean anonymously downloaded Linux software, which is not registered* nor did I pay for it beyond the cost of the bandwidth and the Datawrite DVD I used to burn it.

    *By the way, you lot should keep in mind that by registering *anything* you are signing over the title to that thing - your car: you register it, you get back a V5 registration document that entitles you to drive that vehicle. You register a baby, you sign over the rights of that legal personality to the local authority and ultimately to a subcontractor of the Government known as the Central Registry. You get to look after that baby until such time as CPS deems that you are not doing it according to their unwritten prescription of bringing up a good zombie - er, I mean, citizen. Then they take it and you have NO RECOURSE IN CIVIL LAW BECAUSE YOU SIGNED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, also known as a CONTRACT. You don't get to see the terms of that CONTRACT because they do not WANT you to; if you DID, you wouldn't, being of sound mind, sign it! You register a piece of software, you NO LONGER OWN IT OR ANY HARDWARE IT IS INSTALLED ON OR ANY DATA YOU CREATE WITH IT. READ THE EULA, PEOPLE! IT IS WHAT IT IS THERE FOR!

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  147. Re:differance is that i have a gun and bat by dasherk · · Score: 1

    your using something that cost time and effort, to create a work, that you are enjoying. don't dilute yourself by thinking that just because you aren't profiting from a given work, that you are not stealing and cheapening the hard work of someone else. don't get me wrong, i hate the RIAA and all else who act like them. but we shouldn't stoop to their levels and steal, steal-alike.

  148. Re:Because malware never comes with legal software by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

    This article is BS.

    No it's BSA. *whack* *ow* redundantbat, not again

  149. If all those big companies joined forces.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... I am sure they could pay for the development of an application that could cover their needs.

    It is simply that company bosses are unimaginative and care only about their bonuses, not about technological progress or what is best for their firm.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  150. Re:They aren't patented here by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    So, so much great software is published by people in this country yet, we are third world because we want to protect it from infringement?

    Pretty much. It's quite common for developing nations to be heavily dependent on a single industry - the classic example is the 'banana republic'. Naturally such nations impose all kinds of laws protecting this industry. As they develop and join the developed nations, they tend to approach more closely to the free market and open up their industries to competition.

    In America's case, the vital industry being protected is that of music, movies, microcode and high-speed pizza delivery. Software patents are America's attempt to protect a small number of local corporations from competition.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  151. All I know is I hardly ever buy music anymore. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    All I know is I hardly ever buy music anymore. I don't have to. I don't even have to resort to risky P2P schemes to get it. It's all available for free on YouTube, and there are plenty of web sites out there that will rip YouTube audio to an MP3 file for you. Oh the quality may not always be great, but it's good enough for me.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  152. Piracy = Gained sales quite often by Pechkin000 · · Score: 1

    I WAS one of those RAGING pirates in my teens and early twenties. I had 100's of thousands of dollars of pirated software stored and used on my computer. Interesting thing happened, as I played and learned much of that software, once I started working professionally, I got my company to purchase much of the stuff I was pirating at home while learning and playing with it - from upgrading their outdated office suite to purchasing Adobe Master Collection and so forth. So the way I see it, my illegal downloads were actually GAINED sales by the software industry If it wasn't for me pushing the company to get software I needed to do the job they hired me for, which I would have never gotten in a first place if I didn't spend years pirating and learning the aforementioned software they would have never spent thousands of dollars (and continue doing so) on new software now.