Slashdot Mirror
BSA 2010 Piracy Report: $58.8 Billion
Glyn Moody writes "The annual BSA report on software piracy is out, with even bigger numbers: 'The commercial value of software piracy grew 14 percent globally last year to a record total of $58.8 billion.' Yes, they're using the old 'commercial value' trick: 'The commercial value of pirated software is the value of unlicensed software installed in a given year, as if it had been sold in the market.' Except, of course, that the main reason users in developing countries — the main focus of the report — resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing. It's also fun to see the BSA trotting out the old 'reducing piracy would generate lots of new jobs and taxes for local governments' — except that it doesn't, because the money not paid for software licences does not disappear, but is just spent elsewhere in the local economy."
Getting rid of the BSA would do wonders for local economies around the globe. If we didn't have this grandstanding of false piracy people could get on with their lives instead of watching as government lobbied by the BSA bends over for them and does their bidding, going directly against the desires of their constituents.
Man, I am WAY behind. Everyone needs to pitch in and do their part.
...and it becomes truth, especially when you use the media to squelch the real truth.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If everyone starts downloading ten times as much software as they can use, we'll have bankrupted the entire industry in a year!
Good to see the old Broken Window Fallacy is still alive and well.
resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing.
So that legitimizes taking someone else's work and not compensating them for it, right? Because the world runs on dreams and kindness and everything should just be given away.
Guess what, someone, usually dozens or hundreds of people, worked to produce the software and they want to be paid for their work. Just because you don't think the price is justified doesn't entitle you to take their work and not compensate them.
And yes, I'm using the word entitled because that is the overwhelming opinion on this site and others that people are somehow entitled to take something which isn't theirs and not have to pay a dime for it.
Maybe you think it's funny or sticking it to the man, but you wouldn't be laughing if it was your stuff being taken and you didn't get paid for it.
And don't bother bringing up how software isn't "real" goods or services. That the cost to produce it is negligible. There are still ongoing costs associated with producing and distributing the software, even via downloads. Or do you think the servers are running on puppy farts?
While the BSA numbers are certainly overstated, the fact remains people are stealing someone else's work and trying to justify that theft by claiming, "But they live in a poor country and can't afford it so it's ok to steal" is bullshit.
You want to code and give your stuff away, that's fine. It's your stuff. Don't try claiming what you think should be done with your stuff applies to someone else's stuff.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Stealing software is ok by most peoples account. How would you feel if you spent 3 years writing a software so that you could feed your family and 2 weeks after you release it some one starts giving it away for free ? What you dont understand ? Ok so you spend 3 years building your house and buy all the applicances. 2 weeks after your done someone moves in and says no this is now my house and I am not paying you for all the work you have done.
A lot of the copying of commercial software is done by people who can't afford it. You'll get students that want to play with 3DSMax or something but can't really swing the $3,500 asking price so they'll download it. That is NOT a lost sale, if it was impossible to copy, they'd simply do without because they haven't the money.
I'm not saying that copying doesn't result in some lost revenue. I'm quite sure that there are sales that would be made if copying was impossible, but aren't because it is. However it is not 100% of copied software, not even close.
I'd imagine the more expensive the software in question, the lower the loss overall. For a $1 phone app, sure I can believe that a significant number of people would buy it, if copying it wasn't possible. For a multi-thousand dollar software package? I bet it is extremely low. The places that can afford it don't mind and want to be legit, the people that copy can't afford it period.
This BS inflated figures don't help anyone, particularly because I think people are starting to wise up. They are realizing that if the numbers really were as big as the anti-piracy orgs want to claim, it would be a real problem.
FTFA
1) Determine how much PC software was deployed during the year.
2) Determine how much was paid for or otherwise legally acquired during the year.
3) Subtract one from the other to get the amount of unlicensed software.
Who hear makes and sells software and or hardware?
Did they ask you?
The truth is that most people just don't want to pay for the products. People will spend $$$ on hardware, such as I-Pad, I-Pod, tablets, cell phones, game stations only because they can't steal it and get it for free. If these devices were as easy to steal the sales would drop along with revenue.
The truth is that people rationalize their own excuses for theft by blaming "the other person", who for various reasons is justified. Therefore, I won't feel bad when I steal.
As for creating jobs and bringing in tax revenues, look at it from the opposite view that the lose of jobs and lose of tax revenues from the lack of sales of the products because of theft would be lessened. As for the amount, we'll always disagree. Those that are thieves will cry the loudest as they are so angered at being called out.
The pain and anger that that they feel in their heart is the difference between the truth, and what they want the truth to be.
I got my anti-piracy merit badge....
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
I'd like to see Ballmer's previous threats to crank WGA and OGA to 11.
I'd love to see DRM schemes that turn computers with illegitimate copies of software into smoking heaps.
It'll never happen, though. Copyright infringement is too important to the industry incumbents to actually stop it. File sharing locks out alternatives, both commercial and free. Why pay for an alternative when you can crack the market leader for free? If the world suddenly discovered there was software besides Windows, Microsoft Office, Autocad, and Photoshop, there would be more competition.
Ending piracy would end much of the market distortion that favors the incumbents at the expense of the rest.
Do it, guys, if you have any balls.
--
BMO
Bastiat himself, apply the parable of the broken window in a different way. Suppose it was discovered that the little boy was actually hired by the glazier, and paid a franc for every window he broke. Suddenly the same act would be regarded as theft: the glazier was breaking windows in order to force people to hire his services. Yet the facts observed by the onlookers remain true: the glazier benefits from the business at the expense of the baker, the cobbler, and so on. Bastiat argues that people actually do endorse activities which are morally equivalent to the glazier hiring a boy to break windows for him: Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end—To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit." What will you say, Moniteur Industriel[5]—what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?
You'll get students that want to play with 3DSMax or something but can't really swing the $3,500 asking price so they'll download it. That is NOT a lost sale, if it was impossible to copy, they'd simply do without because they haven't the money.
Students can get student discounts - especially if their area of education actually deals with e.g. 3D content production.
But more importantly - every time somebody downloads 3ds Max "to play with", that means they may -not- be downloading, for example, Blender to play with. Or any other free or cheap 3D graphics application.
I wish people who 'defend', or rather 'excuse', so-called pirates using whatever argument they come up with this time would use that energy to instead promote other, affordable, solutions.. as the companies/people behind those solutions are ultimately who get hurt by piracy more than the companies behind the major multi-thousand dollar pirated product.
A few years back, when last I looked, the BSAA (local Australian tentacle/surrogate of the BSA) were treating each PC sold as representing a certain quantity of licensed software that would be in use. They then compared this with some software license sales figures (the accuracy of which is another question), and if there were more deemed licenses in use through new PC sales than there were actual license sales, (guess what! there were!!) then that was their damning evidence that teh piratez were stealing Christmas.
This meant that some 40 staff desktops and 120 teaching laboratory computers at my workplace (a university CS department) which were bought with no OS license and installed with Debian, actually contributed to the BSAA's frothy-mouthed argument that rampant piracy was costing Australia many quality local jobs employing drones to process purchases of software produced overseas by US companies... that incidentally booked most of their profits via subsidiaries based in Ireland, thanks to its low low rate of corporate tax at that time.
So there you have it:
- I am a pirate
- my work was full of piracy
- you probably are a pirate too
because I/they/you have the temerity to buy machines with no OS to run free operating systems and free applications.
-Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
Hey BSA get THIS though your thick numbskull! Copying software isn't theft unless the thief: (A)would have paid for the software had the copy not been made available to him, or (B)sold the copies on the black market for whatever he could have got for it. In case A: your loss is ZERO if the copier would not have bought your overpriced software had he not gotten the copy. In case B: your loss is only what the illegally copied software was sold for (assuming the buyer would NOT have bought your overpriced software had the bootleg copy not been available). Case B happens mostly in Asia where you are held in the lowest regard.
So suggestion..... If you want to avoid piracy why not accept ALL offers made by would be copiers to buy your overpriced software for what THEY feel it is worth to THEM. Isn't it better to get a reduced price for your software than NOTHING? If anyone does make you such an offer they should get the same service/support from you that they would if they copy the software (IE: NONE) since that is the perceived value of overpaying for software.
I'll just copy some illegal software a million times and I will be known as the worst thief on the planet!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
That $1000 is a stand in for work. In an economy full of theft you have high unemployment. Or high underemployment. Instead of $1000 you earned writing software for your local market you have $5 selling imported shoes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
we should all be thanking the scientists that use Linux for supercomputing... can you simply imagine what weather forecasts Windows or the BSA would give instead?
- "ten meters of snow in Spain"
- polar bears are depleting the fish in the ocean
- and so on...
I hear what poster says about counting the number of unlicensed installs, I just don't know how BSA might think they are counting them.
There is absolutely no corollation between software piracy and jobs. While lesser minds will easily be fooled into this argument, those who are more intelligent will see right through this. In fact, software piracy and jobs are totally unrelated which makes this "study" laughable. If anything, by vigorously enforcing copyright and licensing, there will be fewer copies of said software to support meaning fewer jobs for skilled technicians. This basically takes the BSA argument and nullifies it. As an open source advocate, I do not condone software piracy at all but these efforts to fight it are largely misguided and the dues that the software industry pays the BSA would be better spent elsewhere. An entire industry has grown up around software piracy so as much as they preach against it, the lawyers that specialize in this kind of thing depend upon it for their livelihood. This is what makes the BSA so absolutely absurd. We are seeing another rehash of the sue for windfall profits and hide behind a non-profit organizational umbrella a la RIAA and MPAA. The BSA, RIAA, and MPAA should be required by law to show their corporate incomes and make them publicly available. They are tax-exempt, their lawyers are reaping the benefits, and everyone else suffers under stifled innovation.
Considering that the WWF (World Wildlife Foundation) was able to make the World Wrestling Federation change their name, you'd think that the Boy Scouts of America could do the same to the Business Software Alliance.
A quick check of TESS at uspto.gov shows many other registrations of BSA, but I never see those. (And don't bother to tell me about scoutings, i.e. BSA's, problems. I know all about them, and despite them, scouting is still doing plenty of other good things.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Often people use pirated software for personal use or the occasional tinkering. Many of these will buy a licensed copy if they use it for commercial purposes. These pirated copies contribute to the level of obsequiousness of the software and to what extent a person will advise a licensed copy to his corporation when he has experience with the software on a personal level. Many of these unlicensed copies will be replaced by a lesser capable free software alternative if push comes to shove.
!
BSA an other groups counts every non MS-software as pirate and assume they would have paid MS tax otherwise.
So, MS loses some tax income, big deal. I would say if you are forced to use MS software, it is only justice to be able to avoid the taxes.
First round of colonies gave us resources and free labour to develop our societies and tech.
Second round, the colonies have moved to the IP world which is owned completely by the west due to the advantage from the first round.
While I dont think theres any point backdating morality, things were different during the first looting, theres no excuse for the 2. except might is right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As I understand it, if the BSA sues you, you have to pay for the BSA's legal expenses - whether you are guilty or not.
Is that true? And, if so, how does the BSA get away with that?
That's a relatively new definition, and it shows that the BSA brainwashing is working. Remember, dictionaries don't dictate meaning, they catalog how words are being used.
I'd hate to hear what they think of those of us that take our OS license with us with computer upgrades. I'm still using the same one I got with a purchase back in 2004.
And yet their calculation of how much piracy cost is still inaccurate and arbitrary at best. If Adobe decided that Photoshop should cost $150,000 and I decided to pirate it, it doesn't mean they lost $150,000 in software sales. Simply because I don't even make that much and could never afford the product at that price no matter what.
But what is also missing from the equation is the benefit Adobe gains if I *do* pirate their software. If I am a home user, and I pirate Photoshop, and I learn the software and become quite good with it, and if I land a job doing graphics, my employer will ask what software I want to use. I will more likely say "Photoshop" because that is what I know. Thus, in that instance, they actually got a sale they probably wouldn't have otherwise, because I would have just learned Gimp or some other free graphics editor, and just suggested to use that instead.
Sound impossible? I just described my situation exactly.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Some guy in China, who makes $100 per year, pirated our $500 piece of software. We LOST $500!
>>>stealing - to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
I disagree with this definition. You have a right to create, but you don't have a natural right to get credit/acknowledgement for the idea. "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." - Jefferson
While some societies see the benefit of giving a *temporary* monopoly to authors and inventors (or corporations named Microsoft), other societies have no such restriction, and they appear to be just as innovative, successful, and vibrant as the United States. (examples: China, India, Russia)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
half the time a product is so expensive that you need to try it out and most the time the trial version is so locked down that you have to pirate a copy just to get a full understanding of how the software works and see if its worth saveing up and dropping the cash for the newer version that has updates and bug fixes...
If you make the laws you decide what illegal 'piracy' is. These third world countries are only pirating if it is illegal to copy the software in their country because US copyright and trade laws don't apply in other countries any more than their laws apply here. At some point one of these governments is going to realize that they can simply nationalize software just like they nationalize oil companies and collect all the cash themselves. It is only a desire to maintain good relations with the US that could prevent that.
What they forget, a little bullshit fertilizes...too much will burn the roots and kill the plant. People see though the FUD these guys try to pawn off as fact. When will they get it through their small deformed heads w/ extra thick skulls to their walnut sized brains that the distribution paradigm they use is flawed. BSA associated companies DEMAND the customer make payment before obtaining a copy of the product, supposedly without ever knowing if the product will do what it is supposed to do, or the customer even knowing if it fit for the customers application of the product. Then on top of that, the customer is unable to return the product once the package seals are broken. Who in their right mind will pay a couple hundred dollars for software they have not tried before and supposedly can not return once they open the package. There are software shops that expect to rake in thousands per package for their product. Frigging insane. And they wonder why people used pirated software!!!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Comment removed based on user account deletion
'One of the definitions of stealing'
That may be true of the definition that appears on dictionary.com... however it's easy to find higher quality dictionaries that have slightly different definitions when it comes to ideas/credit/words and they generally go along the lines of the one from oxforddictionaries.com (a lightweight version of the OED):
dishonestly pass off (another person‘s ideas) as one’s own
Note the notion of plagierism for it to become stealing, so no, acquiring software without permission of the author is not stealing as it is not being represented as one's own product. It *is* copyright violation at worst.
It would appear that the *AA and BSA types have been trying to rewrite the dictionary to their ends when they know that most people will be lazy enough to go for dictionary.com and assume it's a definative resource... tricky buggers.
Don't licensing revenues go to offshore tax havens like Ireland anyway?
Some people do indeed steal it. But unless we're talking games and "entertainment" software, they learn how to use it. And when they get hired, at their new workplace they will insist on using the product they are comfortable with. Think of you needing to become a Catia engineer/designer. I don't know how much that software must cost, probably a lot, many thousands anyway. Would you have the enough coin to buy it ? Maybe not. So you somehow steal it, learn it, practice, and then write on your CV that you know it. Now you have some chance of getting hired.
I am not a Catia user - I do programming for a living. But I have a friend who found job this way. So I agree with it as long as it's helping people. Has my friend any benefit in this ? Of course - now he has a well paying, stable job. Has the industry any benefit in this ? Yes. Now the society is richer by one quality mechanical engineer instead of, say, un unemployed person staying home and watching mid-day sitcoms. Has the Catia producer any benefit ? Probably yes - if there were very few people knowledgeable in their product on the market, their sales would have been so much lower. Now you'll say that my example involves a very expensive and specialized software. True. So what about more common software ? Well... For many years Microsoft was not extremely happy with people stealing their software, but they were not very active in discouraging it either. Do you really think that they were not able to find a way to make stealing more of a hassle for the average users ? To make stealing much more difficult, requiring a lot more knowledge from the users, and thus minimizing the number of pirates ? I am sure that they assumed, wisely, I think, that the people who steal it would probably not buy that software anyway, but by stealing it they become good in using that software, and they will demand it once in the workplace. Accepting some level of pirating is a way to increase your marketshare and brandname as long as the money you're cashing in from the paying customers is paying your day-to-day bills.
Would the people in the developing countries pay for that software ? Most probably not. Try to justify paying, say, 4000$ for Autocad in a country where 3000$ is a good 10 months salary. So from Autodesk's perspective, there is no lost sale here. But by stealing it, these people create a market and, in the future, they will (might) probably buy it, at least in institutional settings. Do you really think that Visual Studio, at 8000$ for the Premium Edition, is an acceptable price in a country where this money could buy you a house ?
What I'm saying is that indeed some companies price their wares out of most markets. And even in the rich countries some of this software is quite expensive. I certainly do not agree with stealing (I am a professional programmer myself, remember !), but stealing is not ALWAYS bad. In some cases, it even creates future opportunities. And in many cases it does not translate in a lost sale. Stealing is morally wrong, for sure, but from an economic standpoint, things are much more shade-of-gray - whereas TFA presents it in a BW oversimplification.
Can anyone afford Western-style pricing? Without my student discount I am fairly certain I would own no software.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
News at 11.
What is news, is the fact that governments use this as an excuse to accept bribes from industry and try to justify laws using those ridiculous numbers.
What does the Boy Scouts of America have to do with piracy? Sure, we've had some pirate-themed campouts, but still...
Both sides are trying to brainwash the other. We say stealing because it is natural to do so. Imagine two kids in a science class, and one copies the other's project. The first kid wouldn't say "hey, you infringed on my intellectual property!", he'd say "hey, you stole my idea!". It's not seen as offensive as stealing physical property, but it's still through of as stealing. We naturally assign value to our ideas (perhaps amplified by stuff like school and grading, I don't know), and that was put into law as copyrights and patents to stop grown-ups acting like lazy children who don't want to work for anything.
which is totally what she said
One of the definitions of stealing is:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Ah, but as you may notice this definition is invalid if you give acknowledgement. This is about quoting without citation, to take what someone else has produced as your own. Then yes, informally we say "He stole my song."
There is no obfuscation here from the BSA on the simple fact that copyright infringement is a class of theft.
No, you can't take any random definition and conclude it's a legal definition. Otherwise "to steal a kiss" would be a class of theft.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
One of the definitions of appropriatet is:
When you copy software, no matter if you follow a legal route or not, you are doing so without "stealing".
Stealing = substraction.
Copying = Addition (even multiplication).
You see? They are antonyms. You should learn how to use a dictionary or throw away the one which obfuscates you.
Given that most of the world's piracy occurs in the Gulf of Aden, off the Somalian shore, I am sure this news item means that poor and disorganized country is heading towards recovery. I am very happy for it. However, I fail to see what is the relation between the Business Software Alliance and any guild of vessel captains.
Oh, you mean "illegal copying"? Then why did you say "piracy"?
We can argue endlessly on how that number is false, misleading, and so on (e.g. they usually count all non-legally-paid licenses as a loss for 100% of the license value – While in very few cases would the license in question be paid at all if anti-copying schemes worked correctly). However, piracy should just not be confused with illegal copying.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't see how you taking something that does not belong to you is anything but stealing
The air does not belong to me. I breathe, and yet I am not stealing the air. Because in this case it does not belong to anybody, even despite the air being a physical, tangible thing.
As an intanglible thing that ceases to be scarce once first published, information doesn't belong to anybody, either. It cannot be anyone's property, regardless of any fictional legal constructions. There goes all your logic.
In fact, if anything related to IP *is* similar to theft (or, more precisely, robbery), it is copyright itself. Because it infringes on my physical property rights, preventing me from giving a specific shape to my physical property.
Now you can argue that some kinds of theft or robbery, like copyright or taxes, can be beneficial and world is better off with them than without. That is another question altogether and may be a valid argument of ethical nature. But saying that copyright infringement is theft is an intellectual negligence or dishonesty, regardless of your ethical stance.
No he would say, "he copied my paper!" That is the correct word, because it is accurate.
I'm sorry, BSA stands for... BS Association?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not unusual for companies to ask hundreds of dollars for the student version.
Then get a loan for that amount, just as one gets a loan for the rest of one's post-secondary education.
Don't make the mistake of looking at what it does to other people. Look at what you are doing, your actions.
English Translation: Ignore the only thing that matters so I can keep spewing this crap.
I don't own Ubuntu, nor the linux kernel, I use them all the time. I even downloaded it via bittorrent!
Students can get student discounts
So what should someone who wants to learn the software after having graduated do? Go back for a master's degree?
But more importantly - every time somebody downloads 3ds Max "to play with", that means they may -not- be downloading, for example, Blender to play with.
I use Blender. But companies that standardize on Autodesk products and whose human resource departments proceed to ignore candidates' Blender experience when evaluating their portfolios are part of the problem.
The money that I've saved by trying pirated software in the past (I always bought it if I ended up using it. I use Linux, now.) was spent on other things. I therefore helped boost the economy in other sectors, just not the software industry.
The BSA isn't interested in justice, or righting wrongs, all they want to do is generate revenue and notoriety by extorting individuals and businesses into paying their so called "Fines" which are higher if the BSA agrees not to blab about in ways that imply guilt when there is no proof of it.
They sent the company I work for one of their blanket letters they send to everyone or every business in the area making false accusations and threats. They said we were pirating Microsoft Office 97 but we had the licenses I've seen them, but because we didn't have all the receipts from that many years ago - who does? we are presumed guilty of a crime that never took place.
It's common practice in accounting to not keep receipts over seven years or so b/c the tax liability doesn't go back that far. The BSA knows this, and are sending blanket letters to companies and individuals demanding receipts and through threats and intimidation, to get some poor fish on the hook!
I hope they get their asses sued off, but that's not going to happen with the level of power and backing from large corporations that stand to profit from their despicable behavior.
BSA - Started in 1911 in the US has been working with kids and usually not doing to bad a job at it.
And these guys decide they like the acronym.
I have no problem with software piracy for that simple reason!
I'd hate to hear what they think of those of us that take our OS license with us with computer upgrades.
They think you're using your computer insecurely. If you permanently transfer your Windows license to each new PC every two years, it gets two years closer to the announced end of security updates for that version of Windows.
So, if a two classes of 30 students each install each a pirated copy of a SCADA system, estimate sales value $250,000 each, to make their final work at the dorms/home and not in a computer lab, and without "student version" nag, that means the industry has lost $15mln to that school year alone?
Because surely the students would definitely buy the program if they could not pirate it.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Actually the air does belong to you. As much as you can breathe. That is the agreement we have made, everyone has the right to breathe.
Uh oh. I think you made a mistake trying to bring morality into this. Not that I disagree with you. In fact, I do agree with you. But it's becoming more and more apparent that the idea of morals is waxing among today's generations. Especially among those in the online community. The moral compass of the average teen/20-something these days seems to work like Capt. Sparrow's, "Ooh, look. My moral compass points to what I want. So it must be right."
The idea of morality seems to be lumped as something that society deems how we should act, even though morality was in-part brought about by people who stood outside of early societies. And obviously, if society wants us to act a certain way, we must rage and resist and rebel without thought of whether what we're doing is morally right. Because, "Morality? Psh. Keep your moralities to yourself."
You can point your finger and call someone gutless for their baseless and thin justifications, but the simple fact is they don't and won't care. They're not going to take a deep, hard look at themselves in the mirror and question what they're doing. They're not going to make changes to their lives tonight, tomorrow or anytime in any foreseeable future. They feel justified and will continue to do so until they are actually held accountable. Which is not going to happen in an online environment.
some [160 PCs] bought with no OS license and installed with Debian
Each installation of Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, or Fedora can be counted as an infringement because Linux violates U.S. Patent 5,893,120 and foreign counterparts.
The USA spent 3 Trillion on invisible free healthcare. Top That!
I can't see how you taking something that does not belong to you is anything but stealing.
You are completely right. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no question about it. Copying, however, isn't taking. The original remains. Copying is copying.
But in that case, as a home user, you should really buy Photoshop Elements, because it's in the price range and capabilities of a home user. If you fell you need all the feautres of the full CS version, maybe you should cough up the money. If you feel that Elements still isn't worth the price, you should just use a different software package that offers a better price (or is free). There is so much free software out there that I almost wonder why people risk all the viruses and other problems that come along with pirated software (yes not all sources do, but you still have to be quite careful) that I wonder why anybody bothers.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
And yet you can be charged for polluting that air. There are laws about maximum emissions that can come from your car. You are free to breath the air, but you are not free to deny others their right to the same clean air.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"waxing" is the opposite of what you're looking for. It's "waning".
I specifically chose the example of a "project" rather than an essay, ie a practical experiment. "Stealing an idea" doesn't even have to involve copying something exactly, but copying something exactly falls within stealing someone's idea.
which is totally what she said
Haha, I'm sorry but that is funny!
Reality check! The license is intending for you to take it. When we talk about taking things that don't belong to you it does not include things that you are allowed to take.
Yup, unfortunately you are soo right. I have however discovered that there are a number of people who are on the fence and can't quite decide what is right and wrong, and when shown the way, they walk the straight and narrow.
It thought of canceling a few times, but thought oh what the hell, it'll be interesting to see the argument against, it being such a heated subject. And who knows maybe one person will do the right thing as a result.
Exactly, piracy still helps Companies like adobe and autoDesk get market share and build economies around their products. not only that but piracy does actually help create monopolies in this sense, since it makes competitor software even free one obsolete. Then those companies will just use their 90% penetration to put that inflated price tag on their product and even try to justify it.
Not only that but in the country I live in a single license of 3dsmax costs as much as one years salaries of the person who will operate it. And don't even get me started about other countries!
I'm not supporting piracy, I don't like piracy and until now I have usually found an open alternative pretty easily. In fact I'm running my shop on 100% foss, so there you go!
Here's to InkScape!
-- no sig today
Don't make the mistake of looking at what it does to other people.
But that is the whole point of law.
Nevertheless, it is the act of taking something which does not belong to you which makes it theft.
Nothing was taken though. If I make a copy of something, be it a car, brownie, program, song, or whatever, the original is still right where the owner left it. What, exactly, did I take other than the brownie which was too tasty to pass up? Certainly not the idea as the original creator still has that as well.
You can argue that I deprived the original's owner of potential income that he could have requested either in return for my making a copy or for a copy he had made available himself, but in order for that argument to hold water, the original's owner would have had to make an offer that was acceptable and I would have needed to have had the intention to enter into such a deal. Otherwise, there was no potential income and thus it was not lost. There is no right to all mythical potential income. If I make weather rocks and try to sell them for a billion dollars each, I'm not automatically entitled to that money. If you make a copy of one of my weather rocks, you don't owe me a billion dollars.
Oops, you're correct. Thanks for the correction.
I find the arguments interesting, Speed kills and Guns kills. Neither is actually true. Not that I'm promoting speeding. But it is usually incompetence, poor responsibility and stupidity that kills. Governments, having problems with telling the difference, simply apply a simply rule that applies to idiots and professionals alike.
Of course the fact of him speeding (or not) has nothing to do with Your actions. Or are you arguing that since others are doing something that it's all of a sudden OK?
the main reason users in developing countries resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing.
Shit, most westerners can't afford Western-style pricing. That said, the market has already factored piracy into its pricing, otherwise the major software houses would have been out of business long ago. Of course, there are (or have historically been) legitimate means to get steep discounts on software, including buying used software or buying wholesale/OEM copies, but the industry seems bound and determined to convert those paying customers to pirates as well.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If it costs $150k, your employer will probably "ignore" you pirating it, or force you to use something else.
Cheap storage VM.
I'm sorry but that's shifting the significance to a word, away from what is actually occurring. It is theft unless you have the right to do so. Trying to use different words to sort of find a loop hole is silly.
Is it OK, through law or agreement with owner, for you to take it?
You find a diamond on the street. Does it belong to you? Did you drop it? I would go out on a limb and say it probably belongs to someone who's now very distraught over not being able to find it. You think Wow, I found a diamond! Keeping it is very obviously not right, and if caught hanging on to it could easily result in a judgment against you.
That piece of code that you found in someone's server (web or otherwise) does probably not belong to you either. Unless it's there for you to take thanks to maybe a GPL license, it is not OK for you to take. That simple. Making a copy is taking something which is not yours. Really a simple concept but hard if you have an ethics blind spot.
So if we go by what the BSA says then piracy helps the economy by freeing up money to be spent in other areas. Not spending $3435734594 on Photoshop means I can spend more money in my local stores thus aiding my cities economic growth. So the BSA is trying to "steal" money from other companies who provide more concrete services! I believe they should be prosecuted for this. Plus I've always loved how Adobe has been pirated into mainstream speech. You dont say a photo was manipulated digitally, you say it was Photoshopped. Adobe's business plan has always been to do the bare minumum to fight piracy so as to gain the dominant market share because everyone learns to edit media using their stuff, therefore it becomes the first thing a digital artist buys once they go pro.
This is equivalent to saying that for the purposes of breathing, the air does not belong to anybody.
I'm sure you have heard of intellectual property. Amongst others applies to computer code.
No, the point of the law is to try to keep people honest. Which one can argue has various level of success.
Some minority of people feel they cannot legally obtain things which they like to have. They are usually surrounded with people who feel the same way, which makes it seem more OK to do wrong things.
Rather than seeing the simplicity of the action of obtaining something which is not yours, you come up with silly notions about how it's a copy, and it did not hurt anyone, and so on.
I do agree that mythical income lost does not mean that if people stopped copying that would all of a sudden materialize improving sales someplace. It's just as imaginary as the above arguments.
I'm guessing that by weather rocks you mean some stones that supposedly alters the weather. Making the argument that some ordinary stone does not mean you have the rights to all rocks? Which I would agree with. Unless of course, you did manufacture something unique in which case you did own the intellectual property and had the rights to the billions of dollars you could get from selling them.
Don't take them seriously, everyone knows that they stand for Bull $hit Artist.
There is the question of the law itself, which has been twisted HEAVILY in favor of the copyright side of the BARGAIN. Copyright holders have no RIGHT to copyright extension, it was granted through corruption and money changing hands. It is in no way a benefit to promote the arts and sciences to give perpetual copyright. I find nothing wrong with the outright civil disobedience of copyright law until balance is restored. You can call that a rationalization if you want. I call it not being personally shackled by laws that were bought and paid for and not made for the benefit of mankind.
Good-bye
Don't make the mistake of looking at what it does to other people
Actions are only right or wrong depending on how they affect people. It's not a mistake, it's the only rational way to build a moral system.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
$60 Billion - $58.8 Billion = Profit! ..and TPB pay the Legal Costs, RESULT!
You should quote someone who actually had original ideas.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
They ask Microsoft licensees how much software they buy. They then extrapolate that to every user, then they estimate the losses.
So every open source software user is counted as a pirate, users who don't upgrade aren't licensees so they're counted too, users of non BSA members are counted.
When this was pointed out to them they added a token slice based on the amount of open source the Microsoft licensees use, which is of course a major underestimate.
BSA pass this nonsense off every year as a report, and every year it's the same lies.
Don't forget, Apple and Microsoft are members of the BSA. As a side note, Google is not a member of the BSA.
Nathan's blog
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Imagine two kids in a science class, and one copies the other's project. The first kid wouldn't say "hey, you infringed on my intellectual property!", he'd say "hey, you stole my idea!".
And the teacher would say the 2nd kid "plagiarized" the 1st kids work. Its not the same thing as denying a software producer additional income. They have not had their property stolen (i.e. install discs, etc.) but they've had their product copied (which denies them a sale but does not remove from them any property).
UPS Sucks
Oh yes. They call it the Mickey Mouse law. Extended by congress like crazy because of being afraid of competition. Ruined copyright and competition all over the world as a result. (Most of the world looking at us.)
How are you going to fight the shackles?
By breaking the law because it suits you? There are many legal ways of doing it. And I'm not talking about following the law as much as following integrity. That inherent sense of right and wrong which sane people possess, and tells you if what you are doing is actually OK. (Leaving the neurotic and psychotic out of the conversation.)
But two wrongs does not a right make.
Fortunately we don't live in some countries where you will be thrown in a hole on an arbitrary, your wife stoned, hands cut off and so on, because of some tyrant. On the other hand unless you have money to lobby the government, your options are things such as putting up blogs, organizing people for your cause and then because of quantity be able to see some politician who thinks it's a worthy cause (will give him what he wants) who can then in turn lobby congress.
Right now people play into the hands of bad organizations such as BSA, MPAA etc. Because acting as a vigilante does not win most of people over to your cause. Quite the opposite. It is entirely a matter of perception, how you are seen by the masses and the government.
Saying things such as copying is not stealing gives these clowns fodder for their (criminal) arguments. It tells everyone that these people are thieves and should be shot at dawn.
Then the rest of the people who are too busy to take a stand will sit idly by while you are brought to the gallows. Or in this case they successfully argue why they should have all the power they "need" to wipe out anyone's computer found to use bitorrent and so on.
I bet you Slashdot politics are used as argument/evidence of how laws needs to be enacted to stop the thievery.
unixfan
It's XP, but yes, with 98 and 2k, those are definitely not safe to be using at this point. Not that 98 was ever particularly secure.
There is already a better word for that: plagiarism.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
away from what is actually occurring
Copying is exactly what is occurring when you copy a movie. Using the words "piracy", "stealing", or "taking" with respect to copyright infringement is exactly what is not occurring.
Is it OK, through law
Illegal copying is illegal. That doesn't change the fact that it is copying, and not piracy, theft, rape, murder, or one of any thousand other, separate crimes.
You find a diamond on the street.
Still not the same as copying, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. It's a complete non-sequitur. You might as well say that illegal copying is murder, because if you saw a homeless guy on the street and shot him in the head, that would be bad. Okay, but what does one have to do with the other?
That piece of code that you found in someone's server (web or otherwise) does probably not belong to you either.
Here you assume that someone can own a configuration of bits on a hard drive in the first place. If I hack into someone's server and copy their code, I've trespassed on their very real property (the server). If I bittorrent a movie, however, both me and the multitude of people I received pieces of the file from have agreed to share that configuration of bits, and no trespass has occurred; I've taken nothing from anyone.
Really a simple concept but hard if you have an ethics blind spot.
I find it a very simple concept from my end too, but I don't go around accusing everyone who disagrees with me as being amoral. Making a rational argument is much more effective in the end than demonizing your opponents, even if it's harder.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What is "Western style pricing"? If something costs X to make, don't I have to sell it for more than X to make a profit? Doesn't that apply everywhere?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
If Adobe sold a full version of Photoshop for non-commercial use, that would be a valid argument. Arguing that a watered down version of Photoshop is affordable isn't because it doesn't counter the original point.
If I buy Elements for me and I go to work for a company and they ask what software I want to use, I'm going to say Elements because it was good enough for my own personal work. And if they buy me the full version of it and I discover something really useful, odds are I'm going to pirate it for personal use. (This is hypothetical, BTW—I own a fully licensed Photoshop, not Elements, for personal use.) Either way, they've "lost" the sale of a full copy of Photoshop.
At best, you might argue that one should buy the cheap version, then pirate the more expensive one so that you're at least paying something for it, but according to BSA logic, you pirated a copy of Photoshop that you otherwise would have bought (even if you wouldn't have).
Further, the majority of piracy happens in developing nations, where the people make single-digit U.S. dollars per week. They could afford Elements if they just gave up food for a year. See how silly that argument looks when put in the proper perspective?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
. Is that per capita or overall? Citation Needed Maybe? While I have no doubt that software piracy is rampant in developing nations, I have seen plenty of software piracy in the western world as well, with plenty of people who have more than enough money still not paying for the software they use on a daily basis. The BSA doesn't go around talking to developing nations. As far as I'm aware, they only harass businesses that are using unlicensed software. So this whole personal use or third argument that people keep on bringing up is outside the scope of conversation anyway.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
What proof do you have that it "denies them a sale"?
Do you believe necessarily that everyone who has used a torrent copy of a game or application would have been a buyer of that product if it wasn't for the illicit copy?
You are welcome on my lawn.
The BSA always publishes the same lies, every year.
Does anyone actually believe them.
Hehe, this is funny. You can also be charged with stealing, even if all you did was make a new copy.
"As an intangible thing that ceases to be scarce once first published, information doesn't belong to anybody, either. It cannot be anyone's property, regardless of any fictional legal constructions."
Sure it can. In the same way that physical property can. I mean, there's no real tangible reason a person should be able to own a piece of land. There's no natural construct keeping me from occupying someone's summer home in the winter. After all, as you said yourself, there's no physical loss in me doing so. The house will still be there for them in the summer, right? The only construct present to prevent me from doing that is the one created by our society. If a squirrel drops an acorn in the forest and another squirrel scoops it up, there's no court of law to determine who the rightful owner of the acorn is. But in human society, there is. Why? Because we recognize the efficiency and benefit of such a system.
The same could be said of intellectual property. It exists in the same manner, as a construct of our society, because in general our society agrees people who create intellectually valuable ideas deserve to be compensated for them, both to reward and to motivate. Is the system perfect? Doubtful. But I don't think "IP isn't real" is really a constructive argument. Unless you're willing to extend that logic to ALL societal constructs that don't exist naturally, then you might want to think of a different argument.
I can't believe you just accused Thomas Jefferson of being a thief. He was the second-smartest president who ever served, with an IQ of ~170. That's Einstein or Hawking level intelligence.
You are like a mental midget next Mr. Jefferson and have no more right to insult him, than a monkey to call a human being "stupid".
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People will risk pirating software instead of using free alternatives if it gives them something the free alternative doesn't. Reasons I can think of could be:
1. It's what's used everywhere else, hence no desire to fight the status quo and deal with issues resulting from it.
2. Related to 1, if everyone uses it, you have the maximum level of support (friends, forums, etc).
3. If you're already using a pirated tool, it's easier to stick with what you know rather than moving to a free alternative.
4. A lot of free alternatives simply suck. They either lack the features/functionality, or have major usability issues that result in more mouse clicks, a greater amount of time to accomplish a task compared to their commercial alternatives, or simply give you a headache because of the lousy interface. GIMP vs Photoshop comes to mind here.
5. If you're experienced in these matters, you'll know how to get pirated software in the safest manner. Heck, the entire master collection of CS5 can be used without requiring a single binary crack if you know how the hosts file works.
There's a reason Linux hasn't made headway on the desktop, and I wonder why the zealots find it surprising. The points above represent most of the reasons.
That's just what they track. What about the legal-turned-illegal shared software and re-copied wares that does not take place on the internet? eh? Just remember the Mentor: You may stop one individual, but you can't stop us all. After all, we're all alike.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's probably both per capita and overall. Walk around China and see how easy it is to find pirated copies of movies, software, etc. for a buck or less. Mass piracy runs rampant like you wouldn't believe in many countries. I'm talking about real piracy here, not penny ante Bittorrent downloader piracy.
And although the BSA might predominantly (or exclusively) harass businesses, AFAIK their piracy stats are not business-specific. If they were, their arguments about a pirated copy being a lost sale might actually have some merit.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The BSA only comes out with these numbers to try to scare software vendors into signing up to it. They offer to "investigate" cases of software piracy and recover money for their members (taking a heft chunk for themselves of course).
Their investigations consist of turning up at a company unannounced to do an audit. Since they are just ordinary citizens you can tell them to fuck off and make an appointment next time, but somehow they manage to talk their way in more often than not. They then look for signs of piracy like CD-Rs or unlicensed fonts on printouts. They only care about their member's software mind you, everything else is just a statistic. If they find anything they send you a demand for money and threaten to take you to court, but I don't know how often they follow through with it.
The Performing Rights Society are just as bad. They turned up my friend's big band concert and were trying to get up on stage to see if the music scores they had were photocopied. They were booted out of course, but my point is that this sort of thing is par for the course when it comes to potential copyright infringement.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There's no natural construct keeping me from occupying someone's summer home in the winter. After all, as you said yourself, there's no physical loss in me doing so.
There is a natural construct keeping you from simultaneously possessing the same tangible thing with someone else. If I take a tangible thing from you, you no longer have it. That holds for squirrels and acorns, too.
Now who exactly is the rightful owner of a specific tangible thing, is another question that is offtopic here. But the point is that it is ownable in that at least its possession is necessarily exclusive. Intangibles are not. Yes you can have contracts about intangible things, even contracts that remind copyright/patents/etc. rather closely in effect, but you have to specifically enter them. No, legislation is not a contract. And even then, you don't normally call breach of contract "theft".
Of course, nothing prevents the goverment (I don't buy that "social agreement" bullshit) from creating an artificial monopoly for, say, winking, and calling a wink someone's property. And then I guess if I wink without being granted this monopoly, you would call me a thief, too. But don't be surprised if people don't subscribe this ridiculous notion and continue to act as if it didn't exist (to the extent they can avoid being caught). Because it really isn't property for the natural reasons outlined above.
Entirely correct. The people who want something of value (and make no mistake, it is the 'value' that makes it stealing) for nothing are dishonest, in their lives and with themselves.
You don't buy that "social agreement" bullshit? So, what then, you live in a cabin in the woods all by your lonesome? If not, then you really DO buy it, cause it drives our lives. Kill someone? Go to jail. Grow up a child in America? Go to school. Destroy someone's property? Get sued and be forced to compensate. These are all social contracts enforced by people upon people.
You chose winking to illustrate how absurd the concept of ownership can be, as an analogy for copy right infringement. I agree, the concept of owning winking seems fairly ludicrous to me. But then, the concept of owning land probably seemed ludicrous at one time. The concept of owning airwaves probably seemed ludicrous at one time. The thought that I can be held liable for mere words might seem ludicrous, until you examine the reasons we've made it so. But we function as a society, and we set up social constructs to assure the prosperity and organization of that society. You can claim all you want that copy right infringement is a false institution. Technically, you'd be right. But that claim is meaningless given that so many other organization you partake of could be satisfied by the same reasoning. I doubt if someone murdered your wife you'd be comfortable with the claim that "crime and punishment is a false, man-made institution."
As for the specific point you made concerning the actual possession of an item, how does that work with land? Why is it that we allow a businessman to own a coal mine if he's not actually in the mine digging out coal? And what about my specific example concerning your summer home. Would you be fine letting others into your house without your consent during the winter? If you're not using it, then you've not lost possession, right?
But in truth, these examples are unnecessary. We've decided, as a society, that ideas can be owned. It's not a recent idea, either. It's easy to demonstrate historically. As a societal construct, it holds as much legitimacy as any other institution enforced only through human action. Perhaps owning a wink is a ludicrous idea. I'll concede to that point. But should owning a wink ever become necessary for the growth or well-being of society, then you can bet I'll be on board with the human construct built to enforce it. Hopefully, it'll never come to that. *wink
It's XP
I'm almost certain that the day after Microsoft ends extended support for Windows XP, criminals on the Internet will release their remaining zero days to the wild. But you should be safe for almost three more years according to Microsoft's product lifecycle chart. You can spend that time evaluating whether to switch to Windows 7 or switch to GNU/Linux.
You bring up many points that might be interesting to discuss but increasingly offtopic.
My initial point is that regardless of whether you think of copyright as right or wrong, copyright infringement is not theft because a) intangible things cannot possibly be stolen for reasons described above, and b) even with tangible things, there are cases when I can take something that doesn't belong to me and yet not commit theft.
Land that you cite as one example is perfectly ownable as a tangible thing. The same land spot cannot be used by me for building a house and by you for growing corn at the same time. In your other example with a summer house you conveniently omit the crucial point of simultaneousness, not to mention wear and tear that may result from other people using the house.
To sum up, it is OK to think that copyright is good and copyright infringement is bad. While my opinion on that topic is complex, this is irrelevant here. What I am for is calling things their proper names. If copyright infringement is so bad on its own, one doesn't have to call it with a name of another bad thing (which has had a very specific and different meaning from the time immemorial). However, if one does feel the need to do that, it raises the suspicion that one tries to muddy the waters by injecting an emotional component in the rational discussion.
Regarding the whole "social agreement" thing, I will only make the following remark without the intent to discuss it any further at this time. Agreement, if this word is to have any meaning, is not the same as giving in to coercion and accepting things as they are. Otherwise even the most oppressive and tyrannic regime would have to be called a result of some "social agreement". I haven't entered any agreements of the sort and neither have you.
See, now we're just getting into semantics. If the discussion really should be whether or not copyright infringement is bad, why get hung up on definitions. I don't understand why people who pirate do this. They complain about the word steal, even though "stealing and idea" is a concept that's been around for a very long time. They complain about "pirate", even though pirate is merely a simple term we've created recently as it's easier than saying "downloaded software off the internet without paying for it." I suppose perhaps they complain because of the negative connotations applied to both terms, but I think that's a bit ridiculous. The fact is, such negative connotation would eventually come to any term you wanted to use, including copyright infringement. I could call it "puppy hugging" and eventually it'd still garner a negative connotation. "Gay" once meant "happy", right?
Basically, I think you're definition of the word "steal" is more narrow than it has historically been. As I said, stealing an idea is a concept that came around long before the internet. And my post was not offtopic at all. It was attempt to explain to you how human created social constructs can have legitimacy. "Thought as property" is a human created social construct. The use of property without consent is theft, regardless of it's tangibility. This is how it's defined. But again, it's really just semantics. If you want to call it "puppy hugging" to make yourself feel better, than so be it.
This is complete BS to me.
How they calculate it does not take into consideration that anything pirated does not apply to the intended demographics....so no...just because i downloaded the Notebook for my GF to watch, does it mean I would actually have bought it if there was no piracy happening. In the end, the way they do the books (such as a story posted here in the past about Harry Potter 6) being a total bankruptcy, because they played with the books, should have given the courts a clue as to how they manipulate the data in their favor. If after all this we still think to look at their "numbers" as being legit, we are seriously mental.
OK, let me explain. Hopefully before you hate me. I live in China and the piracy problem is enormous here. Most universities run their entire computer system on a single ghost copy of windows XP bought for 3 dollars and created by Russian hackers. Ditto MS Office Suite, (esp 2003, v. popular still) ditto Adobe CS, ditto this, ditto that. Everything you have in your computer they have as well. But they didn't pay diddly for it.
The reason, as admitted by Bill Gates in the late nineties was the decision to allow piracy in Asia to get Asian people "hooked" on Windows products. They succeeded, but they succeeded too well because Mr G, no matter how smart he might be about western consumers don't know diddly about Chinese and Asian people. What was it he missed?
In Asian cultures there is still (in spite of the massive changes in the 60s and 70s) a strong cultural imperative that the answers that served your ancestors best serve you best. Something truly new CAN take hold and be accepted, but it has to have no corollary in the past. Mobile phones and Instant Messaging are the best examples of this. Windows 7 is new, it is not the trusted and ancestral windows XP profession SP3 that everyone and their fathers use. Some people here have taken Win7 off their computers and installed winxp again because it is what is accepted, it is (i'm going to make a word joke, prepare yourself) canonical.
If, once MS stops supporting Winxp, an enterprising open source advocate steps in and offers a version of ANY open source distro that mimics winxp with very similar icons and program behaviors with a multi-language Asian GUI using all open source then they can make deals with the Asian manufacturers here to provide the OS for a very cheap price and go to the races on it. Safety, security, speed, stability and the safe EFing green knoll desktop that says "computer" to Chinese and other Asian people. You could do it with gnome 2.0, or even X or LX, and you would change the landscape. (Suggestion: make your company "all Chinese or whatever country you target" and headquarter there with requisite members of the power elite in important money handling roles)
Sell this to manufacturers for (@$8.00) and to anyone else for (@$10.00) and include a repository system that is "chinese (or other asian country-- like Thai, or Burmese or whatever so that the language thing stays "pure") only" with lots of free apps and a few paid apps for things that you had to create a language pack for, but all controlled in the normal linux way: but you use the browser to access them, or rather the package manager is a function of the browser and has appropriate web-page looks with .... chinese /asian stuff, you know what I mean. (ex: )
Why would this work? For the same reason that my students copy and paste every goddamn thing they are supposed to be paraphrasing and summarizing. It is the traditional Asian way to show
1) respect to the knowledge of your ancestors
2) that you respect your reader/user (because, in the case of a reader anyway, if they are as well educated as you then the readers will also have read the article that is being used for the information and so the students do not need to give attribution, in fact giving attribution is insulting you, the reader.)
You see? Using the framework of that fugly windows XP desktop and its antediluvian icons is honoring the user and the ancestors who also used it. Of course there is no need to provide any compensation to MS because that is NOT a part of tradition.
Does this help explain why the Chinese manufacturers of the notorious "Green Dam" software blatantly ripped of their net nanny software from an American company and did not pay squat for it? They were honoring the makers you see?
Yes, we're talking about semantics, and not just now, but from the very start. That's because semantics actually matters. Without semantics, you can't tell good from bad, because ethics necessarily relies on it.
Whoever had first coined the term "steal an idea", was guilty of sloppy thinking (which, sadly, is rather common in the society, though not universal) and produced a misnomer. The reason is not only that you cannot really "steal" an idea the way it can be done with a tangible thing. It's also that stealing is bad exactly because it deprives somebody of the thing for the time that it's stolen - something that just doesn't happen with ideas. And that if there is something closer to real, physical theft or robbery, it's the prohibition to "steal" ideas. So, in spite of the semantics here being topsy-turvy, one sneaks in the bad emotional connotations associated with real theft, and voila - copying someone else's idea suddenly appears like something bad. Which in fact it may or may not be, but even if it is, it must be for entirely different reasons than with physical theft.
And yet we contantly see the explanations to the effect that copyright infringement is bad because it is theft. If we analyse the semantics, we can see that this is not an explanation at all, just an attempt to substitute a rational argument with an emotional one. Your example of "puppy hugging" is actually a very good one and works both ways. Just as simply calling copyright infringement "puppy hugging" doesn't make it good, calling it "theft" doesn't make it bad. One needs to employ some other type of argumentation to justify one's ethical stance on copyright.