Government is not protecting the idiots, it's protecting us from the idiots.
Don't wear a seatbelt because you know *you* are a safe driver? What about when some idiot rear ends you, or pulls out unexpectedly, or runs a red light? You get thrown about, and perhaps lose control of the vehicle, when you wouldn't have wearing a seat belt. Helmets are the reverse - safer for the rider, but more likely to hurt anyone they hit. They don't really belong in this conversation. The roads are a shared resource, similar to the internet. We don't want the learners being stupid, and we need other rules to deal with the criminals and the reckless.
There is no magic clue stick to beat lusers with, and as a result there are always going to be unprotected machines. The ISPs should firewall, and opt-out it, as the clueless will not secure their boxes - we all know it, its a fact. Saying that "the luser should protect their box" does nothing to sort out the problem, we need a solution. As long as the ISPs can correctly opt-out people (no "our policy is you can't", or "you need to upgrade to a business connection"), the solution on offer is a good one.
It's "told you so" when a coffee cup label warns you and you go ahead and burn yourself. But our problem is that people keep acidentally burning other people. The ISPs should be real clear about firewall requirements, and securing your box, with EVERY user, and make sure that users without competence are secured by default.
And by its very definition, you can't expect privacy if you do things in public. But the constitution is a contract between the people and its government - it is basically a guarantee of "privacy" from unreasonable government behaviour. No right is absolute, as politics and law are about compromise. But the default assumption is that you derive a basic right to privacy, and the government needs "probable cause" as a reason to disturb you. And there are no other reasons in the constitution to allow the government to disturb your home (except the billeting of troups, in time of war, with fair recompense).
Outside of government searches and seizures, it is a property matter - and the constitution expects our government to mediate between parties on comercial disputes (regulate trade). Privacy is also ensured here, through the right to use your property - namely you own it, and someone else doesn't.
This applies to the case two fold. The RIAA do not own your machine, and so do not have the right to use it without your permission. Secondly, the RIAA do not own your ISP's infrastructure, and so don't have the right to confidential information held in it, without your ISPs permission. The only justification then, would be to go to the government, and request a warrant issued as per your quotation above.
And of course, if the lady in question publishes the files (that the RIAA represent the rights for) for all to see, then she's guilty of copyright infringement, as per your quote about information in public.
How about the 4th.... secure in their person and effects...
If that ain't privacy, I don't know what is. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel secure in my person if someone has the right to spy on me in my own home.
But you obviously feel so happy about no right to privacy that you hide as an anonymous coward. Wouldn't you rather have everyone know your email, street address, name, back balance, pictures of your body parts. No? Why not? Ah, because you obviously cherish your right to privacy as much as the next person.
The government is limited to the rights enumerated to it. The constitution does not say "The government has the right to spy on us all, big brother style" so get over it.
It was a nice troll... but you missed the "If you've got nothing to hide fallacy". Thanks for playing.
Back to the debate. I agree with the RIAA spokesman with his view that she's got the wrong idea about how the internet works. She was effectively publishing copyright material that she doesn't hold the copyright for.
I was not impressed by the RIAA's "we're not lawmen so we can spy/trespass on who we like" sentiments - by this view, it's legitimate for all of us to hack the RIAA network, looking for evidence, because we're not law officers either.
It hasn't escaped us, we winge about it continually. But at one point in time, some politician needed to "borrow" some of the huge tax pot generated by motorists for some other needy cause, and since then, motorists are seen as one of the chancellors easy targets, along with drinkers and smokers. Beer, cigarettes and petrol are the main goods where tax levied is about 80% of the final price).
I think the school buses thing is due to the fact that twenty years ago, one in ten UK school kids got a lift to school. Now, it's nearer nine in ten. A thirteen mile commute can take 20 minutes (by car) during school vacation, and 45 minutes when the schools are in. This would eliminate a lot of jams, and reduce driver frustration.
My personal view on all of this is that speed limits on all roads should be reviewed, by an independant commission. Currently, it's the police and councils advocating speed cameras - who then get the fine money! In the US, red light cameras are added, and the amber light time deliberately shortened to increase fines (see Dick Cheney's web site for a full story on this).
If a limit should be 20 in a school zone, so be it. But if it should be 100 on a motorway, so be it also. Only when reasonable speed limits are set, and accepted by the majority, and speeding is considered an uncommon and unsocial thing to do, should this automated system be put in place - but of course at that point it wouldn't be needed.
This is not necessarily bad. If you are a manufacturing firm, you can negotiate to build these lights for a royalty payment, without having to do any research.
The real question is - how much of a payment, if they let you manufacture them at all. If the answer's are "a ridiculous amount per bulb" or "only we're allowed to build them, but we can't be bothered", then they are abusing the patent system, and we can complain about it all we like.
Otherwise, we get innovation, at a price we can afford, and they get rewarded for their research investment. Win-Win. Hurrah!
Unfortunately, you have found a way that is not legal. Perhaps you should be looking at other ways of accessing music - perhaps via a library? I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the fact that CDs are ridiculously overpriced, but that does not give you license to break copyright.
Since you ask, I would say you could be spending your spare time reading/studying, in order to better your education, so you can get a high paying job, and afford to aquire music. I personally spent my spare college time online (college labs provided free), playing bridge (costs a pack of cards, cups of tea/coffee, and requires having friends) and playing squash (university sports centre - cheap). Get out of your room, and go meet people. Go out and make music. Go out and enjoy life. College is about living life, and learning about yourself.
The labels don't foot the bill. The labels furnish the cash up front. The artist then foots the bill when they pay back the loan out of royalties (generally calculated at 12% of the net - not the gross - subtract 10% for breakages, all expenses for label execs, and pretty soon, the net is similar to a movies net profits).
Record labels should be broken up. They currently have a conflict of interests, being the venture capitalist bankrolling the project, and the distibutor/promotor/management responsible for allocating the profits. If you were a small business, would you allow the bank holding your startup loan to also be responsible for collecting all your revenue, and deciding how much to pass on to you?
If these functions were separated out, the labels would not be able to negotiate the existing artist-as-slave contracts, and real competition would return to the industry. Artists would get treated more like authors, and retain the rights to their work.
The trouble here is that your fat cat is getting more than the backpacker - regardless of whether it's worth the extra $450. The question is whether it's acceptable to charge him the extra $450 for an "alley cat" cheap seat, and also whether he would/should pay the extra for the cheap seat, when others on the flight are paying only $50. Especially since these tickets are non-transferable due to FAA regulations.
If you do think it's just the cost of doing business, is it acceptable to try to keep the fact that others paid less a secret (even to the point of claiming that your prices are copyright or trade secrets, as some firms have done)? And does the merchant really think that you would do business with them again if they've treated you like that in the past? Is there a question of legality if there is no other seller of that particular type of good?
Not only did he fail to spot the correct spelling, but his aide missed it, and the teacher involved missed it. And this was for a spelling bee, where people are actively looking at how words are spelled.
And it's not like it was a hard word. Potato. Hmmm, don't see that one every day, got a bit confused...
This does not make sense. Presumably then, I can legally take a copy as long as it is of "lesser" quality than the original. Why?
We are talking about protecting an artist's right to profit from their expression by distributing copies of their work for profit. The right is provided, balanced against certain rights to use the work by the public. Where, logically, does the quality of the copy come into the picture? Either I have a fair use right to make a copy, or I don't.
In John Cleese voice: The quality of the copy, don't enter into it, my lad.
You are taking the idea. In order to ensure creative people are compensated for their ideas, they are granted a "temporary" right to exploit it. so yes, if you recreate their product (book, CD, whatever) by copying it in some way then you should buy a copy.
Note that this is solely related to copyrighted works. If you meant a product like a fork (purely for your own use), and you can physically make one, by all means go for it. But don't copy someone else's funky fork design and try and sell it as your own...
If you can recreate a song (purely for your own use) by playing instruments and singing, then go for it. But don't release a record with someone else's music or lyrics and sell it as your own...
Ah, that would be the evolution of the two party system. In the old days, the parties were different, and sold on their beliefs. Each party would get some time as the government, and as public opinion shifted, so would the government. Interest was high, as both parties were fairly firm in their ideologies.
Then, a spin doctor realised that the public seemed to want a middle of the road party - not too right or left wing. And so, both parties changed their views to try and hold the middle ground. What went wrong? Both parties became the same. Their ideals were no longer what separated them. Voter apathy grew, as neither party seemed to tout new ideas in their traditional ideologies.
Now it's too late. The two party system has become the one-party-times-two system. Their's nothing to decide them, so both parties must spend almost all their time campaigning and spinning to be elected. They no longer have time to actually pass laws (except where the laws bring in campaign funding).
I think this is similar to the Microsoft shared code - you get to look at it, fix it, and then they incorporate it into their product as theirs, at their discression, and you are not allowed to share it outside of their approval...
Story - CD duplication firm declines to provide service, due to prior contract with Microsoft.
Comment - implies other firms may also decline to provide service, purely on the basis of prior contracts with Microsoft (i.e. for products that any office based company might need). Aimed with a tongue in cheek attitude, looking to make (restraint of trade) point with slight humour.
In the case of posting modded as Offtopic, I respectfully dissent.
Ah, but if someone stole your CD, technically it's still yours (even though you don't have possesion of it - it will be returned to you if the police find it, and are able to verify ownership). So you wouldn't be able to prove that the mp3 was yours by showing physical ownership of the CD, but you could have the police report of the theft entered into evidence. I suppose you should have the right to use the mp3, until you receive the insurance money to replace the stolen items. After that, you might be on shakey ground.
And if they gather proof in advance (say, a few independant eye witnesses), that they hold the copyright, and that X is "illegally publishing" said material on the Web, then fine - more power to them, and I nope they nail X to the wall.
But they aren't. They are going after Y for running/creating a P2P service which X uses. Or they are trying to get laws passed allowing them to go after the many Z's who downloaded from X, which is hard to find, and impossible to prove, and might even be legal, if Z owns a legal copy and the courts agree that this is fair use.
I particularly like the way the RIAA guy says that this is about fair recompense for the creators and artists, neither of which he represents (the RIAA are basically music industry venture capitalists - they loan the money to the artists who then pay for everything). He switches to use "copyright owners" in the next sentence.
In other news, companies supplying toilet paper, soda, coffee, cleaning products, and office space, to Microsoft in New Zealand may not supply companies using products that may compete with Microsofts'...
In the US, it would be the Federal Trade Commission, and in the UK, it would be the Office of Fair Trading. I suspect there is an equivalent office in NZ for complaints of a breach of fair trade regulations" complaint.
If it can be shown that there is a link between the advertiser and the spammer (with the onus on the prosecutor), then I stand by my post. But the companies can't have it both ways. If spamming is illegal, and the customers don't subsequently go after the spammers for illegally advertising their products (brand defamation?), then surely this makes them an accessory after the fact.
If no one pays the (product) spammers, they will eventually go away.
The only way this is going to work, is to make UCE illegal, and tie the sponsoring company (for product driven UCE) to the spammer legally. Most non product UCE is fraud bait anyway (pump and dump, pyramid, nigerian, etc).
Make it so that companies are responsible for their advertising, and that UCE (even by a third party on your behalf) is illegal. Make it (bty international treaty) so that anyone receiving the spam can sue, across any juristiction that the advertising firm trades in. If they claim that they didn't know their advertisers were going to USE (illegally), tell them they can sue the spammers to recover their money.
Nail the non-product UCE for whatever criminal charges stick, and theft of services as well.
Unless the owner is in the UK, and is taking a tax break on it. Basically, it is the "Conditionally Exempt Works of Art Scheme" which is:
Privately owned works of art and other objects which are broadly part of our national heritage, may get exemption from taxes on capital, including inheritance tax. In return for exemption, the owner must
- keep the exempt object in the United Kingdom,
- look after it, and
- allow the public reasonable access to it.
If the owner fails to do any of these things, the exemption is lost, and the owner then has to pay any tax due.
http://www.cewap.co.uk/cewap/rules.htm
Look up the british comedian Mark Thomas for more info. He tracked down a number of public figures abusing the scheme. He notes "In some cases the owners would rather cough up the tax rather than let anyone see their stuff, so by doing this we can be tax collectors of a sort!". Great stuff.
Would this be the warranty described in the EULA that basically says "no matter what, you can't blame us, it's not our fault, and we won't fix it, except for a bucket of money".
Made up pirating figure went up - they are needed more than ever (more people are pirating, not BSA less successful).
Made up pirating figure went down - they are effective, and therefore necessary (BSA more successful, not less people pirating).
It doesn't matter which way it goes, as they can spin it in both directions. For best effect, they should yo-yo it every year... and claim the pirates have changed their strategies in response to the BSA efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
Government is not protecting the idiots, it's protecting us from the idiots.
Don't wear a seatbelt because you know *you* are a safe driver? What about when some idiot rear ends you, or pulls out unexpectedly, or runs a red light? You get thrown about, and perhaps lose control of the vehicle, when you wouldn't have wearing a seat belt. Helmets are the reverse - safer for the rider, but more likely to hurt anyone they hit. They don't really belong in this conversation. The roads are a shared resource, similar to the internet. We don't want the learners being stupid, and we need other rules to deal with the criminals and the reckless.
There is no magic clue stick to beat lusers with, and as a result there are always going to be unprotected machines. The ISPs should firewall, and opt-out it, as the clueless will not secure their boxes - we all know it, its a fact. Saying that "the luser should protect their box" does nothing to sort out the problem, we need a solution. As long as the ISPs can correctly opt-out people (no "our policy is you can't", or "you need to upgrade to a business connection"), the solution on offer is a good one.
It's "told you so" when a coffee cup label warns you and you go ahead and burn yourself. But our problem is that people keep acidentally burning other people. The ISPs should be real clear about firewall requirements, and securing your box, with EVERY user, and make sure that users without competence are secured by default.
And by its very definition, you can't expect privacy if you do things in public. But the constitution is a contract between the people and its government - it is basically a guarantee of "privacy" from unreasonable government behaviour. No right is absolute, as politics and law are about compromise. But the default assumption is that you derive a basic right to privacy, and the government needs "probable cause" as a reason to disturb you. And there are no other reasons in the constitution to allow the government to disturb your home (except the billeting of troups, in time of war, with fair recompense).
Outside of government searches and seizures, it is a property matter - and the constitution expects our government to mediate between parties on comercial disputes (regulate trade). Privacy is also ensured here, through the right to use your property - namely you own it, and someone else doesn't.
This applies to the case two fold. The RIAA do not own your machine, and so do not have the right to use it without your permission. Secondly, the RIAA do not own your ISP's infrastructure, and so don't have the right to confidential information held in it, without your ISPs permission. The only justification then, would be to go to the government, and request a warrant issued as per your quotation above.
And of course, if the lady in question publishes the files (that the RIAA represent the rights for) for all to see, then she's guilty of copyright infringement, as per your quote about information in public.
How about the 4th. ... secure in their person and effects ...
... but you missed the "If you've got nothing to hide fallacy". Thanks for playing.
If that ain't privacy, I don't know what is. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel secure in my person if someone has the right to spy on me in my own home.
But you obviously feel so happy about no right to privacy that you hide as an anonymous coward. Wouldn't you rather have everyone know your email, street address, name, back balance, pictures of your body parts. No? Why not? Ah, because you obviously cherish your right to privacy as much as the next person.
The government is limited to the rights enumerated to it. The constitution does not say "The government has the right to spy on us all, big brother style" so get over it.
It was a nice troll
Back to the debate. I agree with the RIAA spokesman with his view that she's got the wrong idea about how the internet works. She was effectively publishing copyright material that she doesn't hold the copyright for.
I was not impressed by the RIAA's "we're not lawmen so we can spy/trespass on who we like" sentiments - by this view, it's legitimate for all of us to hack the RIAA network, looking for evidence, because we're not law officers either.
It hasn't escaped us, we winge about it continually. But at one point in time, some politician needed to "borrow" some of the huge tax pot generated by motorists for some other needy cause, and since then, motorists are seen as one of the chancellors easy targets, along with drinkers and smokers. Beer, cigarettes and petrol are the main goods where tax levied is about 80% of the final price).
I think the school buses thing is due to the fact that twenty years ago, one in ten UK school kids got a lift to school. Now, it's nearer nine in ten. A thirteen mile commute can take 20 minutes (by car) during school vacation, and 45 minutes when the schools are in. This would eliminate a lot of jams, and reduce driver frustration.
My personal view on all of this is that speed limits on all roads should be reviewed, by an independant commission. Currently, it's the police and councils advocating speed cameras - who then get the fine money! In the US, red light cameras are added, and the amber light time deliberately shortened to increase fines (see Dick Cheney's web site for a full story on this).
If a limit should be 20 in a school zone, so be it. But if it should be 100 on a motorway, so be it also. Only when reasonable speed limits are set, and accepted by the majority, and speeding is considered an uncommon and unsocial thing to do, should this automated system be put in place - but of course at that point it wouldn't be needed.
This is not necessarily bad. If you are a manufacturing firm, you can negotiate to build these lights for a royalty payment, without having to do any research.
The real question is - how much of a payment, if they let you manufacture them at all. If the answer's are "a ridiculous amount per bulb" or "only we're allowed to build them, but we can't be bothered", then they are abusing the patent system, and we can complain about it all we like.
Otherwise, we get innovation, at a price we can afford, and they get rewarded for their research investment. Win-Win. Hurrah!
Unfortunately, you have found a way that is not legal. Perhaps you should be looking at other ways of accessing music - perhaps via a library? I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the fact that CDs are ridiculously overpriced, but that does not give you license to break copyright.
Since you ask, I would say you could be spending your spare time reading/studying, in order to better your education, so you can get a high paying job, and afford to aquire music. I personally spent my spare college time online (college labs provided free), playing bridge (costs a pack of cards, cups of tea/coffee, and requires having friends) and playing squash (university sports centre - cheap). Get out of your room, and go meet people. Go out and make music. Go out and enjoy life. College is about living life, and learning about yourself.
The labels don't foot the bill. The labels furnish the cash up front. The artist then foots the bill when they pay back the loan out of royalties (generally calculated at 12% of the net - not the gross - subtract 10% for breakages, all expenses for label execs, and pretty soon, the net is similar to a movies net profits).
Record labels should be broken up. They currently have a conflict of interests, being the venture capitalist bankrolling the project, and the distibutor/promotor/management responsible for allocating the profits. If you were a small business, would you allow the bank holding your startup loan to also be responsible for collecting all your revenue, and deciding how much to pass on to you?
If these functions were separated out, the labels would not be able to negotiate the existing artist-as-slave contracts, and real competition would return to the industry. Artists would get treated more like authors, and retain the rights to their work.
The trouble here is that your fat cat is getting more than the backpacker - regardless of whether it's worth the extra $450. The question is whether it's acceptable to charge him the extra $450 for an "alley cat" cheap seat, and also whether he would/should pay the extra for the cheap seat, when others on the flight are paying only $50. Especially since these tickets are non-transferable due to FAA regulations.
If you do think it's just the cost of doing business, is it acceptable to try to keep the fact that others paid less a secret (even to the point of claiming that your prices are copyright or trade secrets, as some firms have done)? And does the merchant really think that you would do business with them again if they've treated you like that in the past? Is there a question of legality if there is no other seller of that particular type of good?
Ah yes. And this is better how, exactly?
...
Not only did he fail to spot the correct spelling, but his aide missed it, and the teacher involved missed it. And this was for a spelling bee, where people are actively looking at how words are spelled.
And it's not like it was a hard word. Potato. Hmmm, don't see that one every day, got a bit confused
This does not make sense. Presumably then, I can legally take a copy as long as it is of "lesser" quality than the original. Why?
We are talking about protecting an artist's right to profit from their expression by distributing copies of their work for profit. The right is provided, balanced against certain rights to use the work by the public. Where, logically, does the quality of the copy come into the picture? Either I have a fair use right to make a copy, or I don't.
In John Cleese voice: The quality of the copy, don't enter into it, my lad.
You are taking the idea. In order to ensure creative people are compensated for their ideas, they are granted a "temporary" right to exploit it. so yes, if you recreate their product (book, CD, whatever) by copying it in some way then you should buy a copy.
...
...
Note that this is solely related to copyrighted works. If you meant a product like a fork (purely for your own use), and you can physically make one, by all means go for it. But don't copy someone else's funky fork design and try and sell it as your own
If you can recreate a song (purely for your own use) by playing instruments and singing, then go for it. But don't release a record with someone else's music or lyrics and sell it as your own
It's all about respect, yo!
Ah, that would be the evolution of the two party system. In the old days, the parties were different, and sold on their beliefs. Each party would get some time as the government, and as public opinion shifted, so would the government. Interest was high, as both parties were fairly firm in their ideologies.
Then, a spin doctor realised that the public seemed to want a middle of the road party - not too right or left wing. And so, both parties changed their views to try and hold the middle ground. What went wrong? Both parties became the same. Their ideals were no longer what separated them. Voter apathy grew, as neither party seemed to tout new ideas in their traditional ideologies.
Now it's too late. The two party system has become the one-party-times-two system. Their's nothing to decide them, so both parties must spend almost all their time campaigning and spinning to be elected. They no longer have time to actually pass laws (except where the laws bring in campaign funding).
I think this is similar to the Microsoft shared code - you get to look at it, fix it, and then they incorporate it into their product as theirs, at their discression, and you are not allowed to share it outside of their approval ...
Offtopic ... hmmm. Let's see.
Story - CD duplication firm declines to provide service, due to prior contract with Microsoft.
Comment - implies other firms may also decline to provide service, purely on the basis of prior contracts with Microsoft (i.e. for products that any office based company might need). Aimed with a tongue in cheek attitude, looking to make (restraint of trade) point with slight humour.
In the case of posting modded as Offtopic, I respectfully dissent.
Ah, but if someone stole your CD, technically it's still yours (even though you don't have possesion of it - it will be returned to you if the police find it, and are able to verify ownership). So you wouldn't be able to prove that the mp3 was yours by showing physical ownership of the CD, but you could have the police report of the theft entered into evidence. I suppose you should have the right to use the mp3, until you receive the insurance money to replace the stolen items. After that, you might be on shakey ground.
And if they gather proof in advance (say, a few independant eye witnesses), that they hold the copyright, and that X is "illegally publishing" said material on the Web, then fine - more power to them, and I nope they nail X to the wall.
But they aren't. They are going after Y for running/creating a P2P service which X uses. Or they are trying to get laws passed allowing them to go after the many Z's who downloaded from X, which is hard to find, and impossible to prove, and might even be legal, if Z owns a legal copy and the courts agree that this is fair use.
I particularly like the way the RIAA guy says that this is about fair recompense for the creators and artists, neither of which he represents (the RIAA are basically music industry venture capitalists - they loan the money to the artists who then pay for everything). He switches to use "copyright owners" in the next sentence.
In other news, companies supplying toilet paper, soda, coffee, cleaning products, and office space, to Microsoft in New Zealand may not supply companies using products that may compete with Microsofts' ...
Well,
In the US, it would be the Federal Trade Commission, and in the UK, it would be the Office of Fair Trading. I suspect there is an equivalent office in NZ for complaints of a breach of fair trade regulations" complaint.
If it can be shown that there is a link between the advertiser and the spammer (with the onus on the prosecutor), then I stand by my post. But the companies can't have it both ways. If spamming is illegal, and the customers don't subsequently go after the spammers for illegally advertising their products (brand defamation?), then surely this makes them an accessory after the fact.
If no one pays the (product) spammers, they will eventually go away.
Except that the US has trouble passing laws, when the DMA are watching, but they could easily sneak through a treaty ...
The only way this is going to work, is to make UCE illegal, and tie the sponsoring company (for product driven UCE) to the spammer legally. Most non product UCE is fraud bait anyway (pump and dump, pyramid, nigerian, etc).
Make it so that companies are responsible for their advertising, and that UCE (even by a third party on your behalf) is illegal. Make it (bty international treaty) so that anyone receiving the spam can sue, across any juristiction that the advertising firm trades in. If they claim that they didn't know their advertisers were going to USE (illegally), tell them they can sue the spammers to recover their money.
Nail the non-product UCE for whatever criminal charges stick, and theft of services as well.
Unless the owner is in the UK, and is taking a tax break on it. Basically, it is the "Conditionally Exempt Works of Art Scheme" which is:
Privately owned works of art and other objects which are broadly part of our national heritage, may get exemption from taxes on capital, including inheritance tax. In return for exemption, the owner must
- keep the exempt object in the United Kingdom,
- look after it, and
- allow the public reasonable access to it.
If the owner fails to do any of these things, the exemption is lost, and the owner then has to pay any tax due.
http://www.cewap.co.uk/cewap/rules.htm
Look up the british comedian Mark Thomas for more info. He tracked down a number of public figures abusing the scheme. He notes "In some cases the owners would rather cough up the tax rather than let anyone see their stuff, so by doing this we can be tax collectors of a sort!". Great stuff.
Would this be the warranty described in the EULA that basically says "no matter what, you can't blame us, it's not our fault, and we won't fix it, except for a bucket of money".
Not so. They have two press releases:
... and claim the pirates have changed their strategies in response to the BSA efforts.
Made up pirating figure went up - they are needed more than ever (more people are pirating, not BSA less successful).
Made up pirating figure went down - they are effective, and therefore necessary (BSA more successful, not less people pirating).
It doesn't matter which way it goes, as they can spin it in both directions. For best effect, they should yo-yo it every year