While I own it and have read it a couple of times, it's not a great book. It's very useful as a reference to learn about the things you mentioned, but it is not a compelling story and I doubt it would have sold very well if it had to stand on its own merits
I would think that most schools still protect and support the academic freedom of their students.
I think that you're talking about schools looking the other way at underage drinking and the other excesses that teenagers can get into when away from parental authority for the first time. For the most parts I think schools still do this, maybe getting a little stricter, but I doubt much more adversarial than before.
I think you're saying that when it was a student pissing on someone's front yard at 2 in the morning the school would step in as a mediator between the student and the local authorities. But now when the students use school resources and internet access to "piss on" someone's website or "share" someone's music that the school has to take a sterner position. Well this is understandable since the school could be liable for these things if they were to turn a blind eye to them in a way that they probably would not be in the instance of the drunk student.
The internet has made it easier for more students to be able to abuse the schools resources than before, but I have a feeling that most schools would have come down pretty hard on similar things in the past.
Working at a university you probably have a better perspective on things how things have changed, but that my 2 cents.
Yes, that might be the ideal method, you obviously would then have no problem letting the BSA come do a survey of your personal computer to ensure it's legal for you to be running all of your software.
What you propose is an unfeasible solution. Maybe the BSA's method is not the most accurate, but assuming it was done honestly (and I admit, I have no idea whether it was done in an honest way or not, but neither does anyone else posting here) it may have been the best available alternative.
By your logic, most of the measurements in science are worthless. After all, no one has ever taken a tape measure to the surface of the sun to measure the distance to earth. The distance has only been measured indirectly so it is worthless, right?
I don't agree that this is a horrible method, assuming those doing the survey were scrupulous about it. If you walked up to me, saw I was a couple of inches taller than you, and guestiated my height as 6' (jeez, that would be nice, I'd actually have to put on a few pounds instead of losing a few) I wouldn't consider the method horrible since your estimate has some basis in fact and is not beyond the bounds of reason. I'm considering the BSA method to be the same thing, they are using the best available information (I'm assuming) and coming up with a conclusion that seems reasonable.
As others have pointed out 1 bought and 4 copied copies of Word doesn't necessarily mean 4 lost sales.
But it does mean 4 pirated copies, which is what the study was talking about. The article even admits that software revenues have gone up over the same period. And just because it doesn't cost a sale doesn't make it right. It is certainly still illegal and , depending on your own morals I guess, may or may not be morally right.
But what if 100 companies use a drafting program, but only 60 of those companies have bought the software. What happened to those other 40?
Maybe 1 wrote their own in house (unlikely) or a couple use some open source alternative (is there even one available) but it's probably safe to assume that most of the others have pirated the software.
I don't know how the study was conducted and I'm sure there is some error in the numbers, but the "demand vs what was sold" method is not necessarily wrong
In any case, the analogy falls apart because, as/.ers are so fond of pointing out, a physical item can't be compared to digital information in this way. Besides, what's the issue here? Do you think that no one world wide is copying software (its 40% worldwide, only 24% in North America)? Do those numbers really seem that outrageous to you?
I love these/. AC experts. The only place it says the statistic is made up is in Michael's comment. The demand was actually determined by an independent research group (admittidly I don't know how independent from the BSA), maybe it is a bogus number, but the big M is the only one to imply it.
What I love is that most of this discussion is criticising the BSA for their lousy statisitics. And the basis for this criticism is comment such as:
Well maybe someone who downloads a copy will buy a copy, so it actually helps.
Or...at the company I work for less than 1% yada yada yada.
Or...everyone I know uses Linux, that's why piracy is down.
All statements backed up with anecdotal evidence, yes very scientific/., the BSA are certainly the ones full of shit.
Can you point to some shred of evidence of this, a link somewhere.
Maybe their statistics aren't 100% accurate, but do you think that no one is pirating software, that it's just some completely made up bogey man created by Bill Gates to crush the open source community.
Yes, they probably have an aggenda, and no their statistics probably aren't 100% accurate. You know, companies actually have a right to make a profit. And people don't have a right to download a piece of software that is too expensive for them to afford and then turn around to say, well I never would have bought it anyway so they didn't lose anything.
Is this really how simplisticly the BSA came up with their statisitcs though?
What if it was more along the lines of: 100 companies are performing a service that requires software X. But only 60 of those companies have bought the software. (Or a company bought 100 computers but only bought 5 licenses for Windows-this is a little murkier now that other OS's enter in)
And there is (or at least hope there is in this study) a difference between a demand (something that is required) and a mere want or desire as is implied in the ocean front house analogy.
You may be right that an overly simplistic method was used, but other than Michael's insightful explanation I don't see their method explained. From the article there is just no way of knowing how accurate the statistics might be.
Or does everyone here blasting this report really think that software piracy is near 0%. Personally (with nothing to back me up) the 24% rate attributed to North America doesn't seem outrageous to me.
On your first point, while it might even out in the sense of total revenues collected, this only happens at the expense of taxing some people more than they fairly should be (of course many poeple maintiain that most taxes do this anyway, but that's an issue for another day).
On your second point, I wonder if the truckers unions and lobby have anything to do with this. Presumably they would be against any kind of gas tax since this has to be one of their chief operating expenses. And I would think that an 18 wheeler would put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than even the biggest SUV. But with the GPS system, they could base their operations out of another state even though they might travel extensively within Oregon.
I'm not that familiar with the intricacies of interstate trucking, so maybe this isn't a feasible option anyway, but just a thought.
I guess its pretty sad that in the 60 seconds it took me to write this about 8 other people came up with the exact same joke. Oh well, no karma for me today.
I don't think the sensation of grabbing onto your knees is going to capture the imagination of many people.
Now, let me think, what body part, that their are 2 of, would computer geeks love to get their hands on and fondle all day. Hmmm, I just can't think of anything but I'm sure someone can come up with something.
As others have said, that subscription fee allows you to browse to your hearts content. So if a friend recommends a great new band to you, you can check it out and decide that its really crap without costing yourself anything. Whereas if you have to pay for each song individually you're stuck with a song you hate.
Obviously each option may appeal to a different audience. For someone looking to find new music and only download what they like the subscription based service probably makes sense. But for someone who only downloads music they know they will like the per song fee is probably the better option.
Probably the best solution for these guys would be to offer both options so tat they can appeal to the widest audience.
The difference is that downloading the latest top 40 hit is a luxury. Those other things you mention, most people would consider to be necessary to have a functioning society.
It depends on how it is structured. If students have an option of paying for this access or just going to Kazaa then you may be right, but if the fee is part of a required "technology fee" that all students pay then students woudl probably use it.
Of course there would be other problems with this system, namely students who couldn't care less about downloading mp3's being required to pay this fee.
Why is this scene where "it all hangs out" (no nudity or graphic sex in the movie though) so disturbing for you, but you obviously have no problem with the excessive and brutal fighting, gunplay, and violence that is the mainstay of both movies.
So a 3 minute scene of a rave is so objectionable that you will refuse to see a movie, but 90 minutes of graphic violence is ok? Sounds logical to me.
Can't we just combine this with the mail bombing of known spammers. I know it costs more then signing them up for free catalogues but the pay-off would be so worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they want you to think.
Meet the Megway
I don't think I ever want to be that rich.
While I own it and have read it a couple of times, it's not a great book. It's very useful as a reference to learn about the things you mentioned, but it is not a compelling story and I doubt it would have sold very well if it had to stand on its own merits
I think that you're talking about schools looking the other way at underage drinking and the other excesses that teenagers can get into when away from parental authority for the first time. For the most parts I think schools still do this, maybe getting a little stricter, but I doubt much more adversarial than before.
I think you're saying that when it was a student pissing on someone's front yard at 2 in the morning the school would step in as a mediator between the student and the local authorities. But now when the students use school resources and internet access to "piss on" someone's website or "share" someone's music that the school has to take a sterner position. Well this is understandable since the school could be liable for these things if they were to turn a blind eye to them in a way that they probably would not be in the instance of the drunk student.
The internet has made it easier for more students to be able to abuse the schools resources than before, but I have a feeling that most schools would have come down pretty hard on similar things in the past.
Working at a university you probably have a better perspective on things how things have changed, but that my 2 cents.
What you propose is an unfeasible solution. Maybe the BSA's method is not the most accurate, but assuming it was done honestly (and I admit, I have no idea whether it was done in an honest way or not, but neither does anyone else posting here) it may have been the best available alternative.
By your logic, most of the measurements in science are worthless. After all, no one has ever taken a tape measure to the surface of the sun to measure the distance to earth. The distance has only been measured indirectly so it is worthless, right?
I don't agree that this is a horrible method, assuming those doing the survey were scrupulous about it. If you walked up to me, saw I was a couple of inches taller than you, and guestiated my height as 6' (jeez, that would be nice, I'd actually have to put on a few pounds instead of losing a few) I wouldn't consider the method horrible since your estimate has some basis in fact and is not beyond the bounds of reason. I'm considering the BSA method to be the same thing, they are using the best available information (I'm assuming) and coming up with a conclusion that seems reasonable.
But it does mean 4 pirated copies, which is what the study was talking about. The article even admits that software revenues have gone up over the same period. And just because it doesn't cost a sale doesn't make it right. It is certainly still illegal and , depending on your own morals I guess, may or may not be morally right.
and again up to 99% for slashdot when "the article" follows "read."
But what if 100 companies use a drafting program, but only 60 of those companies have bought the software. What happened to those other 40?
Maybe 1 wrote their own in house (unlikely) or a couple use some open source alternative (is there even one available) but it's probably safe to assume that most of the others have pirated the software.
I don't know how the study was conducted and I'm sure there is some error in the numbers, but the "demand vs what was sold" method is not necessarily wrong
In any case, the analogy falls apart because, as /.ers are so fond of pointing out, a physical item can't be compared to digital information in this way. Besides, what's the issue here? Do you think that no one world wide is copying software (its 40% worldwide, only 24% in North America)? Do those numbers really seem that outrageous to you?
What I love is that most of this discussion is criticising the BSA for their lousy statisitics. And the basis for this criticism is comment such as:
Well maybe someone who downloads a copy will buy a copy, so it actually helps.
Or...at the company I work for less than 1% yada yada yada.
Or...everyone I know uses Linux, that's why piracy is down.
All statements backed up with anecdotal evidence, yes very scientific /., the BSA are certainly the ones full of shit.
Maybe their statistics aren't 100% accurate, but do you think that no one is pirating software, that it's just some completely made up bogey man created by Bill Gates to crush the open source community.
Yes, they probably have an aggenda, and no their statistics probably aren't 100% accurate. You know, companies actually have a right to make a profit. And people don't have a right to download a piece of software that is too expensive for them to afford and then turn around to say, well I never would have bought it anyway so they didn't lose anything.
What if it was more along the lines of: 100 companies are performing a service that requires software X. But only 60 of those companies have bought the software. (Or a company bought 100 computers but only bought 5 licenses for Windows-this is a little murkier now that other OS's enter in)
And there is (or at least hope there is in this study) a difference between a demand (something that is required) and a mere want or desire as is implied in the ocean front house analogy.
You may be right that an overly simplistic method was used, but other than Michael's insightful explanation I don't see their method explained. From the article there is just no way of knowing how accurate the statistics might be.
Or does everyone here blasting this report really think that software piracy is near 0%. Personally (with nothing to back me up) the 24% rate attributed to North America doesn't seem outrageous to me.
On your second point, I wonder if the truckers unions and lobby have anything to do with this. Presumably they would be against any kind of gas tax since this has to be one of their chief operating expenses. And I would think that an 18 wheeler would put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than even the biggest SUV. But with the GPS system, they could base their operations out of another state even though they might travel extensively within Oregon.
I'm not that familiar with the intricacies of interstate trucking, so maybe this isn't a feasible option anyway, but just a thought.
I think, if you can't get a look at the real thing, you at least need to take a look at a Playboy so you can tell the difference.
I guess its pretty sad that in the 60 seconds it took me to write this about 8 other people came up with the exact same joke. Oh well, no karma for me today.
Now, let me think, what body part, that their are 2 of, would computer geeks love to get their hands on and fondle all day. Hmmm, I just can't think of anything but I'm sure someone can come up with something.
You don't play many RPG's do you?
Obviously each option may appeal to a different audience. For someone looking to find new music and only download what they like the subscription based service probably makes sense. But for someone who only downloads music they know they will like the per song fee is probably the better option.
Probably the best solution for these guys would be to offer both options so tat they can appeal to the widest audience.
Of course there would be other problems with this system, namely students who couldn't care less about downloading mp3's being required to pay this fee.
So a 3 minute scene of a rave is so objectionable that you will refuse to see a movie, but 90 minutes of graphic violence is ok? Sounds logical to me.
Send goatse as a gift!
This is a text based game only.
Personally though I don't see what the big deal about posting lyrics online is.
No damn it, that will just be more competetion for the NHL playoffs at #61, right behind billiard trick shots and the national spelling bee.