Software Industry Shifting Piracy Strategy 305
Sensible Clod writes "The U.S. software industry's strategy against global software piracy is shifting to focus on claimed economic benefits of copyright protection in response to a new study released by the BSA, according to an article at Internet News. The study concluded that countries with high software piracy rates have more to gain economically by protecting intellectual property rights. The study even claims potential global gains of '2.4 million new jobs, $400 billion in economic growth and $67 billion in new tax revenues' by cutting the current global software piracy rate of 35% by 10%."
Software Piracy Rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Basicly piracy is the last thing that keeps Free Software from world domination."
And that is precisely why I oppose software 'piracy'. I live in a country where I can buy any software I want for less than 20 bucks at the local CD store. The parliament here has yet to ratify the Berne Conventions on copyright, so we exist in a sort of a grey zone. There's no legal reason to respect software EULAs.
But the use of proprietary software has created many other difficulties, not the least of which is a cargo-cult mentality. Software is not something that one configures or, heaven forfend, writes; it's something you go down to the store to buy. If something goes wrong with it, you just buy something better. If there's nothing there that does what you want... well then, software can't do that.
That's all well and good as far as it goes, but it does absolutely nothing to develop the local economy, improve educational opportunities, or to impress on people just what kind of amazing things they could be doing with software in this country. This place is poor in resources, but doesn't lack for smart people. The only way people here will ever find really well-paid work is to sell their skills overseas, and the only way they can do that is to leverage the Internet, and the only way they can do that is if they understand the software, and the only way they can do that is if they wean themselves from the proprietary tit.
Free Software costs time and effort, and will always be more expensive (though ultimately more valuable) than pirated software.
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the problem with many economic "beliefs". They are limited in scope. Companies that pay for Photoshop now would get a free (new and improved) GIMP and have lower overhead costs, which allows them to charge less or hire more. The people who pay less for their services also save money so have more to do things with. And so on, and so on. Not to mention that there'd be more people that could or would learn it, start companies, and so on and so on.
It's such a highly non-linear feedback driven system. Simple analysis won't do.
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming that most users of Photoshop have the coding skills necessary to make useful contributions to FOSS apps like GIMP, which is simply not the case. Remember, in this particular example you're talking about artists, not programmers. Most graphic artists I know wouldn't know how to write code if their life depended on it, but that's ok -- writing code is not what they do. They're artists, not programmers.
Now, to zoom out a bit more and look at the broader picture, the vast majority of PC users dont' know the first thing about programming. Whether you're talking about "regular folks" like my sister, who just wants to be able to email, surf the web, and download music (that's a different rant, let's not get off-topic), or professionals who do graphic design, web-site design, etc., keep in mind that most of them are not programmers. They want tools (software) that let's them do their job, and that's pretty much it. Many of them are not the "roll your own" type, nor are they willing to -- let alone capable of -- making modifications to FOSS software that they may be using.
Programmers create software; everyone else uses software. The proportionate discrepancy between coders and users will always be larger in favor of users, and there's nothing inherantly wrong with that. You can't realistically expect every end-user to have the skills to make code-level modifications to their software, and as long as most users lack these skills, piracy will continue unabated, Photoshop will continue to be the default graphic-artistry app, and GIMP will never get its day in the sun.
Sad, but true.
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are ignoring the statistics.
In a world of 6,500,000,000+ people and where free software can be copied millions of times all it takes is 0.000001% of companies/people/users coding. It is a statistical certainty that this will happen.
Similar statistics and the economic network effect are the reason why M$ is able to tax the world the ridiculous sum of $40,000,000,000+ per year for basically ten programs and various forms of crippleware.
IP law is currently broken and is getting even more broken as th
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the BSA has a very interesting way of doing it. Decide on the accuracy for yourself.
In effect, they take the total number of computers sold, decide what percentage of those computers "should" be running a given piece of proprietary software, then look at the number of copies sold. The discrepancy between these numbers is the "piracy rate". This type of statistic-making in essence ignores free software/OS's, other types of freeware, "home-rolled" alternatives written by the user themself, and the like. (So, despite the fact that I'm in full compliance with my OS's license by downloading and installing it for free-according to the BSA, I've got a pirated OS!)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2)
Okay, maybe it's the relationship between people who pirate and people who don't? Or the relationship between copies bought and copies pirated?
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2)
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:3, Informative)
Yarrrrr!
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2)
Except of course, it ignores the fact that the money going to pay for the software is now taken from something something else instead, leading to a net loss in the economy.
It's similar to the broken windows fallacy, and fails to take into account the effect on the entire economic system
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2)
But seriously, the Wilson & Kelling broken windows theory has been shown to hold fairly true albeit in fairly small study areas (An entire city even would simply have too many variables to account for) in that an already deteriorated area will be more likely to harbor crime. The straw-man that opponents hold up is that militant policing is not the only way to deter crime, but fixing up the streets can also be done b
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2)
Naahh. The real reason is because you tried to base a business on selling sets of numbers to people that cost next to nothing to duplicate. It's like... well, it's like trying to sell the result of a mathematical calculation to someone then demanding that anyone else who wants to know will have to pay you money. Calling the guy that tells someone else the answer a pirate doesn't seem very reasonable.
For
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you trying to say that a software program is analogous to the result of a mathematical equation? If I know that the answer to X+10=20 is "10", and I make you pay me to tell you the answer, and don't allow you to tell anybody else, then I am restricting the flow of information. But, as far as I know there is no equation for which the answer would be the machine code for a word processing program. Software is not information. Software is a tool that is the result of information, and is often used to produce information. Difference.
RedHat makes money by intentionally holding back information about what is essentially free software. I don't see how that bolsters your argument.
And the fact that duplicating software is virtually free does not imply that the software itself should be free. Producing and maintaining software is costly.
I'm thankful that there are people out there who are willing to give their time and energy to produce free software tools, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think that others should have the same philosophy. I do think that the big software guys are charging way too much money for some of their basic products. I'd like to see more full-featured home applications with sub $100 price tags...and not watered down "here's every feature you need except that ONE thing" versions.
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2)
Not mathematical equations as such. All software is essentially mathematical algorithims. Dijkstra once remark
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:2, Interesting)
All software is essentially mathematical algorithims
The definition of algorithm is A step-by-step problem-solving procedure [reference.com]. All software is created in response to some "problem" - i.e., running the ol' Gutenburg press is tedious - and all computers follow a series of instructions.
Therefore, software is nothing but an algorithm. Or, more accurately, the the application of an algorithm.
Re:Software Piracy Rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I never lied to my customers or threatened them or took them to court for the price of a song. True pirates (i.e., those that bulk-copy a product and sell it) are easy to deal with, if you can find them. Hell, most of them are actually
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
This is wonderful and you're a great person for giving money to people that are working hard to make you happy.
The trouble is with the 80% of the people out there that aren't like you. They're selfish, short-sighted, and simply have
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem the grandparent and others have with this whole thing, is we know some people use piracy to benefit everyone, and some just steal, but nobody REALLY knows how many do which.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand supporting authors and I do as much as I can. Some times it's by buying merchandise and not the main product (in the case of anime fansubbed, since I don't wish to support the company who do vile English tracks). I also get that some people won't pay for stuff, but can you count these as lost sales since they never would of bought it in the first place?
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
It's getting to the point now in my life where I'm financially stable and can afford to buy the odd game. But, even as such, I usually try before I buy, and that means piracy. For example: I just played through F.E.A.R. It took me about 8 hours to beat it. And, upon starting up again, I've realized that it has no replay value whatsoever. $55 for 8 hours? Thanks, but no; I'm glad I didn't buy it. It's uninstalled. On the other hand, Age of Empires III I downloaded, played, and liked; and I'm going to go buy it.
I origionally pirated my copy of Neverwinter Nights; but because I enjoyed it so much, I ended up buying the retail version, both expansion packs, and paying for all the downloadable premium modules. And I'm talking as they became available; not years later in the ultra-mega-pack for $40. I probably have close to $180 invested in Neverwinter Nights.
Every time I feel guilty about this policy, I end up buying a game and being pissed off about it. The latest example was Doom III - I bought it, and played it, and it too has lackluster multiplayer and no replay value.
It basically boils down to if you make good games, I'll buy. But, if you put out crap, I won't.
However, it should be noted that this only goes for 1.) Games and 2.) MS Office. Now that I work for tech support in the CS department of a university, I have access to the MSDN Academic Alliance copy of Office, so that's now legal, but I used to pirate it. However, I also used to feel bad about it; since I knew that the only reason I was pirating it was because I needed to be able to create word documents for specific purposes (resume comes to mind), and it's what everyone else uses; I'd have been technologically happy with Open Office. But it's to the point where I've found free programs to replace all the little things I used to pirate.
For example; CuteFTP - now I use FileZilla. Eudora - now Thunderbird. Nero - now I use burnatonce; though I'm still looking for a free (beer; possibly speech too) CD Burner that doesn't suck - burn at once burns images, and does it well, but doesn't do anything else. Photoshop - Gimp. Norton Corporate AV - now AVG Free. I don't even remember what I used before Exact Audio Copy. And I want to know where VLC has been my whole life.
I've also stopped downloading TV programs and Movies. Movies basically because I never go to the movies anyway (baby) and anything that's good, I'll buy when it's on DVD (I'd rather sit at home comfortable and be able to pause). TV - now that I have Tivo, I don't miss anything; and I've sort of gotten over the need to archive everything; but should I want to archive, I can always use TiVo desktop, a program to strip the DRM from the files, and re-encode the MPEG2.
So, basically, I'm pretty much proof of "if it's reasonably priced, I'd just as soon buy it". I'm also proof of "If you put out crap, and claim that piracy is hurting your sales, you're wrong: it's either too expensive, or it just sucks".
~W
Re:hmm (Score:2)
I've just been offered my first job from a family friend.. He runs a large business (Millionaire type large), now he needs someone to do basic data inputting and has offered me the job. Now I know that this will require me to own MS software. I have an old CD with MS works on it (came with an older PC) which contains spreadsheets, databases and a word processor. I don't have it installed and have no plans to do so, I use open office if
Re:hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Your dilemma boils down to one of two mutually-exclusive choice:
Using one of their programs is not "giving into their monopoly." Open Office exists, and therefore Microsoft Office has no monopoly. Your aversion doesn't really seem to be based on anything tangible - i.e., Bill Gates raped me when I was little - but some kind of moral principle.
Principles are cool. Everyone needs 'em. But, can you art
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
So how does it take money from them if someone makes a copy of their software? They will not get any money from this person under any circumstances. If they can't steal a copy, they certainly will not buy one.
As people here say so often, "piracy" can actually help producers. Someone copies a few games from company X. Eventually they may actually buy one. Why didn't they get it from company Y? Because they know that this lot makes stuff they like.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Funny)
You have to pay for this software. Unless, of course, there are no circumstances in which you would pay for it. In which case, you may copy it for free.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Note the critical point there: I was so happy with the, ah, "unli
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Would these misers have been willing to splash out for the product anyway? Probably not. For example, a copyright infringer with 1,000 albums on his/her hard drive would never have been able to afford more than a couple of percent of that. In fact, being miserly, they probably wouldn't have bought more than five albums, if that, coming to a grand total of $15*5 = $75 lost sales at absolute maximum. Of course, the RIAA would count this as $15*1,000 = £15,000 of lost sales.
2) To what extent is this countered by the increased exposure of the target demographic to the product? Say the above miserly copyright infringer uploads 2,000 copies of assorted albums to other people. Now say just 5% of recipients are honest (probably a low figure), and go out and buy just 5% of the albums they receive. The money spent is then $15*2,000*0.05*0.05 = $75 - cancelling out the original "loss" to the copyright holder. (No I didn't fudge my numbers, it was just a flukey estimate)
3) (This one applies to music) How much of this actually goes to the artist? Since the misers who are forced to buy albums if the filesharing networks close aren't exactly publically-minded citizens, they'll just get their albums from the stores. By Courtney Love's arithmetic [salon.com], the record label gets about $50 profit from the $75 spent, whilst the artists get a total of $2.38 profit. Now, if the albums are downloaded and then paid for, the recipients are likely to be individuals who are sympathetic to the plight of musicians, and hence will often donate via a band's site or buy from an ethical label [magnatune.com], as I did just last night (despite being a poor student). Result: the artist is likely to get at least 1/2 the loot, a 1500% increase over the other system
4) (This one applies to software) What happens when people want to use a superb tool like Lightwave in a professional context? They have to license it, or recommend that it be licensed. So, by not shooting down the bored teenage downloader who'd never be able to afford this $800 software, Newtek is able to sell several copies to the company he/she ends up working for. It's like farming only not.
In conclusion, the positive side-effects of wide-ranging copyright infringement will often outweigh the negative side-effects, especially in industries where the content producers are getting shafted or where the product is most lucratively licensed in a professional context. There's probably an equivalent argument for films but my brain's dead.
Speaking of ruptured braincells, there's at least two errors in the above calculations. I'm too tired to figure out how to correct them, so I'll just say: please give bonus points to anyone who finds three mistakes
Re:hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Would these misers have been willing to splash out for the product anyway?
Does it matter? As an (apparently) wise person posted before me, if they won't pay for it, they shouldn't have it. It's only "too expensive" if too few people buy it.
How much of this actually goes to the artist?
Doesn't matter. Giant, big-name publishers don't provde revenue for the artist per se, but they provde advertising for the band's conserts, their primary form of revenue. Would you shell out big bucks to see a (in
Re:hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Wow, you were able to contradict yourself without even starting a new sentence.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
"Working on morales" is no different than working on economics. Economics is the study of how people attempt to satisfy their unlimited wants with limited or scare resources. It does not mean you would steal everything you could. It does mean that supporting your principles is worth the opportunity cost of earning the required money to do so.
Everything is economics, because it's a study of human behavior. Last time I checked, all humans had behaviors to study. Even those who aren't uber-capitalist pl
Re:hmm (Score:2)
I am downloading illegal mp3's as I type this from frostwire. Mainly because I am unemployed and broke currently. I did use Itunes previously to purchase music.
According to economists I am a thief and I know I am. Morality is great but businesses and consumers need to pick something called the price point equilibrium. Basically it deals with quantity and price and demand drives the intersection wher
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Game (esp those with multiplayer component) is one of them. I am not a gamer. But, I find quite a few of my friends who never buy any software before have change habit. First, they are now working and have decent income. More importantly, once they enjoy the copied game and notice there is a multiplayer they will just pop to the game shop to buy the game. Th
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another flawed "OMG look at all those stolen CD's we could earn so much money with this stuff" study.
Perhaps if Microsoft stopped charging $200 for Windows and $2000 for Visual Studio, more people would buy their products legit.
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Which ultimately means "all your base are belong to the USA".
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Exactly. The BSA has to spin this. China, for example, would benefit massively from reasonable (read: similar to our constitution, not our laws) copyright enforcement. Performers would be able to make money from their albums or movies, and they would be higher quality. A lot of people who aren't willing to take the risk of being artists, or creative software developers, or even just inventors, would. The poor would still pirate content, but the middle and upper classes would be fueling an economic revo
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Funny)
Now, if a country like Chad or Bhutan started pumping money into the USA, the resulting inflation could potentially make every man on the street a millionaire in the local currency. It would also make it easier for Americans to buy the fine products of Chad and Bhutan (copra? dirt?) which would boost the fortunes of copra/dirt mag
Re:Question (Score:2)
They would say that, wouldn't they (Score:2)
Given who conducted the study, the conclusion is hardly surprising.
Re:They would say that, wouldn't they (Score:2)
Re: Economic benefits by sending billions to U.S?? (Score:2)
They send viruses [nai.com] instead
False assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that these BSA studies always assume that the money that is not spent on software is not spent anywhere else either.
Re:False assumptions (Score:2)
And what will be the cost of enforcing piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly doubt it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. They are assuming that there is a limitless demand for IT professionals that is not currently being satisfied. I don't think this is the case. These countries have a host of other economic and political problems that lead to many things, including not respecting other countrie's copyrights (oh no!) and having limited jobs for IT professionals. If they suddenly enforced copyright (and by this, it is implicitly meant the copyright of other countries) I don't think there would suddenly be a huge demand for copyright-enforcing bureaucracy.
I just don't see why people who are used to making copies without obtaining permission will go along with, and support, such a system. Frankly the point of the whole article is "other countries have this nifty law that lets the government tax ethereal things... and it lets companies sue lots of people for ethereal things! These countries are rich! Do you want to be rich? All you have to do is impose laws that manage ethereal things (like ideas), and *poof* you have wealth out of thin air!"
I don't believe in generating fictitious wealth using laws. It's barely sustainable for the countries that are doing it now; I just don't see how it would make sense for countries that don't have a history of such laws.
Re:I highly doubt it... (Score:2)
Re:I highly doubt it... (Score:2)
While that seems logical to us, to a company who's only worried about the bottom line, their logic would be "it only took X programmers to write the software in the first place, why pay for more to do the next version? We can pocket all the money our great sales are doing, and only keep the minimum number of programmers needed to do the job. In fact, we'll fire all our programmers a
Re:I highly doubt it... (Score:2)
This also ignores the fact that 2X programmers do not produce software in half the time. In fact, adding more people into the loop like this can actually lengthen the time it takes to complete a project.
Re:I highly doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I highly doubt it... (Score:2)
You could also make the claim that by reducing enforcement of copyright on software, more software would be used - since supposedly all of this software is being used to make businesses more efficient and productive, you'd actually create more real growth by doing that, not less.
Only if you postulate that most software wouldn't be written at all unless piracy is controlled, thus reducing future growth because the software needed won't be available, do you find any reason to enforce copyright. In the prese
Re:I highly doubt it... (Score:2)
I agree; I think in Tiawan and Russia and other piracy centers, software piracy is more of the effect of the economic situation, not the cause of it.
It doesn't matter what the laws are; between buying legit software and eating, people will choose to eat. If you take away the option for getting software for free, they just will not have software.
~W
2.4 million new jobs (Score:5, Funny)
We've seen this math before (Score:3, Funny)
I think they mean 24,000 new jobs which in the US earn $100,000/year each. Outsourced overseas, that would be 2.4 million jobs at $1000/year each.
That's the same math they use to count a single 40x CD burner as 40 burners when they bust a piracy ring.
unpublished results also say that IP will ... (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't seem very valid (Score:2, Interesting)
Whoa! Cool! Magic numbers! (Score:3, Funny)
See? Making up numbers is fun, and very educational. But I'll bet mine are just as accurate.
Hrm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hrm (Score:2)
Just so you know, your post is being displayed on my Panasoanic monitor, and I'm replying using my Logitake keyboard and mouse.
Global everything (Score:2)
Why is everything nowdays called global: "global warming", "the global war on terror", and now "global software piracy". It suggests that things are all around the world the same. Well, let me tell you, those people in Pakistan that survived the earthquake, would hope for a little "global warming", as long as it happens in their village and this winter of course. But I digress...
Why don't people start solving their problems at home? Probably i
Re:Global everything (Score:2, Insightful)
What does BSA stand for? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem that these people fail to see is that third-world countries can't afford to pay the "normal" (i.e US) prices for software. The numbers the BSA is throwing around is just mind-boggling... $ 400B in economic growth, what the fsck ever. I don't think most of those people would actually replace their pirated copies with the original, just because they can't afford it.
The message they're trying to convey is "OMG that's all we're missing out on because of piracy?", but it doesn't hold water. I'm not condoning piracy, but it really pisses me off when I see the "guys in the suits" blabbering inane propaganda and throwing around numbers to justify their existence.
And if the study includes PC games in the "pirated software" category, this makes it even worse, because the numbers will be again vastly inflated. In third-world countries, copies cost anywhere from $1 to $3, so anyone who goes out and buys games wouldn't leave without at least 3 DVDs, even they never play the games they bought. Which wouldn't be true if the prices were in the $35-55 range.
Re:What does BSA stand for? (Score:2)
Also whats to stop the Chinesse and Indians from starting their own software companies and selling photoshop euqilivants for $40? They can afford that but they wont due to piracy. Why pay?
The problem with outsourcing is that more companies from India and China where %100 of their employees down to the CEO make 1/6th the amount of an American and past the costs to the consumer. Th
2.4 million new jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Or will that be lawyers who earn their money in patent cases?
Somehow something is very very wrong with the reasoning that if people would have paid for what they p
Re:2.4 million new jobs (Score:2)
Sure you can! If you work for the BSA, the MPAA, the RIAA, the SPA, Congress and/or Orrin Hatch.
If it wasnt for piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it wasnt for piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If it wasnt for piracy (Score:2)
expensive commercial software was impossible to pirate
Does not compute.
This is what they fail to realize. There is no software that's not crackable, short of things who's dependance on the internet will wreck their functionality if taken away (WoW).
There will always be a way to decompile, step through, and find the part of the software that says "Authenticity Check returns(good)" and pass that to any part of the program that asks for it.
~W
Re:If it wasnt for piracy (Score:2)
Then they'll start pushing for mandatory use of hardware that only allows trusted signed programs and operating systems to be loaded. That such hardware would just happen to not allow for an Open Source model is merely a happy coincidence.
Re:If it wasnt for piracy (Score:2)
Piracy fixes (Score:2)
I'm anti-copyright so I see how software is worthless based on supply and demand. Companies can't protect the bits, they can only charge for the physical portion and service.
By ending the policing, they can lower their prices, bringing in more users. Data
They are finally going to do _something_? (Score:2)
Re:They are finally going to do _something_? (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, copyright laws make YOU rich!
No, wait...
BSA = BS (Score:3, Interesting)
May 19th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Software theft is bad; so is misstating the evidence
IT SOUNDS too bad to be true; but, then, it might not be true. Up to 35% of all PC software installed in 2004 was pirated, resulting in a staggering $33 billion loss to the industry, according to an annual study released this week by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade association and lobby group.
Such jaw-dropping figures are regularly cited in government documents and used to justify new laws and tough penalties for pirates--this month in Britain, for example, two people convicted of piracy got lengthy prison sentences, even though they had not sought to earn money. The BSA provided its data. The judge chose to describe the effects of piracy as nothing less than "catastrophic".
Intellectual property
But while the losses due to software copyright violations are large and serious, the crime is certainly not as costly as the BSA portrays. The association's figures rely on sample data that may not be representative, assumptions about the average amount of software on PCs and, for some countries, guesses rather than hard data. Moreover, the figures are presented in an exaggerated way by the BSA and International Data Corporation (IDC), a research firm that conducts the study. They dubiously presume that each piece of software pirated equals a direct loss of revenue to software firms.
To derive its piracy rate, IDC estimates the average amount of software that is installed on a PC per country, using data from surveys, interviews and other studies. That figure is then reduced by the known quantity of software sold per country--a calculation in which IDC specialises. The result: a (supposed) amount of piracy per country. Multiplying that figure by the revenue from legitimate sales thus yields the retail value of the unpaid-for software. This, IDC and BSA claim, equals the amount of lost revenue.
The problem is that the economic impact of global software piracy is far harder to calculate. Some academics have shown that some piracy actually increases software sales, by introducing products to people who would not otherwise become customers. Indeed, Bill Gates chirped in the 1990s that piracy in China was useful to Microsoft, because once the nation was hooked, the software giant would eventually figure out a way to monetise the trend. (Lately Microsoft has kept quiet on this issue.)
The BSA's bold claims are surprising, given that last year the group was severely criticised for inflating its figures to suit its political aims. "Absurd on its face" and "patently obscene" is how Gary Shapiro, boss of the Consumer Electronics Association, another lobby group, describes the new ranking.
When the direct approach fails... (Score:2)
When will they release a study that finds... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats the real truth. Even the pirates understand that
You think they pirate software because they're trying to undermine their local economies?
The pirates arent going anywhere because the companies keep treating people like cash batteries. They're people that deserve a fair chance to enjoy $5000 software packages.
Jesus would pirate software
Yeah right (Score:2, Interesting)
Software pricing is heinous as is music and video pricing.
Lower the price and people won't really need to or want to pirate software.
This is really quite the opposite than claimed. (Score:2)
Vietnam is such a country and I recall they wanted into WIPO or WTO... but were told that they needed to reduce software piracy before they would even be considered for entrance. How they resp
BSA used to be not so bad (Score:2)
That's why to this day you can copy the media of just about any software without worrying about things like funky formatted sectors.
Too bad the BSA is going
I think this is the first signs of a more cohesive (Score:4, Insightful)
A few years back, I decided to abandon all software I was not either entitled to use (open source, freeware, paid licenses, etc...) and could not afford to own.
For a while It was a real bitch, but then things changed. While I've been a Linux user since the mid 90's, I really didn't fully explore OSS until about 2000. What I found was that a lot of software is simply not necessary. Using the software I had in more creative ways, or simply learning (again) to work without some software has had clear benefits to me, both in terms of dollars saved and in terms of just being able to work in the first place.
Today, I own a coupla pieces of commercial software and the rest is all OSS. That more than piracy is resulting in lost sales. If they really succeed in cutting down on piracy, the OSS side of things is just going to get a lot worse for them and they know it.
The only solid way to keep the proprietary, "pay as often as we can get you to pay to compute" model sustainable is to change the rules of the game such that OSS alternatives are driven back underground. This continues to happen where multi-media applications are concerned, but that's not enough. Getting Ogle from another country really does not affect anyone as the DVD player devices are all bundled with some goofy player anyway.
Getting OpenOffice, GIMP, web browsers, development tools, etc... back out of the mainstream will make a big difference. I suspect the approach will be to slowly move legislative opinion in this direction, then deal with citizen complaints through "access programs" very similar in nature to what the big phama companies do today.
Can't afford that lifesaving drug? Simple, if you beg and prove you really, really are gonna die without their property, they will "give" it to you rather than do the right thing.
Software companies are going to end up trying the same things, IMHO.
I regularly write my elected representatives about OSS issues. I let them know I write OSS software and why and what value the growing body of OSS software brings to anyone willing to participate. Participation can be as simple as just using the software of your choice or as involved as developing, training, distributing, etc... We all benefit.
Oh, the one biggie I always mention is the fact that OSS is unique in that value received is more than value contributed for everyone involved because no material goods are required to make use of the combined result. This is important because many industry (closed industry) lobbiests equate this value proposition as an "unsustainable ponzi type scheme" that does more harm than good as it takes advantage of contributors without "closing the value chain". Translation: We can't compete with free and the world (read government) needs us here.
Back on topic: The IP battle is imporant here in the US because we have outsourced darn near everything else, yet we still consume an awful lot per capita. Unless the world can be convinced that IP is viable, we are going to become increasingly hard pressed to restore that balance in the coming years.
On one hand, I'm not looking forward to us having to figure that out. And IP is an easy out. On the other, I sure don't want OSS going anywhere because it's primary value to me is not the cost savings, but the near total computing freedom that comes along for the ride.
One of my favorite computers happens to be an older SGI computer. OSS keeps that machine viable. Any of us, who know what we are doing, can take pretty much any combination of computing hardware we can get our hands on and be productive with it. As time goes on, I find this to be quite compelling in that I can continue to compute just the way I want to, not how I am told.
IP takes all of that away and I KNOW that's a bad thing, simply because being left with no alternatives means near total control of our computing environment. History has shown time and time again that scenario never is
Re:math (Score:2)
It took 17 years to learn that telling the truth might be good marketing.
Re:Fuzzy math? (Score:2)
Not that I support the BSA's conclusion in this case, but there will certainly be many graphic professionals who use Photoshop to earn more than the $500 it cost them. Software and hardware as a professional tool certainly can have a value greater than the sticker amount.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Fuzzy math? (Score:2)
$500 ?!? No wonder we have so much bile spewed about Gimp vs Photoshop. Hey, tell me, how does spending $500 on a tool put you ahead profit-wise, as opposed to obtaining a free tool that you can improve yourself legally?
Re:Fuzzy math? (Score:2)
That's easy - buying the tool may free up time that could be spent on chargeable tasks. The two tools do not offer comparable levels of functionality. In this case, though I am certainly not suggesting it's the situation in every case, the $500 tool is more powerful than the free one. Cons
Re:Fuzzy math? (Score:2)
I think the comparison is to that same professional using the same software, just not paying Adobe anything for it.
Re:Fuzzy math? (Score:2)
Well in that case the potential is fine and loss of reputation. Fines may or may not be serious, loss of reputation can be huge for a small business.
I simply don't pirate stuff at all - I'll pay if it's worth it to me, look for open source alternatives if not. A case in point would be spreadsheets - I need them in what I do, but not enough so that I can justify buying Office, or even standal
Re:Interesting acronym (Score:2)
Re:Hrmm... (Score:2)