Why does BetaNews take these reports at face value? BetaNews certainly knows that the BSA is just a front organization for Microsoft and other Microsoft tail-riders. I guess it's easier to sit at your desk and rewrite PR releases than to actually make a few phone calls, perhaps a bit of searching the web, maybe a trip to the library

So, BetaNews is either:
1) Incompetent or
2) Biased

But don't worry about me, there are plenty of other tech new sites on the web that want my readership. Ta ta.

When I was in Asia I found that piracy was rampant. In order to find a legit copy to buy you had to look and look, and just down the way was a guy selling the same thing in the same box for less than a penny on the dollar. Not just that, but right next to it was a CDRom with tens of thousands of dollars worth of software for $5, all with keys.

They have almost institutionalized it over there. They don't care if they rip off american companies. Even their idea of whether it is wrong is skewed. They seem to think that if you can get away with it, it is ok. This is not just in Asia either. The protection of intellectual rights is mostly a western idea, hence the lack of massive amounts of high qualiity software being produced in these countries.

The notion that every copy that is pirated is a lost sale is just plain stupid. I am sure there is some ratio, but it probably nearer to 1:10 than 1:1. They use these inflated numbers to scare people and impress politicians. I can understand why folks in Africa would pirate. Buying enough legit software to outfit a PC will cost them about as much as they make in a year. They simply cannot afford it. As for people like the Chinese, if they are stopped from pirating they will not buy it for the most part. They will either make some knockoff (of course stealing the code they want) or find something else that is either much cheaper or easier to pirate.

My whole computer operates on open source programs. Linux OS, Firefox Browser, OpenOffice suite, and various other open source utilities. I use them because they do the job and their free. However, if I am new to a computer and someone hands me 20 CD's with software that runs the machine and does every task imaginable and the serials are included with each program, what am I going to do? The problem isn't that people dont care about pirating software, it's that its to damn easy and very few people actually look to the alternatives such as Opensource. Microsoft started doing validation with verifies your Windows key with a database, if it doesn't match the computer still operates, but you dont get updates or service packs. This is an excellent idea. I downloaded a small win32 app that had limited functionality until a key could be provided that could be verified via the internet, why dont all software vendors do this? Its so simple. On the other hand phone validation has its quirks and there are keygens available, but a simple internet validation would solve 50% of software piracy, but vendors seem content just using cd keys that are so simple that anyone who knows advanced algebra can write a keygen.

I still cant belive count any software that is pirated like a loss. It's so damn crazy. Most people wouldnt use the sw if it wasnt pirated. They wouldnt buy it simple as that. THe public that buys is not the one that pirates. period

The hypocrits at RIAA require those of us involved in net casting to pay everytime we play a song even if we own it. In on air based radio it's called payola and illegal and airplay is looked upon as promotion. Yet we play and promote and for the privledge of promoting we are forced to pay everytime we play an artists song.FM's get their promo copies free and pay nothing, netcasters buy their own material then pay again to play it. Hypocritical

That's not right. It would seem that the standard should be the same. One thing though, what does this have to do with software piracy?

ummm... Dude, u got it mixed up. We are talking about SOFTWARE piracy, which IS illegal. Last time i checked, music & movie piracy is not as illegal as software piracy. :P

Where did you check? Copyright infringement is copyright infringement...

"Last time i checked, music & movie piracy is not as illegal as software piracy."

ROFLMAO...it's still copyright infringement genius.

Guys, that was supposed to be tongue in cheek comment.

this just in, 1 out of 3 surveys are completely false.

the other 2 are just a little bit false.

wait so did they add the money they paid the company to do the survey and fact finding get added onto that $34 billion?

cause i mean there would be no reason to have a survey if nobody pirated right?

I'm shocked, shocked to find that pirating is going on in here!

aye aye captain

aye captain, a bunch of misfits we are, arggg.

I think the ease of acquiring illegal copies of software also matters to some. I have a friend that has enough money to definately pay for many of his apps, but he dosen't because it's way to easy to download it instead. Takes 5 minutes via hundreds of ways to find what you want.

I remember something about an anti-piracy initiative called Palladin (I think) a while ago, I think it was an involvement of Microsoft and other hardware vendors, and that the DRM would be hardware coded as well. Did anything come out of this? I think it would at least help curb piracy to some extent, but I don't know how end users would react to such an intrusive DRM system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing

Let's face it: the real culprits in piracy are corporations and companies. Almost every company I've ever worked for stole their software, and often it was Microsoft software of some type. Each time I gathered the evidence, made the calls, sent in the crack codes they were using and guess what? Not a dang thing was done. Nothing!

I understand people can download cracks off of usenet and such, but I'm surprised by how little software most individuals have on their computers.

So you snitched on your employers and where never fired for it? :o

That means 2 out of 3 are paid for. I'm surprised it's that much.

I've read all your comments and I found the conversation very interesting. I agree with a little of what almost everyone says pro and against piracy.

First off here is a situation and tell me what you think. I borrow a game from a friend who bought it, I don't copy it, he finished it and he let me play it. Is that Piracy if I don't make a copy of it for myself? I have a friend who doesn't believe in piracy, he'll buy every piece of software and every cd and dvd, BUT if I let him borrow a game I bought or the game I borrowed from friend and its not a copy he'll play it as long as the game isn't on my system or at least he'll call to see if I'm playing it at that time in which case he won't play it. Is what he doing piracy?

I agree software is expensive and the company does sell it at a high price to make money. The piece of software may cost them say $3.00 to copy and package, but they sell it for $50.00. They do that because they have to pay for the programmer, and producer and director of the game, they have to pay for advertising if any, and they have to make a profit on top of that. It all adds up. Granted I don't see how a company can sell a piece of software for $300+ dollars. I can kind of see how MS charges so much for Windows. I tell people though to buy the upgrade, even if their going to make a full install, because as long as you have a cd of an earlier version (or know someone who has one), you can save money by getting the upgrade. I do use Openoffice, but when I knew someone at MS and he got Office for $15 I bought it.

The thing I would like to see is if their going to put advertising in games...and I'm guessing they charge for that ad...the price of that game should go down. For example I saw on Xplay that Fight Night 3 had a big Burger King sign on the floor of the boxing ring. Who knows how much they charges Burger King, but they should make the game cheaper for that...instead of charging $50 maybe charge $30. In certain MMO's their going to put ads, they should do the same thing, instead of $15 a month maybe $5, plus with an MMO the ads can change regularly.

Music, I like the thought of CD's being cheaper because the bands want people to go to their concerts. Even if they gave away their cd's like with bands playing in clubs sometimes do, the band would make money. The thing is the band wants to feel like they're getting something out of their making of the CD. Yes they get to make money at the concerts, but not everyone who buys a CD goes to a concert, just like not everyone that goes to a concert (more or less the big 10 band concerts) buys the CD. Maybe if I say go to pick up tickets to a concert if I show proof I bought the CD I should get a discount on the tickets? Maybe bands should give away their CD's at concerts for free as thanks for coming to the concert? But their not obligated to. They deserve to make money, but the thing is since they make much more than the average person, the average person doesn't care that their ripping them off for money they should be earning. Also now RIAA want companies to charge more for online music, so your 99 cent download may later cost $2.

Now to movies, I do think if you want to make a backup of your movie collection (and cd's), you should be able to, as long as you don't sell the copies. I have hundreds of CD's and I want to put them on my Ipod so I don't have to either carry them in my car, or keep them in my house and pick the one I want to listen to before I leave. I want to have them all on my Ipod so I can just scan the songs and play what I want to play. Or with my movies I want to put them all on my PC so I can just pick the one I want to watch from the comfort of my couch instead of having to go through racks and racks of DVD's. Sure I can get Netflix but my roommate doesn't want to, he wants to buy. I have no doubt in the future you'll be able to on demand any movie you want, you'll just go to a website and click on a movie and it'll start playing any that you can get at the DVD store or buy. I also think that if a movie comes out in the theater that maybe it should be buyable or rentable right away too. You'll have the same people who want to see the movie on the big screen see it there and if they like it they'll buy it, also you'll have the person who can't get to the theater be it their confined to bed or just don't want to go to a theater, maybe he/she has a 60 inch TV with an awsome sound system, and that person will buy it. I think out of all the pirating it may be the movie industry who looses the most money. They put on the low end 50 mill into a movie and on the high end a couple hundred mill, and I don't know if that money has to do with paying of the stars and such or just the production of the movie itself, but people who pirate that movie are really taking money from these people that they won't see. Sure some movies like Da Vinci code made 77 mill first weekend, and by the it'll probably make over 300 mill, but not all movies do that.

Now I have a Media Center PC and I record shows and movies in which if there are commercials I skip them. Now if I miss a show I forgot to record I either have to wait for it to come on again, or maybe I can pay and download it, but if I download it through bittorrant its considered pirating which I do think is unfare. If your alloud to watch it on TV for free (or if you pay for cable or satallite tv), and you can record it you should be able to download it for free. Now stations will say the people putting them on the net are taking out the commercials and its pirating because commercials is what pays for free TV which is true, but like I said before I skip the commercials, I don't see them anyway. Now I hear a company is trying to come out with a technology that will let you record, but won't let you skip commercials. Then it'll be kind of like what ABC is testing, by letting people watch certain shows for free, or what AOL and a couple other services are trying to do, you watch the show with commercials you can't fast forward. Now that would kind of suck, I have a Media Center PC and one day I find out I can't forward past the commercials of the show I recorded, now that would be a sad day.

Now like I said I can see both sides of the coin and I understand why some people pirate and why the companies are trying to stop pirating. I try and use as much freeware and open source sofware as I can, mostly because I don't have the money to buy the pay stuff. I still use Windows because it has the most games and software than any other OS. I think for the most part Windows is a good value, at least you don't have to pay for every upgrade like with MacOS. Windows will give free service packs until they come out with a full version 3-5 years later. MacOS makes you pay for every single one, sometimes 2 times a year. Linux may be free, but game wise it sucks. So until I see something better I'll shell out the money for Windows. Games like Half Life I think are good buys too, because there are so many free addons that you can play forever (or until a new and improved game comes out). I had many years of fun with Half Life 1 and I plan on having many more years of fun with Half Life 2. MMO's are fun but a waste when it comes down to it. Yeah your paying $15 a month for new content every month or so, but its still the same game and I get bored after a while. If they could let you pay for usage pay a lot less per hour time instead of per month or if they use ads to make the game cheaper then it may be worth it. If I play an MMO for 5 hours a week and I pay the same ammount of money as someone who plays 20 hours a week thats not right. I also think movies should be charged for how long they are. For a movie thats 90 minutes or less, shouldn't be the same price as a movie that is 2 hours plus (Maybe the 90 minute movie should be $8 and the 2 hour movie should be $10). But also I think its kind of unfare that you bring your kid to a movie that you wouldn't usually see on your own and have to pay full price. There should be a good parent discount, you go see a kids movie with your kids and you get half off..lol (I'm half joking).

Now to the who mentioned fashion. Fashion and fregrence can have knockoffs because the knockoffs are usually made cheaper and not as well as the name brand. You can say OpenOffice is a knockoff of MS Office, they may be similar but it costs alot more for MS to make their Office, they pay their people better, they have an add champagne and OpenOffice only has word of mouth, plus MS has more distribution costs (even though it doesn't cost them much to make the copeis and packaging per unit), but most people who use OpenOffice download it for free. Same with Linux and all the other free and shareware software out there. A lot of these people who make software usually don't have huge buildings with thousands of employees (notice I say a lot of them not all).

1 in 3? I'm shocked! These people are nothing but trouble..

..what hell... Windows not genuine!!! I thought I cracked this thing...

What was I saying? Oh yeah, these people are nothing but trouble and should be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law. Piracy is just wrong.

So... What's new? Lol. I didn't there are still people who actually goes out to "buy" software... Who would want to go buy softwares that are priced at over $100 a piece anyway? Not me. I mean the damn thing goes out-dated after a year and most of the time you can't even upgrade without a fee. It's rediculous on how the system works today.

Software companies can fight pirating by lowering the cost of their applications and lowering the salary of their spoiled programmers. Not everyone in America works for vacations every month; the low and middle class citizens works for a living. So, how could they afford to buy expensive software?

"costing the industry some $34 billion during 2005"
how does it cost them anything for me to illegaly download software? does that count on weather i use it or not?

"monetary losses amounting to nearly $6.9 billion"
so, in other words, money that may or may not have been made.

" piracy continues to threaten the future of software innovation, resulting in lost jobs and tax revenues."
yes, yes
that must be the BIGGEST cause of lost jobs and high taxes

and anyway, they're not being very innovative when they're wondering who might be ripping them off rather than creating new products

these companies are built on rediculous promises, and blind faith. they get their market worth from projected sales and promised innovation. as soon as a competing product comes out, stocks drop, and they pull out the lawers to figure out why they're not making the money they planned.

i'm sick of these companies blaming poor people for their losses.
GIVE IT UP
make money the old fashioned way, WORK AT IT!!!!!

You can't be serious...

Music, Radio, Movies, Television, Books, Newspapers, Magazines, and the Internet have evolved into industries because of people.

People have the right to back up their data for archiving, and because this also leads to abilities to copy data that has not been purchased or earned, the industries of the world attempt to control it.

I have a vast library of data, media, and programs that I have freely downloaded. I don't sell this data to anyone. Instead, I sell the service of gathering, organizing, and distributing the data.

Therefore, when the ability to compensate the owners becomes an issue, we have to look at all aspects before coming to a competent, conclusive decision.

This is why it is imperative that data be shared, and never charged for. It is the service of data gathering, organizing, and distributing that should be compensated for.

Arguments against piracy:

It is wrong to obtain a product/goods/services without paying for it. Even though software piracy involves copying data, it is no different than taking anything else that doesn't belong to you. It harms the developers by reducing sales. It is against the law.
If a person purchases a videogame and makes a back-up copy, this is acceptable provided that he or she does not sell the copy...and if the
owner sells the original, he or she must destroy the copy.

This is why it is imperative that data be shared, and never charged for. It is the service of data gathering, organizing, and distributing that should be compensated for.

So we should all compenstate you...and not the guy who put his heart and soul into creating the data?

Yeah. Right.

If that is "Divine Logic", I want none of it.

Right, and you shouldn't get paid for the work you do... your boss should just call you every morning to wake you up and buy you a car to get you there. You know... gather, organize and distribute..

umm,ummm,ummmm...
i'm almost speechless
that's got to be the most logical post on pirating i've ever seen from you.

BUT, i don't think it ruduces sales as much as they'd like to think. the people who want to buy it, DO.

well that all depends, some people cant afford it. i mean i wish i could aford adobe acrobat pro 6 or 7 but i cant so i stick to the freebie player, but i guess someone might pirate it or whatever.

The question he is asking is that since you can't afford it and wouldn't buy it, would it be a lost sale if you pirated it? In principle, yes... in reality, no.

yes so then the survey becomes one of bias just by wether someone is a realist or bases it on principle, so theses surveys cant really mean anything because results vary depending on your stance. it is a mexican standoff(no offense to mexicans)

There is a ton of 15 year old kids making signatures and avatars using Photoshop. How many of them would be doing that at $600 a clip? They could arguably be called a lost sale, but realistically very, very few are. I am not condoning piracy, but these figures are bogus and misleading.

I agree. The vast majority are not lost sales because the offending users never would have bought the software in the first place. This is just a case of industrial strength whining by the BSA. Boo-hoo.

I stand by the belief that the actual loss of sales due to piracy are more than offset by the increased spread and popularity of the software, which in turn increases genuine sales. You don't expand a market by choking it. You let it breathe.

The computer industry could have had congress bail them out of a failed model, but instead changed their model (ie. going for big business sales, going after resellers that make proft from pirated software, raising awareness to te consumer, etc). Strangely, the software industry doesn't have the perception of strongarm tactics...like you know who.

if people stopped using MS Word as the default format for CVs and documents and turned to, say Rich Text or XML then the need to buy MS products would decrease. It sounds obvious but the reason why Word is the most common format is because everyone has it because everyone else uses it.

It is no justification for piracy - in fact, its the exact opposite. People who hate Microsoft should STOP pirating their products!

OK, if you want to talk about moral justification, then consider this. These games aren't released to the general public, and access to any legitimate copy is limited. Two moral issues come to mind. One is that the owner of a legitimate (or pirated copy) who sells pirated copies of the game is making money off of someone elses work, of which the pirate has no rights to. Essentially, they're getting the paycheck that the author/publisher (or whatever the gaming equivelant to a publisher is) should be getting. Granted, they're not getting money anyways, but it's still their idea (the author's idea, and the author's agreement with the mass producer of the gaming CDs). Another moral issue would concern collateral damange. Becuase the gamer is pirating these games (even though they aren't accessible to the public), they are less likely to buy legitimate games whereby the author and producer of the games are being rewarded as to their agreement. Remember, it's still the author's/authors' idea that had been, for lack of a better term, published into the code that makes up the game. This slacking of the gaming industry economy would
therefore drive prices down (hurray for consumers), which would decrease the incentive for the game makers to even make the game in
the first place (sucks for business). So clearly, there are moral issues that justify the legality concerning piracy of games, even if these games aren't released to general public yet.

You believe that the actual loss is offset... I believe that there certainly is an offset, but you can't possibly think that a bunch of execs would sit back and wait for sales generated by piracy.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of those who were pirating for profit. Simply those who just happened to get a copy of software from a friend, and who then in turn made a copy for another friend, etc. So I could be wrong, but I'd assumed that would be the majority of the numbers they were using. These are the ones that shouldn't necessarily be counted as a lost sale.

Pirating for profit is indeed bad, bad evil.

i doubt it works in reverse though, if there was less piracy of a given game does the price go down? other then with lowering the price after its been out for months they still rip the hell out of us in price regardless. not that i support piracy but maybe they should offer us incentives to buy the game, like perhaps log into the website with the serial number and register, which would only work for the first one to use that serial, and get extra content or maybe a rebate or something.

For many people software is not a tangible piece of product like bread or water. If you take the act of pirating away, they would stop and get on with their lives. I think for them to regain SOME of the lost revenue, they need to make software less expensive.

From below comment, for added effect:

If you have a machine that is not running a licensed copy of XP (i.e., linux), then your system represents 'lost revenue' to MS (in the eyes of the BSA).

By using the above situations to pad their numbers, they are, in effect, calling every single linux user in the world a pirate.

I love quoting myself.

Fewt, you nasti, nasti Pirate, you!

Yeah, I'm not surprised they'd use that tactic, the RIAA does this all the time as well. These numbers are nice to inflate the problem. However, I haven't seen the sheer audacity against consumers the RIAA has inflicted against them. This is suprising since most p2p apps have the abaility to have software as well. I am happy that this industry has changed its business methods to deal with this instead of relying on congress to bail them out, though.

Aaaand survey says:
You actual expect me to beleive these statistics have any degree of accuracy? Its virtually impossible to even estimate the so called losses to piracy simply for the fact that the data isnt accurately trackable, unless one wants to cite paranoid "big brother" methods.

So, what are stats for Satellite "signal theft"? (c'mon, steal the airwave radio stations too!!)

"o, what are stats for Satellite "signal theft"? (c'mon, steal the airwave radio stations too!!) "

lol
always liked that one, they can shoot the signal through my head, but i'm not legally allowed to de-scramble it.
go figure :-p

*For Wikipedia's policy on copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.

In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort or crime. This means that the plaintiff or prosecutor must only prove that the act of copying or actus reus was committed by the defendant, and need not prove mens rea. Good faith, standing alone, is no defense.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated".) The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[1] Critics of the use of "software piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly compares a crime that makes no victim - except for those that would have profited from hypothetically lost sales - with the violent actions of organized thieves and murderers; it also confuses mere illegal copying of material with the intentional and malicious penetration of computer systems to which one does not legally have access. As a consequence, "software piracy" is a somewhat loaded term. "Theft" or "stealing" are considered even more inflammatory, as well as legally misleading.[2]*

*Methods of copyright infringement

The MPAA uses advertising as an attempt to deter people from copying films, particularly those still in theatres. This practice has been heavily mocked (in the linked example, through comparisons to Cold War-era anti-communist propaganda.)

The unlawful downloading and sharing of recorded music in the form of MP3 and other small, lossy audio files is still widespread, even after the demise of Napster and a series of infringement suits brought by the American recording industry against music-sharing individuals seemingly chosen at random. Promotional screener DVDs distributed by movie studios (often for consideration for awards) are a common source of unauthorised copying when movies are still in theatrical release, and the MPAA has attempted to restrict their use. Movies are also still copied by someone sneaking a camcorder into a movie theater and secretly taping the projection (also known as "CAM"), although such copies are often of lesser quality than officially released version of the film. Sharing copied music is legal in many countries, such as Canada, and parts of Europe, provided that this information is neither advertised, nor that the songs be sold.

Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to differentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their distribution is still against the law*

"Theft" or "stealing" are considered even more inflammatory, as well as legally misleading.[2]*

Interesting to see you post that, rijp. Did you skim past that one?

But Piracy = Theft, otherwise you wouldnt need to distigingish it as such. Piracy doesnt deny the author/publisher of the idea or an actual thing, it only subverts their rights to how they might exploit that idea. To take the argument to its logical conclusion, you could say that one is stealing from an author by only buying secondhand games: the author is not renumerated twice, yet two people have experienced and shared in the idea.

But Piracy = Theft

Leaves me looking for an explanation of how piracy deprives the owner of physical merch in the follow-up:

Piracy doesnt deny the author/publisher of the idea or an actual thing, it only subverts their rights to how they might exploit that idea. To take the argument to its logical conclusion, you could say that one is stealing from an author by only buying secondhand games: the author is not renumerated twice, yet two people have experienced and shared in the idea.

Nope, not there.

Theft, IMO, involves loss of actual, physical property, and usually entails breaking-and-entering, and sometimes also involves bloodshed. Regardless, damage is done via the diminishing of physical inventory.

Copyright Infringement (Known by the RIAA as Piracy), on the other hand, does not involve *any* of the above. No physical property changes possession, no inventory is depleted, no accountable, quantifiable loss is documented.

Saying that THEFT=PIRACY equates that the two should carry similar punishment. Apparenlty, even the RIAA disagrees by pushing for punishments for Copyright Infringement that go *far* beyond petty theft.

Also, please note: Copyright Infringement is not a felony, Theft of physical property is. Copyright cases are tried in civil courts, theivery is tried in criminal courts.

Ya don't think there's a reason for that? (Do we *really* need to get into this again, rijp? Talk about beating a dead horse, man...)

OH NOOS THEY KILLED MR. ED???????

SOMEONE CALL 911 QUICK!!!!!!!

WE NEED A DOCTOR STAT!

so we agree then:

COPYRIGHTING is a form of LEGAL EXPLOITATION

the ba$tard$
how'd they get this one by us?

It's not like every single pirate would pay money for the software they steal IF they had no choice. Many of them would simply not use the software at all or would use a freeware alternative.

"The progress made in reducing PC software piracy in several emerging markets provides some encouragement; however, much more needs to be done," said BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman.

Does it mean that he will advice installing OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office and Suse/Ubuntu instead of Windows so piracy will decrease? Wow! Cool guy! Good initiative!

"...costing the industry some $34 billion during 2005..."

I love the numbers they come up with.

$34 Billion? Come on. Yeah right.

Ever think maybe it's because people charge WAAAY too much for the software? Hmm.... that couldn't possibly be a reason.

It would be safe to say that more than 90% of MP3 traffic on the Web is in illegal material. Despite the revolutionary fervor of the theory, most people get into MP3 because they can steal without getting caught.

Ironically, many people involved in posting or downloading illegal files don't think of it as stealing. People justify the theft to themselves by hiding behind excuses such as "the record industry has screwed us for years--it's time to get back at them." Regardless of the fact that this justification does not wash (stealing is stealing, no matter how much you dislike the victim), there is a second point that many people fail to make to themselves: When you participate in the pirate scene, you're not just screwing the recording industry, you're also screwing the artists out of their royalties. The odd thing about this situation is that, presumably, one will only want to download music by artists whom they like and respect. So why do people steal from artists they like? Who knows.

Yes, the artist loses money through illegal copies, but you don't hear them complaining as often because any distribution of their material promotes their live performaces... their big money. Royalties from recorded music often account for only about 15% of their income.

You say more than 90% of the MP3 traffic is illegal, is that factual or opinion? That number sounds high, but it could be a fluffy number like the rest.

From Techdirt:

Two years ago, after the numbers came out, even the company that did the research for the BSA (research firm IDC) publicly said that the BSA was trying to mislead the public by claiming that every unauthorized copy was a "lost sale...

http://www.nytimes.com/2...90&partner=techdirt

So, it's no surprise to see the reports coming out with this year's bogus stats claiming that losses due to unauthorized copies continues to rise (once again, the numbers were compiled by IDC, who seems to have no problem with the BSA misrepresenting their work year after year)....

The BSA claims that all of these "lost sales" represent real harm to the economy. It's the same bogus argument they've trotted out before, which is easily debunked. Much of that unauthorized software is being used to make firms much more productive than they would be otherwise -- probably benefiting the overall economy quite a bit. However, it's no surprise that a firm that won't recognize that not every copy is a lost sale won't recognize that the economy may be impacted in other ways.

There... See what a little reality will do for ya?

Happy posting!

Agreed.

There are no "lost sales". If I were using pirated software and MS found out and told me I had to remove it or pay up I would remove it and use a free alternative.

Use common sense people. Do you actually think the people that use pirated software would cough up the dough if they had to? Heck no, they would remove the software and/or use something else.

Not trying to validate piracy. Simply trying to reign in the BSA's absurd conclusions with regards to the numbers they've come up with.

It's good to have a bit of reality to season their fantasies.

It's not just piracy, though, either. If you have a machine that is not running a licensed copy of XP (i.e., linux), then your system represents 'lost revenue' to MS (in their eyes).

By using the above situations to pad their numbers, they are, in effect, calling every single linux user in the world a pirate.

Nice guys, eh? Makes me really want to believe their numbers.

You can't say the are NO lost sales - Not all piracy though EQUALS a lost sale. There are plenty of cases though where piracy is being used in lieu of paying - that's a lost sale.

Then there's probably countless businesses that are a few licenses shy and such, which are all lost sales too.

I agree completely with PC_Tool

There seems to be something for and against piracy no matter what. First off how is it the USA has the lowest amount of piracy but the most money lost? could it be that companies charge way to much for the stupidest things just to make a buck?

But who is most affected by piracy? I know MS is so close to chapter 11 its not even funny but honestly come on. All the things MS has done to stop piracy is to stop the casual copier. Thats it. They can only stop the non IT type people. When i seen windows XP for the first time it was before it was a retail release, The iso came from MS itself. You will never hear that though. You will never hear that MS will do a internal audit to stop people from taking the work. This is only bait and switch by the software companies and hollywood so you will not think about the high prices of software and how much you have to pay to go to the movies to watch 20 minutes of commericals.

Design copying is widely accepted, occasionally complained about, but just as often celebrated as -homage- rather than attacked as -piracy-. This diffidence about copying stands in striking contrast to the heated condemnation of piracy and associated legislative and litigation campaigns in the film, music, software and publishing industries. Why are the norms about copying in the fashion industry seemingly so different? And why, when other major content industries have obtained (and made use of) increasingly powerful IP protections for their products, does fashion design remain mostly unprotected? That the fashion industry produces high levels of innovation, and attracts the investment necessary to continue in this vein, is a puzzle for the orthodox justification for IP rights.

Actually, the guy who was distributing XP pre-release on the USENET was caught. No fines or jail, but MS did send him a rather nasty letter and he disappeared pretty quick (at least, from the visible areas of the net. *wink*).

Not even the IT guys get away with it all the time. Piracy sucks. There is no good in it. (or rather, any good derived, such as increased awareness of a product, could be better handled via legal alternatives). Those who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

Yes, deceptive marketing practices are wrong. No company should be allowed to get away with it, nor excused for doing so, However, I don't understand why people can justify stealing software as if two wrongs make a right. When you don't pay for software, you are really just trying to avoid inconvenience rather than do the right thing. Imagine the positive effect if we could teach people not to purchase from spam. If even a very small number of people purchase from spam, then it is profitable. Copyright violation has the same counter-productive effect, if not as directly so and not as obvious. I get the impression that a lot of people simply feel entitled to be able to do a certain thing on a computer and don't want to be inconvenienced into doing something themselves or using a less-finished product. Grow up.

Arguments for piracy:

Everyone does it--people copy songs off the radio and make CD's of music downloaded from the Internet. It's not like we're stealing a car or something. It's just data on a disc.
And, besides, games are too expensive!
I wasn't planning on purchasing the original, so the developer wouldn't have gotten my money anyway. A lot of things are against the law, but who cares since the likelihood of getting caught is nil? I should be allowed to rent or borrow games and make "back up copies" for myself even though I don't own the originals. I should be allowed to trade
copies with other people or to sell my "back-ups.

Dude...

Add those last few that ya added to our Writely doc. I'll add their counters this weekend. (Just throw 'em at the bottom)

Thanks!

Words I'm sure you never thought you'd say. ;)