Study: More than a third of PC software pirated

Does that $4B assume that everyone would have bought all the software that they pirated? If so, it's a very flawed figure.

But I'm sure the real number is plenty high.

Does that $4B assume that everyone would have bought all the software that they pirated? If so, it's a very flawed figure.

No, it's not 'flawed' at all.

It's a simple statistic....count the value of the product being 'used' without having first been paid-for.

It is the EXACT same argument as a person stealing a Ferrari.  Just because he wouldn't be able to afford it, or want to pay for it does not make it theft, nor does it not make it the loss of x hundred thousand dollars.

The issue of whether a thief 'might' be a customer is immaterial....

For the study, IDC used proprietary statistics for software and hardware shipments, and it conducted more than 7,000 interviews in 23 countries, and enlisted IDC analysts in more than 50 countries to review market conditions.

So in truth this "study" is a guess. 7,000 interviews? Who did they interview? Who, using pirated software is going to admit it in an "interview".

"IDC used proprietary statistics for software and hardware shipments" so this means that since X number of computers were shipped, and only Y number of Windows was shipped, Z number of machines must be running pirated software? Hardly. A hefty percetage of those Z machines could well be running Open Source software.

While software piracy IS a problem, this "study" sounds like more Microsoft-backed FUD to me.

No, it's not 'flawed' at all. It's a simple statistic....count the value of the product being 'used' without having first been paid-for. It is the EXACT same argument as a person stealing a Ferrari. Just because he wouldn't be able to afford it, or want to pay for it does not make it theft, nor does it not make it the loss of x hundred thousand dollars.

There's a big problem with your analogy. The owner of the Ferrari has a very real tangible loss. The owner of the software only realizes a loss if the theft results in a lost sale.

Again, I'm not trying to minimize the effect of piracy on the bottom line, but it's absurd to suggest that every single pirated program is a lost sale.

Obviously, if there was no piracy, software authors would be a lot richer. But someone who has thousands of dollars worth of pirated software would not be buying all that software. They'd be buying some, but not all of it.

a lot of the software I've pirated over the years, I -would- buy... if it were affordable. I am glad for my Object Desktop subscription, though. Stardock rules, so they can have some of my hard earned dollars.

There's a big problem with your analogy. The owner of the Ferrari has a very real tangible loss. The owner of the software only realizes a loss if the theft results in a lost sale.

Again, where's the definition of 'loss'?

The developer of the software has his property 'stolen', just the same....a 'consumer' obtains property without payment where payment is expected/required.

That is called theft.

Too many people assume there is no 'loss' as it is a downloaded file from Kazzaa or whatever, not a B and E with guns blazing or some stuffing of boxes up one's jaxie....

This "they wouldn't be a customer anyway" is childish and immature drivel to justify their actions.

And it fails miserably.

 

Who is justifying anything? I'm simply saying that it's a poor analogy, and if you can't see that, you're obviously wearing blinders.

When you steal someone's car. They no longer have that car.

When you steal a copy of someone's software, they still have the software. Now if you would have bought it otherwise, THEN you're stealing a sale from them. However, if you would have NEVER bought the software, then the author/company is not affected AT ALL.

And again, I'm not saying that makes it right. I'm only saying that there's a big difference. You can't count every piece of pirated software as a lost sale, because it's not. If someone steals $10,000 worth of software, that's NOT necessarily $10,000 in lost sales.

I have to side with the "poor analogy" in this one. The flaw in the analogy is, the owner of the Ferrari no longer has access to the stolen car, therefore it is a loss to the owner. On the other hand, the owner of software can allow as many thefts of the software as they want, without losing out of the use of the legally purchased product.

Also, the Ferrari corperation is not out anything if my Ferrari is stolen. If a person who would have bought software chose to use a pirated copy, yes, the software company is out X amount of dollars, but if a person who never would have actually paid for it, pirates it, the company is out nothing tangible.

Now that I am done making the example the point, I'll get to my thoughts on your point in the first place. ;~D

1/3 of the software on the hard drives out there is obtained illegally. Well, what do they expect? They overcharge for inferior software, lie about minimum requirements, lie about tech support, bundle in so much crap that nobody wants anyway (and has little to nothing to do with the play of the game or purpose of the software). Then, the release the software way too early, so whoever was dumb enough to buy it is forced into a life of endless "patches" just to make bring the software up to the quality that it should have been upon release.

Then you have the completely rediculous copyright laws associated with software. I wonder how much the criminal paid off the people in charge of copyright law to give them the sweet heart deal they got. I mean look at it. If I own a laptop and a PC, I have to buy two copies of the software in order to legally run it on both machines? I wonder how much of that "pirated" software is actually people who paid for it, but puts it on each of their privately owned machines? What kind of storm trooper do you have to be to think that should be "criminal".

The software companies are bringing it on themselves if you ask me. There isn't a complete brain among them all if they think users will stand for their trash, and pay top dollar to be abused.

Sure, no one is forcing anyone to buy the software, but quess what, no law will ever be able to force people to quit pirating software either.

If the software companies can't learn from their passed mistakes, then they are just too stupid to exist.

If someone steals $10,000 worth of software, that's NOT necessarily $10,000 in lost sales.

... It's a loss of $10,000 of property belonging to the software company.....sales is immaterial.

A stolen car is not a lost sale either, if that's the case.

It's a perfectly good analogy.

Property is obtained without payment.

What, how or why is irrelevant.

the company is out nothing tangible.

Ah the old argument yet again....if you don't know it's gone it ain't stolen.

'Tangible'....what's tangible?  The fact the company has to endure the dissemination of its product without consent?...without payment?....without due regard for 'copyright'?....without maintaining very tangible rights to property distribution?

 

Think about it, people... when the guy steals the Ferrari....he breaks the law and 'injures' the car owner...you're happy about that...

But when Ferrari sells you a car and says...do not make copies of it and give or sell them to other people and you say 'up yours...I'll do with it as I please' you're saying that does not cause injury or loss to Ferrari?

That Red Testarossa was created by Ferrari and sold to you with inherent conditions...and duplication and/or ANY DEGREE OF POTENTIAL LOSS OF SALE, IMAGINARY OR REAL was NOT part of it.

... It's a loss of $10,000 of property belonging to the software company.....sales is immaterial. A stolen car is not a lost sale either, if that's the case. It's a perfectly good analogy. Property is obtained without payment. What, how or why is irrelevant.

There is nothing "good" about the analogy. If a Ferrari is stolen, the company isn't out a thing. If a person pirates software that they wouldn't buy in the first place, the company isn't out a thing either.

Yet, in the case of the Ferrari, the owner is denied use of the car. In the case of the software, the legal owner is out nothing.

I'm not saying that pirating doesn't cost the software company anything. They are our money everytime someone who Would have bought it doesn't because they could pirate it for free.

Personally, I think anyone who does pay for games lately is out because as long as there is money in the hash and trash being passed off as "software" lately, the game companies will never improve their product to the point that it is Worth paying for!

If a person pirates software that they wouldn't buy in the first place, the company isn't out a thing either.

Crap.

This clearly shows a lack of comprehension with regards to Copyright, aka, property distribution rights as pertaining to the property owner.

The "legal owner" is the Software company, not the customer. The latter ONLY purchases limited rights to the software and its use.

The important word here is LIMITED.

Jafo's right.

"If a person pirates software that they wouldn't buy in the first place, the company isn't out a thing either."

That's like me going to test drive the Ferarri, not like it enough to buy it...but like it enough to just steal it from Ferrari themselves. I wouldn't have bought it, but since I can steal it...why not.

Do you see the error in that statement yet...?

If you wouldn't buy it, why pirate it.

Pirate is another word for steal. So basically, if a person steals software that they wouldn't buy.... they're still a thief. Pirating just sounds so naughtycal, much better than thief.

So what's the diff if I 'pirate' a copy or if I go down the company and steal a packaged disk?

but I kinda like this intangible justification concept of thievery.

i guessing it would be okay to print up my own $100 bills to spend cuz lord knows i wouldn't have worked for them. nobody's hurt cuz it's just paper.

If you wouldn't buy it, why pirate it.

Perharps because you need it but you can't buy it (having not enough money for all those softwares).
Or perharps because you need to try it before deciding if it fits you need or not.

BTW, I note that there is no details about the forms of piracy: Is it functionnal software with cracked key? Is it in companies? Is it by individual at home? is it duplication of software on all PC in the same house? Is it using a license for more computers than the license bought by the company? Is it copying professionnal software on home computer?

There are so many forms that the piracy can take and a greter number of motives behind. Sadly, if you don't address the motives that lead to piracy, you can't really prevent the piracy: the need will stay.

On a funny note, I remember an article in a newspaper few years ago about a company that was caught with softwares without the proper licenses but was able to present good faith arguments at the trial. They were all linked with problems posed by no longer supported software when you really need an old version (especially if you need to train users to them), change in EULA terms as years pass, and different EULA from different software providers.

It was something like:
- on monday you need a new access card
- you are required to be present at work on monday
- Due to delay the access card will be delivered on tuesday
How do you respect all those rules on monday?

BTW, to be very clear. I don't take position in this post about piracy. I am concerned by the fact that we don't know the repartition of the motives behind piracy

If I steal someones Ferrari. Their insurance company buys them a new one, resulting in another sale for Ferrari.

If I steal someones Ferrari. Their insurance company buys them a new one, resulting in another sale for Ferrari.

And higher premiums for insurance customers.

Stealing software is the same as shoplifting software.
My kids think I am an evil parent because I don't let them burn music they don't own. And I don't care.
Whether there is a lost sale or not, whether it's overpriced or not, someone wrote code expecting that it would generate income. A user who steals that software knows that the developer (distributer, manufacturer, whoever else is in the supply chain) is expectign payment and is choosing to withhold it. It's wrong.
And I think that the legal users of software pay a little more to make up for the know loss though theft. Steal less, and the price may drop a bit.

Yes, pirating is stealing, I'm not trying to justify pirating at all. However, if I did pirate a game, and played it, then dumped it how did the software company lose anything? If I bought it, played it and dumped it, sure, the software company made money, but now I am out the price of the software. Because of the rediculous copyright laws, I can't even return the piece of crap game.

Yes, the owner of the copyright is the software company, but let's face it, software copyright laws have no basis in logic. I can't return a piece of crap game. I can't try it out before I buy it, I can't put the same game on more than one system, even if I own all the systems, I can't take the game to a friend's house and play it with them, I can't do crap.

Music is copyrighted also, but once I buy the CD, I can download copies of the music to my heart's content. I can play it on whichever machine I want. I can make copies for my home stereo, my car, my bedroom CD player, my portable CD player and anything else I own. I can take it to a friends house and we can listen to it together, and as long as I don't give him or her the copy, I'm still completely within the law.

Yes, pirating is stealing, but so is the dishonest way the software industry does business. If you ask me, their isn't an honest person in the lot, and for them to point their stinky finger at pirating is a huge case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm going to have to jump in with Ted and Co. on the "bad analogy" bandwagon.

But first... piracy is stealing, stealing is bad, if you are caught pirating you should be punished in line with what you would get for stealing a copy off a store shelf.

I write program X. I sell and distribute program X. Someone pirates program X and does not pay me. I have lost a sale *maybe*, not all pirated software would have been purchased otherwise, but lets say I lost a potential sale. I still have program X and can continue to sell and distribute it. If the software is pirated online, I'm not even out the cost of packaging and materials of a store copy. I've lost the Cost to Develop / Estimated Total Customer Base. For something like Microsoft Office, that number gets pretty damn small (though still a legitamate loss).

I manufacture a car. I sell said car. Someone comes in and steals the car from my lot and does not pay me. I have lost a sale *definitely* because while that person may not have bought the car otherwise, chances were extremely high someone else would have come along. I now no longer have posession of the car. I can't sell it PERIOD now. I am out the partial cost of design, as well as 100% of the cost to build the car, materials, labor, everything. I have no way of recouping the cost on that loss without raising the price on all of my other cars to absorb the expense.

Software is a create once, sell many item. In the instance where physical box copies aren't being snagged off of shelves, it's very hard to quantify the actual value of the loss. Physical products on the other hand are produce once, sell once item. If someone steals your car, or a CD or a toy off a shelf, that particular object can not be sold again by you (unless it's returned). While both results in some loss of income (one disproportionately higher than the other) and both are wrong, they're not the same, and you can't really compare them as if they were.

Methods for estimating loss to piracy are dicey at best. Discarding the argument of "they wouldn't have bought it anyway", you still have the issue of Moma and Poppa Smith buying a copy of Office, but have two machines at home so they install it on both. Or cases where people buy a machine without windows installed (a lot of stats use # of copies of windows sold vs # of PCs sold, ignoring that many PCs may be ordred without Windows bundled). This is something with so many variables, that statistical analysis really doesn't work too well. The only way to get an accurate picture is if they were conducting audits and then using the values from those corporate audits as a way to come up with a number. Surveying individuals won't work here. It's not like an election poll.

Then there's the way they claim damages from piracy, which IMO is completely and absolutely ridiculous. I steal a CD from a music store, I have to pay some sort of fine probably not much in excess of the cost of the CD, maybe upwards of a hundred dollars or something just to teach me my lesson. I download a CD online and I can be hit for a few hundred thousand dollars PER SONG!?! Same with software, I get hit not with a punishment that scales with the crime, but one that shoots the moon in terms of "estimated losses" Then there's the jail time. You're not going to do hard time for stealing a box off a shelf... but you could face several months to several years in jail for pirating that same thing. It's getting to the point where you would be better off getting stopped in a drug bust than being caught with a CD of downloaded music.

The assumptions and methods in determining the value of loss to piracy is skewed beyond belief right now. You have the BSA, RIAA and MPAA going bat-shit over this stuff, filing against individuals for thousands of dollars per song or movie they pirate... it's ridiculous. I'm all for punishment for piracy, but it should be in line with the punishments for shoplifting. Same result, should be same punishment.

This doesn't even touch the issue of companies releasing software they know doesn't work as advertised/has bugs/doesn't run on the min specs/doesn't have real support etc... The software industry is worse than the airline industry in terms of crappy return on what you spend.

software copyright laws have no basis in logic.

Yeah, right.

You'd 'like' to think that.

And 'thou shalt not kill' is archaic English....doesn't make it any less valid, darling...

It's Friday night here in Oz....I've had a long week of dealing with Architecture as well as protecting artist's/skinner's copyrights here on Wincustomize.com, and am mildly merry on the odd red wine or three but am STILL more rational and logical than 'some' of the arguments here.

Keep trying, kids, but you won't convince anyone with a brain, only your peers.....

But first... piracy is stealing, stealing is bad, if you are caught pirating you should be punished in line with what you would get for stealing a copy off a store shelf.

I believe it comes with a higher cost, and justifiably so. In the States it is a Federal Crime. As long as people think it's alright to take what is not given to them, or what does not belongs to them, the rest of us will contiue to pay higher and higher costs. That is the simple truth. Go ahead, keep telling yourself I am not stealing. And those of us who have to keep paying the higher costs will continue to know that you are.

So - who's got the Ferrari ?

Well-put, Zoomba.

The anti-piracy witchhunts and the general tone of the movement recalls McCarthy's paranoiac crusades and prohibition-era panicking all at once. It's knee-jerk policymaking and it'll die down eventually. The use of excessive penalties for white-collar crimes is a scare tactic, and a damned good one. It works, it's leverage, crowd control. Take ten random transgressors and put them up against a wall and shoot them, tell you you're next; chances are you're going to change your behaviour. But once we figure out the actual enforcers of our laws are too busy with public safety and important matters and don't give half a shit if you're sitting there violating some company's copyright, we reach a kind of stalemate; you stop hearing so much hue and cry in the media about it, people stop talking about it, and companies focus on improving their product to the point where it's so damn good you'd never even dream of stealing it.

* * * * *

companies focus on improving their product to the point where it's so damn good you'd never even dream of stealing it.

Crap yet again.

The kiddies will just trip over themselves trying to steal it faster.