p2pnet - rss feed: BSA on ’software piracy’
p2p news / p2pnet: “Few people would find it acceptable for a quarter of consumers to steal, rather than buy, their new car from a dealer’s forecourt.”
The quote is attributed to Robert ‘007’ Holleyman, front man for BSA (Business Software Alliance), the software cartel’s equivalent of the MPAA and RIAA.
In a typically empty, but highly loaded, BSA statement, he’s referring to the claim that BSA owners such as Microsoft and Apple, most of whom are raking it in as never before, say their bottom lines are being carved up by counterfeiters and file sharers, two distinctly different segments of the population who are carefully lumped together by the BSA whenever it fumes.
“In the UK and US about 25% of those using business software do so with an unlicensed, counterfeit or pirated copy,” the BBC has Holleyman saying.
In Canada CAAST, the BSA clone, recently used a survey it had commissioned to make the ridiculous charge that almost two-thirds of computer science students pirate [read ‘steal’] software.
“There’s something about a digital product that allows very smart, rational people to come up with seemingly good reasons to make a copy,” according to the BSA boss who speculates that it’s the “intangibility of software that convinces people it is okay to make and distribute copies,” says the Beeb.
It also has Holleyman saying, “I unequivocally oppose any notion that any level of software piracy is or should be tolerated. In every other industry people do not just tolerate the theft of their products.”
The BSA uses studies such as one it commissioned from IDC to justify its assertions.
However, as The Economist pointed out in an editorial entitled ‘BSA or just BS,’ with the BSA, one can never be sure what’s fact and what’s fiction.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
‘007’ - Mr X the Online Spy, May 31, 2004
BBC - Top software cop takes tough line, October 18, 2005
ridiculous charge - Thieving Canadian students, August 8, 2005
BSA or just BS - The Economist angers BSA, June 15, 2005
October 18th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Dear Mr. Holleyman:
Nowhere in your fuming rant on the BBC did you use the correct term for activity you were railing so bitterly about. You termed it ’stealing’, ‘theft’, ‘thievery’, among other terms that would indicate that Mr. William Gates (the notorious Harvard drop-out) came to work one morning to discover to his shock and horror that someone had crept into the warehouse under cover of darkness and removed boxes full of media. I don’t believe you were taling about pilfering media. I believe that you were referring to copying software.
The correct term for such replication (IF such a copy is subsequently used in an illegitmate fashion) is ‘infringement’. Please use the correct terms in any future outbursts of hyperbole.
Incidentally, if the copy made IS for a legitimate purpose, such as a backup or for transfer to compatible media (Perhaps, one gets a new PC with a CD-ROM, but no floppy drive. One may then copy the contents of their floppies disks to CD so the software is available on the new computer.) then that is called “fair use.” However, I see from the attendance records that you skipped out on the day that was covered in class.
Please read the material for “fair use” and review the dictionary entries for the relevant terms before your next public speaking engagement.
Thank you,
Mrs. Elizabeth F. Wainwright-Cabot
Chairperson, English Department
St. Grottlesex Academy atop the Hill
Brahminbury, Massachusetts
cc: M. Bainwol, C. Sherman, RIAA; D. Glickman, MPAA
October 18th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
One of these days you should do a post with some of your illustrations. You’ve had some good ones.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
If car makers were suing their customers into oblivion, and if I had the ability to obtain a replicated car, you can sure as hell bet I’d going with a replicated car rather than one from the dealer. I’m sure any sane person would, and probably for all the same reasons that your average joe “steals” any other copyable media (overly high prices are the first that come to mind).
October 18th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
“Few people would find it acceptable for a quarter of consumers to steal, rather than buy, their new car from a dealer’s forecourt.”
But a car that costs $18,000 to make sells for $20,00 and cannot be cpied for a few cents.
Software that costs $5 to make and distribute is sold for $100, 20 times the cost. And the software can be copie for almost nothing. A CD costs $1 to make and sell at $15-20. And the music can be copied for almost nothing.
Maybe now Holleyman and Gates and RIAA will understand the equation and the inevitable results, until new distribution and pricing options are offered to the people (the real owners of their country).
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
October 18th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Another little thing that has been conviently not mentioned is the rampant greed by these software companies. When a business starts out, they are concerned with developing a product the customer wants at a price that is fair. Once established this equation chances to the attitude that they have the only business in town, if you are going to play it is by their rules or not at all. You are expected to pay a pretty penny for the use and agree to sole exclusive rights in the process given back to the seller.
Now much of the software is so outrageous pricey for no other reason than they want to make excessive profits off each and every one of the pieces. Well, I am not their gold mine. Nor is any single customer. Offering a software for sale for thousands of dollars is nothing short of greed. There is no other reason for such prices. Even microsucks is guilty of this over charging. They make one update and then charge a $100 bucks for each and every user around the world. They didn’t do that particular update but once but from then on the price is always up there. Multiply that by the millions around the world that use the software and it is way out of hand. Nothing wrong with making a profit but don’t expect that I am going to pay through the nose for something that plainly isn’t worth the cost. I have the ability to say “no I won’t” and do so quite often.
What is the reason that some old software; say games as an example, still have outrageous copyright terms on and you can’t even run them anymore on newer computers? What is the purpose of locking this up where even emulators can’t be used legally? It isn’t that there is a market for it anymore. How many folks are still running windows 3.1 at this date? Microsucks doesn’t continue to write updates for the 3.1. You can’t buy it nor the DOS version of the time even. There is no good purpose of continuing to lock up such software with the ridculous times now recoginised. Should be that once the economic incentive is gone the software should be public domain. In that way, some of the methods used in those old softwares could be allowed to be reused by other developers to bring forth newer programs based on old stuff that they are at present not allowed to do so with. This insanity in copyright makes no sense and we all suffer for the greed of the few.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:12 am
Building on the above…
If car manufacturers sold you the car with the following conditions:
- You can only drive on pre-approved highways. Attempts to circumvent onto unapproved roadways will be considered a breach of the agreement between the user and the manufacturer and may result in the car not performing.
- Before turning the key to start the car, you will be asked to input your serial number. Should you misplace your serial number, you will have to call technical support for a replacement. Replacement serial numbers can take up to 5 hours after verifying that you actually purchased your car. We recommend that you only drive in areas having cell phone coverage as there is no alternate method of contacting technical support.
- You are forbidden from painting, accessorising, re-tooling, or in any other way modifying your car from its original condition. Under current law, you may look at the car’s engine or other internal parts to determine how the car works, however, lifting the hood is considered to be a circumvention of content protection and is illegal under the DMCA.
- Any repairs must be conducted in one of the five approved garages, three in North America and two in Europe. Any attempt to build your own car from available spare parts will be considered a breach of intellectual property and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
- Should you wish to loan your car to your spouse, child, or other, you will be required to purchase a seperate key. A “family key” which allows access by five family members (not six!) can also be purchased at a price equal to 3x the original cost of the car. While a loanee is using the car, you will be required to lock up your key and remove all your possessions out of the glove box and trunk.
- the radio will only play 128 kbps wma’s
how fast would people rebel?
October 19th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Careful! Careful! You are verging on infringing the intellectual properties of the lawyers who imaginatively created those EULAs.
Oooops! Mea culpa!
Lawyers? Intellectual property? Talk about oxymorons. Just tell me to crawl back into my corner!
Any other interesting oxymorons? Like Microsoft Works?
October 19th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
As long as punters keep punting, the greedy will continue to thrive from the fruits of their labor. As for me, I use free, open source software, and I send money to support the people who code this stuff. Free, open source software runs on my older computers, and it only costs me what I pay for the CD. I can also tinker with the software and change or add features that suit my needs. I can also create derivative works based on this software I purchase or download. I will buy the CD rather than download it (downloading is legal for free, open source software). There is a burden when it comes to redistributing GPL software, however. That burden is that you are required to give the same rights to those to whom you give or sell the software. The government-cartel alliances say I cannot do the same with Micro$oft’s programs.
Unfortunately governments mandate the use of software that only runs on Winblows. They craft regulations requiring certain forms be submitted via their proprietary programs. Since these programs run only on Winblows, many busines are therefore required by law to run Winblows. I call this forced use of an inferior product. The governments that do this are guilty of breaking antitrust laws. In this particular case, I see nothing wrong with people infringing on Micro$oft’s copyright when they are forced by government to use Micro$oft’s software.