Software Piracy Remains Widespread

Yahoo News - IDG News Service ^ | 5/18/2005 | Grant Gross

[Mike Bates]

More than a third of the software installed on PCs worldwide during 2004 was pirated, with losses from unauthorized software increasing by $4 billion from 2003, according to a study released this week by the software trade group Business Software Alliance.

Thirty-five percent of all software installed on PCs was pirated, down from 36 percent in 2003, according to the study, conducted by research firm IDC.

Estimated losses from software piracy climbed, however, from $29 billion to $33 billion, as both the legal and unauthorized software markets grew from 2003 to 2004. IDC estimated that $90 billion worth of software was installed in 2004, compared to $80 billion in 2003, with sales of legal software growing 6 percent.

Countries using the most pirated software, according to IDC, are Vietnam, Ukraine, China, and Zimbabwe. Ninety percent or more of the software used in those countries was pirated during 2004, according to the BSA report. In more than half the 87 countries studied, software piracy exceeded 60 percent.

[KoRn]

No justification was implied in my post.

[rkhampton]

This is BS as far as the so called losses are concerend. I guess Bill isn't as rich as he could be, instead of 60 billion he could have 100 billiion or so, poor guy.

If you're one of those people that are jealous of the rich and think their wealth should be redistributed, you're on the wrong forum.

[Golden Eagle]

It isn't "theft."

It absolutely is theft if you take something that isn't yours and use it, especially if the person that created it is charging a price for anyone to use it. No wonder we disagree on so much, when you don't even understand the basics of right and wrong. Where I come from, we learned the meaning of these words back around kindergarden.

THEFT: The act or an instance of stealing

STEAL: To take (the property of another) without right or permission

[ShadowAce]

I understand the basics of right and wrong quite well, thank you. Theft includes depriving the legitimate owner of a product of its use--not just taking it.

If you would actually READ my first post, I did say that I agreed with the poster's sentiments--that this is wrong. I just disagreed about the actual charge involved.

[ShadowAce]

Also, since you are linking to definitions, here's one, from the Legal Definitions web site:

Theft--theft is a felony; it is the taking of someone else’s property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it.

What these pirates are doing is illegal and wrong--but it's not legally theft.

[Golden Eagle]

I understand the basics of right and wrong quite well, thank you. Theft includes depriving the legitimate owner of a product of its use--not just taking it.

Sorry, but according to that post you don't understand squat. If a Chinese spy takes nuclear designs from a US lab, according to you he didn't steal them? Now just how ridiculous is that?

[ShadowAce]

OK. It's still a (mostly) free country. You want to pick your nits, then pick 'em. We both say it's wrong and you are still jumping down my throat.

Have fun.

[discostu]

There's a lot of different ways to identify pirated software. One of the big ones is tech support, you'd be suprised how many people using pirated software will actually contact tech support if they have a problem, then depending on the distribution model you either find out really quick. Or if tech support is unable to solve the problem they'll frequently offer to refund the money if the person will send in the media, when you get a bunch dead air after making that offer it's assumed to be pirated. If the software touches the internet at all there are various ways to detect if it's pirated. For desktop publishing it can be pretty easy to, if some company publishes their manual in PDF but Adobe has no record of that company ever purchasing the Acrobat Publisher then they assume it's pirated (don't know if there's a 3rd party app that can make PDFs, but for purposes of these kind of stats the company always pretends there isn't).

In a free flowing information age finding out if somebody has software they didn't pay for just gets easier, doing something about it though is another matter.

[Golden Eagle]

Wow, a link from ShadowAce. Ok, after reading your link I'll agree it's a disputed defintion, but basic morality will tell you the basic non-legalistic-bs definition is taking someone else's property without permission, and that is what these pirates are doing. You're right, there really shouldn't be any nitpicking over it, at all.

[softwarecreator]

Don't worry Bill Gates isn't losing anything to piracy really. They factor in the costs of piracy in their business model. So in all reality everyone who pays for software pays for the piracy and Mr. Gates loses nothing when the net profits role in.

The above quote sounds like you are justifying it.

[softwarecreator]

If you're one of those people that are jealous of the rich and think their wealth should be redistributed, you're on the wrong forum.

Exactly my point.  Everyone wants to be a modern day Robin Hood.

[RobRoy]

>> Yes, exactly. Just like the RIAA and their alleged "losses" due to file sharing.<<

That is what I was thinking. I have downloaded probably over 1000 songs. Not one of which I would have paid for if it was the only option. And the lions share of those were deleted before I ever listened to them...

[savedbygrace]

It's wrong, but it's infrigement, not theft. I'm not justifying the practice at all, but theft means that something has been removed from someone's possession. The software companies still have the software, so theft has not happened. Infringment has happened, though, and that is wrong.

Clear?

[softwarecreator]

It's stealing, clear and simple.  Like stealing cable ... they still have the cable but you stole the service.

Clear?

[savedbygrace]

Two different things. In the case of a cable company, there is theft of service involved, because the person is tapping into the company's equipment, and using the actual data stream the cable company is sending out.

With software, the person is using a disc that has a copy of a copy of an installer application, and the item that this person has, the disc, was never possessed by the software company.

It is infringement though, and I agree with you that this is wrong.

[general_re]

With software, the person is using a disc that has a copy of a copy of an installer application, and the item that this person has, the disc, was never possessed by the software company.

You could, I suppose, make a reasonable case that you are committing theft of services by pirating software - in that case, you would be stealing the services of the programmers who created the software.

[softwarecreator]

Okay.  You make a convincing argument, we'll call it 'infringement'.

[KoRn]

Not what I was saying at all.

My point was since the cost of piracy is built into the cost of the product everyone who pays for the software are paying for piracy.

It the same as a hospital overcharging insured patients to recover losses from uninsured patients. No one gets a free ride as the cost is recovered somewhere, most of the time it's recovered from those people who actually pay.

[savedbygrace]

Are you referring to the end-user or to the person who did the original pirating?

Even so, it would be hard to make that case, because the actual programmers oftentimes work for a wage or a project fee. IOW, they've already been paid. That doesn't strictly apply to all programmers, obviously.

I think what mostly happens is that the end user is given a serial number that will allow the software to be installed and be used. The coding of the app isn't touched.

But I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so what do I know?

[general_re]

Aside from the programmers performing a service in creating the software, the publisher performs a service in distributing it (even if you bypass the legitimate channels), bug testers perform a service by testing software, and so forth and so on. By receiving software to which you are not entitled, you have stolen the services of those people - in the aggregate sense, those people come together to form companies and corporations. Whether Microsoft's programmers have been compensated or not is neither here nor there - the Microsoft corporation has performed a service in producing Office for you, and in receiving that software illegitimately, you have stolen the services of the Microsoft corporation. Well, not "you" personally, but you know what I mean ;)