BSA Piracy Study Deeply Flawed 437
zbik writes "Corante reports that The Economist has blown the lid off the BSA's recent report on software piracy (covered by Slashdot), referring to their methods as 'BS'.
'They dubiously presume that each piece of software pirated equals a direct loss of revenue to software firms.' The BSA has complained that the article is offensive but does not dispute their analysis. Score one for common sense."
BSA PSed off (Score:5, Informative)
Boy these people's heads are stuck so far up their asses that they can see through their mouths... you just can't make this stuff up.
Referer blocked (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And this is a surprise because? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course their methods are BS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Claims (Score:2, Informative)
The very argument that piracy causes harm is based on the idea that the increase in installed base is done at the expense of market share.
KFG
Article (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Brazil's Response (Score:5, Informative)
You've just gotta love Brazil's response [technologyreview.com]:
"We're against software piracy. We believe Microsoft's rights should be respected. And the simplest way to respect their rights is for Brazilians everywhere to switch to free software."
Re:And this is a surprise because? (Score:5, Informative)
The Economist is great. However, they have say many things (That I agree with) that will *never* come to pass.
For example, the Economist staff openly advocates the legalization of Cocaine in the U.S.
Why?
Because this would be a more *effective* policy for reducing drug use in the U.S., let alone reducing the harms of the Cocaine economy.
Can you imagine the U.S. *ever* legalizing Cocaine?
I think not. Look for lawmakers to continue parroting the BSA (BS) line.
Re:And this is a surprise because? (Score:3, Informative)
Proof. [oracle.com]
Holy crap. Go Oracle.
Re:OTHER HEADLINES TODAY (Score:3, Informative)
So close...
He didn't support the war, but he supported the troops after they were sent there.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"
# Voted YES on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
# Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
# Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
# Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
# Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
# Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
# Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)
Re:And so is their letter to the Economist (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And this is a surprise because? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp [snopes.com]
You know, this is waaaay off topic, and it's probably immoral of me to even be laughing at you instead of donating to a charitable organization that might be able to help your condition, but on the off chance that you didn't bother to read any of the article you linked to, here's the sumamry:
Re:Bullshit? (Score:1, Informative)
Penn & Teller: Bullshit! [sho.com]
The last episode debunked the hysteria that was used to pass to embed government very deeply into our lives AKA the Patriot Act. It is scheduled to air again this week if anyone wants to see.
Re:BSA? We don't need no stinkin' BSA! (Score:4, Informative)
Most certainly.
They basically threaten you, and if you don't "comply" they show up at your company and interrupt your business for a few days, causing lots of lost productivity. In the end, you get fined for stupid things like having unregistered winzip and having a few extra copies of windows that you shouldn't be running. Your cost is several days of zero productivity, a hefty fine, and maybe jailtime. Their cost is the price of a few faxes, the lawyer costs for filing, and very little time helping with the raid.
It's more like extortion. The old "give me money or I talk" game. They don't really have to have any hard evidence of piracy to get a court order and a few federal officers to raid your business.
The best thing to do is to just be in compliance. If you don't have the money to spend on the software, find free alternatives.
Re:How odd... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And this is a surprise because? (Score:3, Informative)
Not to break your enthusiasm, but when you need an industry strength database engine Sybase [sybase.com] can do better then that.
Their flagship product is available completely free of charge [sybase.com] for the Linux platform.
Free as in beer that is and some restrictions apply:
- A maximum of 1 engine (CPU) configurable
- Maximum data storage of 5GB
- Maximum 2GB of total memory configured
Else then that you're completely free to use it in a productive environment and for a lot of such environments the restrictions are quite adequate.And no, I don't work for them (since 1999), but still think it's a good product.
Re:BSA? We don't need no stinkin' BSA! (Score:1, Informative)
What lost productivity?!? You only lose productivity if you make the (foolish) choice to talk to these bozos; and any time you waste on them is, well, your choice.
You do have the right to ignore these guys: they want you to think they're a private police force, but they can't successfully sue you if you're innocent. They can't enter; much less audit your premises without your permission. If you do let them on your propery, you've got the right to tell them to leave at any time. If they don't leave voluntarily, you have the right to use force to make them leave, to have them arrested by the police, and to sue them in civil court for tresspass.
They're not private police; they don't have a right to investigate anything that you don't want to show them. If they try to use the courts to harrass you with frivolous lawsuits, well, there are laws against that, too.
So, no, you don't have any special recourse against these guys: but they don't have any special power over you, either. All they can try to do is intimidate you; you decide whether or not they succeed.
--
AC