Pardon, Is This Your File? 442
Teknogeek writes "The BSA says piracy is thriving. At least, according to this article. Note one interesting statistic: '...the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software.' How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?" On a similar note, an Anonymous Coward writes: "MIT Technology Review reports on the process of scanning the entire internet for digital signatures matching copyrighted work (watermarking not required), and automatically emailing threats to the offenders and their ISPs."
Article Says: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they can't get it for free, what are the odds of them paying for it?
Re:Article Says: (Score:2)
I don't get it. Is it perhaps because someone bought a program(or whatever) and then decided to sell it, but made a copy of it?
Re:Article Says: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Article Says: (Score:2)
Re:Article Says: (Score:2)
Re:Article Says: (Score:3, Informative)
The ruling was made in November of last year, however - I'm not sure whether or not it's been appealed since then.
Re:Article Says: (Score:5, Interesting)
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''
Re:Article Says: (Score:2)
Redacted for accuracy:
"Sharing someone else's legal intellectual property with someone who doesn't have the right to use it, therefore breaking the law"
Simon
Re:Article Says: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but that's not accurate as of 1992. You snooze, you lose. Copyright violation is and can be a federal felony offense. That is, a criminal offense.
http://www.cybercrime.gov/CFAleghist.htm [cybercrime.gov]
FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
(COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND TRADE SECRETS)
VI. APPENDICES
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT
H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102ND Cong., 2ND Sess. 1992, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3569,
P.L. 102-561, CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
DATES OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE
Senate: June 4, October 8, 1992
House: October 3, 1992
Senate Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-268,
Apr. 7, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
House Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-997,
Oct. 3, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
HOUSE REPORT NO. 102-997
October 3, 1992
[To accompany S. 893]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the Act (S. 893) to amend title 18, United States Code, to impose criminal sanctions for violation of software copyright, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the Act as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Section 2319(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section-
"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500;
"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.".
Re:Article Says: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Article Says: (Score:2)
At least that's the story Hilary Rosen reads to me at bedtime.
Re:Article Says: (Score:2, Funny)
In a study of 1,026 Web users released Wednesday, the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software.
I dont' believe it. We need a new poll
Have you bought copies of a copyrighted work?
-Never, everything I buy is original
-I don't buy, but I have free copies
-I copy when the price is too high, I copy stuff that I would never buy
-I copy everything I can, even when I can pay
(see how I don't use the term "pirate"?) I don't know who to send this poll proposal
lets get this straight (Score:2)
Gee, could this mean a) their tactics don't work, b) they're not doing their jobs as vigorously as they should?
Wanna Bet? (Score:5, Insightful)
How much do you want to bet that a study about software piracy conducted by the BSA is about as unbiased as a study about communism conducted by China?
Doing anything with these numbers is silly, we all know it's just a bunch of bullshit.
Downloading? No problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
Still feeling secure about downloading that latest single?
Yeah, sure. Sharing it on the other hand may not be so anonymous. Who says it doesn't pay to be a leech?
57% (Score:3, Funny)
It might not all be open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't use the world pirate as a noun or a verb to describe copying bits. Seriously -- when you use this bullshit terminology -- "they" have already won the first battle.
In the last few years various entities have *really* learned to use the language against us, we drive "pre-owned cars", we "pirate" music, we get blown up by "suicide bombers" (although some news stations are now calling them "homicide bombers"). We don't goto war we have "operations" ... I could think of a million others
When someone wants to call a thing something i'ts not -- they are trying to color your perception
Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:2)
And if I may ask one question about your little rant in the middle of that, what would you call a "suicide bomber?" Isn't that a person who blows you up with a bomb attached to themselves that in turn kills them (suicide)? I mean, what else can they be called?
Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:2)
They could be called "a person who is being repressed by other nations with such superior fire power that they have no other possible way of defending themselves".
Of course, the accurate description is somewhere in the middle of these two. Don't kid yourself, the Israelis (and the US) are every bit as much terrorists as the Palestinians just on a much greater scale.
Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:2)
Every reasonable person on the planet knows the US is the most violent and unjust nation in the world (at least in foreign policy issues).
Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is true, then 99% of the population of the US are not reasonable people.
I don't know if you're an American or not (I am), but it is terrifying to see the lengths people here will go to to ignore any and all evidence that America is not absolutely 100% the only free country in the world and we would never do anything that wasn't perfectly morally pure.
I was talking to one of my brothers about some of the things going on and since he actually takes seriously his responsibility as a member of a free society to inform himself, he knew about what I was saying. His wife on the other hand didn't want to hear it and when questioned said, "I just don't want to know".
She actually wants to have kids.
How sickening is that that a person who is scared to even look at the world she lives in wants to force aniother person to live in it.
I'm not ranting against people who have kids, but if you don't do it with your eyes open you are a very disturbed person.
Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:2)
We are no longer "citizens", we are "consumers".
We don't have "laws designed to create an industry of incarceration and create an industry for government agencies to make money destroying foreign nations", or a "war on personal freedom", we have a war on drugs.
who can keep it going?
Re:Fuck Yeah I'm a Pirate (Score:2)
Please don't use the world pirate as a noun or a verb to describe copying bits. Seriously -- when you use this bullshit terminology -- "they" have already won the first battle.
How about criminal then?
As in "he is a criminal, because he copies and utilizes other people's intellectual property without their permission, and in direct violation of the law".
Simon
It's not even about software (Score:2)
If Piracy is So Bad why Did Harry Potter ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If Piracy is So Bad why Did Harry Potter ... (Score:2)
Re:If Piracy is So Bad why Did Harry Potter ... (Score:2)
It's like comparing apples to oranges. Neither side is going to look too intelligent using this bit of data to support their case.
the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this and all automated law enforcement schemes, be they traffic cameras or facial recognition, is that they create a substantial assumption of guilt that is almost impossible to refute. "The computer says you're guilty, so you must be"
People find it hard to believe a system that is actually catching lawbreakers can make a mistake, until the mistake lands *them* in trouble.
Re:the problem (Score:3, Flamebait)
It isn't fair now that I can't get away with breaking the law.
PS I am a big fan of much stricter enforcement of laws, but also a much bigger fan of reduceing the number of laws and makeing them much more lenient. Especially when we can have things like traffic monitors and stop light cameras.
Re:the problem (Score:2)
Re:the problem (Score:2)
Speed limit cameras can't tell if your car is weaving, indicating that you're dangerously drunk and a risk to the public.
Stop light cameras increase the likelihood of people to slam on their brakes when they see a yellow light, thus resulting in chain-reaction rear-end accidents that would be safely avoided if the driver proceeded through the yellow.
I respect the police, I just want them to protect and serve. Putting a speed limit camera on a downhill portion of a wide highway that's marked with an unreasonably low speed limit, and has an extremely low accident rate does neither, it merely generates revenue.
Re:the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this means that it could be bypassing a persons presumption of innocence. I wonder if this could be constitutional grounds from throwing such evidence out?
Well, to answer your question, let's dispense with the premise above. The only thing these automated things can do is substantiate Probable Cause, which is the standard used by law enforcement to make arrests, request search warrants, etc. In some circumstances, for example, traffic violations, Probable Cause almost inevitably translates into guilt. If a cop clocks you going 80mph and hands you a citation for it. There's a very good chance you'll be found guilty by a judge, if you let it get that far. However, that doesn't mean Probable Cause equals guilt. The evidence in a traffic violation is usually enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: The officer testifies he was tracking your vehicle, the officer testifies that the radar gun said 80mph; the officer testifies that radar gun was in good working order; and based on license surrendered to the officer at the scene, you were driving the car. Not a lot of room for reasonable doubt there.
Using a computer to analyze facts and come to a conclusion of Probable Cause is perfectly fine. The only thing that can then be used in court is the facts from which it drew the conclusion. If you're mailed a ticket from a traffic camera, the facts are a) the light was red, and b) there's a picture of you running the light. The software correlates these facts and sends a citation based on Probable Cause.
Probable Cause does not equate to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a decision for humans to make; and since none of us have computers for peers, that's how it will stay.
Re:the problem (Score:2)
No I'm going through a NJ EasyPass toll both, and the sensor registers me going 110Mph. Unless you somehow get a toll both worker that remembers my car, license plate, and my face, you just have to rely on the sensor. Did it malfuntion? Well, it probably didn't malfunction, so I'm probably guilty.
This is the point- without actually human interaction at the time of the crime, you DON'T know who did it (this is for car stuff where they don't get your face, not where robbing the 7-11 and getting your mug on camera with you holding the gun).
As the guy said, with the traffic stuff, you're screwed.
Re:the problem (Score:2)
Re:the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
You are guilty of course... I mean of thinking that is.
Re:the problem (Score:5, Funny)
No, man! (Score:4, Funny)
"No, man, I was just hostin' it for a friend, man!"
Radio Ads (Score:4, Interesting)
My question is what legal right do they have to storm in and do an audit? I wouldn't think that they'd just be allowed in, and I'm pretty sure they would have to go through legal channels to squeeze money out of people, unless they're dead scared. If a company is pirating and destroys all the evidence before the BSA gets them in court what sort of case do they have? I mean, "Yes your honor, we took a lead from an ex-employee hell bent on vengence, and we have no real evidence," doesn't sound like a case winner to me.
Whatever, my boss would just give them the finger if they showed up here, then probably call the cops.
Re:Radio Ads (Score:2)
Do you have any documentation of that? Because I find it hard to believe.
Re:Radio Ads (Score:2)
Have you read anything about the BSA raids? I believe that it was standard policy to return with the cops and a warrant if you refused, based on the logic that your refusal proved you had something to hide. They may have decided to just skip the first step and move straight to the cops to prevent destruction of "evidence".
Since when does copyright imply a contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract? (Score:2)
Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a study of 1,026 Web users released Wednesday, the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download.
This could very well mean that people are downloading shareware, free software or otherwise and simply decided not to pay for it.
Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract? (Score:4, Interesting)
Before you can let anyone actually use the computers, of course, you need them to sign an agreement saying that they won't do anything evil, like express negative opinions about the school online. Personally I never saw an end to the school's dictatorial powers that would necessitate signing away any rights, but I'm sure that there were some lawyer-parents who would if their perfect child got in trouble for downloading pr0n.
So I was reading the agreement and anyone who signed it agreed not to download copyrighted material online. I pointed out to the vice-principal who was handling the signings that all material online was copyrighted, either explicitly or implicitly. She said that if I was downloading copyrighted material I was pirating software. I finally convinced her that it was only unlicensed software that was piracy (I'm still not a fan of that word) and she said I should just sign it because they weren't going to enforce it anyway. I didn't sign and didn't use the Internet at school that year, not a big loss as the only thing the computers were used for was seeing Yahoo.
Re:Since when does copyright imply a contract? (Score:2)
But there is an implicit license between you, the copyright holder, and us, the readers of your content. That license, which is set by the copyright laws, gives a standard set of restrictions on your work. Because of these copyright laws, you don't have to have an explicit license agreement, unless you want to grant/deny rights that are not covered by standard copyright. So how does copyright NOT imply a license?
Just a tiny flaw in the plan.... (Score:2, Interesting)
... hang on I'll just check
Yup my username is not my email address, so it looks like their plan falls on one of the hurdles.
As to emailing the ISP, well Deutsche Telekom is my ISP and they have just announced a massive loss, so I don't think they will be too quick to try and get rid of paying punters.
A problem of terminology (Score:2)
They're probably right in concluding that people are stealing, but the statistics as presented are meaningless.
Signature Practice has Sucked Badly in the Past (Score:3, Interesting)
This was rendered completely pointless since
1) The CRC they used was 16 bit. I worked for a large CAD company and every had a *lot* of files laying around as a result. The number of false positives drowned out the real positives.
2) It is a trivial excercise for anyone to create files with a predetermined CRC, so digital decoys can easily be scattered around the internet
Re:Signature Practice has Sucked Badly in the Past (Score:3, Informative)
This whole idea is trivially easy to defeat, however. Simply make minor modifications to the copyrighted work before reposting it. Take that picture of Natalie Portman, load it up into the GIMP, and change one pixel to a slightly different shade. Then post. One important feature of cryptographic hashs (like the aforementioned MD-5 and SHA) is that changing a single bit flips, on average, about half the bits. I.e. small changes in the picture make for large changes in the hash value.
Opps. Did I just fall afoul of the DMCA?
BayTSP, Cyveillance (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, those guys have been trawling the web for a while, looking for lord knows what. I have a ModRewrite rule in my httpd.conf that feeds them a bunch of garbage whenever they come by (thanks, Sugarplum). I ought to feed them some Jennifer Lopez files next time, see what happens...actually I should just firewall them away.
Cyveillance netblocks:
65.118.41.192 - 65.118.41.223
63.148.99.224 - 63.148.99.255
Anybody know what blocks BayTSP uses for their spiders?
Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (Score:5, Funny)
And get busted for eventually supplying every copyrighted digital work ever produced?
Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (MOD UP) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (Score:3, Informative)
The best part of the job was getting all the irate emails that we were hacking people's networks. They say their spider is an IE client because they claim that some websites give false data to spiders which is probably true. I do know that if you send them an email to abuse@cyveillance.com and ask them they'll add you to the spiders ignore list. Configuring the spiders was tricky because we could easily DDOS an entire website faster then any slashdotting. When I worked there the biggest thing we did was check images and porn sites for copyright violations. They had a snapshot of each website they visited that would make the Feds envious. However, eventually they outgrew their system and couldn't get the new one online fast enough, which led them to lay people off including myself. Great place to work though at the time.
Oh and as a note when I left those weren't the only IP ranges they were scanning from. And I know they planned to bring some more online including one hooked to an onsite T3 line.
Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance (Score:5, Funny)
Could be fun if repeated over and over!
RIAA dude: Hey, Cyveillance guy, why are you billing us for all these takedown notices where the material never actually existed? I went to look at some of these sites myself and despite my fervent wish to nail somebody for something, nothing was there.
Cyveillance guy: TILT
Not a karma whore, just bored (Score:2)
I have no idea what that quote means. I went to the BSA press release, but the ZDNet wording is lifted directly from it. Moving on to the report [bsa.org] itself, it says:
I _think_ what that means is that 57% of the people who download software, who make up 12% of all the Internet users in the survey have downloaded and used software in violation of the license terms. But, who knows? Clearly the person who wrote the press release couldn't make sense of it either.I really should just go home and watch the Simpsons...
Re:Not a karma whore, just bored (Score:2)
Okay, I'd like to pay for all the episodes of That 70's Show I downloaded. Oh wait, I can't! Gee, talk about a biased survey.
FUD Mongering via Language (Score:2)
In this day and age of information overload, I could not help but notice how the article sometimes let drop the "copyright" modifier describing the downloaded works.
Dropped.
As if there were no such thing as genuinely free software that was copylefted. Software that was free and legal to download without paying anyone any money.
I wonder if the BSA will succeed in giving the word download a bad connotation, or whether they'll have to invent a new term.
The word pirate has such a nice strong ring to it, while duplicator of copyrighted material just doesn't seem to get people's dander up.
And in other news... (Score:2)
A survey found that 92% of apologists for the content industries thought that making unauthorised copies was morally equivalent to taking a ship by force, often brutally raping and murdering its crew.
Well, DUH, this is how copyright law is written (Score:2)
In case y'all hadn't noticed, those copyright holders (yeah, remember the GPL rests on copyright law too) aren't just going to go away: they're going to keep trying to enforce the current law and make new laws to suit their estate.
Well, in Fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
In my MS Windows days every single piece of software I used was pirated. Windows 98, Office, Photoshop, the works. Now that I'm 100% Unix, I still get all my software for free, but legally now. I know that some of you never pirate software and MP3's, but you've got to admit that you know a whole slew of folks that do.
I don't think anyone contests that piracy exists, but even the existence of rampant piracy doesn't prove that software companies lose money due to piracy. Would I have bought a copy of Photoshop had I not been able to get it for free? Hell no! Same with Office 97 -- I wouldn't have paid hundreds of dollars for something when Lotus SmartSuite came free with my computer and worked just fine. The connection between unauthorized use of w4r3z and lost income is really hard to establish.
Steve
Cutting their throats (Score:2)
1) I download and keep MP3's of things that I have the CD for.
2) I download things that I do not have for the purpose of trying them out.
3) If I like what I hear, I buy it. If not, then I delete it.
That's my terms. If you don't agree to them, then you obviously don't want my money.
The other 43% are lying (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost everything on the web is copyrighted. When you click on a link your browser downloads it in order to display it to you. 100% of web surfers never or seldom pay for the copyrighted web pages they read.
(There are a few specialty markets, e.g. academic journals, where copyrighted web content is available by subscription only. But most of the web is gratis to all.)
I never pay for the copyrighted work I download (Score:2)
In my view copyright is not mainly about making money, but about acknowledging the originator of a work and his or her right to decide what is to be done with it.
That is also why copyright infringement is not comparable to stealing but more a lack of respect for the work of others. The fact that the so called content providers see that differently is because they lack that respect themselves especially when they are only providers and not creators.
Yarr! Business as usual... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, this assumes that the pirate would have actually shelled out the $600+ to buy Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to begin with. I know I have tons of pirated software that I never would have bought in the first place. It's simply a convenience factor. If I would have never purchased the software, but have it now, it's actually a wash when it comes to profit/loss statements. That's not even factoring how many people buy the software after they find they like it. But, hey, the argument works for MP3's, why not software? No, those jobs disappeared because your product sucks, not because of Piracy. I don't see Adobe folding anytime soon and last I saw, Id was alive and well despite how much Doom, Quake and Wolf were/are pirated. It's that new math, gotta love it.
Broken statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
Lying bastards (Score:3, Insightful)
(2) Piracy costs "hundreds of thousands of jobs a year". LOL. Please, that is pure bullshit. 100,000 people in the US software industry were fired last year? Oh, sure, if you include janitors and other people that "work for software companies" but have nothing to do with software, then maybe 100,000 people were fired. Maybe. But come on, get real. 100,000 programmers were not fired last year. Lying bastards.
(3) On MIT tracking copies of pirated software. Traitors. Clearly sellouts for academics, siding with the powerful intellectual property industry against the academics who realize the importance of balance. As for them knowing "you" downloaded a song, bullshit. I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell they can track the activities of all the file-sharerers even in the US alone. Furthermore, let them prove it. All they have is digital records, all of which can be made up and faked. Finally, even if they convince some idiotic judge that you in fact downloaded the latest S. Twain song w/o paying for it, so what? Firstly, its not a criminal offense. Secondly, pay the $19 dollars that that CD albulm costs; big deal. You'll make up for it by all the stuff they didn't catch.
Re:Lying bastards (Score:2)
So, in short, yes 57% of people probably have downloaded software from the internet without paying; its probably more like 100%, just the other 43% were too stupid to understand the question, or understand that at one point they probably DID download software without paying for it.
The actual press release [bsa.org] says "57 percent of those who have downloaded software either seldom or never pay for the copyrighted works they download". So those 43% were already excluded. The other 43% surveyed apparently said they pay for the software they download more often than seldom.
Re:Lying bastards (Score:2)
Yes, I can believe this; I know of numerous programmers with more experience than I who have been downsized. However, they weren't writing commercial software - like most programmers, they make their living writing custom software for in-house use. Which means, of course, that it was not piracy which lost them their jobs, but rather a downturn in the economy.
Strangely, the BSA seems to believe that any loss of profit by a software company is due to piracy, in spite of the recent recession and the poor quality of commercial software. What the BSA fails to realize is that companies in financial straights tend to utilize the more fiscally responsible alternatives to commercial software, and that this resulted in a loss of revenue for commercial software companies. It wasn't piracy, but that companies woke up to the demands of the shareholders and the reality that free software was a more viable option than the commercial alternatives that the BSA advocates
And? (Score:2)
By that logic a piece of shareware I tried, did not like, and deleted...I'm a pirate?
Sounds like the BSA's logic.
The Smart-Ass in me thinks; "Since when did the MPAA start offering SVCD's? I must have missed that announcement."
Oh, wait...
Nothing like a scientific sampling... (Score:3, Interesting)
Skew the respondent audience by making it a web survey
Spin the questions and couch them in terms with multiple interpretations ... and call it a valid representation. Check the so-called survey results [bsa.org]... there is just short of zero (and I'm being generous) information about how this study was conducted.
I have downloaded copyrighted software and not paid for it. Was it illegal? No -- it was "free for personal use" (e.g. WebWasher [webwasher.com].) You know how guilty I feel about that? Not at all -- until now. Now, I feel terrible, because I helped the BSA fudge better numbers by fitting into that 57%.
Jackasses.
Silly me, I'm upsetting the BSA (Score:2)
I paid the optional (I think it was) $10 for WinAmp when they were soliciting payment for their product after I donwnloaded it and found it useful.
I paid for Paintshop Pro after I downloaded a trial version and discovered that I liked it.
I paid for MultiEdit after I downloaded it and discovered that it was a pretty damned good programmer's editor
In fact I'm so dumb that I've paid for all commercial or semi-commercial software I've downloaded and found useful.
Hell -- I hope the BSA don't trace this posting, they'll probably send a hit man around to take me out so that I don't skew their stats!
Just one question (Score:2)
If I convert if to mp3, that's legal, right? (format shifting)
If I have a mp3 of a song I've heard on the radio, what's the substantial difference?
Re:Just one question (Score:2)
Just playing devil's advocate here, but the difference is that someone else likely made the copy and gave it to you. It's the distribution aspect that is the sticky wicket.
bet? (Score:2)
57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software
How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?
I'll take that bet. C'mon, how many people do you know who paid for netscape back when it was shareware? How many people you know continue to use WinZip after the free trial period? I bet the percent of people who are pirates is closer to 90 percent than 57.
"Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs" (Score:2)
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS EVERY YEAR?
Give me a break. Not only is that figure rediculously inflated even for the very imaginative, but I have yet to see any evidence, statistical or otherwise, that there is a NET job loss because of software piracy.
Much of the meaningful software piracy I've seen (beware the sample of one) is by people who need it to get a certain job done but who can not afford it at the moment. The intent is eventually to pay for it, most likely with a version upgrade, once there is money in the bank.
I think this is especially prevalent in software startups, which need the cash relief immediately but which intend to pay later. This type of "piracy" has probably generated more jobs in the past 10 years than it has cost. (Count up the new lawyers and lobbyists, for a start!)
But now that I know that hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every year due to piracy... wow, that must mean that there was no internet crash and that all those failed dot-coms were actually pirated out of existence rather than going bankrupt due to mismanagement!
SHEESH.
Ahhhhh (Score:3, Interesting)
News fucking flash, Einsteins: if you don't want people to copy your material?
STOP SELLING IT.
I'm not joking. Do you think X many people downloaded copies of the Spiderman movie because it was an artistic high-water-mark for filmic experience? How many people download copies of the best indie art films versus the worst Hollywood experiences in cynicism and lowest common denominator?
It's not even ABOUT the content. It's about the marketing. Some people seem to not even care what the hell they're producing- they'll tailor it to their crude notion of what 'everybody' will like, and then dump tons of money into marketing, trying to get everyone without taste to go 'duh, I'm gonna see that!' And they are surprised when people end up doing this in unauthorised ways?
I have a dream- perhaps it is an unrealistic dream, but it is my own- that one day, if I spend years of my life producing say a film or CD or something, and have no resources left for MARKETING, that it will go out there into a world where groups of people, innovative companies, Big Media outlets have taken on the role of scanning through all the Content people have produced all over the world. Not searching for unauthorized copies of overmarketed, cynical garbage, but searching for stuff that's GOOD. Finding ever-finer subgroups of people who'd think a certain thing was good. Finding ways to hook those people up to the other people in the world producing Content.
That I'll see a day when George Lucas goes on strike... and nobody notices.
Anyone with me? If you are: screw the mass market, find something you love and do it to within an inch of its life. The weirder, the more personal, the better. Be READY. Because we can't have this world until we give up being consumers and start being human beings, individuals, until we're ready to say 'you know, come to think of it most people WOULDN'T like this thing that I like, but I don't even care anymore'.
Fingerprinting thwarted... (Score:3, Interesting)
This would change the hash that they search for. (This obviously applies to people who've altered company logos on Photoshop, etc.)
Trying to stamp out the illegit stuff out there is too big of a task. The only way that they can maintain their hegemony is to ONLY allow their "legit" stuff to play...hence the recent actions of companies to lock down home computers, DVD players, etc.
The figures are way too low! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the BSA needs to "study" some more. They're really missing the boat if they can't fudge figures better than this.
Do they have authorization for scanning? (Score:2)
Slashdot is right... go figure (Score:5, Informative)
So, I checked the ZDNet article [com.com]. It said the same thing. "Ah," I thought, "typical ZDNet incompetence, twisting the words of the press release."
Next, I checked the press release [bsa.org], and found the same claim yet again. Now I was starting to get worried, but at least the press release provided a link to the actual report [bsa.org] (PDF). The report says,There you have it. In the (distressingly significant) opinion of the Business Software Alliance, any individual who downloads a copy of Linux, Netscape Navigator, the latest Windows Service Pack, or any other software provided without charge, is "knowingly violating copyright law." That's terrifying.
(I apologize for taking so much time just to repeat what was said in the original submission, but accurate hyperbole is so rare on Slashdot that I thought it should be highlighted.)
As an aside, I'm actually very surprised that 41% of those surveyed indicated that they pay for downloaded software "most times" or "every time." I've been on the net since Pipeline NY (those were the days...), and I have paid for downloaded software perhaps 3 or 4 times in my life. Even in today's "internet economy," it's awfully hard to find someone who will sell you software without including an oversized box and ten marketing flyers. I strongly suspect that this survey was poorly designed, and that the results are garbage; however, that only makes the BSA's interpretation of it more disturbing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That 45 percent gap... (Score:2)
How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?
I'd much rather wager that the 45 percent gap is the group of people who don't know what "copyright" is, beyond a vague sense that it's the little © symbol that's pictured next to the Hamburglar characters on a McDonald's placemat cartoon.
Well ... just do what they do.... (Score:2)
After all they are performing a sort of a DoS by checking everything you have, it's even borderline trespassing, so unless they have a searchwarrant (which I doubt) anything they discover is not permissable as evidence in court. Also if you are "clean" you could perhaps squeeze in a slander charge seeing as they wrongfully accuse you (by searching) of stealing software/other copyrighted material.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Works for me ... (Score:3, Interesting)
What REALLY pisses me off is when these multi-billion dollar corporate purveyors of crap content want the government to spend MY tax dollars to enforce THEIR private property rights!
I paid a total of US$20 (including popcorn and Coke) to see LOTR:Fellowship of the Rings. It was an entertaining flick, but I haven't seen anything since that has motivated me to go back to a movie theater. I DID spend $80 to take a date to LIVE theater, though
I have approximately 90% of a T-1 pipe available at home 24/7, on average. For a home connection, that's a damned fat pipe
I guess the upshot of this rant is that I don't CARE what the ??AA do, privately, to enforce their rights. When they start calling on the government to enforce their rights FOR them, my back goes up and my claws come out.
Besides
BTW, IAA (non-practicing) L
Organized IP Sharing: the American Way (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I'm referring to using the library to consume written (and audio-visual) works for free, without paying a dime. Maybe you've heard of this, the library? It was brought to our culture by Benjamin Franklin, publisher and promoter of the patenting concept which gave rise to the notion of intellectual property.
Infact, there is nothing discongruous between a patent or copyright and a library where such works are consumed freely by many people. Sharing a work wasn't the crime--misattributing someone else's work as one's own was the offense. But I digress.
Where is the concept of the library of software? If my local library began offering donated titles on a check-out basis, would not Microsoft, through its front called the BSA, demand it to cease and desist?
Today I spent the day at a library and at a Barnes and Nobles reading technical books on a subject I am not familar with, trying to (1) become familar with the subject matter and (2) to find good references that I would then purchase for my own collections.
If the BSA went after published works as well as software, I would have had to purchase 30 books on Java, XML, RMI, XML-RPC, RSS, EJB, etc., to accomplish what I did today. It wouldn't have happened.
Actually, I do the same with software. I'll borrow a friend's copy or use LimeWare, et al, to find a working copy of a program I want to evaluate (unless they have a true trial version to use; Office X preview was not a true trial version--it didn't work just like the real thing). Once I try it I'll make a decision: buy it or delete it. I don't continue to use it unless I buy it, because I want the updates and other goodies--and if I like it I don't mind paying for it. Just like my book scouring at the library/bookstore.
I propose that we establish software libraries--donated purchased software licenses that can be checked out (for evaluation purposes and short-term use). I propose that these be mandated by law to accompany the ever stricter copyright/patent laws so that the "intellectual" benefit to society of Intellectual Property not be lost ensuring the "property" benefit to private concerns.
Free software, on the other hand, falls into the library/copyright paradigm perfectly. Freshmeat, SourceForge, Savanaugh (sp? sheesh), are today's libraries for software. And it is Microsoft, not the FSF, that was fined for piracy--passing off the work of another as one's own. BSA and Microsoft: against casual sharing (like a library) and not respecting the copyright law. How un-American!
Re:what's a copyrighted work? (Score:2)
You are. Most things that have been written or recorded in the United States since 1978 are copyrighted automatically. From the copyright office:
Re:Pick your own outcome by picking your questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:uh oh (Score:2)
Hypothetical shareware program's terms: try free for 15 days, don't like it, delete it. Like it, pay $15.
I download, I try, I don't like, I delete.
I now have downloaded commercial software that I have not paid for. Never mind that I did so 100% within the bounds of it's license.
Re:The future of copyright (Score:2)
Care to elaborate?
Of course I want content to be free, I want cars, houses, and food to be free to, but I realize that a great many things can not be, because these things are not free to create (I know a lot _can_ be free, but there are a great many things that can't/won't/shouldn't). If content is free, who pays those who create the content? Seems to me that the web is an excellent example of this. When things first started, most sites where free, but now that reality has struck, many free sites are either gone or now charge (or push ads). Also, it's not like the concept of "free" content came about with the internet age, off the air tv and radio are the ultimate (and very, very, old) examples of "free" content.
Re:I'll take that bet.... (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Hacking? (Score:2)
The blocks in question being:
65.118.41.192 - 65.118.41.223
63.148.99.224 - 63.148.99.255
Re:I love firewalls. (Score:2)
If you blackhole their traffic, they can't get the "evidence" they'd need to rat you out.
iptables -A INPUT -s 209.95.126.0/24 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -s 204.92.244.208/28 -j DROP
This blocks Ranger Online [rangerinc.com], an "IP rent-a-cop" outfit mentioned here some time ago. Repeat with the appropriate netblocks for any other similar companies you know about. If they try to access your machine in any way, it'll be as if your machine doesn't even exist. Traceroute won't even show the hosts between them and you. Since search results on Gnutella are returned by peers (who will have access to your system) but files are transferred directly between hosts, the most they can get is a list of filenames. Without being able to download the file, how will they know that "Metallica - Enter Sandman.mp3" isn't really a picture of your dog?
Re:I love firewalls. (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you downloaded it from a file-sharing network, then you can just pretend to be ignorant. ("Oh, is this file copyrighted? Sorry, I'll delete it at once!")
exactly (Score:2)
you cant have it both ways, and given the options of either crippled hardware, or the RIAA trying to track down indivual violations at their own expense, i would certainly say the second the second option is far and away the better solution.
Re:what are they thinking? (Score:2)