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