Reducing Piracy May Stimulate World Economy

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
A new study by the Business Software Alliance finds that piracy, if reduced by only a factor of 2.5% for four years, would result in producing 500,000 new high tech jobs. BSA claims they found four out of 10 programs installed on computers was pirated in one form or another, an alarming statistic

The outfit's work has also been criticized by the Government Accountability Office for the assumptions inherent in some of its studies, especially that every piece of illegal software represents a missed sale. This methodology "raised concerns among experts we interviewed," the GAO noted, "including the assumption of a one-to-one rate of substitution and questions on how the results from the surveyed countries are extrapolated to non-surveyed countries."
Click to expand...
 
Epic fail, as usual.

People most often pirate things because they can't afford them -- how does that represent a "lost sale?"
 
No people pirate things because they think everything should be free to them, but they all want to make top dollar wages.

There is no way to backup these numbers, just like the Obama administrations "Saved Jobs" you just cannot prove it
 
So, it's okay to steal because something's too expensive? If I take a Benz, since one is out of my price range, that's okay? What happened to "I just won't buy that."?

40% of software is stolen? Wow.
 
Oh good you guys know the exact reasons people pirate. There has been quite a few debates out it and im glad we now have the definitive answer.
 
Master [H];1036184725 said:
So, it's okay to steal because something's too expensive? If I take a Benz, since one is out of my price range, that's okay? What happened to "I just won't buy that."?

40% of software is stolen? Wow.
Click to expand...

You hear recently about the guy that lost a lawsuit against him by Autodesk because they claim he didn't actually own the software he'd bought and therefore he couldn't sell it when he was done with it? Car/physical object analogies haven't made sense when talking about software in a LONG time.
 
Wow the Business Software Alliance came out with this study... big shocker on the results.

Reduce piracy, chances are you'll see less people play games because most won't want to spend $60 on a fancy commercial promise.
 
while it is certainly understandable that reducing piracy may stimulate the software industry I am not so sure how spending the money on software would provide more stimulus than spending it on say, food. This money is not coming from nowhere. It is being spent on other stuff. In a zero sum gain system there would be no stimulus to the world economy, just a redistribution to the software industry. which is fine, but these reports are never honest enough to actually say that.
 
Seriously....even if 2.5% of those people bought the software instead of pirated it..money is a very finite resource. If you're putting more in one jar, then you're taking it out of another. They might not be able to buy new hardware, or go to a movie, or go out to eat, and then all of those industries suffer instead.

This study was a waste of time, although it's interesting to see how much is actually pirated.
 
Ah, BS.

They have already tried the old lie of "If piracy went down, prices could go down". Even with all the product activation BS going on, which is supposed to have suppressed piracy markedly if you listen to the publishers, prices have gone up if anything.
 
I say BS about the new jobs. If piracy really went down and sales went up, I bet certain people get richer instead of creating new jobs.
 
read the entire article.
if you dont want to read the entire article, here is a very short summary:
"BSA says pirating costs jobs, a look at their methodology used to create this shows they left a bunch of stuff out and the study cant be trusted and just flat fails to include some rather critical data"

its BSA, they are the equivalent of RIAA and MPAA
 
And if the price for all software was reduced to $5 or less, most piracy would disapear.

If DVD's sold for $1-$2, I wouldn't even bother with Netflix, I'd just go buy a movie if I wanted to watch it.
 
Zap said:
I say BS about the new jobs. If piracy really went down and sales went up, I bet certain people get richer instead of creating new jobs.
Click to expand...

lol, Ronal Regan found that out the hard way (rather, Ronald Regan left the hard work to Bush senior to handle).
 
Sovereign said:
Epic fail, as usual.

People most often pirate things because they can't afford them -- how does that represent a "lost sale?"
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Most people pirate because they're cheap. Don't tell me nobody can afford a 99 cent mp3 download, but a $50-$99 a month broadband connection.
 
jeremyshaw said:
lol, Ronal Regan found that out the hard way (rather, Ronald Regan left the hard work to Bush senior to handle).
Click to expand...

What? The rich get rich regardless. The difference being, they invest in job producing enterprises when the economy isn't rough and they hoard when times get tough.

Right now, the uncertainty in political and economic climate scares anyone from hiring, even if they are going on a surplus.
 
Same tired argument. They assume that people would actually pay for this software if pirating were somehow made impossible. Funny how these clairvoyants never seem to win the lottery...
 
sfsuphysics said:
Wow the Business Software Alliance came out with this study... big shocker on the results.

Reduce piracy, chances are you'll see less people play games because most won't want to spend $60 on a fancy commercial promise.
Click to expand...

The BSA isn't the ESA (Entertainment Software Association). This BSA study is actually saying more along the lines that if you reduce the piracy of say $2,000 versions of Adobe Photoshop that people would buy it instead and that it would only take 6% of the people who pirated it to pay the $2,000 to create 500,000 jobs. In practice I think we can all agree that it's far more likely the company would simply report higher profits, and would NOT hire more people just because it's financially able to. If a company has enough people to get the job done - that's it, they won't hire more if they don't see extra people as necessary or needed.
 
This study is based on the idea that people are in general scum, and will not pay for anything they would otherwise buy given the opportunity to have it for free, but through illegal means.

This rings false.

I know a lot about piracy, I imagine we all do, being on a tech site (We're all nerds that have been around computers for some time now.), and from experience I find people usually only pirate materials they would not buy. Furthermore, I find many people, given the money, nearly always, buy the software they enjoy and would like to support. In all honesty, I have seen downloaded software that otherwise would've been purchased, but on the flipside, I've seen a lot more purchasing of software given previous instances of similar software being pirated.

i.e. Piracy starts out as a low->no harm process generally (Person would not buy the product.), but often ends up with purchasing of software in the future because of more a open and developed interest in that products field. In my experience, piracy has encouraged sales.
(Friend of mine has dropped 2 grand in the past 2 years because of his developed interest in computing and gaming thanks to a few initial pirated games. Now, he's bought most of the same games successors in addition to other games.)

Sometimes negative studies only find negative results (Or just incompetent studies.).
 
Azhar said:
Bullshit. Most people pirate because they're cheap. Don't tell me nobody can afford a 99 cent mp3 download, but a $50-$99 a month broadband connection.
Click to expand...

In your opinion being "cheap" is a bad thing. In my opinion and in every serious economist's opinion being "economical" is the rational thing to do.

Thus pirating music is a very rational thing to do. It may be illegal but law doesn't equal reason. What I'm trying to say is that everyone who pirates music does so because it is the most efficient way to acquire music.
You might say it's immoral to download music w/o paying the artist I might as well say it's stupid on the part of the artist to expect people to pay for music in a digital age.
This doesn't apply only to music.
 
Azhar said:
Bullshit. Most people pirate because they're cheap. Don't tell me nobody can afford a 99 cent mp3 download, but a $50-$99 a month broadband connection.
Click to expand...

I've always thought the exact same thing.
 
The "people wouldn't buy it anyways" argument only goes so far. It assumes too much. It's assuming too much of what each person will do in the future. It assumes that piracy is never a habit that can sometimes replace purchasing. It assumes all pirates are the same.
 
Azhar said:
Bullshit. Most people pirate because they're cheap. Don't tell me nobody can afford a 99 cent mp3 download, but a $50-$99 a month broadband connection.
Click to expand...

Well, this article is about software piracy. Maybe you're in the wrong thread?
 
Azhar said:
Bullshit. Most people pirate because they're cheap. Don't tell me nobody can afford a 99 cent mp3 download, but a $50-$99 a month broadband connection.
Click to expand...

Yes but in that same rational of thinking, would that same person really have the tens of thousands of mp3s he probably has? No, it's not a matter of cheap, its a matter of getting something because you can for free. The person who has 10 mp3s.. yeah that guy is cheap, the one who has 10,000 isn't.
 
total0 said:
In your opinion being "cheap" is a bad thing. In my opinion and in every serious economist's opinion being "economical" is the rational thing to do.

Thus pirating music is a very rational thing to do. It may be illegal but law doesn't equal reason. What I'm trying to say is that everyone who pirates music does so because it is the most efficient way to acquire music.
You might say it's immoral to download music w/o paying the artist I might as well say it's stupid on the part of the artist to expect people to pay for music in a digital age.
This doesn't apply only to music.
Click to expand...

oh I see. It's not theft, just being economical. :rolleyes:
 
rpkelly said:
Well, this article is about software piracy. Maybe you're in the wrong thread?
Click to expand...

No, it applies to everything. If you can't afford it, then you can't have it. There is absolutely no justification to piracy whether you define it was copyright infringement or theft or whatever.
 
Azhar said:
No, it applies to everything. If you can't afford it, then you can't have it. There is absolutely no justification to piracy whether you define it was copyright infringement or theft or whatever.
Click to expand...

Justification is not the issue, the debate is concerning whether the linked article is correct in it's assumption that if piracy were to stop, software sales would inversely skyrocket, and thusly stimulate the economy being win-win for all.

That's the entirety of the topic. (and it's incorrect)
 
total0 said:
In your opinion being "cheap" is a bad thing. In my opinion and in every serious economist's opinion being "economical" is the rational thing to do.

Thus pirating music is a very rational thing to do. It may be illegal but law doesn't equal reason. What I'm trying to say is that everyone who pirates music does so because it is the most efficient way to acquire music.
You might say it's immoral to download music w/o paying the artist I might as well say it's stupid on the part of the artist to expect people to pay for music in a digital age.
This doesn't apply only to music.
Click to expand...


Let me see here.

Taking what you have not paid for is rational, effecient, and most economical for you.
You believe it is stupid for an artist to expect to be paid for his work or services rendered in a digital world.

How a bout we go old school here.
If you don't pay for it, you don't have the right to make use of it. The fact that it is digital does not change this.
 
Ualdayan said:
The BSA isn't the ESA (Entertainment Software Association). This BSA study is actually saying more along the lines that if you reduce the piracy of say $2,000 versions of Adobe Photoshop that people would buy it instead and that it would only take 6% of the people who pirated it to pay the $2,000 to create 500,000 jobs. In practice I think we can all agree that it's far more likely the company would simply report higher profits, and would NOT hire more people just because it's financially able to. If a company has enough people to get the job done - that's it, they won't hire more if they don't see extra people as necessary or needed.
Click to expand...

This. Companies aren't going to create more jobs, there just going to increase their bottom line. But in the current political climate, it make for a good witch hunt and gets the people in power to pursue piracy as a means for creating jobs. Putting the moral implications of piracy aside, the premise of this article is complete B.S.
 
dwk said:
If someone can't afford it then they can download it. This is the world we live in and it is not going to change anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Now we're talking about ethics. In a perfect world, the allowance to download any product you would not otherwise buy/afford would be completely acceptable, given that all those who need/want said software (and can afford it), would buy it. Of course there would be other stipulations concerning this activity, but it would work with zero negative impact on the market.
 
Right and Wrong having everything to do with how people SHOULD act but not how they do.
If you are unable to recognize this then you will never be able to solve the problem.
 
Azhar said:
No, it applies to everything. If you can't afford it, then you can't have it. There is absolutely no justification to piracy whether you define it was copyright infringement or theft or whatever.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
Azhar said:
No, it applies to everything. If you can't afford it, then you can't have it. There is absolutely no justification to piracy whether you define it was copyright infringement or theft or whatever.
Click to expand...

You mean like food, cloths, and good health? If I couldn't afford those things, you bet yourself that I'd steal them to survive.
 
Why can't we just have software rentals? Just like the library. You pay a monthly/yearly membership fee and you can rent whatever programs you want, unlimited usage and no trial versions, however you can only rent 5 applications at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top