Message To The BSA: You Aren't Fooling Anyone
from the let's-try-this-again dept
Every so often the Business Software Alliance comes out with a press release, based on a study they paid IDC to do, where they misrepresent the issue of illegal software copying. They make huge claims that anyone with half a brain can see is incorrect. The problem is that this makes the BSA look untrustworthy. If the organization was actually willing to take a more balanced view, perhaps they would be a lot more effective. As they did earlier this year, the focus of the latest announcement is on how cracking down on illegal software copying would stimulate the economy -- and from what they're saying, they're making the exact same mistakes they made half a year ago, even though they were widely trashed last time around. Even IDC, who does the study, has said that the BSA is misrepresenting their results. The BSA pretends that every copy of software would have been bought if the copy wasn't available. That seems to be their basis for saying it would help stimulate economies. They say things like: "Some companies know they are losing 40 percent of their business. If they could recoup that, they could employ more people." Indeed, any company would like to sell more product -- but many of the people copying software could never afford it, and never would buy it -- so it's pretty difficult to say they're really "losses." At the same time, the BSA seems to completely discount the other side of the equation. That is, companies who are illegally copying software are saving money that they can then invest in hiring more people. Also having the software often makes companies more productive, thereby helping the economy. This isn't, in any way, to condone illegal software copying. It's just to point out that there are two sides to the question of what it's doing to the economy, and by completely pretending the other side doesn't exist and that every piece of copied software is a lost sale, the BSA is making an argument that everyone (except much of the press, unfortunately) knows is ridiculous. It doesn't do their argument any favors. If they were willing to study the real impacts, both pro and con, and came out with a balanced report, that would be very interesting and might give everyone some real insight into how to better stimulate economies. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to happen.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh Yes They Are!
Unfortunately, as the previous news item shows, 49% of ordinary people are depressingly easy to fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Yes They Are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business as usual
Another thing I'm sure they'll refuse to entertain is that pirated software also increases sales on some fronts.
I can think of many, many games (and some apps, and music CDs, and movies) I've downloaded that were such garbage I deleted them after a half hour. If I'd dropped the 50-100 bucks on any of them I would have been outraged. I can also think of several that I ended up buying that I wouldn't have looked at on the shelf because they weren't very strongly advertised or the packaging didn't sell the product well enough.
The counter is that demos are somehow a good substitute.. That's rarely the case. Any evaluation I've seen in software has only pushed me away - either crippled beyond any sort of usefulness (what good is it if I can't save? Or if it prints a huge annoying DEMO logo on the print out?) or there are so many ads and banners pimping their product and company that I get frustrated and kill the process.
I think the monsters need to take a chance and drop prices.. Yes, some people just pirate everything because they can and it's somehow fun. A lot of "thieves", however, do it because the trust with the company is broken. I can't get a refund if what I bought was shit.. Why should I give them my money then? I work hard for my money, and I'd sooner put it towards more important things than entertainment that really isn't entertaining. I challenge someone to try it. Let's put out Quake 4 for $10. Make the next 50 Cent CD $5 or a $3 download.
I really bet that if Microsoft had just dropped the price of their consumer operating systems to $40-50, they would be ahead simply by 1) selling more copies and 2) not having to employ an entire division to try and copy protect the shit out of everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
Well put.
I always find it interesting that the music publishers sell CDs at roughly the same price as the movie studios sell DVDs. DVD piracy is a much smaller problem, and in the US generally confines itself to new releases not yet available legally. When video tapes first came out, the studios tried to charge $80 or $100 for a movie and no one bought. They had a second chance with DVDs and kept the price at a level where consumers would be interested in buying, and not too interested in pirating.
In contrast, the music business did the opposite. They charged us more for CDs than for LPs, and they kept the price high even as the costs of stamping a CD fell to a few cents.
At a price under $10, would people really be interested in piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
This is why I only buy CDs at concerts. They're usually 10 bucks or less, I already know that I love the band, and I know that every cent of profit goes directly into the band's pocket.
I know this sort of thing gets said *every time* we have a story about copyright protection and business models, but that's because it's true. Lower prices *always* mean higher sales. They don't always mean higher profit, of course. But I sincerely believe that dropping the cost of CDs and such significantly would generate more than enough sales to make it worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
Uninformed Response: Do you honestly think the $85 you paid for the ticket was split 4 ways between the band members? Come on. 20% went to ticketmaster, 20% went to the house, 57% went to the record company, and 3% went to the band. So you spent $85 to save $5 on a CD? Brilliant.
Original Poster again (me): *shakes head* So many things wrong here. First, $85 for a concert ticket? Wtf? I'd never pay that much for a ticket, and even if I did, that's the sort of band that *already* is connected to a big record label, and thus has expensive CDs.
Second, no one goes to the concert 'for the CDs'. They go for the music. They go to get their face rocked off and be close enough to the band to touch them, and usually talk to the band afterwards. They pay maybe $10-$15 bucks to get into the venue, then go and support the band (which they now know for sure is awesome) by buying their CDs. *These* CDs tend to be cheap, and all the money falls into the band's hands.
That's the sort of music I pay for.
Read the Frickin' Post. Geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
If you're the average person(older than your early twenties and not computer savvy then you'll normally think of buying CD's. Other than that your on your computer. You have a burner just as our parents had VCR's. You have access to literally anything you'd like to listen to.
What would you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
I don't mind paying 12 bucks for a movie I like, and at 9.99 (or hit a sale at Walmart and find some for even less) I don't mind taking a chance on a movie I "might" like.
For those prices, its NOT worth hunting for the image, downloading the image, burning it to find it lower quality or its not what I thought...its also not worth renting then burning either.
For a CD, most new stuff SUCKS and at 20 bucks...no thanks. I downloaded the tapes, LPs and CDs I had, and every once in a while I'll go get a song that appeals to me...but give money to Sony, the RIAA and al? No way...
Besides, they ALREADY get my money due to the levies in Canada...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
People that justify software piracy by saying there are social benefits to it are really amusing. Someone always benefits from any theft even if it's only the thief. Just because someone is benefitted doesn't make it right.
If the functionality a software package offers isn't worth the cash for you then don't buy it. Theft is theft and just because you think they are asking too much doesn't give you the right to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
Stop being an idiot. IP violations aren't theft. The only people who claim it is are the ones who own the IP. The rest of the world, including the US Supreme Court, say it isn't. It's still illegal, and it's still severely punishable by law, but it isn't stealing. There's no physical inventory being lost by the merchant.
There *is* a difference between downloading Civ 4 and walking into a Best Buy and putting the box under your jacket. If you can't understand that, there's no point in discussing it any further.
Stop with the theft analogies, they aren't appropriate.
The main point is not that software isn't worth the money and thus we shouldn't buy it (duh). It's that the software (and music, and ...) is misrepresented by the marketing and there is no recourse to recovering your money. You take a hit because they lied. And because their marketing language is completely subjective, they aren't violating the letter of any laws.
So what do you propose? Buy shitloads of everything and pick the ones you enjoy and just suck it up for the hundreds and thousands of dollars that were wasted? No, of course not.
The norm being that people will pay for what they feel is valuable - and when forced into a situation where they aren't permitted to determine if something is valuable, they'll "steal" it and find out. There is a difference here between piracy because you can and piracy because you want to see how the purchase really behaves before you are permanantly out the money. The former is not greatly different from theft. The latter is about refusing to be cheated by dishonest marketing. There is a moral difference here, but not a legal one.
If you bought a car and it turned out that the engine was actually missing, but you weren't permitted to look under the hood or test drive it, would you expect a refund due to dishonest marketing?
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
*sigh* the collective IQ just lost a few points.
As for the "social" benefits of piracy, right or wrong, they have been proven. Windows gained much of its popularity in the early years exactly by being pirated, it made sure that more desktops had the OS installed and increased the consumer/acceptance base for Microsoft products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
You said it. If software makers would 1) offer full refunds for defective software--or even better--a full refund if a customer is not satisfied with the software, and 2) lower prices to reasonable levels (e.g. $5000 for something as un-user-friendly as AutoCAD is a bit too much) then I think that ALL of the piracy committed by businesses and MOST of the piracy by individuals would essentially DISAPPEAR!
Replying to the portion I bolded here. Many people don't realize this but Microsoft will refund your purchase price on retail copies of their software if it's not working for you. On many apps for the home user (Money, games, etc) they'll do it just because you didn't like it. This isn't something that seems well publicized but I've goten these refunds for my clients (I'm a self employed IT guy) many times in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
How would it NOT cut into Microsoft's business? Well, because most users would buy the junkware bundled version of the OS that typically ships with most bundle systems, and still pay well for the bundle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens there isn’t anything left to ‘innovat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike fix your typo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Acumen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insiders Point of View
The approach of the RIAA DID reduce the amount of illegal file sharing and raised the implied risk of doing so. I know I stopped sharing my 7,000+, mostly legal mp3 files when they started suing students. The BSA has been attempting to do the same for many years. There's no need for emotion about this, and I think the system is in equilibrium. My suspicion and as a former employee of a firm that was a member of the BSA is that the BSA's real charter is to go after corporations which could be paying for software but aren't and true pirates that are reselling intellectual property that doesn't belong to them.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think there are too many 100+ person firms rolling out knowingly pirated copies of software - the risk / reward is too high. The same cannot be said about smaller firms...which behave much more like people - i.e. price sensitive to the point of an occassional filch.
Some innovative firms are experimenting with better enterprise licensing agreements that recognize the price sensitivity of their smaller customers by offering different licensing models for sub 100 seat customers - often being able to purchase the software for 1/2 the cost per seat as larger customers. Think "Enterprise Edition" for the big customers and "Standard Edition" for not so big customers.
There is no perfect licensing model. There is no perfect price that will be right for everyone. Short of pay for use scenarios which at least for now are quite cumbersome, we have to live in an imperfect world, with imperfect pricing, and 'thieves' and 'pirates' to satisfy that part of the market that's both comfortable with risk AND not being served by the existing licensing and pricing models.
Life's messy. Get on with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BSA means more for Open Source
Let them huff and puff. Let them rant and rave. The more they act as asses, the more companies that can't afford full licenses for whatever will just move to Open Source based solutions.
Which means less income to feed the BSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beware the Split Infinitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you sure? The license says you can get a refund, but only if you disagree with the terms of it, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]