Anti-File Sharing Propaganda Back To Focusing On That Horrible Malware You'll Get

from the unprotected-file-sharing-is-bad dept

The thing that you sort of need to admire about the copyright maximalist lobby is that they attack the problem from so many different directions on such a constant basis. It's almost impossible to keep up -- though, you do begin to notice some patterns. A particularly popular move is to alternate between the moral argument against copyright infringement (stealing! bad!) and the idea that file sharing is going to destroy your computer (we're just looking out for your safety!). It looks like the industry is back on that latter kick, as two recent stories indicate.

First, the BSA has its widely debunked "piracy" numbers -- but it's now getting news for focusing instead on how you're going to get malware if you file share. Since it can't actually back up its bogus numbers, instead it's hoping that most people don't know that correlation doesn't mean a causal relationship -- but at least we know that most of our readers know better. The report notes that there's a correlation between higher piracy rates and higher malware infections, but seems to totally ignore exceptions to that rule (the US) or delve into other variables that may explain either the piracy rate (already questionable) or the malware rate (education levels? poverty? shared computers? etc.). Even more amusing, they claim (with no actual evidence) that those who get malware have to spend more to repair their computers than it would have cost to get the legitimate software in the first place. I have no doubt that there are risks for those who file share, but this report does nothing to show the actual risks and is yet another in a long line of weak propaganda from the BSA, that despite being called on it for years, never seems to do anything to back up its reports with facts.

Then, we have the story of the MPAA apparently sending a bunch of anti-piracy comic books to New Zealand, home of one of many different fights on how to change copyright law. The comic book, like the BSA report, involves plenty of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about how file sharing will unleash nasty malware and viruses all over your computers -- but drawn in nice comic book form. Can we send those kids who got the MPAA comic book a copy of the Tales from The Public Domain comic books as well? There are free digital downloads for anyone who wants to hand them out in exchange for the bogus MPAA ones....

Filed Under: comics, file sharing, propaganda, security
Companies: bsa, mpaa

The Propaganda The Copyright Industry Teaches Our Children

from the omission,-overstatement,-conflation dept

Last week, I spent some time highlighting some of the more ridiculous claims found in the RIAA's "classroom materials" which it hopes teachers will use to brainwash students. In the comments, someone pointed out that Tarleton Gillespie wrote up a paper last year examining such "educational materials" from the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ASCAP and others, and found them to be quite lacking. Rather than actually teaching the ins and outs of copyright, most were focused on normative statements of a world those industries want to exist, as well as seriously questionable descriptions of what copyright is supposed to do and how those industries work. None of the materials seem to recognize that technology has also changed the production, promotion and distribution of new works, and none seem to recognize that content creation can come from those outside of the big corporate entities who paid for these materials in the first place. Again, it's worth asking: why does any educational institution or education professional use such obviously biased (and at times misleading) educational materials?

Filed Under: copyright, educational campaigns, propaganda, tarleton gillespie
Companies: bsa, mpaa, riaa

BSA Jumps Onto The Three Strikes Bandwagon

from the with-some-weasel-words dept

So, this was really weird. I was having an instant messenger chat with a colleague here about the various "three strikes" proposals that have been popping up around the world, and he asked me whether or not the BSA had taken a stance on the issue. I noted not remembering hearing anything from them on it, and assumed that it was because the BSA mainly focuses on business users, for which a three strikes policy is not really an issue, and that the BSA would hopefully realize that cutting people off from the internet would almost certainly hurt the software industry a lot more than help it. But, literally 10 seconds after I sent that last text, I flipped over to my RSS reader and up popped an article about how the BSA has come out in favor of a three strikes plan. Freaky.

Guess I should have known better than to assume the BSA was smarter than the RIAA on this issue. As the article at Ars explains, the BSA tries to put in a bunch of caveats about due process and judicial oversight, but spends a bunch of time in its statement explaining how ISPs can get around all that due process and judicial oversight by simply putting three strikes into their contractual language -- meaning that they can just decide on their own to cut users off. Good luck with that.

More troubling, however, is that when questioned about the new statement by Ars Technica, the BSA said it was necessary because "last year our industry lost over $50 billion (USD) worldwide." Hmm. It's really quite troubling that the BSA still stands by these numbers when they've been debunked so thoroughly over and over again. They count the "retail value" of every piece of software as being "lost," which is clearly a lie. Five years ago, the research company that runs these studies for the BSA, IDG, flat out said that the BSA was wrong in claiming that "the retail value" of the software is the same as "losses." So why does the BSA continue to get away with claiming it?

Filed Under: contracts, copyright, software, three strikes
Companies: bsa

Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People

from the that's-a-new-one dept

We mentioned the debate going on between copyright lawyers Ben Sheffner (supporting the entertainment industry's sue 'em all strategy) and William Patry (explaining why they're abusing copyright law, rather than focusing on business solutions), and Sheffner's response struck me as being wrong on a large number of points. In it, he argues that people's general hatred for the RIAA has little to do with its legal strategy, but that people just hate the music business:

I think a lot of this negative opinion was due not to specific alleged misdeeds, but to the very nature of the business and its product. Music is about fun, escapism, pleasure. The fact that music is also a business, populated with accountants, lawyers, enforcers, and other not-so-fun people, is quite jarring. It's natural that people react negatively when confronted with the harsh reality that it's about more than "the music" -- it's about making a buck.

I find this incredibly unpersuasive. It's not the fact that the music industry "makes a buck" that pisses people off, but the manner in which it does so. Sure, people have hated the industry since before Napster came around (though, I'd argue that Sheffner's not paying much attention if he doesn't realize how much greater it's become -- we're talking an order of magnitude). But, the reason was actually a precursor to what's happening today: which is that the industry was run by people who looked to screw over everyone. The history of the music business is not pretty. Sure, some people may not like "the business side," but the issue most people have is not that it's a business, but the way the business has been run. It was always designed to rip off both the artists and consumers at every turn. The folks who have run the music business for years have always looked at things as a zero sum game, rather than a market that can be expanded. So they squeezed everyone. It's just that the internet made it that much more blatant.

Sheffner then tries to back up this argument with another claim that is entirely unpersuasive:

The contrast with the public's attitude toward the software industry is instructive. The Business Software Alliance, the industry's equivalent of the RIAA, is very aggressive in its enforcement efforts, famously offering bounties for ratting out software pirates.... But my sense (admittedly anecdotal) is that most people have little problem with the BSA acting to enforce its members' copyrights; it's certainly a far less unpopular organization than the RIAA. (Can you imagine the outcry if the RIAA offered rewards for turning in your friends who "share" music without paying for it?) Why the difference? My hypothesis is that people have no trouble accepting that software is a serious business, and that owners of software copyrights, who spend millions developing their programs, have every right to stop people from copying them for free.

First, perhaps it's because Sheffner hasn't spent much time around the software industry, but the hatred of the BSA runs incredibly deep as well. And, yes, people find their marketing schemes to be totally ridiculous as publicity stunts. The BSA is also regularly mocked (not just by us, but by the mainstream press) for its annual rollout of BS stats on piracy, that falsely count every copy as a lost sale, and then double, triple and quadruple count "ripple effects" on the economy, but never account for how the savings from not buying overpriced software also "ripple" through the economy.

Furthermore, the rather obvious reason why it's a smaller group of people up in arms about the BSA's tactics is that the average person rarely buys software. Most people buy a computer pre-loaded with software, and then maybe download a few applications. But actually going out and getting new software occurs a lot less often than the average person gets new music.

The RIAA's tactics have received more attention because it's a larger community that interfaces with them on a regular basis. It's got nothing to do with some mystical feeling that floats around music.

Filed Under: copyright, music business
Companies: bsa, riaa

Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story?

from the maybe-that-and-a-memory-eraser-ray dept

GregSJ points us to an analysis of a recent paper on "the rhetoric of copyright policy." The original paper is actually called Meh. The Irrelevance of Copyright in the Public Mind. The original is a worthwhile read (as is the analysis), but the basic point is that people continue to ignore copyright law because they simply don't "believe" the story of "harm" that the copyright holders are spinning. This actually echoes Rep. Robert Wexler's recent remarks to the World Copyright Summit, where it's all about "the story."

The paper argues that some of the fault is with the media who has portrayed these battles over copyright "as a land grab that benefited only copyright holders." Hmm. Perhaps that's because it's, I don't know... true? Also, it's worth pointing out that it isn't completely true that the media portrays the copyright battles in this manner. The media has often been quite supportive of copyright expansionist policies -- after all, many of the media's current business models rely somewhat on copyright as well.

Still, even if it is true, the paper argues that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA just needs to come up with a good story (which doesn't need to be true!) to convince people of the harm of unauthorized downloading. As a part of that, they suggest that copyright maximalists have to become trustworthy. Try to read the following without cracking up (I couldn't):

To be successful, copyright holders and legislators must consider the construction of ethos and credibility. This is done not only through the reputation that one gains, but also through the discourse itself. Legislators and copyright holders must portray themselves as trustworthy. More specifically, the recording industry must appear to be treating artists and fans fairly, and legislators must appear to be acting in the public interest.... Legislators and copyright holders must maintain a stance that encourages the public to obey copyright laws. When legislators consider altering copyright terms, the public domain is necessarily affected, and great consideration must be given to how the public will react to the proposed action. When the public sees little incentive to honor the ostensibly limited protection granted under copyright law, copyright law will increasingly become unenforceable. However, if the public is provided with compelling reasons why term limits are in the public interest, they may be more likely to support these terms. Likewise, copyright holders must make more compelling arguments concerning why the public should obey copyright law. If the people have a compelling narrative to follow, they will do so--whether it is true or not. The challenge, then, is not to craft better law; the challenge is to craft better rhetoric.

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't pass the laugh test. It's pretty difficult to find anyone who believes that the copyright holders and legislators are doing anything in the public interest. And, I guess if it were possible to come up with rhetoric that made the opposite case, then perhaps people would change their actions. I just question how they could come up with such a story when all of the evidence points to the contrary.

Beyond that, let's face it, the RIAA actually has controlled the "story" for ages. It has convinced people it represents artists' interests, even though it does not. It's convinced people that potential copyright infringement is "stealing" or "piracy" when it's quite a different beast altogether. They've convinced people that copyright is the only way to make money off of content. The problem is that when anyone scratches the surface, they realize quite quickly, that none of this makes any sense at all.

Filed Under: copyright, piracy, rhetoric, story
Companies: bsa, mpaa, riaa

Is The BSA Purposely Promoting Open Source Alternatives?

from the just-wondering dept

The BSA's actions often seem so short-sighted that it makes you wonder if the organization is actually working against the interests of its membership on purpose. We've detailed in the past how the BSA loves to trot out bogus stats to support its claims about software piracy rates and the supposed "damage" it does to the economy -- but a bigger issue is the practice of BSA software audits. A year and a half ago, the Associated Press exposed the BSA's auditing practices as being highly questionable, bordering on what many would consider to be outright extortion. The organization targets lots of small companies and has no mercy. So even if it was a simple misunderstanding over what a hugely complex software license allowed, the BSA still demands money. And the most stunning part? The BSA keeps the money. According to the AP piece, the BSA (unlike some other organizations) does not distribute the money it gets from fining companies for software licensing violations.

But the bigger issue is that these practices, which are productivity killers for companies, and make many small businesses feel like their software vendors are treating them like criminals, are driving companies to look for alternatives from providers who won't accuse them of infringement at the drop of a hat, and send in a bunch of auditors. Especially in the middle of an economic downturn, treating customers as if they're criminals isn't a very good strategy.

So, what is the BSA doing? Yes, that's right, it's pumping up its software audit program, sending 1,000 audit letters to companies in London, officially demanding they detail their software usage -- while unofficially acting as a tremendous advertisement for open source software, where providers don't treat their customers as if they were criminals.

Filed Under: audits, software
Companies: bsa

BSA's Canadian Piracy Numbers Based On Hunches, Not Actual Surveys

from the bogus-stats-as-always dept

For years, we've been raising questions about the incredibly bogus stats the BSA puts out every year. There are so many problems with them it's incredible that the group continues to release them each year... and much worse that the press and politicians quote them as if they're factual. However, Michael Geist has discovered that they're even worse than originally thought. In digging deeper into the questionable claims of the report by The Conference Board of Canada that was basically a cut and paste from various industry groups, Geist noticed that the report relied on some BSA data. So he asked for more info on how the BSA determined the "piracy" rate of software in Canada. How many people were surveyed? What was the methodology?

In response, Geist found out that no one in Canada was surveyed, and BSA (and IDC who created the report) simply made an educated guess, assuming the piracy rates weren't all that different than they were in past years. Yet this hunch, based on no actual data, is being used as a definitive source of piracy numbers in Canada? Even more noteworthy, both the BSA and The Conference Board report use these numbers to support the silly claim that Canada is somehow one of the worst offenders when it comes to supporting "piracy." But what was the reason for not surveying companies in Canada?

"Countries that are included in the survey portion are chosen to represent the more volatile economies. IDC has found from past research that low piracy countries, generally mature markets, have stable software loads by segment, with yearly variations driven more by segment dynamics (e.g. consumer shipment versus business shipments of PCs) than by load-by-load segment."

So... just to get this straight. IDC doesn't bother to survey Canadians about software piracy, because it considers Canada to be a "low piracy" country. So it just makes up the number... and then the BSA, other lobbyists, research groups, the press and politicians (including the US Trade Representative) use these made up numbers to support the claims that Canada is a high piracy country. Doesn't that seem like fraud?

Filed Under: canada, copyright, piracy, plagiarism, stats
Companies: bsa, idc, the conference board

BSA Releases BS Numbers Yet Again, Then Says Don't Pay Attention To The Numbers

from the funny-stuff dept

Well, it's the middle of May, and that means (like clockwork) the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and IDC have come out with their annual bogus numbers about software "piracy." They do this every year, despite the fact that their numbers have been totally and completely debunked for years. Last year, they were kind enough to call to discuss my concerns, but stood by the idea that every unauthorized copy can be reasonably counted as a lost sale.

This year, they didn't bother to call.

Instead, it looks like they sought out other publications to pre-publish an attack on anyone who would criticize the numbers. This is pretty funny stuff, actually. They release the totally bogus numbers year after year (even though even the mainstream press has started questioning the ridiculousness of it), and then rather than actually responding to the criticism and perhaps trying to come up with more reasonable numbers, they slam those of us who point out that the BSA is flat out trying to mislead people into believing the "problem" of unauthorized copies is a much bigger issue than it really is.

Meanwhile, Michael Geist digs into the numbers that the BSA has provided, and notes that even if you believe the numbers, they don't seem to support the BSA's own position that countries need to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty to decrease the unauthorized use of software. So, we've got bogus data that doesn't even support the BSA's own position.

Why does anyone actually take anything the BSA says seriously?

Filed Under: piracy, software, stats
Companies: bsa

BSA Tries To Exploit Somali Piracy News In PR Campaign Against Software Sharing

from the great-moments-in-dumb-marketing-campaigns dept

We already wrote about how ridiculous it is to compare Somali high seas pirates with music, movie and software fans downloading an unauthorized copy of something off the internet -- and even the press is starting to question the wisdom of calling unauthorized file sharing "piracy." Yet, that hasn't stopped the BSA, masters of misleading through questionable stats from ramping up a marketing campaign that purposely tries to compare software file sharers with Somali pirates. As Gordon Haff at News.com notes:

"This has got to be one of the most tone-deaf and cynically opportunistic PR pitches I've seen for quite some time. It's one thing to figuratively equate piracy with making digital copies of software, music, movies, or books. We can debate endlessly whether such actions are truly stealing or not. But that's not the point. It's that to literally and deliberately equate the two in the wake of pirates taking a ship's crew hostage and the US Navy subsequently killing three of the attackers...Well, words fail me."

Filed Under: exploitation, pirates, somali
Companies: bsa

Software Audits In India Block Companies From Backing Up Their Data, Claiming It's Infringement

from the yikes dept

Gautam John writes in with a couple of posts concerning software audit "raids" done in India (also common in the US). The first explains how unfair the process is, noting how it's basically court-sanctioned extortion. Outside groups get to basically stop your business for a whole day, harming your reputation among both employees and clients (even if you haven't done anything wrong) and then can squeeze you to pay up. The Associated Press did a big expose on how the BSA, in particular, has a history of using underhanded means to squeeze many small businesses to pay up -- even noting that the BSA keeps the money, rather than distributing it to firms. The most egregious part, though, was where the "auditors" refused to allow the company to back up its data, saying that the data might be created with unauthorized software, and thus, backing up the data would be infringing.

The BSA quickly responded, asking the blog owner to post its detailed response, where it defends the raids. Unfortunately, its defense is incredibly weak. It starts off -- as does pretty much every BSA story -- with it claiming that "independent studies" show how much damage to the wider economy unauthorized file sharing does. That's not accurate at all. We've picked apart the numbers before, showing how the BSA numbers are totally bogus (and, while it's a third party that came up with the numbers, it's entirely paid for by the BSA). A big part of the problem is that the industry only looks at the downside to the economy, and doesn't include any factor to recognize that companies that use unauthorized software also help the economy. Perhaps the downsides outweigh the upsides... but totally ignoring all upsides and then double, triple and quadruple counting the downsides via "ripple effects" does not make for a credible study.

However, the BSA then goes on to defend the practice of not allowing companies to back up their data, by basically saying "hey, that's the law." But, of course, that only supports the original poster's complaint that this is effectively "court sponsored extortion." It does nothing to explain what's illegal about backing up your data (which is not covered by the copyright of the software companies).

Of course, in the end, all these sorts of tactics do is push people to explore open source alternatives, not just because they're cheaper (sometimes free, though, not always), but because they don't have to put up with legal bullying and extortion-like tactics.

Filed Under: copyright, data, india, software audits
Companies: bsa