MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Worldwalker · 11-19-2010, 12:30 PM

I don't trust the Business Software Alliance's numbers on pirated software because I know how they derive them, and I know what their motivations are. They know that, for example, Linux users aren't using pirated Windows software ... but they make the assumption that a) all enterprise servers are running Windows or OS X, and b) they all should have purchased X number of programs. So, if there are Y servers, and the companies the BSA represents have sold less than Y*X programs, this means the difference is... no, not people who don't need those programs. Not companies that write their own software. And defniitely not the 70% or so of the server world that runs Linux. No, it can only be pirates! Now expand that to every computer in the world. Not to mention, their definition of "stolen" = "you don't have a receipt for it". I doubt if I have receipts for much of my software ... maybe floating around in my email somewhere ... so, despite the fact that I buy my commercial software and register my shareware, to the BSA I'm a pirate because I can't prove I'm not.

The IFPI is the music industry's BSA. Their goals are just as self-serving, their methodology is just as questionable, and their numbers are just as suspect. When someone known for defending publishers' (indefensible) positions says "there are pirates everywhere, look, the music industry says so!" my reactions range from a bewildered look to a nervous laugh, but believing the music industry is no more a possibility than believing the software industry.

The IFPI has an agenda: to get laws passed to support their member companies' current business model. Their entire purpose is antithetical to the interests of the consumer. So I have no difficulty at all believing that their numbers will say exactly what supports their agenda.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even if what the IFPI is saying is the literal truth, I have no doubt that they carefully selected those figures that would support their own case from a sea of numbers. It's what they're there for.

11-19-2010, 12:30 PM	#28
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	I don't trust the Business Software Alliance's numbers on pirated software because I know how they derive them, and I know what their motivations are. They know that, for example, Linux users aren't using pirated Windows software ... but they make the assumption that a) all enterprise servers are running Windows or OS X, and b) they all should have purchased X number of programs. So, if there are Y servers, and the companies the BSA represents have sold less than YX programs, this means the difference is... no, not people who don't need those programs. Not companies that write their own software. And defniitely* not the 70% or so of the server world that runs Linux. No, it can only be pirates! Now expand that to every computer in the world. Not to mention, their definition of "stolen" = "you don't have a receipt for it". I doubt if I have receipts for much of my software ... maybe floating around in my email somewhere ... so, despite the fact that I buy my commercial software and register my shareware, to the BSA I'm a pirate because I can't prove I'm not. The IFPI is the music industry's BSA. Their goals are just as self-serving, their methodology is just as questionable, and their numbers are just as suspect. When someone known for defending publishers' (indefensible) positions says "there are pirates everywhere, look, the music industry says so!" my reactions range from a bewildered look to a nervous laugh, but believing the music industry is no more a possibility than believing the software industry. The IFPI has an agenda: to get laws passed to support their member companies' current business model. Their entire purpose is antithetical to the interests of the consumer. So I have no difficulty at all believing that their numbers will say exactly what supports their agenda. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even if what the IFPI is saying is the literal truth, I have no doubt that they carefully selected those figures that would support their own case from a sea of numbers. It's what they're there for.