AfterDawn: Tech news

Software industry lobbyists claim open source promotes piracy

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 25 Feb 2010 12:52 User comments (38)

Software industry lobbyists claim open source promotes piracy It's nothing new to see copyright lobbyists making absurd claims about the evils of piracy, but a group called the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) has sunk to a new low. In a report to the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) they claim that merely encouraging the use of free or open source software by government agencies promotes piracy.
The report was submitted as part of the USTR's annual review of international intellectual property enforcement issues. The purpose of this process is supposed to be identifying countries which aren't doing enough to combat IP infringement.

One solution that's becoming popular is promoting free and open source software. Such a solution addresses the economic reality that the price of software is a leading cause of piracy, especially in poorer countries.

In their 498 page report the IIPA urges the USTR to bully countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand into discarding policies giving preference to open source software. It even goes so far as to say just promoting the use of such software "encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations."

It goes on to suggest that giving preference to open source software stifles innovation

A closer look reveals their true motive, which is selling software from companies belonging to the Business Software Alliance (BSA), one of seven IIPA member organizations. They claim an official policy promoting open source software for government use "amounts to a significant market access barrier for the software industry."

But does it really? Any company is free to offer their software for free or develop it with an open source model. Certainly BSA members like Microsoft, Symantec, Hewlett Packard and Adobe have all the resources they need to develop whatever sort of software they want.

In fact that's exactly what IBM, another BSA member, has done quite successfully over the last decade. They've even gone so far as to make hundreds of patents royalty free.

What those other companies lack is the will to adapt to a market where the deck isn't stacked in their favor. Microsoft, in particular, has been a leading source of open source misinformation with their repeated and vague claims that Linux infringes on as of yet unnamed Microsoft patents.

Those companies certainly don't lack the will to dictate IP enforcement policies to those same countries though.

Their recommendation to the USTR includes a suggestion that the government of Vietnam "should abandon the current approach and follow a realistic policy framework that includes adequate education and effective enforcement of IP rights and fosters non-discrimination in business choice, software development, and licensing models."

In other words, instead of saving money by going open source they should be forced to spend money investigating and prosecuting piracy.

Using the USTR as a club to force governments into adopting policies which may not be in their best interest is bad enough. Doing so in the guise of combating piracy is simply pathetic.

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

38 user comments

125.2.2010 13:23

Pathetic is right!

Sleazy, slimy, slippery...are other words that come to mind.

These guys never give up.

225.2.2010 13:54

Uummm......lul wat? So you let me guess this right..... something that dose not have a trade marked copy right is a crime against copy right?

No wonder the RIAA thinks they have the right to gain royalties for music thats not part of their organization....

325.2.2010 14:51

Disgusted after reading this.

Makes me want to go pirate something.

425.2.2010 17:31

Originally posted by kiwi1:
Disgusted after reading this.

Makes me want to go pirate something.
to late.

526.2.2010 8:15

and this is actually going to make what type of impact?

626.2.2010 8:20

Quote:
they claim that merely encouraging the use of free or open source software by government agencies promotes piracy.

What ?
What ?
What ?



Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***

728.2.2010 7:55

Microsoft really takes the cake. It uses other peoples' software as a basis for its own then when taken to task over it simply buys out the other company. Good open source and free software only seems to be a problem for companies who aren't making money from it.

84.3.2010 6:27

Originally posted by leglessoz:
Microsoft really takes the cake. It uses other peoples' software as a basis for its own then when taken to task over it simply buys out the other company. Good open source and free software only seems to be a problem for companies who aren't making money from it.
I think this is being a little hard on Microsoft. (probably thinking wtf right?)

Microsoft has Open source programs and software lol. So it's not really fair to say all they care about is the money. (I know I was shocked the first time I found out as well)

94.3.2010 6:47

Quote:

Microsoft has Open source programs
Yes, I'm sure it's all through their closed source code.

Science, in my understanding, is (by definition) free. I should, from this fact, conclude that science discourages creativity, and it would profit developing countries to discourage its use. I'm working on that.

104.3.2010 8:24

[quoteI think this is being a little hard on Microsoft. (probably thinking wtf right?)

Microsoft has Open source programs and software lol. So it's not really fair to say all they care about is the money. (I know I was shocked the first time I found out as well)


Seriously? What drugs do they supply you at the hospital. M$ are only interested in the $, face it, if they were not ALL their stuff would be open source.

If open source encourages piracy then it must also mean that every company or individual that creates open source software or whatever should be taken to court and charged with it .... and that also means M$ ..... oops thats right, M$ has NEVER copied ANYONES ideas EVER.................

114.3.2010 9:41

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. What a bunch of horse dung. If the BSA produced reasonably priced software people would buy it. Open source programs permits people to have access to programs that are free (unless you want to contribute to the programming effort) and provide the same result. For example; Open Office does a jam up job as an office suite. It could give Microsoft Office a run for it's money. I simply have to take the opposite position. Without open source you would have more piracy.

124.3.2010 9:47

The lobbying industry is about buying politician votes to get what the corporation wants. It's the way our government is run. We bellyache about the Dems and Reps not doing anything. We moan about Obama not making the changes he promised. But, we just accept the fact that the corporate money and lobbyists are openly spending money to push their point of view.
I used to think that laws were passed for the good of the people. But why are there so many lobbyists in Washington? The politicians like them because they pay for their re-elections.
Money is what it's all about. If you support some idea, you contribute money to that website. We're all doing it. What a country - freedom for all who have checking accounts.

134.3.2010 10:58
Daniel_1
Inactive

Let me see if I got this right. These guys are pissed because the open source groups can do what these complainers are doing at a cheaper price and it works much better and is more stable? Nobody wold not agree that Open Office is doing the exact same thing that MS Office can do and is free PLUS is compliant with all MS Office documents. Or RedHat/Unix/Linux do the exact same thing as MAC and MS's os's and are free instead of costing between $500 and $1500 dollars.

Of course these people are going nutzoid! The more people who find out about open source the more people that are going to move from buying it to the open source. I mean look what mozilla and firefox have done to Internet Explorer and Apple's browsers...

The writing is on the wall and this is why they are going bats%$t! Lower your costs and price, or die.

144.3.2010 12:00

Originally posted by Daniel_1:
Let me see if I got this right. These guys are pissed because the open source groups can do what these complainers are doing at a cheaper price and it works much better and is more stable? Nobody wold not agree that Open Office is doing the exact same thing that MS Office can do and is free PLUS is compliant with all MS Office documents. Or RedHat/Unix/Linux do the exact same thing as MAC and MS's os's and are free instead of costing between $500 and $1500 dollars.

Of course these people are going nutzoid! The more people who find out about open source the more people that are going to move from buying it to the open source. I mean look what mozilla and firefox have done to Internet Explorer and Apple's browsers...

The writing is on the wall and this is why they are going bats%$t! Lower your costs and price, or die.
That is right. How dare they make better software then give it away! Their ought to be a law and that is exactly what they are trying to do. They are too bloated to make their software better of cheaper. They can only use that bloatedness to crap on their competition. Crap hundreds of lawyers their way to infest them like body lice to suck out their blood. I think that is their only viable option.

154.3.2010 13:44

BSA = Bull $h!t Alliance.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Mar 2010 @ 13:45

164.3.2010 17:06

Not only are the IIPA lobbyists foolish, they're liars too. One of the objectives to promoting open source software is to create a context for users to need paid support services. Some users may not need it. Many, however are happy to lean on the paid assistance of the open source suppliers to provide extended support ensuring the fullest use of the software. Software support services can be a source of more continuous and articulated income than the sale of software.So, hardly does open source software promote piracy: it encourages a healthy IT infrastructure and support industry.

175.3.2010 1:20

I beg to differ...

I trialed Dvd Rebuilder. Liked it a lot. I am aware of ways of obtaining the software for free. I believed the programmer deserved some return. I BOUGHT IT! There are SOME sensible people in this world LOL! And when BD rebuilder has passed beta testing, I'll buy it as well. In a heart beat.
Microsoft allowed many of us to trial their beta of windows 7. Like is an understatement. Its even better than XP as far as I'm concerned. Don't know about the 32bit version though. I'll be purchasing Windows 7 as well.
Support our programmers :) One day, I may be one :D If developers like Rockstar games, don't get some return, they can't produce games like Grand Theft Auto IV. My favorite game by the way :p

185.3.2010 11:29
Daniel_1
Inactive

Originally posted by omegaman7:
I beg to differ...

I trialed Dvd Rebuilder. Liked it a lot. I am aware of ways of obtaining the software for free. I believed the programmer deserved some return. I BOUGHT IT! There are SOME sensible people in this world LOL! And when BD rebuilder has passed beta testing, I'll buy it as well. In a heart beat.
Microsoft allowed many of us to trial their beta of windows 7. Like is an understatement. Its even better than XP as far as I'm concerned. Don't know about the 32bit version though. I'll be purchasing Windows 7 as well.
Support our programmers :) One day, I may be one :D If developers like Rockstar games, don't get some return, they can't produce games like Grand Theft Auto IV. My favorite game by the way :p
You are NOT being sensible. I dont mind paying for software but there is no way in hell you are going to convince me that Adobe Photoshop CS4 is worth $1500.! NOR are you going to convince me or anyone else that MS Office is worth damn near $400. or MS Windows 7 Ultimate is worth $400. either! And lets not even start with MAC's Master Cut which they have at $8995.00!! I fully agree in supporting our programmers but NOT when they expect me to take out a second mortgage to pay for the bloody thing, especially in this economy! Knock it down to something reasonable:

MS/MAC OS's TOP COST $150 to 180.
Adobe Photoshop CS4 TOP COST $220.
MAC Master Cut TOP COST $300.

Until these idiots see that they are pricing themselves OUT of the market, then you know as well as I that piracy will continue. The dirty little secret that the programmers DONT want you to know is that when the prices are reasonable to the customer, piracy is cut to less then 2 or 3% instead of the 15 to 20% they have now and everyone still makes money. Dont try and tell me otherwise as I have beta tested over 2000 programs and I hear it every day from programmers-coders-etc, but that common sense does not seem to trickle up to the bosses who are greedy as hell and want to sock the customer for every dime they think they can get and all the while whining and complaining about how their programs are being pirated because they cost too damn much. Lets take a test...lower your prices and see what happens...I bet they will be shocked as if people can afford the stuff, they have no reason to get the pirated stuff now do they?

195.3.2010 13:19

LOL! Clearly I should have explained further. While I find Adobe CS2/3/4 remarkable, you're correct. Charging $1500+ is ridiculous! Though I don't know. Adobe's CS is some of the smartest code I've seen yet. Besides, they have MULTIPLE programs rolled into one. You can buy each one separate as far as I know.
Windows 7 ultimate is nearly pointless to buy, depending on who you are. And for a builder, 130$ is a fair price for the professional windows 7 OS. What would you have them charge $1...

If people don't wanna spend the money, there are other options, e.g. Linux...

Apple/mac annoys me though. Making programs like Final cut studio ONLY available for that platform is Horse $h!T. Unacceptable. THAT makes people want to pirate, and run Virtual machines.

205.3.2010 13:35

Well Maya,3Dmax,Adobe,ect what I call pro ware is meant for business, its not that viable to make a crippled down consumer version or even a full version that can not be used for business. When you make proware you have to support professionals which 8 times out of 10 know what they are doing. When you support the more simplistic consumer market 9 times out of ten you are wasting your time on morons.

So there is a reasonable reason why you have a huge gap in proware and consumer stuff. Tho I think they would make more profit if they offered a 3-10$ a month subscription to use the software in non for profit ways. All in all I think that they do not care if you pirate it to learn it to get into business with the bought version but are to corporate to say or really do something about it.

IMO Open Source is meant to supplement the cost and time of development on one entity, it can work if people stop wanting to control every bit of a IP/CP and focus more on what they can gain from one aspect of it.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 05 Mar 2010 @ 13:38

215.3.2010 13:43

Originally posted by zippyDSM:
Well Maya,3Dmax,Adobe,ect what I call pro ware is meant for business, its not that viable to make a crippled down consumer version or even a full version that can not be used for business. When you make proware you have to support professionals which 8 times out of 10 know what they are doing. When you support the more simplistic consumer market 9 times out of ten you are wasting your time on morons.

Well put! :)

225.3.2010 14:01

Quote:
Originally posted by zippyDSM:
Well Maya,3Dmax,Adobe,ect what I call pro ware is meant for business, its not that viable to make a crippled down consumer version or even a full version that can not be used for business. When you make proware you have to support professionals which 8 times out of 10 know what they are doing. When you support the more simplistic consumer market 9 times out of ten you are wasting your time on morons.

Well put! :)
Ya its a shame too they can do something for the costumer market , doing a subscription model where X % of what you bring in goes for paying all the fees and cost you incur as a business for such a pay model. I mean alot of us geeks to just get legit access to the forums so we can enter and make better the community of the pro ware, we would be happy to shell out 100ish a year for it. Sure it can't be used for business and we have to do most consumer help ourselves but really damned if you do damned if you don't.

235.3.2010 21:34
Daniel_1
Inactive

PUH-Leaze people...dumbing down? wasting your time on morons? Need I remind all of you people that EVERY SINGLE ONE of you were a n00b at one time? EVERY SINGLE ONE of you had no bloody idea how to build a computer let alone run any OS's or programs! What if the Coders and such had taken your statement to heart...exactly then just HOW MANY OF YOU would even be where you are today or have the knowledge you have?? The answer..not many. And for you to make that statement is elitist and out of touch with the real world. These people could very easily make this a two tier system for support and not have to change one iota of their program while lowering their cost. They already do this with Student versions of the programs! I have a friend that is the Tech manager at IPFW (Indiana Perdue at Ft.Wayne) and his yearly budget is over 5 million dollars to buy software with VL licensing (Volume Licensing) which is in turn sold to the students for $50 to $80 a disc! Now you trying to tell me that they cannot do the same thing for the public? What the heck are you smoking??? MAC and MS alone get fully 52% of their gross sales from VL sales to Colleges and Universities so they are not losing any money at all. Hell even MS did this for windows 7 and gave it a 3 install license and sold it to the general public! So I dont know what you guys are talking about but these people CAN lower their prices and not sacrifice the quality of their "ehem" programs and STILL make a boatload of cash. They are just too damn greedy to do this and as long as they dont do there will be piracy at 20% or more. You want proof this works? Simple. Look at what happened after Napster was taken down and then made legit as well as other mp3 sites popping up where you could purchase songs legally. The RIAA shockingly showed a massive INCREASE in cd sales as well as sales from these sites and a drastic cut in pirated songs to the tune of close to 12% from an all time high of 22% pirated music. It was only after they started to close quite a few of these sites that the piracy of music started to creep upword, the repoened some of the sites and the piracy of music fell in equal ratio. If it has been shown this works for music sales, dont even try and claim that it wont work for software.

245.3.2010 22:36

Originally posted by Daniel_1:
PUH-Leaze people...dumbing down? wasting your time on morons? Need I remind all of you people that EVERY SINGLE ONE of you were a n00b at one time? EVERY SINGLE ONE of you had no bloody idea how to build a computer let alone run any OS's or programs! What if the Coders and such had taken your statement to heart...exactly then just HOW MANY OF YOU would even be where you are today or have the knowledge you have?? The answer..not many. And for you to make that statement is elitist and out of touch with the real world. These people could very easily make this a two tier system for support and not have to change one iota of their program while lowering their cost. They already do this with Student versions of the programs! I have a friend that is the Tech manager at IPFW (Indiana Perdue at Ft.Wayne) and his yearly budget is over 5 million dollars to buy software with VL licensing (Volume Licensing) which is in turn sold to the students for $50 to $80 a disc! Now you trying to tell me that they cannot do the same thing for the public? What the heck are you smoking??? MAC and MS alone get fully 52% of their gross sales from VL sales to Colleges and Universities so they are not losing any money at all. Hell even MS did this for windows 7 and gave it a 3 install license and sold it to the general public! So I dont know what you guys are talking about but these people CAN lower their prices and not sacrifice the quality of their "ehem" programs and STILL make a boatload of cash. They are just too damn greedy to do this and as long as they dont do there will be piracy at 20% or more. You want proof this works? Simple. Look at what happened after Napster was taken down and then made legit as well as other mp3 sites popping up where you could purchase songs legally. The RIAA shockingly showed a massive INCREASE in cd sales as well as sales from these sites and a drastic cut in pirated songs to the tune of close to 12% from an all time high of 22% pirated music. It was only after they started to close quite a few of these sites that the piracy of music started to creep upword, the repoened some of the sites and the piracy of music fell in equal ratio. If it has been shown this works for music sales, dont even try and claim that it wont work for software.
*sigh*
Sorry not even close you are confusing the stuff industry uses to develop stuff on and the stuff consumers and consumer business's use for day to day work. Heres a hint one of these come in a reduced price student edition and one dose not because its not aimed at/for any part of the consumer spectrum, business or other wise.

Now overlooking the brunt of your word block of gibberish I will agree they need to do more but its very unlikely as thats not a sector they care to fool with as its like telling the US car industry to stop making over priced(anything over 20K) gas guzzling(anything using less than 30MPG) and make cheap 5-10K 2 passenger compact vehicles instead.

255.3.2010 22:45
scum101
Inactive

yada yada yada.. time for a member of the FSF to put a few points into this argument..

M$ bought.. yes BOUGHT a linux business (novell) by threatening them with some spiel about "software patent infringement" .. M$ have always point blank refused to state exactly which patents are being "infringed" .. so a logical person would say "lied, damn lies" and call their bluff..

We know where that gets any business.. that's right.. tied up in years and years of pointless litigating and court actions from M$ until they are forced to sell up whatever they hold or go out of business. M$ learned so very well from Sco how to stamp on competition, and do it very well.

Now as for "student" versions of programs.. well whoopydoo.. don't you idiots see the simple fact of the matter in that? .. supplying reduced price software to places of education turns people learning into dumb consumers of a product. When they have learned how to use the proprietary software having NEVER seen any alternatives they then go into work and business needing that same product to function. They demand it from managers. when a whole team ONLY knows how to use excel then that is what the company has to provide.. especially as the people in charge of purchase decisions also have the same sponsored proprietary software "education"
Sopnsored and cut price "student" software is immoral in the extreme.. especially as free open source alternatives are readily available.

This "attack" (read blatant and outright lies.. I run a comp-letely free and 100% legal operating system.. all my software is 100% free and legal) is just that.. a fabrication built on the same tired lies we are sick to death hearing. The crime here is the way M$ and others have been allowed by governments to get into a position where they and their friends can make statements based on total fabrication and not get sued off the planet by governments and rights groups.

If I was a government technology minister I would enforce the antitrust proven case against M$ and have their products removed from all state funded departments immediately.. That means out of schools and universitys.. out of hospitals and police services.. and everywhere else it was possible. The saving in software costs alone would pay for the change within the budget year.. following that by having them taken from the shelves in stores and off every pc for sale.. unless the customer actually wanted it, then they can buy a full price retail version and install it themselves while being faces with rack upon rack of open source operating systems and things like open office for pennies as a fair and legitimate customer choice.. Put these monopolists in a "fair level" market and watch how long they survive.,. because right now it is nothing like a level playing field... end the "retailer and manufacturer" kickback.

So no more apologists please.. These corporations and their lobby groups friends are our sworn enemies.. they want to take away ALL our rights and freedoms and turn us into nothing but sheep consumers whth no idea how our hardware runs, or what it runs.. Hell people.. M$ don't even want your computer to belong to you.. if you run a M$ operating system you own nothing.. you have very little say in what it does or who it tells about what you do or how you do it. If they decide you have "stolen" something they will take it from you or disable your system totally until you pay again.. prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you paid for it (at great cost on a premium rate number).. or go and pirate.... OR the one choice all the apologists and paid bloggers would not have you know about.. The free alternative.

Free software belongs to everybody. The operating system and programs on my computer belong to me as much as the hardware it runs on.. unlike anything where you click "I agree" to some great lump of legal crap (which strips ALL your ownership rights whether you have paid or not) before putting in your "unique" key.

http://en.windows7sins.org/

http://www.fsf.org/

PPW .. paid up member


265.3.2010 23:08

Originally posted by scum101:
yada yada yada.. time for a member of the FSF to put a few points into this argument..

M$ bought.. yes BOUGHT a linux business (novell) by threatening them with some spiel about "software patent infringement" .. M$ have always point blank refused to state exactly which patents are being "infringed" .. so a logical person would say "lied, damn lies" and call their bluff..

We know where that gets any business.. that's right.. tied up in years and years of pointless litigating and court actions from M$ until they are forced to sell up whatever they hold or go out of business. M$ learned so very well from Sco how to stamp on competition, and do it very well.

Now as for "student" versions of programs.. well whoopydoo.. don't you idiots see the simple fact of the matter in that? .. supplying reduced price software to places of education turns people learning into dumb consumers of a product. When they have learned how to use the proprietary software having NEVER seen any alternatives they then go into work and business needing that same product to function. They demand it from managers. when a whole team ONLY knows how to use excel then that is what the company has to provide.. especially as the people in charge of purchase decisions also have the same sponsored proprietary software "education"
Sopnsored and cut price "student" software is immoral in the extreme.. especially as free open source alternatives are readily available.

This "attack" (read blatant and outright lies.. I run a comp-letely free and 100% legal operating system.. all my software is 100% free and legal) is just that.. a fabrication built on the same tired lies we are sick to death hearing. The crime here is the way M$ and others have been allowed by governments to get into a position where they and their friends can make statements based on total fabrication and not get sued off the planet by governments and rights groups.

If I was a government technology minister I would enforce the antitrust proven case against M$ and have their products removed from all state funded departments immediately.. That means out of schools and universitys.. out of hospitals and police services.. and everywhere else it was possible. The saving in software costs alone would pay for the change within the budget year.. following that by having them taken from the shelves in stores and off every pc for sale.. unless the customer actually wanted it, then they can buy a full price retail version and install it themselves while being faces with rack upon rack of open source operating systems and things like open office for pennies as a fair and legitimate customer choice.. Put these monopolists in a "fair level" market and watch how long they survive.,. because right now it is nothing like a level playing field... end the "retailer and manufacturer" kickback.

So no more apologists please.. These corporations and their lobby groups friends are our sworn enemies.. they want to take away ALL our rights and freedoms and turn us into nothing but sheep consumers whth no idea how our hardware runs, or what it runs.. Hell people.. M$ don't even want your computer to belong to you.. if you run a M$ operating system you own nothing.. you have very little say in what it does or who it tells about what you do or how you do it. If they decide you have "stolen" something they will take it from you or disable your system totally until you pay again.. prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you paid for it (at great cost on a premium rate number).. or go and pirate.... OR the one choice all the apologists and paid bloggers would not have you know about.. The free alternative.

Free software belongs to everybody. The operating system and programs on my computer belong to me as much as the hardware it runs on.. unlike anything where you click "I agree" to some great lump of legal crap (which strips ALL your ownership rights whether you have paid or not) before putting in your "unique" key.

http://en.windows7sins.org/

http://www.fsf.org/

PPW .. paid up member
Can you define why all software is free? its like saying all media is free.... you are robbing humanity when you sell it!!!!!11111111

:P

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

276.3.2010 0:21

Originally posted by Daniel_1:
PUH-Leaze people...dumbing down? wasting your time on morons? Need I remind all of you...

Unsubscribed...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Mar 2010 @ 0:22

286.3.2010 11:03
Daniel_1
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
PUH-Leaze people...dumbing down? wasting your time on morons? Need I remind all of you people that EVERY SINGLE ONE of you were a n00b at one time? EVERY SINGLE ONE of you had no bloody idea how to build a computer let alone run any OS's or programs! What if the Coders and such had taken your statement to heart...exactly then just HOW MANY OF YOU would even be where you are today or have the knowledge you have?? The answer..not many. And for you to make that statement is elitist and out of touch with the real world. These people could very easily make this a two tier system for support and not have to change one iota of their program while lowering their cost. They already do this with Student versions of the programs! I have a friend that is the Tech manager at IPFW (Indiana Perdue at Ft.Wayne) and his yearly budget is over 5 million dollars to buy software with VL licensing (Volume Licensing) which is in turn sold to the students for $50 to $80 a disc! Now you trying to tell me that they cannot do the same thing for the public? What the heck are you smoking??? MAC and MS alone get fully 52% of their gross sales from VL sales to Colleges and Universities so they are not losing any money at all. Hell even MS did this for windows 7 and gave it a 3 install license and sold it to the general public! So I dont know what you guys are talking about but these people CAN lower their prices and not sacrifice the quality of their "ehem" programs and STILL make a boatload of cash. They are just too damn greedy to do this and as long as they dont do there will be piracy at 20% or more. You want proof this works? Simple. Look at what happened after Napster was taken down and then made legit as well as other mp3 sites popping up where you could purchase songs legally. The RIAA shockingly showed a massive INCREASE in cd sales as well as sales from these sites and a drastic cut in pirated songs to the tune of close to 12% from an all time high of 22% pirated music. It was only after they started to close quite a few of these sites that the piracy of music started to creep upword, the repoened some of the sites and the piracy of music fell in equal ratio. If it has been shown this works for music sales, dont even try and claim that it wont work for software.
*sigh*
Sorry not even close you are confusing the stuff industry uses to develop stuff on and the stuff consumers and consumer business's use for day to day work. Heres a hint one of these come in a reduced price student edition and one dose not because its not aimed at/for any part of the consumer spectrum, business or other wise.

Now overlooking the brunt of your word block of gibberish I will agree they need to do more but its very unlikely as thats not a sector they care to fool with as its like telling the US car industry to stop making over priced(anything over 20K) gas guzzling(anything using less than 30MPG) and make cheap 5-10K 2 passenger compact vehicles instead.
Not confusing anything Zippy. What I am saying is that if they can do this for one, they can do it for all and still make money so there is no reason for them to be whining. Nothing more, nothing less.

296.3.2010 11:11
Daniel_1
Inactive

Quote:
Now as for "student" versions of programs.. well whoopydoo.. don't you idiots see the simple fact of the matter in that? .. supplying reduced price software to places of education turns people learning into dumb consumers of a product. When they have learned how to use the proprietary software having NEVER seen any alternatives they then go into work and business needing that same product to function. They demand it from managers. when a whole team ONLY knows how to use excel then that is what the company has to provide.. especially as the people in charge of purchase decisions also have the same sponsored proprietary software "education"
Sopnsored and cut price "student" software is immoral in the extreme.. especially as free open source alternatives are readily available.
Now who's the idiot? *hint...look in your mirror* If you cannot see that by a student getting software from a reduced price that may lead them into another area like it did with the Makers of RedHat and ALL open source software, then there is just no hope for you in this or any other conversations as you obviously cannot see your nose on your face. How in the bloody heck do you think open source got here if not by people who were disgusted with the software makers gouging everyone? By magic? And how do you think it stays a viable option? Again, by magic? If your next post is as obtuse and full of holes like this one was, do yourself a favor and dont post it thus not making you look more foolish then you already have done to yourself.

3010.3.2010 7:28

Well well ..
It's somewhat admirable that all the commentators here believe in dialog and good argumentation, versus "Intellectual property rights" and the lobbyists living well off it.
Listen, Friends, there is no way You can make a tobacconist stop peddling his stuff just because people die from using it. He's making good money on it, it is his right and he'll fight like hell anyone who even talks about curbing it because it is harmful. He'll even manage to feel he's in the right and the opponents evil-minded, wicked and conspiratorial. His self-righteousness is boundless!
How can You ever hope to have a meaningful dialog with such people? They are fighting a loosing cause, anyway, and will adjust or die.
I am personally acutely aware of from which places I can obtain whatever software I need, there is no lack of people making it available, gratis or for a small sum. The same with music and film.
But when I obtain a "free" copy of a program or a utility or a film, and find that I like it and would continue to use it, I BUY the damn stuff, because I like it, because I like the ppl. who took the trouble of developing it and because that is the way forward. Obviously, prgs. like Adobe CS, Windows, Mac's OS etc. are far too expensive and these companies are simply begging for piracy. So, let them have it! There is NO WAY it can be stopped - I still remember the old days when software was exchanged among users on copied discs, and music on copied tapes, instead of by download. There are so many ways this can be arranged, and IT WILL BE, if the RIAA and their baboons keep harassing people and governments.
So, Friends, don't enter into heated arguments on this, simply cover Your ass properly, download what You need and You have driven another nail into the goddam coffins of these morality-criminals - criminals, because they are trying to usurp morality and make it their fundamental property.
Strange, that Man only will learn by repeated mistake! People gloat in error!

3110.3.2010 9:50
Daniel_1
Inactive

Originally posted by swamiolss:
Well well ..
It's somewhat admirable that all the commentators here believe in dialog and good argumentation, versus "Intellectual property rights" and the lobbyists living well off it.
Listen, Friends, there is no way You can make a tobacconist stop peddling his stuff just because people die from using it. He's making good money on it, it is his right and he'll fight like hell anyone who even talks about curbing it because it is harmful. He'll even manage to feel he's in the right and the opponents evil-minded, wicked and conspiratorial. His self-righteousness is boundless!
How can You ever hope to have a meaningful dialog with such people? They are fighting a loosing cause, anyway, and will adjust or die.
I am personally acutely aware of from which places I can obtain whatever software I need, there is no lack of people making it available, gratis or for a small sum. The same with music and film.
But when I obtain a "free" copy of a program or a utility or a film, and find that I like it and would continue to use it, I BUY the damn stuff, because I like it, because I like the ppl. who took the trouble of developing it and because that is the way forward. Obviously, prgs. like Adobe CS, Windows, Mac's OS etc. are far too expensive and these companies are simply begging for piracy. So, let them have it! There is NO WAY it can be stopped - I still remember the old days when software was exchanged among users on copied discs, and music on copied tapes, instead of by download. There are so many ways this can be arranged, and IT WILL BE, if the RIAA and their baboons keep harassing people and governments.
So, Friends, don't enter into heated arguments on this, simply cover Your ass properly, download what You need and You have driven another nail into the goddam coffins of these morality-criminals - criminals, because they are trying to usurp morality and make it their fundamental property.
Strange, that Man only will learn by repeated mistake! People gloat in error!
You are right, if I have a "crippled" version of software and it does what I want it to do, I BUY the program if it does not force me to give up a first born and an arm and a leg. There is just a limit to what can be charged and expect the masses to pay for it. The RIAA has found this out BIG TIME and has taken steps to lower the cost of the cd's and the MPAA with movie rentals and purchase prices; and according to their own sources they are making more money then they were before. When the Cable companies are forced into 'a-la-carte' channel choosing and pricing by the Congress and the FCC (and yes it is coming as there is a bill in Congress right now that has over 200 sponsors in the House and over 43 sponsors in the Senate) it will force cable companies to allow YOU to pick the channels you want to receive and not the slop they force you to take. They are fighting it even after they were shown they would make more money then ever.

You can lead a horse to water, but you sometimes cannot make it drink without a few slaps upside it's head to show it who's boss. Now I dont condone abuse of animals, but like a child some of them need to be spanked now and again and the businesses above are either getting spanked, or going to be spanked.

3214.3.2010 0:17

Scum101's remarks I must agree with, completely.

What I find interesting in the report being described is the claim that publication inspired by academic interest is less creative than that paid for, and such publication hinders the creativity of others. Normally, one builds upon such publications, as science is built upon; and as Linux has been built upon (by more than 20,000 applications, most of which are continuously being improved - thanks to the source code and permission of the authors).

The fear that prompted this report, the superior quality of GNU/Linux I am guessing, was likely soothed by the assumption that contributing one's works to civilization must somehow be against the law, since recent statements equate the 'American dream' with excessive greed. However, when I consulted the U.S. Constitution for its position on intellectual property rights, and capitalism in general, I was disappointed. I did, however, remember reading the following from Benjamin Franklin's biography. Franklin therefore contributes here from the grave, discussing his publication of the design of the Franklin stove:

'This pamphlet had a good effect. Governor Thomas was so pleased with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declined it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

'An ironmonger in London, however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighboring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.'

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page55.htm

Bruce Bathurst, PhD

3314.3.2010 1:17
Daniel_1
Inactive

Originally posted by Gneiss1:
Scum101's remarks I must agree with, completely.

What I find interesting in the report being described is the claim that publication inspired by academic interest is less creative than that paid for, and such publication hinders the creativity of others. Normally, one builds upon such publications, as science is built upon; and as Linux has been built upon (by more than 20,000 applications, most of which are continuously being improved - thanks to the source code and permission of the authors).

The fear that prompted this report, the superior quality of GNU/Linux I am guessing, was likely soothed by the assumption that contributing one's works to civilization must somehow be against the law, since recent statements equate the 'American dream' with excessive greed. However, when I consulted the U.S. Constitution for its position on intellectual property rights, and capitalism in general, I was disappointed. I did, however, remember reading the following from Benjamin Franklin's biography. Franklin therefore contributes here from the grave, discussing his publication of the design of the Franklin stove:

'This pamphlet had a good effect. Governor Thomas was so pleased with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declined it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

'An ironmonger in London, however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighboring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.'

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page55.htm

Bruce Bathurst, PhD

Sorry Gneiss1, there is no way anyone can agree with scums statement. how many different items have come about BECUSE of someone in a university or college that took an unfinished idea and ran with it. I mean for craps sake even Gates and Jobs took an unfinished idea of a computer for the home and ran with it and now you have to multi billion dollar empires. And as for these being "crippled"? PUH_LEAZE...My buddy is the head of the IT deparment of IPFW in Ft Wayne (Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne) and is as big as Notre Dame, and EVERY program he buys to resell back to the students is the full working version with a VL/MAK license on it. So to claim that all student copies are "crippled" is not only elitist but very ignorant as well. And in fact if you contact Adobe, they will tell you flat out that they DO NOT sell crippled versions of their programs...I have to give them props for that.

So be VERY careful what you are agreeing with as if you agree with a foolish thing that was said, then you will look as foolish as the person that said it, and in this case it was scum101's remarks

3414.3.2010 1:43

Originally posted by bluedogs:
[quoteI think this is being a little hard on Microsoft. (probably thinking wtf right?)

Microsoft has Open source programs and software lol. So it's not really fair to say all they care about is the money. (I know I was shocked the first time I found out as well)
Seriously? What drugs do they supply you at the hospital. M$ are only interested in the $, face it, if they were not ALL their stuff would be open source.

If open source encourages piracy then it must also mean that every company or individual that creates open source software or whatever should be taken to court and charged with it .... and that also means M$ ..... oops thats right, M$ has NEVER copied ANYONES ideas EVER.................
Hey idiot. Before you call someone out. How about you spend 30 seconds on google and actually learn about what you're talking about k?

And im not saying open source OS's. Just developer software and shit like that.

3514.3.2010 3:13

Originally posted by Daniel_1:
Sorry Gneiss1, there is no way anyone can agree with scums statement. how many different items have come about BECUSE of someone in a university or college that took an unfinished idea and ran with it.
Well, I don't really know. About 20 000 to 30 000 counts only the latest active versions contributed to the GNU/Linux project. If one want's to learn programming, where does one turn? If it's to Microsoft, then only Microsoft will know how to write an operating system.

Scum101's statement speaks of the obvious, which I prefer to skip. Why discourage donating MS products to universities and third-world countries? Because a computer is a tool. The first operating system you learn, the first philosophy of equating software with toasters rather than intellectual contributions, most keep for life.

A retired university professor who had used only Microsoft bought a Mac for the superior hardware. Then, unfamiliar with the simplicity of an object-oriented user interface, he installed Windows as an applications and re-installed all applications from his Windows XP Home edition. (Although many of his data were in a proprietary format by Microsoft, even these could easily be converted to standard formats.)

The computer user should not be a computer expert: one of the above person's arguments was that he needed to read & write in Microsoft Office XML format, not knowing this was Open Office XML format renamed by Microsoft. He also equated the quality of the software with its price.

These are just some reasons Microsoft should not be allowed to donate free operating systems, no doubt concurrently enjoying a tax write-off. I refer people to Scum101's excellent rant for a summary of such topics, which the Department of Justice has always had serious concerns about.

Please address further trolling to Scum101. :-)

3614.3.2010 5:28

Off topic But I just had to say LOL:

Originally posted by Gneiss1:
bought a Mac for the superior hardware

3714.3.2010 10:17
Daniel_1
Inactive

Originally posted by Gneiss1:
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
Sorry Gneiss1, there is no way anyone can agree with scums statement. how many different items have come about BECUSE of someone in a university or college that took an unfinished idea and ran with it.
Well, I don't really know. About 20 000 to 30 000 counts only the latest active versions contributed to the GNU/Linux project. If one want's to learn programming, where does one turn? If it's to Microsoft, then only Microsoft will know how to write an operating system.

Scum101's statement speaks of the obvious, which I prefer to skip. Why discourage donating MS products to universities and third-world countries? Because a computer is a tool. The first operating system you learn, the first philosophy of equating software with toasters rather than intellectual contributions, most keep for life.

A retired university professor who had used only Microsoft bought a Mac for the superior hardware. Then, unfamiliar with the simplicity of an object-oriented user interface, he installed Windows as an applications and re-installed all applications from his Windows XP Home edition. (Although many of his data were in a proprietary format by Microsoft, even these could easily be converted to standard formats.)

The computer user should not be a computer expert: one of the above person's arguments was that he needed to read & write in Microsoft Office XML format, not knowing this was Open Office XML format renamed by Microsoft. He also equated the quality of the software with its price.

These are just some reasons Microsoft should not be allowed to donate free operating systems, no doubt concurrently enjoying a tax write-off. I refer people to Scum101's excellent rant for a summary of such topics, which the Department of Justice has always had serious concerns about.

Please address further trolling to Scum101. :-)
I addressed my answer to you because of your trolling response. If you are that sensitive or have your feelings hurt that badly by an answer, then maybe you should troll yourself back to academia as this is the real world and you are gonna get called on foolish answers.

3828.5.2011 17:45

When you can't innovate, you regulate. Business as usual...

Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest user comments

News archive