backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 117 comment(s) - last by Justin Case.. on Feb 27 at 11:05 PM


Split of total estimated trade losses due to copyright piracy (Source: IIPA)

Per capita U.S. dollar loss due to copyright piracy (Source: DailyTech)

Estimated per capita loss against GDP (PPP) per capita (Source: DailyTech)
Canada is the world's largest piracy offender per capita

Last week, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) submitted recommendations to the Bush administration in its “Special 301” review of copyright piracy and market access problems around the world. The IIPA report recommended that 16 countries be placed on a “Priority Watch List,” for piracy offenses. Canada, Mexico and Israel joined China and Russia as countries severely plagued by piracy.

“The annual Special 301 process continues to be the primary means for the U.S. copyright industries to advise U.S. government agencies about the principal impediments to adequate and effective protection in global markets,” noted Eric H. Smith of the IIPA. “Many of the key markets around the world that are infected with high levels of copyright piracy or deny effective market access to copyright industries.”

At first inspection of the figures released by the IIPA, the $2 billion estimated trade losses due to copyright piracy in China and Russia are more than double that of any other nation. Smith comments, “China and Russia are again this year the two countries that are of the greatest concern to the copyright industries, as they were in 2006. While there have been developments in both these key markets over the year, the bottom line is that piracy levels have not come down at all or only marginally, and some problems have grown worse.”

Upon further examination, however, we find that there is more to the Priority Watch List than just raw loss numbers. For example, China leads all nations in piracy with an estimated $2.2 billion lost due from piracy -- but China is also the world’s most populated nation. Could it be that China’s piracy problem is explained by its huge populace? After all, it would be easy to say that China is the world’s biggest consumer of rice because it has the most citizens. While China’s population has a strong role to play in the country’s rice consumption levels, it would be erroneous to attribute the statistic to just a single factor. There are usually several forces at play to explain statistics, as in the example presented with China and rice, culture can be one of them. One raw statistic alone, such as rice consumed or dollars lost, is meaningless without context.

Taking a deeper look into the IIPA’s figures to bring some weight and context behind its estimates show that the Priority Watch List numbers from the Special 301 report are imperfect. Aside the fact that dollar estimates are not an exact science, the IIPA’s lists do not include any figures for the motion picture industry’s losses, has incomplete data for entertainment software and books and features no data for the music industry in Canada. Out of the five categories of copyright piracy, the IIPA only has complete data for business software.

Plotted below is the IIPA’s estimated total business software trade losses due to copyright piracy during 2006 against population and gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP).

Nation

2006 Estimated Total Losses (U.S. dollars millions)*

Population**

Loss Per Capita (U.S. dollars)

GDP (PPP) Per Capita (U.S dollars)***

Canada

551

32,830,400

16.78

34,273

Russia

2180.1

142,400,000

14.80

11,041

Israel

98.4

7,100,000

13.86

23,474

Mexico

1005.6

108,700,000

9.25

10,186

Argentina

301

40,060,000

7.51

14,109

Ukraine

320

46,481,000

6.88

7,213

Venezuela

174.6

27,483,200

6.35

6,186

Costa Rica

27.1

4,327,000

6.26

10,434

Chile

95.6

16,432,674

5.82

11,937

Saudi Arabia

140

27,019,731

5.18

15,229

Thailand

219.7

64,631,595

3.40

8,368

Turkey

243

72,600,000

3.35

7,950

Dominican Republic

20.9

9,183,984

2.28

7,627

China

2207

1,315,844,000

1.68

7,198

Egypt

90

78,887,007

1.14

4,317

India

496.3

1,103,371,000

0.45

3,320

*International Intellectual Property Alliance
**Latest data available on Wikipedia and CIA Factbook
*** International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, September 2006

The table is sorted according to dollars lost per capita, and it’s immediately apparent as to why the IIPA is so critical of Canada. Not only does Canada have the greatest loss per capita at $16.78, but its citizens also have the greatest purchasing power. While the IIPA may be concerned about its loss per capita from Canada, the report the coalition filed expressed frustration with Canadian legislation. The IIPA says that pirates have taken advantage of the gaps in Canadian law to become a “leading exporter” of camcorder bootleg movies and modchips for video game consoles.

On the other hand, China, the world leader in dollars lost from piracy, only manages $1.68 lost per person. Of course, incidents of piracy are likely to be spread very unevenly in a nation with huge disparity between urban and rural areas. The IIPA also points to China as a large exporter of pirated goods to Eastern and Western Europe.

The IIPA has spelled out exactly what it believes China must do, including taking deterrent “criminal” actions against pirates instead of fines, which the coalition believes are meaningless. “So far, it is clear that the Chinese government has not devoted sufficient resources to combat rapidly advancing Internet piracy and needs to further clarify underlying legal rules and enforcement procedures, as well as to expand the opportunity for U.S. copyright based industries to offer legitimate materials to the Chinese public,” the IIPA wrote to the Bush administration.

Russia, the other leader in piracy, stays near the top of the list with $14.80 lost. The U.S. government announced in November 2006 a joint program with Russia to fight piracy. The IIPA acknowledges the development, but continues its disparaging tone, saying, “Despite the repeated efforts of industry and the U.S. government to convince the Russian government to provide meaningful and deterrent enforcement of its copyright and other laws against optical disc factories and all types of piracy -- including some of the most open and notorious websites selling unauthorized materials in the world, such as www.allofmp3.com -- little progress has been made over the years in convincing Russia to take the  enforcement actions that could reduce these high piracy levels.”

Despite Israel’s relatively low $98.4 million loss, its smaller population results in a per capita loss of $13.86. The IIPA’s main concern, however, appears to be the Israeli government’s inaction and indifference to U.S. copyright laws. Specifically, the IIPA is dissatisfied with a bill that “would discriminate against foreign producers of sound recordings specifically, and potentially violate Israel’s bilateral obligations to the United States.”

Mexico places fourth on the list of loss per capita at $9.25 and an overall third in terms of overall losses at over $1 billion, but even then, the country’s ranking may be under rated. Going back to the IIPA’s 2005 report, Mexico posted the highest numbers for movie piracy at $483 million—nearly double that of China. The 2006 IIPA report does not include any information about motion pictures, underscoring the potentially incomplete nature of the coalition’s statistics.

Nevertheless, the IIPA has gathered its stats and focused its attentions on the black markets and reigning governments of Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Israel, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela.

“The unwillingness of the countries identified in our submission to curb high rates of piracy – in most countries, through more effective and deterrent enforcement – saps the U.S. economy of the high-paying jobs and strong growth rates that make this sector critical to the health of the U.S. economy,” said Smith.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

yawn
By DEredita on 2/20/2007 12:02:39 PM , Rating: 4
I am kinda tired of hearing about all this piracy nonsense. I feel companies and news sites are making a bigger deal out of it than they really need to.




RE: yawn
By Xenoid on 2/20/2007 12:08:56 PM , Rating: 1
If they think I can afford $80 dollars per game or $15 dollars or whatever for a CD they are gravely mistaken. Hell I pirate some stuff because we don't get it in North America (WRC, Top Gear).


RE: yawn
By isaacmacdonald on 2/20/2007 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 5
How much you're willing to pay is unimportant in terms of piracy. If IP theft is prevalent and largely unpunished, you have little incentive to spend any amount of money to purchase a product that is available for free. The only factor that comes into play, in that case, is whether the inconvenience of piracy is preferred to the purchase price of the product.

Now, if they manage to get a handle on piracy (ie: make it exceedingly inconvenient or more dangerous), what you're willing to pay should dictate the prices of goods (something which should be to your benefit, provided you're in the targeted demographic).

You do have a good point about international stuff. There are lots of international movies and TV-shows that aren't marketed to US consumers. Just the other day I tried to track down David Attenborough's "Life on Earth" on dvd. The only place its sold is in the UK--whereas the torrents for it are widespread. Circumstances like these demonstrate the weakness of mass-distribution, and the relative strength of methods used for piracy.


RE: yawn
By fic2 on 2/20/2007 9:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
inconvenience of piracy


Thanks for that laugh. How about the inconvience of purchasing a legit copy? Rootkits, DRM, etc to try to prevent you from actually using the product you purchased.


RE: yawn
By Crank the Planet on 2/21/2007 4:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see where the U.S. is in comparison to these other countries. I wonder why that is? -lol It's like Bruce Schneier said, if you're going to use low grade encryption and poor implementation for your protection scheme, you'll get what's coming to you. THE REAL PICTURE IS THIS PEOPLE: The vast majority of these movies profit in the millions when they are released in theaters. Then they are released on DVD and profit even more. If these money grubbing industries want to essentially nullify piracy then they will have to have a Wal-Mart special- 2 for $10! Seriously they will need to cut the price of a movie to $5-7. They will see piracy cut to almost nothing and the sale of DVD's octuple! It's just common sense. Nobody want's to pay $15-25 per movie. They only do it because they have to. Same thing with piracy.


RE: yawn
By Chadder007 on 2/21/2007 6:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.....If they were that cheap, then why the heck even rent them. You could purchase a DVD for as much as you can even rent the movie in places.


RE: yawn
By Miggle on 2/22/2007 3:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree too. They also have to consider that maybe they're paying actors way too much. Make that $8 per movie, $4 per Audio CD, no DRM. They'd probably earn just as much, but wouldn't have to pay for copy protection.


RE: yawn
By darkpaw on 2/23/2007 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yah they are definately charging too much. I don't get why anyone would pay $15 for a movie when you could get 10 or more from Netflix or other services for the same price (and thats taking a while to watch and return).

I know a lot of people do, but if they cut the retail costs in half or less, they'd definately sell more of them.

I don't pirate, but I also refuse to pay full retail for any movie or cd. If I don't find it deeply discounted or used, I don't buy it. Used movies/cd's make no additional money for the sellers, but if new ones were reasonably priced they would get the money for them.


RE: yawn
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/20/2007 5:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Top Gear, hell yes. Many good shows are not available here in the GWN, or if they are and you want them, you end up with a $100 per month Shaw/Rogers bill. This estimation of money lost because of piracy is ludicrous. How can these fools know what I would buy or not buy if piracy didn't exist? Before the internet (as we know it now) existed I still never bought movies or CDs. With internet piracy around I have many more games than I used to, but I still buy about 2 per year, same as before internet piracy. These fools think that if something becomes free no longer, that people will just say "Oh, well" and shell out the dough. Maybe it would be more like "Oh, well. I guess I can do without". Except in the good ole consumerism capital of the world: the US of A. They aren't even on the piracy lists. Maybe that's why they have the highest per capita personal debt in the world. Not that I have a problem with that; America's consumerism gives all of us Canadians jobs.


RE: yawn
By Live on 2/20/2007 12:10:38 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. They hardly ever provide any basis for there "estimates" either. The data are not verifiable and come from biased sources, namely themselves. They tend to never use third party data or let independent researchers do the work. It’s just another lobby paper disguised as research.

By the way International Intellectual Property Alliance isn't even an international organization. Its US based organization with only US members.


RE: yawn
By BladeVenom on 2/20/2007 4:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Data, facts, or legitimate research are all irrelevant when it comes to journalism and politics.


RE: yawn
By rhmunvar on 2/20/2007 12:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
The basic laws now governing IP are flawed. If someone has invented something today, it is very much possible that one more person may invent it tomorrow - and not be aware at all that another person has done such a thing already. That person may have gone through his thought process and not read anything even closely related to the 1st person.
If IP protection was so strict from ages back, then when someone invented the wheel, it would mean nobody else can do it and everybody has to pay the other person royalty. For that matter fire, and other things also. That way the growth of the whole society would have slowed down or come to a standstill.

That is precisely what is happening now. The IPs created are being done only to gain financial gain - not to develop something better for mankind.

Microsoft itself used to promote Piracy in many developing countries earlier so that people would start using their software. Now if they expect that all those people will start paying for the software then they are not getting the point.

Also how come, many of the US companies which have opened up their shops in developing countries are selling things much cheaper.

Example: A book being sold in the US for $55 is sold in a developing country by the same company for an equivalent of $3.

Next there is a concept of rebates in US which is almost non-existent in developing countries. I remember, a branded shirt in my country would never cost less than $15 (when on sale), but in US when there is a deal, you can pick up the same branded shirt for $3 to $5.

So they are not comparing apples to apples


RE: yawn
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 1:03:40 PM , Rating: 5
> "someone invented the wheel, it would mean nobody else can do it ..."

For 20 years. Then, from then to the end of time, *everyone* can do it.

There's a lot of ignorance in regards to patent law, and the benefits behind it. The primary benefit is that it opens up new innovations to everyone. If a company doesn't patent a process or invention, they can potentially keep it a trade secret forever. However, if they choose the patent route, they get a limited period of protection, then their invention enters the public domain and everyone can us it. Furthermore, from the very minute they file their application, others can see it, and build upon it to advance their own research and development efforts...they just can't commercialize their incremental advances until 20 years have passed (or they choose to license the original).

There's a second benefit, that's even larger today. Patent protection spurs investment in innovation. A patented idea is valuable...and thus many dollars are invested into generating those ideas. Unprotected advances are less valuable. What firm is going to spend $400M on a new drug, only to have their competitors instantly analyze it and offer it for $1/pill?

The US leads the world economy. You think that's because of our strength in the manufacturing sector? Or agriculture? It's because of our enormous strength in intellectual property. And that derives from the protection we give it.


RE: yawn
By thebrown13 on 2/20/2007 1:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent summary.

By no means is our system perfect, but patents are definitely neccessary.


RE: yawn
By Justin Case on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: yawn
By thebrown13 on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: yawn
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 3
> "Actually the US does not lead the world's economy."

Until the EU is a single nation, the US leads the world economy.

> "The reason why the US has a strong economy has nothing to do with intellectual property rights."

False. IP is the US's single largest export. From software to Hollywood movies to recorded music to patent licensing fees-- all contribute to the growth of the US economy.

This should be apparent, simply by looking at the fact that, over the past several decades, manufacturing and nearly all other sectors have declined, yet the economy still grows. That growth comes from IP.

> "the "protection" given by US laws inside the US doesn't apply to competition between countries..."

False on two counts this time. First of all, protection under US law is the impetus that allows most of this IP to be created in the first place. An event that generates economic growth domestically, even if that IP is never sold overseas. Secondly, due to bilateral trade and IP protection agreements, US and international law are very often synonymous.

> "If you can hire a good lawyer, you can patent the act of breathing"

Coming from someone who holds a number of US and foreign patents, I can safely say this is incorrect. :p

> "Just because you find that a certain product can be used for a certain purpose, that should not give you the right to prevent other people from producing or using it..."

There are several tens of billions of chemicals found naturally in the environment. And several hundred thousand diseases, syndromes, and conditions potentially in need of treatment. That results in several trillion possible combinations, each of which needs to isolated, identified, refined, and subjected to a multi-year, costly $100M+ process of testing for efficacy and side effects.

Creating a new chemical is trivial in comparison. The real work is in finding a potential use for it, and whether or not its safe for human consumption. We reward that work with a patent...and if we didn't, no one would ever do it.


RE: yawn
By raven3x7 on 2/21/2007 2:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
As a citizen of the EU i can quite confidently tell you that most of us don't intent the EU to become a single nation, although there are ppl who do try to turn the EU into a Union of semi-independent states similar to the US which still though is not a single nation. What we are working towards( and currently paying for too) is a unified economy a goal which has mostly been achieved. So, as far as economics are concerned the EU is mostly one market really, not several.


RE: yawn
By Fallen Kell on 2/21/2007 3:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
The USA IS a single nation. There is a thing called Federal Law, which trumps State Law when it says it does. The idea is that overall, the locals know what is best for them, but the Federal Government can trump them on any issue if they feel it is necessary to do so. The States themselves each have their own constitutions as well as having signed into the US constitution. It is actually an ingenious system for dealing with such a large and diverse population base as well as physical location issues. It allows State X to have different rules then State Y with regard to issue Z, unless the Federal Government has addressed that issue themselves.

For instance, there might not be a Federal Law prohibiting the use of a new material in construction work. But a study comes out that shows that this material is dangerous to people if they are exposed to it over a number of years. A state can make a law to ban its use in construction of homes in that state giving immediate relief/results to the local people in that state. However, a different state might not want to ban its use because they found that if you coat the material with something else, it still works fine, and removes the exposure issue...

The idea is that it is easier to get a smaller group of people to agree on a law then getting a larger more diverse group of people to need to agree on that same law. This allows smaller regions of the country to enact laws that suit their immediate and particular needs needs better. However, at the Federal level, if a law is passed, all states are covered by that law. It is not like the EU where "guidelines" are passed, which then the member nations are suppose to pass their own version of the rules. It would be as if the EU body itself passed laws that immediately went into effect across all member nations. That is the difference. Now there are also checks in the system to allow the states to challenge Federal laws based on the constitution, and there have been cases where states have directly challenged the enforcement of a Federal law which they have been opposed to (however in the latter case, the states have always lost the fight).


RE: yawn
By jnypts on 2/21/2007 11:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, time to bust out the history books. The federal government cannot just pass laws if they feel there it is necessary. While federal laws do rule supreme, all rights are reserved for the states, unless it is explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution. So unless its an area the constitution allows federal involvement, they can't do anything about it, short of a constitutional amendment. But you are right about having a two (or actually 3-4 when you consider county and even city control) tiered system enabling effective governance over a varied populace.


RE: yawn
By zander55 on 2/22/2007 1:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
hmmmm, time to bust out the old government text books. you're forgetting the "necessary and proper clause." basically the government can do whatever it feels is 'necessary and proper' for the country under the implied powers of the constitution.

link if you don't believe me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary-and-proper_...


RE: yawn
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2007 2:21:25 PM , Rating: 1
> "basically the government can do whatever it feels is 'necessary and proper' for the country..."

Oops, you've misinterpreted the clause. It only refers to what is necessary and proper to execute the powers previously specified within the Constitution. It's not a blanket clause allowing anything and everything.

Also, you've forgotten Amendment 10 to the Constitution, which specifically bars the Federal Government from any powers not specifically enumerated within.


RE: yawn
By johnsonx on 2/22/2007 4:59:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, you've forgotten Amendment 10 to the Constitution, which specifically bars the Federal Government from any powers not specifically enumerated within.


Yes, but the Federal Government has also largely forgotten it too, unfortunately. If they even bother to explain their way around it, they use the 'promote the general welfare' clause to authorize anything they want to do. I do so wish the Framers had left out that little clause.


RE: yawn
By flurazepam on 2/21/2007 10:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Creating a new chemical is trivial in comparison. The real work is in finding a potential use for it, and whether or not its safe for human consumption. We reward that work with a patent...and if we didn't, no one would ever do it

Really? I do this for a living. I can assure this is not an easy task. To insinuate that no one engages in the persuit of health cures without patents for the express purpose of monentary gain is both naive and misguided. Banting and Best discovered insulin in the 20's. The chemical patent was given to the University of Toronto and not them personally. The reward they earned was that of being Nobel laureates'.


RE: yawn
By Justin Case on 2/27/2007 11:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but nope, "economies" aren't measured by countries, they're measured by currencies. As long as the EU uses a single currency and has no internal border controls, it counts as a single economy.

Here, have fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Europe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

Hell, even the Department of State agrees:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/58969.htm

I guess the EU can thank Dubya for devaluaing the dollar by more than 30% in the last 6 years. It actually makes it seem like they're doing a good job.


RE: yawn
By Santiago on 2/22/2007 7:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For 20 years. Then, from then to the end of time, *everyone* can do it.


True for patents, but that has nothing to do with this topic. Under USA law (specifically the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act), copyright protection (and that's what we are talking about) is granted for a term ending seventy years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shortest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyrig...

Of course different countries have different terms, but in most occedental countries, terms are pretty similar.

quote:
There's a lot of ignorance in regards to patent law


Wich again, has nothing to do with piracy.

quote:
The primary benefit is that it opens up new innovations to everyone


My ass. IP laws have been bastardiced in recent years to the point where society's benefit it toally neglected. 95 years? Puh-lease... For further reference, google and chek an essay titled "Why Mickey Mouse will never be in public domain" or something close.

quote:
What firm is going to spend $400M on a new drug, only to have their competitors instantly analyze it and offer it for $1/pill?


And again, we are talking about copyright infringment, not patents. There's a big difference there. Even medical patents have a way reduced term of duration than Britney's last hit. IIRC, patents last for 7 to 20 years depending on the country and type of patent, and as you can read in the news these days, there's a strong controversy about 20 years being too long and the bad practices pharmaceuticals engage into to renew their patents.

quote:
I lost something...the ability to control usage of something I own


Wrong again. This thread is about copyright violation, not patents. You don't "own" an idea, from the very moment you make it public, nor a song from the first time you perform it. Society grants you the right to get some kind of compensation every time your song/movie/videogame is played. But control of usage, per se means nothing if you can't prove that were the song/movie/film impossible to pirate, somebody would have paid for it.

And given that latest research show that piracy effects on media purchases is quite near zero ( http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813... ) you'd have a pretty weak claim.


RE: yawn
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2007 2:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "And again, we are talking about copyright infringment, not patents...."

You've jumped into a thread without reading its antecedents. The OP specifically referred to "inventions", not copyright infringement. My post was in response to him.

> "You don't "own" an idea, from the very moment you make it public, nor a song from the first time you perform it. "

On the contrary. Which is why the "P" in IP stands for property. You own IP. I should know...I've sold a good deal of it.

> "copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication..."

If you're trying to make the point that is a bit excessive, you'd probably find me in agreement. Still, what does that have to do with piracy? No one is file sharing the greatest hits from 1904, now are they?


RE: yawn
By Flunk on 2/20/2007 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Since all of this "data" is based on conjecture anyway there really is absolutely no accurate way of rateing the level of piracy. The only way to truely know would be to track every illegal sale, every download, every friend burning a copy for a friend and every other type of piracy. This whole thing is nothing but nonsense.


RE: yawn
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 2:20:56 PM , Rating: 4
That logic is rather like concluding that, since we don't know how many unreported rapes occur every year, that the whole issue is just "nonsense" and we shouldn't worry about those we know of.

Piracy is a rampant problem; anyone who attempts to dispute that has their head in the sand.


RE: yawn
By Avalon on 2/20/2007 3:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
Right, because downloading a song and raping someone are equally nonsensical...ridiculous.


RE: yawn
By thebrown13 on 2/20/2007 3:56:52 PM , Rating: 1
Stealing software costs developers money.
Women sell sex for money.

You cause the developers to rape women.

Ok maybe not that extreme, but it's the same concept.


RE: yawn
By mino on 2/20/2007 7:05:52 PM , Rating: 3
"Stealing" (by the definition of those IP backers)SW does NOT cost the developer a penny.
Not buying as you can pirate DOES make lost profits. Agreed.
Problem is, that the momet most "pirates" will REALLY have to pay for the SW they "stole" they would simply NOT USE the SW AT ALL!!!
Believe me, this would hurt the companies even more.
Most of these "pirates" are home-users. Hell I had $10 worth of SW on my HDD back then on the college.
Did this mean companies lost some potential profit from me? Not a chance as my budget for SW was exactly $0.
That is not to say to copy everything is OK. It is not. However there is HUGE disparity between the amount representing price of illegally used SW and the amount representing real lost profits.
As for companies not paying for SW they use or the real pirates who sell pirated copies(china). Thats a completely different matter.

On the SW patents. Remmeber patents have pretty much nothing to do with IP economy. SW patents just represent very eefective shile against possible competitors. Period.


This makes me laugh!
By ProxyOne on 2/20/2007 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The IIPA has spelled out exactly what it believes China must do, including taking deterrent “criminal” actions against pirates instead of fines, which the coalition believes are meaningless. “So far, it is clear that the Chinese government has not devoted sufficient resources to combat rapidly advancing Internet piracy and needs to further clarify underlying legal rules and enforcement procedures, as well as to expand the opportunity for U.S. copyright based industries to offer legitimate materials to the Chinese public,” the IIPA wrote to the Bush administration.

Have any of you been to China? I grew up in China and lived there till I was eight. I've gone back to visit a couple times. I'm not sure if the government or whoever is suggesting these "anti-piracy measures", but in China, there are STORES on the street that strictly sells bootlegged movies. And the police buy those movies. And so government officials. And they sell VCD players that are optimized to play bootlegged movies in VCD 2.0 format. And yes, these players are sold in big name stores.

Why? Because 99% of the population can't afford legit stuff. Please spare me that "oh it's not that expensive, cmon!" BS. Trust me, if you haven't lived in China, you don't know what the living condition is like for the Average Joe. Nobody can afford legit stuff. That's how the bootlegging industry survives.

Oh and btw I live in Canada now and we can finally be proud of something!




RE: This makes me laugh!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 1:06:53 PM , Rating: 3
I've been to China many times, and I've seen bootleg stores and street vendors both there and throughout Asia.

As for the "we can't afford it so we have a right to steal it" excuse, sell that somewhere else. If it was your own property being stolen, I'm sure you'd suddenly develop a healthy respect for property rights.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By thebrown13 on 2/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: This makes me laugh!
By JonnyBlaze on 2/20/2007 2:19:22 PM , Rating: 3
It's not stealing. Stealing is taking a piece of physical property. It's copyright violation.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 2:24:28 PM , Rating: 1
It's stealing, plain and simple. It fits both the legal and the ethical definition.

Theft is the taking or use of property without another's consent. If you skip out on a hotel bill or a haircut, you are guilty of theft of services, even though you haven't taken any physical property. If you use intellectual property without the consent of the owner, you are guilty as well.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By Crazyeyeskillah on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This makes me laugh!
By thebrown13 on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This makes me laugh!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 4
> "we want you to starve and suffer a horrible life...."

People are starving due to their lack of the latest Ludacris album, or to not being able to play Madden 2007?

No one steals copyrighted material because they need it to stay alive. They steal it because they want it...and they don't want to pay for it.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By ProxyOne on 2/20/2007 8:54:49 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
We don't want equality, if you are poor, we want you to starve and suffer a horrible life. Your parents should have made better decisions when they were younger, and now you deserve to pay. If you really want something, work harder for it, don't be a lazy thieving scumbag and make excuses for why the way your country fails to meet the needs of its people, therefor making other countries suffer for your shortcomings. China < USA

Wow...you're an idiot. I'm guessing you're a typical North American suburban citizen? And judging from your username you probably don't have the intellectual capabilities to put yourself in the shoes of someone in a totally different society. GTFO of your peaceful neighborhood and go live in some third-world country for a few years before spewing this load of BS.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By DocDraken on 2/20/2007 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 3
If there is no loss then there has been no theft! Practically all pirating done in poor countries are cases where the individual would never have been able to afford the product anyway. Therefore there is no loss.

Again, it's copyright violation, NOT stealing. You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, it won't make your claims more correct.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By thebrown13 on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This makes me laugh!
By TomZ on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This makes me laugh!
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 6:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
No, that's not the same thing. Yes the IP copying and "theft" are both legitimately illegal, but they are not the same thing.

In theft, that whom is stolen from is "missing" something. If one skips out on a haircut or hotel bill (your examples), there will be a difference in the amount of services (labor) rendered by the barber and hotel that depends upon whether the thievery happened or not. This is similar to having one's car stolen where the victim of the act is actually missing something and there's a difference to the victim when the act occurs. With IP copying, there's only a difference if the victim loses money because the thief either would have paid for it otherwise, or if the thief uses the stolen IP in a way that causes fewer actual sales to the owner to occur (this could happen in many ways, I aggregate this all together). When there is that damage, the IP copying becomes thievery and it's that lost money that was stolen. In the case where say, an individual copies something that the person would/could not have purchased -- and uses it personally in such a way as not to contribute to revenue loss to the owner -- then the situation is different, the owner has lost nothing. Mind you, this does not justify it, and it's still illegal, but it's not the same. It's a different illegal act. :-)


RE: This makes me laugh!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 6:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "If one skips out on a haircut or hotel bill ..there will be a difference in the amount of services (labor) rendered by the barber and hotel ..."

You're straining to justify here. If you skip out on a hotel bill, you're guilty of theft of services-- whether or not the hotel incurred any labor costs during your stay. If you steal a car, then return it, you're guilty of grand larceny-- even though the owner may not have even noticed it missing.

As for claiming that in an IP theft, if you have no financial loss, you've "lost nothing", this is again incorrect. You've lost the most basic element of property rights-- control over usage. If you own a home, you control who can stay in it. If you own a car, you control who uses it. Without that control, your ownership rights have been comprised...finanncial loss or not.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 9:07:15 PM , Rating: 3
Didn't read a dang thing I wrote did you? Who the hell is trying to justify anything? Do you equate murder and Grand theft? Why not, both are illegal! If I try to explain how those are DIFFERENT illegal acts will you accuse me of trying to justify one of them? That's exactly what you're trying to do. Read what I wrote.

You also are playing straw man. You "say" what I said (WRONGLY) then attack your incorrect quote.

Your control comment is a good one, but not relevant to my explaination of how illegal copying is a DIFFERENT illegal act from thievery.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 9:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's stealing, plain and simple. It fits both the legal and the ethical definition.


Let me put it another way. If IP copying is "stealing" "plain and simple", why do lawmakers waste the time passing laws making IP copying illegal when there already are laws making stealing illegal?


RE: This makes me laugh!
By isaacmacdonald on 2/20/2007 11:50:18 PM , Rating: 3
You've captured my thoughts well. I'm not sure I'd bother to say it's not "theft" in some general sense, but this variety of piracy is clearly distinct from property theft and even theft of services (cited earlier in this thread).

What's peculiar here is that people seem to completely miss the point of drawing the distinction. This has nothing to do with justifications or morals. It has everything to do with correctly quantifying the problem, and forming intelligent policy to rectify it.

Far too much time is consumed expressing moral outrage ("It's wrong and you know it!"). Such expressions should be relegated to footnotes as they offer absolutely nothing of value when it comes to understanding the macro scale.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By lldsi a e8 ba on 2/21/2007 4:19:50 AM , Rating: 4
You're debating with masher2, what do you expect? For a real challenge, try to get him to acknowledge that he's wrong about something. That'd be a dailytech first as far as I know.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 9:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "For a real challenge, try to get him to acknowledge that he's wrong about something. That'd be a dailytech first..."

All one has to do to get an admission of error from me is to prove me wrong. In fact, someone did so just last week:

http://www.dailytech.com/Panasonic+on+Laptop+Batte...


RE: This makes me laugh!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 9:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "Who the hell is trying to justify anything? If I try to explain how those are DIFFERENT illegal acts will you accuse me of trying to justify one of them? "

You misunderstood the context of the word "justify". You were trying to justify your original argument, not (as far as I know) the theft of IP.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By gt1911 on 2/21/2007 2:28:49 AM , Rating: 3
It fits both the legal and the ethical definition

No, this is wrong. The legal definition of stealing is not taking or using property without consent .

Stealing is the taking and carrying away of property capable of being stolen at common law with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property, taking the propoerty with felonious intent and without claim of right.

If you don't prove each and every one of those things, it's not stealing.

The reference to "property capable of being stolen at common law" is a reference to tangible propoerty and so IP does NOT fit this definition. Also note that you must intend to permanently deprive the owner, another ground that IP falls on.

As it stands breaching copywrite is an offence, but it aint stealing.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By darkpaw on 2/23/2007 4:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying stealing a car for a night isn't stealing because it isn't a permanent loss?

Still stealing anyway I look at it.


RE: This makes me laugh!
By the taxman on 2/23/2007 8:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
hey.... i consider piracy sharing and my mom always told me to share.... lol well anyway piracy is just a way for ppl to blame it that there stuff is not selling like vista i wouldnt even buy vista if they paid me...well maybe if they paid me... but it is such a resource hog and all you get out of it is an annoying security update and some oohhhs and ahhhs no offence but i am waiting for sp3 and i hope they add the new file system and new sockets...


Typical nonsense from the entertainment industry
By DocDraken on 2/20/2007 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's hilarious that they think people in China and all the 3rd world countries would be able to afford to buy the things they pirate. The companies aren't loosing any money on it, since the people wouldn't have been able to buy their stuff anyway. Thus it's not stealing.

All these crazy estimates from the industry ignore this issue, because they know that by far most of the copies being pirated wouldn't have constituted a sale anyway. If they were to factor that in, they wouldn't be able to get the stupid politicians to do their bidding. They need the big fat pie charts to support their nonsense.

No loss = not stealing. It's copyright violation and can't by any rational person be called stealing. It's as simple as that, and all the IIPA puppets can scream "theft!" till they're blue in their faces, but it won't make it true.

To call it stealing is a complete fallacy that the industry is trying to brainwash people into agreeing with.




By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 4:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "since the people wouldn't have been able to buy their stuff anyway. Thus it's not stealing."

By that logic, if I steal a Ferrai I wouldn't have otherwise been able to buy, it's not stealing.

You might want to rethink that one. :/

> "No loss = not stealing..."

If I spend a night in a hotel, then skip out without paying the bill, I've stolen services....even if I never intended to pay in the first place.

Similarly, if I steal your car and then bring it back...I've still stolen it. Even if you never noticed it was gone.


By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 6:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Similarly, if I steal your car and then bring it back...I've still stolen it. Even if you never noticed it was gone.


I don't mean to make a point, but you made me think of something that makes me smile. Given your idea above, I guess that means that my bank steals all of my money every time they're forced to reboot their computers. Think about it. :-)


By modestninja on 2/23/2007 1:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
These analogies you bring up are stupid... If you steal a Ferrai (I assume you mean a Ferrari) whoever you stole it from is out the cost of producing or buying the car, so that is completely different than some person who otherwise could afford a CD pirating it. Even you would have to admit that this analogy is a weak one when applied to piracy...

>"Similarly, if I steal your car and then bring it back...I've still stolen it. Even if you never noticed it was gone."

Again, you steal my car it depreciates in value because you have added wear and tear to it, so I have lost something even though I may not know it. Again bad analogy, since as far as I know, a person who otherwise would not purchase a piece of software pirating it, doesn't accrue any additional cost for the company producing it. They also don't lose any potential market since the person wouldn't have purchased it anyway... The only case I could think of a loss incurred by someone who otherwise wouldn't have purchased a product pirating it, is if part of the product's appeal is it's exclusivity... Very few copyrighted works derive value from this. In a lot of cases, it's the opposite. The market penetration caused by people who otherwise wouldn't use a product expands the producer's overall market by increased exposure.

Again, like others I'm not justifying piracy of copyrighted materials, I'm just trying to show you that your analogies are missing the mark.

Maybe I'll get to your 'night in hotel' analogy later. Not everyone on DT has all day everyday to post... Some of use have lives. ;)


By DocDraken on 2/25/2007 7:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By that logic, if I steal a Ferrai I wouldn't have otherwise been able to buy, it's not stealing.


Bad analogy. If you steal a car and bring it back, it'll still have been missing for a period and will have a reduced value because of wear and tear. At no time when software is pirated is anyone missing anything. It's apples and oranges. You can't compare the two.

quote:
If I spend a night in a hotel, then skip out without paying the bill, I've stolen services....even if I never intended to pay in the first place.


Again, bad analogy. If you skip out on the bill in a hotel, you've physically occupied space that could have had a paying customer. You've also incurred the hotel expenses with water, electricity, towels and linen use. It's rediculous to compare this to pirating software where no loss is incurred.


RE: Typical nonsense from the entertainment industry
By rcc on 2/20/2007 7:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
You Neo-Economists crack me up. I'll bet you don't think that tapping a cable TV signal is stealing either, do you? Where do you draw the line? Where it stops being easy, or when the risk increases?

This generation of mooches, freeloaders, and "entitlists" are a good chunk of what is wrong with the world today. Fortunately, while you and your ilk have been around since the first "free" fire, the world and the economies of the world survive regardless.


By TomZ on 2/20/2007 8:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You Neo-Economists crack me up. I'll bet you don't think that tapping a cable TV signal is stealing either, do you? Where do you draw the line? Where it stops being easy, or when the risk increases?

This generation of mooches, freeloaders, and "entitlists" are a good chunk of what is wrong with the world today. Fortunately, while you and your ilk have been around since the first "free" fire, the world and the economies of the world survive regardless.

QFT. Nothing more to add.


By isaacmacdonald on 2/20/2007 11:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
"This generation of mooches"?

If violating an unenforced (or under-enforced) law yields a net benefit, virtually any human will do so. It's silly to think that supposed moral defect is "what's wrong with the world today." We humans are highly adapted opportunists--a characteristic that is unlikely to change any time soon.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 11:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "If violating an unenforced (or under-enforced) law yields a net benefit, virtually any human will do so..."

Except those who don't live in a moral vacuum, you mean.


By isaacmacdonald on 2/21/2007 12:32:48 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Except those who don't live in a moral vacuum, you mean.


There are always exceptions (some are probably universal), but for the most part they are few and far between. If you look at it in terms of elementary game theory, there's a good reason for this--strategies that pass up on an entire class of free lunches "on principle" are not as successful as those that don't. Selection pressures quickly weed out the less successful and you end up with a fairly opportunistic population. You see evidence of this throughout the animal kingdom--often its harmful on the large scale (eg: Lion infanticide), but it's there nonetheless.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 9:15:26 AM , Rating: 4
> " You see evidence of this throughout the animal kingdom..."

And you see evidence of the exact opposite throughout the human kingdom. How many stories have you seen of would-be rescuers dying while trying to save someone from drowning? Or thousands of people who volunteer to spend a weekend searching for a missing child? Or take a look at the lost-and-found counter at a major airport...crammed full of expensive items found by people who-- rather than keeping them-- turned them in.

None of those examples fits your zero-sum game theory. Humans can possess a moral philosophy more advanced than "me, me, me". Some of us do; some don't. But its not nearly as rare as you believe.


By DocDraken on 2/25/2007 7:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many stories have you seen of would-be rescuers dying while trying to save someone from drowning? Or thousands of people who volunteer to spend a weekend searching for a missing child?


So now you're equating all this to not pirating software? Wow....

quote:
Or take a look at the lost-and-found counter at a major airport...crammed full of expensive items found by people who-- rather than keeping them-- turned them in.


To not turn in the items would be -STEALING-, NOT piracy. If you kept the items someone would be missing them. Haven't we explained this already? You still can't compare the two.

quote:
Humans can possess a moral philosophy more advanced than "me, me, me".


Yes and pirating software doesn't mean your moral philosphy is "me, me, me". That would imply that you don't care about others and therefore would hurt or steal from them. Pirating does neither...


By miekedmr on 2/21/2007 11:42:43 AM , Rating: 1
The great moral vacuum is the new frontier!
If you're not in it, you're living in the past.


By DocDraken on 2/25/2007 7:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that people living in the third world are "mooches and freeloaders" because they copy something without incurring anyone a loss? I'd say it's you people who are living in a moral vacuum. You'd probably let people starve if they had no money, or refuse them medical care...

Again, you can't compare piracy with stealing, robbery or any other crime like you people are trying to. You're saying that we have no morals and support stealing and other crimes just because we're pointing out the truth?

Hilarious.


By atm on 2/21/2007 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. On a practical ground, as US software developer, and on an ethical ground, respect and compensation is important. But until there is economic justice on a global level, piracy will live on. Is it just to have milllionaires and billionaires demanding more profit from people who weren't even given an opportunity to play the game? Wouldn't most people be willing to pay for something if they were given a fair wage and fair price? Of course!


BS
By DigitalFreak on 2/20/2007 1:40:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The IIPA’s main concern, however, appears to be the Israeli government’s inaction and indifference to U.S. copyright laws. Specifically, the IIPA is dissatisfied with a bill that “would discriminate against foreign producers of sound recordings specifically, and potentially violate Israel’s bilateral obligations to the United States.”


Last time I checked, Israel was a sovereign nation. It's just plain arrogance that theses assholes would presume that Israel should obey U.S. laws. Besides, they've got a lot more important things to deal with, like their citizens being blown up. Come to think of it, the U.S. has much, much more important things to deal with as well.




RE: BS
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 2:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "Last time I checked, Israel was a sovereign nation..."

A sovereign nation that has signed the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and a few other international agreements on protection of copyrights and intellectual property. It is thus duty-bound to enforce them.

And treaties aside, no nation has the right to steal the property of another.

> "Besides, they've got a lot more important things to deal with..."

A wonderful example of the logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma". Israel can enforce copyright law and address its other problems. It doesn't have to choose one or the other.


RE: BS
By Hoser McMoose on 2/20/2007 3:16:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A sovereign nation that has signed the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and a few other international agreements on protection of copyrights and intellectual property. It is thus duty-bound to enforce them.

None of the conventions you mention make ANY reference to individual nations requiring to implement US copyright standards, only that they create and enforce their own copyright laws.

Israel and Canada (and most of the other countries mentioned) both have and enforce copyright protection, however their laws are different from those of the US, and THAT is the chief complain of the IIPA.
quote:
Israel can enforce copyright law and address its other problems. It doesn't have to choose one or the other.

By the same l