backtop


Print 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 logic the US should be able to enforce it's copyright law too, yet per capita loses due to copyright violations are usually estimated to be pretty much exactly the same as Canada. With a population about 9 times larger than that of Canada, that makes the US by far the largest single copyright treaty violator in the world.


RE: BS
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 1
> "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..."

This is incorrect. In Israel's case, the IIPA's major beef is pending legislation that would grant preferential protection to copyrighted material produced in Israel, as opposed to that produced elsewhere in the world. That's a violation of the IP treaties Israel has already signed.

In the case of most other nations on that list, they have adequate copyright laws in place; they are simply not enforcing them.

> "[US] per capita loses due to copyright violations are usually estimated to be pretty much exactly the same as Canada.."

Estimated by whom?


RE: BS
By just4U on 2/22/2007 2:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
I am going off the seat of my pants here since I can't back it up with hard evidence... but from what I understand Piracy in the states and Canada is fairly equal. The biggest difference(s) is how we deal with it. Or in some cases do not deal with it.

Anyway, I stand firmly behind my belief that anyone who has access to: computers, music, movies, photos, (or what ever really ) is breaking some form of law or infringing upon something weather they know it or not. None of us are guiltless.


RE: BS
By Hoser McMoose on 2/23/2007 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "[US] per capita loses due to copyright violations are usually estimated to be pretty much exactly the same as Canada.."


Well, here's the MPAA's numbers that say the loses for movie piracy are somewhat higher per capita (keeping in mind that the US has roughly 9 times the population of Canada):

http://www.havocscope.com/Counterfeit/movies.htm

BSA meanwhile says loses due to piracy of business software are somewhat lower in the US:

http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/upload/2005-2006%20...

A quick Google search didn't turn up any similar numbers for music, but I would think that they can't be too far off.


LOLZORZ
By joex444 on 2/20/2007 4:48:32 PM , Rating: 3
Even using these numbers, which rely on the idea that nobody would have pirated it had they been able to find a legit retail outlet and would've paid for the software/media, it still shows that Canada is the biggest pirate.

Now, how big? It equates to approximately 1 DVD per person per year. Now, let's figure that it costs the DVD producer $1.50 to make a DVD, plus some shipping, call it $3.00/each to produce. Then their actual loss isn't $16.50, its $3.00. Now, since there are much more (worldwide) retail sales than pirated copies, the industry is much more than capable of absorbing that loss.

Let the companies write it off as an operating expense, maybe then they'll shut up.




RE: LOLZORZ
By ProxyOne on 2/20/2007 8:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
$3 to produce a DVD? No way. It's probably less than $1.


RE: LOLZORZ
By gramboh on 2/21/2007 12:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
You have to amortize in the development costs of the content on the DVD, not just the varaible manufacturing cost. Not sure what this comes out to per disc (obviously depends on total volume as the variable amount will drop with each incremental disc sold).


RE: LOLZORZ
By modestninja on 2/23/2007 1:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
If you assume that everyone that pirates something would purchase it if the pirate option wasn't available, then the company that owns the IP would lose a lot than production costs, they'd lose the expected profit from the sale that otherwise would have been made...


IP and International Advertising
By Daemyion on 2/20/2007 7:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to address the the notion of proper IP protection in developing countries.

Two conflicting ideas were aired on this forum, one saying that residents of developing countries should be "allowed" to pirate IP (masher2 - the general idea being general entertainment rather than patentable applications) because of extreme lack of funds. The other being that it was inexcusable.

While I completely believe that in developed countries it is wrong to pirate your general entertainment, you have to understand a developing national from his/her point of view. The average western society bombards its inhabitants with an average of 3000+ adverts a day. Those advertisements create an artificial need for products, entertainment product as well, that you wouldn't even be aware of. Like the eVGA commercial that's flashing before my eyes as I type this - I REALLY don't need/can't afford a 8800 gtx - but I want one (and bought one at great personal expense).
As developing nations start getting caught up in the same advertisement game that's going on in the west, but without the funds to carry it through, it becomes exceedingly difficult for them to carry out the televised life style without pirating the content, the media, and quite probably the el-cheapo mock-up of a television set to view it on. The amount of Tohiba (Toshiba) and Philippps (Phillips) sets sold in the east is staggering.

To actually eliminate piracy, the IIPA and its affiliates would have to put a halt to mass advertisements, at least until developing countries start to balance out their economic playing fields. Until then, while it may not seem that way, it's almost like pointing a gun to their heads.

Sorry for the rant, but there was an awful lot of "bash the poor people because they're poor" going on. All I wanted to show was that it wasn't just black and white. Humans intuitively want to live by the standards of their environment, and that environment has been rather effectively been destroying by today's hype campaigns and what not. You can't create the desire for a Ferrari in a peasant, because eventually he will rob yours.

Just some food for thought on the effects of rapid development and globalisation in previously very rural areas.

Sincerely yours,
Daemyion

P.S. - For all those saying Israelis are too poor to buy software - I live in Israel. Stop giving us a bad name and stop pirating. We developed the entire Conroe lineup for Pete's sake! *mutter*




RE: IP and International Advertising
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 8:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
What - your thesis is that you blame piracy on marketing? That's a new one on me! LOL.

Really, it is not so complicated: It is about right and wrong. Piracy is wrong, and everyone knows that. The only question is whether a particular individual cares whether it is right or wrong. Any distortion of this basic truth is just rationalization.

I don't give a shit if a person is rich or poor - that doesn't change right and wrong.


RE: IP and International Advertising
By Daemyion on 2/20/2007 9:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're completely missing the point - by bringing in western development, lifestyle and above all consumption methods, to previously rural societies, the economic balance between the individuals wallet and the things he so called "needs" went completely askew.

It's like taking a child that never tasted candy and thrusting him into a candy shop. Adults may be older and more accountable for their behavior, but entire nations are moving through an industrial revolution at an astonishing pace. The west paced through it since 1750 - almost 150 years more that most far east asian counterparts. What we're looking at is basically the very basic human trait of "the other guys grass is greener", which at such a large extent (both in the number of individuals and in the difference of economic status) isn't really surprising that it leads to piracy.

I'm not supporting piracy - it was never my intention. All I meant to say was that until the money trickled down to the people in those nations, and makes living conditions more or less on par with the west - chinese police would probably have to arrest half the country.

I'll end with referring you to Janis Joplin's "Mercedes Benz" lyrics. Pretty much sums it up.


By gramboh on 2/21/2007 12:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry TomZ but he has a good point.

Yes, it is valid that you can argue piracy is wrong and individuals should know and accept this.

But on a macro scale, what about the change imposed in developing nations by multinationals trying to drum up demand for a lifestyle that is not sustainable. Some would view this as explotation. You could write an entire book on this subject, but the point is, it's not as cut and dry as you might want to think.


By Webgod on 2/20/2007 4:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
They've had cable Internet and DSL longer than the US, so that explains software and digital media piracy. Fast broadband is prevalent there. I'm sure the US has more piracy than Canada though. Who invented the PC? Who invented the Internet? Who invented MPEG? Who invented Napster and Audio Galaxy?

Hopefully people as they mature will grow out of the freeloader mentality. It's kind of an old way of thinking. If people are guilty for pirating and the consequences of getting busted, that's a start.




By lastdon on 2/20/2007 8:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
what I dont Understand..

is i keep reading articles, how cd sell having been soaring in canada, and beat stats etc etc. and yet the US is complaining that we pirate alot?

Please.... the US just wants to control every single organazation possible, and will do anything to do that.

THe usa was to be in everyones pockets and households and if it means refusing other data they will do so.

this is utter b.s and we the people sit here and take it up the derriere and smile.

we let these corporations do all this crap and we smile and we complain on lil webforums.

it's all dumb,

i guess the cd sales that having been soaring and been great in sales are what? fake data?


By Gatt on 2/21/2007 12:21:15 AM , Rating: 1
1. Number of sales and piracy don't neccessarily reflect what you think they do. If piracy is as rampant as the chart indicates, how much more would the number of sales exceeded expectations?

2. The U.S. doesn't want "In everyone's pocket.", the U.S. just wants to be fairly paid for it's products. Something that isn't occuring, and isn't fair. I suspect Canada would be a little annoyed if we started sending over 18-wheelers to pick up the car parts manufacturered there, and decided we didn't really need to pay for it since GM is American.

3. The end result will be, should piracy be high enough, that the U.S. will cease to release those products in those countries. While you may laugh at that initially, you probably should consider what will happen when your economy is forced to deal with unemployement due to movie theaters, movie rental stores, and video game stores are all forced to shut down due to lack of product. Followed shortly by department stores downsizing significantly. You're welcome to keep taking bites out of our Revenue justifying it by some conspiracy theory, but remember, the end result will be double digit unemployment growth in your country. All that money you "Saved" by pirating will be taken by your governments to cover it's now exploding unemployment issues.

There's nothing wrong with the U.S. expecting to be paid for it's products, and in the end, the consequences for the other countries are a great deal worse than for ours.

So keep in mind, while you're pirating, the people you'll be hurting the most is your own country-men. Not some mythical evil conspiracy filled U.S. Government that "Deserves to be punished!", there's nothing stopping us from going back to our pre-WW2 policies of Isolationism, except with a few trusted countries.


By kiwik on 2/21/2007 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
If you are at that, then why should we supply you with electricity, petrol and grain.

You would not need them anyway.


The US is perfect?
By ionoxx on 2/20/2007 12:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
It seems as though the US is no where to be found in any of the charts....

Do they mean the loss to piracy in the US is insignificant or non existant?




RE: The US is perfect?
By Keeir on 2/20/2007 12:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps by re-reading the first few paragraphs you will notice the organization and report are ment to advise the US government on actions the US government could/should take to curb piracy of US trademarked/copyrighted material. Note, this would mean is does not include any US piracy of US copyrights or (anyone's) piracy of copyrights established in other countries.


RE: The US is perfect?
By Scabies on 2/20/2007 12:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think it is because piracy in America is charted as a net gain. After prosocution, of course.


bloody stupid numbers.
By KashGarinn on 2/21/2007 9:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
Why do I get the feeling that " International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) " means some guy who pulled numbers out of his ass at the request of the mafiAA?

"can you make it so that the countries around us, which we have more influence on are shown in bad light, so we can force them to change copyright laws, as a firststep towards a global legal enforcement? please? pretty please?"




RE: bloody stupid numbers.
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2007 10:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
> "Why do I get the feeling that " International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) " means some guy who pulled numbers out of his ass ..."

Probably because you have an emotional bias against anyone who appears to support copyright law.


RE: bloody stupid numbers.
By crystal clear on 2/21/2007 10:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
This has no reference to you or the poster,you responded to.

The quality of contents in ones comments doesnt matter-It depends whose side you are on-FOR or AGAINST.

The momemt you go against the tide-OUT you go to RED(-1).

I call it "ABUSE" of the voting system.

(like this comment)(-1)


Estimated loss ?
By SurJector on 2/20/2007 12:17:00 PM , Rating: 3
How is the estimated loss computed ? If it is <number of estimated unlicensed copies>x<purchase price> then it is (as usual) overly inflated: I'd never buy Microsoft Office but it has been present on some of my computers (not any more, mind you, neither windows by the way).




RE: Estimated loss ?
By Lonyo on 2/20/2007 2:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.
While I have a legit copy of Office which came bundled with a PC, I would never pay for Office when I have the option of using Open Office instead (for free). Why pay for Office 2007 or whatever they are at now, when I could go for Open Office?
If I did pirate Office 2007, then I would not be depriving MS of any money in real terms, as I would never have bought their product.

That's not to say it's acceptable to pirate things, but it also shouldn't be acceptable to use over inflated and often totally untrue figures to say "pirating is a massive problem that loses us billions of dollars every year".


Costs
By Mithan on 2/20/2007 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 3
$399 Vista Ultimate Editions are going to make all this better.... ;)




RE: Costs
By staypuff69 on 2/21/2007 4:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
You know something... I would have no problems with paying twice that for this os... of course it would have to have some stipulations attached...

1. It works with every conceivable software available.

2. I can use it on any hardware "I own".

3. In 5 years it's not obsolete because of further advances.

4. I further advances occur I get a "free upgrade".

Basically I have no problem with this os or any other software for that matter that costs money. I do have a problem with the fact that most if not all are disposable. This os is not a "necessity" like gas to get to work or food on the table. There are "free" alternatives out there that can "get the job done". If this os were say $50 there would be a HUGE following to adopt it. The same with other software. All these companies talk about piracy yet no one says anything about competitive pricing.


Legitimate Sales Numbers?
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2007 3:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
In Contrast do you have the legitimate sales numbers to determine the percentage of legitimate to pirated copies?

Just Curious what the percentage ratio is from legit to copy?

I wonder if they included OEM or Motherboard replaced machines and now being illegal copies?




RE: Legitimate Sales Numbers?
By Dustin25 on 2/20/2007 9:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
Piracy will always be. Nothing can stop it. Developers know this and choose to stay in the game. It must still be good financially or they wouldn't. Some will pirate a product but most will buy. So smile at their good fortune and they can write off the perceived loss as charity.


Cooked GDP
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2007 6:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear that the GDP numbers were fudged to compensate for general comparisons of buying power in various countries rather than using money exchange rates. That general idea sounds good, however it can be very misleading and skew things a particular way because such translations aren't linear. If the cost to buy things "in general" (housing, food, etc) is generally 10x cheaper in XXX compared to the US, then one may multiply their converted-to-dollars GDP by 10 to get a converted number with which to compare. This is what seems to have been done. However, it's maybe only legit for the purposes of this article if the cost of music CDs, software, etc follows that 10x ratio as well. Would a legit music CD cost 1/10th it's US straight-dollar converted price in XXX? I suspect not. I would suspect that the straight dollar converted number would be more realistic. This is why I suspect the GDP numbers are "cooked" and the difference between personal GDP (also not to be confused with personal income) and dollars "lost" really are much smaller than indicated.




RE: Cooked GDP
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 8:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
I would fully expect that the figures put forward by IPAA would be calculated in such as way as to maximize (and even overstate) the perceived magnitude of this problem. That's all part of the game. Lawmakers clearly would not react to a statement of only a small or modest amount of piracy. The message is most effective when it can be said there is a large amount of piracy, with losses in the billions or trillions of dollars.


umm...
By shabby on 2/20/2007 8:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
Wheres are the US stats in those purty little pie charts, seems like they forgot about themselves.

And isnt it kind of ironic, when you watch a dvd you get that fbi warning that if you copy it, you can go to jail for like 5 years or it could cost you 250g's. But when you got to a store and steal the actual movie you get a slap on the wrist for petty crime?
The punishment should fit the crime, you steal a $20 dvd from a store(or download) you get probabtion and community service. But nooo, you copy that floppy and you spend 5 years in a federal pound me in the ass prison and cough up a 1/4 mil.
Im glad i dont live in the US.




RE: umm...
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 8:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since you don't live in the US, I'll tell you that prosecution for copyright infringement involving jail and/or large fines is somewhere between rare and none. It is just a scare tactic on the part of the content owners and their distributors, and it is focused on really egregious cases of people illegally copying and distributing for financial gain. Average citizens doing "casual copying" are not prosecuted.


By mircea on 2/21/2007 5:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
I live in Romania, and I'm glad to see that we're not on the list, but we do have a piracy issue here (me included :( ) (there is a story on DT about it).
Still you people think only about the ones that pirate movies, music or games, people that would never buy them, so there is no loss to the publisher. But the real piracy is in the profesional software, on which piracy has a real effect. See I am a musician, and need software to write out scores for my choir, or some others. I use Finale as my SW and I made quite a lot of money writing scores for other people. I paid the developer money so I can use the software as I see. But at the state university I study at, everyone uses some kind of music software, and makes money of off it, but from what I know, I am the only one that actualy paid for it.
I will tell you for sure that if SW could be obtained only legally, at least 30% of them would pay for it, because in the long run making money using it, it would pay itself. That's where the real loss is. And music has plenty of areas where diferent software must be used (scoring, recording, editing, VSTi). Now think about all the profesional work that is being done and has ties to a computer, and the specialized software needed, and realize that companies do have real losses. Beacuse the people stealing in those areas would have paid for it in necesity.
I do have pirated movies, music, games and software. I even have some editing and recording software that I haven't paid for. But I only use those to hear beter my scores or to make a quick but more realistic orchestration fot the choir in case my acompanist can't do a certain score. I don't make money of of it, so I would never touch it if I had to pay for - and it's still wrong. But I pay for the software that brings me income, because I want the developer to be able to continue working on improving it's software, to make my work easier and better.

So piracy is a real problem.




By crystal clear on 2/21/2007 10:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
I really appreciate your simplicity & honesty.


Oops something went wrong....
By raven3x7 on 2/21/2007 2:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Please fix this! it has been months now and really this cant be that much of a complicated error. Its starting to get to me(and im sure im not the only one).




RE: Oops something went wrong....
By johnsonx on 2/22/2007 5:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Funny that you mention that error, because while I used to get it daily, I NEVER get that error at all any longer for the past month or so. For a month or so before that I noticed that I got the error less often, and when I did I could just click 'Back' and then post again without retyping.

I wonder what's different that I don't get the error but you still do? I'm running Vista on all my boxes now, but I'm 99% sure I stopped getting the error well before I switched to Vista. Who knows?


never would have bought em
By jmunjr on 2/21/2007 9:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
I am pretty confident I never would have bought a full copy of Photoshop, AutoCAD, 3D Studio, or many others if a pirated version was NOT available, nor would I have bought a 500+ collection of DVD movies.

Do those numbers account for this?




RE: never would have bought em
By Shin on 2/22/2007 1:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think the pirated producers is not totally "lost". They gain something when their product is pirated. Free promotion and increased popularity.

If MS product (Window's, office)is not easily pirated (or allowed its product to be pirated) 10 or 20 years ago, it will be not be so popular (and wealthy) as today. We probably using Mac's OS, lotus suite or other programs that can be pirated and Microsoft will end up just like Lotus today.


By crystal clear on 2/21/2007 7:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
“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.

Unquote-

*This requires some punishing Taxes on these countries goods/services imported into the USA.Thats the only way to change their "care a damn ways/attitude"

*U.S. companies should agree on a common policy-That they refuse to outsource production & services to these countries.Plus refuse to buy goods/sub contract work to/from these countries.

*Get I.S.Providers reveal information about their client & their activities.

*Europe has started the legal process for-

"Europe’s Plan to Track Phone and Net Use "

PARIS, Feb. 19 — European governments are preparing legislation to require companies to keep detailed data about people’s Internet and phone use that goes beyond what the countries will be required to do under a European Union directive.

In Germany, a proposal from the Ministry of Justice would essentially prohibit using false information to create an e-mail account, making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal.

A draft law in the Netherlands would likewise go further than the European Union requires, in this case by requiring phone companies to save records of a caller’s precise location during an entire mobile phone conversation.

Even now, Internet service providers in Europe divulge customer information — which they normally keep on hand for about three months, for billing purposes — to police officials with legally valid orders on a routine basis,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/business/worldbu...

Thats the only way to stop it.




U.S. Statistics?
By lukasbradley on 2/21/2007 9:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know what the piracy statistics are for the US? I'd like to see a comparison between the leaders on this list, and the USA. I find it incredibly poignant that these statistics leave out the US.

I'm looking for statistical research, not estimates.




Canada on top of the list?
By jediknight on 2/21/2007 10:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
You've got to be kidding me - piracy is much, much more rampant in countries like Russia and China (~90%+ or so..). That said, enforcement of our copyright laws leaves much to be desired.

All the same, I don't believe the IIPA has any business trying to dictate that other countries follow the (flawed) path of the US when it comes to copyright law (specifically, DMCA-style prohibitions.. sorry, we like our garage door openers and ink cartridges, thank you.. )




The only good Pirate is a dead Pirate
By cornfedone on 2/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: The only good Pirate is a dead Pirate
By MyFootStinks on 2/20/2007 4:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Yeah, right. 1 in 3 people owned a computer in the year 2000(http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-...

-there are roughly 300,000,000 living in the United States,

(http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aa... = amount of US population currently in prison which is less than 1% as of 2002.

(http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/Major-St...
= estimated amount of piracy in North America (Canada and US) = 23%

So, if 1 in 3 people in the US owns a computer (100 million),
if 23 percent of software in the US is pirated (over exaggeration but purposeful for the sake of perspective) ( roughly 23 million people with pirated software, not to mention the inclusion of illegally downloaded music, movies, games, etc.) let's say 23 million for all forms of piracy...

that would mean an extra 23 million people behind bars while there are only 2-3 million in prison as of this moment. Taxes must be paid for the construction of these new prison facilities to accommodate 10x as many prisoners, etc, etc, more problems arise. You cannot put this many people in prison. The real percentages are much higher than my conservative estimates. Good luck putting 10+ times as many people in prison. As of right now, piracy is inevitable.


RE: The only good Pirate is a dead Pirate
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
By isaacmacdonald on 2/20/2007 4:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
You're correct though I suspect the "examples" necessary to reduce piracy in a substantial way (eg: >50%), would need to be draconian (more so than what we've seen from the RIAA). This is politically infeasible. A more realistic approach, and one I think many suppliers are working towards, is to make piracy relatively inconvenient.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki