Piracy killed the radio star, insists the BSA

[Hairbautt]

"It turns out that all of the world's problems could be resolved by stamping out piracy, or so goes the story from the Business Software Alliance. The BSA--"Be prepared (to intimidate people into slobbering submission)"--never met an alleged software pirate that it didn't hate, and believes that piracy has a huge negative impact on the global economy, including the U.S. economy, as Ars Technica reports. In fact, it paid (commissioned) IDC to come up with the following numbers:

If the amount of software piracy in the U.S. were to be reduced by 10 percentage points over the next four years, IDC believes the end result would be $41 billion in economic growth, $7 billion in additional tax revenues, and the creation of over 32,000 new jobs. In countries with higher rates of piracy, the impact would be even greater.

Maybe, maybe not. The real question for the BSA is this: since the software industry apparently can't solve the piracy problem by kicking in the doors of small and medium-size businesses based on tips from disgruntled ex-employees, perhaps it would do better to encourage its members to go open source, obviating the incentive (and ability) to pirate software." by Matt Asay

Source: Full Article @ C|Net Blogs

[Aaxel21]

Hmm. I find that hard to believe. Maybe it was another typo and they ment to put million instead of billion. Since the "M" key is just one over from the "B" key this is not the fault of the BSA. Speaking of who put all theses keys so close together, we should sue them.

[TheFoX]

If the amount of software piracy in the U.S. were to be reduced by 10 percentage points over the next four years, IDC believes the end result would be $41 billion in economic growth, $7 billion in additional tax revenues, and the creation of over 32,000 new jobs. In countries with higher rates of piracy, the impact would be even greater.

This statement holds no water whatsoever, simply because there is not starting point. What level is software piracy at, at this moment in time?

70%
60%
90%
10%

They haven't stated, so what is a 10% point drop in relation to the overall problem?

If piracy is running at 10%, then this would effectively stop piracy, yet if it is running at 90%, then the 10% would not even be felt.

As for the creation of 32,000 new jobs, this is also falacy, since those very people who invest in the industries will want a sizeable return for their investment, and won't want any of their precious profit wasted on employing more people than absolutely necessary, and since the software industry is capable of coping with piracy using the staff they currently have, the additional profit made from reducing piracy will go straight into the pockets of the investors who drive the industry (and the tax man).

[grimms]

I agree with THEfox it's all falacy. Their intend to contrive piracy percentages is deplorable at best. I disagree as well. We need proven facts stated here not estimated guesses. Plus all that extra money would just go back into the investors. I doubt they create more jobs and hire new people.

[mbucari1]

Maybe, maybe not. The real question for the BSA is this: since the software industry apparently can't solve the piracy problem by kicking in the doors of small and medium-size businesses based on tips from disgruntled ex-employees, perhaps it would do better to encourage its members to go open source, obviating the incentive (and ability) to pirate software.

I can answer that. Alon with obviating the incentive to pirate software, you obliterate monetary investment in development. The industry-leading applications today are all proprietary. Photoshop, AutoCad, MS Office, Premiere Pro, ArcGIS, etc.

[1000possibleclaws]

grimms and thefox, i cant believe you're argueing over the percentage thing, it was written fine the way it was..

They mean 10% down from what it is currently. The way you're looking at it, it would be 100% right now, or just '1'. For your postcounts I would have thought you guys wouldnt be so oblivious, but I guess postcounts dont = better understanding all the time

however Im not saying i agree with this study or whatever it is.. I'm just stating that you guys are trying to prove it wrong using parts that were written completely logically