The ethics of file sharing

[CSMatt]

Before I start, note that this is not necessarily intended to attack the policies of this site. While many users here pirate OSx86 and the primary goal of this site seems to be to share information with the hacker community about research that has a 95% chance of having been obtained or conducted illegally, the forums and wiki both state and enforce policy to the extent the law requires.

 

Everybody on this forum knows about file-sharing and the fact that it assists in sharing copyrighted material. Everybody here also knows that P2P can be used for legitimate reasons, such as sharing open source software and independently-owned songs.

 

But is the purpose of file-sharing's existence really to allow only legal distribution? Shawn Fanning created Napster solely for the purpose of distributing MP3s of copyrighted albums (granted he probably wasn't aware that he was infringing copyrights or nullifying his fair use rights at the time). Script makers for clients of IRC or Usenet (both of which are private and therefore immune from legal prosecution and/or government snooping) that allow for server-like distribution of files say that the scripts can not be used for illegal distribution, but who would use IRC or Usenet to obtain a file legally if they could just as easily legally obtain it from another, more user-friendly service? Many BitTorrent sites such as ThePirateBay and P2P client sites such as Kazaa Media Desktop are hosted in other countries - often countries where fewer laws restricting intellectual property distribution exist - specifically to avoid prosecution by the DMCA. Yes, international copyright laws exist, but not all countries enforce them or even recognise them as legitimate. And, as if that weren't enough, an uncountable amount of services use proprietary P2P networks and clients to promise "free" movies, games, TV shows, software, music, and in some cases pornography in exchange for a membership that often requires payment. If you were to look at the home pages for most of these clients, the examples you would see of what could be obtained through these memberships could clearly not be shared over their networks without violating copyright law.

 

P2P client makers, ISPs, and others who provide the technology used to point the finger at the users who are uploading copyrighted files as those who were at fault, often siting the Supreme Court case of Sony v. Betamax in their defence. That is, until the 9-0 verdict of MGM v. Grokster surfaced, saying that companies have a legal responsibility to make sure their users don't breach intellectual property rights and practically reversed Sony v. Betamax. Grokster was shut down, iMesh agreed in accordance with the RIAA to install a very restrictive service, and Limewire claims to be planning to do the same sometime soon.

 

The RIAA may be on a legal crusade to stop infringement in any way possible, but you can't really blame them. I will bet all of my possessions that as of now, over half of all P2P users are using P2P services either exclusively or at some point in time for the purpose of copyright infringement. In fact, BitTorrent is the only P2P client that I can think of where there are a significant amount of legal users in a literal free-for-all environment. PeerImpact is the only P2P network that was designed from the ground up to only allow legal distribution.

 

Given all of this, I would say that the majority of both P2P users and P2P clients have the intent of distributing files illegally. I do not think that it should be legal or even possible to download copyrighted material without direct payment to or direct consent from the copyright holder, and agree with the anti-piracy campaigns that say that illegal distribution is just as bad as physical theft. This does not mean that I am in full favor of DRM restrictions, as they often infringe on fair use rights. I also realize that I am being hypocritical because I have pirated stuff before and am currently downloading five different illicit files through BitTorrent. However, I believe that the fact that the technology is both readily available and easy to use has to do with making the temptation to pirate much greater for both myself and others.

[domino]

I think it all depends on how you use P2P clients. P2P is the only way I download DVD versions of my favorite Linux Distro. Why spend bandwidth people pay for if you can download it from torrents? I also seed videos of vacations and parties to a lot of my friends and families around the world so I don't kill my hosting bandwidth.

 

On a darker note, I do download a handful of things I shouldn't and I don't feel any guilt doing it. I do feel guilty and buy the product if I know I can not be productive without it.

[CSMatt]

I'm not saying that P2P networks are bad. I'm just saying that the more common ones were probably created specifically for illegal file distribution, although they can be used for legal purposes.

[kuruu]

The ethics of copyright? You know in your constitution it reads

'The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Tymes to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'

 

Which honestly, sounds very good to me. But... I believe that 'exclusive right' needs to allow, as it always has, in practice the ability to make personal copies and derivitive artworks and share those copies. I think, and many will see it also, that we are entering a time when sharing of information including 'copyrighted works' to benefit of our society and progress of our humanitarian cause for peaceful and equal standards of living across the world instead of manipulating power to ensure a 'we are rich and they are poor' global economy and all of the consequences of that.

 

When everyone is breaking the law, it is time the law was changed.

 

The canadian RIAA just published a study, some have called an own goal that contradicts all previous studies showing "CRIA's own research now concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services."

 

Sharing benefits the producers and the whole of the society, if you will let it. While '... the pit bull tactics of the RIAA's previous counsel are continued unabated by the new counsel, this will accomplish nothing except further damage the recording industry, and wreak havoc in people's lives.'

 

Oh, and copyright infringement, whether you agree with the law or not, is not left under that law. Period.

[U.C.]

This is an article i found on the internet(wincustomize.org) i strongly believe in. Thought maybe you would like to read it too.

 

Does Copying Music = Stealing?

 

Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music isthe same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like

it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

 

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

 

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

 

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

 

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy. Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

 

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

 

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example.

 

Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical

manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!

 

 

Also in addition to the above I think Music creators who want more sales should include extras with their CDS. EG Microsofts Customer Initiantive {censored}, where u get extra stuff if ur windoze is legal. Finally a great idea. Ppl with pirated Windows and ones who can afford it can just buy a legal copy, to get these offers.

 

RIAA needs to include a extra CD with a album, Which has music videos, behind the scenes {censored}, Artwork etc. This will barely cost em extra, but will increase sales, due to fans. Now me being a student in India, my monthly allowance is equal to an album a month. I cant really, but I am a really huge fan of ATB. As soon as i get my first pay, ill probably go and buy all his albums available.

 

SO yes i agree with CRIA that true music fans after dling music, like it and buy the music.

[fOZf8]

Hehe, thats a great widget story

 

As for me, if I'm not going to be something regardless of any circumstance, then I have absolutely no qualms downloading it. If I download it, and I really love it, then I'll try to buy it, but I can barely make ends meet as it is, just scraping by putting ghetto food on the table for my family.

 

At one time, I had a really good job, and I made really good money, and I bought tons of {censored} which I'm glad to still own now. If I can afford to support those I admire for servicing my entertainment and educational needs then I totally will. If I can't afford it I won't. Some of my favorite artists completely understand this, and have often times openly made their music available for downloading...now THAT is the symbiosis that will eventual NEED to exist with all artists and fans in order for everyone to come out on top.

 

When it comes to bigwig coprorate {censored} like microsoft though, they need people pirating their stuff, and they know it. The fact that the Xbox is so utterly hackable is the only reason they've made half the sales they have even. Why do you think M$ hasn't cracked down lawsuits against all the obvious traces of pirating they have on record? #1, they don't need the money it would foster, #2, they LEARN from the pirates who hack their software/hardware and vice versa.

[OryHara]

I think this needs to be posted. Copyright DOES NOT EXIST unless your country has laws for it. I am a pirate, and will always be a pirate. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. If it is in the hands of one, it will be in the hands of many. Information should NOT ONLY be in the hands of those who have money, but in the hands of everyone who asks for it.

 

And yes, I do attack the PRO-DMCA policies of this site.

[Metrogirl]

... And yes, I do attack the PRO-DMCA policies of this site.

 

Let's be very clear on one point. This site is obliged to comply with, but does not necessarily condone, support or endorse the DMCA.

 

I share the view that the DMCA is a badly-written piece of legislation which goes way beyond its original intent and which is being used as a tool to stifle and supress creative thought.

 

Here is the problem, however. We run the site for the benefit of others in a similar, but non-profit-based way, to a bar owner running a bar for the benefit of his customers. If an owner allows his bar to be used for drug sales, prostitution or planning robberies, he will be closed down. Therefore he is obliged to run the bar sufficiently within the confines of the law to avoid being a target for enforcement agencies. We all know that bad things go on in bars, but those goings-on are not obvious to most casual visitors.

 

We are in exactly the same position as the bar owner. We must operate in a way which is basically within the law of the country in which we are based. If we do not, we will be closed down and all our visitors will lose out. We have some leeway in what is said here but if it becomes too obviously illegal we must exercise some restraint.

 

We are therefore obliged to comply with the laws of the US. Complying with a law is not the same as agreeing with that law and I am not impressed with being accused of being a DMCA lackey.

[CSMatt]

I was wondering... Is downloading TV shows that are recorded from broadcasts and are not available on DVDs illegal? Because if it is, it should not be. After all, the copyright owner clearly does not have any interest in profiting from the show due to the lack of a DVD release. This does not mean to say that it should remain legal to do so after a DVD becomes available, but I think fair use should probably extend into this area.

[domino]

TV shows are the main things I actually download on a normal bases. I refuse to wait 3months for the syndication to get shown on the normal channels. I love Lost and Desperate Housewives!

[thrunner]

After all, the copyright owner clearly does not have any interest in profiting from the show due to the lack of a DVD release.

I am not sure this statement makes sense. The copyright owner most certainly has expectation of future income from the show, that is why you often see or hear 'any rebroadcast of the show is prohibited...' Just because it is not on DVD means nothing.

As to the other posting:

There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. If it is in the hands of one, it will be in the hands of many. Information should NOT ONLY be in the hands of those who have money, but in the hands of everyone who asks for it.

I am not sure "any and all information on demand" is a basic human rights. If a society is rich enough to provide for it, so be it. However, a copyright owner is entitled to something. If you don't agree with that last statement then you might as well say it is a free for all and anyone smart enough to break in your house or computer and take what belongs to you is justified.

[CSMatt]

I am not sure this statement makes sense. The copyright owner most certainly has expectation of future income from the show, that is why you often see or hear 'any rebroadcast of the show is prohibited...' Just because it is not on DVD means nothing.

I'm specifically talking about shows that were long cancelled and taken off the list of reruns. How can the public see these shows without a network broadcasting them or an official release? If these types of shows were completely removed from all networks and never released to the public, I see this as the company simply not caring about that show anymore and carrying on with current matters.

 

Naturally, it would be great if the owner decided to release the series officially, but in most cases the owner would need to be persuaded with the promise of a significant amount of income from this idea. Due to this, most cancelled series (especially "cult" TV shows) never become publicly available because the owner assumes that there isn't a high enough demand for them.

[OryHara]

Let's be very clear on one point. This site is obliged to comply with, but does not necessarily condone, support or endorse the DMCA.

 

I share the view that the DMCA is a badly-written piece of legislation which goes way beyond its original intent and which is being used as a tool to stifle and supress creative thought.

 

Here is the problem, however. We run the site for the benefit of others in a similar, but non-profit-based way, to a bar owner running a bar for the benefit of his customers. If an owner allows his bar to be used for drug sales, prostitution or planning robberies, he will be closed down. Therefore he is obliged to run the bar sufficiently within the confines of the law to avoid being a target for enforcement agencies. We all know that bad things go on in bars, but those goings-on are not obvious to most casual visitors.

 

We are in exactly the same position as the bar owner. We must operate in a way which is basically within the law of the country in which we are based. If we do not, we will be closed down and all our visitors will lose out. We have some leeway in what is said here but if it becomes too obviously illegal we must exercise some restraint.

 

We are therefore obliged to comply with the laws of the US. Complying with a law is not the same as agreeing with that law and I am not impressed with being accused of being a DMCA lackey.

 

 

Im still waiting for someone to challenge the DMCA. Companies send me those stupid letters all the time, but none have attempted to take me to court, they would be in for a witch burning if they did. When is someone going to take THEM to court? I want, like most others here, to see someone stand up to the DMCA, and not coward down to it.

 

 

I was wondering... Is downloading TV shows that are recorded from broadcasts and are not available on DVDs illegal? Because if it is, it should not be. After all, the copyright owner clearly does not have any interest in profiting from the show due to the lack of a DVD release. This does not mean to say that it should remain legal to do so after a DVD becomes available, but I think fair use should probably extend into this area.

 

No. You are entitled to them under Fair Use Rights. Its the same as the Sony BetaMax case back in the good ole days. Just like copying a DVD. I copy them all the time. Its not illegal.

[domino]

Im still waiting for someone to challenge the DMCA. Companies send me those stupid letters all the time, but none have attempted to take me to court, they would be in for a witch burning if they did. When is someone going to take THEM to court? I want, like most others here, to see someone stand up to the DMCA, and not coward down to it.

 

You really have no idea about the judicial process do you? Lets put it this way. The Corps have lawers on retainer. You have $100,000 to spend on lawyer, inverstigators, and research. How much money would you you think you will have left after 5 years of fighting? Do you think you have enough money to appeal if it doesn't go your way? Say it does go your way. Are you going to demand the money you spent on fees? And will you have enough money in case they appeal? If you take these "guys" to court, you better be damn sure you can make the case. Else you loose the clothes of your back.

[thrunner]

I was wondering... Is downloading TV shows that are recorded from broadcasts and are not available on DVDs illegal?

No. You are entitled to them under Fair Use Rights.

Well, OryHara. I am not sure what the laws are in Germany or outside the USA but I am pretty sure the Fair Use Rights do not include redistribution or rebroadcast.It is fine for you to tape it or DVD record it off the broadcast, but that does not mean you can distribute it.

[Metrogirl]

Unfortunately whether something is legal or not has become almost irrelevant in the United States. If someone takes you to court alleging that you are doing something wrong, you only have two options -

 

1) Stop doing it and give up, or

 

2) Fight for your rights and accept that it will cost you unlimited money in legal fees, court fees etc.

 

In the US it is unbelievably expensive to engage a good lawyer and fight a case in court, even if you are completely in the right. In a lot of cases there is no means to recover the costs even if you win. And however right you are, and however good your lawyer may be, there is no guarantee that you will win at the end of the day.

 

This is the reason so many men are screwed over in divorce cases. Wife asks for unreasonable financial settlement, husband objects and goes to court. After several hearings husband has paid lawyer/court fees approaching original settlement request. At this point he gives up and pays up because to continue is financially pointless. His only satisfaction is that the wife has probably spent nearly as much in legal fees herself - the case ends, but it is absolutely NOT justice.

 

For the average Joe, being sued in the US means stopping doing whatever it is, regardless of rights.

[OryHara]

Unfortunately whether something is legal or not has become almost irrelevant in the United States. If someone takes you to court alleging that you are doing something wrong, you only have two options -

 

1) Stop doing it and give up, or

 

2) Fight for your rights and accept that it will cost you unlimited money in legal fees, court fees etc.

 

In the US it is unbelievably expensive to engage a good lawyer and fight a case in court, even if you are completely in the right. In a lot of cases there is no means to recover the costs even if you win. And however right you are, and however good your lawyer may be, there is no guarantee that you will win at the end of the day.

 

This is the reason so many men are screwed over in divorce cases. Wife asks for unreasonable financial settlement, husband objects and goes to court. After several hearings husband has paid lawyer/court fees approaching original settlement request. At this point he gives up and pays up because to continue is financially pointless. His only satisfaction is that the wife has probably spent nearly as much in legal fees herself - the case ends, but it is absolutely NOT justice.

 

For the average Joe, being sued in the US means stopping doing whatever it is, regardless of rights.

 

Thats not justice. Its called being f***ed in the head while your back is turned. I make enough money to hire 1 full time lawyer. It doesn't matter to me one way or another what some company thinks. If they want to play the lawyer game good. Im prepared. If they want to play change the law. I can do that too. If they want to be a total ass, I can play the revolution game too. Ive been to the state capitol several times to lobby objections to stpuid laws. My company sends out at LEAST 3 letters a day to governemt officials ranging on every subject from hospital privacy laws to copyright laws. If it came down to it I would fight it without a lawyer, and before a jury like Patricia Santangelo. I don't like the DMCA any more than any of you. BUT AT LEAST I f***ing FIGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL WITH WHAT LITTLE I GOT.

 

This is America damnit. People DIED for your ability to speak out, and post what u want. And you just lay back and take it up the ass, like you don't give a damn. Next time you meet a soldier tell him that his friend died for NOTHING because you don't give a {censored} about your freedom of speech, and press.

 

Well, OryHara. I am not sure what the laws are in Germany or outside the USA but I am pretty sure the Fair Use Rights do not include redistribution or rebroadcast.It is fine for you to tape it or DVD record it off the broadcast, but that does not mean you can distribute it.

 

If it beams into my home its mine. Internet, whatever. Fair use rights apply to more than u think.

[Ouch]

This is America damnit. People DIED for your ability to speak out, and post what u want. And you just lay back and take it up the ass, like you don't give a damn. Next time you meet a soldier tell him that his friend died for NOTHING because you don't give a {censored} about your freedom of speech, and press.

 

Methinks you have a penchant for melodramatics!

 

This banding about of the words "Freedom of Speech" in relation to the DMCA irritates me. Not one single soldier ever died in order to protect this right you've invented that enttles you to download something created by someone else without their authoritsation. Wars are not fought over such triffling matters, and insinuating that they are just belittles the people who have died preserving legitmate human rights.

 

With regard to the DMCA, just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean you can just ignore it - the conseqences still exist, I happen to think you can drive just as safely on a motorway at 140 as you can at 70 but I wouldn't break the speed limit. As metrogirl pointed out, there would be consequences to this site if we simple ignored the dmca - just look at what happened to win2osx.

[OryHara]

Methinks you have a penchant for melodramatics!

 

This banding about of the words "Freedom of Speech" in relation to the DMCA irritates me. Not one single soldier ever died in order to protect this right you've invented that enttles you to download something created by someone else without their authoritsation. Wars are not fought over such triffling matters, and insinuating that they are just belittles the people who have died preserving legitmate human rights.

 

With regard to the DMCA, just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean you can just ignore it - the conseqences still exist, I happen to think you can drive just as safely on a motorway at 140 as you can at 70 but I wouldn't break the speed limit. As metrogirl pointed out, there would be consequences to this site if we simple ignored the dmca - just look at what happened to win2osx.

 

As for win2osx they have the option to move their server overseas like Maxxuss.

 

As for your rethoric mark about freedom of speech, as far as im concerned, if you hate it. GO LIVE IN CHINA. Their government will love you over there.

Ive been there, twice, its not a free country. You would love it.

 

Sorry, but Ill damn well post, and print what I want. And not APPLE, or the BSA, or some stupid ass other organization will tell me what I can and cannot talk about. And if someone tries to sue me over it. GOOD. Because I could think of about 5 different criminal charges to file against them for doing so. I can think of 8 off the top of my head for just the RIAA, and Im sure a lawyer could think of more. I get those stupid letters all the time. You know what I do with them? Throw them in the damn trash where they belong.

 

 

»¿Friday, January 06, 2006 -----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------- RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the following copyrighted

computer program(s): Microsoft Windows Dear <REMOVED>Abuse: The Business Software

Alliance (BSA) has determined that the connection listed below, which appears to be

using an Internet account under your control, is using a FastTrack network to offer

unlicensed copies of copyrighted computer programs published by the BSA's member

companies. Site Details: ---------------------------------------------- Date Found:

6 Jan 2006 12:03:26 EST (GMT -0500) Network: KaZaA IP Address: <REMOVED> IP

Port: 1080 Protocol: FastTrack UserName: CatastrophicChaos@KaZaA Content being

offered: ---------------------------------------------- Filename:

Windows_XP_Pro_Corporate_Final.exe Filesize: 504,102k Filename: Microsoft - Windows

XP Pro English V2600153.exe Filesize: 500,334k The above computer program(s) is/are

being made available for copying, through downloading, at the above location

without authorization from the copyright owner(s). Based upon BSA's representation

of the copyright owners in anti-piracy matters, we have a good faith belief that

none of the materials or activities listed above have been authorized by the

rightholders, their agents, or the law. BSA represents that the information in this

notification is accurate and states, under penalty of perjury, that it is

authorized to act in this matter on behalf of the copyright owners listed above. We

are giving notice of these activities pursuant to Section 512 of Title 17 of the

U.S. Code (as enacted by the 'Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation

Act'). We expect that you will take expeditious action to remove or disable access

to the materials described above, and thereby prevent the illegal reproduction and

distribution of pirated software via your company's network. As you know, illegal

on-line activities can result in 50 million people on the Internet accessing and

downloading a copyrighted product worldwide without authorization - a highly

damaging activity for the copyright holder. We appreciate your cooperation in this

matter. Please advise us regarding what actions you take. Please include the

following CaseID in any response you send: Yours sincerely, John

R. Wolfe Manager of Investigations Business Software Alliance 1150 18th St NW Suite

700 Washington, DC 20036 URL: http://www.bsa.org E-mail: copyright@bsa.org

 

 

This one i decided to send back to them with some tootsi rolls enclosed, and a letter telling them to shove it down their throat.

[CSMatt]

Well, regardless if the illegitimacy, do you think that the owners really mind that their shows are being distributed? After all, if the company that owns the copyright saw any significant gain from the show, they would show reruns or release DVDs for the general public.

[thrunner]

Well, regardless if the illegitimacy, do you think that the owners really mind that their shows are being distributed? After all, if the company that owns the copyright saw any significant gain from the show, they would show reruns or release DVDs for the general public.

I think the word is illegality or unlawful act. Why won't the owners mind? They get a royalty check everytime the show is run or released on DVD. Anything illegally downloaded is a one less payment they will get.

There is too much of rationalization by some on this thread, ie, if it comes my way, it is mine to grab. If it is available, it must be Fair Use. If they sue me, I am going to sue them. Please get real. You can argue what is proper compensation for copyright owners, but to ignore their rights is to diminish your own rights.

[OryHara]

Well, regardless if the illegitimacy, do you think that the owners really mind that their shows are being distributed? After all, if the company that owns the copyright saw any significant gain from the show, they would show reruns or release DVDs for the general public.

 

This is the same idea as what Microsoft sees widespread piracy as. Marketing. If they can use the show to promote something, they will probably do it.

 

I think the word is illegality or unlawful act. Why won't the owners mind? They get a royalty check everytime the show is run or released on DVD. Anything illegally downloaded is a one less payment they will get.

There is too much of rationalization by some on this thread, ie, if it comes my way, it is mine to grab. If it is available, it must be Fair Use. If they sue me, I am going to sue them. Please get real. You can argue what is proper compensation for copyright owners, but to ignore their rights is to diminish your own rights.

 

Their rights (or the rights they think they have) will in no way trample mine. If they attempt to. They will get stampeeded.

 

I will link to what I please. Nobody can tell me what I can, and cannot link to. And I don't give a flying rat's ass if you don't like it. Screw the BSA.

 

And one more thing. The hipocracy on this board troubles me. You claim you love Copyright, but yet you download OSx86?

[xequence]

. Anything illegally downloaded is a one less payment they will get.

 

Why?

 

For every song/movie/application pirated there is no way every one of them would have been bought. No chance. I doubt anything over 5% of the pirated stuff would have been bought, and its probably much lower.

[OryHara]

Why?

 

For every song/movie/application pirated there is no way every one of them would have been bought. No chance. I doubt anything over 5% of the pirated stuff would have been bought, and its probably much lower.

 

AGREED. They ASSUME that the person will buy it. In Asia this is a good example. Windows is in about %92 of households in China. But nobody can afford to buy it, and WON'T. You can walk down the street in Hong Kong and see DVDs being sold on the street for 25 cents. I doubt a chinaman makes $20 a week. Surely the MPAA is not stupid enough to think a chinaman would spend 2 weeks of work on something as silly as a DVD movie when he has a family to feed.

 

The 'assumption' factor that everyone here goes by is just plain ignorance. If one is forced to pay for software, they just won't. And do without.

 

Pirate it, or forget it.

[telmac5]

See this article: Piracy is the new business model for Wal-Mart & Hollywood. ie cheaper & cheaper DVD's

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2137955/