"Faux" Software: A Higher Price

Like free music on the web, free software programs lurk on the internet. One thing's for sure, software pirates present the web with tempting offers. According to Webopedia.com, software piracy is defined as the unauthorized copying of software. Some common ways which this is done are: (Webopedia.com)

• Making illegal copies of a licensed copy and using it for any other reason than a backup copy
• Counterfeit Software
• Unbundling
• Corporate Software Piracy
• Internet Software Piracy

When purchasing these "faux" software programs, oftentimes people feel as if they're getting over. Why buy the real copy when I can get another copy at no cost or a cheaper price? It's the same product, right? Wrong.

The truth is, with pirated software, you're not exactly getting a deal..at least not as far as your computer is concerned. While it seems as though you're getting an exact replica of the program, this software doesn't promise the same protection for your computer and can expose your computers to a number of risks: 

• Computer Crashes (including loss of valuable files & data, total computer loss, etc.)
• Spyware: Tracks personal information without your consent on your PC)
• Unable to install necessary updates
• More vulnerable to identity theft
• Illegal!

(Source: Norton by Symantec-United States)

It is very necessary to take precautions when purchasing/downloading software. Sometimes pirated software is disguised as the real thing and users with innocent intentions get scammed. One thing to remember is that if the deal sounds TOO good, do not purchase or download it. Also, be aware of the websites you download the software from and give out your credit card info.

Overall, I'd say that pirated software is not worth the risk. Think about it. Would you rather download the risky software and take the chance of your computer crashing, having to buy another computer, or possibly getting in trouble with the law? Would you rather just buy a legitimate copy and be sure that your computer is safe? Which really pays the higher price?

Sources:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/software_piracy.html

http://us.norton.com/how-to-be-pirate-free/article

Here's a short video clip from Microsoft on counterfeit software in businesses:

Mobile App in India Helps to Stop Piracy

     Over 571,000 jobs and 959 million dollars have been lost in Idian fim companies due to video piracy. As techology grows more advanced it makes piracy more easily accessible and usable to the people that commit the crime. Though there are force teams in India completely dedicated to catching piracy crimes, they are aware that they can not do it on their own. Government can only do so much to catch piracy crimes in the act and need another source to help them catch the people commiting them.
     India has come up with a mobile app that can be used on Android or iphones that allows people to let police know when a piracy act is being committed. This app allows the police to respond to the situation fast and direct when a notification is given to them. It gives citizens the opportunity to stand up to the crime as well and lays a little bit more power in their hands.
     The question is, will they actually willingly rat someone out to stop this crime? Though having insight by peers of the people that commit piracy is an advantage, there is the promblem of wether or ot they will actually use it. I believe a way to make sure that this app is successful is to give them an incintive to turn someone in. Maybe offer a reward or some kind of benefit for the capture of these crimes.


http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/37191_Mobile-app-to-curb-video-piracy-launched

Napster Defines Illegal File Sharing

      Do you ever wonder where peer-to-peer file sharing started and how it was determined illegal? We hear all the time about people using P-2-P file sharing and how the governmet tries to stop it yet we have never truely figured out what made this illegal in a court of law. 

     In 1999 a file sharing network known as Napster was sued by the RIAA in a court of law claiming that the site allowed it's users to transfer free music back and forth from computer to computer. At the time of the case this was a huge deal to decide wether it was illegal or not due to the newness of P2P file sharing. The debate was wether or not it is cosidered stealing when the item in question is not a physical product that you can hold in your hands.

     The court ruled in favor of the RIAA and decided that any P2P file sharing of copyrrighted material was illegal and a penalty should be insued upo the users and creators of the network. Soon after the case Napster when bankrupt and shut down the network. Sure enough the company decided that they were not going to give up and came up with another innovative way to stay into the music sharing business without getting into trouble. Napster decided that they would charge their customers monthly for access to unlimited music, music that can only be heard by connecting online to the network and listening to it through their servers. This created a way to give their customers what they want and at the same time is legal because there is no downloading or file sharing involved.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119199&page=1#.UWX205OmiAh

Piracy case: You are being sued for Piracy!

We all know that piracy is crime, here are some case of piracy.Helps us to identify the piracy case.

This would be the famous one and with huge amount of money.
 On March 18,2013, in Washington, DC. The US Supreme Court refused to take up the case of a woman ordered to pay a $220,000 fine for illegally downloading music off the internet. Thomas-Rasset, a mother of four from Minnesota, has been fighting a court battle since 2006 over violating intellectual property laws in her use of the file-sharing program Kazaa. Three trails and multiple appeals later, she has been ordered to pay amounts as high as $1.92 million- or $80,000 for each of 24 illegally downloaded tracks. After the third trial, at which the jury awarded the music companies @1.5million, the amount was reduced on appeal to $220,000.

This is one by the world's bigest media companies.
 The High Court has thrown out an appeal by some of the world's bigest media companies to stop internet piracy after it excused Australian service provider iiNet from policing unauthorized downloads. A group of 34 international and Australian companies, including industry heavyweights Warner Bros, Disney and the Seven Network, had alleged that iiNet had authorized the infringement of their copyright when its customers downloaded movies and television programs.

This one is about US internet piracy case brings New Zealand arrests.
 Associated Press= WELLINGTON,New Zealand --With 150 million registered users, about 50 million hits daily and endorsements from music superstars, Megaupload.com was among the world's biggest file-sharing sites. Big enough, according to a U.S. indictment, that it earned founder Kim Dotcom $42 million in 2011. The site was shut down in January 2012, Dotcom and three Megaupload employees were arrested in New Zealand on U.S accusations they they facilitated million of illegal downloads of films, music and other content, costing copyright holders at least $500 million in lost revenue.

From those, we're not hard to find out, the piracy case happens everywhere and everyday, We need to be careful to touch down the police ! On one would like to hear, " you are being sued for Piracy!"

Site Sources:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/computer/341272/us-top-court-rejects-appeal-in-220000-piracy-case
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1644007/High-Court-throws-out-internet-piracy-case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10050328


by Wenyi Chen

Pissed Off Consumer

 http://www.chinahearsay.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/SoftwarePiracy.jpg

Not only is piracy affecting businesses but it is also hurting consumers. And when I say consumer I am referring to those who legally obtained the product. Recently, my girlfriend wanted to download a season of True Blood from our DVD set to our iTunes account. This way she could watch it on the iPad at the gym. This seems perfectly logical to me. I mean we do own a legal physical copy of the season. I should be allowed to upload it to our iTunes account, right? The answer is NO. The disks are copy protected and therefore we can not upload them. I understand why anti-piracy devices like this are being used. Piracy is steadily growing and therefore the amount of lost revenue is constantly increasing. Content owners are just trying to prevent their material from being pirated. However, to some extent these anti-piracy devices are hurting the actual customers. If my girlfriend wants to watch this particular season of True Blood at the gym we have to buy it again, this time from the iTunes store (and while buying the season on iTunes is of comparable cost to the physical DVDs, it does not include the special features that come with the DVDS such as director commentaries and behind-the-scenes footage). This is not fair. We already own the season. Why should we have to buy it again? It's not like I want the capability of sharing the download with anyone. I just want to be able to use a product I bought on multiple devices I own.

Judge rules digital music cannot be sold 'second hand'

In 2012 capitol recors sued a company called ReDigi in complaints that they were illegally allowing unauthorized downloads of capitol records music through their network. ReDigi argued against Capitol Records accusations stating that they are not allowing illgal downloads rather helping people sell their unwanted music in an easy accessible manner.

ReDigi is a company that allows poeple to connect to thier network and download and sell their music to another person that is looking to buy the music track at a discounted price. Once someone has uploaded their music track to their server, it then deletes the track from the persons computer. ReDigi believes that there is no harm in this doing this since it deletes the old files instead of creating copies of the tracks, thus not promoting loss for the record companies. 

Recently a judgemet was decided in favor of Capitol Records and ReDigi was forced to rethink their approach. Though they may not be making duplicates of the files, it is still not putting the money where it belongs, in the hands of the record labels that own the tracks.

     I think the biggest questio in this case is where to draw the line at what is legally acceptable and what is not in digital commerce. What makes the idea that ReDigi had any different then say E-Bay, that allows users to sell their CDs from person to person? As technology grows I beleive that theese lines are going to get harder and harder to draw due to the fact that though these things may have the same idea, they are bought and delivered in completely different ways. Technology makes things more accessible to buy and recieve things easily. But with that ease should come tighter securities to make sure that the product remains a profitable product.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22000668

How Frequently are People Sued for Piracy?

I was thinking about piracy and one of the main questions I had was how often are people sued for pirating? Is this something people should actually fear? I think it is. I personally don't know anyone that has been sued for pirating but from what I have read this might change soon. I have not exactly found a definite answer to the frequency of pirating suits but, it does seem as though people are tired of their work being stolen and they are starting to fight back. One way they are starting to do this is through the new "Six Strike" program I discussed in my last post. As I stated before I don't think this program will have much impact, as it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The threat of a lawsuit however, I think will have a much greater effect. If people don't want to pay the original price for a product I can't imagine they would want to pay thousands more than what it is actually worth because they illegally downloaded. Well this is what

Add http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Microsoft-Sues-Australian-Radio-Stations-for-Pirating-Windows-2.jpg

 is happening. A growing number of "Copyright Trolls" are searching file sharing sites for illegal sharing of copyrighted material. These copyright trolls then work with the owner of the material to go after the alleged offenders. So far, thousands of people have been sued and as the number of businesses monitoring sites for illegal file sharing continues to grow so will the number of people being sued. I know I don't want to pay thousands of dollars for a song. If you don't want to pay that much either you should probably think twice next time you are about to illegally download something. There could be a troll waiting to catch you.


Sources:
http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/mi95730/
http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/mi95730
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-bittorrent-popularity-mass-copyright-litigation.html

Anti-Piracy Program: "Six Strikes"

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/84200/analyzing-piracy-the-industrys-scapegoat/

 As of last month, if you are someone that uses peer-to-peer networks for illegal downloading, you could find yourself being reprimanded by your ISP. From what I have read the entertainment industry has partnered with some of the biggest ISPs  to stop illegal downloading through a new anti-piracy system called  "Six Strikes". Basically the people that create the content monitor peer-to-peer networks for any illegal downloading of their material. Those that are identified as offenders are reported their particular ISPs. If the ISP determines that a violation did occur the offender could receive what is called a "strike". Each strike results in  the ISP issuing a reprimand ranging from a warning or piracy education to service interruption. What the reprimand actually will be depends on which ISP the offender uses as well as the number of strikes that person already has.

After reading more about this new anti-piracy system I don't feel as though it's that big of a deal. Not only is it not a law, but the consequences the offenders receive are not that harsh. Not to mention not everyone uses an ISP that is part of the entertainment industry/ISP partnership. I personally don't illegally download things from the internet, but if I did this new system would not be a deterrent. I don't even think the educational aspect of it will have a significant impact. Most people that illegally download stuff already know that it is wrong and that they are stealing. Is educating these same people on piracy really going to make that big of an impact? I don't believe so. Especially when there are many easily accessible ways around the system.





sources:
http://bgr.com/2013/02/28/six-strikes-anti-piracy-system-isps-348766/
http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six-strikes/


                       

The ethics of piracy: Textbook

 As a student, I spent a lot of money on Textbook everything semester, a book cost me about $200 dollars.I was looking for a cheaper way to cut off my spend on textbook. Then I find out that different store has different price, the school bookstore which is more expensive than off-campus bookstore in my second semester.  Somehow, I can get used book online with half price of bookstore where likes Amazon, Ebay. That is very excited when you got a book only half price than others. But in a lot of situation, textbook online are very expensive too. So there is other way: rent textbook. I usually rent book through www.chegg.com, you pay the rent fee for textbook during the time period,usually a semester, you need to return the book before the date due, otherwise, you need to pay extra fee. There is one more way to rent textbook which is e-book, you can view the textbook online which you paid. You log on your account and only can review the e-book online, you can not do copy and paste. It's cheaper than rent textbook, but you need to have internet service.

 I did several ways above for saving textbook money until I get free e-book from my friend. She bought Finance text e-book copy from online which cost her $20 dollar. That is a huge saving! The hard copy will cost $200 dollar! She was doubt the seller about the book, after she got the PDF file from seller, she sent it to me. I was very excited about the saving! I have no idea it would be illegal! Because the seller is selling. But from the ethics side, I was thinking about the piracy problem. As I know, it should not be right!!

 To talk about ethic is not a easy task. Do I need to buy a book by myself or get the free e-book from others? Be honestly, I will definitly pay for testbook if it costs me $20 dollars, but if it will costs me $200 dollars, that a lot to me! I would get the free file from my friend. I believe that if one day $200 is a piece of cake, I will make the right decision again. But who else will not? Is it a question of the ethics of piracy?


by wenyi

Are Pirates Helping The Music Industry?

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html

      

                      

     Since the beginning of the creation of Peer-To-Peer file sharing, the world has been told time and time again that music pirates are the reason the music industry is losing business. Music pirates are known for the lose of billions of dollars in the music industry and the government is doing their best to stop them. Though the technological generation is taught to believe this fact, a recent study from Columbia University may have found information that challenges these accusations of music pirates.

     Studies show that people that contribute and are involved in peer-to-peer file sharing are also estimated to buy up to 30% more music than those that are not involved in the act. Studies also show that they are much more likely to go out and but a CD at a local store and keep the physical aspect of music alive. When first hearing this I instantly didn't believe that music pirates could be helping the music industry in any sort of way, but then a realized they may be on to something more than I thought.

     Those that contribute to music piracy all have one thing in common, they have a passion for music. In many cases the reason why people illegally download music is not because they want to rebel and purposefully lose money for the music industry, but because they simply can't afford to buy the music they love due to ever rising prices. Studies show that those that contribute to music piracy are also much more likely to have the want to but music if the money was available for them to buy it. 

     Though it is true that people involved in peer-to-peer file sharing have a passion for music and are much more willing to own the music than those that do not illegally download music, the music industry still feels that music pirates are the reason for the major profit lose. They believe that if music piracy wasn't around in the first place, then those that wanted the music enough, would have just found a way to pay for it anyway. 

     Though both sides have very valid points, the argument of music piracy may never truly be solved. It is an ever going battle between the talented people that created the music, and the passionate people that just simply want to listen to it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html

     

     

Piracy is a crime

“You wouldn’t steal a car.

 You wouldn’t steal a handbag. 
You wouldn’t steal a mobile phone. 
You wouldn’t steal a movie.
 Piracy is stealing.
 Stealing is against the law. Piracy. It’s a crime.”

I saw the words in a small video, It's very meaningful.
Piracy is a crime, it's stealing other people's property. these acting like copying, showing,and selling the unauthorized things.

But I think most of people would like to watch free movie and listen free music, at this time, it would definitely hurt the entertainment business but without free activity online，the normal people can live without music and movie if they have to pay what they need to pay.Piracy has positive and negative effects on the entertainment industries, with the growing number of piracy the industries also growing up.

As I know, the country like China where I come from, the unauthorized DVDs or CDs are still selling in the market, the government did announcement of Copyright Law, but the market is too wild to control. Everyone knows that piracy is a crime, we need to support the music and film industries by buying authorized CDs or go to the theater. A lot of middle class begin to follow the laws.

In my point of view, the good point which are government control and economy.  Without both of them, we will become a crimes.


by wenyi

sites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

"The Artist Formerly Known As Prince": Asking Too Much?

 Image: http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/prince-wont-make-new-music-until-piracy-is-under-control/

 

In the past years, one of the main musicians that has sought to fight the rampant piracy in today's world is Prince (or The Artist Formerly Known As Prince). He is a multi-talented, versatile artist that's know for hits like "Purple Rain", "When Doves Cry", and "Little Red Corvette". Want to listen to any of these songs? You'll have to buy it (...or by some chance hear it on the radio)! That's right. you won't be able to look up his music on YouTube or any other site for that matter.

 

Prince has made it very clear over the years that he takes his music being pirated very seriously and feels that no one should be able to own (or apparently listen to) his works without proper compensation. He sees the piracy of his music like "carjacking". As far as ownership of the music, I agree. Yes, Prince is a self-proclaimed "artist", but clearly he sees his art as a product as well. He SHOULD reap the financial rewards of work that he worked hard to create. I understand that completely.

 

However......I still think he's a bit extreme. In a campaign called "Reclaim The Internet," he threatened to sue sites like YouTube, Pirate Bay, and eBay, which allow people to listen to, make unauthorized copies of, and buy his music at cheaper prices. He won't even allow fans of his music to dance to or cover his music on camera without proper permission. Trust me...this man doesn't play any games! In one case, Prince even sued the mother of a toddler that was dancing in a video to a snippet of his music.

 

Prince seems to be against the digital age and the Internet altogether. In one interview he was quoted saying that the Internet was "unhip" and "outdated". He claims that digital media "affects a different place in your brain" and he believes that music needs to go back to the analog sound. He also refuses to release any new material until the problem of piracy is stopped.

 

As I said before, I believe that he should be paid for the ownership of his music, but when he won't even allow his fans to pay homage to him, has he gone a little too far? One thing's for sure--Prince has a big ego! He believes that his music is worth more than "Diamonds and Pearls" and anything in this entire world.

 

Clearly he's a from a different time in music. Today's artists are dependent on the Internet to publicize their music and hear from the fans. With his music not being available on the Internet, he won't be able to reach brand new generations of fans, as artists like Michael Jackson managed to do. True...he's a legend; however, in this day and age, can his legacy live on without his music being available online? Has he gone too far? Is he asking too much?

 

 

 

 

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20074637-261/prince-compares-web-piracy-to-carjacking/