"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