Pirates cost software industry $53 billion in 2008

We all have mixed feelings when it comes to justifying pirate's actions, the debate will never end. The debate is likely going to heat up in governments around the world as the Business Software Alliance today reported a $53 billion dollar loss in 2008 due to piracy. The news shouldn't surprise many, as people around the world tighten their spending.

The report indicates that software piracy dropped in 57 countries that the BSA studies, but rose worldwide for the second year in a row from 38% to 41%. Worldwide losses grew by 11 percent to $53.0 billion, breaking the $50 billion mark for the first time ever.

"We are continuing to make progress against PC software piracy in many countries, which helps people working in the US-led global software industry. That's the good news," said BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman. "The bad news is that PC software piracy remains so prevalent in the United States and all over the world," Holleyman added. "It undermines local IT service firms, gives illegal software users an unfair advantage in business, and spreads security risks. We should not and cannot tolerate a $9 billion hit on the software industry at a time of economic stress."

The report suggests that the United States has the lowest software piracy rate in the world, about 20%. Having the lowest software piracy rate isn't all that great; the United States lost about $9.1 billion (The largest dollar loss from the report). Armenia, Bangladesh, Georgia, and Zimbabwe all rank with a 90% piracy rate or higher. Central/Eastern Europe (67%) and Latin America (65%) are the highest-piracy regions, while North America (21%) and the European Union (35%) are the lowest-piracy regions.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows 7 box art leaks

Next Story

Facebook will not entirely ban anti-Holocaust groups

99 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It sounds big enough to get people's attention. In the age of trillion dollar bailouts, they needed to up their FUD propaganda game a notch...ahem.

I agree that piracy can cause financial damages to software companies. As one person already mentioned, companies like Stardock can be damaged because of the 60k copies of their game that got distributed that caused their networks to bog and forced their online play to suffer. This may have actually caused losses due to the perception of an inferior product when in reality the network was only designed for a much smaller capacity. However, Stardock was naïve enough to believe that Piracy didn't exist and so they didn't plan on their game getting copied and didn't have enough forethought to at least have very simple anti-piracy authentication. Something like how Steam handles software distribution could have saved them a whole lot of headaches. Anyway, my point is merely that piracy can cause losses but just not the way that was described in this article.

At the ridiculous price softwares are sold i don't think they lose much.

Software companies overprice to hell to compensate for piracy.

People should start using open source software or inexpensive alternatives. This way companies could not hide behind piracy for poor sales. I'm sorry but Photoshop doesn't worth the price asked by Adobe. For 99.99% of the illegal Photoshop users Gimp can do the job easily. In fact i heard even some pros are using Gimp.

I'm not an open source advocate. I am myself a programmer and i understand that to be paid someone has to buy the stuff i'm working on. I wanted to buy PowerDVD. Looks good. But over 100$ CAD for a software Blu ray player is ridiculous.

Each time i want to buy software i'm shocked when i see the price. Why would i pay 60$ CAD for an improved notepad like UltraEdit when i can simply use notepad++. I prefer UltraEdit and at 20-30$ i would buy it but 50$ wow. It's not like anyone mentally healthy would use UltraEdit to code or write an essay. It's good as an inproved notepad to quickly check source but nothing more i would never do a complete app using this as development environment.

The only app i bought on my PC is Bitdefender simply because i think the price for this software is right. I bought XP and Vista too because i like to play games. If i would not play games i would use Linux. All other softwares on my PC are open source or free to use. Open Office, Gimp, Inkscape, Avidemux, Infrared Recorder, Eclipse, VLC, Media PLayer Classic, ...

If corporate (governmental) businesses can rip there customers off being it entrapment offers to taxes to accusations and only get a few slapped on the wrist while others still profit, why can't we? We're just doing what the government does except we don't ruin lives to the extent they do. Think of it as a vice versa in karma. What comes around goes around be it in a different form. Microsoft likes to rip poeople off with 400+ OS software while we just make it more profitable to just share what is already given rights to those who've actually bought them. These days, people find it more to test a full working version of a software before actually buying it. Usually it means no restrictions in a trial. But if they really want to stop piracy, they should the approach that Daemon T does in there apps.

Also not that not everyone shares the views of 'you wouldn't have lost anything if they (didn't like it) wouldn't have bought it'. Many really low lifes try to profit from shared free content by scamming others so really, its a never ending vicious cycle where only they are the ones gaining the high end unless caught in the act.

P.S. Have no idea what I just wrote...

Why dont they bust the people that they get these statistics from? I mean they must be looking at some type of source, right?
*Wait - I'll be right back - my DVD's copies of Star Trek and Windows 8 and MAC OS 11 are ready to be sold on Craigs list

but on a slightly more serious side come on 53bilion in lost sales from what software that somebody wasn't keen on buying in the first place because it COST to much thats just ridiculas thinking nowonder the us economy is going under faster than the titanic

Please don't report randomly generated number as news. It is in the BSA's advantage to report inflated numbers, they are not a valid source for these kinds of statistics.

Precisely. This is how they justify their own budget and existence. It has no more validity or objectivity than when Symantec claims "antiviruses are on the rise, the end of the world is nigh!!! (please buy our product).


Pirates cost software industry $53 billion in 2008

he debate is likely going to heat up in governments around the world

Kind of ironic seeing as how the Government steals from us every paycheck.....

So is it to say they also take into account that after I buy a cd like (learn to use winxp back in the days) and installed the same copy on 10 different customers pc that is also piracy. should I buy 10 copies. duh.

All these studies always focus on the costs of Piracy. What about profits from piracy? All these so called "pirates" need hardware to run and store media. Has there been any study to find out much profits are made from piracy?

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees how much a load of CRAP this story is.

Let me gets this straight - you have a group of people that were NEVER going to buy certain pieces of software, but you some how count that as a LOSS?

Photoshop is a great example that has been used. Here is a drawing program that costs the same as many used cars.
I really doubt all the kids that downloaded it were EVER going to purchase something like that. If they were never going to buy it in the first place, how can this be considered a loss?

A pirate is not lost purchase. There are some people that will pirate a game to demo it, and then buy it if they like it. There are also people that simply cannot afford a game, and therefore will just pirate it, giving only benefit to that person as they would never purchase it anyway. Then there's always people who pirate for the hell of it and have no good reason to other than maybe supporting anti DRM. These are the people that they should be complaining about. These are the only "buys" they are losing.

I'm a selective pirate and quite proud. See, when I want to get the general look of what a game's like, I don't turn to the demo, I turn to the game itself. Companies (with good reason) tend to make the demo 100x better than their final product, showing the player the best of the best moments in hope they will buy to see more. Example: Blacksite: Area 51. That game sucked! I played the demo however and went nuts until I got the money to buy it, only to be disappointed at a lost 50$ and a regret of not looking into it more. That is today why I pirate games. If I don't like it, I simply delete it. If I deem it worthy of my money, I buy the game and unlock the full experience and multiplayer. That's just how I do things.

i pirate games but if i like it enough i'll actually go out and buy it if i dont it gets deleted and never see's the light of day again on my system i'll also tell all my friends dont bother it's a piece of turd dont waste your money my friends do the same for me

NEOWIN. REMEMBER TO USE A NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW. When you report statistics, please use titles such as "BSA: Pirates cost software industry 53 billion", "Pirates cost software industry 53 billion according to BSA" etc.

Since the BSA is just another RIAA/MPAA type corporate shill and lobby, it's CRITICAL to point that they are the source of these lies.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO full of horse manure composted into small pellets fed to damn pentagon ass fudging hypocrites ....

1 pirated - downloaded movie/game/program/porn does not mean a lost sale ... ****ing retarded politicians ...

since when ****ing ZIMBABUE has a 90% piracy when those guys don't even have shoes/clothes/houses ? ....

what kind of moron makes up this ****?

Despite the rantaliscious nature of your post, your point is quite valid.

Note that in addition to the pricing considerations I note above, the megacorps have consciously chosen to price their products beyond the means of 90% of the world's population.

The argument is simple. Because everything has become digital now, they know that if they charge $10 for Software A in China and $100 for the same software in the US, everyone in the US will buy the Chinese version for $10.

So, again, the companies go for the win win. They charge the wealthier buyers $100 and just don't release in the other countries, or release at the same ridiculous price as the US pays.

Then, when people in those countries HAVE to pirate the software (MS is in all reality a monopoly, for example) just to compete in the free world, the software companies cry foul, claiming lost revenues, etc. etc.

This gives them the ammo they need to work with their paid congressmen to pass laws...um...HERE in the US...that actually have nothing to do with stemming overseas bootlegging and everything to do with maximizing profits off the wealthy US consumers...even though they are the ones actually purchasing the real products at premium prices in the first place.

It's called Business 101 in the age of Corporatism and it's the way the world really works right now, unfortunately.

The good news is that, over the next few decades, standards of living will continue to level out, easing this disparity somewhat.

While i can understand this companies claiming that they have lost money on US or EU due to piracy how can they have lost money in countries, like latin american countries, where they dont distribute any software?. Its just ridiculous.

If software makers didn't have to spend time and money developing anti pirate tech in their software, it might be cheaper. However, since they have to, it will raise the cost of the software.

seems they'd better off selling a hundred copies at 10 bucks than 1 copy at 100 bucks and people pirating 99 copies thats just greed gimmie gimmie gimmie all your money and then some whats it going to cost in ten yrs a kidney a lung or your right arm and first born child

I take a more pragmatic approach to the debate.

Let's say EA posted a 'loss' of $45 last year and said this was down to the problem of software piracy. Well, I never purchased Spore but I didn't copy it or pirate it either, in fact I never even played it. Their 'loss' is because they sold one copy less than they expected to and not because that one copy was pirated. On that basis, it seems to me that it is the software publisher that has a perverted sense of entitlement... not any pirate. I am under no obligation to just give them my money, so why do they assume that I will just go out and buy it? Don't even get me started on the reasons why I didn't in this example...

As has been stated, it's software publishers finding a convenient reason to justify poor sales because some of their products are not good enough to sell and provide the adequate returns they expect on their costs of production - this is the inconvenient truth that no CEO would tell investors about. On the grounds that a pirate may never have intended to purchase the product at all in the first place, how do you equate a lost sale? And how therefore do you arrive at a figure of $53M?

I never remembered Sony creating such a fuss when the Walkman was the iPod of it's day and everyone was taping music all over the place. Back then, the music companies blamed the rise of the CD for falling sales in other areas. What comes around, goes around, and it's this type of overzealous target driven corporate greed that triggered the damn financial crisis in the first place.

I am not advocating piracy - nor would I support it, as I am sure some loss is down to that issue - but I cannot understand how such huge losses can be directly attributed to piracy alone. It's being used as a scapegoat.

well if they account or we do that ,Governmnent and small companies, use an illegal copy of Windows and/or Office programs , ya sure ,i bet that in several countries this is true

Face it when you put stuff on the Internet, where anyone can access it, it's going to happen. It comes with the territory, the Internet has really no enforceable law. If they banned every account that used illegal software, there would be even more money lost at connection level. And if people had no internet access they won't have access to the software and therefore can't even become a potential buyer, which results in even more money lost!.

Find a solution to solve this rather than bitch about it or just accept that its a part of the internet.

The reason people pirate is ONLY because of money, that is the bottem line!, no-one would pirate stuff if they can afford it! Any other reason is just made up so they can feel better about it! If someone can't afford that piece of software then there was no-money there in the first place to be a lost.
Also say it was a software like an OS that was need to run another software that they probably can afford and do shell out for then do you want to deny them the illegal copy of the OS, which would result in the lost sale of the legitimately paid for software?, So instead of loosing $53 billion you now lose $76 billion!
The current state is probably the most money maker realistically. It's never going to be perfect. If there was another way then I'm sure everyone would love to hear it!

I'm moving to free open source software, thats where the future of the internet will go anyway. GO LINUX, FREEDOMMMMMM!

I just wish articles like these would use "potential sales" instead of "losses". That way we could just debate about piracy and morals etc. instead of dealing with the obviously(purposefully?) vague definition of "loss".

The whole point of these so called articles is to accomplish exactly the opposite of what you hope they would. No one is actually interested in helping foster a rational argument about the situation.

In this case, the BSA charges software companies a fee, just like the RIAA and MPAA does with the big five content studios. This sort of hyperbole and FUD is how the BSA guarantees their budget year after year.

Note that this article needs to make a distinction between Software Bootlegging, the illegal sale of copies of software, and file-sharing, the free distribution of software via peer to peer.

The BSA scumbags are combining both in an effort to pump up the numbers as high as possible. That should be no surprise.

Unfortunately, it is backfiring on them, as the general public agrees that bootlegging is an issue worth tackling, but file sharing is not.

Note also that many business class software packages (like Adobe Photoshop) are priced specifically for businesses to purchase only. No one at Adobe expects home hobbyists to spend $600 for a paint program.

Companies like Adobe make a conscious choice to sell 10,000 units at $1,000 each rather than 100,000 units at $100 each because TECH SUPPORT is their highest ongoing cost. And it is MUCH cheaper to support 10,000 professional customers than 100,000 customers of all stripes.

So to count pirated, or bootlegged for that matter, copies of Photoshop in this total "loss" is utter fallacious. Even Adobe knows those are not lost sales. The freeware and student priced versions are designed to train new users who will drive sales if and when they get jobs (corporate or freelance) in the marketplace.

Everyone in the corporate sector knows this. It's SOP. But it's also SOP to lie about these numbers to help give good bought and paid for congressmen something to work with when they are creating new legislation. Ahem.

well maybe if they put out a good product in the first place they wouldn't have so many tech calls to contend with they only reason they'd get a call from all 100k users is if the product is shoddy to begin with in otherwords make you programers do their jobs properly clean tight code = smaller beter programes = less tech support = less people needed to answer the ph

@Atlonite, while i agree you have a point, the truth of the matter is that 99% of technical support calls are from end users who have done something stupid or just don't understand how to use the program they bought. It's really that simple.

Those of us who are technically literate get our answers on the Internet from our peers and don't call tech support.

How do they figure out these numbers? I mean, how do they know what's been stolen and what hasn't? And I agree with the first poster - just because someone pirates software doesn't mean that it's something they would have bought otherwise. I'm no saint when it comes to this, and I can safely say that I would have never bought some of the stuff I've downloaded over the years because of the outrageous prices. But lately, I've been enjoying finding free or far cheaper alternatives to the big name software, and have been pleased with the results.

here here +1 im the same and if adobe thinks im gonna pay 1200 bucks for PS then it needs to think again paintshop pro is $129 and the gimp is free between them i can do about all i need to do that PS would have been used for

I understand now. I had illegal copy of Windows XP that I cannot use Windows Update in 2003, when I get new PC bulit until I bought Windows XP Professional from best buy in 2004, because I was poor to buy new Windows XP in 2003 until 2004, so I can buy that one.

I already reformat the hard drive over illegal copy of Windows XP, so I clean the hard drive then I put new CD of Windows XP then it is activated.

I've learned that my friend taught me that I cannot use Windows Update when it is illegal copy any of Windows.

I remember that some tv show says please don't throw your CD or DVD of Windows XP, Vista or 7 in the future.

That is all I know...

so but evan MS want pirates to be safe you can use windows update to a certain extent your allowed security updates but not all the others

The main issue with the report and data is how they come to the findings. They use a flawed formula with expects everyone that buys a PC (CPU or motherboard) to purchase 5 pieces of software. Office software counts for 2 pieces. Do the math, it comes up wrong.

Of course, the pirates of the world are too wrapped up in their selfish sense of entitlement to care so who has to pick up the slack here? The honest people who have to continually pay higher prices for software thanks to piracy.

The biggest problem in piracy, as you can see in the comments here, is getting people to understand that it does cost the industry a lot of money. The only way to make people understand is to hold them accountable for their theft and that's something that just isn't a priority. How can we make people udnerstand that if everyone stole fotware there'd be no money to pay the salaries of those who make it? It's not rocket science it's pre-school economics.

As an honest customer, it is getting harder and harder to do what is right. Pirates are driving up the cost of my software and what's being done about it? Very little. Why should I be content to pay an inflated price for software when the people who steal it suffer no consequences?

Price are not driven by cost of production anymore. If companies sell 15billions more of software, you will still pay the same price. They will just make 15 billions more in benefits. I agree on the extreme.. if noone buys, the company would go under. But the reality is more complex than that. Microsoft and other with less than stellar products have better return by allowing piracy in poorer countries - which make users accustomed to their product - rather than cracking down piracy and allowing alternative software to be used.

I have been shocked by the mainstream aspect of piracy in certain countries - and I don't condone it. But I also despise the idea that I should buy several licenses to use the same software on my 3 computers at home.

You cannot, in any way, shape or form, blame software costs on Piracy. Companies would never have the sheer cheek to say that a rise in a license is purely because of piracy, because the "falling sales" route never stands up to anyone.

C_Guy start pirating software. Really, go do it. I'll wait. Let me know how many companies email you begging for that 10 dollars back. If none do, and if you don't hear of any companies spontaneously collapsing, then you really need to stop making so many assumptions about how the world works.

What company do you work for, C_Guy?
Your constant assertion that physical and virtual things are the same has started to make me think you've another incentive for these posts.

You can't say that the cost of software can't be blamed partly on pirates. Companies have to hire and develop ways to try to fight piracy. So they have to either pay a company to use their tech or develop their own. This takes time and money from the makers of the software which raises the cost to the purchaser.

By your logic pirates increase the amount of jobs necessary to make the world continue to function.

Edit: I don't think I made that clear enough. Producing jobs is generally regarded as a good thing.

It may be a good thing that jobs are created, but the software companies have to make up for the money they spend to hire people to do that job. So they normally have to raise the cost of the software to be able to pay those employees.

but then on the other hand if they just made their software more affordable to the average joe they wouldn't need to worry about piracy because everybody could afford to buy it take windows vista ultmate for example when it was released here in new zealand do you know how much it cost.... shall i tell you.... $995.95 who in their right friggin mind is going to pay that (yuppy drongos excluded) hmmm well would you i dearly doubt it now if it was $200 i would have bought it there and then and never thought about running a pirated copy good thing windows 7 rc is out so now i don't have to but if the end user cant afford it they'll most likely pirate it end of story i dont use PS because i dont need it but evan if i did i wouldn't pay the $1200 they want for it here either i'd find an alternative like gimp and paintshop pro

And the piracy justification rolls in, right on time.

HotDog: No high-horse, just a sense of right or wrong. Trust me, there's more of "us" than of "you".

shhac: That's nice but I work for a non-profit. Not that it matters.

I submit that you can't steal that which you can never own. There is no way to own software because the powers that be have decided that we can only be licensees and never owners. You've never owned that copy of Photoshop and you never will because Adobe has zero interest in you owning it. Adobe wants you to pay them for the right to use their software and as soon you do something which they deem against the rules they will gladly revoke said usage rights.

There is no sale lost as no sale was ever to be made. There's no theft as nothing is taken or removed. The data remains intact as copies are made. You can infringe on a copyright and abuse a license but you can not steal something which was never ever ever yours to own in the first place.

You can't steal software because you can never own it.

Ok so you are stealing the "right" or the "license" to use it. Why are you dancing around it? Stealing is still stealing.

I fully agree wi th you here. All pirates do is "use" the software. The quality products always make money. This is why Adobe is alive and well, even though most people who have PS have not paid for it.
|Software companies make most of their money through sales to businesses. And businesses buy their software as it is too risky for them to use unlicensed stuff.
As for movies, they are all ****. I personally download old movies (not hollywood), stuff from the German Democratic Republic, or the USSR, which you cannot buy. I do not consider this stealing. Education should be free

qdave said,
I fully agree wi th you here. All pirates do is "use" the software. The quality products always make money. This is why Adobe is alive and well, even though most people who have PS have not paid for it.

Actually, it's more like business and corporations can be totally taken the !@#$ down by a lawsuit if they are caught pirating, so they're very careful about it.

C_Guy said,
Ok so you are stealing the "right" or the "license" to use it. Why are you dancing around it? Stealing is still stealing.

Stealing is stealing but in this situation nothing is ever stolen. You can walk into a store and steal food and when you do that that food is gone forever but software remains. I can't download you out of a copy of Photoshop. Even if I went to your house and stole your Photoshop DVD I've still not removed your ability to use the software. The physical media is irrelevant in a licensee situation and it is supposed to be replaced by the license holder if something happens to it.

That's where I have a problem; if I'm never allowed to own data but rather only license it then my license should grant me infinite access to the data which I have licensed but it doesn't. It never has and most likely it never will. I can't, even as a legitimate license holder, call up Adobe and demand that they replace my broken media free of charge. They should since the vessel is irrelevant but they don't see it that way.

There is a whole hell of a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to what exactly a license grants an individual. The companies can't get it straight so how can they expect the users to?

Humans are quite ignorant to think that you can own ideas and that's all that this nebulous non-physical code is = ideas.

I can see this both ways. Granted cost of software is a big thing. However, companies have to look at their software getting pirated and decide to put that in consideration of the cost of their software. I know not everyone that pirates the software would purchase it if they couldn't pirate it, however, some would. Companies have to make up some revenue by raising the cost. Just like normal stores do with shoplifters.

If people were to purchase the software legally, then the economy may improve that much faster because it adds revenue to the companies and that means less layoffs.

None of your arguments about how people may not have bought the product justify piracy. Fact of the matter is they do lose out on sales. Probably not as much as they say because some people wouldn't have bought the product, but that doesn't go for everyone.

Either way it's a **** argument to defer the point away from the fact that piracy is wrong.

LiquidSolstice said,
Yes, do tell me what company has gone under because of piracy.


Microsoft has cut thousands of jobs. The videogame industry has lost some 8000+ jobs and many companies.

Just because a company doesn't go under doesn't mean they're not hurting. I don't know where you get your logic from.

stifler6478 said,
Microsoft has cut thousands of jobs. The videogame industry has lost some 8000+ jobs and many companies.

Just because a company doesn't go under doesn't mean they're not hurting. I don't know where you get your logic from.

That's not because of piracy. It's because of the bad economy. Which is mostly caused by American companies outsourcing to save some money. But the companies don't realize outsourcing hurts them in the long run because the money payed to the outsourced workers will not get used in America.

$ 53 billion worth of equitable sharing of resources in the world Vs. $53 billion worth of fictious assets on the balance sheet of few corps! i like it!

pallavsuri said,
$ 53 billion worth of equitable sharing of resources in the world Vs. $53 billion worth of fictious assets on the balance sheet of few corps! i like it!

I completely agree, it is really incredible how these big companies make to pretend that they lose something that is digitally available to be sell or as a trial. That's bull****. That's fiction assets that greedy corp. america ceo's trying to brain wash the government for more strong laws against piracy. A complete joke.

They cant claim they lost something they never had. Who is to say that all those copies of Photoshop would have been legitimately purchased in the first place? I don't know about you but i will not pay that much for software, i use Jasc paint shop pro 9 from back in the day and it works great, only cost me 39 dollars too.

So for someone to put a dollar amount on the profits lost that they never had in the first place, that's just silly. They dont even know if those people would have or could have even purchased it to begin with.

This is especially true with the "Credit Crunch" here, I would have thought people were less likely to buy stuff and just pirate instead (possibly just to try it out and then buy it later).

Lets say we are talking about cars. I can't afford a Ferrari so i'll just steal one, it's not like I can afford to buy it so not really a loss of sale.

The reply to the loss of earnings you guys are using is flawed. Bandwidth, servers, power & servicing that automatic update requires will cost Adobe/Microsoft money.

McDave said,
Lets say we are talking about cars. I can't afford a Ferrari so i'll just steal one, it's not like I can afford to buy it so not really a loss of sale.

The reply to the loss of earnings you guys are using is flawed. Bandwidth, servers, power & servicing that automatic update requires will cost Adobe/Microsoft money.

Your logic is fatally flawed because only Ferrari can create the car, and usually, the car is not built until it is ordered.

Software (albeit with a few extra steps) can be be copied by anyone who knows the Ctrl C Ctrl V combination.

So yes, your Ferrari example is useless. Unless the pirates are stealing teh physical CDs, and even then, it's not financially much more than pure digital content, they are not "losing" money.

The reply comparing software theft to grand theft auto is flawed. If you take a Ferrari, there is a loss of sale, because it can no longer be sold since it is in the thief's possession. With software, there is no transfer of possession.

McDave said,
Lets say we are talking about cars. I can't afford a Ferrari so i'll just steal one, it's not like I can afford to buy it so not really a loss of sale.

The reply to the loss of earnings you guys are using is flawed. Bandwidth, servers, power & servicing that automatic update requires will cost Adobe/Microsoft money.

The loss via bandwidth etc is more relevant, I guess it's particularly important for MS, but I wonder how many pirates will connect regularly to Adobe to download updates. Surely there's a serial check involved?

micro said,
They cant claim they lost something they never had. Who is to say that all those copies of Photoshop would have been legitimately purchased in the first place? I don't know about you but i will not pay that much for software, i use Jasc paint shop pro 9 from back in the day and it works great, only cost me 39 dollars too.

So for someone to put a dollar amount on the profits lost that they never had in the first place, that's just silly. They don't even know if those people would have or could have even purchased it to begin with.


Dude, I don't know why this concept is so hard for people to grasp. After the years of debate over piracy, you think they'd come to understand this.

Piracy is not the same as physical theft, people. Nothing is transferred, so nothing is lost.

Ridiculous.

So i'm wrong about the whole car thing, you got me.

But what about Demigod? People copying that game really hurt them.

McDave said,
So i'm wrong about the whole car thing, you got me.

But what about Demigod? People copying that game really hurt them.

Those who dispute the BSA's conjured figures do not necessarily agree with or endorse piracy, nor are they against the companies that report these losses. However when we read bull****, we point it out. Same argument, different day. Oh wells.

Murkey said,

The loss via bandwidth etc is more relevant, I guess it's particularly important for MS, but I wonder how many pirates will connect regularly to Adobe to download updates. Surely there's a serial check involved?

That really is negligible. As you probably already know, they don't download the pirated software from the developers site. As for updates, you're talking about 50 MB every six months maybe? And that's pushing it. To say it costs them a great deal of money for the upkeep simply doesn't have impact as the loss would be so minuscule.