Trade group lists top 10 pirated software

The Software & Information Industry Association released its annual Anti-Piracy year in review this week, noting that it reached its largest piracy settlement yet in a case against Florida Benchmark – which was found using unlicensed software and ended up paying $150,000 – and its first settlement through its Corporate Content Anti-Piracy Program.

Among other things, the SIIA also made a list of the titles most pirated by companies and titles most pirated via the internet, much of which consisted of security tools from Symantec and productivity and design tools from Adobe – makes you wonder if Adobe's high price points have anything to do with them being a prime piracy target. Check out the lists in full after the jump.

2007 Software Titles Most Frequently Pirated By Companies
1. Symantec Norton Anti-Virus
2. Adobe Acrobat
3. Symantec PC Anywhere
4. Adobe PhotoShop
5. Autodesk AutoCAD
6. Adobe DreamWeaver
7. Roxio Easy CD/DVD Creator
8. Roxio Toast Titanium
9. Ipswitch WS_FTP
10. Nero Ultra Edition

2007 Software Titles Most Frequently Pirated on the Internet
1. McAfee VirusScan
2. Symantec Norton Anti-Virus
3. McAfee Internet Security Suite
4. Intuit TurboTax
5. Adobe Photoshop
6. Adobe Acrobat
7. Intuit Quicken Home and Business
8. Symantec Norton pcAnywhere
9. Symantec Norton Ghost
10. Adobe Creative Suite

View: techspot.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Miranda 0.8.0 Testing #10 available

Next Story

Comcast denies crowd shaping

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

well i can see why Vista and XP are not on the list for business or personal, because the majority of people will go out and buy a poor pc from pc world/comet/currys etc.. and use that, which comes with a legal licence we hope, or they are doing mass copyright infringement...

Adobe stuff i can see making the list due to the price tag attached, but if you are going to make money out of using these programs go and pay for a licence. Don't you think that people should be paid for their work if you are getting paid for yours?

If people don't pay for the paid applications they may get stopped developement, or go freeware!!!

VLCPlayer is the best media player and its free!!!

Well I have to agree most Microsoft Software should be in the top 5.

The reason you don't see XP or Vista because they are not software but an OS.

This is strictly about software. If businesses used Firefox they could also use FireFTP as their FTP client. So not only would they have the best browser but a fairly good FTP client to do what most probably need a client for.

I can see Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft definitely as the top 3 makers of software that gets pirated. Office definitely should have been number 1 on the list.

Of course the 2 most famous burning programs would also be on the list in Roxio and Nero.

Corporations usually have most of the top companies listed for their software and the top list definitely has all of them there. Those softwares are always going to be there, from the AV progs, to graphics, to burning, to productivity.

As far as home users they pretty much should be the same as the Corporate users only because once used at work they usually want to have the same items at home thinking they are the best tools available. The thinking what is best for them at work should also hold true for them at home.

Most of the other programs many have mentioned are usually tools or programs used by those of us more geeky in the business and for the more computer literate home user... Knowing that many freewares or open source are usually better than the big company software and that we would take the time to learn something newer, unlike those corporate users or the basic home users... If this wasn't just software music and movies are definitely the top two pirated items even over software, that would fall in at dead last of the 3...

From the report...

"The report also profiled the ten most-pirated SIIA-member software titles for the first time. For 2007, the most pirated software titles were:"

There is a reason MS does not feature, they are not members of SIIA

Now you've gone and killed a perfectly good conspiracy theory, as well as all the "professionals" arguing why MS products should be higher on the list. You, you come around here with your facts, spoiling the wild guesses and bizarre opinions. You, Sir, should be ashamed of yourself!

(SniperX said @ #22.1)
Now you've gone and killed a perfectly good conspiracy theory, as well as all the "professionals" arguing why MS products should be higher on the list. You, you come around here with your facts, spoiling the wild guesses and bizarre opinions. You, Sir, should be ashamed of yourself! :)

How was I (and others) supposed to know that that the "SIIA" doesn't include Microsoft!?

I guess that explains it. It's not like all these people were complaining "conspiracy theory".

bah.. Norton and Mcafee. I hate those two product with major passion, memory hug and slow the **** of out some systems.

I'm super surprise that Windows XP Corp is not on the list..

why are people "agreeing" and "disagreeing" with the list? It's not like it's somebody's opinion. It's obtained through statistics.

because somehow many of us think of some other software titles that are more pirated that those in this list.

i think "our lists" would figure XP, Vista, Office and other programs like LimeWire Pro, WinZIP, Kaspersky, NOD32, WinAmp Pro, and others.

I wonder how they obtain the statistics. I don't think that companies actually share their "phone home" data with other institutions.

Actually, if you follow the paper trail back to the SIIA website and download the actual report, you'll find a table which does indicate what we already know.

Haha agreed, if a pirate is going to pirate Norton (for example) wouldn't common sense dictate that he has already pirated his OS (XP/Vista)? :P

No microsoft products or nod32 or kaspersky?
Anyways, its funny to see people are still bothering with *full retail* of norton, nero and acrobat. They should rather spend some time looking for better alternatives.

That list is fake cuz there is no microsoft stuff on there. I would find it extremely hard to believe that more people pirate norton than say windows xp or windows vista.

im gonna have to say no, because most computers already come with XP or now Vista installed, so why would people pirate something they already have....now if you have xp and WANT vista, thats a different story, but most people now have vista already, and most users don't care about ultimate, so why pirate it.

(michael.dobrofsky said @ #10)
Where's MS Office in this list? Surely it'd make top 10?

It definitely should be. Everyone has pirated copy of MS Office at home. As a matter of fact, it may be the most pirated software of all, not counting Windows XP.

Based on stats from p2p sites, I'd say these are the top five pirated programs:

1. Windows XP
2. MS Office
3. Photoshop
4. Nero
5. WinRAR

Runners up:

Dreamweaver
NOD32
Zone Alarm (lots of clueless people out there, eh?)
Windows Vista (so much for WGA)

Why would people pirate Norton Anti-virus, pirate know better than that! Arrr! LOL!
Surprised Nod32 isn't there...

So you think companies illegally obtain and use an optical media creation suite far more often than security or office software? Or that more Internet pirates steal a professional multimedia creation suite than a virus scanner? :P

Funny, I expected Adobe CS to be higher on the list lol. Dunno why stupid businesses would pirate ws_ftp when filezilla is free.

for FREE ftp clients.... i think filezilla aint bad but it lacks stuff that FlashFXP has (which is my prefered ftp client) as it's got a perfect interface and has alot of features like site to site transfers and ssl stuff and a feature i use fairly often like 'right click > sort by > name/date' which filezilla dont have.

(smctainsh said @ #4.2)
Norton AntiVirus 2008 is a good anti-virus program.

Compared to bad AV software maybe it is, but not compared to the best AV software; e.g. Kaspersky, NOD, Avira Antivr, AVG, Avast, and F-Secure.

(smctainsh said @ #4.2)
Norton AntiVirus 2008 is a good anti-virus program.

No it isn't, norton from 1996 is probably better, only good thing is that it has a nice looking interface, other than that it is complete junk

Why do home users pirate Adobe Acrobat (I assume Professional)? I do understand Photoshop, because it's the foremost photo editor, and everyone wants the best, instead of paying for less capable software.

And yet although Adobe does incorporate copy protection you don't hear them ranting on over people pirating their software. The reason Photoshop and Dreamweaver are pretty much industry standards is because of all the people who are familiar with the software from obtaining them illegally... which in turn lands up as future sales from bigger companies and individuals. I'm sure plenty is not almost all people who bought Adobe's (and Macromedia's before they became part of Adobe) stuff at one point had a "shady" copy.

And that many people pirate Norton Anti-virus? Ewww.

i agree with you about the norton stuff lol... but then again it's probably pirated cause it's a known 'name' unlike MUCH better av software like NOD32.

on a side note... i dont use ANY of that software listed lol ... cause the burning apps they list are crappy especially easy cd creator and lately even nero is getting quite bloated... nero 6 was the last good verson of nero.

nowadays i use FREE burning software like.. ImgBurn (for pretty much all my data burning needs) and Burrrn (for all my audio burning needs)

(Tha Bloo Monkee said @ #1)
Photoshop doesn't surprise me at all. Considering that it costs what, $1000?

I didn't expect to see things like TurboTax, lol.

Photoshop is expensive so I can understand pirating it. But I can't really imagine someone uploading TurboTax to a warez site or anything lol.

(Mythex said @ #1.1)
Photoshop is expensive so I can understand pirating it. But I can't really imagine someone uploading TurboTax to a warez site or anything lol.
Photoshop is expensive, so I can understand people using free alternatives like GIMP or Paint.NET.

Photoshop is needed if you are a professional, and require advanced colorspaces, such as CYMK. In those cases, I am sure you can afford it or write it off as a business expense.

(markjensen said @ #1.2)
Photoshop is expensive, so I can understand people using free alternatives like GIMP or Paint.NET.

Photoshop is needed if you are a professional, and require advanced colorspaces, such as CYMK. In those cases, I am sure you can afford it or write it off as a business expense.

I don't think he meant "understand" as in "it's justified". I think it was more "I can see why people do it".

(Gilly said @ #1.3)
I don't think he meant "understand" as in "it's justified". I think it was more "I can see why people do it".
The only reason I can see is that people are dumb. They don't realize Paint.NET and GIMP can do the job for home users for free. They see the price tag for the professional level app, and just decide to rip off a copy, whining "but I neeeeeeed it!" like spoiled little brats.

(markjensen said @ #1.6)
I really think that little snide personal attacks are uncalled-for. If you are going to insult me, at least come out and be a man about it instead of prancing around the words with "maybe or maybe".

The rest of your post was trash used to justify warez to yourself, and is of no value.


LOL, your remark was nothing but snide and insulting to basically anyone who doesn't think like you. What gives you the right to throw around the dumb and child remarks? Disregarding my argument as trash outright is often what those who have no valid rebuttal do. Obviously, using logic makes no difference to someone who has already made up their mind. Your argument is baseless and invalid that takes the black and white and rather greedy 'I made it so you don't get to use it at all unless you pay what I demand' viewpoint. Sorry but that doesn't fly with some, including myself.

You want details on your post? Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of your points:

  • "paint.net and gimp are nice and all but they are not as feature rich as Photoshop". I already explained that Photoshop's big advantage is its professional CYMK colorspace for print shops. What other features out there for home photo touchup that you used as an example, but don't exist in paint.net or gimp?
  • "the people that download photoshop could not afford or would not buy it". This I don't want to buy it, so I will just pirate it is simply no justification for warez.
  • "copying 1s and 0s does in no way hurt Adobe". The worn out old they are a big company, so it's ok excuse.
We've seen this "I'll take it if I want it" attitude in the forums plenty of times. There is no way to convince you that it is wrong, as the desire to get it free clouds your reason.

(markjensen said @ #1.8)
You want details on your post? Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of your points:
  • "paint.net and gimp are nice and all but they are not as feature rich as Photoshop". I already explained that Photoshop's big advantage is its professional CYMK colorspace for print shops. What other features out there for home photo touchup that you used as an example, but don't exist in paint.net or gimp?
  • "the people that download photoshop could not afford or would not buy it". This I don't want to buy it, so I will just pirate it is simply no justification for warez.
  • "copying 1s and 0s does in no way hurt Adobe". The worn out old they are a big company, so it's ok excuse.
We've seen this "I'll take it if I want it" attitude in the forums plenty of times. There is no way to convince you that it is wrong, as the desire to get it free clouds your reason.


1. What's your point? How does that pertain to my argument at all? Why can't someone who is using it for personal photo touchup use it? Some people may use it for more than simple gamma or red eye adjustments as well.

2. Such a comment is no justification for your claim. I gave reasons, what have you done? All you did was put words in my mouth without citing why. Why is that not a justification? Because the creators aren't making $650 extra per household on a family that wants to use it for general photo editing and playing around with? Again, that reasoning doesn't fly with me. Like I said, if you use the program to make money then you ought to buy it yourself, if you use it only for personal use than it really doesn't or shouldn't matter. No one would know unless they went sticking their noses into people's personal lives for the purpose of personal gain, ie. greed.

3. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. You're right, there is no way to convince me that it is wrong because it isn't. Get it now. You write a piece of code and it gets distributed online, you don't know how many people have it because it neither takes nor puts money in your pocket unless someone buys it, then it only puts money in your pocket. The whole "potential profit loss" is certainly one worn out and old unprovable excuse. It is an excuse by those who would make more money if they could convince the world that everyone that downloaded something would have bought it otherwise and is complete nonsense. That is why they have tried and thus far failed at every attempt to do so.

My reasoning is very logical, your reasoning is not. Your reasoning is based entirely on the me me me generation that believes everyone owes them something. Anyone that believes they are going to make a fortune on writing a program that is based on thin air and costs them nothing to produce is fooling themselves. You must belong in that bracket otherwise you wouldn't care. Sorry to burst your bubble if that is the case.

Oh and thanks John S, you're doing a bang up job deleting posts (and all the info rather than just the "insulting part").