Software piracy: An overview

Software piracy: An overview SOFTWARE PIRACY IN AFRICA Software piracy is a combination of two different words which are software and piracy. Software can be defined as generic term for computer programs which operate the computer itself; Also Microsoft Encarta dictionary defined the word software as programs and applications that can be run on a computer system. Piracy can simply be defined as the unauthorized reproduction, doubling and distributing or use of copyrighted materials; as for this software piracy can be the illegal copying of software for distribution within the organizations, schools, homes or to friends, clubs and other groups, or for duplication, selling, and installing multiple copies onto personal and work computers. Citizens duplicate or copy software illegally from Macromedia, Adobe, Symantec, Autodesk, Microsoft, Grisoft e.t.c. Africa happens to be the worlds largest and second among the most heavily populated continent after Asia; it has different ethnic group. According to the piracy rate, Africa is one of the highest continents that has or make pirated soft wares in the world. With a 36% piracy rate, South Africa has the lowly piracy rate in Africa, where Nigeria and Kenya are the highest within the region as for 2000-2001 with 71% and 77% respectively as Zimbabwe has the highest in the world where South Africa has just one proportion above the overall average of 35%, according to the 3rd yearly International Data Corporation (IDC) and Business Software Alliance (BSA) overall software piracy study unconfined recently. South Africas piracy rate has decreased one proportion point in the current year, however still represents a 1.2b rand thrashing. The minor decrease in software piracy is qual ified to government act and the obtaining of renowned laptops other than desktop computers full by local assemblers. According to Stephan le Roux, the chairman of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) in South Africa in the following site: http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1516s=latestnews Editor, Maricelle Ruiz, IBLS Director Africa Wednesday, June 14, 2006 Software piracy ruins one of the main hurdles to understand the possible of the information economy in South Africa, on the continent and certainly roughly the world, As we are happy that piracy levels are dropping, there is still an anxiety for our local economy that over a third of software in use is against the law. This anxiety rises when you look at some countries in Africa, where as few as one in ten copies of packaged software are legally paid for. Due to the analysis made, the average rate for the African countries reviewed surpassed 70%, in Zimbabwe 90% of the software used is illegal and banned. Jointly with Vietnam, Zimbabwe has the maximum software piracy rate in the world. The mainstream of the African countries for which exact data is available Cameroon (84%); Botswana and Ivory Coast, Algeria and Zambia (83%), Nigeria and Senegal (82%), Tunisia and Kenya (81%) have a piracy rate above 80%. The study estimates that the rest of the countries in Africa, incorporated under the entry of extra Africa, have an average piracy rate of 84%. Egypt has been running to turn out to be a center for Arabic software, but also it has a 64% piracy rate with proportion point lower than the preceding year; while Morocco, which has just been highly praised by the humanity Intellectual Property Organization for adopting dealings to improve its IP system, contained a 68% piracy rate four proportion points lower than the preceding time. Morocc o is among the four countries with the leading proportion point in the preceding year. According to Angola press, quoting Hlatshwayo in http://www.warsystems.hu/?p=189 by bodo on 16/10/06 Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Botswana and Kenya are named as the principal culprits; and As a result of piracy in Africa Microsoft lost $31 million between 2004 and 2006. Many African developing countries need to have IT staffs and implements ICT to joint the todays global world, but to purchase single software is too expensive where they use this reason and makes piracy or uses pirated software; what ever be the case, reasons for copying or making piracy are categorized into 3: 1) purpose of use, 2) economic reasons, and 3) legal reasons. Purpose of use Reasons in this compilation transmit to the reason of use (non-commercial use, running purposes at home, studying, testing) or to the method of using the software (momentary use, compatibility reasons). The subsequent examples demonstrate these views: It is satisfactory in non-business use (for example, studying); it is not satisfactory for trade purposes. You preserve not research by means of costly software earlier than you purchase it experimenting previously makes executive simple and gives self-assurance, I experience the licensing cost for many equipment foolishly patronize while I work at home in addition to at work. Economic reasons In this compilation, the purpose for the illegal duplication of software is based on economic issues. According to respondents, the motives after these reasons are paucity (lack of money) and the wish to accumulate or save money (cost-benefit/efficiency). The subsequent extracts demonstrate these views: In a family there is a jobless computer professional who needs to preserve and keep up his professional Skills, but the family has no money, so the only opportunity is unlawful or illegal copying of computer software. The cost-benefit association does not arrive up to hope. think, for example, games, which one can only play from first to last once, and which outlay 250-350 Finnish marks 50-70 USD/EURO. Legal reasons In this compilation, the purpose for illegal duplication of software is based on legal issues. According to respondents, the rule was measured conventional, or it does not believe duplication as illegal doings. Examples follow: It is not unlawful for personal persons (in Finnish rule this subject is not an illegal offence as far as persons are concerned) the accessible rule is bad, hard and conventional concerning this issue. Software piracy is an act that is against the law and has many problems or harms; among the problems of software piracy are: Software companies compact with very high losses due to software piracy. Pirates expand a lot of money from their software piracy. People are not attentive that what they are doing is a crime. Reasons why the unauthorized copying of software is unacceptable are clustered into three different content categories: negative consequences, free software available, moral and legal reasons and other reasons. Negative consequences The reasons under this compilation are based on the perceived negative consequences of the unauthorized doubling of software. According to respondents, the duplication of software brings on the following kinds of harmful penalty: the worth of software grow weaker, Systems run out since people in all-purpose are not paying software, the cost of software rises and the motion affects sincere and truthful users. Some respondents wrote in ACM Digital library p-siponen: It is possible that the software will weaken in quality, if the software does not bring in anything (widespread copying). The producers of programs lose money and their future production [of software] will suffer. The price of software stays high because only a few buy software. Moral and legal reasons The respondents alleged wickedness at the same time as reasons against illegal copying of Software. Examples are as follows: dishonesty; if unlawful software is used on behalf of earning then that work is morally wrong. If software is duplicated destined for earning money or if it is copied in huge amounts or if individual earns ones income through repetition or copying, I believe those actions wrong I have lawfully bought some of the software I use, but I also have copies of software. If I ever need program/programs for purposes of earning my living, I will definitely buy it/them. The question here is Why Do Piracy Rates Differ? Generally unspecified factors to clarify piracy were grouped into four categories: economic factor, technical factor, regulatory factor and social factor. By looking at each of them individually: Economic Factors. Researchers have long documented the consequence of software price in piracy. According to Shin et al after his research in ACM Digital Library p-bagchi suggest that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is inversely related to software piracy level. Given the decrease in software prices, it may be that a countrys GDP has less of an effect on piracy than it did some years ago. GDP was bringing into being to be a major marker of piracy in 1996 however not in 2001 or in 2003. More, GDP only might give explanation barely 62%à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬63% of the difference in piracy. These findings may help clarify why dissimilar studies have indoors at dissimilar conclusions regarding the Role of GDP. It appears that the shrink in comparative cost of software has pointed the need for piracy. Specified the raise in piracy above this time, nevertheless, it follows that supplementary factors are concerned, and promote that these factors are rising in shock. Technical Factors. Software piracy is assumed to be more widespread in nations with low IT infrastructure given that the eminence of existing software is minor. Thus, people frequently copy and work with pirated software. The difficulty is compounded as software revisions occur. While the necessitate to remain ready for action in the course of upgrades is essential, it is meaningful only if reasonable lots of researchers also consider that software piracy has also flourished through the beginning of the Internet given that some Web sites offer a complimentary software or at prices cheaper than the manufacturers. Regulatory Factors. By commanding elevated tariffs, therefore ever-increasing the cost of software, governments may innocently support piracy. Developing nations repeatedly enforce elevated tariffs on computer products and thus their piracy rates are superior. It is also thought that low censures for import and elevated accessibility of pirated software are also reasons for piracy growth. Copyright rules are well thought-out foreign-induced, without problems understood and outlying fewer strictly forced. According to Meso et al in ACM Digital Library p-bagchi he identified enforcement of copy write laws as a salient issue in the development of a sound national IT policy. However, governments do not consistently implement such rules, partly because of lax law-enforcement facilities and institutional traditions that tend to ignore corruption. Thus, while enforcement of intellectual property rights and proper education may alleviate the problem, in reality few offenders are caught or pr osecuted. Occasional raid s from law-enforcement authorities have seldom disturbed the flow of pirated software. In nations that allow pirated software to be sold at lower prices, black markets have flourished. Individuals and companies in these nations may not even be aware that buying pirated software is illegal since the software has an aura of legitimacy. The overall effect of low censure and easy availability can be captured by the indicator of corruption. Corruption can be defined as the charge of obtaining rights that merely the State can lawfully award, such as preference in loans, taxation, subsidies, tariffs, regulation, and government contracting. Social/Cultural Factors. These factors pass on to the established social or construction of a country and the attitudes joint by members of that society. Single assess of social or public structure is the merit between independence, an insecurely joined social network where people take care of themselves and collectivism, a strongly joined social network where the group reaction is strong. Software piracy is popular in collectivistic societies where people tend to create a psychological detachment among members of the in-group and the out-group. Obligations or devotion to in-groups are measured awfully essential, and in switch over people look forward to that members of in-groups will look after them. Out-groups, on the other hand are not deemed valuable of esteem, given that they do not donate to the broad comfort of the in-group. In such societies, software purchased by a person is estimated to be collective among members of the in-group. given that nearly all collectivistic societ ies lean to be third-world or developing countries, software producers in overseas nations are viewed as out-group Even though software piracy is against the law there are certain companies that benefit from software piracy; according to the president of Microsoft Corps business division within a question at Morgan Stanley Technology Conference the president Jeff Raikes, he admitted to facilitate the companys benefits on or after software piracy in an obvious tilt of the hat to the open basis software giving out replica; he also added by saying there was a well line among seeing high numbers of consumers and making sure that they are using genuine products. He said our favorite objective is that we would like people to use our product. If theyre going to plagiarize someone, we would like it to be us to a certain extent than someone else, he further says. And thats because we appreciate that in the long run the basic benefit is the install foundation of people who are working with our products. Also in addition to that, according to Adrian a technology journalist and author who has devoted over a decade to helping users gets the most from technology. He also runs a popular blog called The PC Doctor. http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=111 on 4 October 2006 said I have a propensity to control my property here to hardware related matters, but I experience forced to remark on the newest twistsin theWindows Genuine Advantage saga. This newest twist is the declaration that Windows Vista is to containtechnology comparable to WGA intoit.This statement came out on 4 October 2006viaMicrosoft Press Pass in the form of a press release announcing software protection platform (SPP). Now, whileI dont overlook software piracy for a minute, I use to get it tough tomake much compassionfor the Redmond monster. The method that Microsoft has implemented SPP and WGA doesnt formulate it obvious that the judgment agreed on a PC can be flawed. As an alternative they areforcing individuals who by mistake accused of software piracy to excavate bottomless hooked on their pockets and come up with an additional $149, all because of a software virus. That isnt just incorrect, its wickedness. Allow me suggest the subsequent reaction to career: mistakenly condemning somebody of software piracy is in addition not victimless. See, the thing that bothers me concerning Windows Genuine Advantage and Software Protection Platform is not so much the technology but rather the Draconian way Microsoft is wielding this power over users. Microsoft is confidently dedicated to the perspective that everyone flagged as running a duplicated copy of Windows have to be running a duplicated copy. If the system works and just picks up on individuals running non-genuine copies of Windows, thats great. The world believes that everything that has advantages must have disadvantages; after the advantage of software piracy according to some communities and companies; software piracy disadvantages many people through different ways like the pirate, manufacturers, permanent consumer. If the pirate is caught, he or she spend time in prison, faces rigid and the company also decides to force down charges; a pirate is very liable to download a Trojan or even spy ware, but due to the fact that he likely does a lot of downloading in general, and also because many invented cracks and keygens are actually malware in costume. If pirates are pirating software from a particular company, the company does not receive as much money for their product. To manufacture software can be very expensive, and the cost needs to be recouped in the shear bulk of sales. Due to lack of revolving large profit, they cannot have enough money to finance another round of development, research and also cannot produce new and enhanced versions. The consumers has to deal with the improved anti-piracy safeguards, such as entering product activation key code, and sometimes even a special dongle one must plug into their computer; categorize the company who makes the software to offset the effects mentioned above, they have to increase the per-copy price of the software. Even Microsoft is not immune to this, thats why they created a $300 version of windows vista, even though XP professional only cost perhaps $200. Software piracy has different issues like ethical, professional, social, and legal. Looking at the ethical and professional issues we have: Programmers and the theater artists lose income when copying and repetition is frequent; due to extreme software piracy software companies loses a lot. Certainly we have the freedom to make a copy for a friend, but are duplicating of software an act of sympathy on our part or an act that need kindness reaction from the programmer? Even though large-scale marketable piracy is inferior, individual duplicating is still not ethical. Pricing that is far lower than the manufacturers price can be a warning, but lots of people believe they are getting a good buy not a pirated program. Social issues are: There are lots of things we cannot find the money for; so not being able to afford software is not an excuse for duplicating it. The amount and success of a company do not give reason for enchanting from it. The quantity of people copying software does not verify if it is right or not. People buy pirated software without realizing what theyre doing i.e. without knowing the implications of doing it. Customers use to buy products, such as books and CDs that can be shared with friends and family. There are lots of ways customers can be fooled; in the sense that a pirated software dealer can sale many soft wares with a single key to the customers and within some days the software will request for original key. Legal issues are: But if you buy Windows, it doesnt belong to you, its Microsofts; theyre just leasing you use it. Software piracy gets 7 years in prison Is against the copyright law There are certain options to reduce software piracy; the solutions are categorized into four, namely ethical, social, legal, and market. We have protection under ethical, applying laws under legal, education under social and detection under market. Make sure the protection of leisure industry, publishers and software companies savings expected, or hoped-for revenues. Apply on hand laws, policy, guidelines or increase new ones to protect copyright owners, but also to look after fair use, sensible community access, and the chance to use new technologies to the fullest to supply new services. Technical, executive and lawful solutions include technologies to frighten duplication, selling and contractual changes that reduce the motivation to duplicate unlawfully. Educating with reference to the purpose for copyright guard, enforcement and reconsideration of copyright law. Ensure that citizens who work in manufacturing, marketing, and management are paid for the time and exertion they put to produce the vague academic property we benefit from. Also in addition to how to reduce or avoid software piracy in Africa on Monday, 30 July 2007 an article was released in http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=4dir=2007/July/Monday30 with the following heading: China in Raids to Limit Software Piracy in Africa The fight against computer software piracy in Africa has received a boost following raids and arrests made in southern China over the last two weeks, the result of the largest investigation of its kind in the world. The Public Security Bureau (PSB) in China, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and hundreds of personal companies and allies have been functioning as one to crack a most important software forging association. The association was supposedly liable for distributing US$2 billion (about P12.3 billion) value of forged Microsoft software to 27 countries around the world, as well as Nigeria. Not only did this putting off software resellers from making lawful revenues, it also bare users to the risks related with using pi rated software. The forged goods detained in the raids comprised 13 of Microsofts most well-liked products, counting Windows Vista, Office 2007, Office 2003, Windows XP and Windows Server. Microsoft appreciates the work of Chinas Public Security Bureau in taking such burly enforcement action with these arrests and raids in southern China, said Abednego Hlatshwayo, Anti-Piracy Manager at Microsoft East and Southern Africa. This issue is supposed to serve as a come around call to forgers. Consumers and other organizations in the region of the world are revolving you in, and important act will be taken to defend intellectual property. In conclusions I learn that the software company is an area where home businesses can compete well with multinationals in both local and foreign markets. Yet, without suitable security in less-developed countries mainly African countries where piracy rates are reasonably higher, software pirates can devastate the income streams of small companies that have managed to effectively create particular niches in the companies. That piracy could be helpful to companies without the occurrence of Network effect. If customers have major dissimilarities in their minor value of Money, piracy can shrink competition and increase companys earnings. The solution to the Assessment is the fact that the same amount of money represents different worth to different customers. Poor customers usually value money more than rich customers. The companies therefore need to appoint in more excited competitions to attract these customers, which could be harmful on the whole profits of the company. And all softwa re companies should joint Hand and tackle the pirates via applying laws, educating and detecting them. REFERENCES: www.google.com www.about.com http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1516s=latestnews http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=111 http://www.warsystems.hu/?p=189 Multi Agency Working: Child Vunerability Multi Agency Working: Child Vunerability There is a wealth of governmental documentation and policy reforms upholding the notion of agencies working in partnership to support vulnerable children. Previously to these reforms there had been a history of fragmentation between agencies and the therefore a inherent failure to share information resulting in catastrophic gaps in the support of vulnerable children. This was emphasised by Lord Laming (2002), and then the subsequent investigations and publication of the Climbie report (2003) post the preventable death of Victoria Climbie. The perceived importance of early identification and intervention as demonstrated in Every Child Matters. (2003, p3), DoH/DfES. (2004) We have to do more both to protect children and ensure each child fulfils their potential and the need for more co-located, multi-agency service in providing personalised support. The Childrens Act. (2004) was the culmination of the Green Paper DfES. (2003) Every Child Matters:Change for Children Agenda, which dictated that every local authority has power to administer grouped budgets and implement a Childrens Trust in order to pull together services to meet the specific needs of an individual child. Wilson, V. Pirrie, A. (2000) states that although partnership working is upheld as extremely beneficial for all children, those children with special educational needs and/or disabilities have formed the focus of much of the educational multi-agency activity. The aims of coordinating these services through a shared working practice across the health and education arena whilst providing a therefore seamless service of support and a one-stop shop for all provisions, supported with the collaboration of Multi-agency working, are strongly emphasised within a plethora of governmental literature DfES. (2003/2004). Joint working is therefore unequivocally viewed as the m eans of providing a more cohesive and therefore effective integrated approach to addressing the needs of the child and family, and in doing so, overcoming many additional stresses that are imposed on families through fragmented support and services and therefore giving the child the best possible start in life DoH. (2006). Although no one argues against the benefits of integrated services Stiff. (2007), and there is clear decisive backing and direction for local restructuring and reorganisation to shape services to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children more effectively, the detail surrounding the configuration and delivery of local services has not been prescribed Rutter, M. (2006). There is minimal research-based evidence regarding the efficiency of multi-agency practice or suggesting which activity carried out by those agencies is most useful, with no absolute model of the many factors influencing its success Salmon, G. (2004). However, the Government has demonstrated a s ubstantial commitment to local authorities developing multi-agency partnerships, providing considerable flexibility for those local authorities and communities to develop their own multi-agency activities, tailored to meet specific needs of their individual areas. However it has often proved difficult to establish the exact impact of multi-agency working, mainly because of the difficulty of isolating why and how a particular outcome has been achieved. This is changing as major programmes are evaluated, Atkinson et al, (2002) states that other commonly identified outcomes of multi-agency work are an increase in access to services not previously available and therefore a wider range of services, easier or quicker access to services or expertise, improved educational attainment and better engagement in education by pupils, early identification and intervention, better support for parents, childrens needs addressed more appropriately, better quality services, a reduced need for more spe cialist services and benefits for staff within those services. Introduction to the SEN Team (SENCo) There are many teams working within the umbrella of education and child services, one particular team is that of the Special Educational Needs team, this case study will focus on the role of the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCo). The role of the SENCo has been formally established Cowne, E (2003) since the 1994 code of practice DFE (1994) when all schools in England and Wales were required to have a designated teacher in the role of special educational needs coordinator (SENCo). But many schools had SENCos before that date, as the role had been developing since the mid 1980s when training of SENCos had begun in most LEAs. The 1994 code of practice DFE (1994) detailed the tasks that should be covered in the role of the SENCo. These tasks included liaising with external agencies including the educational psychology service and other support agencies, medical and social services and voluntary bodies DFE (1994, para 2.14). A revised code of practice Dfes (2001) added the resp onsibility of managing the SEN team of teachers and learning support assistants within the educational establishment where recently publications.parliament.uk (2006) its significance was re-affirmed. SENCos play a key role in building schools capacity and skills in meeting childrens SEN because of their crucial role in advising other members of staff on SEN matters, linking with parents and working within the multi-agency arena. There is substantial literature related to SENCos authored by researchers, academics and practitioners, in particular, the nature, remit and working conditions of SENCos have been the subject of considerable interest. At school-level, the expectations on, activities of and working condition of SENCos remain highly variable. Barriers how are they overcome (Theory and practice) The achievement of effective multi-agency working within the SEN arena has proved more difficult to achieve than was initially anticipated. In order to create a climate of change where SEN professionals and agencies can work effectively together it is needed that the participants understand what the barriers to change are. Some of the barriers to achieving more effective multi-agency working within the SEN environment that have been identified by DFes (2007) are professionalism; conflicting priorities of different agencies; dealing with risk and the need to change the culture of organisations. Working in collaboration with other professionals and agencies involves SEN and multi-agency workers moving out of their comfort zone and taking risks. Anning, A. (2001, p.8) highlights, However, little attention has been given to two significant aspects of the operationalisation of integrated services. The first is the challenge for SEN workers of creating new professional identities in the ev er changing communities of practice (who I am). The second is for workers to openly communicate and share their personal and professional knowledge in order to create a new version of knowledge (what I know) for a new multi-agency way of working. Lownsbrough, H. and OLeary, D. (2005) states that Despite the genuine support of Every Child Matters, all SEN professionals are faced with the constant challenge of not reverting back to their comfort zone of their organisational boundaries, their professional authority and life inside these traditional boundaries can be far less complex and threatening, and after years of working in a particular fashion they are not easily forgotten. Although no one argues against the benefits of integrated services of multi-agency working Stiff, R. (2007), and there is clear strategic backing and direction for local restructuring and reorganisation to configure SEN services to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children more effectively. There is still little research-based evidence regarding the efficiency of multi-agency strategies or suggesting which activity is most useful, with no comprehensive model of the issues influencing its success Salmon, G. (2004). However, Government has demonstrated substantial commitment to local authorities developing multi-agency partnerships of which SEN is part of, and also providing considerable flexibility for local authorities and communities to develop their own multi-agency activities, tailored to meet their own local needs.Joined-up working has deep implications for the professionals working within the SEN teams, and for the agencies that commission their services. In multi-agency team work, professional knowledge boundaries could have a tendency to become blurred, professional identity can become challenged as roles, and responsibilities change. Some SEN team members may struggle to cope with the fragmentation of one version of their professional identity before a new version can be bui lt. Moreover, the rapid pace of SEN reform leaves little time for adjustment as SEN teams move (often within tight time scales) from strategic planning to operational implementation, with little time for joint training Birchall, E. Hallett, C. (1995). However, it could also be said Freeman, M, Miller Ross, (2002); Harker, Dobel-Ober, Berridge Sinclair, (2004) that SEN team members are more likely to deliver on their objectives with sufficient planning and support from partnering agencies that established the teams in the first place which inturn leads on to empower inter-professional collaboration which include not only enhancing coordination structurally, but also establishing a culture of commitment at a strategic and operational plane to overcome professionally differentiated attitudes. 4. The Way Forward It has been said Bowlby, J. (1988) that children need a secure base from which to explore the world. SEN practitioners also need a secure base in the knowledge that has been acquired though training and practice. Perhaps there is a need for an individual to value what they know and be confident about their knowledge. At the same time to be aware that their professionalism relies on constant updating of working practice and skills via work training and further education, and being aware that there is always something new to be learnt or shared. SEN Professionals now and in the future need to be able to draw on the professional skills that they have, but not to be dominated by them. If they are secure in what they know it could be said that this should enable them to have the confidence to challenge their own thinking and to be open to the different perspectives of other multi-agency professionals. Therefore it can be said that If SEN professionals are to challenge themselves and other s through collaborative dialogue they would also need to be emotionally contained themselves Bion, W. (1962). This act requires good honest SENCo leadership and a culture where trusting relationships can be built. Harris, B. (2004) described trusting relationships as broadly taking place within three dimensions, based in conceptions of emotionality. Effectively these dimensions add up to conditions in which staff first experience a sense of their own value within an organization, in which they feel comfortable about their own abilities and needs; second that through supportive relationships within the organization they reflect upon practice, in dialogue with colleagues, and thirdly they work together to create change and improvement in the setting, or organization, confident of support. Clearly, in order to build effective and trusting relationships SEN team members would need to understand themselves and to have the confidence to share more with others. This process of cultural cha nge is essential if multi-agency working is going to be able to provide better services to children and their families alike.