rec.autos.simulators

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

LOL!!
But isn't that what a university eduaction is for?!

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> You flatter me. Just don't tell the Canadian government that after ten
> years of university education, all I can manage is a quick one-liner on
the
> USENET.

> Stephen

> > It was an excellent response, wasn't it? :-)

> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------

> > > Quick thinking there Stephen... congrats! ;-)

> > > Jan.
> > > =---
> > > Stephen Ferguson wrote...
> > > > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course!

> > > > Stephen

> > > > > Dam what, Don?
> > > > > The Amazon?
> > > <Snip>

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Oh...if only life's little problems were that simple, Daxe!! :-)

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> > This $6 billion figure is based on the assumption that for every pirated
> > copy there is one legit copy sold less.

> Yeah..I don't get this. I am no economic genius and I frequently miss
> something obvious, but how is someone copying a game (and giving it to
> someone who wasn't going to buy it otherwise) costing the developer any
> money at all? It's not like hijacking a truckload of the retail packages
and
> reselling them. The reproduction of the software isn't costing them
> anything and there is no added expense for packaging or shipping or
> anything.

> This kind of goes along with something I find conceptually similar:

> When a wealthy individual or corporation gets some kind of tax break,
> someone always stands up to remind us how we are now 'paying their share.'
> That makes it sound like the govt sets an amount it is going to collect in
> taxes and then bills everyone accordingly.

> And this one:

> "time is money" Unless you were doing something to make money with the
> time, then the use of the time does NOT cost you any money.

> ~daxe

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Once again e-mail sarcasm misses the mark and falls to earth, spent and
wasted. (Sigh).

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> > Oh...if only life's little problems were that simple, Daxe!! :-)

> life's little problems *are* that simple. It's the big ones that are
> complicated.

> ~daxe

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

If they had no intention of buying it in the first place, why would they
want a copy, illegally produced or not?

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> > Use of unlicenced software is theft. Pure and simple.

> And unless you are stealing it from the software company or its agents, it
> isn't costing them anything.

> > Most people who steal
> > things never had the intention of buying said goods, whether they happen
> to
> > be tangible items or not.

> Isn't that what I was saying? If they had no intent to buy the software,
> then the software company was not going to make money off them, anyway.

> > We could get into semantics on this one but the
> > fact remains.......

> Your fact has nothing to do with the question I asked. The fact that it
is
> wrong doesn't cost them money. If it does, please explain to me how it
> does.

> ~daxe

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **daxe** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> If they had no intention of buying it in the first place, why would they
> want a copy, illegally produced or not?

I want a Corvette, but I have no intention to purchase one. However, if
someone bought one and gave it to me, I would enjoy it and drive it. Not
being willing to spend money on something doesn't mean you don't want it, it
just means you don't want to buy it.

Using your logic, no-one would ever enter a contest to win something free,
because if they weren't willing to pay for the prize, they must not want it,
right?

~daxe

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **daxe** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> Once again e-mail sarcasm misses the mark and falls to earth, spent and
> wasted. (Sigh).

I think we need to form some kind of consortium to develop a universal
sarcasm smiley/emoticon. I tend to be very sarcastic in person and have
learned it almost never reads with the right intent. Besides, reading
sarcasm into things will eventually get you into trouble when you read
something serious and decide it's sarcastic.

~daxe

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **John Zumste** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Phew, I am really confused by your logic.

Your Corvette example has no relevance to pirated software, because you
can't duplicate that Corvette and give the clones away. So for every
Corvette out there, Chevy received revenue from its original sale --
regardless of whether the current owner bought it from Chevy, or from a
previous owner, or received it as a gift, or stole it!

The same should hold true for software. If I have a piece of software,
the manufacturer should receive revenue for its sale. But because
software is easily cloneable, I can get a free copy. I have, in that
case, stolen the revenue from the manufacturer.

So count me in the camp that holds that software piracy is theft, pure
and simple.

by **Uncle Feste** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> Phew, I am really confused by your logic.

> Your Corvette example has no relevance to pirated software, because you
> can't duplicate that Corvette and give the clones away. So for every
> Corvette out there, Chevy received revenue from its original sale --
> regardless of whether the current owner bought it from Chevy, or from a
> previous owner, or received it as a gift, or stole it!

> The same should hold true for software. If I have a piece of software,
> the manufacturer should receive revenue for its sale. But because
> software is easily cloneable, I can get a free copy. I have, in that
> case, stolen the revenue from the manufacturer.

> So count me in the camp that holds that software piracy is theft, pure
> and simple.

I think an example many could understand would be SOS '37. After the
reviews, etc. on this newsgroup, would most people even *consider*
buying this game? I think not, myself among them! However, should
someone offer me a copy for *free*, I may just check it out to see what
everyone was on about. In all actuality, did the company lose any
revenue? Not on your life, I never would have bought it in a million years.

However that being said, if one were sick enough to enjoy that free copy
they received, they really *should* then purchase a legit copy. But it
does not mean that revenue has been lost to the manufacturer. There was
no demand for the product to begin with.

And no, I'm not looking for a free copy of SOS! <g>

--
Chuck Kandler
(GPL Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15)
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

by **Eldre** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

writes:

Perceived value. Someone might not want to buy a game because they don't think
it's worth it. $39.99? Nah - it's got too many bugs to deal with. $0? Hmm -
might be worth trying...
Or, something like that...<g>

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. 1:45.49 minutes-GPLRank:342 as of 6/15/00

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **daxe** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

> Phew, I am really confused by your logic.

> Your Corvette example has no relevance to pirated software, because you
> can't duplicate that Corvette and give the clones away.

I was answering the idea of why someone would want something while being
unwilling to buy it. I wasn't really comparing the two concepts at all.

Understood. I didn't miss the essential difference, though the way I said
it probably seemed that way.

Say the manufacturer has 39.99 in his bank account from your purchase of a
game. If I copy your software, that 39.99 doesn't disappear from the bank,
so the manufacturer hasn't LOST anything. They haven't gotten another 39.99
they are entitled to, but you can't LOSE something you don't have.
Understand that logic? If a company made a million dollars in a year,
saying that they would have made two million dollars if nobody copied their
disks is simply not true.

All I am arguing with is the characterization that companies are LOSING
revenue through software piracy. Potential revenue is not revenue. Do you
suppose the actual programmers would be happy to receive as compensation a
piece of paper that says "Here's some potential money as payment for
services rendered." Of course not, because that has no value. It is that
same "no value" that the software companies are losing.

It agree that it is theft, but nobody is LOSING anything but potential
sales, and you can't put potential sales in the bank.

beating a dead horse,

~daxe

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Don Wilsh** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Im not upset.. just stating facts..

dw

> Le Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:49:57 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

> >Dam what, Don?
> >The Amazon?

> Anything that pisses off Don Wilshe cannot be bad.

by **daxe** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Never said it wasn't illegal or morally reprehensible. That's not what I'm
arguing about.

~daxe

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **John Zumste** » Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Say what? The issue with software piracy is that someone takes that copy
of the 39.99 software and uses the copy, rather than buying it. The
company has lost a sale of 39.99 because someone pirated their software,
rather than buying it. If you use a piece of software, you should buy
it.

Yeah, I agree. Let's agree to disagree and get on with racing!
John

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Big difference between the price of a Corvette and that of *** software.
I don't see too many backyard industries involved in the duplication of
Corvettes, either.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, Daxe, but the bottom line is
that the distribution of copyrighted material without the consent of the
owner, publisher, distributor or any other interested party is morally
reprehensible and, in the majority of civilsed nations, illegal.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

> > If they had no intention of buying it in the first place, why would they
> > want a copy, illegally produced or not?

> I want a Corvette, but I have no intention to purchase one. However, if
> someone bought one and gave it to me, I would enjoy it and drive it. Not
> being willing to spend money on something doesn't mean you don't want it,
it
> just means you don't want to buy it.

> Using your logic, no-one would ever enter a contest to win something free,
> because if they weren't willing to pay for the prize, they must not want
it,
> right?

> ~daxe

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Oh, Jeez....that's being somewhat pedantic, isn't it?
You know EXACTLY what is meant by the term "lost" when used in this context,
so please.....don't try and shrug it off by using that lame reasoning!

They might not be able to accurately claim the LOSS of two million dollars
due to COPYRIGHT THEFT but they can certainly claim something.

It was only about 5 years ago that the point was made (in a report
concerning the back-alley duplicators in Hong Kong) that if every copy of
Microsoft's products in use had been produced by Microsoft then Bill Gates
would have been worth far, far more than what he was at the time.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

rec.autos.simulators

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses

$6 Billion in Piracy Losses