Re: $6 Billion in Piracy Losses

m.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in message > 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 happento > 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! =-----

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:394a1883$[email hidden]... > 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! =-----

Cris Eichler <[email hidden]> wrote in message > 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! =-----

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 Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> It was an excellent response, wasn't it? :-) > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wLm25.13303$[email hidden]... > > Quick thinking there Stephen... congrats! ;-) > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > Stephen Ferguson wrote... > > > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Dam what, Don? > > > > The Amazon? > > <Snip> > > > > > >

In article <8Hn25.657$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I was only surprised that we had $7 Billlion in software sales and estimated > $6 billion > in piracy. Just shocked alittle about mankind. This $6 billion figure is based on the assumption that for every pirated copy there is one legit copy sold less. Suffice it to say that my experience at least is a totally different one.... Cheers ! Cris

Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! Stephen Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Dam what, Don? > The Amazon? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... > > >

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > DAM > > > > DW > > > > > >

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml DAM DW

Oh No... Its just alot of software being pirated.. dw I was only surprised that we had $7 Billlion in software sales and estimated $6 billion in piracy. Just shocked alittle about mankind. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Dam what, Don? > The Amazon? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... > > >

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > DAM > > > > DW > > > > > >

Quick thinking there Stephen... congrats! ;-) Jan. =--- Stephen Ferguson wrote...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > Stephen > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Dam what, Don? > > The Amazon?

<Snip>

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml DAM DW

Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! Stephen

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Dam what, Don? > The Amazon? > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losse...

Oh....how silly of me, Stephen. Of course! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > Stephen > > Dam what, Don? > > The Amazon? > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losse...

"Don Wilshe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... >http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml > > DAM > > DW > >While there is certainly rampant piracy, bear in mind that this number is fiction.

That number doesn't surprise me, considering people's ridiculous attitudes as to what they think they are owed by software companies. People will play a sim/game for hundreds of hours, and yet complain because it costs a measly $40.00. David G Fisher "Don Wilshe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... >http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml > > DAM > > DW > >

"daxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > Cris Eichler <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > 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?

Use of unlicenced software is theft. Pure and simple. Most people who steal things never had the intention of buying said goods, whether they happen to be tangible items or not. We could get into semantics on this one but the fact remains....... MS MS

Dam what, Don? The Amazon? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... > http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml > > DAM > > DW > >

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Big difference between the price of a Corvette and that of gamingsoftware.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

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.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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. >

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. > beating a dead horse, Yeah, I agree. Let's agree to disagree and get on with racing! John

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.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> writes: >If they had no intention of buying it in the first place, why would they >want a copy, illegally produced or not? > 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.

John Zumsteg <[email hidden]> wrote in message > 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. > 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! Understood. I didn't miss the essential difference, though the way I said it probably seemed that way. > 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. 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. > So count me in the camp that holds that software piracy is theft, pure > and simple. 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! =-----

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > 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! =-----

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > 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! =-----

Oh....how silly of me, Stephen. Of course! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3949ec7a$[email hidden]... > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > Stephen > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Dam what, Don? > > The Amazon? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... > > > > > > http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml > > > > > > DAM > > > > > > DW > > > > > > > > > > > >

It was an excellent response, wasn't it? :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wLm25.13303$[email hidden]... > Quick thinking there Stephen... congrats! ;-) > > Jan. > =--- > Stephen Ferguson wrote... > > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > > > Stephen > > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Dam what, Don? > > > The Amazon? > <Snip> > >

Im not upset.. just stating facts.. dw

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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.

LOL!! But isn't that what a university eduaction is for?! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:394a3c3a$[email hidden]... > You flatter me. Just don't tell the Canadian government that after ten > years of university education, all I can manage is a quick one-liner on the > USENET. > > Stephen > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > It was an excellent response, wasn't it? :-) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:wLm25.13303$[email hidden]... > > > Quick thinking there Stephen... congrats! ;-) > > > > > > Jan. > > > =--- > > > Stephen Ferguson wrote... > > > > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Dam what, Don? > > > > > The Amazon? > > > <Snip> > > > > > > > > > > > >

Oh...if only life's little problems were that simple, Daxe!! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Cris Eichler <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > 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! =-----

John Zumsteg wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> 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

Im not upset.. just stating facts.. dw "The Drongo formely known as Poopy Face" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Le Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:49:57 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> a �crit: > > >Dam what, Don? > >The Amazon? > > Anything that pisses off Don Wilshe cannot be bad. >

The Enigmatic One <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Well, there is another point to be made. The actions of me trying out > a friend's copy of a game to see if I can run it on my machine doesn'tcause > any "losses" per se. However, pirating and selling software does equatepretty > directly into losses, especially in the case of software that tries to > counterfit as close as possible the original. That is probably where the > majority of the figure tossed about comes from, from what I can gather. I agree this is a genuine loss because money is being exchanged and going to the wrong hands. That is really what "piracy" is about. Pirates used to hijack goods and sell/exchange them themselves. Perhaps 'pirate' is not the right term for someone who copies software and gives it away. When I was arguing about this I conveniently left the counterfeit aspect out because I knew it would mix up the issue. > And no matter what you may think about trying out games (personally, I > think demos have cost companies more sales from my pocket than anythingelse), > counterfitting and selling pirated software is a very big problem. I agree. I probably balance out a few of the cheaters anyway, because I buy almost every game that comes out even if I don't expect to like it. I want to support the whole sim genre and I like to be able to install a game and have a reference point for what I read in r.a.s. I have a whole bunch of CDs for games that aren't installed. I used to keep the boxes on shelves (I like commercial art) until I moved a few years ago and my wife convinced me to toss them all. I don't usually bother with a demo download because my 26.400 connection makes the big ones kind of painful and fortunately I don't have to think too hard about spending 40 or 50$ once or twice a month. ~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! =-----

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well, what EXACTLY is it that you ARE complaining about? Or aren't you > complaining at all? This is what I initially responded to: +++++++++ > 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. +++++++++ I was really just agreeing with the person who made the first comment. That person's dispute was also with the wording of the headline and possibly the article, quoted here: "The interactive entertainment industry lost more than $6 billion at retail-$3 billion plus in each of the last two years-to piracy and counterfeiting, not counting hard-to-define Internet losses" They obviously came up with these fictional numbers based on estimates of how many copies of the software are in use without having been purchased. The only way that is accurate is if every single one of those users would have bought the software had they not gotten it free. An observant person makes a distinction between what they are told in the press and reality, since they are not always the same thing. Software piracy is a big problem and the companies have every right to get upset about it, but manipulating peoples impressions with fictional numbers is not an acceptable way to get a message across, IMHO. THAT is what I am complaining about. ~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! =-----

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> writes: >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. Agreed, no argument there. But Daxe's point was that there's no LOSS to the company if the person had no intention of buying the game. 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.

John Zumsteg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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. Duh. That's not the issue I was complaining about or addressing. > The > company has lost a sale of 39.99 because someone pirated their software, > rather than buying it. Or----The company has NOT lost a sale of 39.99 because someone pirated the software rather than NOT buying it. OR what about people who wouldn't have bought the software, but tried a pirated version and liked it, then bought it? > If you use a piece of software, you should buy > it. I agree with this. I never said I didn't agree with it. For the last time..I am NOT trying to justify software piracy. Explaining over and over why it is wrong has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. If the headline read "Software Piracy Costs Game Companies 6 Billion $ in Potential Sales" I wouldn't be complaining about anything, because that is accurate. 6 Billion $ in LOSSES is not accurate. sheesh! ~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! =-----

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > 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. ...those are the facts and they are undisputed. Agreed. However, can we also agree that this $6 billion figure is, well, pure fiction ? Fiction that may come in handy in a political sense, but fiction nonetheless... Cheers! Cris

Once again e-mail sarcasm misses the mark and falls to earth, spent and wasted. (Sigh). -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:394a1883$[email hidden]... > > 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! =-----

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. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > m.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > 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! =-----

Big difference between the price of a Corvette and that of gaming 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. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > 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! =-----

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. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > 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.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>An observant person makes a distinction between what they are told in the >press and reality, since they are not always the same thing. Software >piracy is a big problem and the companies have every right to get upset >about it, but manipulating peoples impressions with fictional numbers is not >an acceptable way to get a message across, IMHO. > >THAT is what I am complaining about.

Well, there is another point to be made. The actions of me trying out a friend's copy of a game to see if I can run it on my machine doesn't cause any "losses" per se. However, pirating and selling software does equate pretty directly into losses, especially in the case of software that tries to counterfit as close as possible the original. That is probably where the majority of the figure tossed about comes from, from what I can gather. And no matter what you may think about trying out games (personally, I think demos have cost companies more sales from my pocket than anything else), counterfitting and selling pirated software is a very big problem. -Tim

Probably as fictional as the figures given by a bank when money is stolen in a major raid, yes. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Cris Eichler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > > 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. > > ...those are the facts and they are undisputed. Agreed. > However, can we also agree that this $6 billion figure is, well, > pure fiction ? > Fiction that may come in handy in a political sense, but fiction > nonetheless... > > Cheers! > Cris

Okay. Whatever. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Big difference between the price of a Corvette and that of gaming > 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. > > 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.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Okay. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> > writes: > > >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. > > Agreed, no argument there. But Daxe's point was that there's no LOSS to the > company if the person had no intention of buying the game. > > 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.

Well, what EXACTLY is it that you ARE complaining about? Or aren't you complaining at all? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > John Zumsteg <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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. > > Duh. That's not the issue I was complaining about or addressing. > > > The > > company has lost a sale of 39.99 because someone pirated their software, > > rather than buying it. > > Or----The company has NOT lost a sale of 39.99 because someone pirated the > software rather than NOT buying it. OR what about people who wouldn't have > bought the software, but tried a pirated version and liked it, then bought > it? > > > If you use a piece of software, you should buy > > it. > > I agree with this. I never said I didn't agree with it. For the last > time..I am NOT trying to justify software piracy. Explaining over and over > why it is wrong has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. If the > headline read "Software Piracy Costs Game Companies 6 Billion $ in Potential > Sales" I wouldn't be complaining about anything, because that is accurate. > 6 Billion $ in LOSSES is not accurate. > > sheesh! > > ~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! =-----

amos-opus <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > and how much time(money) did we lose with non(or badly) working games > and trying to get them to work? > > Sudesh I'd wager it's about the same magnitude of productivity hit as the Usenet. Stephen

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Stephen Ferguson wrote: > > > > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > > > Stephen > > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Dam what, Don? > > > The Amazon? > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > >

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > > > > > DAM > > > > > > > > DW > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

and how much time(money) did we lose with non(or badly) working games and trying to get them to work? Sudesh Stephen Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > Stephen > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Dam what, Don? > > The Amazon? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:rkh25.1565$[email hidden]... > > > > > > http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losses.shtml > > > > > > DAM > > > > > > DW > > > > > > > > > >

and how much time(money) did we lose with non(or badly) working games and trying to get them to work? Sudesh

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > Stephen > > Dam what, Don? > > The Amazon? > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losse... > > > DAM > > > DW

I'd wager it's about the same magnitude of productivity hit as the Usenet. Stephen

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Dam the flow of pirated software, of course! > > Stephen > > > Dam what, Don? > > > The Amazon? > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > ---------------------------

http://208.232.126.139/Magazine/6_12_00/industry_news/e3_piracy_losse...

lol.....speak to the hand eh? ;) Ash (not getting involved in the discussion) Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

| Okay. Whatever. | -- | Regards, | Bruce Kennewell, | Canberra, Australia. | --------------------------- | | daxe <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:[email hidden]... | > | > | > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message | > news:[email hidden]... | > > Big difference between the price of a Corvette and that of gaming | > 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 ofthe

Quoted text (17 lines)

| > > owner, publisher, distributor or any other interested party is morally | > > reprehensible and, in the majority of civilsed nations, illegal. | > | > 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.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! | > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- | |