Do you really buy that expensive recording software?

[Toker41]

Toker - Read this and understand. This is what those of us who are, to quote you, "making moral judgements", are trying to do. We're not here to claim some moral high ground and shake our fingers in pompus rightousness at the "sinners". We're just trying to spread the truth, and nudge the wheel of the Titanic, knowing how slowly the behemouth will answer the helm.

One can not force ones beliefs, or values on others. The law can be enforced, but you can not force a person to believe, or think a certain way simply because you do.

To each his own, and judge not, yest thee be judged.

 

[Toker41]

You ever developed software before?

Because I have. A lot of it. And I'm pretty sure Glenn has too.

So until you do, don't say anything about how hard it is, or isn't to do to put anti-piracy into software.

While I don't do software as much as I used to, I still frequent some message boards for software development. The #1 question asked on most forums is about how to implement anti-piracy.

Oh yeah...



And what CDs were those? Any kind of CD-based scheme has been cracked long ago.

I was developing software before windows, or DOS even existed. Can't say I do it much these days, but I'm far from uneducated on this topic.

Oh yeah..
...Seether's CD, to start. Fuel would be second on the list.....just to start.

 

[Toker41]

Dave, the truce holds, I'm not going to get into it personal again, but there is a lot of misinformation here, even if it is unintentional. I'll keep a reply civil:If XP were actually in demand amongst the hacker community, and wasn't automatically included with every PC manufactured since 2001 up until Vista replaced it, there'd be a public crack out there for everybody within 2 or 3 weeks. And I'm speaking as a software develper who knows what's involved. There's no such thing as uncrackable software.

In fact, you don't even have to wait. Go to China and you'll find cracked copies of XP sold on every streetcorner. There's a demand for it there. The only difference between commercial software that has been cracked and commercial software that has not been cracked is the amount of demand for it in the pirate community.On both sides of the argument. How is your soapbox against our soapbox any better? More to the point, an honest question: why do people who bitch about others not only breaking the law, but about those who openly and maliciously advocate it in public (and no I'm not accusing you of that here), bother you so much?

I mean, there are soapboxers on both sides of the issue. Why is it those that come down on the side of law and ethics raise your ire more than those who advocate theft? I have yet to see you argue with a piracy advocate, yet you have no problem arguing technicalities with a pro-legality advocate. Just because you have a debatable technical disagreement with one of their bullet points having to do with effect upon corporate bottom line?What is the meaning to the quotes? Is it breaking the law or isn't it?False logic built upon a false premise. Millions of dollars are spent every year in R&D, licensing costs and court costs in attempts to provide some form of data security and copy protection. Ask anybody who owns full-version Steinberg software legally, buys $.99 iTunes singles, or plays commercial DVDs on their computer, just for three immediate and easy examples from three different branches of digital media.

As I mentioned a while ago, quality data security and copy protection are expensive to implement - the better the protection, the more expensive. And such security measures make the software less attractive to the average end user - agian, the more effective the security, the less attractive because the more hoops the end user must jump through (e.g. dongles, passwords, platform immobility, etc.) Every developer must weigh those real and virtual costs against the benefits of providing such protection - how effective will they be against piracy.

The dichotomy that they face (and that I faced personally as part of the engineering team for just such a company) is that the more popular the software, the more it would, on paper, benefit from anti-piracy measures; however, the more popular the software, the bigger the bullseye the pirates will paint on it and the quicker it will be cracked. And, as anyone who has an illegal copy of Nuendo will tell you, even measures like dongles are irrelevant to the qualified crakcer.

The upshot is that most software manufacturers just do not put a whole effort into anti-piracy measures, not because it doen't matter to them or their bottom line, but because they simply have to throw their hands up and surrender to the fact that they'd just be spending extra development and licensing costs only to still see their product wind up on BitTorrent anyway.There's a couple of reasons, Dave, that have nothing to do with narcissism as you suggest.

You're right in that the core legalists will never convince the core pirates, and vice versa. However, there are plenty of people sitting on the fence, or who only steal part-time, as the results of this very poll show. There is still some influence that can be exerted on those folks (from both sides) so that when it comes time to acquire their next piece of software, they might actually think a little about it before making the buy/steal decision.

And the world I live in has everything to do with me. I DO care what others do. They have free will (within the law) and I wouldn't presume to TELL them what to do. But when one see a societal attitude festering that says it's OK to break the law, that stealing for anything less than last resort sustenance can be justified away, and that somehow one's personal rights are created more equal than the rights of their fellow man, I feel they have an obligation to stand up and say, "Now hold on just a second. I'm not going to let that disease spread throughout my world, my community, and therefore my life without my at least putting up an objection, if not a downright fight."

Let me ask you this in return, Dave. If you are walking down the street and see someone commit a crime or actively suppress someone else's rights, are you going to just turn your head and ignore it based upon the premise that, hey, that's their business, not mine? And that if someone else does speak up or otherwise try to stop it, that they are just being self-righteous holy rollers? And furthermore, that while the comission of the crime was not enough to get you to speak up, somehow the person who objects to the commission of the crime is the person you'd rather choose to pick a battle with instead?And two final questions, Dave. Do you HONESTLY believe that when people read your posts knocking down some arguments against piracy, and that when you call those who do so "righteous holy rollers", that you are not, implicity and by default - even if it's not your intention - assisting the pro-piracy argument? And do you HONESTLY believe that when you essentailly say "piracy is wrong" while putting 100 times those words into arguments striking down the reasons given why piracy is wrong, and into striking down those who give those reasons, that the net effect of your posts *in reality* does not come out sounding extremely pro-piracy, regardless of your intent?

G.

I am honest in my views, and expressed opinions. I can not help it if people hear what they want, instead of what I mean to express. Words have no power until the person listening gives them power. I have stated, again, and again, that I do not steal software. I can not be any clearer on that. ALL my software is paid for, and obtained legally. I never said stealing isn't wrong, I simply state that I firmly believe the reported revenue loss is greatly exaggerated, and can not, in fact, be measured at all. It is speculation, estimate, and guess at best. If the newest model BMW doesn't sell, is it because people are pirating it? No. Sales sometimes are simply over anticipated. Sales and marketing are not as much an "exact science" as some would think. I loved the way Larrs from Metallica was crying about how his CD sales were down because of pirating, yet overlooked the fact that most fans were very disappointed in the musical direction they took. In other words, their newer albums sucked, and did not sell.


I have never shot down the reasons why piracy is wrong, if they were based on fact. Simple fact is that none are, except that it is morally wrong, and illegal. Can't argue them 2, and I never have.


There is a BIG difference between helping a crime victim on the street, and spewing my beliefs to a bunch of kids that wouldn't have spent the money on the software anyway. I can't stop them, and it has no real bearing on my life (other than the entertainment, and escape from real life that these threads bring me). One must choose his battles carefully, as we can not fight them all, let alone win them all. Stopping a rape in the street is a battle worth fighting. Standing on a soapbox, and saying "I'm a better person than you because you are a sinner, and I am not", is not, in my opinion, a battle worth fighting, but rather a desire for the spot light.

The question was simple: Do you buy that expensive software?

2 answers,
YES, I do. Or, No, I don't. I believe it was the "holy rollers" that were the first to attack someone for giving the simple honest answer of "No". I found it odd that some feel they are better, and more honest people, yet judge others, and do not see their own "sin".


and yes...
It is breaking the law. Didn't realize I wasn't being clear on that.

BTW....XP is in more a demand than you think. I know more than a couple small time "Mom and Pop" computer stores, and people that do it out of their homes, that build and sell computers. Most would love to have a reliable crack version of XP, because the OS adds a LOT to the cost of a computer when you build it. Most I know install 2000 instead of XP, because it's easy to pirate, where XP is next to imposable (due to the lack of ease, and ability to update it as needed). I have 7 computers on my home network, and each one cost me an additional $120 for the OS. That's $840 worth of OS, just in the 7 I have running at the moment, and does not included the dozens I've built for other people. Believe me, there is a demand for a cracked XP, and there are cracked versions on the market. However, every cracked version I've ever encountered ends up being useless before long, and replaced with a legal version because it's just such a pain in the ass to keep up the cracked version. I love it when someone brings me their computer to fix, because it's all buggy, and I find out the problem is they are using an illegal version of XP. Most of the time I simply charge them for a legal OS, and then listen to them tell me what a good job I did "fixing" it for them.

 

[Reilley]

"""Labels are the lowest form of life,"""


This is juvenile-delinquent rationalization for common theft. If you don't like the labels, and the artists they have contracted with, leave them, and their product, alone. It isn't yours to rip off. Their product is none of your business.

I respect everyone in the music business, even if I don't like all their products. I have no respect for anonymous
pickpockets, hiding behind computers, ripping off people who work for a living, and trying to justify theft with high-and-might sounding principles. People steal because they can, it's always been that way.

Getting a job is a step in the direction of understand how the economic system works.

 

[Toker41]

Calling people holy rollers, saying their opinions and concerns are "bitching". No, you're not beating on anyone.

Really, you just like to hear yourself talk, just like everybody else. Get off your own soapbox, junior. You got nothin'.

Yup, I do like to hear myself talk. I never get tired of listening to smart people.

and....
....it's my soapbox, and I'll stay on it as long as I want!

 

[Toker41]

"""Labels are the lowest form of life,"""


This is juvenile-delinquent rationalization for common theft. If you don't like the labels, and the artists they have contracted with, leave them, and their product, alone. It isn't yours to rip off. Their product is none of your business.

I respect everyone in the music business, even if I don't like all their products. I have no respect for anonymous
pickpockets, hiding behind computers, ripping off people who work for a living, and trying to justify theft with high-and-might sounding principles. People steal because they can, it's always been that way.

Getting a job is a step in the direction of understand how the economic system works.

Where did I ever use it as "rationalization for theft"? I simply stated a fact that most recording artist would back up.
Like Paul said, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregard the rest.

Do you have any experience with a major label? Are you speaking from experience? I am.

oh, and...

I have a job. A good job, at that. But, thanks for the advice, irrelevant as it may be.

 

[Robert D]

One can not force ones beliefs, or values on others. The law can be enforced, but you can not force a person to believe, or think a certain way simply because you do.

To each his own, and judge not, yest thee be judged.

We'd still be in the cave clubbing each other over the head to take each other's food and women if that was a functional operating principle for society. Humanity has progressed out of the cave, and beyond the dark ages because people were smart enough to say some things are fundimentally right and wrong, and to expect others to recognize that.

I can't force anything on anyone over a forum, nor do I want to. You would silence my right to free speech, my right to disseminate my views and information with your hypocritical biblical reference. As you stand and acuse me of being judgemental and of wanting to force my beliefs on others, so you have judged me and shoved your beliefs down my throat.

 

[Toker41]

All good points. Can't really argue to much with that post. I would be the last to silence your right to free speech.
I also judge you as judgemental. However, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Doesn't mean I'm stepping down from my box, either.

Taste of your own, maybe? Tell ya what. Since I gave your judgmental persona judgment in return, how about you steal from one of these "pirates", a piece of software, or personal music they have recorded by wiping out the files from their drives? Now that would be a battle worth fighting, and time better spent, don't' ya think? Wonder how many of you would be on board with something like that? Would you punish these thieves?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

how about you steal from one of these "pirates", a piece of software, or personal music they have recorded by wiping out the files from their drives? Now that would be a battle worth fighting, and time better spent, don't' ya think? Wonder how many of you would be on board with something like that? Would you punish these thieves?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Dave, if you really believe that piracy is wrong, then lay off the holy rollers and start attacking the devil's advocates for a change. They are just as righteous-acting and righteous-sounding in their beliefs as the pro-rights folks are, and they use just as many erroneous arguments for their side. Yet, somehow, in this thread of pro-piracy advocates vs. pro-rights advocates, you only argue against the pro-rights ones.

Until you actually step up and defend the pro-rights side and attack the pro-piracy side, you're only preaching to the pro-piracy choir, whether that's your intention or not. And I gotta be honest; to the rest of the world, that is exactly the effect you're having. I'm not coming down on you, I'm just reporting to you how it is on the other side of your cable modem; your posts do nothing but embolden the pro-piracy side.

How is one to believe that is not you intention?

Prove us wrong, Dave. Slap around the other side of righteous for a change, and actually stand up for your anti-piracy beliefs.

Stand up, or stand down.

G.

 

[fraserhutch]

Geezus f'ing Christ.

In any society,it is up to each and every one of us to speak up as to what is right and wrong. This bullshit about being judgmental is just that- bullshit. Just another blind to hide behind.

Failure to say anything is tantamount to condoning the action. Failure to censure the action is akin to tacitly condoning it. Incidentally (or not), this also usually happens to be a standard position of the wrong-doer - "who are you to point a finger'?

Well all have a right, indeed, we all have an obligation to point out wrongs.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Why you guys always have to start with name calling?.

You mean like 'holy rollers'? You should ask yourself that question.

It is imposable to prove that the decline in CD sales is due to online piracy. Simply can not be proven, or shown as fact in any way. All numbers related to loss of revenue due to music piracy is based on estimates, and guess. Period.
I can't help but to notice that your analysis doesn't include internet sales, and legal downloads (something most studies, and reports of such nature tend to overlook...gotta wonder why??), which have taken off as CD sales have declined. Just released this week that Apple is now the 3rd largest music distributor in the world, yet they do not deal with any physical CD's. Surely this boost in legal music downloads has an effect on CD sales.

The info I posted was out of the last Rolling Stone but what do they know?

Their article did include "internet sales" and "legal downloads" and pointed out that the sale of digital singles which are up 2930% since 2003 haven't come close to making up the difference, driving revenue down sharply. They go on to say that every corner of the record industry is feeling the pain. "A great American sector has been damaged enormously," says the RIAA's Bainwol, who blames piracy.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Their article did include "internet sales" and "legal downloads" and pointed out that the sale of digital singles which are up 2930% since 2003 haven't come close to making up the difference, driving revenue down sharply. They go on to say that every corner of the record industry is feeling the pain. "A great American sector has been damaged enormously," says the RIAA's Bainwol, who blames piracy.

Allow me to make a pre-emptive post, here Morningstar. The next canned response from the other side would mormally be something like this (in so many words):

"The reason sales are down isn't because of piracy, it's because the music sucks."

To save time, I'm going to answer that preemptively. While the qualitity of commercial music is not ideal by a longshot, there are five points that render that argument virtually impotent.

1.) According to Toker's own favorite "Harvard study", sales of the top 40 stuff that the pirates love to repeatedly cite as "today's junk music" are actually UP, not down. It's the more diverse, more esoteric, more "indie" (so to speak) stuff that the pirates say there's not enough of that are actually suffering most in sales figures.

2.) If the music sucks so badly, there wouldn't be so much pirating. It seems good enough to steal. It's good enough to want. They just don't pay for it.

3.) "Why buy an album full of crap when I only want one song?" If that's the case, why do the majority of broadband users from the old Napster, to Gnutella, to the current LimeWire/BitTorrent crowd have entire CDs worth of songs on their shared drives? Once again, it's worth getting (and offering to millions of others) and listening to for free, they just don't want to pay for it.

4.) Much of the decline in CD sales over the past couple of decades isn't because of a decline in music quality, it's because there was a bubble in the mid-late 80s and early 90s that corresponded to people replacing their vinyl collection with CDs. Once folks got their vinyl replaced, sales would naturally decline to mostly newer releases only. The decrease in the rate of sales, however, has since steepened; that's to say it has a newer, extra component that can't be covered or explained solely by the burst of the CD replacement bubble. That extra component of decrease inversely matches very nicely the increase in overall MP3 usage, most (some 90%, give or take) of which is in the form of illegally distributed copies.

5.) And besides, none of this has even the slightest thing to do with paying for software. Claims that the two are equivalent phenomenon are rendered impotent by the "music sucks" argument. people are not using cracked copies of the Waves Diamond bundle - or even something a fraction the price of that like Voxengo or Native Instruments - because they think the software sucks, they're using it because they want to use it; because they like it. And they are not stealing it because they think The Man is ripping off the artist, as they claim with music. They are stealing it because they can't afford it. That's not the case with music.

G.

 

[Toker41]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Dave, if you really believe that piracy is wrong, then lay off the holy rollers and start attacking the devil's advocates for a change. They are just as righteous-acting and righteous-sounding in their beliefs as the pro-rights folks are, and they use just as many erroneous arguments for their side. Yet, somehow, in this thread of pro-piracy advocates vs. pro-rights advocates, you only argue against the pro-rights ones.

Until you actually step up and defend the pro-rights side and attack the pro-piracy side, you're only preaching to the pro-piracy choir, whether that's your intention or not. And I gotta be honest; to the rest of the world, that is exactly the effect you're having. I'm not coming down on you, I'm just reporting to you how it is on the other side of your cable modem; your posts do nothing but embolden the pro-piracy side.

How is one to believe that is not you intention?

Prove us wrong, Dave. Slap around the other side of righteous for a change, and actually stand up for your anti-piracy beliefs.

Stand up, or stand down.

G.

I have stated, over, and over again that stealing is wrong. Don't know what else I can say to make my view on that any clearer. I have never argued that it's not. Any other argument against pirated music, and software is, in my opinion (and fact, actually), weak.

The actions of these thieves have no bearing on my life. I don't see the need to attack them for the profit of others, when I see so little effort from the industry itself. I only posted that proposal to see how many of you would jump on board with something like that. I have to say that I am surprised at your view on it. I expected different.

So if I'm not fighting by your side, I'm against you? If I don't bash them, I must be one of them? I've stated my views. There isn't much more I can do, or care to do. Although I feel for the software industry, I also feel that the music industry (mostly the labels) have had this coming ever since they started ripping off artist. They sold us on the "need" for this digital technology, reaped the profit while passing on NONE of the cost benefits to the consumer, so let them deal with it. I look forward to the day when the labels are no longer needed (which is actually now, it's just taking a bit of time for artist to realize it). I don't steal, but I'm not going to waste time fighting those that do when it doesn't really have any effect on me.

 

[Toker41]

Allow me to make a pre-emptive post, here Morningstar. The next canned response from the other side would mormally be something like this (in so many words):

"The reason sales are down isn't because of piracy, it's because the music sucks."

To save time, I'm going to answer that preemptively. While the qualitity of commercial music is not ideal by a longshot, there are five points that render that argument virtually impotent.

1.) According to Toker's own favorite "Harvard study", sales of the top 40 stuff that the pirates love to repeatedly cite as "today's junk music" are actually UP, not down. It's the more diverse, more esoteric, more "indie" (so to speak) stuff that the pirates say there's not enough of that are actually suffering most in sales figures.

2.) If the music sucks so badly, there wouldn't be so much pirating. It seems good enough to steal. It's good enough to want. They just don't pay for it.

3.) "Why buy an album full of crap when I only want one song?" If that's the case, why do the majority of broadband users from the old Napster, to Gnutella, to the current LimeWire/BitTorrent crowd have entire CDs worth of songs on their shared drives? Once again, it's worth getting (and offering to millions of others) and listening to for free, they just don't want to pay for it.

4.) Much of the decline in CD sales over the past couple of decades isn't because of a decline in music quality, it's because there was a bubble in the mid-late 80s and early 90s that corresponded to people replacing their vinyl collection with CDs. Once folks got their vinyl replaced, sales would naturally decline to mostly newer releases only. The decrease in the rate of sales, however, has since steepened; that's to say it has a newer, extra component that can't be covered or explained solely by the burst of the CD replacement bubble. That extra component of decrease inversely matches very nicely the increase in overall MP3 usage, most (some 90%, give or take) of which is in the form of illegally distributed copies.

5.) And besides, none of this has even the slightest thing to do with paying for software. Claims that the two are equivalent phenomenon are rendered impotent by the "music sucks" argument. people are not using cracked copies of the Waves Diamond bundle - or even something a fraction the price of that like Voxengo or Native Instruments - because they think the software sucks, they're using it because they want to use it; because they like it. And they are not stealing it because they think The Man is ripping off the artist, as they claim with music. They are stealing it because they can't afford it. That's not the case with music.

G.

Aside from #4, prove any of that. I still say there is NO WAY to measure the impact of illegal downloads. It is guess work at best. Auto sales, and new house sales are down sharply, does this mean people are stealing them? The economy is not what it was just 10 years ago, I don't see that factored in.


You still can not prove that a person that uses pirated software would have bought the program if the couldn't get it for free. Any counter on that is an assumption.

 

[Toker41]

You mean like 'holy rollers'? You should ask yourself that question.


The info I posted was out of the last Rolling Stone but what do they know?

Their article did include "internet sales" and "legal downloads" and pointed out that the sale of digital singles which are up 2930% since 2003 haven't come close to making up the difference, driving revenue down sharply. They go on to say that every corner of the record industry is feeling the pain. "A great American sector has been damaged enormously," says the RIAA's Bainwol, who blames piracy.

Odd, because the President of Sony records said the exact opposite. He claims that the reason the industry (labels) are so against pirating, and the reason they are losing money, is that they can no longer control what sells, and what does not. They can no longer decided what bands to make the big investment into, because the public is no longer controlled by top 40 radio. People are discovering new acts that would have once been called "underground", because these bands get the same exposer as any "major" band does on any music download site. The label can no longer limit our choices. So I find it strange that the President of Sony Records makes this statement, while Bainwol makes claims that are very different.

The fact that the industry sold us on the CD, when the album was fine, and then didn't pass on any of the cost benefits of mass producing CD, as opposed to albums, and cassettes, but rather boosted prices was hard for me to swallow. Now that they are being beat by their own game, I'm not going to be the voice of objection. Not my fight. If people want to steal, it's between them and God, as long as they are not stealing from me.

 

[Toker41]

Geezus f'ing Christ.

In any society,it is up to each and every one of us to speak up as to what is right and wrong. This bullshit about being judgmental is just that- bullshit. Just another blind to hide behind.

Failure to say anything is tantamount to condoning the action. Failure to censure the action is akin to tacitly condoning it. Incidentally (or not), this also usually happens to be a standard position of the wrong-doer - "who are you to point a finger'?

Well all have a right, indeed, we all have an obligation to point out wrongs.

I have stated that stealing is wrong. So I'm a "wrong doer" because I won't beat up on the people that do steal? "Judge not..." are not my words. Maybe you should take your probelm with them up with the person that spoke them.

 

[Vadim]

I'll be honest about myself: I download warezed software and if I like it and use it I go and buy it. Especially if there isn't demo for that software...
If i don't use it or don't like it, why should I buy it....

btw, H20's and many other cracker's cracked software always shows this screen during installation: "And always remeber, don't make money usong warezed spftware, if you use it, buy it" and "if you like this software go buy it, we can't stress how important this is"... and many alike...



And I don't feel sorry for softie companies, that many people use warezed softies, taking of considaration that softie companies are trying to put real companies out of business, well, at least propellerheads are, I remember they had this big thing going on on their site to "throw away your MusicWorkstation use reason", and they had all articles about artist replacing hardware with softies.. and they had a pic of a stick figure man throwing a keyboard into the trash...

well, for recording just audio software is even better than real things at some points....

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Aside from #4, prove any of that. I still say there is NO WAY to measure the impact of illegal downloads.

Well, #1 came from your own favorite "Harvard study" amongst other validated studies also referenced in that one. #2 is common sense; people would not steal something they didn't value. #3 is one you can see for yourself just by looking over the shoulder of any one of one's family and friends who are regular users of the pirate networks. #4 you seem to accept, OK. And #5 is like #3, just look at your average buddy's PC and look at what they use regularly for several years without bothering to lift a finger to buy a legit copy of it. That's FAR more common than any genuine try-before-buy situations. To say otherwise is just to ignore the reality.

And the only reason you can't see a way to measure it is because you haven't been taught what the measurement tools are and how they work. It's just stuff you haven't been exposed to yet. People have earned Nobel prizes in economics for developing such tools that are now taught in your typical college economics classes. I don't claim to be an expert at all that myself as that was not my major in college, but I have taken enough classes to understand that there are scientifically and mathematically legitimate tools that can do just that. My cousin Russ just retired from a career as a high-level sales manager at Motorola. One of his main tasks in that position was to create future sales forecasts and past sales analysies using these very kinds of economic tools we're talking about here.

It is guess work at best. Auto sales, and new house sales are down sharply, does this mean people are stealing them?

Oh, come on, Dave, I know you know just how silly that attempt at an analogy actually is. And yes, that kind of stuff (economic temperature, consumer purchasing power, costs-of-living, adjustments for inflation rates, etc.) IS factored in to such studies and into sales analysis, including the one from HarvardMan that's your favorite.

The economy is not what it was just 10 years ago

Actually by most metrics, the economy is stronger now than it was in 1997, before the Internet bubble. And even if you count the Internet bubble years, we still compare today. The biggest difference now is the cost of petroleum products, which is starting to have a ripple effect into corn and dairy prices. But even there, if you adjust for inflation, we had it worse during the embargo of the early 70s (which you may not remember, but I sure do.) And that had no effect upon the music industry (I can't comment on the software industry as there really was no consumer software industry in 1973 ).

You still can not prove that a person that uses pirated software would have bought the program if the couldn't get it for free. Any counter on that is an assumption.

On a person-by-person basis, no. One cannot prove that Joe Smith might or might not do one thing or another. However, like it or not, much of human behavior is predictable on a statistical level. And there are few aspects of human behavior that are as well analyzed and understood as their purchasing habits, because that's what the economists pour all their money and efforts and Nobel-winning knowledge and tools into, because that's what the economy is ultimately based uopn.

It's far, far more than just an assumption.

And even if it were, Dave, it's irrelevant whether they would have bought it or not. That has nothing to do with the points in my post that you were responding to.

You yourself say that software piracy is a bad thing. What more do you need to know? Why the need to knock down further justification? Why do you spend your energy and time trying to pick apart what you see as weaknesses in my (and other's) pro-rights posts, and then remain silent about the problems with the posts that support or advocate piracy?

Why do you say that to argue against the pirates is soapboxing and judgemental and none of your business, but you have made it your business over the years of this thread to soapbox against and be extremely judgemental about those of us who you say you fundamentally agree with?

Let me repeat part of what was in my post yesterday, which you have not yet responded to:

Enough of the "I am against it" single sentences followed by a big BUT several paragraphs long trying to demonstrate why piracy ain't so bad after all.

Vurtually everybody believes you are actually pro-piracy, depite your protestations otherwise, because that is exactly how your posts look to the outside world.

Prove us wrong, Dave. Slap around the other side of righteous beliefs for a change, and actually stand up for your anti-piracy beliefs.

Stand up, or stand down.

G.

 

[fraserhutch]

You're kidding, right?

Every 2nd post of yours here has the statement "You have no right to judge" in some form or another. In fact, earlier on, you quoted "Judge not, lest ye be judged" verbatim. In fact, it's a basic tenet of a lot of your posts.

And it's BS.

And furthermore, it's a big step from arguing that piracy is theft and theft is wrong to "bashing the people who steal". We bash that they steal. There *is* a difference, not that I expect you to grasp it.

I have stated that stealing is wrong. So I'm a "wrong doer" because I won't beat up on the people that do steal? "Judge not..." are not my words. Maybe you should take your probelm with them up with the person that spoke them.

 

[Toker41]

Well, #1 came from your own favorite "Harvard study" amongst other validated studies also referenced in that one. #2 is common sense; people would not steal something they didn't value. #3 is one you can see for yourself just by looking over the shoulder of any one of one's family and friends who are regular users of the pirate networks. #4 you seem to accept, OK. And #5 is like #3, just look at your average buddy's PC and look at what they use regularly for several years without bothering to lift a finger to buy a legit copy of it. That's FAR more common than any genuine try-before-buy situations. To say otherwise is just to ignore the reality.

And the only reason you can't see a way to measure it is because you haven't been taught what the measurement tools are and how they work. It's just stuff you haven't been exposed to yet. People have earned Nobel prizes in economics for developing such tools that are now taught in your typical college economics classes. I don't claim to be an expert at all that myself as that was not my major in college, but I have taken enough classes to understand that there are scientifically and mathematically legitimate tools that can do just that. My cousin Russ just retired from a career as a high-level sales manager at Motorola. One of his main tasks in that position was to create future sales forecasts and past sales analysis using these very kinds of economic tools we're talking about here.Oh, come on, Dave, I know you know just how silly that attempt at an analogy actually is. And yes, that kind of stuff (economic temperature, consumer purchasing power, costs-of-living, adjustments for inflation rates, etc.) IS factored in to such studies and into sales analysis, including the one from HarvardMan that's your favorite.Actually by most metrics, the economy is stronger now than it was in 1997, before the Internet bubble. And even if you count the Internet bubble years, we still compare today. The biggest difference now is the cost of petroleum products, which is starting to have a ripple effect into corn and dairy prices. But even there, if you adjust for inflation, we had it worse during the embargo of the early 70s (which you may not remember, but I sure do.) And that had no effect upon the music industry (I can't comment on the software industry as there really was no consumer software industry in 1973 ).On a person-by-person basis, no. One cannot prove that Joe Smith might or might not do one thing or another. However, like it or not, much of human behavior is predictable on a statistical level. And there are few aspects of human behavior that are as well analyzed and understood as their purchasing habits, because that's what the economists pour all their money and efforts and Nobel-winning knowledge and tools into, because that's what the economy is ultimately based uopn.

It's far, far more than just an assumption.

And even if it were, Dave, it's irrelevant whether they would have bought it or not. That has nothing to do with the points in my post that you were responding to.

You yourself say that software piracy is a bad thing. What more do you need to know? Why the need to knock down further justification? Why do you spend your energy and time trying to pick apart what you see as weaknesses in my (and other's) pro-rights posts, and then remain silent about the problems with the posts that support or advocate piracy?

Why do you say that to argue against the pirates is soapboxing and judgemental and none of your business, but you have made it your business over the years of this thread to soapbox against and be extremely judgemental about those of us who you say you fundamentally agree with?

Let me repeat part of what was in my post yesterday, which you have not yet responded to:

Enough of the "I am against it" single sentences followed by a big BUT several paragraphs long trying to demonstrate why piracy ain't so bad after all.

Vurtually everybody believes you are actually pro-piracy, depite your protestations otherwise, because that is exactly how your posts look to the outside world.

Prove us wrong, Dave. Slap around the other side of righteous beliefs for a change, and actually stand up for your anti-piracy beliefs.

Stand up, or stand down.

G.

I don't need to prove anything to anybody. I don't steal. You can believe me, or not. It's not going to impact my life in any way. "Everybody" that believes I am lying believes that because it is in their nature to see evil in others, even with a lack of proof. I never said piracy isn't bad. Stealing is wrong. Period. However, using facts that simply can't be backed up by anything tangible shows weakness. If you want to climb on the moral bandwagon, then fine, it's a fair argument, but if you blast the pirates with things that can't be proven, then you only give them power, and tools to argue, and justify with.

Only way you could show for fact that piracy has an impact is if the people using it were to stand and claim "yes I stole it, and I would pay for it if I didn't". Since that can't be done, you can't factor in loss of sales, since you can't prove there was a potential sale to begin with. I know people that download cracked versions of expensive software just because it's expensive, and they want to bragging rights. They never use it, however. Thus, there is no loss of sale. If you talk to enough people that download, you will find this is very common.

I am not above sin. I have stolen things in my past (as many of us have). I"m not proud of it, and I do my best to be a good person these days. I do not believe bashing others for doing the same is going to gain me forgiveness. Like you said....2 wrongs don't make a right.


also, people steal things they don't value all the time. A lot of times it's about the thrill, and the chase. Sometimes it's about the challenge. There are many reasons a person might steal, things are not always so cut and dry, and certainly are not always as the seem.