Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!binder
From: binder@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Tim Binder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: software piracy
Message-ID: <26575@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 90 00:40:20 GMT
References: <9446@hubcap.clemson.edu> <43793@brunix.UUCP> <9658.26861a4c@amherst.bitnet> <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: binder@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Tim Binder)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 81

In article <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes:
>In article <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
>> 
[some text deleted...]
>>>profit made from it, which is what liscening agreements are for.
>> 
>> Sure it is.  Thats why the agreement says such things as (from Apple's):
>> "Apple makes no warranty or representation, either express or implied, with
>> respect to software, its quality, performance, merchantability, or fitness
>> for a particular purpose.  As a result, this software is sold 'as is', and
>> you the purchaser are assuming the entire risk as to its quality and
>> performance."...
>
>The next time you go see a movie, and you don't like it, go to the register and
>demand your money back.

The next time I go to a movie advertising Michael J. Fox and Christopher
Lloyd as stars, which doesn't actually contain them, I will ask for my money
back. AND I will get it.

The problem here is that software companies have gone to the extreme, with
disclaimers that basically say "This software is not guaranteed to do
anything, including that which we advertised it would." This is too much.
I understand companies trying to protect themselves

[more deletions...]
>
>However, think about this:  If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495,
>and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for
>the company.  Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package
>is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss
>becomes $198,000.  That's quite a chunk.  Some software companies need that
>money.  They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their
>customers, etc.

I am getting really tired of this fallacy that piracy causes actual
financial LOSSES to a company. Taking some figures, strictly for example,
since I do not know actual sales figures for any particular product:

Say 2,000 copies of the package above are sold, and the package cost 
$500,000 to develop, including all costs. My accounting makes this

	2,000 x $495		$990,000
	development costs	-500,000
				---------
	net profit		$490,000

Now, using the above logic, another 2,000 copies are pirated:

	-2,000 x $495		-990,000
				--------
			       ($500,000) loss

Which says to me the company lost $0.5 million in the sales period we are
looking at. Any accountant will tell you they made almost $0.5 million, not
lost it.

YES, the company probably DID suffer from decreased revenues due to piracy,
but it did not "lose" money.

>
>Andrei Herasimchuk
>Marketing Director
>Specular Int'l
>
>Standard Disclaimer as always.


Please note that I am not trying to condone piracy; it's just that seeing
faulty logic destroy a good cause (reducing piracy), I could not let this
continue without comment.

Tim Binder

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Timothy Mark Binder      | At any time, at any place, our snipers can drop |
| Computing Coordinator    | you  at a  moment's  notice.  Have a  nice day. |
| Van Pelt College House   |-------------------------------------------------|
| University of Pennsylvania      | Disclaimer: Nobody tells this university |
| (Yes, I'm only a student here.) | what to think, least of all us students. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|