|
off topic (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
just quoting this so that when you sober up, the evidence is still there. |
Evidence? Like how I've got you dead to rights as a thief!
I've been sober for closing in on eight years, junior.
Sober and pathologically paranoid.
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
But you'll still be gullible in the morning. ;) |
|
|
| kitphillips |
Wow. Long thread is long.
I just don't see the point of these piracy discussions. Surely they should be taken to the ethics forums - oh wait, there isn't one. So surely they should go away.
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Please, please, please don't degenerate any more of your lucid arguments into a discussion on semantics, on my account. Continue, if it suits your purpose, whatever that might be. Let me thank you for clearing up my own misunderstanding which clearly arose from actually having read this malingering clusterf*ck.
I'll admit I had to skim through the last twelve posts to find one where you have contradicted yoursel... oops, er, I meant to say, proposed a nuanced viewpoint which is immediately contrasted by words which proceeded it that would actually negate what you were saying, in the first place.
Forgive me for being logical and coming to an appropriate conclusion based upon all of the available information. |
:stongue: Well played...
I guess I'm just saying that I think that if piracy results in more sales for developers it may not be all bad. If it results in better outcomes for consumers, like better running software (cubase without dongle) or software which is seperated from hardware (what will probably happen to pro tools now) then its can be a good thing.
Its not a black and white issue.
| quote: | Originally posted by adamtrance
(And to predict the future, some ass will quote my "I have far better things to do" and respond with: "yeah to steal software and steal this and that because you dont have proper speakers". So if that happenes, then "I told you" :) ) |
Dude I'm not against you, I was just pointing out that no one really has the right to criticise around here. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Really, you can't say that it doesn't have an impact. |
Actually, I can. Through a very long post.
When you throw out statistics like "27% of software is pirated", you're taking a very superficial, mathematical perspective on the situation. Do you think that means 27% of the market is refusing to purchase software? Does that mean production companies have less than 3/4ths of sales potential than they would have without piracy?
Mathematic connections like that seem correct superficially until you
consider how much the average pirate downloads, which is somewhere in the range of several -tons. Pirates can download thousands of dollars worth of programs and generally do simply because of the fact that they can. These are also the same people who wouldn't put money towards the products because of several factors, so they are not comprised of the target market of the products they're "stealing"
And on that topic, I don't equate software piracy to stealing. Stealing implies a loss on the part of the owners. If you go into a convenience store and pocket a candy bar or something, you're stealing something physical, something that has monetary value due to its physical components and the processes that got it to that state. Software is code that has no value other than the work that went into it and the team that did said work. I'm not trying to devalue all of that work, I'm merely saying it's not intrinsic, it's implied. And nothing is actually "lost" other than potential sales. As Richie's been saying, there is no potential in the group of people pirating those programs, simply because they would never buy that product in the first place. Either they download it, and have the software, or they don't and it doesn't get bought either way. Is downloading it really that bad in that situation?
Most markets contain a figure of pirates somewhere around 3-5%. While they account for more than 1/4th of software being pirated, that seems a lot less threatening when you consider 95-97% of the actual target market is still purchasing that software.
I feel like that's the point Richie's been trying to make but he doesn't seem very willing to go in-depth in it. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
Actually, I can. Through a very long post.
When you throw out statistics like "27% of software is pirated", you're taking a very superficial, mathematical perspective on the situation. Do you think that means 27% of the market is refusing to purchase software? Does that mean production companies have less than 3/4ths of sales potential than they would have without piracy?
Mathematic connections like that seem correct superficially until you
consider how much the average pirate downloads, which is somewhere in the range of several -tons. Pirates can download thousands of dollars worth of programs and generally do simply because of the fact that they can. These are also the same people who wouldn't put money towards the products because of several factors, so they are not comprised of the target market of the products they're "stealing"
And on that topic, I don't equate software piracy to stealing. Stealing implies a loss on the part of the owners. If you go into a convenience store and pocket a candy bar or something, you're stealing something physical, something that has monetary value due to its physical components and the processes that got it to that state. Software is code that has no value other than the work that went into it and the team that did said work. I'm not trying to devalue all of that work, I'm merely saying it's not intrinsic, it's implied. And nothing is actually "lost" other than potential sales. As Richie's been saying, there is no potential in the group of people pirating those programs, simply because they would never buy that product in the first place. Either they download it, and have the software, or they don't and it doesn't get bought either way. Is downloading it really that bad in that situation?
Most markets contain a figure of pirates somewhere around 3-5%. While they account for more than 1/4th of software being pirated, that seems a lot less threatening when you consider 95-97% of the actual target market is still purchasing that software.
I feel like that's the point Richie's been trying to make but he doesn't seem very willing to go in-depth in it. |
You know: I'm in a foul, foul mood and not really in the mood for discussing this, any further, but I'm going to anyway. It would seem, however, in spite of your conjecture on the issue that IDC - the company responsible for the study I cited - used flawed statistical analysis in gathering their useless spew. I will, unfortunately, have to do it without my precious statistics; the veracity of which seems of so little value to anyone in the industry that there is no conclusive study I can refer to - even for ing general software - let alone one for music software, currently.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...?intsrc=hm_list
Before I continue, however, I want to correct some notion that I am not understanding your arguments and I want you to verify that I am correct in my interpretation or, at least, fill in the gaps.
My understanding of your argument is, as follows:
Computer software is not a tangible good and is therefore NOT subject to market forces which would affect its price, such as scarcity, and this is one reason why piracy has little impact on the profitability of the industry.
Software crackers and their clients, here-after referred to as unlicensed users and/or pirates, comprise a nearly separate population from the target markets of the software manufacturers. A Venn Diagram would hypothetically illustrate this point by, perhaps, stating that if there were one-thousand users (licensed and unlicensed), five-hundred of which were licensed users, that only a fraction of those who fell within the target market would be unlicensed users while nearly all of the licensed users would fall into the category of target market. It is therefor a small percentage of the target market who is actually responsible for disenfranchising the company of its rightful proceeds and, being that more than 90% of the target market has paid for their goods, negligible harm has, in fact, occurred. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
I disagree with you, and aside from the actual disagreement, you're caricaturing his argument.
He's just saying that not every unlicensed user was a potential buyer. If you disagree with that then you're incredibly naive IMO. The number of unlicensed users who actually would have brought the product is open to conjecture, but Kysora was pointing out a flaw in your argument which you don't have an answer for; you simply don't know how much money companies are losing because of piracy.
Are they losing some? Yes. Are they gaining some? Maybe. How much are they losing? Who knows.
Can anybody do ANYTHING about the situation? No. So whats the point of wasting your time arguing about it. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
My understanding of your argument is, as follows:
[LIST]Computer software is not a tangible good and is therefore NOT subject to market forces which would affect its price, such as scarcity, and this is one reason why piracy has little impact on the profitability of the industry. |
This wasn't really the main aspect of my argument, and it sounds a lot better in the context of what I was saying than how you're putting it here -- I simply said that to illustrate that the act of piracy does not directly negatively affect the financial situation of a developer if that person never intended to purchase the software in the first place.
| quote: | | Software crackers and their clients, here-after referred to as unlicensed users and/or pirates, comprise a nearly separate population from the target markets of the software manufacturers. |
I think you focused too much on "target market", I probably tossed that term around -- either way all I was saying is that while the percentage of pirated software vs legitimately purchased software is very high, that percentage is due to a very small fraction of people compared to the people still purchasing it.
Consider this: About 80% of iPhone apps are pirated, but only maybe 10% of iPhones are jailbroken (this is a very liberal estimate). That's simply because pirates download WAY more than legitimate buyers can ever purchase. But without those jailbroken phones, the apps would probably sell just as many copies, with maybe a very, very slight increase in sales. That's basically all I'm saying.
You seem to understand my argument but don't get focused on "target market", I simply considered the target market to be the group of people that would actually purchase the product, vs the people that would pirate it and not put a dime towards the software otherwise. Probably an incorrect term but I'm not sure where you're about to go off with your argument, and I don't want you focusing on that. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
I disagree with you, and aside from the actual disagreement, you're caricaturing his argument.
He's just saying that not every unlicensed user was a potential buyer. If you disagree with that then you're incredibly naive IMO. The number of unlicensed users who actually would have brought the product is open to conjecture, but Kysora was pointing out a flaw in your argument which you don't have an answer for; you simply don't know how much money companies are losing because of piracy.
Are they losing some? Yes. Are they gaining some? Maybe. How much are they losing? Who knows.
Can anybody do ANYTHING about the situation? No. So whats the point of wasting your time arguing about it. |
Actually, if anything, I was specifically trying to avoid caricaturing anyone's argument. In fact, I was trying to adopt the position I would be using if I were actually taking the opposite side. I deliberately avoided setting up a straw-man logical fallacy in order to set the opposition to my arguments in a position to which then attack the weaknesses of them.
What's telling is that both you and Keysora, to a lesser extent, basically see a position I would use if I were on the opposite side of this as either a 'caricature' or 'not as good as'. Now was it a bit simplified? Yes - but only to avoid unnecessary details which don't necessarily impact the salient merits of the arguments.
My bottom line is that I'm not going to have an argument where I have in-as-much conceded that the real harm is both unquantified and unquantifiable if I cannot quantify the opposition's opinion into something which is, in itself, static. What happens when such stasis is neglected is that people change the points they are arguing to, thereby reducing the relevance of my own arguments.
I've seen it, even in this thread, where clear delineations not being made about what people are actually arguing about creates unwarranted sticking points and fosters beliefs on both sides which actually have people about arguing over something they fundamentally agree on.
Finally, I respect your position but an insistence that I am naive is largely irrelevant since such an argument is only supported with speculation on my actual knowledge concerning this issue. It remains, however, quite unsubstantiated without specific information provided which supports it. It is, at its heart, either an appeal to populace logical fallacy (everybody knows your position is naive) or an appeal to a higher authority logical fallacy (Diginut would think you are naive); both of which support a deductive Boolean ad hominem (x=1 not 0 therefore you are naive). If you think this debate is fundamentally useless, then there is actually nothing for you to agree or disagree with.
Personally, I'm doing it for my own entertainment.
| quote: | Originally posted by Kysora
This wasn't really the main aspect of my argument, and it sounds a lot better in the context of what I was saying than how you're putting it here -- I simply said that to illustrate that the act of piracy does not directly negatively affect the financial situation of a developer if that person never intended to purchase the software in the first place.
I think you focused too much on "target market", I probably tossed that term around -- either way all I was saying is that while the percentage of pirated software vs legitimately purchased software is very high, that percentage is due to a very small fraction of people compared to the people still purchasing it.
Consider this: About 80% of iPhone apps are pirated, but only maybe 10% of iPhones are jailbroken (this is a very liberal estimate). That's simply because pirates download WAY more than legitimate buyers can ever purchase. But without those jailbroken phones, the apps would probably sell just as many copies, with maybe a very, very slight increase in sales. That's basically all I'm saying.
You seem to understand my argument but don't get focused on "target market", I simply considered the target market to be the group of people that would actually purchase the product, vs the people that would pirate it and not put a dime towards the software otherwise. Probably an incorrect term but I'm not sure where you're about to go off with your argument, and I don't want you focusing on that. |
| quote: | | And on that topic, I don't equate software piracy to stealing. Stealing implies a loss on the part of the owners. If you go into a convenience store and pocket a candy bar or something, you're stealing something physical, something that has monetary value due to its physical components and the processes that got it to that state. Software is code that has no value other than the work that went into it and the team that did said work. I'm not trying to devalue all of that work, I'm merely saying it's not intrinsic, it's implied. And nothing is actually "lost" other than potential sales. As Richie's been saying, there is no potential in the group of people pirating those programs, simply because they would never buy that product in the first place. Either they download it, and have the software, or they don't and it doesn't get bought either way. Is downloading it really that bad in that situation? |
The above, I believe and even to the benefit of your argument, equates to:
| quote: | | Computer software is not a tangible good and is therefore NOT subject to market forces which would affect its price, such as scarcity, and this is one reason why piracy has little impact on the profitability of the industry. |
To further expound upon its benefits to your argument is the practicality behind what a licensed user is accorded which is support for the product, after the product has been installed on the machine; essentially outside of any legal consideration or ethical dilemma, the only other plausible reason within a person's own interest for which to pay for software, in the first place.
Target market is simply a useful reference point; a word I believe has been bandied about but which I adopted so I could clearly pose your arguments (and M4B's) as both a way to illustrate my fundamental understanding along with aligning it within the context of our disagreement.
The crux of your second argument is that because the population of unlicensed users would never have paid for what they are taking AND that because they do not comprise a percentage larger than the number of paying customers, in the first place, there is little revenue lost to the software company as those who have paid for being licensed comprise a substantial enough market share.
If we are agreed on these definitions, let me know. |
|
|
| Kysora |
| Uhh, yeah it sounds like you get me. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| Eddie should be an entertainment lawyer. I have never seen someone make something so simple so complicated. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
Eddie should be an entertainment lawyer. I have never seen someone make something so simple so complicated. |
:stongue:
Heh. Mom was a family attorney.
I figure it's not for more than an hour a day to an hour and a half a day while I'm listening to and tweaking a track and it keeps my head sharp. The devil is in the details. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| I'd say my biggest deficit in life is writing so I definitely respect your way with words. At least I can blame the aspergers. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
I'd say my biggest deficit in life is writing so I definitely respect your way with words. At least I can blame the aspergers. |
I think you're underestimating your way with words - and when you're writing about music... that's the stuff. |
|
|
|
|
