On Mon, September 4, 2006 10:58 pm, markring40 at ippimail.com wrote: >> Mike Miller wrote: >> The thing I want to address is the notion that such distribution damages >> the company that produces the software. That isn't clear. When a >> program >> that usually costs $500, say, is being distributed for free on the >> internet in violation of the license, many people will download the >> program for free who would never have paid $500 for a properly-licensed >> copy. So, a company that might have expected to sell 2,000 copies at >> $500 >> apiece might find that 1,000,000 copies were freely downloaded on the >> web >> against their wishes. But that means that 998,000 more people are using >> their program than would have used it otherwise. Are they worse off? >> Well that depends on how much they sell. It could hurt them, but it >> also >> could help them. It depends. > > Mike I think you've answered your own question. The company in your > example has lost $499 Million dollars!! That would definately hurt them. > It would not help them. > > Maybe this is a better analogy: > > I managed broadcast companies for 20 years. If advertisers were able to > somehow submit commercials to the station that aired for free - to *sneak* > the ads into the station's computer as it were - there would be no > financial benefit to the owners or the employees; no matter how much > exposure the broadcaster received. > > If the paying customers then learned of this *free* option they would be > much less likely to buy future ad campaigns exacerbating the stations > financial problems. > > In fact the advertisers surreptitiously placing free ads are stealing > air-time that can never be resold; lost revenue that can never be made up. > It's the same with software. > > If people download a program or key code to use a program it is typically > for a specific use or set of uses. Chances are that when that use is met, > or continues to be met, the user will never pay for that software in the > future. There would be no need. The software author(s), distributors, > investors, etc., are all harmed. > > I just don't see how all that *exposure* can help in the least. > > Mark Ring > > > Mark, That exposure "helps" in hooking people into the software. Commercial software makers are in the business of sell upgrades. Your analogy doesn't work because there is no way to resell the 30 seconds from 8:04:00 to 8:04:30 on Tusday September 5, 2006 once it has passed. If get a pirated copy of AutoCAD while in college and then go to work for business that is concerned about it license issues or even if you go into a private practice you're more likely to buy a copy then continue to use a pirated copy. More importantly if the SW maker tightens the controls the controls on the software between versions you might shell out for the upgrade. So those 998,000 pirates if 10% buy an upgrade at $100 a pop that's $10,000,000 in revenue. You can't compare the lost $499 million because that money isn't in the equation. You make the assumption that if the pirated software wasn't available then people would by the full price. If you can't afford $500 for the software you use something else. Jack -- Jack Ungerleider jack at jacku.com http://www.jacku.com