End to piracy

X

xfile

Hello,

Those were posted by Donald L McDaniel.

And incidentally, I have no ideas for what he was trying to say with regard
of my post.



And I have no idea for what he tried to respond
 
X

xfile

Hi there,

Out of curiosity, I read a few posts of yours, and here are some interesting
observations:

You may know a few things, but you have a mean attitude, and you have no
problems for calling people an "idiot".

It appears that you're more interested in lecturing, insulting, and talking
instead of reading and understanding what others have said.

It appears that you're not happy with the new retail license, but in the
same time, you're attacking those having the same feeling but maybe using
different ways to express their thoughts other than yours.

Sir, you're a loser and my guess is that you're also a loner. You may have
attended schools but you haven't learned anything about being a civilized
person.

You're pathetic and I feel sorry for you.

You can go ahead call me an idiot or whatever you want to, but you're a
loser to me.
 
X

xfile

BTW,

There is something good about you - you're my mirror!

I decided to leave here and pay more attentions to my life before I become
like you :)

Have a great life!
 
H

Holiday

And I also feel for those who are losing money. One more example, and I will
leave it alone.
Looking at E-mule searching under "XP Pro"
Microsoft Office XP Pro has over 5075 copies up for grabs. that is 5,075
copies. Microsoft office XP, taking Amazon's price (the average) is about
$400 per copy. So we take that 5075 and multiply it by $400. The final number
is $2.030,000. That's right, over 2 million dollars. Well the Company didn't
get payed for that, therefore, that is a 2 million dollar loss for them...
Wait, or is it? Big companies like Microsoft don't take losses, no, they just
raise prices to cover the loss.
So, now, if you divide the 2 million dollars by the number of honest users,
It may be about $5, to $20 a piece they will raise prices, but then add the
losses from Windows XP, which I am sure is much more, but for ths example
lets keep it the same area, say 5000. Multiply that by the going Price on
Amazon ($269.99, or $270), and you have another $1,345,000 in lost revenue
that the consumer who actually buys the product has to cover. There is
another $5 or $20 per honest user. But it keeps going through the spectrum of
software, not only Microsoft, but Symantec, and Mcaffee, or any video game
manufacturer.
Click to expand...


Not to take the side of pirates here, but most of the people
downloading this software would not have purchased it, even if they
could not have downloaded it, so the figures stated in your "Loss' to
company's are not all that accurate. But it is still a mass theft of
IP.

Holiday
 
D

deebs

The premise is a well tried one and has some merit.

For example:

a - person A steals some stuff and sells for lifestyle values on a
professional basis

b - Person B steals some stuff and sells it to feed the kids.

Whom, in the above, is a moral thief?

But (in the UK?) such extremes may not be so obvious as perhaps they
once were.

So, looking at it from another stance, what would one prefer:

a - a society where one's doors are open because there is no need to
lock them. Respect and upholding of moral values is widespread

b - everything of value has to be locked down, secured, marked, coded
and registered because someoneelse's moral values are such that if
there is a cheap way to obtain something then it is fully justified to
do so.

I don't crib people that select option b, I much rather prefer option a.

Consequence: what does one do about it?

:
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Click to expand...
<and snipped again>>
 
A

arachnid

Looking at E-mule searching under "XP Pro" Microsoft Office XP Pro has
over 5075 copies up for grabs. that is 5,075 copies. Microsoft office XP,
taking Amazon's price (the average) is about $400 per copy. So we take
that 5075 and multiply it by $400. The final number is $2.030,000. That's
right, over 2 million dollars. Well the Company didn't get payed for that,
therefore, that is a 2 million dollar loss for them... Wait, or is it? Big
companies like Microsoft don't take losses, no, they just raise prices to
cover the loss.
Click to expand...

I really wish people would quit repeating this old BSA propaganda.
Internet piracy does not increase consumer costs. Companies set their
prices at the maximum the market will bear. Piracy does not increase
that maximum and may in fact exert a downward pressure on it (charge too
much and so many will pirate your software that it eats the extra profit
margin)

I'm not advocating piracy. Just saying that you're a fool if you think
that enduring heavy-handed copy protection and supporting loss of fair use
is going to bring down the cost of software. Every time Microsoft
tightens down on Windows, they get greedier about terms of use so as to
force people to buy more copies, and their prices increase rather than
decreasing. Can anyone here point to a single case where a reduction in
piracy has *ever* led to a decrease in software or media prices?
 
A

Alias~-

arachnid said:
I really wish people would quit repeating this old BSA propaganda.
Internet piracy does not increase consumer costs. Companies set their
prices at the maximum the market will bear. Piracy does not increase
that maximum and may in fact exert a downward pressure on it (charge too
much and so many will pirate your software that it eats the extra profit
margin)

I'm not advocating piracy. Just saying that you're a fool if you think
that enduring heavy-handed copy protection and supporting loss of fair use
is going to bring down the cost of software. Every time Microsoft
tightens down on Windows, they get greedier about terms of use so as to
force people to buy more copies, and their prices increase rather than
decreasing. Can anyone here point to a single case where a reduction in
piracy has *ever* led to a decrease in software or media prices?
Click to expand...

Hardware prices have gone down considerably, although "pirating"
hardware is not only not frowned upon but encouraged if you do a good
job of copying :)

Alias
 
W

William

This might be something that some here might not like to read, but I am not going to shed a tear for Microsoft or any other large multi-national corporation because of their claims to financial losses because of piracy of their high prices software. I don't think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or any of the rich corporate fat cats have to worry about how they are going to pay the bills, buy groceries, put gasoline in the tank of their car or any of the other things that the common person deals with every month.

I don't condone piracy, but neither am I going to shed a tear for the rich. do you think if there were no piracy that Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and all the others would be charging far less for their software? Does anyone remember how much OS/2 1.2 cost in the late 80's? It was something like several hundred dollars, and it was not pirated.

It has nothing to do with PIRACY! It is all about PROFITS!

William
Holiday said:
And I also feel for those who are losing money. One more example, and I will
leave it alone.
Looking at E-mule searching under "XP Pro"
Microsoft Office XP Pro has over 5075 copies up for grabs. that is 5,075
copies. Microsoft office XP, taking Amazon's price (the average) is about
$400 per copy. So we take that 5075 and multiply it by $400. The final number
is $2.030,000. That's right, over 2 million dollars. Well the Company didn't
get payed for that, therefore, that is a 2 million dollar loss for them...
Wait, or is it? Big companies like Microsoft don't take losses, no, they just
raise prices to cover the loss.
So, now, if you divide the 2 million dollars by the number of honest users,
It may be about $5, to $20 a piece they will raise prices, but then add the
losses from Windows XP, which I am sure is much more, but for ths example
lets keep it the same area, say 5000. Multiply that by the going Price on
Amazon ($269.99, or $270), and you have another $1,345,000 in lost revenue
that the consumer who actually buys the product has to cover. There is
another $5 or $20 per honest user. But it keeps going through the spectrum of
software, not only Microsoft, but Symantec, and Mcaffee, or any video game
manufacturer.
Click to expand...


Not to take the side of pirates here, but most of the people
downloading this software would not have purchased it, even if they
could not have downloaded it, so the figures stated in your "Loss' to
company's are not all that accurate. But it is still a mass theft of
IP.

Holiday
 
D

deebs

a - what is wrong with making a profit? Is it not merely a
manifestation of having something that a multitude of people wish to buy?

b - the losses are not just to the copyright owners (eg bona fide
retailers, distributors, vendors and governmental taxes)

c - the gains are not just to the 'local' pirate with some police forces
identifying major sources of pirated stuff (software and/or DVDs) to be
linked with human slavery, pornography, crime and terrorism.

You pay your money, you make your choice. What sort of world would you
prefer your children to grow up into? Piracy rich or integrity rich?


William wrote:
<snipped>
 
A

Alexander Suhovey

deebs said:
a - what is wrong with making a profit?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't get it too.
I know what's wrong with being poor - it just sucks. But what's wrong with
being rich?.. Does it extempt you from any rights or make you an evil
bastard all of a sudden? This is the kind of dangerous attitude that lead my
country to nearly a century of a nightmare...
 
W

William

I am not against the profit motivation. but when the largest and most profitable corporations are seeking every means possible to loot the common person every way possible, and then cry poverty, it is falling on deaf ears. And it is not just Microsoft or Apple, but the Oil companies also.

Is pirated software contributing to human slavery, pornography, crime and terrorism in America? Is Al Qaeda now sponsoring the piracy of software to fund their operations?


a - what is wrong with making a profit? Is it not merely a
manifestation of having something that a multitude of people wish to buy?

b - the losses are not just to the copyright owners (eg bona fide
retailers, distributors, vendors and governmental taxes)

c - the gains are not just to the 'local' pirate with some police forces
identifying major sources of pirated stuff (software and/or DVDs) to be
linked with human slavery, pornography, crime and terrorism.

You pay your money, you make your choice. What sort of world would you
prefer your children to grow up into? Piracy rich or integrity rich?


William wrote:
<snipped>
 
M

Mark D. VandenBerg

I am not against the profit motivation. but when the largest and most profitable corporations are seeking every means possible to loot the common person every way possible, and then cry poverty, it is falling on deaf ears. And it is not just Microsoft or Apple, but the Oil companies also.

Is pirated software contributing to human slavery, pornography, crime and terrorism in America? Is Al Qaeda now sponsoring the piracy of software to fund their operations?


Actually I thought I heard that Al Qaeda were all Linux fanboys, but it's only a rumour.
 
L

Luke Fitzwater

Yes I have read many EULA, and the XP OEM EULA is one of them. First
off, where in the world on Microsoft's press releases or on their site
is the Vista EULA? There isn't one. Which means what people are reading
now and comparing to XP OEM EULA maybe just constructed as a hoax. You
have a few months to wait before the real EULA for Vista shows up. Until
then, keep a clear mind and then go over it with a fine toothed comb
when it does get here.

Now pay attention Donald; it sounds like you are pre-law major. If
someone uses a single license from a single license install (say it
doesn't have a license transfer clause) product on one machine. That is
a proper use of the license and the machine is called licensed. Now if
the same person installs the same license on a second machine, the
second machine is in violation of the original license and there for
unlicensed if caught.

Holding a license in your hand means nothing in the software realm, I
could be holding a handful of XP OEM license, but if I do no install
them on a machine, they will not do any good either way. So in short,
the machine is the critical part of the license. This is the same
concept in Business Law with any service. I'll use a lawn care service
provider as the service. They work on a lawn. The lawn did not request
the service, but the lawn is very important to the service contract
executed by the company offering the service.

-Luke
 
X

xfile

Hi,

Thanks for the information, and I "assume" it should be and it should have
done so except it is not in this version of EULA.

In any case, I was using it as an example.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Microsoft Exec Admits That Company Benefits From Piracy 2
Rent it out !! 5
display driver igfx 1
Window Defender 1
FORMAT HD 3
Suggestion to Microsoft 4
Vista limting transfers? Please say it isn't so.. 27
Anitivirus 1

Top