
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Perspectives on Piracy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/</link>
	<description>Keeping politicians&#039; hands off the Net &#38; everything else related to technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason A. Martin</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/comment-page-1/#comment-32409</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason A. Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/#comment-32409</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Here is the problem with all those numbers.
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
Let&#039;s say someone steals a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2. Adobe will say that they lost $650 in revenue as a result. They will then estimate how many copies where stolen and multiply that number by $650 and do so on all products to get a final loss amount.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
However, who is to say that the person who stole a copy of Photoshop would have purchased it if the option to get it for free was not there? I would think it could be proved that many people who take high priced software would not buy it even if that was the only option.
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
So all of these reports are seriously flawed.
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
As to the job claim, that&#039;s just marketing. If the company says they lost $X in revenue due to piracy, only the shareholders care. However, if they say it costs jobs, now they have personalized it for the public. In other words, it&#039;s just spin.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is the problem with all those numbers.
</p>

<p>
Let&#8217;s say someone steals a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2. Adobe will say that they lost $650 in revenue as a result. They will then estimate how many copies where stolen and multiply that number by $650 and do so on all products to get a final loss amount.</p>

<p>
However, who is to say that the person who stole a copy of Photoshop would have purchased it if the option to get it for free was not there? I would think it could be proved that many people who take high priced software would not buy it even if that was the only option.
</p>

<p>
So all of these reports are seriously flawed.
</p>

<p>
As to the job claim, that&#8217;s just marketing. If the company says they lost $X in revenue due to piracy, only the shareholders care. However, if they say it costs jobs, now they have personalized it for the public. In other words, it&#8217;s just spin.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason A. Martin</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/comment-page-1/#comment-53321</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason A. Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/#comment-53321</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Here is the problem with all those numbers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;Let&#039;s say someone steals a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2. Adobe will say that they lost $650 in revenue as a result. They will then estimate how many copies where stolen and multiply that number by $650 and do so on all products to get a final loss amount.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, who is to say that the person who stole a copy of Photoshop would have purchased it if the option to get it for free was not there? I would think it could be proved that many people who take high priced software would not buy it even if that was the only option.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;So all of these reports are seriously flawed.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;As to the job claim, that&#039;s just marketing. If the company says they lost $X in revenue due to piracy, only the shareholders care. However, if they say it costs jobs, now they have personalized it for the public. In other words, it&#039;s just spin.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is the problem with all those numbers.<br /></p>

<p><br />Let&#8217;s say someone steals a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2. Adobe will say that they lost $650 in revenue as a result. They will then estimate how many copies where stolen and multiply that number by $650 and do so on all products to get a final loss amount.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p><br />However, who is to say that the person who stole a copy of Photoshop would have purchased it if the option to get it for free was not there? I would think it could be proved that many people who take high priced software would not buy it even if that was the only option.<br /></p>

<p><br /></p>

<p><br />So all of these reports are seriously flawed.<br /></p>

<p><br />As to the job claim, that&#8217;s just marketing. If the company says they lost $X in revenue due to piracy, only the shareholders care. However, if they say it costs jobs, now they have personalized it for the public. In other words, it&#8217;s just spin.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evan</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/comment-page-1/#comment-32408</link>
		<dc:creator>evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/#comment-32408</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;2.4 million new jobs??  c&#039;mon... I dont buy it.  What it would mean is more money for the people that already have the jobs, and maybe some extra tangential employment, but 2.4 million new jobs?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What they probably did was take 400 billion and divided 50 grand as the average income into that and came up with 2.4 million or something.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2.4 million new jobs??  c&#8217;mon&#8230; I dont buy it.  What it would mean is more money for the people that already have the jobs, and maybe some extra tangential employment, but 2.4 million new jobs?</p>

<p>What they probably did was take 400 billion and divided 50 grand as the average income into that and came up with 2.4 million or something.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evan</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/comment-page-1/#comment-53320</link>
		<dc:creator>evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/#comment-53320</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;2.4 million new jobs??  c&#039;mon... I dont buy it.  What it would mean is more money for the people that already have the jobs, and maybe some extra tangential employment, but 2.4 million new jobs?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What they probably did was take 400 billion and divided 50 grand as the average income into that and came up with 2.4 million or something.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2.4 million new jobs??  c&#8217;mon&#8230; I dont buy it.  What it would mean is more money for the people that already have the jobs, and maybe some extra tangential employment, but 2.4 million new jobs?<br /><br />What they probably did was take 400 billion and divided 50 grand as the average income into that and came up with 2.4 million or something.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

