From: bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar)
Subject: The Perennial Piracy Debate (was Re: Bilestoad)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:53:21 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.215710.12912@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> ejohnson@sparc3.cs.uiuc.edu (Eric E Johnson) writes:
>>In <h5dmpaj.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>You deleted the text that I was responding to. The publisher did not pay
>>>the author for the copies of bilestoad that it sold. THIS is why he has
>>>not written any more games for the A//. This is not a piracy issue.
>>
>>But it is.  If the game would have not been pirated, much more money
>>would have been made for DataMost [I think that they are the ones who
>>published Bilestoad] and they might have stayed in business.
>>Regardless, someone lost money by a lot of piracy.  

>I do not believe that DataMost was in financial trouble when the Bilestoad
>came out. Your assumption that piracy was a major cause is probably
>wrong, but untestable, and therefore, not a meaningfull argument. The
>lost profits argument -assumes- that everyone who pirates a program could
>afford to buy is (no lost profits otherwise). I suspect that most of the
>time, this is not the case. 

  Oh Rich, you are so wrong.
  Pirates can afford huge hard drives (200MB and up).
  Pirates can afford $700 USRobotics HST Modems.
  Pirates can afford long distance phone bills.
  Pirates can damned well affort to buy a game now and then.
  You can justify if you wish, but piracy is a _crime_ punishable by
a $10,000 fine and up to *TEN* years in prison.  Think about that
before you leap off and say that piracy doesn't hurt anyone.

> And I suspect that the claimed lost profits
>exceed the expendable cash of the American public by an order of magnitude.
>Note, I am not defending piracy, but I am attacking the lost profits
>argument.

  The lost profits argument is valid.  It's like saying, well, these
people now have this software.  If they have it on their computer, and
use it, that's lost profits to the company whether the jackass pirate
had the money to pay for it or not.

>None of which has any bearing on the fact that the PUBLISHER screwed the
>programs authur, they did not pay for the copies that they sold. Or do you
>call this piracy also?

  This is downright low, and I'm not defending DataMost.  I'm attacking
your laxidaisical attitude towards one of the largest criminal operations
happening today.

>The problems start when "an incredible number" -becomes- a number, and
>the number is used as a fact, and a basis for huge lost profits.

  But it _IS_, Rich.  If all those people really loved that game, and
weren't scum-sucking pirate filth, they'd have paid for it.  And guess
what?  There'd have been a Bilestoad II, and other games by that 
author.  But, because 1) the publisher screwed over the author, and 2)
because noone paid for the game, the author left the II market.

  I tell you what, Rich.  You try being a software publisher sometime.
Piracy will become _very_ important you you when every illegal copy
means someone reaching into your pocket and stealing $20. Piracy is
not a game, piracy is not a 'ignore it and it will go away' problem,
piracy is a *crime* against those who are trying to keep the Apple IIgs
alive.

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment
 Procyon, Inc.              |   for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu         |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 933-4649
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,from.socal.com