by fzammetti » Jun 11, 2002 @ 9:18pm
Let me start off by saying, as I did in my last post, that if your argument is that consumers are hurt *MORE* by warez than developers, with that I won't argue. However, in your original post, you said "Warez does nothing to hurt the developer, only the consumer". With this I absolutely disagree.
No, I can't give you statistics on how my software would sell if everyone in the world was honest and didn't steal. However, it is logically accurate to say that if even ONE person obtains a warez'd copy that otherwise would have bought it, I have been harmed. Since my software has in fact been warez'd, and I can absolutely prove that more than a few people have it, and since it is not unreasonable to assume that at least one of those people would have bought it, I can assume I have been hamed by warez. Yes, it's an assumption and as such I cannot absolutely prove it, but it is quite reasonable.
Can I guarantee that everyone that warez my software would have bought it? No, of course not. In fact, I would assume that the majority would NOT have bought it. Even if I go so far as to say 99% would NOT have bought it, it's that 1% that is doing me harm. We're just talking a matter of degrees, nothing more.
Can I give you precise statistics of how many people have my software illegally? The implication seeming to be that some number will be OK while some will not? No, I can't give you statistics. Again though, I can absolutely prove without doubt that at least one person does, and in fact many do, so therefore statistics are not needed.
Your right, maybe more people are buying my software because of exposure. Can you give me statistics to prove this? If you can, I will certainly rethink my position on warez.
How do I know warez is making any impact at all? I don't with 100% certainty. But making assumptions based on ONE SINGLE INSTANCE is quite reasonable.
Your argument that consumers see the impact of warez every time they look in their wallets or on their credit card statements is dubious to say the least. Who's to say that every developer would not charge exactly the same amounts if there was no warez at all? Show me some statistics that states that developers would lower their prices if there was no warez.
I'll say it again: are consumers hurt MORE than developers? Ok, that's probably true. Are developers hurt? It is quite reasonable to believe so. Are they hurt a lot? I bet most would think so. And who's to determine what a lot is anyway? Should I be allowed to determine how much pain you can endure at the hands of a torturer or should you? What right would I have to determine that for you?
Same thing for developers. It's our right to determine how much harm warez is doing to us, not anyone else's (very certainly not the pirates, and I'm not saying you are by the way). If we raise our prices because of it, we'd better be able to justify that to consumers, otherwise they will take their business elsewhere.
And that's really the bottom line here when all is said and done... if we as developers treat our customers poorly, they can go somewhere else. But as a developer, if I am unable to make sales because warez is cutting into that, what recourse do I have? Yes, consumers are hurt by warez, but developers are too!
...and so I said to Mr. Gates: "$640 billion should be enough for anyone!"
<br></div>
