I'm one of those people who does not condone digital piracy. Period. But by the same token, I'm smart enough to realize that attempting to "combat" it through digital rights management schemes is never going to work. Not because of technical reasons (even if that technology has so far proven itself to be ineffective at best even when not flat out broken) so much as it is for social reasons.
And because of that, the questionable claims made by frustrated digital property producers as to the calculated magnitude of their financial losses becomes all the more specious. Most of these claims seem to state (without any proof) that every copy obtained illegally directly translates to the actual loss of a sale. This is a presumption which neatly ignores the fact that many of the people who do pirate something would never buy a licensed copy - even if they had the money to do so.
But that doesn't stop companies from making projections based on that presumption. Usually it goes something like this: Well...if you take a given number of copies pirated times our MSRP, then our losses due to piracy are...
There are a couple of problems with this methodology. Lets ask a few questions:
Q: How do you know how many copies were actually "pirated?"
A: Well...if you look at the number of torrents in a given month... (translation: We pulled a number out of our ass)
Q: How do you know everybody who pirated a copy would have actually bought it had they not been able to download it for free?
A: We just know. (translation: We're so full of ourselves that we've come to believe everybody wants to own our products. So piss off!))
Q: Why do you always calculate the alleged loss using your obviously inflated MSRP?
A: Hey! That's what we charge for it on our website. And it's a fair price! If Amazon wants to cut it's own throat, who are we to tell them how to run their business? (translation: Umm...next question please?)
Q: Do you actually sell many copies on you website that way? I mean, y'know...at full list price?
A: I'm sorry. Our sales figures are proprietary information. (translation: And you can expect your ISP to get served with a DMCA takedown notice the minute your article mentioning any of this appears!)
And so it goes. It's mostly accounting projections done using questionable assumptions and methods. And as somebody with a degree in accounting, all I can say is FUBAR! I'd love to see them attempt to convince the IRS they should be allowed to claim losses on their taxes using this same logic. You'll need something much better than a hunch plus some grade school math to convince those guys you experienced a business loss that merits your being able to take a deduction for it. The IRS is a stickler for actual and provable when claiming an expense for tax purposes.
But I'm talking as a businessman with an accounting background. What would a software game developer have to say about all this voodoo? Read on.
[attach]
And because of that, the questionable claims made by frustrated digital property producers as to the calculated magnitude of their financial losses becomes all the more specious. Most of these claims seem to state (without any proof) that every copy obtained illegally directly translates to the actual loss of a sale. This is a presumption which neatly ignores the fact that many of the people who do pirate something would never buy a licensed copy - even if they had the money to do so.
But that doesn't stop companies from making projections based on that presumption. Usually it goes something like this: Well...if you take a given number of copies pirated times our MSRP, then our losses due to piracy are...
There are a couple of problems with this methodology. Lets ask a few questions:
Q: How do you know how many copies were actually "pirated?"
A: Well...if you look at the number of torrents in a given month... (translation: We pulled a number out of our ass)
Q: How do you know everybody who pirated a copy would have actually bought it had they not been able to download it for free?
A: We just know. (translation: We're so full of ourselves that we've come to believe everybody wants to own our products. So piss off!))
Q: Why do you always calculate the alleged loss using your obviously inflated MSRP?
A: Hey! That's what we charge for it on our website. And it's a fair price! If Amazon wants to cut it's own throat, who are we to tell them how to run their business? (translation: Umm...next question please?)
Q: Do you actually sell many copies on you website that way? I mean, y'know...at full list price?
A: I'm sorry. Our sales figures are proprietary information. (translation: And you can expect your ISP to get served with a DMCA takedown notice the minute your article mentioning any of this appears!)
And so it goes. It's mostly accounting projections done using questionable assumptions and methods. And as somebody with a degree in accounting, all I can say is FUBAR! I'd love to see them attempt to convince the IRS they should be allowed to claim losses on their taxes using this same logic. You'll need something much better than a hunch plus some grade school math to convince those guys you experienced a business loss that merits your being able to take a deduction for it. The IRS is a stickler for actual and provable when claiming an expense for tax purposes.
But I'm talking as a businessman with an accounting background. What would a software game developer have to say about all this voodoo? Read on.
[attach]
She bought herself a Nook about a year ago and has been quite happy with it. She tends to read things on her Nook first. Then, if she really likes the title, she'll buy a paper copy. Which unfortunately is the exact thing the big booksellers seem to want her to stop doing.
