<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Perspectives on Piracy</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><atom:link href="https://tlf.disqus.com/perspectives_on_piracy/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:00:46 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Perspectives on Piracy</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/#comment-1444770</link><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'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'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's just spin.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jason A. Martin</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:00:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Perspectives on Piracy</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2005/12/08/perspectives-on-piracy/#comment-1444769</link><description>&lt;p&gt;2.4 million new jobs??  c'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><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">evan</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:53:46 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>