Graywolf and Mark Roberts wrote:
Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop
>raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the
>free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use something
>else.
That's something I have thought about. Bootlegged copies of Photoshop don't represent lost sales for Adobe, they represent lost sales for Paint Shop Pro (or similar). Not that that's a good thing, but it's interesting.
-- Mark Roberts
I'm not sure illegal use raises the price of legitimate copies... but capitalism being what it is, it certainly doesn't provide a company with the incentive to lower the price.
I don't totally agree with these arguments though I undertsand the point your making. Bootlegged copies do represent lost potential sales and lost potential income. Let's take this to another level. I walk up to a car lot, find the keys in the ignition, and drive off with a brand new Jaguar. Does that NOT represent a lost sale for the dealer just because I never planned on buying it in the first place? Granted, I could not have fabricated a like Jaguar by running it through a Car Duplicating Machine, but you see the point.
I have thought this (the arguments above) to some degree myself in the past. It's an easy rationalization that one could make in order to justify use without a purchase. "I never would have bought it, so I'm not doing anything wrong". From the seller's standpoint, it's totally different.
The picture changes totally depending on whether you're the person benefiting from the free use or whether you're the person/corporation being deprived of income, losing sales, whatever you want to call it.
Tom C.
