🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> Brainwobbler MacSpleen wrote in article <5nub57$lvv$1...@news.tcd.net>...
>>un...@hishouse.com (Fred) wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Jun 1997 05:56:40 GMT, "Outlaw" <out...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You're assuming that the "4 friends" will indeed buy the game. Not
>likely
>>>>to happen in real life considering the demographics of the gaming
>segment.
>>>>The bottom line is that there really is no way to accurately access
>lost
>>>>sales. As a result, these so called loss estimates made by the game
>makers
>>>>(and yourself) are very much over exaggerated and impossible to prove.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>I agree with this.  For example, lets say that Willie Lunchmeat would
>>>like to have Microsoft Office 97 for his computer at home, but it
>>>isn't something that he absolutely needs, and there is no way in hell
>>>he is willing to shell out the $300+ for it.  But, lets say that
>>>Willie is browing the web, and finds a WaReZ site that has Office on
>>>it.  Willie downloads it and lives happily ever after.  Micro$oft
>>>hasn't lost a dime because Mr. Lunchmeat wouldn't have bought it in
>>>the first place.  Don't get me wrong, im not supporting Piracy by no
>>>means, but don't sit here and pump out bullshit "projected,
>>>hypothetical" loss stats on proggies that would have never been bought
>>>in the first place.  Besides, the only company in trouble is Apple,
>>>and no one is (or wants to be) stealing there shit.
>>
>>I think I've been making this same argument on Usenet for about two
>>years now.  Thank you for putting it a way that people can actually
>>understand.
>>
>>--Me.
>

Here's your free clue: 

Warez suck.  Either buy it or don't have it.