«

"thingy" <> wrote in message
news:f0hfl5-...
> Brian Mathews wrote:
>> "A couple months ago, when the Business Software Alliance (BSA) released
>> its latest stats on
>> piracy," it's VP of anti-piracy, Neil MacBride, gave me a call to discuss
>> my earlier complaints
>> about the organizations methodology. Needless to say, we did not see
>> eye-to-eye, and the phone call
>> did little to resolve our differences. I'm still hopeful that eventually
>> the BSA will recognize that
>> it's doing more damage to its own position by publishing obviously bogus
>> numbers. So, with the
>> organization releasing another bogus stat today, it's time to explain why
>> it's wrong and misleading.
>> "
>>
>>
>> http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml
>
> "Most" ppl know how bogus the BSA's figures are. Just how dodgy their
> methodologies are is revealed yet again....
>
> I these guys must have total contempt for Pollies, either that or the
> pollies are in their pocket and this is just a smokescreen the BSA hands
> over to the pollies so the pollies can justify why they are doing as they
> have been paid to do without admitting the "campaign contributions"...
>

What the heck are you talking about?

> Personally though I wish the BSA all the best because as this article
> mentions, most ppl use pirated software because essentially its free just
> like OSS

Nah. Most people use pirated software because (a) esentially it's free like
any other stolen goods that happen to have dropped off the back of the
truck, and (b) the chances of getting caught are negligible. Nothing to do
with OSS.

> ....if they had to pay for it, they either would, would buy some other
> cheaper commercial product use open source instead or not use it.....

That's the universe of possibilities, yes. But no one could possibly know
the actual distribution. So what's your point?

> I dont think the BSA's member would benefit that much, indeed if by doing
> this competition is forced in then the BSA's members might actually be
> worse off....
>

Speculating without evidence is lotrs of fun, isn't it? Did you learn that
from the BSA?

"thingy" <> wrote in message
news:ek2gl5-...
> impossible wrote:
>> "thingy" <> wrote in message
>> news:f0hfl5-...
>>> Brian Mathews wrote:
>>>> "A couple months ago, when the Business Software Alliance (BSA)
>>>> released its latest stats on
>>>> piracy," it's VP of anti-piracy, Neil MacBride, gave me a call to
>>>> discuss my earlier complaints
>>>> about the organizations methodology. Needless to say, we did not see
>>>> eye-to-eye, and the phone call
>>>> did little to resolve our differences. I'm still hopeful that
>>>> eventually the BSA will recognize that
>>>> it's doing more damage to its own position by publishing obviously
>>>> bogus numbers. So, with the
>>>> organization releasing another bogus stat today, it's time to explain
>>>> why it's wrong and misleading.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml
>>>
>>> "Most" ppl know how bogus the BSA's figures are. Just how dodgy their
>>> methodologies are is revealed yet again....
>>>
>>> I these guys must have total contempt for Pollies, either that or the
>>> pollies are in their pocket and this is just a smokescreen the BSA hands
>>> over to the pollies so the pollies can justify why they are doing as
>>> they have been paid to do without admitting the "campaign
>>> contributions"...
>>>
>>
>> What the heck are you talking about?
>
> That the only ones who pay any attention to the BSA figures are the
> Pollies....who certainly in the US would be very corrupt.
>

I don't see any evidence of that. Got some?

>>> Personally though I wish the BSA all the best because as this article
>>> mentions, most ppl use pirated software because essentially its free
>>> just like OSS
>>
>> Nah. Most people use pirated software because (a) esentially it's free
>> like any other stolen goods that happen to have dropped off the back of
>> the truck, and (b) the chances of getting caught are negligible. Nothing
>> to do with OSS.
>
> If you have a choice between Open Office at zero cost or a pirated Office
> 2007 at zero cost that does effect OSS. There is a value calculation being
> done....what it does do is hold down OSS's market %.
>

And vice versa, right? OpenOffice holds down the market share of the
pirates.

>>> ....if they had to pay for it, they either would, would buy some other
>>> cheaper commercial product use open source instead or not use it.....
>>
>> That's the universe of possibilities, yes. But no one could possibly know
>> the actual distribution. So what's your point?
>
> That the BSA's assumption that they would gain that much $ if they stopped
> pirating is difficult to substantiate. The value calculation would change
> the purchase.
>

Possibly. But you have no more evidence that this true than the BSA has for
its claims.

>>> I dont think the BSA's member would benefit that much, indeed if by
>>> doing this competition is forced in then the BSA's members might
>>> actually be worse off....
>>>
>>
>> Speculating without evidence is lotrs of fun, isn't it? Did you learn
>> that from the BSA?
>
> oh that dagger so hurt....
>

Sorry, but you can't complain about the BSA making stuff up if all you're
going to do in reply is make stuff up.

impossible said:

> Sorry, but you can't complain about the BSA making stuff up if all you're
> going to do in *reply is make stuff up.

You're applying an invalid symmetry.

If one is just presenting what amounts to a null hypothesis then it's
quite valid to do so (in the context of criticism) without presenting
evidence.

Regards,

"Fantail" <> wrote in message
news:7c420df1-b17b-4037-957a-...
impossible said:

> Sorry, but you can't complain about the BSA making stuff up if all you're
> going to do in reply is make stuff up.

You're applying an invalid symmetry.

If one is just presenting what amounts to a null hypothesis then it's
quite valid to do so (in the context of criticism) without presenting
evidence.


Sure, but then you can't very well expect anyone to just take your word for
it, can you? I mean, this is not one of those children's games where you get
to enforce blind trust of your wildest opinions simply by calling "Null
hypothesis!".