Support NeoGAF

[Afro Thunder]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23419

PIRACY HAS no effect on software price, and at least one country that has the lowest levels of counterfeiting is still paying the most.

According to the Dominion-Post, New Zealand has the second lowest software piracy rate in the world, however Kiwis have to pay the most for their software.

The report is based on an IDC study, funded by Microsoft and Adobe.

It said that New Zealand's piracy rate at 23 per cent compared with 21 per cent in the best-behaved US.

However in Kiwiland a home user of Vole Office 2003 has to pay $NZ978 whereas an American pays $NZ479 for the same thing. Windows XP home edition costs Australian nearly $NZ200 less than in New Zealand and the professional version is nearly $NZ300 cheaper.

Apple products are even more reassuringly expensive than overseas. µ

 

[Evenball]

If it's in the Inquirer, it must be true.

 

[Slo]

Well it makes since. Piracy increases supply, which reduces demand, which drives down prices.

Not that I advocate piracy, but this is just economics 101.

 

[Mr Gump]

Whats the piracy rate in the Carribean?

 

[SteveMeister]

What orifice did they pull those 21 and 23 percent numbers out of?

Personally I think that's conservative -- I think that titles (especially PC titles) would sell a MINIMUM of twice as many copies if it weren't for piracy, and likely more. Does it affect the price? Probably not, because companies plan around typical historic sales numbers, which of course reflect piracy anyway.

 

[borghe]

What orifice did they pull those 21 and 23 percent numbers out of?

Personally I think that's conservative -- I think that titles (especially PC titles) would sell a MINIMUM of twice as many copies if it weren't for piracy, and likely more. Does it affect the price? Probably not, because companies plan around typical historic sales numbers, which of course reflect piracy anyway.

take a look at some infamous boards like millenniumfalcon.com and such if you want to see why those piracy numbers are so low for the US. I am amazed half of those people can get out of bed let alone navigate or use any sort of filesharing application. Sure you see 30,000 people downloading the newest games off of the biggest sites, but that pales in comparison to the half million or full million people who buy the game. 21% actually sounds high all things considered (especially the source of the numbers, re: MS and Adobe), but I am sure they MUST know more than me about the subject. :|

 

[Phoenix]

What orifice did they pull those 21 and 23 percent numbers out of?

Personally I think that's conservative -- I think that titles (especially PC titles) would sell a MINIMUM of twice as many copies if it weren't for piracy, and likely more. Does it affect the price? Probably not, because companies plan around typical historic sales numbers, which of course reflect piracy anyway.

That's always been at the heart of the debate. Just because someone pirates something doesn't necessarily mean that they will buy it if they can't pay for it. I know people who used to bootleg Office until it became more difficult to bootleg. When that happened, these people simply turned to open source and free alternatives. While I'm for the industry maintaining their right to enforce their copyrights, I also believe that their piracy numbers and loss of money numbers come from the same reasoning. Since people can live without that music, there is no reason to assume that since they can't get it for free that they would go out and buy it.

When something is free you will take it whether or not you want or need it. If its not free, you simply go on withouth it So while there may be poeple out there who will go and spend money on a product that they wanted to bootleg, it may not happen. If the person can't afford a few thousand bucks for Max/Maya - if they can't get it for free, they just won't get it at all and use something else.

 

[borghe]

that is actually a point that one company (can't remember if it was adobe or discreet/kinetix) exploited. Basically they counted in usage figures an estimate of all of the pirated copies also. They released numbers, someone called them on it, and they then said they included pirated estimates. When asked why, they said something akin to "A user who steals xxx product at home (I really thought it was adobe) is more likely to purchase xxx product at work." Or some such. It wasn't okaying personal piracy, but it wasn't exactly condemning it either.

 

[Drensch]

PIRACY HAS no effect on software price, and at least one country that has the lowest levels of counterfeiting is still paying the most.

Becuse Piracy is the only thing that would affect price. Not currency rates or being in the middle of fucking nowhere.