Woman gets 9 years for software piracy

[psycho-]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20021125/tc_pcworld/107309

Taiwanese people....pssh....

In any case, I'm going to taipei next month. :D

[hang10wannabe]

In addition to her prison sentence, Chen will have to pay $11 million in additional restitution to Microsoft and Symantec, according to published reports

i say **** both microsoft and symantec. now while they make software necessary to my use, i say why the hell are they charging this 52 year old woman 11 million, its not like they need it, and i think microsoft has lost more through XBOX just b/c they've failed in many aspects.

it just pisses me off when crap like this happens, shes going to jail for 9 years, how the hell is she supposed to pay it?!?!?

i know pirating is a serious crime, but sometimes, i think its pathetic on what these big companies do.

:angry:

[joe52985]

im.with.hang10.here..hell.ive.gotton.many.letters.from.microsoft.myself.saying.i.would.be.prosecuted .if.i.didnt.cease."activities".but.they.gotta.make.an.example.somewhere.

shooting.a.tv...........life
murder..................25-life(or.less)
making.copies...........9.years

i.sense.a.mis-balance.in.the.judicial.system

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe


i say **** both microsoft and symantec. now while they make software necessary to my use, i say why the hell are they charging this 52 year old woman 11 million, its not like they need it, and i think microsoft has lost more through XBOX just b/c they've failed in many aspects.


It doesn't matter if they *need* the $ or if they've lost more than that on an investment. That's an asinine argument. If you have a pile of a million dollar bills sitting on the ground and somebody steals a dollar, you're entitled to get your dollar back, even if the wind is blowing away ten dollars every minute. Stealing is wrong; how rich or unlucky the victim happens to be is irrelevant. We as a society can not condone stealing. End of story.

A better criticism for this case would be to argue whether making copies constitutes stealing. THAT is a reasonable point for debate.
OR you could question whether $11 mil is just compensation for the crime. But don't use the "they don't need it, they're rich" whine, that's simply ignorant.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


It doesn't matter if they *need* the $ or if they've lost more than that on an investment. That's an asinine argument. If you have a pile of a million dollar bills sitting on the ground and somebody steals a dollar, you're entitled to get your dollar back, even if the wind is blowing away ten dollars every minute. Stealing is wrong; how rich or unlucky the victim happens to be is irrelevant. We as a society can not condone stealing. End of story.

A better criticism for this case would be to argue whether making copies constitutes stealing. THAT is a reasonable point for debate.
OR you could question whether $11 mil is just compensation for the crime. But don't use the "they don't need it, they're rich" whine, that's simply ignorant.

and the plot thickens...

my big gripe about this is that its almost like microsoft is asking for it in the fact that their software is so expensive. i mean 400 bucks for microsoft office... wtf is that?!? if they want stuff like this to stop, a compromise must be made, b/c we all know that file sharing/ pirating/ sharing in general isnt going to stop until they lower prices of their software

END OF STORY :bandit:

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe


and the plot thickens...

my big gripe about this is that its almost like microsoft is asking for it in the fact that their software is so expensive. i mean 400 bucks for microsoft office... wtf is that?!? if they want stuff like this to stop, a compromise must be made, b/c we all know that file sharing/ pirating/ sharing in general isnt going to stop until they lower prices of their software

END OF STORY :bandit:

Maybe if more people paid for it, they could lower the prices.

Lower prices prolly wouldn't do much anyway, IMO. Most people would still pirate Office if was only, say, $50.

By commiting piracy you're breaking laws. They aren't. The courts will side with them every time. If you don't like Microsoft's policies then boycott their products, or try to get the laws changed.


Personally, it would be interesting to add up the value of all the bootlegged software I have. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following Microsoft products: Win98, Win2K, WinXP, Office97, Office2000, OfficeXP, Encarta99, etc. Yeah, I have a bunch of illigit software, but I recognize that I AM BREAKING THE LAW AND COULD BE ARRESTED FOR IT. If that happens I have nobody to blame but myself. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Please get some.



Dear Microsoft: the above post is fictional. I don't have any of your software.



:angel:

[hapoo]

So hang10, by your logic its ok for me to steal a ferrari because its costs a lot more than it should? Why should the price justify the act? You don't like paying for it? No ones holding a gun to your head. Run freeware.

This woman made MILLIONS of dollars from stealing software. She had 98 million dollars worth of software just sitting around. And when MS asks for 11 million its "****ed up"? I have a feeling she still gets away with a couple million through her illegal activities.

[sleepminded]

o.O thats a long time...and...M$ makes enuff money already...its not like they need to make any more... :o

[Leon]

People who think that they can take stuff from a company just because that company is doing well should move to a communist society. Same mindset.

[InfiniteNothing]

It's not so much that the company is doing well, it's that the company is greedy. that's why we spell it M$. So in a way, by steeling from them, were just balancing out the universe.

[Tommy Boomfiger]

i feel that microsoft as well as many other companies keep thier prices inflated for more profit. with the knowledge that they have cornered the os market, ms can pump up thier prices to whatever they can sell it for. that fact doesnt give anyone the right to steal software from them. they make a product and ask that you compensate them in order to use it. you have other options such as mac os, *nix and many free operating systems. chances are that if it cost $50 for an os that lasts 2 years people will still pirate it. how do i know that? windows xp has been posted in the deals forum a few times at $40 and people on this board still pirate it. i know that operating systems are only a small part of it, but it applies to most of it. for those who pirate, what is a good price for windows xp?

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Tommy Boomfiger
i feel that microsoft as well as many other companies keep thier prices inflated for more profit. with the knowledge that they have cornered the os market, ms can pump up thier prices to whatever they can sell it for. that fact doesnt give anyone the right to steal software from them. they make a product and ask that you compensate them in order to use it. you have other options such as mac os, *nix and many free operating systems. chances are that if it cost $50 for an os that lasts 2 years people will still pirate it. how do i know that? windows xp has been posted in the deals forum a few times at $40 and people on this board still pirate it. i know that operating systems are only a small part of it, but it applies to most of it. for those who pirate, what is a good price for windows xp?

First of all just because it costs $40 once does not mean we all buy it at that time. Let's say I build a nice system from scratch, I'm not going to wait until there's a good deal on it to load win (I wouldn't load win anyways but that is besides the point)
Second of all when you buy windows it tells MS that it's okay to be greedy and I can't do that. Pirating isn't about the money (always), it's the principals. I think your first two sentences give me all the right in the world to pirate win software. It comes down to this: greed is wrong and by pirating I am righting a wrong thus balancing out the universe.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
It's not so much that the company is doing well, it's that the company is greedy. that's why we spell it M$. So in a way, by steeling from them, were just balancing out the universe.

Uh, yeah, all corporations are by definition greedy... what is the purpose of a corporation? To give people jobs? To make society better? To take up office space? No! To make money! That's the only reason Microsoft and all other companies exist today - to make a profit & stay in business & keep the stockholders happy. Do they have a social responsibility? To some extent... if a company is nice & profitable they are expected to give back to the community, which Bill Gates is well know for. But the primary goal is not to make people happy, or to give software away, or to release trade secrets... it's to make a profit.

If they can maximize profits by lowering the price & increasing sales volume, then it makes sense to lower thr price. If they are selling a product that will sell a huge volume at the current price, why drop it? If it's out of your price range



Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Pirating isn't about the money (always), it's the principals. I think your first two sentences give me all the right in the world to pirate win software. It comes down to this: greed is wrong and by pirating I am righting a wrong thus balancing out the universe.

Seriously? Because GM is pumping up the prices of their cars to keep profits up, too... are you going to steal a car? The real estate in Silicon Vally is crazy expensive compared to land in Tulsa, OK... that's pure greed. Gonna steal some land because you think someone OWES you something you can't afford?

[ironape]

Why does it not suprise me that hang10wannabe is taking this position. Its not ok to steal anything. Its against the law whether you feel justified or not. You wanna know why most people dont like you or think your not credible? Its stupid ASSinine opinions like this that you spout on a regular basis.

Im not above using pirated software but if I get caught I am not gonna whine about corporate america wanting retribution.

Ape

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by joe52985


shooting.a.tv...........life
murder..................25-life(or.less)
making.copies...........9.years

i.sense.a.mis-balance.in.the.judicial.system


shooting a TV?

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
It's not so much that the company is doing well, it's that the company is greedy. that's why we spell it M$. So in a way, by steeling from them, were just balancing out the universe.

So you won't complain if if a band of homeless people loots your house? They're just doing their part in "balancing out the universe".

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

It comes down to this: greed is wrong and by pirating I am righting a wrong thus balancing out the universe.

That's capitalism. The reason that MS makes operating systems at all is in order to make a profit. Without capitalism there'd be no Windows for you to pirate in the first place. As Leon very appropriately pointed out, if you don't like it then move to a Communist society.

Greed is wrong, eh? It could be said that pirating is the epitome of greed. You're taking something from somebody else, something that they developed. You're stealing. If that's not greed, then I don't know what is.

[joe52985]

quick.question..did.the.woman.HAVE.98.million.in.software.or.had.she.sold.98.million.in.software..is .just.having.the.copies.illegal?

Pirating.IS.wrong,.but.i.cant.see.to.the.extent.of.the.law.they.prosecute.with..this.woman.was.wayyy y.overboard.with.software.so.she.deserves.whats.comin.to.her.in.monetary.penalties.but.as.for.9.year s?.bull,.i.would.say.that3-4.years.would.be.good.but.i.am.no.lawyer

[whitak24]

while this is basically outside the issue of whether piracy is "justified" or not, i think tommy was hitting on a good point above.

basically, microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market (i could argue why this is true, but humor me and save me some typing). they have leveraged this monopoly to create near-monopolies in the office suite and browser markets.

now, since they are in a monopoly position, they can sell their products for more than the economically optimal price, extracting monopoly rents from each sale. this is negative for the economy as a whole, because consumers (and many of these consumers are OTHER COMPANIES who are also trying to be profitable) are paying too much for the M$ products.

of course, we have laws against such behavior in the US. but since M$ paid off the Bush campaign and a lot of other politicians, we aren't going to see any serious remedies placed against them :rolleyes:

[kain9i6]

Better her than me.. that's all I gotta say. :heh:

[i6s1]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe


and the plot thickens...

my big gripe about this is that its almost like microsoft is asking for it in the fact that their software is so expensive. i mean 400 bucks for microsoft office... wtf is that?!? if they want stuff like this to stop, a compromise must be made, b/c we all know that file sharing/ pirating/ sharing in general isnt going to stop until they lower prices of their software

END OF STORY :bandit:

Yeah, we all know everyone paid for their copy of Winzip because it's only $20.

This is a lame argument. MS Works is only $100 and comes with Word 2000.

A better argument is that you hate MS and don't have any moral problems with stealing thier software. That's the argument I don't use when I buy and don't steal their software.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by i6s1


Yeah, we all know everyone paid for their copy of Winzip because it's only $20.
i don't know about you, but i'm still evaluating my copy of WinZip, trying to see if it does everything i need it to do :shifty:

:P

[kain9i6]

Originally posted by whitak24

i don't know about you, but i'm still evaluating my copy of WinZip, trying to see if it does everything i need it to do :shifty:

:P

YOU TOO!??!?! I've been "evaluating" it since 95... pkzip and unzip rock!!!!

[cheapie]

i just to clarify something here. it's NOT illegal to have a monopoly. what IS illegal is taking steps to create, maintain, or force one to exists where it would otherwise not be. in my business, we have a virtual lock on the business. however, because we aren't unfairly forcing out competitors out of the market, the gvt. doesn't hassle us.

having said that, i'm NOT going to say whether or not MS has unfairly monopolized the market. i'm not a techie and don't have as much background info as most of you. just wanted to drive up my post count, errrr, point something out.:D

[whitak24]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
i just to clarify something here. it's NOT illegal to have a monopoly. what IS illegal is taking steps to create, maintain, or force one to exists where it would otherwise not be. in my business, we have a virtual lock on the business. however, because we aren't unfairly forcing out competitors out of the market, the gvt. doesn't hassle us.

having said that, i'm NOT going to say whether or not MS has unfairly monopolized the market. i'm not a techie and don't have as much background info as most of you. just wanted to drive up my post count, errrr, point something out.:D
ok, i haven't studied anti-trust policy in a good four years, so my memory is a little rusty.

however, if i recall, someone (in theory) could bring a suit against your company for being a monopoly, particularly if they are a competitor trying to start a competing service.

basically, my understanding was that unless a company was in an industry that has natural monopolies (electric, gas, etc, although that is changing), they were risking being broken up by the courts if they had a monopoly position.

/me looks around for Merlin, who knows about all the stuff :confused:

[Cantacuzene]

The line between monopolistics actiosn and good business tactics is a fine line. I would hesitate to say that MS is a monopoly because there is nothing stopping you from using Netscape or a non-msn isp. If they forced those things on you then it would be illegal. Personally, I use IE and I'd hate to have to pay for it seperately when I buy the OS.

[InfiniteNothing]

Whoah, falacious arguments flying around. Quit misstating my case everyone. I say that it is okay to pirate from M$. Who said anything about bumbs steeling or GM. GM is not greedy. Steeling is wrong and i think the differenece is obvious.

The argument that capitolism is greedy unsupported. Prove it. I think capitolism is about competition not greed.

pirating is not always greed. Some times its a political statement, a stance for what is right.

I hate qwerty Keyboads.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
The line between monopolistics actiosn and good business tactics is a fine line. I would hesitate to say that MS is a monopoly because there is nothing stopping you from using Netscape or a non-msn isp. If they forced those things on you then it would be illegal. Personally, I use IE and I'd hate to have to pay for it seperately when I buy the OS.
i will definitely give you that.

if it weren't a fine line, then we wouldn't have to have to many court cases about it ;)

however, i think that M$ falls toward the monopoly side because they have leveraged their OS monopoly to make their programs the standard in other areas.

for instance, when you are in business, you have little choice but to use Word because that's the standard, and people want to be able to share documents from company to company, etc.

but it's definitely a debatable point (and since i'm at work, i can't really spend too much time debating it, because i have stuff to do :eek: )

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Whoah, falacious arguments flying around. Quit misstating my case everyone. I say that it is okay to pirate from M$. Who said anything about bumbs steeling or GM. GM is not greedy. Steeling is wrong and i think the differenece is obvious.

The argument that capitolism is greedy unsupported. Prove it. I think capitolism is about competition not greed.

pirating is not always greed. Some times its a political statement, a stance for what is right.

I hate qwerty Keyboads.

yea i think their against us :shifty:

now people people, lets not start personally attacking people, aka APE

Why does it not suprise me that hang10wannabe is taking this position. Its not ok to steal anything. Its against the law whether you feel justified or not. You wanna know why most people dont like you or think your not credible? Its stupid ASSinine opinions like this that you spout on a regular basis.
:dodgy: keep sheet like this to urself and stay on argument

now while stealing is wrong, i admit that, i would in fact buy a copy of win xp or most software if it werent so high priced, and $50 in the deals section is normally after mail in rebates or price matching and most of the time is not able to be accomplished. now i was upset at the fact that while she "had" all these millions of dollars "worth" of software, she did not necessarily have a swiss bank account piling up with money guys. and i think 9 years in prison was a good enough sentence, its the 11 million in money that got me upset. i mean, seriously, shes freaking old enough to be some of our mothers, cut her some slack. its not like shes going to hit it big when she gets out, and judging by some of your guys responses about "savekaryn.com", she can expect no help on the intarweb. so wtf is she gonna do to get out of debt, thats pretty sheety way to live the rest of your life.

and napolean, getting a little harsh there?:hmm:

[Leon]

Originally posted by hang10wannabe
now while stealing is wrong, i admit that, i would in fact buy a copy of win xp or most software if it werent so high priced, and $50 in the deals section is normally after mail in rebates or price matching and most of the time is not able to be accomplished.

Actually, I got in on the $40 WinXP Pro deal and it took me like 10 minutes to do it. It also came with free bubble gum, bobblehead, and a WinXP baseball. Can't beat that deal.

[cheapie]

what you're failing to realize hang10 is that the reason the software is so expensive is because of people like her. i don't pirate software or music because of this reason. however, it's easy for me to do because i get a new laptop from work every 2 years fully spec'd and they put whatever software i want on it.

[molecularfire]

Who said anything about bumbs steeling or GM. GM is not greedy. Steeling is wrong and i think the differenece is obvious.
How do you know GM is not greedy. A short weak guy is not necessarily nice if he doesn't pick a fight with me. He's just weak. The question is if we took out Ford, Toyota, Kia, etc... and left just GM, how much would they charge for a car.




The argument that capitolism is greedy unsupported. Prove it. I think capitolism is about competition not greed.
What is competition. IMO, monopoly laws are anti-competition. Competition is a bunch of people going at it trying to figure out who is best. Now... when we say that one guy is doing too well that others can't keep up and therefore he should be penalized to give others a shot... is that pro-competition? NO. How would you guys feel if the NFL decided that the only way that the bangels would have a shot against the buccs would be if they spotted the bangels 50 points. Takes the fun out of the game doesn't it. How is this any different?


pirating is not always greed. Some times its a political statement, a stance for what is right.
Sending someone to jail and fining them a lot of money is not always greed. Some times it's a political statement, a stance for what is right. :)

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by molecularfire


Sending someone to jail and fining them a lot of money is not always greed. Some times it's a political statement, a stance for what is right. :)
I'll argue your statment from the bottom to the top


quit mistating my case... Your pathetic use of my words against me is falacious because I never said that it [fining] was greedy

As for the rest of your argument it sounds opinion oriented and that's cool; I respect that. You have your opinion and I have mine.

My opinion is that your veiw of how society would fail. Furthurmore, I think It'd be a very sad immoral society.

Lastly, I don't KNOW that GM isn't greedy, I just think that it is. Because isn't greed subject to individual interpretation. What I see as greedy may not be what you see as greedy. It's a matter of personal morals and ethics.

I'm anticipating the argument that pirating software isn't ethical. And... you have a point. I don't think it's the most ethical thing to do. I also don't think it hurts anyone TOOOOOO much. But, you have to remember that I'm pirating for (IMO) just causes.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by molecularfire
What is competition. IMO, monopoly laws are anti-competition. Competition is a bunch of people going at it trying to figure out who is best. Now... when we say that one guy is doing too well that others can't keep up and therefore he should be penalized to give others a shot... is that pro-competition? NO. How would you guys feel if the NFL decided that the only way that the bangels would have a shot against the buccs would be if they spotted the bangels 50 points. Takes the fun out of the game doesn't it. How is this any different?
in a perfect economy in a perfect world, anti-trust law would not be necessary. if one company could efficiently meet market demand at a cheaper price than any competitors, then they would do so and the optimal economic performance would result.

however, we don't live in a perfect economy or a perfect world:

1.) monopolies are rarely achieved purely through relative economic efficiency. there are often other factors, such as predatory pricing, hostile takeovers, etc that aid a company in establishing monopoly position.

2.) once a company achieves a monopoly, that company will rarely be a "good" monopoly and continue to charge the optimal market price for their products. they will usually start to extract monopoly rents (an excess charge over and above the competitive market price) on every transaction. this means that the economy will run less efficiently in other sectors, because certain inputs are being charged at too high of a price.

3.) monopolies rarely continue to pursue cutting-edge research and development or look for ways to make their product more efficient. if they have a monopoly, people will have to continue buying from them. and since they have great flexibility about what price to set, they don't have to worry about rising production costs (since they can raise prices to compensate). so if monopolies are allowed to flourish, it will often result in less technological innovation and even more inefficient production.

so in an attempt to avoid these inefficiencies and other negative results, we have antitrust policy.

is it free-market? no, but our economic system isn't close to a pure free-market system anyway. what we do have is government regulation that tries to make the economy run in the best way possible (whether or not this works is the topic of many other debates :hihi:

[InfiniteNothing]

I'd like to add some stuff that doesn't pertain to my argument. Feel free to ignore this stuff.


I hate the argument "If you like comunism, move" I think that's like telling the North (in civil war times) If you don't like slavory move out. Now, I'm not a Comee otherwise, I'd be able to spell it correctly (I hope), but it is the duty to those who see (what they think is) a better view of society to speek up and say something. And in that way I respect molecularfire. And i'd like to officialy recind my vote for biggest neffer. That honor has truely been earned by Punker_Bob. Thank you for listening. Also, thank you Whitak for supporting my opinion with some solid evidence. Sometimes I don't have the knowledge or time to do so. I always used to think your SN had something to do with Whit.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
what you're failing to realize hang10 is that the reason the software is so expensive is because of people like her. i don't pirate software or music because of this reason. however, it's easy for me to do because i get a new laptop from work every 2 years fully spec'd and they put whatever software i want on it.

software is not so expensive b/c of pirating, "anything" when it is released is expensive (EVERYTHING), no whether or not it goes down in price will determine if it is pirated or not. take starcraft for example, i have friends who went out and bought the "pirate-able" game when it hit a price they were willing to pay. WINXP = expensive, therefore it will be pirated. now my original argument was stating that while prison = good for this lady, fining her such a large amount is not cool at all and "that" is what i hate about this whole ordeal.

[molecularfire]

I never said that it [fining] was greedy
My apologies. I misunderstood you to have said that fining her the 11 million dollars was the greedy part. If you just meant that those companies are greedy in general... then I agree with you. Heck... all companies (and almost all people) are greedy (myself definitely included).

My opinion is that your veiw of how society would fail. Furthurmore, I think It'd be a very sad immoral society.
Yeah. But we're not too far from it right now. I think we have an sad immoral society and am just waiting for it to fail. My personal losses aside... when society fails, I'm not going to mourn it's loss. Better it die than have to live like this.

I'm anticipating the argument that pirating software isn't ethical. And... you have a point. I don't think it's the most ethical thing to do. I also don't think it hurts anyone TOOOOOO much. But, you have to remember that I'm pirating for (IMO) just causes.
Fair enough. I pirate to save money. :D

in a perfect economy in a perfect world, anti-trust law would not be necessary. if one company could efficiently meet market demand at a cheaper price than any competitors, then they would do so and the optimal economic performance would result.
I agree with you that companies that become monopolies are rarely ever nice in their journey there or afterwards when they do get there. Life isn't always nice, and what's nice isn't always fair. I also agree that competition isn't the best thing for our economy. I just dislike it when people throw out the word competition to describe something that isn't. We just want companies to keep fighting with each other forever without one ever winning. That isn't competition... that's all I'm getting at.

I hate the argument "If you like comunism, move"
I couldn't agree more. First of all... the economic design is socialism, not communism. Secondly... IMO socialism wouldn't work. I depends on people being able to get past their own selfish desires and work towards a common benefit. At least capitalism assumes that everybody is greedy and looking out just for themselves. That role I have more faith in people's ability to fill.

[IntegraTypeR]

i think that the ruling was completely fair. the woman and her associates made a lot of money off of pirating softwrae that took millions of man hours to create.

imo, microsoft is trying to make money off of its software and to do that it needs to recoup its cost to develop the product. when you make any kind of product there are hundreds of people who work on it. now each of those people puts in 2 yrs worth of effort to make the product, even if it is only an upgrade. it costs microsoft money to pay those people so to pay them and turn a profit (after marketing costs as well) they feel they are justified in charging the prices for their products. it is intellectual property that they are protecting with their EULA agreement. now i am sure that there are a fair share of people on this board who have pirated software but just know what the softwrae company has to go through in order to develop a product. the high prices of these software packages are also geared (mostly) toward companies who can afford to pay the prices. for winXP there is home edition which is much cheaper than the normal winXP.

everyone who pirates software knows that they are taking a chance by breaking the law so they should be prepared to face the consequences of their act. selling something that is basically intellectual property is like stealing some's patent. you are making money off of somethnig that you didn't have a hand in creating and you are doing it w/o the consent of the creator.

now i agree that M$ is a monopoly but just because you don't agree w/their practices doesn't mean that you shoudl feel that is correct to steal their stuff. there are tons of monopolies out there and people don't even realize it. one reason everyone knows M$ is a monopoly is b/c of their big lawsuit and that everyone here is fairly computer literate -- i.e. knows whats going on in the computer world and knows whats available sw for them to use. if you watn to start pointing fingers at all the monopolies out there then why not go to the energy companies and make-up companies? those are also monopolies but people generally fail to see it b/c it hasn't come to the media's attention.

sorry to make this so long but back to the topic ... you shouldn't feel sorry for this 'poor' woman because she was running a very lucrative and highly illegal (think similar to bootlegging) company that she got in trouble for. it was and always is illegal to sell something that isn't yours.. it's like selling a Hollywood produced movie with your name as the producer for cheaper than whatever Hollywood charges for it.

[Showtime]

Originally posted by hapoo
So hang10, by your logic its ok for me to steal a ferrari because its costs a lot more than it should?

:nono:

Hold on a second there cowboy. Ferrari's are worth every penny. From the custom designed sheet metal to the sweet sounding motors to the handstitched italian leather it is a work of art. How can you put a price on a work of art? If anything it is undervalued! I love my Ferrari and would have been willing to pay 10x's what I'd paid for it.
Yep I love my little hot wheel ferrari and my hotwheels skyline and.............

:P

-jel:halo:
Piracy is stealing. Many do it. Most of us dont make money doing but we do in essence take money from them for using their product. She was selling someone else stuff.

[Sir_Froggy]

I'm sorry to interrupt this serious debate, but i have to put in a joke i made up on the spot

What happened to the hardware thief?






He paid "hard" time

haahahahahah :laugh:

[whitak24]

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR
if you watn to start pointing fingers at all the monopolies out there then why not go to the energy companies and make-up companies? those are also monopolies but people generally fail to see it b/c it hasn't come to the media's attention.
i'm not sure this is correct.

it seems to me that there are a variety of makeup companies that all compete for customers. mayballene, cover girl, lancome, wet'n'wild, etc, come to mind. of course, i'm not an expert on makeup (i only wear it on weekends :P), so maybe all these companies are part of one large conglomerate. but it seems to me that they are separate.

as far as energy companies, if you mean oil companies, you have exxon, bp/amaco, shell, etc, which are all separate companies that are in market competition. granted, there has been a lot of consolidation in the oil industry over the last decade, and trust me, the justice department's anti-trust division keeps a close eye on those mergers and will halt them if they result in too great of market share for one company.

if you are referring to utilities (gas, electric, and phone), those are considered "natural monopolies". that is, it is more efficient to have ONE company serving an area then to have multiple companies trying to compete. however, these monopolies are regulated by the state public service commissions, which set prices, control investment, etc. (of course, all this is changing with deregulation, but the public service commissions are still regulating rates and service).

my point is that these industries are either not monopolies or are being tightly regulated.

[IntegraTypeR]

Originally posted by whitak24

i'm not sure this is correct.

it seems to me that there are a variety of makeup companies that all compete for customers. mayballene, cover girl, lancome, wet'n'wild, etc, come to mind. of course, i'm not an expert on makeup (i only wear it on weekends :P), so maybe all these companies are part of one large conglomerate. but it seems to me that they are separate.



yes they are all one big conglomerate. the public isn't aware that all (most) of the makeup they purchase actually belongs to the same parent company.



if you are referring to utilities (gas, electric, and phone), those are considered "natural monopolies". that is, it is more efficient to have ONE company serving an area then to have multiple companies trying to compete. however, these monopolies are regulated by the state public service commissions, which set prices, control investment, etc. (of course, all this is changing with deregulation, but the public service commissions are still regulating rates and service).

my point is that these industries are either not monopolies or are being tightly regulated.

if the companies were being regulated well enough then there wouldn't be the problems that exist. california wouldnt have had to suffer through that huge energy crisis. it isn't efficient to have ONE company to serve the whole area. i receive the same quality of service for my phnoe as i did 15 yrs ago but now i pay more taxes than i did before. now there are all these surcharges here and there on the phnoe bill but those don't seem to help me (the consumer) or change the quality of service. for long distance rates cell phnoe companies seem to have competitive rate but the land line companies can't seem to match it or come close to matchnig it. the result is htat i pay higher rates on my land line (sometnhig that i MUST have) while i pay very little on my cell phone (sometnhig that is a luxury)

[whitak24]

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR


yes they are all one big conglomerate. the public isn't aware that all (most) of the makeup they purchase actually belongs to the same parent company.

yes and no.

according to some quick research i did, i found that L’Oreal owns Lancome, Ralph Lauren, Maybelline, and Plenitude. Estee Lauder is a parent company of the following companies: Estee Lauder (obviously), Origins, Clinique, Prescriptives, Bobbi Brown, M.A.C., Aveda, and Aramis, jane, Jo Malone, Bumble and bumble, and Stila. They are a global licensee for the following companies: Tommy Hilfiger, Donna Karan, and Kate Spade Beauty (information taken from the document http://www.moneyhoneys.com/StockReport-EsteeLauder9-02.doc)

if this is true, it demonstrates that there may be an oligopoly in the makeup industry, but there is definitely not a monopoly, since there are at least two large conglomerates fighting for market share. in the respect, it sounds like the makeup industry is similar to the auto industry.

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR
if the companies were being regulated well enough then there wouldn't be the problems that exist. california wouldnt have had to suffer through that huge energy crisis.
actually, the california energy crisis was caused by deregulation, poorly executed.

if the natural utility monopoly, regulated by the preexisting regulations from the California Public Service Commission, had been allowed to stand, there never would have been an energy crisis.

unfortunately, the deregulation law was poorly written and had some loopholes in it. these loopholes were exploited to the MAX by enron and other energy companies trying to make a quick buck.

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR
it isn't efficient to have ONE company to serve the whole area.
it depends on what that one company is doing.

it is most efficient to have a monopoly in the physical parts of a utility. imagine what a mess it would be if multiple companies were trying to run competing sets of electric wires or gas lines down your street! it would be chaos, companies would be unable to make a profit (without charging extremely high prices), and consumers would lose.

that's why the concept is called a "natural" monopoly. for some industries, there is just no efficient way to deliver services without a monopoly.

in the past, it was believed that every aspect of a utility (phone service, electric service, etc) should be a monopoly. however, the "deregulation" push has been based on the idea that some parts of the service (power generation, long distance service, etc) could be turned into a competitive market. whether this is true or if it's just causing more expense for consumers remains to be seen.

Originally posted by IntegraTypeR
i receive the same quality of service for my phnoe as i did 15 yrs ago but now i pay more taxes than i did before. now there are all these surcharges here and there on the phone bill but those don't seem to help me (the consumer) or change the quality of service. for long distance rates cell phnoe companies seem to have competitive rate but the land line companies can't seem to match it or come close to matchnig it. the result is that i pay higher rates on my land line (something that i MUST have) while i pay very little on my cell phone (something that is a luxury)
in the case of phone service, i think it's hard to say whether the average consumer has saved or lost money as a result of deregulation. the per-minute cost of service has dropped dramatically. i remember when "local" long-distance charges were around $.37/minute during the day, and interstate long distance was even more expensive. now, my parents pay 3.9 cents/minute for all long distance (not through a calling card) on their land line.

however, the cost of "service" has gone up dramatically. and like you said, fees are popping up everywhere. so for someone who doesn't use long distance, deregulation has probably caused their phone fees to increase.

ultimately, i think this is a result of the way fees were structured before deregulation. at that point, since one company was getting paid for everything (line service, long distance, etc etc), the costs were spread out over all the different charges (so when you paid for long distance, you were subsidizing the cost of your phoneline). however, once people had a choice in who their long distance carrier was, the company that was providing the line had to charge the full cost of the line to every customer because the guaranteed revenue stream from long distance charges was no longer there.

so now, you're more accurately paying for the cost of the line that comes to your house (and those charges and all the other fees on your local phone bill are still regulated by the public service commission, so in theory they are directly linked to real costs incurred by the phone company).