|Nope, you are assuming that I'm assuming that. In fact I already had thought of that, but it still doesn't erase the fact, if a person pirates it, plays it off and on and beats it that means I'm out the $10 I should have gotten for it.|
No, you actually are
assuming that. Your argument is that if a person plays a game without paying for it, then the developer loses out on the cost of the game, but that carries the assumption that the person would have paid for it otherwise
. If they wouldn't have paid for it, then what has the developer lost, really? The comparison to theft does not stand up because theft of a physical item removes that physical item
, which must then be replaced, whereas illegally copying data does not -- the original copy still exists and can be almost infinitely reproduced at very little cost. At worst, the developer has lost a potential
customer, a potential
$60: $60 that does not exist
. The developer has lost nothing while the pirate has gained something -- how is that the same as theft?
And it's all well and good for the industries to cry "theft!", as they wrap everything with region locks, DRM and cover everything with ads. Maybe if publishing companies and record labels learned not to treat consumers with such contempt and disregard, consumers wouldn't respond by saying "Screw your region locks, DRM and ads; these guys will give me the same service for free and without all the crap". Not only does the publishing industry expect you to accept the crap they shove down your throat, but they expect you to pay for the privilege of having it in the first place, and if you refuse, you're branded a thief and they sue you into oblivion while making themselves out to be the vanguard of the defenceless artists that they exploit left, right and centre. I mean, let's take the music industry for example. An artist spends a few years struggling to get signed. Finally, it happens. They get an advance from the record label. They spend the advance on recording their album. Now they have to pay the advance back in full to the label, often with extra fees, while making nothing off of album sales because the label takes a good 90+% of it (and that's once the advance is paid off - the artist doesn't get anything until then). Then the band goes on tour in support of their new album. They book a venue (read: pay the venue lots of money). The venue sells tickets and keeps about 80% of the ticket sales money, with some going to the retailer and the rest (the minority) going to the artist; so not only does the artist have to pay for the venue, but they don't even get much of the money from the sales. Their actual profit is tiny, and this is for reasonably popular bands (IIRC, the Foo Fighters make something like $2,000 per show and that's before paying their crew and splitting it up between band members) -- smaller bands often make a loss. So how else can they make money? "Merchandise", you say? How does $4 per $20 t-shirt sound?
Why are you supporting this horrible system? It's disgusting, it's exploitation at it's finest, and then they pass the blame onto the consumers and do whatever they can get away with.
|if they are playing the game, it means they would have bought it, but took the free way out|
No it doesn't. I used to pirate games because I usually didn't have access to money. Now, I pirate tactically because I want to encourage the industry to make games worth buying. Besides that, there are plenty of other reasons people pirate things. There's the reasons I listed above (namely, that the publishing industry is a noxious cesspool of human exploitation passing itself off as knights in shining armour defending the innocent artists from heartless thieves like me; and that the industry doesn't care a wink about its consumers and in fact actively pursues new and innovative means to treat them with ever increasing levels of contempt), but there's also the more obvious reason that some people just can't afford to pay the prices. It's pretty obvious when you look at the demographics of piracy and notice that the areas of the world with the most piracy are regions like eastern Europe and Asia that are wealthy enough to have the technology to play games and DVDs, but don't have the kind of disposable income to drop on $60* games and movies.
* also don't forget that, unlike GoG.com, most places don't charge fair prices around the globe: Steam, for example, operates on a $1 = €1 scheme, which means that a $20 game on Steam costs almost $30 in the EU.
|just because the companies are greedy and want more of a profit|
Why are you using this statement to back up your conclusion that piracy is wrong? It's like saying "let's not punish murderers because murderers are bloodthirsty and just want to kill people."
|Piracy has been around for centuries|
I think you may be confusing the different meanings of the word "piracy"... I hope you don't really think the pirates of the 18th century were attacking ships in order to copy their digital media without paying for it...
|You don't steal/pirate because you need it, you do it because you want it|
Thank you for that salient insight. All this time I had been wondering what motivated me to piracy. Was it the fast cars, the women, the glamorous lifestyle? Was it out of some Robin Hoodian drive to redistribute wealth? No, it was because I wanted things and didn't want to pay for them. Thank you, good doctor, for opening my eyes.
|Money is coveted too high. People are willing to resort to taking things without paying just to save a few dollars.|
He said, wrapping up his argument about the value of money.