Hmm?

Well. Generally we all do what we like, even though we sometimes pretend to be doing what we don't like. We may not like to get up in the morning & go to the j0rb, but we do want to so like to be paid so we go there..

But what're you talking about, anyways?

I'm not familiar with this(slang?), & google didn't gimme the answer. Would somebody here, please?

So our examination of results of our actions write in to our logic, and we act accordingly. It's still actions accordingly with our logic.

And what's that Simpsons episode? You make me wanna watch it.

It means you don't get a say in whether it's loss or theft, largely because you don't own it.

You may get an argument from some people here on the use of the word "our". You don't get to own logic. Something is either logical or it isn't.

You could also replace your use of the word "logic" with "rationalization". Or "excuses". What you say makes sense then, too.

The Simpsons episode is the one where a self-help guru tells everyone they should do what they personally feel like and the whole town goes down the crapper.

Well, the answer has been given many times. Why doesn't it make sense to you?

To say, $50 is lost when I download a game illegally (which I don't do) is silly because that means:

• If I download and delete the same game over and over again, that implies I am bankrupting the company.

  
  

• If I download 10,000 unique games, I now have $500,000 of assets I can use as collateral to get a loan.

Neither of those things are true, so of course it is nonsense to say $15 is lost when somebody doesn't go to the movies. It's just like saying $15 is lost if I decide to play basketball instead of going to the movies, and therefore I shouldn't play basketball.

To say value is lost (in the context of digital copies), you have to prove the person would have bought the thing he stole. Given my two points above, the assumption that he would have is not a given, unless you think both parties have unlimited money in the bank (from which to buy, and from which to get stolen).

The truth is that piracy is not categorically good or bad for a company.

I don't think people would be so quick to argue, if you were to claim that "Every N downloads translates into a lost sale," where N is a big number found from extensive research. But in some cases, piracy may lead to continued dominance or more sales.

For music, I think it's mostly neutral. You cannot pirate the experience of going to a live concert. People with money like to use iTunes because it's cheap and affordable. Things like Pandora are free. Distributing MP3s illegally may actually increase net sales as it raises awareness.

For movies, going to the theatre is nicer than sitting at home (unless you have really good equipment). But I think they have more to lose than the music industry. However, the industry does need a reality check over the price they charge for DVDs, etc. They collude to keep prices artificially high.

For software, it depends. Microsoft benefits from piracy because it prevents competitors from gaining market share. A little guy selling indie games is probably hurt by piracy. However, it's ludicrous to think that every pirated game is a lost sale.

And of course it's illegal. But that doesn't dictate morality.

Which is disproved by the grand theft auto example I gave just a little bit ago. Sure, a car jacker is never going to pay for a car, but that doesn't mean nothing was stolen.

Software and music = work
work = value
taking value without returning it = theft
DUH.

Are you purposely trying to appear dense, or are you just really that dense? I don't intend to be mean, I'm just really curious.

The loss of physical property always has a cost associated with it. Of course it doesn't matter if the thief would have paid for it.

Say a car dealer spent $10,000 on a car. He has it listed for $110,000! If it is stolen by somebody with no money, the dealer is definitely out the $10,000 he spent. He is not, however, out $110,000 because he cannot prove that he would have actually sold the car to somebody else.

None of that is applicable to the discussion at hand: copying bits from one person's computer to another's. And it doesn't counter the points I have made.

When you download a game, a copy doesn't disappear off the shelf never to be able to be sold. You just fiddled some bits on your computer.

And as I already stated, it's quite possible (and I would say it is true) that every N downloads generally equates into a lost sale. But a ratio of 1:1 is quite simply illogical and easily disproved many times in this thread.

Sure bits are free, but there is still an exchange of value taking place. Pirates gain products of value, and the work taken to create said products has not been compensated. Hence, loss of value on the part of the creators.

Take for example if everyone pirated games and no one paid for them. The creators are directly losing everything that they put into creating that product. Saying 'some' pirating is okay is just dumb. Whether the media is free or not is irrelevant, it is the work that has not been paid for that is the injustice.

Can't wait until AI is invented and isn't allowed into theaters because it'd have a perfect memory of the movie in its brain after watching it .

Btw. Nobody is allowed to read this post without paying me $1000 per viewing. Paypal donation will do.

Perhaps then that person shouldn't be providing the service. I agree piracy may cause harm, I never said it doesn't. When you sell games for USD60, you assume persons buying them earn no less than USD5-10/hour. If they earn USD0.5-1/hour, they're not your audience. And their piracy doesn't harm you.

DRM & stupid laws are direct result of human stupidity, only indirectly caused by piracy. But nevertheless, those I "make excuses for" aren't the reason for that. I highly doubt DRM is added because of piracy in India, it's more likely answer to piracy in the west, and well, directly- cos' authors are often dumb.

Yes, they did. & so did you obviously.

That is only relevant if access to these bits has actually turned potential customers in to no customers at all.

It is only true if there were people who would've otherwise bought these bits of data, and the piracy prevented them from doing so. There's no loss to the copyright owner if there's a million of people with monthly income comparable to price of a game would pirate it free of charge. (oh well, perhaps there is. million is a large number, but it's negligible value. And if we get down to say 1000, it'll be no harm here)

And it's so regardless of your understanding of justice.

Yes it is, and I find it a good comparison. However, perhaps Arthur does lose in that case, as he's losing potential profit. Although, if that person freeriding on Arthur is extremely poor, the sum he would be paying to arthur should be significantly adjusted, as otherwise he wouldn't go anyways and Arthur wouldn't get a penny.

When we pay taxes, they're adjusted to our income. Even if it's "fixed" tax, it's still a % of something. Same would be relevant for copyrighted material. Perhaps if it was, there wouldn't be piracy. Or would be a lot less.

Anyone can do whatever they're pleased to, and each one is free to think whatever he likes but nobody is going to pay 50% of their monthly income for a game, and vast majority of those in condition that poor ain't gonna be thinking about anyone's copyrights. That's how it is, be it just or not. And it is in my eyes.

Append:
>To be clear: I generally agree (although cannot prove) that downloads are a net loss. However, saying an Indian with $0 to his name causes you to lose $50 by downloading something at a free net cafe, is completely illogical.

That's exactly my point which is either completely missed by some people here, or.. I don't like to say bad things about specific people.

How do you figure that? Seems to me it'd be much more likely they'd lower the price trying to get some sales volume. Unless it was an inelastic demand for something like textbooks, the excuse is that since only a limited number are sold for some top notch authorship, then each one should amortize the cost. But if you don't like one overpriced game you can always choose a more reasonably priced one, or even a bargain bin game.

Nobody does. They've commercial value for someone would never be paying for them regardless of piracy(and I guess we agree not everyone that pirated it would've bought it otherwise).

Any real losses due to piracy increase the price for paying customers.

It's only like retail theft if you are talking about stealing something with very little physical monetary value. i.e., Stealing a video game from a store costs the publisher the price of printed materials and distribution.

It is then a factor into figuring out the real loss. If the person had no means of paying for it, then the loss is limited to that material loss of a dollar or two. If the person would have paid for it, then you have a full loss.

Thus, there is some sort of formula for determining exactly how much real loss every theft (digital or physical) causes. And you also have to consider how many sales were made due to theft by increased exposure (and decrease of competitors).

Copying a car poses the same problems as copying music. My same arguments would apply in that theoretical case. Where do I ever say there is "no problem" in copying music? I don't. You are misrepresenting my arguments.