Online piracy cost 39000 jobs...
- Thread starter soundb0y
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
How is it not? You have obtained something for free which normally it would cost the average joe some money.
That's not the definition of stealing. The definition of stealing is to take something without consent. Fair enough, you are obtaining something without consent, but you aren't "taking it away" from anyone else. It doesn't COST anyone anything. If you were to go into a store and steal a CD, it WOULD cost the manufacturer money because they've spent that money on producing the CD, and it has been lost because you didn't pay for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning piracy or anything, but there's a difference between taking and copying.
How is it not? You have obtained something for free which normally it would cost the average joe some money.
If you really really want to try and link it to a criminal offence for shock value use counterfeiting it's at least reasonably close.
Nah, can't be bothered
You try and give people a different perspective and an example, and then they just come up with an exscuse saying...'well, its not technically' stealing actually...'
So meh..You could say stealing a couple of stawberries from someones farm isn't stealing, because they haven't 'technically' made any money from it have they yet
I think both sides have their greedy issues as well as a point.
I think business should have a cap on profit so they can sell for a time but then it goes free, except where people want to buy physical copies, i mean why should they make everlasting profits on stuff decades old, they produced one thing and yet can duplicate it themselves for little to nothing and sell for a lot.
Im all for reasonable profits, they should think this way too!
I think business should have a cap on profit so they can sell for a time but then it goes free, except where people want to buy physical copies, i mean why should they make everlasting profits on stuff decades old, they produced one thing and yet can duplicate it themselves for little to nothing and sell for a lot.
Im all for reasonable profits, they should think this way too!
No there you are actively depriving them of strawberries.
That would only work if pirates stole physical discs from the manufacturing plants before they where shipped out.
Counterfeiting fits very well it's not 100% authentic, the .exe are different along with other files and they often have quality issues (at least at first) much like counterfeits.
That would only work if pirates stole physical discs from the manufacturing plants before they where shipped out.
Counterfeiting fits very well it's not 100% authentic, the .exe are different along with other files and they often have quality issues (at least at first) much like counterfeits.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Thanks nick!
Thats the theory, but i dont believe you could even measure the cost of piracy
Last edited:
It is indeed practically impossible
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,566
- Location
- Bucks
Except you are assuming that the people who would normally buy Ferraris would download and make one.
it's the people who would never buy a ferrari who would download it.
plus it would be illegal to drive the copy ferrari on the roads just like you can't play pirate games online so it wouldn't cut into their market much at all
(just like piracy doesn;t affect games like CSS and l4d as much)
How so? If, say, one in every ten games is a lost sale (because if there were no way to pirate software, many pirates would buy games), then developers aren't receiving the income they should be. Therefore their profit is lower, and they can't afford to pay as many staff.
It's not rocket science.
I don't like to **** on my own doorstep, which is why I pay the people who made the games I play.
Well yes, they're going to
That's like saying all the people who have stolen certain cars, if they didn't steal them, would have brought them anyway!
It is indeed stupid logic, but hey...they're going to use it
And apart from the fact, the store can still sell the thing to someone else
.Of course not, I wouldn't have bought it in any case.
And apart from the fact, the store can still sell the thing to someone else
Sorry?
EDIT:
Forgot the
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,566
- Location
- Bucks
'Someone' is trying to change the public's perception of internet users.
I don't think it will work; it's too late. Just about everyone in the real world has access to 'the internet' therefore are not going to be taken in. Even Sun readers.
But anyway, watch out for more media coverage linking internet piracy with paedophilia and terrorism. That internet pirate took your job and he's stalking your daughter. And he's in a Muslim gang, probably.
I don't think it will work; it's too late. Just about everyone in the real world has access to 'the internet' therefore are not going to be taken in. Even Sun readers.
But anyway, watch out for more media coverage linking internet piracy with paedophilia and terrorism. That internet pirate took your job and he's stalking your daughter. And he's in a Muslim gang, probably.
Sorry?
EDIT:
Forgot the
Nick game from store- store loses a product they can sell to someone.
Copy a game- store has nothing to do with it.
Yep, but store could have sold that downloaded game for income to the creators