Steal an apple from a store and they can't sell the apple.
Somehow copy the apple and the store can still sell the apple.
Online piracy cost 39000 jobs...
- Thread starter soundb0y
- Start date
Steal an apple from a store and they can't sell the apple.
Somehow copy the apple and the store can still sell the apple.
No it could not have.
The store could never sell a modified game from the internet, just like Boots could never sell knock off drugs.
No they couldn't, as the pirate would never have bought it anyway, it's a stituation of either pirate it or sod it...
It's very very unlikely most pirates are potential customers.
And the ones that are, can also actually be led to buy something because they have downloaded it and liked it.
Why do people assume pirates are always 1 type, the ones who would have bought it otherwise, there are 3 groups:
Downloaders who wouldn't have bought a thing anyhow, pirate or nothing.
Downloaders who pirated it, but would otherwise buy it.
Downloaders who pirate things, and buy them afterwards if they are pleased.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd group is a tiny minority.
Last edited:
That's just not true.
Are you saying that all software pirates would just stopping using software.. if the ability to pirate software was no longer available?
Are you saying that pirates would just completely stop playing games if, theoretically, games could no longer be copied?
Balls.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Its extremely difficult to change anyones opinion about anything without propaganda/lies.. Do you expect others to change their attitudes when you refuse to do it yourself?
People form opinions, do actions and then try to justify their actions to match their opinions...
I for one dont do this, i will agree doing something is illegal and immoral, but then i can still make a choice to do it, and i have absolutely no need to justify it.
But that's what both sides arguments are....
Yep, I form opinions, on everything...But I can see things from two sides of an argument, regardless of the topic
People just seem to go: 'No its not that its this! And only this!!! Your wrong because my head says so!!!'
Gets tiring
In the case of games, yes, there are good freeware alternatives and a lot of pirates wouldn't even consider paying for it. Addicts excepted of course.
In the case of software like Windows, ultramon, photoshop, probably not, unless they like linux ( but unlikely)...
I know enough mates with modded 360's who wouldn't even own a 360 let alone play games, if they couldn't download the games for free.
I think this is all a moot point, if anything this bill will increase piracy because untill you get a second letter you have nothing to worry about. There are plenty of ways to stay under the radar.
In addition, as I am sure you lot are aware, most music is shared via methods that don't have an i.p. adress associated with them.
The music industry really do need to accept that they must charge an awfull lot less for music.
In addition, as I am sure you lot are aware, most music is shared via methods that don't have an i.p. adress associated with them.
The music industry really do need to accept that they must charge an awfull lot less for music.
You say "a lot", implying that some would. Henceforth the lost revenue for the devs/publishers.
Which ever way you look at it, the guys that make/promote/sell the game are not getting the profit that they rightly should.
To be honest, cd's are quite cheap imo, and with services like spotify or similar, listening to single tracks is rather cheap ( or free) legally. But, downloading is easier and faster and DRM free, while buying single tracks can be a hassle ( well, it requires more effort than just downloading it illegally).
Games are highly overpriced on release though imo, as are blu ray films and dvd's.
Games are highly overpriced on release though imo, as are blu ray films and dvd's.
No, it's this because that's what the law says so.
As does the legal definition of theft.
You'd be ****ed if someone decided manslaughter = murder during your trial for unintentionally killing someone
No, it's this because that's what the law says so.
As does the legal definition of theft.
You'd be ****ed if someone decided manslaughter = murder during your trial for unintentionally killing someone
mmm no its not
It's that because thats their opinion of how someone obtains money for something.
Because someone else has brought the game, copied it, and uploaded...then someone else has come along and downloaded said copy...its suddenly not a lost sale?
How so? Granted that person might not have bothered buying the game, but then again they might have? No one actually knows!
It really is impossible to calculate lost sales but I agree with the chap who categorised 3 types of pirates.
I have mates who have hundreds and hundreds of downloaded films that wouldnt even watch half of them once they are downlaoded, they simply have the bug of hoarding as much media as humanly possible, and im sure there are people here the same!
I have mates who have hundreds and hundreds of downloaded films that wouldnt even watch half of them once they are downlaoded, they simply have the bug of hoarding as much media as humanly possible, and im sure there are people here the same!
mmm no its not
It's that because thats their opinion of how someone obtains money for something.
Because someone else has brought the game, copied it, and uploaded...then someone else has come along and downloaded said copy...its suddenly not a lost sale?
No it's not stealing.
It is not the legal definition of stealing.
pirates are not charged with theft.
Well pirates know...
I'm not specifically talking about theft, but theft is the only way to 'label' pirating so that others can actually relate to it for some reason.
And just to add:
Steal
–verb (used with object)
1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
You are theoretically taking what is not actually yours...so yes, in a way it is stealing
No they don't, because if the option of downloading / pirating wasn't there, they wouldn't have downloaded it in the first place.
But then they might not have even brought it either.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
Legally, no. Practically and logically, yes.
Do you live your entire life from a purely legal point of view? Walking up to a random someone and calling them an idiot isn't legally defamation, but in anyone's book it's abuse. There are other relevant societal frameworks but for the legal one.
People always think they're very clever saying "well legally it's not stealing", whilst forgetting that the legal definition isn't the only one that matters.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
if you cant see that being able to duplicate things instantly and distribute them at will for free can damage the economy, then i dont think you understand how businesses work.
im not saying that the music, or film companies dont make a lot of money or that actors and artists are working for peanuts -but it is clear that by making things available for free which otherwise would have commanded a fee to gain access to, is reducing the potential market/revenue streams for businesses ranging from retailers to distributers to the artists themselves.
im not saying that the music, or film companies dont make a lot of money or that actors and artists are working for peanuts -but it is clear that by making things available for free which otherwise would have commanded a fee to gain access to, is reducing the potential market/revenue streams for businesses ranging from retailers to distributers to the artists themselves.