Oh yeah, really. Poor publishers... they get no money whatsoever, heh?Publishers and developers make mere pennies per sale of an original game.
This is a non sequitur. An act being illegal does not imply that it is necessarily immoral.Piracy is a criminal offence, which thus makes it an immoral business to be in.
No it doesn't. That's why people are still doing it. This is a cheap, paper-thin scare tactic.Piracy leads always to arrests, community service, hefty fines and prison sentences.
Or he could be saving someone else a "few" (yeah, 30+ is a "few") quid. And if my (hypothetical) son or daughter wants to buy heroin, then I've got bigger things to worry about than where I buy my video games.The guy that did you a 'favour' by saving a few quid on a game today could tomorrow be selling heroin to your son or daughter.
Well, it could be going to support harming others, which I don't condone. It could also be going to buy food or get a car fixed up, which I do condone. Of course, I'm presumably committing a thoughtcrime by even considering that the evil software pirates are humans and have needs too.So the next time you're at a car boot sale, or flicking through the free ads and you fancy getting a copy of the latest game for a fiver, think of where the money is likely to be going, and ask yourself whether that's the type of thing you condone, or wish to actively support.
This is absolutely ridiculous. If it were true, nobody would be in the software business - it would just be too risky.Publishers and developers make mere pennies per sale of an original game.
Neither do most publishers - this is taking an extreme example and generalizing. Gee, they seem to be good at that, don't they? They sure get a lot of practice, at least...Original titles are so expensive due to the enormous costs of game development. A pirate doesn't have to shell out over a million pounds to make the game in the first-place
I'll just let Richard Stallman answer this one, since he did it so well:It is estimated that the industry lost in excess of Â£3 billion pounds to the pirates last year.
Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it kindly.
As it turns out, this is the only simple fact about unauthorized software distribution. Anyone who tells you it's a simple matter overall is probably either a genius or a liar.The simple fact about piracy is that it is illegal and punishable by fines and jail sentences.
Unless, of course, you actually examine the effects and come to the conclusion that unauthorized software distribution is distinct from theft because it does not deprive the original owner of any property.No matter which way you look at counterfeiting it is nothing more than theft
Erm.... think again. Here is a real news bulletin from april 22nd this year:Originally posted by ExCyber@June 09 2002,10:41
No it doesn't. That's why people are still doing it. This is a cheap, paper-thin scare tactic.