We get it, you're a perfect pirate that doesn't hurt the company in any way. That doesn't mean everyone else is. The argument isn't that people can pirate without harming the company, but that people in actuality are harming the company through pirating.
Which argument are you talking about? There've been quite a number of them here.
What? I get that you're trying to mock my statement, but I don't see how what I said is incorrect.
Not "incorrect", just "irrelevant". No one's arguing for "everyone should pirate indiscriminately". I think there are very few people who would agree with that.
Moreover, it's impossible to keep those who pirate without harming while eliminating those who pirate with harming.
"Honest pirates" would not exist (or close enough) without "harmful pirates" (making cracks and distributing files publically is indiscriminate, and thus inappropriate); however, "harmful pirates" would exist without "honest pirates". Eliminating "honest pirates" does not harm "harmful pirates".
Ultimately, however, I would not be unduly concerned by the prospect of everyone losing the ability to freely download things illegally online.
It's hard to tell (for me, at least) if I would buy a product if I couldn't pirate it but wanted it. In some cases, I wouldn't, and in others, I would; I can't seem to draw a distinct line, though, so your confidence fascinates me.
A fair enough point, and all I have to say to it is that, in my particular case, being broke kind of eliminates a lot of the decisions.
Eventually I will have money (hopefully), but I'm rather confident that even without the option of pirating, seeing a chiropractor about my neck problems would be higher priority to me than the roughly sixteen hours of entertainment I've gotten out of a
series of some of my
favorite games.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2011, 9:22 pm by EzDay281.
None.