3 ms·
Of course, it's not like if you clone a file on your hard drive 10 times, the manufacturer of what you're cloning loses tenfold. But every person who has used t
by Otek 5y ago
Of course, it's not like if you clone a file on your hard drive 10 times, the manufacturer of what you're cloning loses tenfold. But every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss. I don't know what the "every stolen copy" argument has to do with anything. Not everyone who downloaded would have bought. But that can't simply be calculated with some neat "every stolen copy" slogan. It is an argument to justify the thieves.
- scambier 5y agoYour post is a bit unclear to me, I'm not sure which side of the argument you're defending, but > every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss. No, because like you said, that implies that you'd have bought the product if pirating it wasn't possible. If I want to pirate a game but it's not available, I won't buy it either. > It is an argument to justify the thieves. I'm not justifying "theft" - or piracy in this case -, I'm just saying that you can't equate the two. Piracy and theft are two very different things, with different motives, and different consequences of the distributor.
- mercora 5y ago> but every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss. i bought lots of products only after pirating them. would i not have done that i would not have bought many things at all. I also fondly remember simply not having the funds to buy software and pirating them was the only way to move forward. in both cases my "stolen" copy should not account for a loss of sale and the former even supported making a sale at all....
- krona 5y agoStealing implies someone being deprived of something. I don't condone pirating but the argument isn't invalidated merely because it 'justifies' the act itself.