By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Well I can concede the idea of "sampling" but you have to question how much return that is. It's hard to imagine too many buying the full product if they can already have the full product. For the sake of music, you download it off the web and you can burn it to a CD, put it on PC, manipulate it numerous times, or put it on your MP3 player. There would be no reason to really then go purchase the item. Moreso with the case of music is of course the notion of numerous other outlets for sampling such as youtube, myspace/facebook, movies, and other forms of entertainment that use the music. Music is "advertised" all the time.

Now I guess when you attribute that to games or movies then maybe it is a little less clear as it can't be manipulated in as many ways. But I would still argue the same thing that once you have that final product why would you feel the necessity to buy the same product. There might be some rollover from attempt to support a product they like or moral consequence, but it's hard to think many would see it the latter way simply because they don't see it as morally wrong.

And that last point I brought up is really the issue I see with piracy is that people don't see these downloads as just "demoing" or sampling. They don't think what they are doing is wrong. And it really comes from the technology just being so new. I mean we understand walking into someone else's store, home, etc. that they should be respected and things people provide should be rewarded for their effort. But this isn't the same with online downloads. It is an impersonal donwload of something that anyone can access with apparently no legal or moral obligation. Really it's just a perception problem as it does infringe upon the same moral issues but it's unrecognizable without the human condition present and traditional settings. And I think this is why there is still a defense of these people and well a defense for themselves. Also reasons why they are called pirates and not thieves, crooks, or other things. Pirates, despite being thieves, are usually viewed in a more positive light (such as rebels to a corrupt system).

So although that may be the moral side, after viewing the article they do a very good job trying to take in a lot of variables. I just would like to speak on my terms that if the only way to purchase a piece of entertainment was from retail first hand then there wouldn't be the knowledge that they had a choice. You take out choices and either they buy the product or they don't. So piracy seems to be a mix of issues causing games to be less profitable such as "used" sales, ebay/amazon, pawn shops, etc. That is more a problem with the capitalist state rather than a question of morality. But obviously if the ideal situation existed then the product would be cheaper to sell and potentially they could open to a wider clientele. And with that, second hand sales could actually live with that notion as those don't contribute to the higher price of games (if anything they force them to stay competitive) while obviously free doesn't constitute competition.

So I do think there are some potential instances of where piracy can be shown to have affected profits but once again no more than said second-hand shops. But where the important aspect of that is, companies can compete with second hand sellers but they can't compete with free and I think that is the key difference. For instance, let's say businesses sell blankets for $10 a blanket. Then say the government decides to take over a large mass of blanket production and offers them around a country for free. Same product and same means, but the businesses have no way to counteract that move. But, if a used store sold newly cleaned and freshened cloths for $7 then the business has a way to compete. Whether it be the ability to buy something new, or incentives to buy it such as buy 1 get 1 half off kind of things. As long as things are being sold for a price then things can compete. And although it takes away at potential profit, it is better for the market as a whole. Free however isn't good for a capitalist market.

So I guess that is my take on the situation. Good read and thanks for putting it up.