| Khuutra said: That is not the same thing, and to suggest that it is the same is disingenuous. Yes, you're still getting something you didn't pay for, but it's a copy of a product, not a physical piece of software which the company itself produced. There is no stock being stolen in this scenario. |
A better comparison then would be a book. Lets say a book costs 20$. I would bet that less than 50 cents of that is materials for the book. Therefore > 95% of the cost is paying the author for his hard work writing the story. If you were to steal that book, or even steal the story after he copyrighted it, you would be held accountable for theft. Are downloading games off the internet any different. What it amounts to is that someone is enjoying someone's hard work without paying for it after it has been copyrighted.
The above paragraph applies to the whole "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument. Simply put, that is just another way of justifying the theft. Could you take an expensive painting without paying for it? Do you think the judge would accept "I wouldn't have gotten it if I had to pay for it" as a defense? Once again, the painting is like digital content because what you pay for is the labor of making it.
"Customers who pirate spend more money on legit software as well" - A person pirates Sword of Mana and then uses the money he saved to buy a Ubisoft title on the Wii. How is this fair to Squaresoft?
Simply put, if you were to apply these excuses for piracy to anything else, they would not hold up. Definately not in a court of law.
