Um... Akvod... you've taken economics... so you should know what causes piracy. Heck you alluded to it as much when you posted your graph. Piracy is nothing but a reaction... mostly by people who aren't going to buy something.

Is it wrong for somebody to get something for free if nobody actually loses anything? It's a grey area, the only reason I think piracy is particularly wrong is that I don't believe many people, if any are clairvoyant enough to know if they really wouldn't pay for it at it's asking price.

If I made something, ANYTHING... and someone made an exact copy of it, for free, at no cost to me... and I KNEW for a fact that they weren't going to buy it any other way, like say, because they make less in a year then it costs... to be quite honest... I wouldn't give a damn. It's not hurting me, except for my ability to say "You can't have this because you can't afford to pay me or don't have the means to pay me." (Credit cards and the like.)

Personally I think that makes ME the dick. I'm denying something to someone when that denial offers me nothing. Are those pirates selfish because they made their own copies of something they can't afford? Hell yes. However, aren't I being selfish by denying something to somebody for no reason other then I can?

Hell, even if it's "You can't have this because it's not worth it to you" I feel would make me a dick... just so long as I had 100% knowledge that said person wouldn't. (Which would be impossible.)

I think theres one key stat in the article - while it's true that piracy is very much predominant in a small minority of users downloading more games then they have lifetime income - which leads to them suggesting the 10% accounting for 90% type statistics...

They've not accounted for how much PC is suffering from ' the average consumer' downloading a few games a year but not filling their hard drive with stuff they don't need. This is a back of the envelope calculation, but the average Xbox 360 owner buys less then 3 games a year. Until we know how many '3 games a year' type consumers are simply pirating 3 games a year instead of spending $150 we'll never know how much money is lost to piracy.

The problem is a game company will see a HUGE % of their total sales being pirated so will simply spout the 80% of our games potential sales were pirated. The other side will go on about the stats being spiked by a small minority. When the truth is the figure is somewhere in the middle and no one seems impartial enough to do a study on it.

That's my take anyway on the 'stats' behind it all...

The US and Netherlands did a study, the governments I mean, and said that they cannot tell in any way that piracy hurts the industry. They however saw that piracy spikes sales in other markets and even dared to say that piracy is better for the economy as a whole.

Dude, I'm not the one that just made 20+ posts trying to explain how people pirate because they feel the software isn't worth the asking price...

You are the one that tried to explain that to us. And then you post data that totally invalidate your arguments, so where are you getting at ?

These statistics don't show anything that invalidates the fact that people don't think somehing is worth it.

As you can see the average paid for those is aron $8 and in the very initial post it's said that they would be near $80. That right there shows you that what developers feel entitled to is very wrong. Add to that the convenience and everything, on top of he price, and you get a pretty complete picture of pirates.

You shouldn't pay for it if you feel that way. But you also shouldn't play it. The logic doesn't belong in a piracy dicussion - you're either willing to pay the price for it or not, but if you have the money, and simply consider the product not worth it, you do without. You don't steal it and opt not to pay for it. You seem to be basing the value off of games on blizzard titles. Yes, blizzard titles are amazing, and you will get probably an hour of enjoyment per 15 cents spent. Virtually noone else makes games that hold up that well. Using them as an excuse to take the work of others is weak.

Not to mention that "1 per 1000" figure, that appeared to be a VERY sketchy test, hardly believable. The details of the test give little confidence. Infact the very same article you cited said, and I quote, "it seems clear that eliminating piracy through a stronger DRM can result in significantly increased sales."

In fashion it is not a problem, it is actually helpful.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/behind-the-scenes-of-oscar-fashion/

First, I don't see where you got that DRM increases sales, when they clearly stated DRM increases piracy.

Second, they have no right to want the same amount of money as Blizzard, Valve, Firaxis, etc. for the same type of product when it is clearly inferior.

Well, you're citation 7, that quote was pulled directly from that article - copied and pasted... a find on those words would show where it came from. Maybe you misread it? The first round of DRM additions they claimed increased sales and reduced downloads... though I honestly don't think their test was an accurate judge anyway.

As for having no right to want the same money - Blizzard, Valve, etc, companies make money from volume. It's easy for them to not have to charge for more quality if they sell 10x as much as everyone else. Even if some random nobody company puts out an excellent game, they're probably not going to achieve 8 figure sales. You're view is jaded - blizzard put sout games that are worth way more than everyone else - but they charge TOO LITTLE. You get way more than your money's worth. You CANNOT hold everyone to the exact same standard. And if you think everyone's games should cost relative to the quality of a blizzard title, you should just stick with blizzard titles. It's still not a justification for piracy - never was.

While there is the need for a more complex model and adress to the fact that there are people who do indeed, still pay to buy, I'm sure you and me can agree that there are definetly a good number of people, who are at or above the equilibrium price and marginal benefit, basically people that say "This is a fair price", who pirate.

Why?

If you're a rational person, why would you not pirate? Alturism? Charity? Morality?

Again, I don't want to take the totally cynical look here. We can definetly incorporate a OC to pirating (sense of guilt, risk, etc) and make that the supply curve, but it will be much much more elastic (flater).

You lose two things as a IP holder when there is pirating.

The potential loss of sale and revenue to those who would have paid, if they were not offered the same product for 0 cost, by other pirates.

The labor they had put into creating that thing. That thing that would have never existed. That is undeniably going to be lost. The labor the was put in, the dignity that it entails.

I think it's more dickish, not to say "You can't have it", but to say "I want to have it, I deserve it, and I will take it".