Sources: The Guardian, SlashGear
quote: It's harder to pirate feelies than it is 0s and 1s.
quote: . Hopefully most in the video game industry understand that trying to force things to be the way they were 20 years ago is not going to work... piracy is just one facet, though an easy one to point to and make a big deal of...
quote: They don't realize that not everyone who pirates is a dirty scumbag who doesn't care.
quote: The rest just don't want to risk spending all that money for what could amount to crap.
quote: And if the licensed product was all that was available at, say, $20, whereas the counterfeit items that sell for $10 weren't around anyway...they're going to buy the licensed product if that's what they want.
quote: If there is any % of all of that PS-pirating group that *would have* actually gone out and bought a copy if it wasn't available pirated, it's a vanishingly small %. Statistically insignificant.
quote: These consumers aren't like online pirates - they're not looking for something for free. They're soccer moms who are being berated by their kids who want an AB toy, and they're going to buy one.
quote: I admitted that online piracy has some economic impact - but I'm asserting that it's statistically insignificant.
quote: As for the $20 vs. $10 argument on a toy, you're missing 2 points. Firstly, if someone goes for a $10 counterfeit, the counterfeiter is illegally profiting off of Rovio's IP - which doesn't happen in online pirating. quote>Lots of people profit by selling pirated software. I can find with little trouble vendors that sell hacked and cracked versions of anything. And anyone who uses illegally downloaded software is indeed profiting from off the software maker's IP. Your point is valid only if the software is never used. quote: There's a clear and demonstrable issue there of that $10 being due to Rovio. And if knockoffs aren't available at $10, and the buyer won't spend $20 for the real thing, then Rovio didn't lose anything - the buyer wasn't a prospect to pay the price they waned for the product in the first place...and also no one else illicitly profited by selling a knockoff.</ Yes, I said, more than once, that there are customers who would buy the knockoff that would not buy the legit product. You were the one that said every knockoff sale was a lost sale to Rovio. But why is Rovio due money for violation of its IP for sales that never would have occured yet software makers are not? Simply because it is a tangible item? I can see merit in your argument, although I'd still disagree, in the case of software collectors who simply download everything and never use it. But someone who does use the software is indeed profiting from the IP illegally, because it is allowing him to perform tasks he would not be able to do, or only be able to do more difficultly.Illegally downloaded software is either not used or it is used. Whenever it is used there is economic harm, because either that software is not paid for or cheaper alternatives are not purchased. People who use illegal software are profiting of someone else's IP just as someone who purchases a knockoff Angry Bird doll.
quote: There's a clear and demonstrable issue there of that $10 being due to Rovio. And if knockoffs aren't available at $10, and the buyer won't spend $20 for the real thing, then Rovio didn't lose anything - the buyer wasn't a prospect to pay the price they waned for the product in the first place...and also no one else illicitly profited by selling a knockoff.</
quote: And Adobe says the cost of piracy is significant. As does Microsoft. And damn near every other software manufacturer in existence. But because Motoman said otherwise it is true. Maybe you should open your eyes and realize piracy is not a victimless crime. You might not like the victim but there is still economic harm done.Industry groups put the number at almost $60B, a number probably as far from the mark as your statistically insignificant estimate.