quote: I don't see why people care about the semantics. When you read internet piracy, the implication is understood. The term originally referred to only sea pillaging. You may as well complain that these people aren't on boats swigging rum.
quote: While I agree that each share isn't necessarily a lost sale, how exactly do you expect people to "prove" that shares would've been sales? Mind reading?
quote: The best they could ever hope for is a correlation, which still wouldn't be proof. On the other hand there are people actively distributing and using these files. You claim these corporations evil for focusing on money, yet your only argument for the sharing and downloading is that it doesn't appear hurt their bottom line. Is it really a moral high ground to freely use software/enjoy media that was intended to be purchased?
quote: where? I completely agreed that the only means of data would be correlative, which is never proof. i don't see how this equates into "internet piracy is stealing". the only thing I asked was how you would prove such a thing as intangible as intent to purchase.
quote: Also, it may be beneficial, but the developer/producer clearly did not wish for their product to be advertised in such a manner. Isn't it their right to charge and distribute their product the way they intend?
quote: The public is only entitled to as much as the producer, which is nothing. If you aren't interested in purchasing, and they aren't interested in giving freely, it's perfectly within both of your rights to watch the product crumble. Like I said, there's no moral superiority here. Nobody should have the power to be big brother, regardless of wealth or status.
quote: There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support any claims of financial OR property losses, so the word piracy - which implies THEFT - is wholly inappropriate.
quote: Because you asked for it. How else do you prove losses in such a manner other than proving intent to buy? If a form of media sells 0 units, gets pirated 1000 times, it is still not proof of loss. You're essentially asking for something impossible.
quote: When creating media the costs are almost entirely in development rather than in disc. If you were to steal a disc they would also lose relatively little. It doesn't justify the practice.
quote: And as I said, you're stepping on individual rights and playing big brother. "Artists should" "it's the right thing". These are decisions that exist for the creator, not rights to be dictated by sharers. There's really no way to spin this into a positive light. Explicit file sharing can only be justified as being impossible to regulate fairly. They can't regulate, therefore you believe you're entitled. You're essentially being as cutthroat as these money hungry business you seem to despise.