Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 13 Apr 2011.
That shows there's still some decency left in you
And the amount of PCs on those countries?
Say that one of those countries has a 90% software piracy rate and has 1M PCs and a western country has 20% software piracy rate and 100M PCs. Which country is the most parasitic?
Still astonished by the amount of justifications\excuses\tolerance parasites get.
That is why it is a percentage, 90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software.
No one is justifying piracy but at the same time no one in justifying the prices these companies are charging people that truly cannot afford to pay.
It hardly makes them parasitic just because their economy is nowhere near as highly developed as ours.
I would rather give my money to the hard working people in some of those countries than the lazy welfare scroungers in this one.
Let me just throw this one out there since it always comes up:
Humans can live without video games.
If people "truly cannot afford to pay" then they don't get to play the games, just like why I don't get to drive around in a Maserati because I can't afford to pay for one.
You have far more faith in humanity than I do.
I never meant to imply that NONE would buy it, but there are many that flat out refuse to or simply cannot, which means there is no way that you can count that as a potential sale.
To reiterate, you have no way of knowing if any of those 2,500 fall under those categories. There's a potential that all of them were going to buy the game tomorrow and decided not to when they saw it was piratable. There's a potential that none of them would ever buy it. There's a potential that someone downloaded it twice so there's really only 2,499 pirates.
It's entirely fair to say that all were potential sales. The point isn't the likelihood, it's possibility. If the point were likelihood I'd agree with you that some of the pirates might have never bought it. It's extremely unlikely that all 2,500 were about to buy it tomorrow, there's just a potential.
There is a huge difference between a normal daily car and a maserati, well tbh maserati's suck so probably not the best example.
But a maserati would be an extravagant purchase, you are priced out of owning a maserati but there are plenty of other cheaper alternatives that will perform exactly the same function.
You are pretty much comparing apples and oranges.
90% of installed software is pirated, not "90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software".
What do you propose? A new system where the price you pay for luxury items based on a percentage of your salary?
The number of potential sales the 2,500 pirates represent is probably a bell curve (like all probabilities, its not a fixed number). It's possible, but unlikely, all of those 2,500 wouldn't have bought the game if there were no other options, just as its possible, but unlikely, all of those 2,500 would have.
The £15,000 is realistically at the top end of the bell curve, but that doesn't mean the figure is incorrect. Use some common sense and stop quibbling over small details.
My mistake, but either way, it still does not change the fact that these people cannot afford to pay the asking price for the software.
I wish it was so easy to have a resolution, unfortunately I do not.
The computers could also be pirated.
If you ever go to any of those countries and see how people live an work, you'd not be calling them parasites.
Dont twist what I wrote.
I have never referred to the totality of those countries citizens as parasites. Only the ones that parasite other peoples work\effort. The same applies for "western" citizens.
So I wasn't twisting what you wrote, you are calling those that pirate in those countries parasites, does it also make us parasitic for living off of their cheap labour ?
On those and on the westerns countries too.
They give nothing to the developers, dont recognize the publishers work and expect legitimate consumers to pay the bill.
Do they get paid?
Wow. Just wow. I almost can't believe you wrote that.
I would imagine that the majority of people 'living' on the sort of wages we're talking about would prefer slavery. At least then they'd be guaranteed that a day's work was going to be enough to cover a day's food and lodgings.
Wow. Just wow. I truly cannot believe what you wrote. I cannot imagine anyone would prefer slavery to freedom, even if that freedom means not knowing whether you could afford food & lodgings. Having been there, having been reliant on state hand-outs, I'd still rather not be a slave, subject to living or dying at the hands of a "master".
There is no expectancy for anyone to foot the bill, the simple matter is they cannot afford to pay the asking price. I am confident a lot of them would pay for software if they could.
It is not a question of do they get paid, but more do they get paid enough.
Key word here is state hand-outs, pretty sure they aren't seeing any of those in their countries.
Well it depends on your reason for being a slave, If the only way to look after my family, be it parents, kids, wife, siblings etc, was to work in slavery to earn for them then yes I would take that option.
Effectively a lot of them are slaves to countries like ours, the only difference is it is optional and not forced labour.
If they get paid for their work by the parasites that "live off of their cheap labour" [Lysaer] they are better than the developers\publishers who dont get paid by their parasites.
No? Who do you think supports the movie\music\game\comic\etc industry? The parasites who dont pay for the works they enjoy freely or the legitimate consumers who support the developers\publishers work?
If they cant pay, dont play.
Movies\music\videogames\comics are not shelter\food\healthcare. They have far more in common to luxury itens than basic needs of life.
Separate names with a comma.