Not really. What I said still applies to an extent. If they're cheaper, they may not have bought them if they were the original.

That doesn't make fruitless copyright enforcement a worthwhile endeavor. I'm simply looking at the reality of the situation. The fact that they take a big risk has nothing to do with the pirates as they didn't force them to do anything.

Yes, I believe actual damages were done, but don't exaggerate.

They took the risk themselves; the pirates had nothing to do with that. I do not believe you're hurting the business just because you don't give them money (although I do if there was an actual loss of potential profit).

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see copyright infringement as being much more of a problem than jaywalking due to the reasons I've already given. I support copyright, but the mere potential to lose something intangible to begin with doesn't strike me as a serious problem.

In the case of murder, real, measurable damage is actually done. Significant damage to a single individual. No, it's not as bad as genocide, but I was using a cost-benefit analysis. The problem with copyright enforcement (if we're making the government do it) is that it's ultimately fruitless (they'll just easily move to another website), any new laws are typically draconian in nature, it usually ends up harming individuals, and it costs us so much (taxpayer money, manpower, time).

If I had to draw an analogy, it's like if the police were to actively search for jaywalkers and only jaywalkers. That's just ridiculous.

No, they couldn't (and I didn't rationalize anything). And no, they're not stealing money. Your analogy doesn't even make sense because the pirates aren't even modifying anything of anyone else's; they're copying. If you modify someone else's account without permission, then I could admit you have a point. But that's not the case here.

That wasn't the only reason I gave.

Good thing I didn't make it. I don't think we should be taking down random websites and arresting file sharers for a number of reasons:

1) Impossible to enforce effectively.
2) It's hardly a serious matter (multiple reasons, remember).
3) It does not bring us any benefits.
4) It wastes taxpayer dollars, time, and manpower.

What an excellent way to start a comment. I'm sure you'll get many people to agree with you that way.

No, and that isn't what I said. In fact, if you read my comment, you would have seen that I said that a download may or may not cause a loss of potential profit. Which is completely true.

But even as someone who supports copyright (Surprise! Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a pirate.) I cannot understand how you could believe this is a huge deal. The effects can't be noticed by the victim (as they've lost nothing) unless they observe it themselves, nothing is really "taken" in the traditional sense of the word, and the actual effects are not measurable.

I've noticed a trend. People seem to label others who disagree with them as the "enemy" (the people completely opposite to them). I actually said that I was in support of copyright. Can you not imagine a scenario where someone on your side disagrees with some of the things you say? I simply thought you were exaggerating about copyright infringement being a "huge" problem.

If you wish to raise your chance of convincing people to agree with you above zero, I suggest dropping arrogant statements such as this. It will just make people less likely to listen to you.

To me, that is a needless form of DRM. I'll never buy any games like that. I don't need single-player games that force me to be online (either due to conventional DRM or due to services like OnLive).

But if they get a copy of the game, there is no escape. This won't work for music or movies, though. It is more effective for games (due to them being interactive).

I'll need some proof. A citation, in fact.

But of course, there is no excuse for DRM and draconian measures. Punishing innocents for the actions of others is simply unjustifiable to me.

This is an attitude that puzzles me. The game companies are the ones making these decisions. If anything, the blame mostly lies on them. They're the ones who implement the DRM and make the software, not the pirates. The pirates may indirectly cause them to change direction, but they still make the final decision.

Do not pretend as if no blame rests on the developers.

I often wonder why I even waste my time replying. There's often nothing factually incorrect about the comments in question. They're just differing opinions.

But I just can't help myself...

No. It's copying certain data without permission. I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.

I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright. We have much, much, much larger problems to worry about, and oftentimes, dealing with copyright infringers is both a waste of time and taxpayer money (at least when it's the government dealing with them).

Laughable. What do you suggest? Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.

Through legislation? Again, laughable. That will just make people angry, and likely invade people's privacy, violate rights, and a host of other things.

Laws? Again, won't work. It will just anger people even further, and it's impossible to stop them all.

If you're suggesting that they make a product that can compete with the pirated versions, then that is a much more sound strategy. That means no DRM, good customer support, and hassle-free. But still, there will be those who will not buy no matter what.

Such a study would be useless. People already know that copyright exists.

Furthermore, what if people don't agree that they should have these rights to begin with, and don't care if they're "disrespectful" towards them? Laws aren't always just.

Or rather, do they place enough value in it that they'd pay for it?

That could be said about the people who are doing shit like taking down websites (like Megaupload) which allow people to download copyrighted material. They're addressing extremely insignificant issues, wasting taxpayer money, hurting innocents, and enabling censoring (hurting innocents).

They already can. Some people just want it to be legal. But you should have no complaints, right? That's the most peaceful way to go about it.

Does saying that comfort you? Because it shouldn't. The fact that others are like you doesn't change what you are.