Puki wrote:
But if a person can't afford to pay for a product then the seller isn't losing a sale. What I mean is that there was never any possibility that the "pirate" could purchase the product in the first place - the "potential sale" never existed. You do raise a good point though: why should a person pay for something that someone else gets for free?
Personally, I am 100% against the commercial use of downloaded software.
Ah, but why should one person pay for something that someone else gets for free? The person who paid for it has a right to be unhappy, considering someone else had it for free. In turn, the seller has a right to be unhappy that they lost a sale.
It is not just companies getting stiffed - it is the people who pay for their stuff who are being stiffed.
It is not just companies getting stiffed - it is the people who pay for their stuff who are being stiffed.
But if a person can't afford to pay for a product then the seller isn't losing a sale. What I mean is that there was never any possibility that the "pirate" could purchase the product in the first place - the "potential sale" never existed. You do raise a good point though: why should a person pay for something that someone else gets for free?
Personally, I am 100% against the commercial use of downloaded software.