Ahhh the age old pirate debate.
This debate, like any religious debate will never besatisfactorily resolved as the two sides are simply too far apart. All we can do is give our opinions and see how many people either agree or disagree.
The story mentioned is yet another case of over the top, exaggerated-to-make-a-point punishments, no different than in medieval times when people were hanged for stealing the kings deer from the forest or drowned for being a "heretic". The point of the punishment is to spread fear not to actually stop the practice, if indeed that is even possible (I don't think it is, practically speaking).
Both sides site "facts" supported by "statistics", both can provide persuasive arguments supporting their point of views, but again like religion it all comes down to the individual "believer".
I personally believe people should pay for what they use because that supports an industry that they nominally enjoy, and supporting that industry will presumably pay dividends in new and exciting products which they will also presumably enjoy.
On the other hand, if the enjoyment of a product is being stopped by local unavailability, ridiculous pricing schemes, or that product is simply not deemed as being worth the price being asked... go for it. The act of "pirating" in these cases will ultimately encourage the apparatus preventing enjoyment of their product into modifying their behavior (as the music industry will do), or a suitable replacement will show up that provides a product that is accessible and enjoyable (as many artists are doing in releasing their music for free on their websites).
This is true for all media products, TV, music, movies, games, etc. The world is changing and with it the marketplace.
-Gooney
This debate, like any religious debate will never besatisfactorily resolved as the two sides are simply too far apart. All we can do is give our opinions and see how many people either agree or disagree.
The story mentioned is yet another case of over the top, exaggerated-to-make-a-point punishments, no different than in medieval times when people were hanged for stealing the kings deer from the forest or drowned for being a "heretic". The point of the punishment is to spread fear not to actually stop the practice, if indeed that is even possible (I don't think it is, practically speaking).
Both sides site "facts" supported by "statistics", both can provide persuasive arguments supporting their point of views, but again like religion it all comes down to the individual "believer".
I personally believe people should pay for what they use because that supports an industry that they nominally enjoy, and supporting that industry will presumably pay dividends in new and exciting products which they will also presumably enjoy.
On the other hand, if the enjoyment of a product is being stopped by local unavailability, ridiculous pricing schemes, or that product is simply not deemed as being worth the price being asked... go for it. The act of "pirating" in these cases will ultimately encourage the apparatus preventing enjoyment of their product into modifying their behavior (as the music industry will do), or a suitable replacement will show up that provides a product that is accessible and enjoyable (as many artists are doing in releasing their music for free on their websites).
This is true for all media products, TV, music, movies, games, etc. The world is changing and with it the marketplace.
-Gooney