From an economic standpoint, Ive always been glad copyright infringement has been around, but perhaps it is getting out of hand these days.
Lets consider the reasons. If we lived in a world without copyright infringement, the people who make stuff would charge through the roof, and people would have to go without. Witness the games of yore, a Megadrive (genesis) game was about 1MB in size, it could be and probably was, programmed in a week or less. Was that worth 50 bucks new? No in my opinion.
We can talk about how we are cleaning out the recording industry of their profits and though we consider their profits to be excessive, it is still not right.
But this ignores the fact that there are 2 kinds of crimes committed. Legal and Illegal. The illegal is obvious, downloading mp3s etc without paying for them.
But what of the legal crimes?
Well, I dont think many people here are avid readers, but if you would read the book “Hitmen” by Dennen he explains how creative accounting on part of the record and movie industry makes millions of dollars for the industry while leaving 99% of performing artists penniless and forced to go on gruelling year long tours to make ends meet. Sure, the 1% successful artists we see on MTV and think its all ok.
Also the Record industry spends an estimated 100 Million USD a year on bribes to Radio stations to play their songs alone. But this is peanuts to the estimated 10 Billion USD return… 1%. Is this not also illegal? They will probably never be caught, especially with governments and presses being pawns for big businesses rather than the people and the ongoing and (ugh) getting worse dumbing down of world populations.
This applies even further in life blurring the line between legal and illegal by Nation states commiting terrorism, with complicity from worldwide press, as any student of serious (note I said serious, not necessary mainstream) politics would know.
Now economically speaking, copyright infrignment would provide a market force to er…force… artists and business’es to be competitive. Without it, we would all be in rather dire straits i.e “I have morals, give me an excuse to actually buy stuff!”. Of course there should be a price attached which would deter infringers, but I believe the system is too antiquated, applying prices way in excess of the crime (including penalty) on only a micro part of the population of infringers.
Ouroboro has a good point, but I think he carries it too far by not considering the counterpoints I sketched above. And lets not have talk of “cool developers” and all that. I agree some are cool, but that is really besides the point from a monetary standpoint.
At the same time Im distasteful of massive copying of everything.
Bottom Line: No amount of laws imo will change things as much as will the morals of the people and society. On a personal level, I buy stuff if I can afford it and if I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I lean towards the infringers in action, but still buy quite a bit of my stuff, and the ratio of what I have bought to what I got free with rise in future as my income rises (hopefully).
P.S I know my post is a little disjointed…heck its a game forum for christs sake! not philosophical economics. :-\