Not sure if anyone is aware of the University of Waterloo's reputation, but I will briefly fill you in.
It is most likely one of the best schools on the continent--certainly in Canada--for computer science, engineering, and mathematics. It may not quite match up to MIT and Stanford, but it is a very good school. If you haven't heard of it, it's probably because it's not much older than 50 years and doesn't output a lot of research. (That or... you know, it's in Canada, eh. The hat may not be particularly noteworthy.) Don't think that the binary on the coat of arms is a mistake or an attempt to get with the times. It was definitely intentional, and is probably some cute inside joke. Though I couldn't offer you much insight towards its meaning:P
So these numbers are totally bogus even at first glance. I find it ridiculous companies claim such excessive damages when based on the most flawed assumptions. Piracy is a reality. Game/media designers need to deal with it, but "deal with" doesn't equate to trying to thwart piracy to the point of restrictive DRM schemes and inconvenience of the customer. At the same time, looking at the music industry, I am all for better legislation concerning intellectual property that reflects such realities so companies can stop coming up with excuses to blackmail the little guy.
However, I don't really understand the moral justification of the "pirate" in downloading their games/songs/movies/whatever. That person may or may not have paid for it in the first place, so their consumption of the product is not necessarily a lost sale, sure. Yet, I have not heard a convincing argument justifying this person's -right- to consume the product at all. If they are unable or unwilling to pay for it, why should they be able to enjoy it gratis? This mindset isn't visible in any other industry--that if you can't afford the product, since you're not a lost sale, you have the right to consume it anyways? If a person does not want to share their idea, be it embodied in a game or song or whatever, unless shared for some profit, what gives you the right to say hey, I can't afford it anyways but I feel the need to enjoy it so I'm taking it? I mean, you can't go to a restaurant, select an item, then decide you don't like it and forfeit your obligation to pay; you can't just leave without giving any compensation simply because you did not enjoy it if there was no problem with it otherwise. Though this does apply to a physical object, the premise is similar.
I am genuinely interested in how people can justify this, as I myself cannot. Would love a response!
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if anyone is aware of the University of Waterloo's reputation, but I will briefly fill you in.
It is most likely one of the best schools on the continent--certainly in Canada--for computer science, engineering, and mathematics. It may not quite match up to MIT and Stanford, but it is a very good school. If you haven't heard of it, it's probably because it's not much older than 50 years and doesn't output a lot of research. (That or... you know, it's in Canada, eh. The hat may not be particularly noteworthy.) Don't think that the binary on the coat of arms is a mistake or an attempt to get with the times. It was definitely intentional, and is probably some cute inside joke. Though I couldn't offer you much insight towards its meaning :P
So these numbers are totally bogus even at first glance. I find it ridiculous companies claim such excessive damages when based on the most flawed assumptions. Piracy is a reality. Game/media designers need to deal with it, but "deal with" doesn't equate to trying to thwart piracy to the point of restrictive DRM schemes and inconvenience of the customer. At the same time, looking at the music industry, I am all for better legislation concerning intellectual property that reflects such realities so companies can stop coming up with excuses to blackmail the little guy.
However, I don't really understand the moral justification of the "pirate" in downloading their games/songs/movies/whatever. That person may or may not have paid for it in the first place, so their consumption of the product is not necessarily a lost sale, sure. Yet, I have not heard a convincing argument justifying this person's -right- to consume the product at all. If they are unable or unwilling to pay for it, why should they be able to enjoy it gratis? This mindset isn't visible in any other industry--that if you can't afford the product, since you're not a lost sale, you have the right to consume it anyways? If a person does not want to share their idea, be it embodied in a game or song or whatever, unless shared for some profit, what gives you the right to say hey, I can't afford it anyways but I feel the need to enjoy it so I'm taking it? I mean, you can't go to a restaurant, select an item, then decide you don't like it and forfeit your obligation to pay; you can't just leave without giving any compensation simply because you did not enjoy it if there was no problem with it otherwise. Though this does apply to a physical object, the premise is similar.
I am genuinely interested in how people can justify this, as I myself cannot. Would love a response!