I've been tempted to do so sometime. There was this occasion were an author of a comic I had read online, but had never paid for as it was not available in my country, came over to sign the first volume which was (at last) being released locally. I passed by and got the first volume signed, but I was really tempted to pay up for everything right there in cash and give it to him, directly. In the end I didn't, but I wonder what kind of reaction that would have sparked.
Big corporartions teat 10k€ as small change. The effort of asking someone to take care of 20€ is absolutely not worth it to them.

You clearly don't understand two things:
a) how accounting works
b) that time isn't infinite good.

Accounting for such huge companies is a bitch. They usually barely manage to "close" the books within accounting periods anyway. And no, expanding the accounting office for few extra bucks isn't worth it This is why big companies choose not to sell directly - they rather want to receive bigger amounts of money at once from distributors than counting every small transaction alone. You think they are playing checkers now and watching redtube so they have plenty extra time for accounting your pennies?

For smaller companies, indie devs etc., it should be much easier, and indie companies usually provide you with bank account data needed for donations.

Also, why do yoy ask a question if you react with aggression to response? No wonder your rep is the lowest of lows.
Consider being blacklisted.

Yeah; I should have read that(my own post) lol. Didn't say it well at all. I was trying to show an example of the same arguments(wouldn't have bought it anyway argument used against lost revenue argument, unlimited copies so what did i steal, I only took it cause you overcharge) ect but it doesn't really work as well as it seemed at the time I guess. (Got caught up in the simile and killed my point. also I didn't describe it that well anyway)
_________
Clarification more than a reply really:
You misunderstood. That was included in the "pay or don't buy" thing. If you don't want to pay the price don't buy it. If the price is dropped to where it is worth it to you and you buy it then thats part of it. I don't mean pay 1st day prices*. But its up to the seller to put it on sale and when.
clarifying:
When something gets cheaper or goes temporally on sale the seller has changed the price to meet the consumers who think it should be cheaper.
The potential customer doesn't get to take what they want on the off chance the price will drop enough later that they feel like paying, they have to wait until it happens. (full price is the extra you pay to get it right then and there instead of later.)
Oh? Why? Not the legal right certainly. As for moral....How could the rights to somebody else's property possibly be up to you? ...just because you/others think you do doesn't mean those it belongs to automatically don't or can't/shouldn't think or act as they do regarding such matters.
(Unless you're talking "law of the jungle" morals like "I have the right because you can't or won't stop me" in which case the argument would also be in favor of the copyright owner could just send assassins to fight piracy lol)
you really think even half of them only do so to get a demo(playing the game through isnt a demo...maybe an hour or the first level(whichever is shorter) tops imo...besides thats what rental services are for so theres some lost revenue there fore you), intend to pay later when its on sale/cheaper(cause you know....they're impatient and feel entitled to have it now instead of later when its on sale/cheaper), already paid and only pirated to get a drm free copy, or only do so because it isn't available to buy anymore(and how many who dl abandonware do you honestly think will pay for it if it becomes available in the future on say..gog)? (a bit hypocritical of me I know but not really so against the later 2 (provided they pay for abandonware the instant it no longer is and the reason they wanted drm free wasn't to give copies to all their friends))
Doesn't matter if they wouldn't pay for it anyway. Thats irreverent to the act of taking it against the will of the owner.
As far as not affording it having the latest entertainment isn't a basic inborn right. If they can't afford the new games there are plenty of budget ones and as you already pointed out there are always sales. I don't understand the people who say(I know you don't) that thats a valid excuse to steal(if not precisely the legal definition than as far as the colloquial use of the word to mean "to take it against the owner's wishes" because I don't know another) it. Especially since it isn't even a "poverty" issue its an impatience one coupled with a lame excuse.
_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _
* games are a business and I'm not a charity. If they want me to pay $70 for a game that almost certainly will have another $30 in dlc(some of which probably comes out the first week and some of it maybe even already present on disk and could easily have been part of the game anyway) it'd better be a very good one or I'll probably just pick up the goty version with the dlc included for half that later. there're too many older(recent older...like a year)good games I don't have yet for to throw my $ away in some effort to "support the industry" I just bought (new copy for those who care)masseffect trilogy for less than the cost of any one of them because I had other things to do when they first came out. So "I pirate because I can't afford it" doesn't make any sense to me. They're just impatient lazy dicks not the sympathetic downtrodden poor

I wasn't giving you my opinion. It is completely irrelevant financially speaking as far as the publisher is concerned. Your entitled to an opinion. Have an opinion that gravity doesn't exist if you wish, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

You said it yourself, "...while maybe technically against the EULA."

"...while maybe technically against the EULA." And I'm the one being idiotic?

And also, what do those particular numbers matter? Stealing is stealing, regardless of how many people perform the act.

I used to have a friend that owned a local movie and game rental business. He had to pay way over retail price for games and movies as part of the rental agreement. Renters do not pay standard retail price for products. He had special agreements with the copyright holders. This was many years ago though, I have no idea exactly how it works now.

I know that it's illegal for consumers to buy a game and simply rent it out. It's also illegal to host public viewings of movies you've purchased, and especially so to charge admission for the viewings. You also have to get special permission to use artist's music for public events, and would have to pay royalties if you're going to profit from that event. Clearly these other industries are not always okay with second hand use of their products.

The number of people who "experience the content" doesn't mean much. Most people who download pirated versions of software will buy it if they like it once the price drops to their WTP.

Of course, there is software that makes you think "wow, thank goodness I didn't pay for this crap" instead of "cool, I'll pay $15 for this to support developers". In these cases developers and publishers do indeed lose out on profit. Do they deserve to? Hell yes.

Developing good software and avoiding overpricing go a long way in curbing piracy.

You are being a bit too naive if you think most pirates will pay for things after they have already experienced and consumed them.

really?
says who
[paraphrase]I wish those in favor of piracy would stop parroting the "All/most pirates will later choose to pay for stuff they already have" like its fact[/paraphrase]

Like I already said in my post though, how much money Blockbuster or whoever is making from the deal isn't the point. The point is what exactly does a publisher equate to a lost sale like they do with piracy?

Well, that's a good question. I haven't owned a console in a long time and thus have not rented games in many years: How does renting games that have a multiplayer component work? Do the console versions of games require special codes or accounts to access the multiplayer the same way the PC versions do? That could be an indication of how they feel about it. Also, haven't there been a lot of talks in the last couple of years about how the next generation consoles were supposed to have ways of preventing second hand sales? I haven't followed it for a while, but I remember there was talk about that.

I think part of the issue is that these companies are bound by laws pertaining to physical goods (first sale doctrine) that don't apply to digital goods. And many of these old practices are dying out. Movie and game rental brick and mortar stores have largely been eliminated. I'm not sure how second-hand sales stores are doing overall. I think these places will always exist, but in smaller quantities. They will exist for people who enjoy collecting or finding games to play for older systems, but I do believe that we will stop seeing new games at these establishments.

In any case, surely the publisher considers it as lost revenue, but I'm not sure they have a legal way of preventing it due to consumer laws, which is why they've been adding things like the multiplayer passes and what not in order to try and recover some of that lost revenue.

Most dev shops probably don't have "people" that do it for them, in small companies it's simply an additional role that someone fills in addition to their other duties. There are probably big dev studios that don't work like this but I bet the majority of studios count under 30 employees total.

No EULA on console games, the main medium for used game sales, can prevent used game sales, see the right of first sale.

You're an incredibly dense individual. And your last bit at the end is incorrect - it is technically illegal to own or use pirated materials.

Anyways, let me ask you a question. Let's keep using the book example here for a moment. Since legalities aren't important to you, ignore the legality of these situations:

Situation A) Let's say your friend owns a book and he gives it to you when he's finished. You now have access to the book for free. Your friend didn't create any new copies of the book, he gave you his copy. End result: Two people experience the story for the price of one admission.

Situation B) This time, he makes a copy of the book. He gives you the copy when he is done with it, and he stores the original copy on a shelf. It will never be redistributed or sold; it will simply sit on his shelf, and let's assume that he will most likely will never read it again. End result: Two people experience the story for the price of one admission.

Now keep in mind I said ignore the legal aspects of this situation. Consider earlier that you said this about software piracy: "As a rule, I don't pirate. First because I find it wrong, fuck legality, it's just plain wrong.."

Now consider these examples in the context of a video game. Your friend has a video game, and gives you his copy when he's done. Or, your friend makes a copy of his game, and gives you the copy. Either way, the publisher gets paid once, and two people play the game.

How is this any different from the book example? Keep in mind that we're ignoring legalities here based on your own statement, which I will quote again: "...fuck legality, it's just plain wrong.."

So, giving away a writer's story for free is not wrong, but playing a game for free, is? Edit: Even if you sell it instead of giving it away, it's the same as giving it away for free in the publishers eyes since they don't see a dime of the resale. Morally speaking, you're probably on more solid ground if you give it away rather than selling someone's work.

Comparing media to tools always works out so well, let me tell ya.

Compensate creators for the media/art you enjoy. The end.

Simply put, if one produces a copy of media, it gives them the option to continue to enjoy the media.
If they remove the copy from their possession, so too do they remove the option to continue to enjoy it.
If they produce a million copies to distribute willy nilly, they're not only keeping the option to continue enjoying it themselves, but giving the option to enjoy it freely to practically everyone.

That is the essence of piracy.

Using your twisted logic:
Every time you buy a used car, you're stealing that car, because the manufacturer didn't see a dime of money from the 2nd person to own that car.
Thrift stores need to just be shut down and everyone who shops at them arrested.
Libraries and video stores need to be tried for theft and copyright violations.

Stop and THINK about the implications of your "used market is stealing" comments.
If you want to pirate shit, GO RIGHT AHEAD. If you want to use the twisted logic that "Well, pirating it is no different from buying it second hand", then go right ahead.

And also, yes, I know that owning/using pirated materials is illegal, but it's one that's not worth the courts time to try and enforce. The large-scale redistribution is where it's worth their time and effort to try and fight it.
Like I said, 20 years ago.. piracy existed still, people would pass around copies of music and movies, people would copy movies from the rental place, record music off the radio, etc. it was just as illegal then as it is now.. but back then, in order to redistribute on a scale that actually made a blip on the radar of the companies you had to have a large scale operation going.
In this day and age though, every 'seeder' on a Torent sight has a large enough scale distribution to be a blip.