Because it doesn't. If someone takes money out of your account, that money is gone. It belongs to them, and you no longer have it.
You MAY be able to get it back if your account is insured, but even then, you have to go through a lot of hoops to even hope to get any of it back.
Well thats exactly my point. I did warn you that if you apply Data content logic to any kind of physical possession then you are going to end up with a mess. Of course the money will be gone, thats how physical stuff works.
Money in a bank account is not physical. It's all kept in computer systems. Paper bills are just "IOU's", you can even make your own (though I certainly wouldn't recommend it!). Physical, digital, conceptual... it's all the same. If you pirate a $5 game, you're stealing $5 from someone. If you "wouldn't have bought it anyway," then you have no rights to the content.
But the main problem I have with this stuff is people trying to rationalize the irrational. The only reason this subject has "gray" area is because people want it to be there. It's a purely clean-cut difference.
he "difference" is non-existent. You're still taking money from someone. This is applying a double standard simply because the details are a little different.
There is a double standard right now. We are talking about digital data/the Internet and different rules have to apply to digital content and physical content exactly because data can by copied and physical objects cannot.
Take this example:
-It is legal to buy a car and lend it to someone as long as he gives it back to you (tho that would be illegal from his side if he didn't)
-It is illegal to buy a music disc, movie or a game and land it to someone even if he gives it back to you (This is illegal from your side, simply because when he listens to the music or sees the movies, he does not have to buy it for him self and someone doesn't earn money). Note that the second user didn't even copy the content, he really just borrowed it in the most simple way we know.
This is obviously a double standard anyway, I don't see how I am the one applying anything new to this. I am just pointing out that you are completely legal to share content, that has to be bought again for you to gain it back, and illegal to share content that nobody looses. If this is not the most illogical thing then I don't know what is...
So if you lend a CD to someone, how do you know they aren't going to rip their own copy? (Besides, unless things have changed, the stuff that prohibits the lending of physical media is not enforceable by law. A copyright agreement may state otherwise, but the law trumps any unlawful clauses in any legal contract.)
I'm not sure the relevance of this paragraph. But I will say that if we, with the magic of theoretical money, all woke up with billions of dollars in our accounts... the economy of the world would completely implode within hours.
1. Again, that was an example of applying data logic to physical content, it makes no sense, it would not work.
2. I don't see the same problem if everyone woke up with billions of data possessions on their hard-drive (except for storage issues)
1. Money is not physical content. If you have money in your physical pocket, that's one thing. But anything else is tracked digitally, and physical items are a means to an end (just like DVDs and CDs).
2. If that happened, then every company/individual who contributed to that work would have no ability to recoup funds. Many content creators would go out of business, and many more individuals would lose faith in their rights over their content.
Money has always been "theoretical." That slip of paper with Benjamin Franklin on it is NOT worth $100 on its own... the value was placed upon it by the US government, and only represents a "promise" to pay the money. (As an aside: Good luck cashing out on that promise now, haha!)
Agreed, as well as if I make a hello world program and sell it for $100. It's obviously not worth that, like the paper, It has the value I said it has. and it achieves the same thing, it gives you bunch of promises about what is it supposed to achieve. Except now we are mixing economy (an idea), and content. They are directly connected and not interchangeable tho.
I believe you should have the right to sell your program for $100, or any amount. Will I buy it for $100? No. Does the price you set give me the right to take it for free, cutting you out of your $100?
And keep in mind that Hello World takes an average programmer an average of 60 seconds or less to complete. Why should a team highly skilled, highly dedicated developers, who spend hundreds and thousands of man-hours going from Square 1 to Aisle 9, not be allowed to sell a full product (whether it be a movie, game, whatever) for $60 or less? Especially considering overhead, such as shipping costs; distribution costs; the electricity bill; office furniture... and then having to divvy out the remainder amongst themselves?
What I really have trouble getting my head around is how people who make movies, music, games, novels, graphics, what have you... how do they have less rights than someone else, just because they manufacture entertainment for millions, as opposed to a Ferrari for one? Why is it that the indie game developer has to have a "day job" to make ends meet, while other high-requirement-job workers (engineers, chemists, doctors, and especially lawyers) do not?
This kind of stuff is why I put creating content on the back burner. I want to develop games because I love them. But given the way that people have no second thoughts about trampling all over the profession of game development, all while playing the games developed by those same disrespected developers until one's keyboard catches fire, I lost most of my desire to do so. Just when I was starting to get back into it, here I find myself, again, asking myself: "Why bother?"