And I see it as quite the opposite.
I don't see what copyright violations have to do with maturity.
That's not a good analogy. Take a more appropriate one: If someone owns a factory (let's call him John Doe) and the workers of the factory work there and do all of the work, John Doe's only job is to be the owner, as he isn't involved in the actual production of whatever the factory makes. Yes the workers are compensated, but since they don't own the factory, they necessarily have to be underpaid because they are just another commodity and a cost for the production of the factory in the owner's eye.
I don't see your point here. Yes the company owns the game, but usually even the writers (those who came up with the idea for the game) are also on the list of "just employees." The companies themselves aren't run (generally speaking) by people involved in the actual process of making the game.
And in a situation where the developers studio is owned mainly by those who work on the game (which is the case in smaller games, e.g. golemlabs or introversion) then I don't have a problem with paying for games like that. But in cases where large companies (Even dev. companies) produce games, those that actually produce the product are given less compensation relative to the owner of the company. That's just how that system of capitalist ownership works. If most of those who worked on it owned their fair share, it wouldn't be capitalist owned.
I'm not claiming that only one person owns it, so I don't see your point here. In cases where large companies produce a game, the way those companies themselves are run makes it so that the owners of the company (who are the minority and do little to none of the work with the actual production of the product) get the majority of the profit. They do this because, yes they are the ones who invested in it, thus their main role is just to be the money provider. You don't have to be an Communist to disagree with this system (e.g.:
here
And your point?
Yes
Yes and no. They're investing in your ability to make a product that will make them money.
Well one alternative to this would of course be market socialism. Even though nationalization doesn't have to be as rigid as the few examples of it that we have.
He is looking at something to get a return on his money for. He isn't worried about the idea unless it may possibly conflict with him getting a return.
Also you keep focusing on publisher vs developer
companies, where I'm talking even in terms of developer companies themselves. Although it is true that the developer company has less money and has more risk. They're also paid less even when things go well though. And a "well that's how it works" doesn't quite justify it.
All I'm saying is that it's quite sad to resort to immature condescending (especially when you're wrong) comments over the internet. Piracy is not always wrong. Our main disagreement here is also due largely to a wholly different view of how economics do/should work. I doubt that will be resolved in this thread (or any thread in a forum like this).
To just claim that someone doesn't understand something doesn't make it the case.