"Now, I ask you, what hurts more; a DL in a country where people have the money to spend on your game, or a Illegal Sold copy in a Asian country were selling prices are already a lot lower because they have less money?"
A flawed question. How do you expect it to be answered, when there's no way to tell how often a download would turn into a sale if downloading wasn't an option. Besides, at least with illegal copies, there is provably enough interest in the product to pay money for it.
"A. Hey! I can't pay a Farrari... Can I take one?"
Your example is flawed.
"B. Game prices haven't fluctuated with the Inflation for many, many, many years. Profit per copy is less than it used to be, while the money costs per copy are way higher. A price reduction is equal to a financial suicide..."
Why is it absolutely necessary to spend so much money on it? Plenty of low budget games that have been targeted to niche markets have succeeded.
"C. So, they wan't to test it, eh? Ever heard of DEMO'S? Because that is what they are for (try before the buy), not a complete copy of the game..., after which like 30% of the DL'ers don't buy even if they like it and completed it trice ("hey, why buy it, if I already have it")..."
Not every game has a demo, and even if they do, a demo is something that is probably made to show the best parts of the game and none of the worst (ideally, from a marketing POV -- in truth, though, most demos suck pretty bad. Poor representation of the final product, either way).
99% of people who make up statistics are retarded morons.
"D. Heavy punishment on the user side would be a big step in scarring them off..."
Much in the same way that death sentence for pickpocketing is effective deterrant to it. Besides, it would be rather immoral to set a warning example instead of just punishment, don't you think?