That's like opening up the food in the supermarket because there were no free samples of that particular foodstuff.
Not at all? Food's tangible while a game can be copied any number of times. I'm not wasting anything by pirating it and it's not like I'm not going to buy the full game, it's just that I want to see if I would enjoy it. Most people are on tight budgets too and don't want to spend what little money they have on something they don't enjoy.
Right when you start obeying copyright law. Alternatively; when you start reading into the correct side of analogies.
Not being able to afford something doesn't give you the right to have it. Entertainment media is not a human right.
Completely ignored what I said so I'll rephrase it:
You're playing a little bit of the game on a pirated copy to see if you like it. If you do, you buy the game. If you don't, you simply delete it from your computer. Some people have difficult financial situations and would rather not gamble on something they could only regularly afford once every 2 weeks.
Completely ignored what I said so I'll rephrase it:
You're playing a little bit of the game on a pirated copy to see if you like it. If you do, you buy the game. If you don't, you simply delete it from your computer. Some people have difficult financial situations and would rather not gamble on something they could only regularly afford once every 2 weeks.
What is so hard about this to understand?
Don't get condescending when you obviously don't understand the moral issues behind copyright infringement.
You wanna pick things apart because you enjoy purposefully misunderstanding the point being highlighted? Fine. I'll tell you all about how a 'difficult' financial situation wouldn't end you up with a shiny new game every 2 weeks.
Just because you're deleting a game after trailing it doesn't mean Tom, Dick, and Harry aren't. The fact you committed a crime in the eyes of the law doesn't disappear because you went back on it.
Unless you live in a fascist state, you can rightfully be expected to obey any and all laws.
Don't get condescending when you obviously don't understand the moral issues behind copyright infringement.
You wanna pick things apart because you enjoy purposefully misunderstanding the point being highlighted? Fine. I'll tell you all about how a 'difficult' financial situation wouldn't end you up with a shiny new game every 2 weeks.
Just because you're deleting a game after trailing it doesn't mean Tom, Dick, and Harry aren't. The fact you committed a crime in the eyes of the law doesn't disappear because you went back on it.
Unless you live in a fascist state, you can rightfully be expected to obey any and all laws.
Did I ever say I support Tom, **** and Harry? Did I ever even imply it? I support people not wasting their money and making the right choice on their purchases instead of wasting their budget on luxuries because they weren't sure they would like it or not.
"The fact you committed a crime in the eyes of the law doesn't disappear because you went back on it."
Yeah, because me reviewing a game for half an hour is bankrupting the developers and killing children. It's a harmless crime, whether you hold on to the fact that I broke the law and it ended with no casualties is your option.
I'm done talking to someone who's this egotistical and naive. I've already stated my points and you haven't provided any rebuttals worth providing.
I think it's sort of a red herring of the issue to discuss whether or not piracy is the same as stealing. It doesn't have to be the same as stealing to be wrong.
The usual assertions are:
If you pirate something, it makes a copy. If you steal a physical item, the person you stole it from no longer has the physical item.
When you steal an item from a store, the retailer or manufacturer isn't using the item until you come and steal it. They manufacture and stock the item in order for a consumer to purchase the item in a transaction. The item is produced specifically because one or more people worked together to supply something that other people want or need.
When you pirate a digital good, it works in the same way for the economics that allow the digital good to exist and be provided.
I only pirate things in order to assess them before purchasing them.
Morally, this might not actually be bad as long as you keep to the concept of purchasing things you enjoy. The problem is that doing this endorses systems which allow piracy that is more clearly immoral. (Especially when piracy methods use torrenting programs, your client is used to help other people download the file!) By one person having access to the ability to pirate something, everyone does.
And honestly, this isn't really necessary. There is a roaring industry of independent reviewers and video makers who are rarely incentivised to be dishonest about a game. Most information about a game can be gleaned by using the service provided by people whose livelyhood is assessing the game for people.
Pirating doesn't hurt anyone, or isn't important, because of one of the above reasons.
It doesn't have to be incredibly damaging or hurtful in order to be something to talk about or have an opinion on. Even the smallest thing can have a debate to it.
I think for a lot of people it's a question of distribution. It's significantly harder for me to obtain any kind of media when I'm in Mexico, and I know my relatives in other countries have similar issues. The means to obtain entertainment media outside of major countries is incredibly hard.
Several games that I have bought also carry benefits to just pirate them instead of purchasing. If you Dawn of War: Dark Crusade through Steam they serve the version after Sega bought it out, meaning there is no Direct Connection option for multiplayer. The patch that provided that disabled that offered no other benefit.
Music is a bit weirder, since with the advent of things like iTunes, bandcamp and even soundcloud moving to provided a payed model the ability to easily obtain music (even legally for free!) has become much easier. Trying to weasel in a piracy justification there becomes harder.
Another reason I do it is that certain companies *cough* Ubisoft, Rockstar and EA *cough* put in so many security features and account checks that it's almost impossible to play the game.
I bought GTA IV for PC, and for some reason couldn't connect to Games for Windows Live. So I paid for a game, but with security checks I couldn't play it. I spent about three days trying to fix an issue while I torrented a copy of it, once that torrent was done I had it running within an hour.
The damn online checks for Watch Dogs that would constantly kick me out of the game when my internet went down were no longer once I installed a torrented copy.
And then the atrocity of the Sims 3. I spent a full day installing expansion packs and tested it before I went on vacation, but when I got in the car I found that it requires an internet connection to start the game. Torrented it when I got home, and now it works perfectly, internet or none.
These are the only companies that I will never buy a game from again, as their additional activation steps just lead to issues and just an overall hassle. Any other game, though, I will gladly pay for if I like it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear.
Another reason I do it is that certain companies *cough* Ubisoft, Rockstar and EA *cough* put in so many security features and account checks that it's almost impossible to play the game.
I bought GTA IV for PC, and for some reason couldn't connect to Games for Windows Live. So I paid for a game, but with security checks I couldn't play it. I spent about three days trying to fix an issue while I torrented a copy of it, once that torrent was done I had it running within an hour.
The damn online checks for Watch Dogs that would constantly kick me out of the game when my internet went down were no longer once I installed a torrented copy.
And then the atrocity of the Sims 3. I spent a full day installing expansion packs and tested it before I went on vacation, but when I got in the car I found that it requires an internet connection to start the game. Torrented it when I got home, and now it works perfectly, internet or none.
These are the only companies that I will never buy a game from again, as their additional activation steps just lead to issues and just an overall hassle. Any other game, though, I will gladly pay for if I like it.
I'll agree, EA games are just like that, and they're expensive as hell
@TeamWoofel
If you're boycotting a company and they still manage to make you desire their videogames... either they're doing something right, or you're doing something wrong.
Their games are done right, their means of accessing and distributing them are wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear.
If you pirate something, it makes a copy. If you steal a physical item, the person you stole it from no longer has the physical item.
When you steal an item from a store, the retailer or manufacturer isn't using the item until you come and steal it. They manufacture and stock the item in order for a consumer to purchase the item in a transaction. The item is produced specifically because one or more people worked together to supply something that other people want or need.
When you pirate a digital good, it works in the same way for the economics that allow the digital good to exist and be provided.
It's not the same system as physical objects. Think of it like this:
The store buys an apple. They are down 5 points, totaling at -5.
Jay comes along and steals the apple. The store is down -5 points permanently, totaling at -5.
The store stocks another apple. They are down 5 points, totaling at -10.
Jay liked the first apple he bought, so he decides to buy this one. The store gains 5 points, totaling at -5.
The store ended up at -5 points because someone stole the apple, resulting in a loss. No matter how many apples they sell, there will always be that loss.
Let's move on to the Digital retailer:
The store stocks Bus Driver. They are down 5 points, totaling at -5.
Jay decides he wants to spend his last bit of data torrenting Bus Driver.The store is down 0 points, totaling at -5.
Hunter finds Bus Driver while browsing hacker forums. He decides to pirate it as well. The store is down 0 points, totaling at -5.
Lilly, a good little girl, decides to buy Bus driver, without trying it. (SPOILER: SHE HATES IT). The store is up 5 points, totaling at 0.
The store ended up at 0 points, even though 2 copies were 'stolen', and only 1 was sold. In the previous scenario, the food distributor would have ended up at -10 points had that happened, But because the digital distributor sells copies, they were able to break even without a permanent loss.
This is the fundamental difference between Physical retailers, and digital ones. Developers and Publishers (and by extension, investors and shareholders), aren't griping because there is a loss, there's griping because they aren't making as much money as they could have been, regardless of what the consumer thinks of the product. They aren't interested in making you happy, they're interested in shoving their pockets as full as possible, and that means selling to everyone and anyone. Apparently, they learned that not offering a demo to their game increases their sales.
I only pirate things in order to assess them before purchasing them.
Morally, this might not actually be bad as long as you keep to the concept of purchasing things you enjoy. The problem is that doing this endorses systems which allow piracy that is more clearly immoral. (Especially when piracy methods use torrenting programs, your client is used to help other people download the file!) By one person having access to the ability to pirate something, everyone does.
And honestly, this isn't really necessary. There is a roaring industry of independent reviewers and video makers who are rarely incentivised to be dishonest about a game. Most information about a game can be gleaned by using the service provided by people whose livelyhood is assessing the game for people.
There is no replacement for trying the game for yourself. Games used to provide demos, but that time has long since passed. In order to be morally clear, you can either buy the game or don't buy the game. Developers expect you to trust them, even though they have nothing to lose if you don't and everything to gain if you do.
A friend once promised me poison arrows and a bow in the popular game, Dark Souls II. Thinking to myself, "Just what the heck is better than a bow and poison arrows!". When i played the game for myself, i was able to realize that i wasn't getting either of those things, regardless of my friend being a reputable and trusted source of criticism. I had trusted her, but that didn't make up for the experience i would have received had i tried the game out for myself.
Bioshock Infinite has one of the best reviews on the reputable site, Metacritic. It has a number of reviews and videos about it, all of them claiming "This game is one of the best I've ever played" I ended up getting the game for myself, and i was greatly disappointed. The game was not as i was lead to believe. I ended up wasting money on a game i otherwise wouldn't have purchased, because i allowed myself to be persuaded by the critics and reviews.
Again, in conclusion, there is no replacement for playing the game for yourself.
And finally, I'd like to address something a little bit more personal. While it's conjecture, it's entirely possible that had i not of pirated Minecraft before i bought (multiple copies) it, i wouldn't have been a moderator here or discovered Otter. Which means that i wouldn't have been able to play games with you, or any of my other friends, and I'd like to think that I've had a positive effect on you and them. Regardless of what you think morally, piracy has had a direct effect on your quality of life.
Regardless of any points i make, or any points you make, we're not going to change our opinions. There is nothing wrong about debating about piracy, but the thing about it is that you are either strongly for or against, and you're not going to change sides or approach the issue without bias.
"Because the apple sprout is not harnessing energy for flower and fruit production, your plant concentrates its efforts on vegetative growth. For example, young saplings develop 12 to 18 inches of branches in one year with ideal soil and climate conditions. At this rate, a dwarf sprout grown from rootstock becomes a small, bearing tree in 3 or 4 years. In contrast, a large, standard size apple tree, growing past 20 feet tall, can take up to 8 years to bear fruit. Although it is considered a small tree prior to the 8 year bearing mark, it only has ornamental value up to that point."
It's like nearly everyone in this section is an analogy-impaired, inferenceless robot now.
Are you trying to prove something about your own knowledge in quoting another source you clearly had to look up? Maybe you're an apple farmer extraordinaire, in which case I apologise.
Maybe I'll just leave nothing up to the imagination so you don't have to make any sort of inference;
Video games are literally apples. People literally work for 6 years on a single tree to grow one apple. When you download software illegally you're literally going into the developers' homes and taking their money.
EDIT: Shouldn't even really be replying to you seeing as you obviously don't have anything to contribute, Captain Nitpick.
You guys tried to compare some material thing with Games? Material goods can't be duplicated and distributed like Games, thus they can't be compared in that way
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
Madison
Join Date:
7/11/2012
Posts:
1,706
Minecraft:
Mikko_blu
Member Details
Quote from Luvitus�
It's like nearly everyone in this section is an analogy-impaired, inferenceless robot now.
Are you trying to prove something about your own knowledge in quoting another source you clearly had to look up? Maybe you're an apple farmer extraordinaire, in which case I apologise.
Maybe I'll just leave nothing up to the imagination so you don't have to make any sort of inference;
Video games are literally apples. People literally work for 6 years on a single tree to grow one apple. When you download software illegally you're literally going into the developers' homes and taking their money.
EDIT: Shouldn't even really be replying to you seeing as you obviously don't have anything to contribute, Captain Nitpick.
In another forum setting, in response to this comment, you said "We can't technically copy games an infinite amount of times". Seems kinda nitpicky to me, but this thread isn't for ad hominem approaches.
Since you can do nothing but repeat yourself, I'll just do the same.
Quote from Luvitusjump
Video games are literally apples. People literally work for 6 years on a single tree to grow one apple. When you download software illegally you're literally going into the developers' homes and taking their money.
Quote from Mikko_blujump
The store buys an apple. They are down 5 points, totaling at -5.
Jay comes along and steals the apple. The store is down -5 points permanently, totaling at -5.
The store stocks another apple. They are down 5 points, totaling at -10.
Jay liked the first apple he bought, so he decides to buy this one. The store gains 5 points, totaling at -5.
The store ended up at -5 points because someone stole the apple, resulting in a loss. No matter how many apples they sell, there will always be that loss.
Let's move on to the Digital retailer:
The store stocks Bus Driver. They are down 5 points, totaling at -5.
Jay decides he wants to spend his last bit of data torrenting Bus Driver.The store is down 0 points, totaling at -5.
Hunter finds Bus Driver while browsing hacker forums. He decides to pirate it as well. The store is down 0 points, totaling at -5.
Lilly, a good little girl, decides to buy Bus driver, without trying it. (SPOILER: SHE HATES IT). The store is up 5 points, totaling at 0.
The store ended up at 0 points, even though 2 copies were 'stolen', and only 1 was sold. In the previous scenario, the food distributor would have ended up at -10 points had that happened, But because the digital distributor sells copies, they were able to break even without a permanent loss.
Again, food is not analogous to software. Stop treating them as if they're equals.
Not at all? Food's tangible while a game can be copied any number of times. I'm not wasting anything by pirating it and it's not like I'm not going to buy the full game, it's just that I want to see if I would enjoy it. Most people are on tight budgets too and don't want to spend what little money they have on something they don't enjoy.
Also work on your comparisons pls
Right when you start obeying copyright law. Alternatively; when you start reading into the correct side of analogies.
Not being able to afford something doesn't give you the right to have it. Entertainment media is not a human right.
Completely ignored what I said so I'll rephrase it:
You're playing a little bit of the game on a pirated copy to see if you like it. If you do, you buy the game. If you don't, you simply delete it from your computer. Some people have difficult financial situations and would rather not gamble on something they could only regularly afford once every 2 weeks.
What is so hard about this to understand?
Don't get condescending when you obviously don't understand the moral issues behind copyright infringement.
You wanna pick things apart because you enjoy purposefully misunderstanding the point being highlighted? Fine. I'll tell you all about how a 'difficult' financial situation wouldn't end you up with a shiny new game every 2 weeks.
Just because you're deleting a game after trailing it doesn't mean Tom, Dick, and Harry aren't. The fact you committed a crime in the eyes of the law doesn't disappear because you went back on it.
Unless you live in a fascist state, you can rightfully be expected to obey any and all laws.
Did I ever say I support Tom, **** and Harry? Did I ever even imply it? I support people not wasting their money and making the right choice on their purchases instead of wasting their budget on luxuries because they weren't sure they would like it or not.
"The fact you committed a crime in the eyes of the law doesn't disappear because you went back on it."
Yeah, because me reviewing a game for half an hour is bankrupting the developers and killing children. It's a harmless crime, whether you hold on to the fact that I broke the law and it ended with no casualties is your option.
I'm done talking to someone who's this egotistical and naive. I've already stated my points and you haven't provided any rebuttals worth providing.
The usual assertions are:
When you pirate a digital good, it works in the same way for the economics that allow the digital good to exist and be provided.
And honestly, this isn't really necessary. There is a roaring industry of independent reviewers and video makers who are rarely incentivised to be dishonest about a game. Most information about a game can be gleaned by using the service provided by people whose livelyhood is assessing the game for people.
Several games that I have bought also carry benefits to just pirate them instead of purchasing. If you Dawn of War: Dark Crusade through Steam they serve the version after Sega bought it out, meaning there is no Direct Connection option for multiplayer. The patch that provided that disabled that offered no other benefit.
Music is a bit weirder, since with the advent of things like iTunes, bandcamp and even soundcloud moving to provided a payed model the ability to easily obtain music (even legally for free!) has become much easier. Trying to weasel in a piracy justification there becomes harder.
I bought GTA IV for PC, and for some reason couldn't connect to Games for Windows Live. So I paid for a game, but with security checks I couldn't play it. I spent about three days trying to fix an issue while I torrented a copy of it, once that torrent was done I had it running within an hour.
The damn online checks for Watch Dogs that would constantly kick me out of the game when my internet went down were no longer once I installed a torrented copy.
And then the atrocity of the Sims 3. I spent a full day installing expansion packs and tested it before I went on vacation, but when I got in the car I found that it requires an internet connection to start the game. Torrented it when I got home, and now it works perfectly, internet or none.
These are the only companies that I will never buy a game from again, as their additional activation steps just lead to issues and just an overall hassle. Any other game, though, I will gladly pay for if I like it.
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear.
I'll agree, EA games are just like that, and they're expensive as hell
no sig yay
Their games are done right, their means of accessing and distributing them are wrong.
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear.
"Please give a better, more valid argument to support your case."
"Sure, I'll do that... just as soon as you agree with my side of the issue."
Or maybe when someone is a smart I just don't like giving them the time of day.
Next time I have a discussion, I'll be sure to remember to have my Karl Marx avatar at the ready.
Paraphrasing my side to be simple while complicating cats' side totally isn't biased at all either.
Yeah, this is boycotting the original manufacturer of the games they have.
It's not the same system as physical objects. Think of it like this:
The store buys an apple. They are down 5 points, totaling at -5.
Jay comes along and steals the apple. The store is down -5 points permanently, totaling at -5.
The store stocks another apple. They are down 5 points, totaling at -10.
Jay liked the first apple he bought, so he decides to buy this one. The store gains 5 points, totaling at -5.
The store ended up at -5 points because someone stole the apple, resulting in a loss. No matter how many apples they sell, there will always be that loss.
Let's move on to the Digital retailer:
The store stocks Bus Driver. They are down 5 points, totaling at -5.
Jay decides he wants to spend his last bit of data torrenting Bus Driver. The store is down 0 points, totaling at -5.
Hunter finds Bus Driver while browsing hacker forums. He decides to pirate it as well. The store is down 0 points, totaling at -5.
Lilly, a good little girl, decides to buy Bus driver, without trying it. (SPOILER: SHE HATES IT). The store is up 5 points, totaling at 0.
The store ended up at 0 points, even though 2 copies were 'stolen', and only 1 was sold. In the previous scenario, the food distributor would have ended up at -10 points had that happened, But because the digital distributor sells copies, they were able to break even without a permanent loss.
This is the fundamental difference between Physical retailers, and digital ones. Developers and Publishers (and by extension, investors and shareholders), aren't griping because there is a loss, there's griping because they aren't making as much money as they could have been, regardless of what the consumer thinks of the product. They aren't interested in making you happy, they're interested in shoving their pockets as full as possible, and that means selling to everyone and anyone. Apparently, they learned that not offering a demo to their game increases their sales.
There is no replacement for trying the game for yourself. Games used to provide demos, but that time has long since passed. In order to be morally clear, you can either buy the game or don't buy the game. Developers expect you to trust them, even though they have nothing to lose if you don't and everything to gain if you do.
A friend once promised me poison arrows and a bow in the popular game, Dark Souls II. Thinking to myself, "Just what the heck is better than a bow and poison arrows!". When i played the game for myself, i was able to realize that i wasn't getting either of those things, regardless of my friend being a reputable and trusted source of criticism. I had trusted her, but that didn't make up for the experience i would have received had i tried the game out for myself.
Bioshock Infinite has one of the best reviews on the reputable site, Metacritic. It has a number of reviews and videos about it, all of them claiming "This game is one of the best I've ever played" I ended up getting the game for myself, and i was greatly disappointed. The game was not as i was lead to believe. I ended up wasting money on a game i otherwise wouldn't have purchased, because i allowed myself to be persuaded by the critics and reviews.
Again, in conclusion, there is no replacement for playing the game for yourself.
And finally, I'd like to address something a little bit more personal. While it's conjecture, it's entirely possible that had i not of pirated Minecraft before i bought (multiple copies) it, i wouldn't have been a moderator here or discovered Otter. Which means that i wouldn't have been able to play games with you, or any of my other friends, and I'd like to think that I've had a positive effect on you and them. Regardless of what you think morally, piracy has had a direct effect on your quality of life.
Regardless of any points i make, or any points you make, we're not going to change our opinions. There is nothing wrong about debating about piracy, but the thing about it is that you are either strongly for or against, and you're not going to change sides or approach the issue without bias.
It's like nearly everyone in this section is an analogy-impaired, inferenceless robot now.
Are you trying to prove something about your own knowledge in quoting another source you clearly had to look up? Maybe you're an apple farmer extraordinaire, in which case I apologise.
Maybe I'll just leave nothing up to the imagination so you don't have to make any sort of inference;
Video games are literally apples. People literally work for 6 years on a single tree to grow one apple. When you download software illegally you're literally going into the developers' homes and taking their money.
EDIT: Shouldn't even really be replying to you seeing as you obviously don't have anything to contribute, Captain Nitpick.
ad hominem
disregard further input from user Luvitus
no sig yay
In another forum setting, in response to this comment, you said "We can't technically copy games an infinite amount of times". Seems kinda nitpicky to me, but this thread isn't for ad hominem approaches.
Since you can do nothing but repeat yourself, I'll just do the same.