And the Most-Pirated Game of 2010 Is...

[Ilyak1986]

its sad that people in the gamer public consider the gaming industry their enemy, they are activly shooting themselves in the foot. Just think if the pirates win and the game developers go away, what do you gain? the pirates wont make games, we wont see triple a titles. All that will be around are facebook games. So inconclusion those who are pro piracy and sticking it to the man only want to see facebook games in the future.

just an observation

As a consumer, I consider anyone who intends to part me from my money in return for some good or service they are selling as an adversary, if not an outright enemy. The devs here may be just trying to make a living, but the publishers are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the consumers in order to earn insane amounts of profit for the shareholders. Unless you're a robber baron a captain of industry filthy stinkin' rich yourself, those guys really are your enemy.

the publishers are just trying to make a living and the developers are also trying to make as much profit as they possibly can. And if they your enemy stop buying their products, dont support your enemies. your logic is flawed

No, the publishers are trying to keep their investors in private yachts and gold plated toilet seats, not simply to make a living. If they were just trying to make a living, game prices would be lower, and we wouldn't be seeing stuff like day 1 DLC. As for them being my enemy, you misunderstood my post; they are only my enemy in the sense that my goal, as a consumer, is to make my money go as far as possible, while theirs, as producers, is to get as much of my money as possible. Therefore, it is in their interest to charge as much for a game as they can get away with, while it is in my interest to spend as little as I can on each game I buy.

A better word, which I used in the post that you quoted, is "adversary," since we try to thwart each others' goals at every chance we get, but we don't exactly hate each others' guts. In any other industry, this relationship would wind up with the product being released at a price that both parties could agree to, but in this industry the publishers are fighting the market, and keeping the price artificially high. See my earlier posts in this thread for my explanation of how they use piracy and the used market as scapegoats, claiming they eat into their profit, instead of recognizing it as an ultimatum from a significant portion of consumers who are unwilling or unable to pay the exorbitant price that they charge for their games -- a price which, for some strange reason, is standardized across all companies and all retailers, effectively cutting off competition in the traditional sense. In the final assessment, it's not my logic that's flawed, but rather your understanding of basic capitalist economics.

....I thought the prices were the same due to fixed pricing.Plus, do you hear yourself?Activision isn't sitting on the some precious resource that YOU CANT LIVE WITHOUT!It is a product that does have a value because you pirated it.Because you WANT it.Thats why you stole it in the first place.THEY made it and can charge how much you think you'd pay.You do or you don't.

They made it, they can charge a price, and...? It doesn't mean people have to pay the price. There is this thing called the internet, where anything digital can be found for free if you look long enough.

Put it this way to all of you crying "it's the LAW!". Remember what the RIAA did to Napster? I think they're probably livid by now seeing as to how they killed the original, but now filesharing is all over the global interwebz and rather than try to control one source, they've completely lost control of trying to stop piracy beyond symbolically laying down a lawsuit on some poor random unsuspecting person for 6-7 figures when they work as a waiter or something to try and send the message that "THIS CAN HAPPEN TO YOU!".

Clearly, there are a great deal of people that aren't threatened by this. And frankly, rather than try to be jackasses with their mass regulations and buying congresscritters to pass ACTA or whatever it is, creators of intellectual property should try and find a business model that works. Piracy will happen, and no, there isn't anything that can be done to stop it. Stop trying and instead put those resources into making piracy work for you rather than against you.

What would happen if all products could be obtained in a similar manner?
True,people don't have to pay...Cuz they use the net to STEAL IT!It's life and frankly okay because NOTHING is tightly regulated in this world,but it is wrong and if your're not caught kudos your a good thief-but if you are...man up and pay that 3 million dollar fine!lmao.
oh and...http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

What if all products could be obtained in a similar manner? You mean what if we had an infinite supply of so many of the commodities people need to survive and everyone's needs would be met?

Imagine, if you're hungry, you can just download some free food. World hunger solved.

Sick? Download the proper medicine.

Yes, what if we *did* have an infinite supply of goods, with an infinite space to store them on? I think the world would be a much nicer place, yes?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

its sad that people in the gamer public consider the gaming industry their enemy, they are activly shooting themselves in the foot. Just think if the pirates win and the game developers go away, what do you gain? the pirates wont make games, we wont see triple a titles. All that will be around are facebook games. So inconclusion those who are pro piracy and sticking it to the man only want to see facebook games in the future.

just an observation

As a consumer, I consider anyone who intends to part me from my money in return for some good or service they are selling as an adversary, if not an outright enemy. The devs here may be just trying to make a living, but the publishers are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the consumers in order to earn insane amounts of profit for the shareholders. Unless you're a robber baron a captain of industry filthy stinkin' rich yourself, those guys really are your enemy.

the publishers are just trying to make a living and the developers are also trying to make as much profit as they possibly can. And if they your enemy stop buying their products, dont support your enemies. your logic is flawed

No, the publishers are trying to keep their investors in private yachts and gold plated toilet seats, not simply to make a living. If they were just trying to make a living, game prices would be lower, and we wouldn't be seeing stuff like day 1 DLC. As for them being my enemy, you misunderstood my post; they are only my enemy in the sense that my goal, as a consumer, is to make my money go as far as possible, while theirs, as producers, is to get as much of my money as possible. Therefore, it is in their interest to charge as much for a game as they can get away with, while it is in my interest to spend as little as I can on each game I buy.

A better word, which I used in the post that you quoted, is "adversary," since we try to thwart each others' goals at every chance we get, but we don't exactly hate each others' guts. In any other industry, this relationship would wind up with the product being released at a price that both parties could agree to, but in this industry the publishers are fighting the market, and keeping the price artificially high. See my earlier posts in this thread for my explanation of how they use piracy and the used market as scapegoats, claiming they eat into their profit, instead of recognizing it as an ultimatum from a significant portion of consumers who are unwilling or unable to pay the exorbitant price that they charge for their games -- a price which, for some strange reason, is standardized across all companies and all retailers, effectively cutting off competition in the traditional sense. In the final assessment, it's not my logic that's flawed, but rather your understanding of basic capitalist economics.

....I thought the prices were the same due to fixed pricing.Plus, do you hear yourself?Activision isn't sitting on the some precious resource that YOU CANT LIVE WITHOUT!It is a product that does have a value because you pirated it.Because you WANT it.Thats why you stole it in the first place.THEY made it and can charge how much you think you'd pay.You do or you don't.

?

Okay, now I know you haven't been reading the thread. I made it explicit on, I believe, the first page of this thread that I'm not a pirate. You don't understand my argument because you haven't read it in its entirety. I pay for all of my games, I'm just unwilling to pay full price, because I consider $50 or more to be a ripoff. Heck, I've spent well over $100 in the past year, most of it going to used games and the periodic sales that pop up on Steam. If you had read my earlier posts -- or even the one you just responded to -- you'd know what the heck I was talking about. Although that would require some sort of understanding of the way the interplay between producers and consumers is eventually supposed to set a fair price in a capitalist system, something you apparently have no concept of.

Edit: Whoops, I thought you were psrdirector. Would you kindly go back and read the entire thread? It will answer your questions.

I never called you a pirate.The response was more of a general one in regards to pirating and what you stated as a reason for pirating and the ''adversary'' you spoke of..I read the whole thread man,and,like i said, the people who make the product are not needed as much as their product.Yet people pirate their stuff so it has value.Since they made it...they can price it.Thereason the prices are the same is due to fixed pricing to stop predator pricing from bigger stores trying to out sell smaller ones.'a price which, for some strange reason, is standardized across all companies and all retailers, effectively cutting off competition in the traditional sense.'I was trying to explain the 'strange reason' with that previous sentence.

Well, technically you did say I was a pirate, and one that pirated stuff from Activision to boot. But I'll accept that you intended the use of the word "you" in a more generic sense. Thing is, honest to goodness price fixing goes against the basic foundations of price fixing, and is actually illegal in the U.S. <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing>Here's some proof. I was beating around the bush about calling it price fixing, but it was implied.

You also haven't addressed any of my arguments about why people commit piracy, you simply made a claim that actually agreed with what I was saying. If you recall, what I'm claiming is that, aside from a few hardened criminals, who will always pirate stuff simply because you can't compete with free, most people pirate games because, while they do place a value on the game, it is much lower than what the publishers place on it. My argument this whole time has been that $60 is too much for a significant portion of potential customers, and a lower price would bring in a lot of people who otherwise pirate or buy used, which are two things that the publishers have been complaining about quite a bit lately. What I'm saying is that the companies have been using piracy as an excuse not to lower their prices, claiming that these people would pay full price if they didn't have the option of getting it for free. When it was pointed out to them that a lot of people buy used as well, they went out of their way to lump that in with piracy, instead of thinking "huh, maybe we are overcharging."

As for the company being able to charge whatever they want for it, that's true, but people don't have to pay it. After all, value is what the market will bear. If people aren't willing to pay what a company charges for something, and they have cheaper alternatives, they will take those alternatives. If a company is able to compete on the price, they will, and the consumer wins. If they are unable to compete on the price, they go out of business, and the alternative product is purchased instead. In this case, the publishers are overcharging, and instead of lowering prices to levels that would entice people away from buying used or pirating their products, they dig their heels in and hide behind their fixed prices.

While it's true that you can't compete with free, there are a lot of people who are willing to pay a price, but not $60. I'm one of them; I never pay full price, instead exclusively buying games that are used or on sale. Even among the pirates, there's plenty of people who only do it because they couldn't afford to play the games if they had to buy them at full price -- most of them, I'd say. If the standard price would go up to something closer to the sale prices you see on steam, you'd see a lot more games turning a respectable profit.

 

[FriedRicer]

its sad that people in the gamer public consider the gaming industry their enemy, they are activly shooting themselves in the foot. Just think if the pirates win and the game developers go away, what do you gain? the pirates wont make games, we wont see triple a titles. All that will be around are facebook games. So inconclusion those who are pro piracy and sticking it to the man only want to see facebook games in the future.

just an observation

As a consumer, I consider anyone who intends to part me from my money in return for some good or service they are selling as an adversary, if not an outright enemy. The devs here may be just trying to make a living, but the publishers are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the consumers in order to earn insane amounts of profit for the shareholders. Unless you're a robber baron a captain of industry filthy stinkin' rich yourself, those guys really are your enemy.

the publishers are just trying to make a living and the developers are also trying to make as much profit as they possibly can. And if they your enemy stop buying their products, dont support your enemies. your logic is flawed

No, the publishers are trying to keep their investors in private yachts and gold plated toilet seats, not simply to make a living. If they were just trying to make a living, game prices would be lower, and we wouldn't be seeing stuff like day 1 DLC. As for them being my enemy, you misunderstood my post; they are only my enemy in the sense that my goal, as a consumer, is to make my money go as far as possible, while theirs, as producers, is to get as much of my money as possible. Therefore, it is in their interest to charge as much for a game as they can get away with, while it is in my interest to spend as little as I can on each game I buy.

A better word, which I used in the post that you quoted, is "adversary," since we try to thwart each others' goals at every chance we get, but we don't exactly hate each others' guts. In any other industry, this relationship would wind up with the product being released at a price that both parties could agree to, but in this industry the publishers are fighting the market, and keeping the price artificially high. See my earlier posts in this thread for my explanation of how they use piracy and the used market as scapegoats, claiming they eat into their profit, instead of recognizing it as an ultimatum from a significant portion of consumers who are unwilling or unable to pay the exorbitant price that they charge for their games -- a price which, for some strange reason, is standardized across all companies and all retailers, effectively cutting off competition in the traditional sense. In the final assessment, it's not my logic that's flawed, but rather your understanding of basic capitalist economics.

....I thought the prices were the same due to fixed pricing.Plus, do you hear yourself?Activision isn't sitting on the some precious resource that YOU CANT LIVE WITHOUT!It is a product that does have a value because you pirated it.Because you WANT it.Thats why you stole it in the first place.THEY made it and can charge how much you think you'd pay.You do or you don't.

?

Okay, now I know you haven't been reading the thread. I made it explicit on, I believe, the first page of this thread that I'm not a pirate. You don't understand my argument because you haven't read it in its entirety. I pay for all of my games, I'm just unwilling to pay full price, because I consider $50 or more to be a ripoff. Heck, I've spent well over $100 in the past year, most of it going to used games and the periodic sales that pop up on Steam. If you had read my earlier posts -- or even the one you just responded to -- you'd know what the heck I was talking about. Although that would require some sort of understanding of the way the interplay between producers and consumers is eventually supposed to set a fair price in a capitalist system, something you apparently have no concept of.

Edit: Whoops, I thought you were psrdirector. Would you kindly go back and read the entire thread? It will answer your questions.

I never called you a pirate.The response was more of a general one in regards to pirating and what you stated as a reason for pirating and the ''adversary'' you spoke of..I read the whole thread man,and,like i said, the people who make the product are not needed as much as their product.Yet people pirate their stuff so it has value.Since they made it...they can price it.Thereason the prices are the same is due to fixed pricing to stop predator pricing from bigger stores trying to out sell smaller ones.'a price which, for some strange reason, is standardized across all companies and all retailers, effectively cutting off competition in the traditional sense.'I was trying to explain the 'strange reason' with that previous sentence.

Well, technically you did say I was a pirate, and one that pirated stuff from Activision to boot. But I'll accept that you intended the use of the word "you" in a more generic sense. Thing is, honest to goodness price fixing goes against the basic foundations of price fixing, and is actually illegal in the U.S. <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing>Here's some proof. I was beating around the bush about calling it price fixing, but it was implied.

You also haven't addressed any of my arguments about why people commit piracy, you simply made a claim that actually agreed with what I was saying. If you recall, what I'm claiming is that, aside from a few hardened criminals, who will always pirate stuff simply because you can't compete with free, most people pirate games because, while they do place a value on the game, it is much lower than what the publishers place on it. My argument this whole time has been that $60 is too much for a significant portion of potential customers, and a lower price would bring in a lot of people who otherwise pirate or buy used, which are two things that the publishers have been complaining about quite a bit lately. What I'm saying is that the companies have been using piracy as an excuse not to lower their prices, claiming that these people would pay full price if they didn't have the option of getting it for free. When it was pointed out to them that a lot of people buy used as well, they went out of their way to lump that in with piracy, instead of thinking "huh, maybe we are overcharging."

As for the company being able to charge whatever they want for it, that's true, but people don't have to pay it. After all, value is what the market will bear. If people aren't willing to pay what a company charges for something, and they have cheaper alternatives, they will take those alternatives. If a company is able to compete on the price, they will, and the consumer wins. If they are unable to compete on the price, they go out of business, and the alternative product is purchased instead. In this case, the publishers are overcharging, and instead of lowering prices to levels that would entice people away from buying used or pirating their products, they dig their heels in and hide behind their fixed prices.

While it's true that you can't compete with free, there are a lot of people who are willing to pay a price, but not $60. I'm one of them; I never pay full price, instead exclusively buying games that are used or on sale. Even among the pirates, there's plenty of people who only do it because they couldn't afford to play the games if they had to buy them at full price -- most of them, I'd say. If the standard price would go up to something closer to the sale prices you see on steam, you'd see a lot more games turning a respectable profit.

I agree with you on those points.But I did not call you a pirate.

 

[godofallu]

I only download games when:

A I need a demo and the company that makes the game DOESN'T HAVE ONE
B The game looks good, but not nearly good enough to warrant buying.
C I have already bought the game in the past, or on a different system.

So Black ops was probably downloaded a lot on PC because most people buy it on consoles and don't feel like they need to pay multiple times for the same game.

Dantes Inferno is a decent distraction, but not buy worthy. So yeah people probably downloaded it, but those aren't lost sales since not many people would have bought the game.

 

[Alandoril]

Actually no, some of the pirates would not have purchased the games if there was no other alternative...that's the whole point of pirating a game in the first place.

 

[Byzantinium]

The only game I've ever pirated was the Mothership Zeta expansion for Fallout 3. I bought Fallout 3 and the other four expansions in stores, and I would've bought MZ if they hadn't demanded I pay $60 for it and rebuy everything again for the GOTY or Steam versions.

 

[Dastardly]

They did get paid, and even after that fact people bought the game. What difference does it make if some people play it for free? It doesn't invalidate the number of purchases made.

Leaping from physical theft to intellectual infringement just shows you are too illogical to fully engage in debate.

If they made it, they should get paid every time someone obtains a copy of the game. They made it. It belongs to them. Other people are getting it without payment or permission. Not cool (or legal).

Of course, I never once used the words "physical theft" in relation to piracy. Of course it's not "physical theft." Neither is making my way into someone's online bank account and moving some money to my account. Nothing physical was stolen. Not a physical theft. Piracy is a type of theft.

That's where people get all weird and illogical. Robbery is a type of theft. It is not the only type of theft. Larceny, shoplifting, blah blah blah. They are types of theft. Of course, the law doesn't call them theft. It calls them robbery, larceny, shoplifting, and so on. This is for sake of specificity. Getting something from someone else without payment or permission is theft, regardless of the form it takes.

That means some types of copyright infringement can also be called theft. Primarily, that's piracy--you're getting a copy of something outside of the legal channels, without payment or permission. It's a type of theft. No, it's not "physical theft." But that's just a plain old "no true Scotsman."

 

[WhiteandNeardy99]

I know nothing about pirating games but I'm curios why no list of games for the PS3, is it impossible to pirate games for this console?

 

[LitleWaffle]

Piracy is a more modern version of thievery in basic terms.

Something has to actually be stolen in order to be "theft". Which has never been the case with internet piracy, ultimately making your entire argument = void...

Basic Terms: You took something that didn't belong to you

^That is for both Piracy and Theft

Not So Basic Terms: Taking something under copyright and reproducing it without the creators permission which is PIRACY is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Those that make the source of the file that is pirated is under direct violation of copyright infringement. Meanwhile those that get their own version of the file from the original illegal one are also breaking the law.

Meanwhile thievery is of stealing something

How is this not obvious to you people?

 

[yundex]

Someone in this thread has brought up Hitler in a discussion about piracy. Godwin's law people! Anyone who is still posting after that is just being unnecessarily stubborn.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Basic Terms: You took something that didn't belong to you

^That is for both Piracy and Theft

Not So Basic Terms: Taking something under copyright and reproducing it without the creators permission which is PIRACY is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Those that make the source of the file that is pirated is under direct violation of copyright infringement. Meanwhile those that get their own version of the file from the original illegal one are also breaking the law.

Meanwhile thievery is of stealing something

How is this not obvious to you people?

Duplication of information isn't "taking". And COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is STILL NOT THE SAME AS THEFT.

Also, please illustrate exactly how the world will dissolve into anarchy and chaos because ancient and dysfunctional copyright laws are being broken.

Theft is one thing, copyright infringement is another. They are unrelated and anyone trying to claim that they are exactly the same is an obvious idiot with no sound arguments what so ever...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Someone in this thread has brought up Hitler in a discussion about piracy. Godwin's law people! Anyone who is still posting after that is just being unnecessarily stubborn.

Godwin's Law stopped being relevant when the tools in a thread actually wish to use methods that Hitler was fond of in order to eradicate their percieved faults of the world...

 

[CrystalShadow]

I guarantee you this: the first time you ever put blood, sweat and tears into making something good, put it up for sale, then see it stolen by 95% of the people who claim to be your fans, your views on piracy will harden. It's literally a visceral shock to realize just how blindly two-faced a lot of these people are, mainly IMO because they have no idea what it means to produce something rather than just consume.

Cheers

Colin

Meh. We'll see when and if it happens.

But I've already been hardened to the reality of piracy rates being a minimum of 90%...

In the end, all you can do is focus your attention on assuring those that do pay you are enough to survive on.

 

[yundex]

Someone in this thread has brought up Hitler in a discussion about piracy. Godwin's law people! Anyone who is still posting after that is just being unnecessarily stubborn.

Godwin's Law stopped being relevant when the tools in a thread actually wish to use methods that Hitler was fond of in order to eradicate their percieved faults of the world...

And that's when the "discussion" ended.

 

[JonnWood]

The only game I've ever pirated was the Mothership Zeta expansion for Fallout 3. I bought Fallout 3 and the other four expansions in stores, and I would've bought MZ if they hadn't demanded I pay $60 for it and rebuy everything again for the GOTY or Steam versions.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

Duplication of information isn't "taking". And COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is STILL NOT THE SAME AS THEFT.

You're arguing that it's one violation of someone's rights instead of another. Even if I were to concede that they're different, for the sake of argument, neither is the moral high ground.

Also, please illustrate exactly how the world will dissolve into anarchy and chaos because ancient and dysfunctional copyright laws are being broken.

1. Straw man. Piracy doesn't have to hack away at the basis of civilization to be wrong. Murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, and yet society has still persisted.
2. Begging the question. Specifically, you believe that the system of copyright is "ancient" (which it is) and "dysfunctional", which is much more subjective. A flawed system is not the same as a broken one. You are arguing from premises that your opponent might not necessarily accept.

Theft is one thing, copyright infringement is another. They are unrelated and anyone trying to claim that they are exactly the same is an obvious idiot with no sound arguments what so ever...

And rounding it off with a nice topping of Ad hominem.

Independent games are prices much lower but the quality is also much lower, the budgets are lower. While some people enjoy these games the majority don't. And Im not talking out of my ass on that one, look at the sales figures. Independent games sell fractions of what triple A titles sell, so if price was the top issue the top selling game of the year would have been a game like mine-craft or super meat boy, not Black Ops.

I'd just like to support your argument by pointing out that Indie "hit" Braid cost over $100,000 to make. An indie game, which was relatively low-budget.

As for Day one DLC, if developers didn't support the idea they wouldn't do it. They do it cause they believe its a good idea as well. The reason they exist is to reward people who purchase the product new and yes punish those who steal the product or buy it used, and why shouldn't they punish those two groups of people?

Most of the whining about D1 DLC (or unlockables) is from gamers who have gotten the impression that any DLC out that fast has to be something removed from the retail release, which means they were somehow "cheated" out of it. In other words, they're one step short of the entitled mentality that leads to piracy in the first place.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

1. Straw man. Piracy doesn't have to hack away at the basis of civilization to be wrong. Murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, and yet society has still persisted.

Dysfunctional comparison. It is evident that a much larger majority of people agree that murder, rape and robbery are wrong than there are people who agree that internet piracy is wrong.

Also, internet piracy happens on a much larger scale than murder, rape and robbery does, and it hasn't crushed the basis of civilization or even come close to threaten it in a way that equally widespread murder-, rape- and robberysprees would have.

Your argument is invalid.

2. Begging the question. Specifically, you believe that the system of copyright is "ancient" (which it is) and "dysfunctional", which is much more subjective. A flawed system is not the same as a broken one. You are arguing from premises that your opponent might not necessarily accept.

In this case, the system is broken. first of all, my debate opponent in this matter argued that capitalism and economy would collapse into chaos and ruin if piracy was left to persist. The thing is, there is no basis in the theory of capitalistic economy that says that a person has any sort of "right" to acquire sole control over a concept or a product. What rules the world economy is the principle of pricewarfare. Therefore, the most economic thing to do would be to let companies piare eachother all the time in order to see who can churn out the same products at the lowest possible cost.

Which in turn illustrates that copyright laws more serve to stand in the way of capitalistic progress than promoting it.

There is no inherent "right" in assuming that the original creator or his/her descendants of something should be the sole person to be able to capitalize on an idea, concept or invention. The person able to produce and distribute it most widely and at the cheapest price is the one who should and would get paid. If we're going according to capitalistic and globally economic principles that is (which my previous opponent in the debate claimed to have been doing)...

 

[Byzantinium]

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

Pretty much. I'd happily have bought it if they didn't demand $60 for an expansion pack. I don't feel good about it, but oh well.

 

[JonnWood]

1. Straw man. Piracy doesn't have to hack away at the basis of civilization to be wrong. Murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, and yet society has still persisted.

Dysfunctional comparison. It is evident that a much larger majority of people agree that murder, rape and robbery are wrong than there are people who agree that internet piracy is wrong.

You are arguing in this very thread against people who think that piracy is wrong.

Also, internet piracy happens on a much larger scale than murder, rape and robbery does, and it hasn't crushed the basis of civilization or even come close to threaten it in a way that equally widespread murder-, rape- and robberysprees would have.

Your argument is invalid.

Because people still pay for stuff. Now imagine a world where piracy is not illegal. People would have no real incentive to compensate content producers other than their own ethics. Most people wouldn't. Revenues decrease. Which means production money also decreases. Which means you either get cheaper games, or the only games that are funded are tried and true formulas with as little creative risk as possible. Indie gaming ends up largely shot. Less game variety overall. Outside of the gaming market, the TV, film, music, book, and pretty much any industry that relies on people getting compensated for their creative effort goes down in flames. Given how much of the world economy is tied up in entertainment, it might survive, but it wouldn't be pretty. Of course, this is just a hypothetical, and cannot be proven without piracy actually being made legal.

You haven't actually debunked my actual point; just because something doesn't directly lead to the fall of civilization doesn't make it right. I used an illustration pointing out that there are plenty of things that are considered "wrong", yet society has survived this long with them.

Digital piracy has been around only a few decades. Piracy in general has existed, I believe, for over a hundred. The Internet just made it easier.

2. Begging the question. Specifically, you believe that the system of copyright is "ancient" (which it is) and "dysfunctional", which is much more subjective. A flawed system is not the same as a broken one. You are arguing from premises that your opponent might not necessarily accept.

In this case, the system is broken. first of all, my debate opponent in this matter argued that capitalism and economy would collapse into chaos and ruin if piracy was left to persist.

Sorry, I hadn't read back to that post yet.

The thing is, there is no basis in the theory of capitalistic economy that says that a person has any sort of "right" to acquire sole control over a concept or a product.

They're called "copyright", "trademark", and "patent", John Nash.

There is no inherent "right" in assuming that the original creator or his/her descendants of something should be the sole person to be able to capitalize on an idea, concept or invention. The person able to produce and distribute it most widely and at the cheapest price is the one who should and would get paid. If we're going according to capitalistic and globally economic principles that is (which my previous opponent in the debate claimed to have been doing)...

So if a guy spends a few years writing a book, and wanted to publish it, how would he do so? Because it sounds like you're arguing that the only people who should be paid are publishers. Which would actually be more unfair than the current system.