Piracy, simply put.

[b3nn3tt]

my friend who pirated assassins creed 2, brotherhood, and revelation made sure to buy amount of ubisoft games new(or off steam) up to the amount each game was worth, I almost don't even consider that piracy I think that is more akin to jailbreaking an Iphone.

So you don't consider it piracy that your friend got two games for the price of every one game he bought? I'm afraid I don't understand the logic there at all.

OT: I'm aware that I'm very late to this thread and most of what I'll say has already been said, but it still bears repeating. One thing I do find interesting is that the main focus of the piracy argument has shifted to whether or not piracy is theft, which seems a bit tangential from the actual crux of the argument. To quickly address that; no, piracy does not fit the legal definition of theft. However, people who pirate are gaining access to something for free which they ought pay money for. Many people consider this to be theft, hence confusion. Personally, I sit in the latter camp; I am aware that piracy is not theft by a legal definition, but I use the term stealing to mean 'obtaining something for free which ought be paid for.'

I will preface this next bit with the caveat that I consider piracy a black and white issue, with the exception that I see one grey area: if there is literally no way for you to legally obtain something where you live, I wouldn't have a problem with you pirating it. Any situation other than that, though, and I remain unconvinced that you have any grounds in which to argue that you are justified in what you have done.

Apart from the exception noted above, I have yet to hear a single argument that has convinced me that anyone is entitled to pirate something. I think that all of the arguments that I have heard ('I wouldn't have bought it anyway', 'I couldn't afford it', 'I'm pirating it in protest') are ridiculous. I'm not going to try and argue that every instance of pirating is a lost sale, because I have absolutely no evidence that could back up that claim, but the way I see it is if you wouldn't have bought it then why are you playing it? You obviously attribute some value to the experience, or else you would have no interest in playing it. Maybe you disagree that it is worth the same value as the publishers think, but that in no way means that you should just get it for free. Same goes for if you can't afford it; games are a luxury, not a right, if you can't afford it you don't get it.

I feel that I've gone on for far longer than I intended to with this reply. So I will end it there. Before anyone quotes me to tell me how wrong I am, I appreciate that there are many different views on piracy and that many people will disagree with my view. I just simply cannot understand the idea that someone can feel entitled to something that other people have created and have asked for money for, for free. If someone can actually explain that mindset to me, I'm all ears.

 

[Khada]

The entire monetary system is inherently flawed.

 

[Red Is Dead]

Long time lurker here. Just registered to say this:

I'll stop downloading games when publishers will remember that demos are a great promotional tool. No, I'm not going to buy a car without giving it a test run first. Same with a game. Demos allow me to make my own idea of the gameplay - It also allows me to guesstimate how long it'll take me to finish the game, and judge how much I'm willing to spend on the product. - I'm not going to spend 60 euros on a 4h long game.

If there's no demo, i'm going to pirate your game. If it's good, i'll buy it. This is non negotiable. Before you tell me about reviews, I'll just point you towards metacritic and laugh.

Obviously, if the game is shitty, i'm not going to keep playing.

I buy games. I've bought quite a lot of games, actually, and will probably buy even more games in the future. I have 200+ games in my Steam library. I also own quite a lot of DVD boxes and even some direct download stuff. I have a current backlog of 20+ games I need to play, because of the goddamn steam winter sales and the HIB/RIB. I just don't feel like being shafted by shoddy publishers who couldn't care less about my experience but oh god do they want my money so much.

People who look for reviews don't go for the abyss that is metacritic, and you know that. You shouldn't use the weakest example of a source for reviews in order to condemn reviews as a whole.

While pirating for a demo is reasonable, how far in the game will you get before you decide that it isn't for you? What if it's a game that you're on the fence about? If you experience a third of the game's content before deciding you don't like it, does that still make it a demo?

You usually get a good idea of a game's gameplay after one or two hours (depending on the amount of unskippable cinematics - aaargh) on them. Running through the tutorial (if there's one available) is also generally enough. That's usually when I decide "hey, i'm willing to spend X euros on that." If the game's more expensive than that, i'll throw in my wish list and wait for it to get either on a sale or a price drop. I only recently bought Tropico 3 - and wouldn't own 4 if it wasn't for the -75% it got during the steam winter sales.

 

[Alterego-X]

I am aware that piracy is not theft by a legal definition, but I use the term stealing to mean 'obtaining something for free which ought be paid for.'

Before anyone quotes me to tell me how wrong I am, I appreciate that there are many different views on piracy and that many people will disagree with my view. I just simply cannot understand the idea that someone can feel entitled to something that other people have created and have asked for money for, for free. If someone can actually explain that mindset to me, I'm all ears.

My personal stance on this, is that what "ought to be" payed for, is ultimately a lot more subjective than most people would think, and their stance is pretty much based on "whatever happens to be legal right now", but that is simply based on how the history of copyright happened to turn out.

What if a game creator wishes to get money for screenshots made in the game? They can't do it, because it is Fair Use. Or if a TV broadcaster wishes to stop you from making VHS records, they can't do that. And most people are OK with that, or even want to further limit the IP owner rights, such as decreasing the public domain time limit.

I don't think that the idea of respecting creators' wishes not to copy is particularly *wrong*, it's just not a very objective stance.

People who want to limit IP owner rights rarely want to *completely* deprive them off ALL rights, just the specific right to limit the making of copies.

And people who want to protect artist rights, rarely want to empower IP owners to do literally anything with their IP, (like banning fair use, or not allowing it to move into public domain), just keep the specific right of limiting copies.

In a sense, it's similar to abortion debates, where each side compares the other to murder and slavery, while they are arguing about setting an arbitary and subjective line at a slightly different place, based on their personal ideological leanings.

 

[Red Is Dead]

[...]
If there's no demo, i'm going to pirate your game. If it's good, i'll buy it. This is non negotiable. Before you tell me about reviews, I'll just point you towards metacritic and laugh.

Obviously, if the game is shitty, i'm not going to keep playing.[...]

Would you buy a kitchen appliance without "test-driving" it? They can often cost more than videogames, after all, and you're likely to use your appliance farm more than 4hrs.

The proper response to a lack of demo is to not attempt to play a game that doesn't have a demo. The ideal response is to tell the publisher this.

Here's a hint: There are various ways developers track piracy. One of which is simply by counting downloads through the torrent sites. When you pirate a game, that download metric effectively tells some bean-counter up in the office that people like this type of game, but extra security software needs to be put up to keep cheap-o pirates from downloading it. They can't tell that you didn't like it, and that you deleted it 10 minutes after you got it. They just see that whatever they put out there was enough to get your interest in it.

So if you want games with demos, DON'T PIRATE OR BUY GAMES WITHOUT DEMOS.

That's the only way the message will ever get through to the beancounters, which is the only way that developers will be given the time to create a demo for the product.

I would love to test kitchen appliances before buying them too, but there's no real way to do that. Since I can't break in a store to steal one and return it if it doesn't fit my needs, and get away with it (which is the important part, really) - well, i'm SOL.

I'm fully aware that piracy isn't helping the gaming industry at all, and I fully understand why they're trying to get rid of it.

As for review, I pointed at Metacritic because it represents some of my problem with review sites. They're usually plastered with game company ads - which makes me wonder about their integrity -, but the real problem is that they're generally not in depth enough, and usually only reflects the opinion of the reviewer. They would often quickly go over flaws like inability to change controls or not simply never mention it.

I made the mistake to buy Assassin's creed without trying the demo before, based on some of the raving reviews it got. The control scheme sucks ass and I didn't get through half of the game. Fool me once... Some games like Skyrim get raving reviews from EVERYONE where the bugs and flaws are barely mentionned in a one line sentence in 15 pages reviews with 14 pages of the same screenshots handpicked by Bethesda.

So yes, review sites are good to get a general idea of a game, but I personally need more than a general idea of a game before spending all my money on it. Enter demos, or, when they're unavailable, piracy.

 

[RevRaptor]

The bastards try to tell me I can't lend my game to my friends for a bit, I really don't think the game company's have the moral high ground in this argument. I used to love buying games but now with all the crap that comes with buying a game it's no wonder people are looking for alternative means to get what they want.

I remember Doom you got the first third free and you could do what you damn well liked with it, then if you wanted the full game is was only a small cost. It was a good system, it worked. Now you barley get a demo and the bloody games cost 140 dollars.

My loyalty and support - they has it not

 

[morrowind_lover]

Tell me, have you actually bothered to look at the positives that can come from piracy? There are plenty of articles from artists etc who think piracy is a good thing, who see it as a form of getting their work out there and enjoyed by more people who then become fans and buy their stuff, see their shows etc. Not to mention the studies which show that people who pirate music actually spend MORE money on music than people who don't pirate. Again, because they have access to more content they wouldn't ordinarily have been exposed to and know what they like. Someone posted a video from an author who found that when he put his book online for free the sales for his other books jumped 300% and he realised that that's how people find their favourite artists, by sharing material with each other, which they then go and buy.

There are systems of releasing material in a free manner they are called Open Source and Public Domain. However, in relation to Open Source, the producer relinquishes ownership of the creation as long as they are referenced in subsequent releases. Whilst this is philosophically an interesting idea it is by no means a perfect system. In an Open Source community producers survive on donations meaning that not only must the user like the project enough to download it and use it but they must have incentive to return to the site so that they can donate. About artists who think piracy is a good thing, I believe they are actually claiming that free distribution of selected works is a good tool for generating interest. I'm certain artist don't want fans going out and downloading their entire discography through a piracy site.

I wouldn't be so sure about that last point. If people download their music then go to their shows, buy merchandise etc then I don't think they would see that as a problem. Take Joss Stone for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCkX0KcNwrI and she's not the only one. You're right when they see it as a tool to generate interest, but when that interest is generated it spreads. Just think, how many of your favourite authors, directors, artists have you come across through getting access to their work somehow for free? People by their nature want to support the things they like. Yes, there are people who will only download and never give back, but if you stop those people from downloading they will most likely not start paying either so it's a waste of effort.

Normally I gain the opinion of trusted sources, Booksellers, movie and video store owners, friends to assist in my decision to purchase work from produced by specific Authors, Directors/producers/actors, artists, and singers/composers. My music choice in modern music is also influenced by what I hear and watch in the media (radio, and video hits shows) this however is in no way free as radio stations and TV channels pay recording studios to exhibit their works.

 

[Pebblig]

I don't see why people need to justify why they pirate to other people. Surely the reason most people pirate is simply because they don't give two shits?!

 

[Alterego-X]

I don't see why people need to justify why they pirate to other people. Surely the reason most people pirate is simply because they don't give two shits?!

Probably. But also, usually at a political revolution, most people on the streets are just angry and hungry and want to break some shit. The ones who are justifying it by talking about democracy and justice, and ideologies, might be the minority, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that they shouldn't try to explain how the angry mob can be turned into a force of good.

This also means, that piracy can't be stopped by arguing on the Internet. You dont have to convince a few pro-piracy activists in forum threads to stop doing it, but several million people who do it every day without even thinking.

I think it's very implausible to do that, so it makes more sense to get accustomed to that new world, than to argue against it.

 

[yukshee]

I call shenanigans and fakery!!

The OP should man-up and stand by his immoral stance on such economic activities; this pathetic wheedling and ill-thought out litany of excuses is a betrayal of The Pirate Code...aaargh!

I'll bet ya a ducat that real pirates don't give a monkey's hoot about robbin'n'stealin'.

As if you're gonna be getting any self-justifying posts like the OP's from those Somalian water rats.

Excuses + justification = "plastic pirate"

Black Spot to yaaa....aaargh!

aaargh! (just clearing my throat)

 

[magicmonkeybars]

There was a decent point made here, as far as producers of entertainment are concerned, whether you pirate or don't buy makes no difference to them, because they don't get paid either way.
The real difference lies between the person who does does pirate and those who don't.
By pirating entertainment you stay culturally informed and relevant, you can discus the content you pirated as an informed party.
As a person who doesn't pirate, you'll become alienated from your own culture and ultimately diminish it through your ignorance.
Culture needs to be consumed if it wants to survive and the more people consume it the better.
Who hears the song, can sing the song, so others can hear it as well.

The real problem isn't that some 15 years old kid in his mothers basement downloading songs.
The problem is we don't have any purpose, our world doesn't have a purpose, our society doesn't have purpose.

Nothing is lost when people pirate because we don't seek to achieve anything of real value.

 

[Exocet]

let me put it even simpler-er: pirates are lazy freeloaders and publishers are greedy scum-bags.

done!

So, according to you, a pirate that buys more games than someone who doesn't pirate ever, but still pirates a game every month or so is a lazy freeloaders?

There is no way to see this as a black or white topic, it can only be seen as a case by case topic.

Yes. Yes they are. Especially if they buy tons of games and STILL pirate, they are greedy freeloaders, they could manage with the "tons" of games they already bought, right?

Sigh....

Ask yourself this,if you were in the game industry, would you like someone to buy say, 50 games and pirating one, or someone buying only one game,ever?
Ask yourself also what is best for the industry.

This only obvious answer is that this pirate in question is better for you and the industry.
So what if he pirated that one time? He still gave 50 times more to the industry than the non-greedy freeloader.

But what is this I hear coming? "Exocet you smartass, you took an extreme exemple!" Yes, yes I did, the real question is where the boundary on what is ok? Oviously never buying anything is being a greedy prick, but what about half and half? A third and two thirds?

If I were in the industry, I'd sure as hell pick the guy who pirates one in ten games, but buys a lot of games to compensate, rather than the one who buys a game a year.

Perhaps your righteous, stick-up-the-ass view of things isn't really suited for reality.

 

[Odoylerules360]

Oh, you still assume that the content creators are the ones holding the copyright, how quaint.

As if that little distinction really matters. They sold it, the new owners should be treated with the same as if they had created it.

I like how those two sentences show that you have no understanding of the issue.

You could go read this, to understand the opposition's point of view:
http://www.nosafeharbor.com/

Or you could disregard that, because everything is so much simpler when good things are good and bad things are bad.


DISCLAIMER: I IN NO WAY SUPPORT PIRACY. FILE-SHARERS ARE BAD, MEAN, EVIL, HORRIBLE PEOPLE WHO OUGHT TO HAVE UNPLEASANT THINGS DONE TO THEM BECAUSE OF HOW BAD THEY ARE.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

finally someone reasonable I for the most part think most pirates are self entitled tw*ts but I agree with you which is why every developer should have a donate button on the page, like my friend who pirated assassins creed 2, brotherhood, and revelation made sure to buy amount of ubisoft games new(or off steam) up to the amount each game was worth, I almost don't even consider that piracy I think that is more akin to jailbreaking an Iphone, I also would have no problem with piracy if it was something the ARTIST(not publishing company or MPAA) says it is ok to pirate for what ever reason, I am too lazy to pull up examples but it has happened, I think Elvis Costello said something along those lines with a new box set that was coming out.

*facepalm*

As far as excuses for piracy goes, that's pretty weak... if not a little amusing. Doing the right thing sometimes does not redeem you when you do something wrong. The fact of the matter is your friend pirated the Assassin Creed games; he has still robbed Ubisoft of money. I'm assuming the games he buys legitimately are games he actually wants, otherwise he would just have bought the Assassin Creed games in the first place. I really don't see how anything could think buying some games justifies piracy...

As for the artist saying it is okay to pirate. If the current license holder releases a verifiable statement allowing their product to be downloaded for free, it is not piracy. Piracy is making a copy of someone's work without their consent. If consent is given, it's perfectly legal. As I said, it would have to come from the person who currently had the rights to the work in question.

 

[Estocavio]

"Piracy, simply put"

Oh I see, this debate has been raging for over a decade, but FINALLY someone has broken it all down for us, simple style.

let me put it even simpler-er: pirates are lazy freeloaders and publishers are greedy scum-bags.

done!

That, Good Sir, made My Day.

 

[Estocavio]

Has anyone said yet that you really don't need any of these luxuries and can live without them until you can afford them?

So what you can't play a new game, big whoop they never last longer then a few hours anymore.

Oh no you didn't see that new movie, probably sucked anyway.

Seriously, if you can't afford to get a game/movie and you must pirate it...MAYBE you should get a fucking job instead of trying to get it illegally? "Oh my budget is tight" Uhm, work?

That's assuming every pirate does it because of tight purse strings. Plenty of people pirate because of a cheapskate attitude as gamers. Sometimes, I even agree with them. Not everything warrants a full sixty bucks, not every budget game is even deserving of my thirty bucks. I've stopped pirating years ago, but that doesn't mean I've stopped being choosy. Games just aren't trashy airport paperbacks you toss away after a single reading; they're products made to be consumed several times, ideally. I'd rather make sure my investment will have sufficient returns in terms of enjoyment, first.

I'm making enough money to pretty much afford anything I want, within reason, and my job is fun enough that I don't see myself quitting anytime soon. If I still bothered with Torrents and dodgy sources for cracks, I'd be bothering with them because some titles interest me, but not enough to splurge on them. Comfortable or not, I sure as Heck ain't rich.

As is, though, I prefer to bite the bullet and purchase whatever doesn't come with a demo. Walking the straight-and-narrow is fairly limiting and sometimes leads to nasty surprises, whereas pirates don't cry over shit games - they just delete the game's .ISO file, uninstall it and forget they even played it.

I certainly wish I could do that with Audiosurf, for instance. But nope - it's in my Steam library, forever greyed out and reminding me that I once was hyped as all Hell for this thing.

Don't even try to pull that demo crap. Thats the biggest load of BS out there, if you want to try it, rent it.

That demo BS is complete shit. A demo gives you a teaser of things not always in the game, not the whole fucking game you'll never uninstall.

Plus, one is completely capable of, oh, I dont know. Watching Video Reviews, reading Text Reviews, chatting to folks who own the Game, and Previews, and Trailers, and whatnot. Plus, it takes *less* time than getting a pretend Demo that happens to not be a Demo.

 

[ElPatron]

An interesting arguement. I propose to you a test of that logic. Go to a movie theatre to see a film. However, do not purchase a ticket, instead, sneak in without paying. If you are not discovered, repeat as necessary until you are caught, and when the authorities arrive, use that same logic to escape punishment.

Showing films on a theatre does cost money, so you are in fact "stealing" from them.

And taking a seat. You're denying someone else the privilege of sitting on the exact same seat. Even if nobody wants to sit there.

Pirates are criminals. There's no way of getting around that. Whatever your reason, you're breaking the law, and while we all know rebellion is psychologically gratifying to these kinds of people.

So basically what you are saying is that you're a criminal? If you want to see a "criminal", check your mirror.

At least I admit I committed several infractions. Copyright laws are a complete joke, and I never cared.

I still lent CDs and VHS tapes years ago, I still lend my CDs and DVDs to others. Honestly I haven't bothered to check how the copyright laws have changed, but I did everything that there is on the back of the cover.

Apparently, if you listened to music in you car loud enough, you were making a "public display" of the content.

yadda yadda it's a crime, they do the same things I did but I used different methods so they should be punished and I shall walk free

...Publishers make money, so people against piracy are wrong? Obviously I'm missing something here.

Publishers make money. The ones who try to fight piracy with DRM and whining are losing to other publishers. It proves *them* wrong.

Yes, there are some people and companies that have stated that they don't mind piracy, but taking their word for everyone in the business is, again, just grabbing for excuses to make someone feel better about their actions.

Let me tell you a story.

I bought a Nine Inch Nails CD.

Later I found out that Trent Reznor was in disagreement with his label, and ditched it to form his own records label.

Basically I threw money at a big corporation, and the artist got the shaft.

I don't care if they say that they agree with piracy. I haven't played new games in a long time. But Trent Reznor specifically said that he didn't care about those albums, people could steal from "him" because the content was not generating income.

Ever had your work, ideas or art stolen? Let me tell you, it feels like crap, and hearing people trying to justify their blatant theft of your efforts instead of just ponying up to their own actions is even more frustrating.

Ideas? Ideas get stolen all the time. I could twist this whole argument and say that publishers steal from everyone else so you can steal them yourself, but I won't.

I'm not the "artist" kind of person, but I had my original content "stolen" because of... COPYRIGHT LAWS!

And it was available for free.

Most importantly, if what serial pirates are doing is justifiable, then why are there so many unprovoked rants about people trying to tell strangers about why they think piracy is OK in their personal situation?
Chances are, what they're doing is illegal in their country, end of story.

Same thing with marijuana. Even if legalized people still have to defend themselves because of the stigma around it's consumption.

If you're doing something that isn't so morally unacceptable, like downloading a ROM of a game you've bought three times already including remakes

I paid a lot of money for the same albums over an over because of Sony.

Guess what, I might not pirate their CD's, but I am sure as hell not buying the same songs in a different format!

Going, "Oh, I'm not at fault for taking a luxury that I did not purchase!!!" is rediculous. TF2 is FREE now. NetHack has always been free. There are sooo many RPGs out there that are now free, including Daggerfall, and Steam and other online sellers have supersales regularly. If you're not using public library internet to write this post, then like Hell can you not afford $4.00 for Oblivion or even just one cent for the HIB.

Most of the games I have been playing are:

- Operation Flashpoint: GOTY
- SWAT 4
- ARMA2: Free
- TF2

Two are free, the rest I have owned for years.

Just because I am defending that everyone is a criminal and badmouthing pirates isn't any proof of moral integrity doesn't mean I have been playing all the games recently released illegally.

 

[Zorpheus]

Don't argue with a fictional opponent called "the pirates". It's called strawmanning.

None of the actual people posting in this thread, made the argument that "everyone is entitled to all media, and we should all get everything for free", just that following copyright laws isn't moral on it's own. Supporting the industry is good, but getting a specific content for free doesn't directly mean a refusal to support the industry.

If everyone would act based on these by pro-piracy morals, that wouldn't hurt the industry, it would just make content more universally available.

Like in your expanded analogy. If everyone would ride the bus for free, that woul ruin public transport. But if everyone would be willing to pay for tickets in general, but willing to take an extra stop in the cases like when they don't happen to have extra money, and the bus happens to be mostly empty, public transport would be a lot more comfortable and user-friendly.

Nobody has to explicitly make the argument that they're entitled to all media, because the idea is inherently made in their stance.

Why would people be entitled to having an extra stop? Because they simply can't afford it? Why does that magically make them entitled to something for free? If you can't afford it, you don't get it. Anything extra beyond what you can't afford makes the bus line lose profits, which then limits its ability to maintain itself.

 

[Wargamer]

A) prove what I'm doing is wrong, and B) use the right fucking terminology.

Words cannot even describe...

You can't justify piracy. You just can't. The only argument you could theoretically bring up is the "stealing bread to feed your family", but even that falls completely flat, because games/movies/music are a privilege that you pay for.

You are breaking the law, it doesn't matter what everyone else calls it or who holds the copyright or how much profit the developer makes. You act like giving money to a publisher is like supporting an evil empire, well you know what? They're just doing their fucking job.

My job is to kick you in the head until you die. You have no right to say that's wrong because I'm "doing my fucking job".

My logic is "right and wrong are social concepts." In other words, something is only wrong if the majority say it is wrong. Thing is, it's the MINORITY who decide law. The only way to counter that is to simply ignore the law on such a scale that it cannot be countered. One person pirating? That a government can punish. A hundred? Sure. A hundred million? Where would you begin?

As I said, it comes down to proving what I am doing is wrong, and why. Take VHS cassettes. The law was you could only watch them ONCE. You recorded a TV program, watched it ONCE, and destroyed the tape. I broke that law, or had others break it for me, at least once a week when I was a kid. Should I go to jail? Should my parents? Or should we just collectively agree that law is wrong?

Another example; it is (or certainly was) illegal in the UK to upload a CD to your hard drive. It was considered an act of piracy. So, if I want to listen to my brand new CD on my iPod, I have to buy ANOTHER COPY just for the iPod. I broke that law, as did most of the country. Should we turn Britain into a giant prison now? No, we should say "that's a retarded law" and move on.

But the reoccuring problem with this, as I mentioned, is what PEOPLE see as wrong and what the LAW sees as wrong are two different things, and we should NOT bow to the law; the law should bow to us. It is there to serve and protect US, not to be catered to.

Fighting Piracy by saying "you're stealing from people!" is bullshit. It isn't stealing when I tape programs off the TV (they actually let you do that now with Sky+ and the like). It isn't stealing when I burn my CDs onto my PC, or burn mp3s onto a disk (again, that's now pretty much legalised by the companies themselves), just as it isn't stealing when I help myself to a copy of Microsoft Office.

Ultimately, we need a fair compromise; we need to find the middle point where people feel they are being treated fairly by companies, and where companies feel they are getting a fair return for their efforts. Apple did it with the music industry (you can actually pay an annual fee to Apple now in order for them to them to 'legalise' your illegal music collection - they'll even upgrade poor quality stolen mp3s to superior copies for free!), we just need to see the same happen to other media.

 

[Wargamer]

Don't argue with a fictional opponent called "the pirates". It's called strawmanning.

None of the actual people posting in this thread, made the argument that "everyone is entitled to all media, and we should all get everything for free", just that following copyright laws isn't moral on it's own. Supporting the industry is good, but getting a specific content for free doesn't directly mean a refusal to support the industry.

If everyone would act based on these by pro-piracy morals, that wouldn't hurt the industry, it would just make content more universally available.

Like in your expanded analogy. If everyone would ride the bus for free, that woul ruin public transport. But if everyone would be willing to pay for tickets in general, but willing to take an extra stop in the cases like when they don't happen to have extra money, and the bus happens to be mostly empty, public transport would be a lot more comfortable and user-friendly.

Nobody has to explicitly make the argument that they're entitled to all media, because the idea is inherently made in their stance.

Why would people be entitled to having an extra stop? Because they simply can't afford it? Why does that magically make them entitled to something for free? If you can't afford it, you don't get it. Anything extra beyond what you can't afford makes the bus line lose profits, which then limits its ability to maintain itself.

Well you are blatantly wrong.

It is not "inherent" in our arguments. Based on iTunes pricing I've pirated about £5 worth of music, and bought around £500 worth. Of that pirated £5 worth, the bulk of it is stuff I cannot find on iTunes. In short, it is material I cannot legally purchase. That is NOT A LOST SALE; it was never going to BE a sale.

The Bus analogy is a perfect one. A bus can hold sixty people, and twenty people pay to ride. Another ten want to ride, but cannot pay. Should they be turned away? No, they shouldn't. The reason you let them ride for free is once they've learned that they like riding the bus, they've become a potential customer. Some will never actually pay to ride, but as long as they aren't taking up space from paying customers, that's not an issue to anyone. Moreover, if just ONE person goes from free-rider to paying customer, wasn't it worth the freebies you gave out?

That's pretty much how the bulk of piracy works; you aren't losing anything physical. At worst, you're losing POTENTIAL. Thing is, that happens EVERY FUCKING DAY. I walked past a Starbucks today whilst thinking "I could sure use a drink." I didn't go in. Instead, I decided to wait until I got home. OH NO! I'VE STOLEN A SALE OFF STARBUCKS!
That is how stupid anti-piracy people sound to us. Whenever we're told "this is just like stealing a jet plane!" we dismiss the speaker as a retard.

We 'Pirates' are all driven by our own internal morals. I won't pirate anything, so long as A) I can obtain it legally, and B) I can obtain it at a fair price. If these conditions cannot be met, I'll pirate. Keep in mind, those same conditions are what ensure a sale; if you overcharge me for a service, or refuse service full stop, I am what is known as a 'Lost Sale'. In short, I only pirate once a business has alienated me by denying the quality of service I desire.

The answer is not to throw a tantrum and criminalise everyone; the answer is to look at those two conditions, and why you failed to meet them. Quite often the reasons are piss-poor ("we won't release this outside of America" or "we want to make a fucking huge markup on this"). Until a business shows willing to actually sit down with 'Pirates' and discuss why they pirate, things are not going to change.