Piracy, simply put.

[OfficialJab]

I don't really have the interest to read the entire thread, so I'm sure this has been brought up, but I'm content to add to the pile.

If you own a permanent copy an artist's product, then you should pay for it. While we're at it, yes I'm kind of against used sale and lending/borrowing.

 

[Odoylerules360]

It helps no one really. But it's what is fair. Because someone else made it and you don't deserve to just have it regardless of what they want. It is not a necessary item, as such it is only fair to respect the wishes of its creator.

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

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.

 

[RubyT]

I dont benefit from HP getting money from you.

Sure you do. Economics of scale means lower prices. Even if you don't buy from HP, the resulting competition means that you got your monitor at lower prices.

I give to the system the same as much asi take out

Haha. Good one.

I contribute everything i earn to it to, but im not entitled to free shit. At all.

Well, I think you are.

You cant "make up for it" by saying you pay for other shit you buy. Thats not how it works. You contribute toward everything you enjoy and dont expect us to pick up the slack for stuff you dont.

Actually, it is exactly how things work. Just because you pay in absolute numbers a whole lot less tax than Bill Gates, he doesn't (shouldn't, ideally) get any benefits from the state. You both pay your x % income tax and are considered equal.

dont presume to be entitled to more shit than me

I don't. But you seem to presume I'm entitled to less than you.

you dont have this issue of having to fund shit for other people.

Well, Mr. Gates is probably very angry at you too.
See, in his eyes, you're a loser. If everybody in the USA was earning at least close to what he is, imagine how great it would be. But the way it is, the millionairs and billionairs have to pick up your slack so you get your roads and cops and public education.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I honestly believe that when I pirate, I'm not doing something immoral, at all. Illegal? Sure, yeah, but that doesn't take into account the context.

All piracy has done is allow me to let me listen to as much music as I want, discover new bands that I would never have bothered with otherwise, and let me pick the albums I've then wanted to purchase physically. I haven't spent any less money on music than I would have if I were forced to purchase everything. If anything I've spent more, because this way I'm guaranteed to be contributing to an artist I genuinely like. And trust me, I spend a lot on music.

Oh yes, let's just look at what it's done for you. That's the way to determine whether something is ethical or not.

What's unethical is that you enjoy it for free, when those who own it do not wish to give it away. Doesn't matter how much else you spend on music, that bought you the music you got, not rights to other music.

So who's losing out? Who's directly losing out?

So, who's being resurrected from the dead? Who!?

Or in a more direct way of saying things, now with 100% less sarcasm... I never said anyone was losing out so don't ask me stupid questions. No one needs to lose out for it to be unethical.

I didn't say you said that, but as far as I see it, if the artist isn't actually being negatively affected by me downloading their music, I don't see why it's a problem. Maybe on the face of it it's unethical, but that's an extremely narrow minded way of looking at it.

Oh so you're only looking at benefit. Well that's a very narrow minded way of looking at it.

Oh wait, just saying something is narrow minded doesn't actually show that it is! Do I get a Nobel prize for this stunning discovery? I'll settle for a good argument for how it is narrow minded though instead of your worthless attempt at dismissal.

I've already said. It doesn't take into account the context.

 

[spectrenihlus]

Do I think charging $40 for a re-release of a game over a decade old is too much? I certainly do.

How would this be justification to pirate it instead of just doing without it?

Do I think you are justified to torrent a game if its DRM is holding it back, and a group of modders have removed it from the equation? I certainly do.

Are you at least expecting them to buy a regular copy? DRM isn't justification to get it for free.

What difference is it to the publisher if you pirated something vs not downloading it at all. They don't get payed either way. Personally I believe p
A lot of publishers Are living in and old model. If they truly wished fight piracy they would stop selling all brand new games at $60. Take for example a game of thrones I literally called up a hbo to find some way just to watch this show without buying all of hbo. I DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION I can only watch a game of thrones if I subscribe to hbo. This is unacceptable, I wish to pay for a product and I am unable to.

 

[Asehujiko]

How bout this. Defending piracy is incredible arrogance. If everyone pirated games then there would be no games made as there would not be any money to support their development nor would there be any incentive to create them. This is irrefutable.

Argument refuted by the existence of freeware.

 

[LilithSlave]

An argument against the lost sales argument is not justification for piracy. It is simply logically fallacious to go directly from "I disproved your argument" to "Your conclusion(piracy is wrong) is therefore wrong".

Perhaps not, but it is a rebuttal of the argument that piracy is wrong because it is "stealing" because it "hurts developers" and "deprives them of profit for their hard work". It's true that there's more to the morality of piracy than "net benefit", copyright laws aren't there all for economic benefit, they're for personal control of something. That's why it's called "permission culture". It's not about profits, it's about permission, which is why the fact piracy ends in net benefit isn't a justification, because that's not what the IP is about, it's about permission and control, whether or not it is economically beneficial or not. Part of the reason many white nationalist black metal musicians release few version of their music, is because they don't want people listening to it outside of friends, and a close audience, furthermore, they want their music to be anthems of their nationality, not heard by other nations and much less other races. They don't care about profit, and exclusivity to their race is important. But because of piracy, copies of Burzum and Graveland music are everywhere, and unlike the artists would have intended, is likely listened to by non-whites. If IP itself is justified and justification has to do with permission, and creators have absolute rights to IP, then indeed it would be unjust to spread their music to be allowed to be listened to by non-whites.

Personally, I don't think that permission culture is justified. I believe that if people put out any kind of creation that can be digitally copied up for sale, they have to do with the technological reality that it can be copied and spread. If someone does not want their information to be spread, then they should not be selling it and making the condition profit. To the degree of privacy people have for data they are not selling, I do not know. I know that it landed a British tram woman in jail because she was filmed. That's a lot more of an invasion of privacy and a lot harder to justify than copying and distributing copyrighted video games.

Tell me, how much rights to privacy and permission do creators have? If permission is more important that profits and net profit isn't justification, does that mean that if an artist does not want their music listened to people who are not white, they have the right to do so and people who listen to it even though they are not white, are morally unjustified?

 

[SmegInThePants]

On the one hand:

I'm against piracy. I think usually when i hear someone say 'i couldn't afford it anyways so they didn't lose any $' that they are lying to themselves. They could forego a night out at the movies or a pub and have enough money for 1 game right there. I think, in most cases, w/some exceptions, that its just an excuse. If by foregoing one activity you could afford a game, then guess what, you *can* afford it.

On the other hand:

I think piracy enforcement is ridiculously overboard. It is not theft, the 'victim' suffers no lost volume. I think if one gets caught pirating it should be on par w/jay walking or improper parking, a fine + the value of whatever was pirated, w/increasing fines for repeated offenses. And part of your public record. Let employers see it and consider it when deciding to hire you.

Also, its absolutely ridiculous that it can be called piracy if i d/l a book and read it that i could quite legally get by walking across the street to the public library and checking out at no cost. You know libraries weren't always around, there was debate and consternation over their creation, the same kind of dialog we see in this thread, many considered libraries theft. I would weep if the powers that be were able to shut down libraries under such a theory. I'm not talking about video games, but informative media, i cringe at teh idea of a world where only those $ have the right to learn because only they can buy the necessary learning materials.

In the U.S. the Supreme Court, from the beginning, has consistently interpreted copyright law w/a balancing test. On the one hand the privileges of ownership have to be protected so that you and I and everyone else has an incentive to go through the trouble of creating things. The country is enriched when people create new things and there needs to be an incentive to do so. We don't want to see people who could create things deciding not to because it isn't worth their time since once created everyone will just grab their creation for free and not have to pay for it, then the country loses out on the creations of those who decided to to something else w/more secure chances of renumeration.

ON the other hand - once created, this thing needs to become at some point - public property, so that others can take it and improve on it, w/out restriction, add it to other things, play w/it and make something even better w/it, and thus again, enriching society. As such, we have time limits on various IP's, they all end. Society benefits not from singlemindedly protecting one side of the equation, but both. A balance is needed. And the supreme court recognizes this and has actively sought such a balance. In case after case this balance is stated as their goal/test when looking at an IP issue and it is then decided accordingly. It is the law of the land(well, of U.S. land).

Unfortunately, in some cases and in more recent years - these limits on IP have been pushed out to last far too long (copyright), as corporate interests can't stand the thought of losing a valued IP. Corporations changed things a bit. An author dies, so having a copyright last 50 years after his death isn't too much of an issue, the author himself won't be around to complain when his IP goes public. But a corporation never dies from old age, it lives to see when its IP is supposed to become public, and thus fights it, and unfortunately they have been succeeding in upsetting a balance that took centuries to arrive at.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

This is just laughable. I don't care if I get another warning, you need to get a grip. How can you possibly be so angry?

Because gaming, film, music, animation etc are things I'm passionate towards and I'm well on my way to becoming one of those people who see there hard wroth work demeaned by self-interested twits.

Well I hope you get used to it soon, because copyright infringement isn't going anywhere. Ever. I also hope you see that it's not always a bad thing either.

You're not some artist who got screwed over by some producer, or a director who lost the rights to his own film. You're not fighting a battle on creative control.

If you pirate all you do is serve yourself through the effort of others.

Even though there are artists who openly say that piracy is a good thing and has helped them? There have been articles and studies that support the idea that pirates actually spend MORE money on music, film etc than non-pirates because they have access to a greater range of content and it acts as a means of promotion. You cannot just say that it's all bad. If you've ever been introduced to a new genre, author, director etc through someone lending you something which then became one of your favourites, you surely must see that.

On the subject of rights, yes, it sucks, but ultimately they signed away those rights and have to live with the consequences. You want control, don't sign that control away.

Your last point is fine to a degree. But then there is the issue of consolidation of resources, where if you need a budget of say a 100,000 to make your film or launch your first album, no bank or firm would loan you that amount for something they can't understand (not there area) and no reliable way (for them) to see that loan being paid off. That is why many writers, directors, artists and so on, sell themselves to Producers and labels, who after reviewing the ideas and talents behind the proposed project, will offer money AND royalties for as long as the contract remains binding.

The problem is, the people who run the industries, also hold the resources which any man with ambitions beyond art house and indie productions will want. They have no other means of getting it.

I find that view appalling though. You would claim that the fucked up legal bindings of a contract is warrant for an artists misery, yet condone the wilful act of self-indulgence (piracy) which only takes but never gives. What the fuck.

You claim good intentions, that the pirates give as well as they take, yet the OP of this topic is the anti-thesis to that argument and he's not the only on this site, let alone on the web as a whole. He does not give a shit if the album he just pirated was good or not, he got it for free and fuck everyone. He does not care if the developer is one of the few honest to goodness good ones left, he will scoff at them. The fuck does he care about paying for a film after he just watched it for free illegally?

You give your fellow pirates too much credit. As I said before, the best pirate (and thats not good at all) are the ones who actively pirate, not just piously regurgitate rhetoric they heard someone else say which made their little effortless indulgences less guilt ridden.

Leeches, and bottom feeders. That is what the majority of pirates are. If you think of yourselves as anarchists or revolutionaries, beyond fooling no one, you offend everyone who ever stood for/against anything in history. If you hate a game/film/album/director/producer/label/artist/industry etc. for god knows whatever reason you care to stand on, DON'T BUY IT! Rather then pirating an item, which does nothing positive and a whole lot of grief as the people in power start lashing out like feral beasts, attacking friends and foes with fucking ludicrous policies and T&C's.

Piracy screws the middle men (the artists, designers, coders, crews, roadies etc.) and the customers as it encourages wanton wastes of resources to fight an intangible enemy.

To juxtapose my point of view on this topic, recall that the OP specifically said:

"Some say you shouldn't download stuff you can't or don't want to afford. Why? Who's that helping? Who's getting paid in Karma points?"

"Why should I not get stuff free when it doesn't hurt no-one?"

"Aren't we accustomed to screwing people over by now?"

... What a noble beast. That's who you associate with more often then not when condoning piracy. This site has enough of the type (one is too many as is).

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Sure you do. Economics of scale means lower prices. Even if you don't buy from HP, the resulting competition means that you got your monitor at lower prices.

That still does nothing to justify not paying for things. If anything this weakens your point. Because i ALWAYS pay for things i encourage a lower scale MORE than you do per thing i obtain. When i buy something by your logic i help you AND the developer. When you dont you spit on the developer and refuse to help me. How nice. I contribute to the economy. Your leeching is selfish to the extreme.

Youve just admited your piracy makes things more expensive for other people. Nice.

If more sales makes stuff cheaper, then you taking sales is making it more expensive?

Haha. Good one.

Jesus we are getting to the point where you just dont even try and argue with my points. Fine lemme spell it out. In the system the artist puts things in. The artist decides his work has a value of X and puts it in. Art = X in terms of value. I take OUT art. I put IN x. See how the system has a fair exchange of goods and i havnt LEECHED from it at all? Just saying.

In YOUR system the artist puts in 6 pieces of art all worth X. You pay 5x and take the last one for free. You have taken out more than you put in, the resulting offset is something the artist just has to deal with despite the fact hes been robbed.

Well, I think you are.

If the person who made the art thought the same way id be fine. However he is not. I respect the artist enough and feel that to encourage growth and new work i should pay for what i buy. You just want free shit and dont care at all that you give nothing back.

Do you realise if everyone had your attitude and, i dunno, just TOOK 10% of all the shit they got the economy would be damaged a lot? If everyone had your selfish attitude then you wouldnt have a system to leech from. Thats why i say you are entitled. You say i deserve free shit too. But you dont think that. If we all got free stuff there would stop being stuff to get. Which is why, knowingly or not, in your perfect world you are the only pirate. A world were growth is encouraged by honest buyers and taken by you.

Actually, it is exactly how things work. Just because you pay in absolute numbers a whole lot less tax than Bill Gates, he doesn't (shouldn't, ideally) get any benefits from the state. You both pay your x % income tax and are considered equal.

The idea behind that arguement is that you cant decide just to NOT pay for shit and expect others to encourage the growth and expansion of the product/art you again will leech and enjoy. Mr gates pays for roads and so do i. We both pay. This is why tax evasion is a crime. If i DIDNT pay mr gates could be angry. I do pay. I help. You do nothing. If i was a tax leech i expect mr gates to be angry and in fact everyone to be angry. But i pay my taxes, and Mr gates knows because of this if i ever obtain a LOT of money ill be under the same rules he is.

I don't. But you seem to presume I'm entitled to less than you.

Now you are just lying. Dont even bother doing that, it just makes you look silly when i correct you. Where did i say you deserve less than me? I think you are entitled to what you can afford and contribute toward. If thats the same as me then yeah we have the same right to things as eachother. Im saying your entitled to the same amount of free stuff as i am. Which is none.

 

[milna64]

I have a friend. Lets call him Jeff. Jeff pirates things. He knows he shouldn't but he does it anyway. This is because he has no money but still wants to watch things. He says that if he had a job and an income above what his wife earns working part time in a supermarket then he would gladly pay for things. He also likes having downloaded copies of things, they feel safer that way. He still buys DVDs when they are cheap and goes to the cinema regularly. He doesn't consider himself a bad guy and believes that there are many many many worse things that people do on a regular basis.

Jeff thinks that his pirating doesn't negatively effect anyone and that the benefit he gets from it is greater than the potential damage caused to others - especially as he wouldn't really have the money to buy even half the things he pirates anyway.

Jeff likes to support independent artists whenever he can and so buys their stuff if he likes it. Jeff also feels that the games industry in general deserves his support and avoids pirating games. For basically this reason, Jeff doesn't play any games. Sometimes Jeff wonders that the games industry would be better off if he just played the games the companies put out there. Maybe then he would be more likely to buy games in the future.

I am definitely not Jeff.

 

[Alterego-X]

You could try to argue that it is a net benefit and therefore justified, but that fails to show any kind of justification for a particular individual. Further it needs to overcome the hurdle of explaining why it is okay to force this net benefit on someone against their will.

If they choose not to go the most optimal route for their own profits, why should you get to decide otherwise for them?

This goes both ways. WHY whould a copyright owner's authority include forcing their outdated business models on society?

Copyright doesn't mean "IP owners can do whatever they want", it's just one very specific practical limit. For example it doesn't extend to Fair Use, or in case of writings, it doesn't extend to Braille copies, it doesn't extend to any work after it moves to public domain, it doesn't extend to stopping you from making records Betamax/VHS/DVD/BR records of tv program, etc.

Simply saying that copyright owners have "a right to decide what to do with their property", is not accurate. They have a specific ability to control the sale of copies, not because controlling copies is inherently moral, but because in 1710, it happened to be a good reason to enforce censorship on book printing, while in the later centuries, it grew to be a whole entertainment industry's business model, as long as it was easily enforcable on a large scale.

But now, the only way to enforce it is to drastically limit the freedom of the Internet.

As Jonathan Coulton said:

I believe in copyright. I benefit from it. I don?t want it to go away. I love that we have laws and people to enforce them. But if I had to give up one thing, if I had to choose between copyright and the wild west, semi-lawless, innovation-fest that is the internet? I?ll take the internet every time.

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/

 

[RubyT]

But I guess these are just the wrong forums for this discussion.
There's a poll about a dude with a crowbar being shot 10 times, 4 shots while he was already down, and 60% of the people said "totally justified".

This is a nice crowd here.

I hope we're discussing the same incident here, but I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents.

Justified because the man was getting up, and had been physically and emotionally abusing his wife for decades at that point. She was fucking scared, don't be so quick to pass judgement.

Oh, and if you happen to like books:
Camus' "The Stranger" is quite relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)

 

[diamondwolf]

If you want my opinion go look at Jimquisition on this subject. I certainly don't agree that theft is justified, but at the same time I find it hard to condemn pirates when the only people hurt are top ranking entertainment businessmen (people who are attempting to purchase the American legal system). Pirating independently produced content is another thing entirely though.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Which is why, knowingly or not, in your perfect world you are the only pirate.

Solid points all around, but I'd just like to single this statement out as I feel it deserves extra attention. It's all about numbers and scale in terms of piracy (and, if I do say so myself, used games). If it truly was only one person who pirated stuff then, no, piracy wouldn't have all that large of an impact.. but the fact is, it's not. When there are thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people pirating something, there is an undoubted impact.

Let's take the side of the pirates for a moment and say that only, I don't know, 10% of pirates would have actually bought the item anyway. When you look at that 10% as 10% of a million possible sales, that's 100,000 sales that didn't happen because of piracy. Small issue when taken individually, but quite large when all is considered.

 

[RubyT]

I contribute to the economy.

So do I. Again: all my income spent. Really, it's not that difficult.

Jesus we are getting to the point where you just dont even try and argue with my points.

If you think, as a first world citizen, you put into the system as much as you take out, you are seriously naive.

You just want free shit and dont care at all that you give nothing back.

But I do give back. You seem to have a comprehension problem.

I do pay. I help. You do nothing.

I could correct you again, but I'm getting bored. I knew chatbots who paid attention better.

Mr gates knows because of this if i ever obtain a LOT of money ill be under the same rules he is.

And if I make more money, I'll buy more "shit", to speak in words you understand.

Now you are just lying. Dont even bother doing that, it just makes you look silly when i correct you.

You couldn't correct me if I said 1+1=3.

Where did i say you deserve less than me?

In just about every sentence.

Im saying your entitled to the same amount of free stuff as i am. Which is none.

But it's not free. Once you realize that, you'll finally get it.

 

[Wintermoot]

piracy is breach of copyright not stealing it,s like me making my own wopper after studying a burger king wopper I,m not stealing one simply copying one.
also
most people pirate due to lack of legal source (out of print or region exclusives).
in other words the devs didn't want that money on the product anyway.

 

[RubyT]

Not the same incident. He's talking about one where a guy broke the windows of a restaurant with a crowbar, police got called in, guy went outside with the police following him. One policeman tries to use a taser, it fails. He takes a few steps after that, then turns and starts to go towards the policeman with the crowbar kinda ready, other cop shoots him several times. The thread is here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.339667-Poll-Was-this-police-shooting-justified-in-your-opinion-Graphic

Ah. I'm not the biggest fan of the cops myself. After watching the video... gross.

This was the one I was talking about, just saw it on the news recently so I figured it was likely the same.
http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/queens_woman_on_trial_for_killing_r.php

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I contribute to the economy.

So do I. Again: all my income spent. Really, it's not that difficult.

Jesus we are getting to the point where you just dont even try and argue with my points.

If you think, as a first world citizen, you put into the system as much as you take out, you are seriously naive.

You just want free shit and dont care at all that you give nothing back.

But I do give back. You seem to have a comprehension problem.

I do pay. I help. You do nothing.

I could correct you again, but I'm getting bored. I knew chatbots who paid attention better.

Mr gates knows because of this if i ever obtain a LOT of money ill be under the same rules he is.

And if I make more money, I'll buy more "shit", to speak in words you understand.

Now you are just lying. Dont even bother doing that, it just makes you look silly when i correct you.

You couldn't correct me if I said 1+1=3.

Where did i say you deserve less than me?

In just about every sentence.

Im saying your entitled to the same amount of free stuff as i am. Which is none.

But it's not free. Once you realize that, you'll finally get it.

Pirated stuff isnt free?! What? If youre paying for pirated stuff youre not pirating.

I stole these glasses but i bought this shirt. But the glasses werent "free" because i paid for the shirt.

Thats the logic i assume youre using?

You dont deserve less than me. Ive NEVER said this. I said you deserve the same as everyone else. You cant just say "always" and call it a day. Quote me. Quote a line where i said "i deserve more things than you" where the context DOESNT mean "Because i can afford them".

But you DONT give back when you pirate. You give back elsewhere. But you dont give back for that insance where you pirate something. If you pirate something nothing is given in return. You say you give back elsewhere but no one else does this. They give back every time. You dont just "sometimes" pay for things and say "im a good person because i pay for things". You pay for ALL the things you get and then you can say you really give back.

Way to ignore my arguements about how me paying for everything is giving back more than you paying for some things. Its not hard.

Lemme change this for you then. You give nothing back in the instances where you pirate

The creator gets NOTHING. You get SOMETHING; you take and give nothing. There.

I just did correct you, you falsly accused me of saying something i just didnt say. I just didnt say those things. Im very confused. Honestly where did i say you are less of a person than me, and deserve less than me in a fair society. Im saying you deserve what you buy and earn. Which i do. If you earn more than me you deserve more than me. Simple.

I might spend all my income and leech from somewhere else. Its good that you spend things, but you cant cancel out wrongs by doing a little right and its not hard to understand that paying for half the things you buy is definately damaging. Yes you buy things. It isnt special. Thats the DEFAULT. The things im talking about are the things you dont pay for. You dont pay for some things. Thats wrong. That damages the economy. ALl your "buying" doesnt excuse it. It doesnt mean you contribute extra special and that makes your taking fine. It means you give less than bare minimum.

Lets ignore the fact you buy washing machines and books and focus on the piracy.

Its not ok to take from the icecream man because you pay the guy down at the chippie.

In the case where you pirate a game you dont give back. Thats the reference i was making when i made these statements.

This isnt even covering the rights of the creator of the work you are taking against their will.

I am paying attention. Not to the cases where you buy, thats not noteworthy. The cases where you pirate are what im paying attention to. And piracy gives nothing back. Thats just true. You are not paying attention to the context of the posts.

If you steal some shirts, no one comments that you paid for the washing machine, you are deemed a leech on society for taking the shirts. It doesnt matter what else you paid for.

i mean, if youre entitled to free games surely i am too? and so are all my friends arent they? and my family? and my friends family?

oops the developer went out of buisiness. was a damn good game though.

Nicely said.

 

[TheDooD]

No, piracy is not stealing. This idea has pissed me off for a loooong time, ever since the DVD manufacturers started that fucking stupid "you wouldn't steal a car!" advert.

No, I wouldn't steal a car, because someone is going to notice their car is missing and REPORT IT AS STOLEN!

No, I wouldn't steal a handbag. Handbags, by and large, belong to people who cannot readily afford to replace its contents and would fuck up their lives.

No, I wouldn't steal a movie; it's rather hard to take something out of a store without getting caught.

But Pirating a movie? Downloading a Digital COPY of a film that was made by a company whose annual profits are more than what most people make in a lifetime, which neither destroys nor removes the original version from which the copy was made? I can do that.

Video Piracy is NOT stealing. Video Piracy is copying, and distributing those copies, without express permission of the copyright holder. If I'm supposed to feel bad about breaking the law, you first have to A) prove what I'm doing is wrong, and B) use the right fucking terminology.



Now the people who claim that Piracy is wrong, answer me this:

Think of a game that is coming out in the future that you want to buy. Would you buy it if it cost you:
A) £60,000
B) Nothing.

In theory, we should have 0% answering 'Yes' to A, and 100% answering 'Yes' to B. Here, then, is where Piracy comes in.

Piracy is NOT "I don't want to pay so I'll steal". Piracy for the most part is "I don't think it is worth paying what they ask, so I'll steal."

How many of you who pirate mainstream games would do so if they were £30 new? How about £20? How about £10 and DRM free? What about £15 and all future DLC was free of charge for the rest of time?

That's how Piracy is fought. It's why iTunes and App stores charge about 70p an item. It's fuck-all money, so we don't really mind spending it. Investing 70p on a whim is easy, but investing £70 is not. Hence, the expensive stuff gets pirated.

In order to stop piracy, or at least curb it, you need to strike the balance. Most people who pirate won't do it if you offer them a fair and reasonable alternative. Major companies don't, by and large, do this.

I agree with this point $50+ isn't really impulse money unless you're buying more then one in my opinion. Investors and idiot businessmen will gripe about lowering prices. Yet it always pays off in the long run. Investors want the higher instant yield yet consumers want an affordable pricing. If they come half way at lease at $25 more people would be willing to spend their money on it.

Kinda with Pizza companies these days are giving out crazy good deals because yes at first it'll seem like they're losing out on money. Yet when you have something that a majority of people has access to they'll get more returning and new buyers because of it. Also fixing the weaknesses in said products to be much better then before is also a plus.