To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[Zukhramm]

But there are people who want to make money for their creative work, and why shouldn't they? You're right, that creativity is an instrinsic part of human nature, and people will continue to make work because they want to. But limiting creativity to this scope is harmful, and for many people it's an either or in terms of a job.

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No. Just because somone wants to make money from something doesn't give them the right to money. If people do not want to buy, I can't demand them to do it anyway.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Though Communists know the only true action is the one without physical incentive, most accept material incentives in the transitional stage (the socialist society) on the way to a Communist society.
Social incentives such as being credited for your work may very well be acceptable in both societies, but holding off your own work to the despair of humanity in hopes of praise and love from the society is as short-sighted and ignorant as the capitalist doctrine. One does not need to have ideas 'stolen' by other people, but merely share them willingly with the entire human species.

My work has been stolen before; they profited, and I suffered for it.
That's all the evidence I needed.

The worst bit? It was just a Final for one of my college classes; no monetary claims involved.
It's that sort of feeling that makes me question whether humanity is even capable of accepting a pragmatic application of information (or procedure) without it automatically defaulting to greed.

I'm a social idealist, but unfortunately, I live in the now, and that reality has been a harsh teacher.

Of course, I'm done sidetracking this topic with my opinions. All I know for certain is that as it stands, piracy serves nobody but the pirates.

 

[Zukhramm]

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

Irrelevant as the discussion is not about theft but about making a copy of something without the copyright holder's consent. Still a crime, yes, but a different one than theft.

Civilizations before us have practiced human sacrifice and slavery, they probably thought they were right. What makes us so sure what we have now is the ultimate truth? I'm not going to argue that pirating games is the right thing to do. I just want to say that the idea that anyone who does hold that opinion, no matter with what argument is just wrong, is sompliy bizarre.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

And if I did that, and no one still bought it, I wouldn't make any money and would try selling something else instead. It's how supply and demand works.

 

[ninja51]

I think its all a big joke after the Australians put this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTMIz0_Iij8&feature=related

That article isnt unbiased by the way, I read some and it is rediculously biased. They are so wrong about SecureROM and those other crappy security features that pirates crack and the people who buy games are hurt by the good points they had are deluted.

 

[Amphoteric]

I only pirate things I have paid for but lost or damaged.

 

[bob1052]

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

Piracy =/= stealing. I'm not hurting for cash, but if I was, I could definitely see pirating being an acceptable way for me to get my gaming fix. If you were never going to be able to afford a game in the first place, and you pirate it instead, that doesn't translate to a lost sale because you were never going to buy it regardless. So you aren't actually taking anything from the developer in that case.

Please explain to me how that is stealing. Back in the days of floppy discs and the early CD-rom era, me and my friends would copy games from each other all the time. Nobody told us it was wrong, or that we were stealing. Not even the discs themselves had warnings about copying. The only reason that this has become an issue at all is because developers now feel like they have to spend ludicrous amounts of money on development costs, even if the resulting game is trash. So it takes a lot more sales to recoup those costs. And when they don't get that high amount of sales, it's easy to blame piracy.

So if you were hurting for cash, and you wanted a car, would you see stealing that car as an acceptable way? Just because you wouldn't get the game if pirating around, doesn't make pirating acceptable.

Furthermore, even if you are stupid enough to think its ok in that case, the fact that the resources to pirate exists for people to use in that case, means it also exists for people who are just greedy and have some childish sense of entitlement who could, and would, buy the game but because of pirating they decide not to give the developer/publisher their business.

 

[lacktheknack]

After all is said and done the majority of games are overpriced shite. Bought titan quest on steam recently for £2.50. That's a fair price for what I'm getting. 40 quid for fallout new vegas? Who's going to pay that? That's mental. A fiver. That's a fair price.

And THIS is the problem.

You see, Titan Quest is approximately 300 hours of hack and slash dungeon crawling. That's worth more then four dollars. That's really worth forty dollars, or more. If you seriously think 300+ hours isn't worth five bucks, then you're a miser, plain and simple.

Think of it this way: Imagine you buy Fallout New Vegas and play it for 100 hours (quite possible). How much money do you make per hour of work? Go ahead, knock off all your non-entertainment expenses, including savings. Let's imagine you have 50 cents extra per hour (and I beg you to cut your expenses somehow if that's ALL you have). If you had 50 cents per hour left over to spend on yourself, then Fallout would be worth $50, a little bit less then what it is being sold for according to you.

Seriously, you come off as stingy and desperate. You're better then that.

 

[bob1052]

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

Piracy =/= stealing. I'm not hurting for cash, but if I was, I could definitely see pirating being an acceptable way for me to get my gaming fix. If you were never going to be able to afford a game in the first place, and you pirate it instead, that doesn't translate to a lost sale because you were never going to buy it regardless. So you aren't actually taking anything from the developer in that case.

Please explain to me how that is stealing. Back in the days of floppy discs and the early CD-rom era, me and my friends would copy games from each other all the time. Nobody told us it was wrong, or that we were stealing. Not even the discs themselves had warnings about copying. The only reason that this has become an issue at all is because developers now feel like they have to spend ludicrous amounts of money on development costs, even if the resulting game is trash. So it takes a lot more sales to recoup those costs. And when they don't get that high amount of sales, it's easy to blame piracy.

So if you were hurting for cash, and you wanted a car, would you see stealing that car as an acceptable way? Just because you wouldn't get the game if pirating around, doesn't make pirating acceptable.

Furthermore, even if you are stupid enough to think its ok in that case, the fact that the resources to pirate exists for people to use in that case, means it also exists for people who are just greedy and have some childish sense of entitlement who could, and would, buy the game but because of pirating they decide not to give the developer/publisher their business.

If you are too poor to buy the game then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale. Since pirating doesn't actually take someone elses disc, then it is victimless (since you also would not have bought the game).

You can't compare stealing a car to it.

If you are too poor to buy the car then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale.

Also try to not ignore 90% of posts you try to refute, it just makes you look dumb. Having the resources available means that people who can buy the game, who would have bought the game, who are a lost sale not buy the game.

 

[bob1052]

After all is said and done the majority of games are overpriced shite. Bought titan quest on steam recently for £2.50. That's a fair price for what I'm getting. 40 quid for fallout new vegas? Who's going to pay that? That's mental. A fiver. That's a fair price.

And THIS is the problem.

You see, Titan Quest is approximately 300 hours of hack and slash dungeon crawling. That's worth more then four dollars. That's really worth forty dollars, or more. If you seriously think 300+ hours isn't worth five bucks, then you're a miser, plain and simple.

Think of it this way: Imagine you buy Fallout New Vegas and play it for 100 hours (quite possible). How much money do you make per hour of work? Go ahead, knock off all your non-entertainment expenses, including savings. Let's imagine you have 50 cents extra per hour (and I beg you to cut your expenses somehow if that's ALL you have). If you had 50 cents per hour left over to spend on yourself, then Fallout would be worth $50, a little bit less then what it is being sold for according to you.

Seriously, you come off as stingy and desperate. You're better then that.

It's only 300 hours worth of gameplay if you like it enough to play that long.

The amount of time you invest in a game does not change the amount of content in the game.

It has 300 hours worth of gameplay period.

 

[bob1052]

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

Piracy =/= stealing. I'm not hurting for cash, but if I was, I could definitely see pirating being an acceptable way for me to get my gaming fix. If you were never going to be able to afford a game in the first place, and you pirate it instead, that doesn't translate to a lost sale because you were never going to buy it regardless. So you aren't actually taking anything from the developer in that case.

Please explain to me how that is stealing. Back in the days of floppy discs and the early CD-rom era, me and my friends would copy games from each other all the time. Nobody told us it was wrong, or that we were stealing. Not even the discs themselves had warnings about copying. The only reason that this has become an issue at all is because developers now feel like they have to spend ludicrous amounts of money on development costs, even if the resulting game is trash. So it takes a lot more sales to recoup those costs. And when they don't get that high amount of sales, it's easy to blame piracy.

So if you were hurting for cash, and you wanted a car, would you see stealing that car as an acceptable way? Just because you wouldn't get the game if pirating around, doesn't make pirating acceptable.

Furthermore, even if you are stupid enough to think its ok in that case, the fact that the resources to pirate exists for people to use in that case, means it also exists for people who are just greedy and have some childish sense of entitlement who could, and would, buy the game but because of pirating they decide not to give the developer/publisher their business.

If you are too poor to buy the game then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale. Since pirating doesn't actually take someone elses disc, then it is victimless (since you also would not have bought the game).

You can't compare stealing a car to it.

If you are too poor to buy the car then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale.

Also try to not ignore 90% of posts you try to refute, it just makes you look dumb. Having the resources available means that people who can buy the game, who would have bought the game, who are a lost sale not buy the game.

Read my post. If you're too poor to buy a car, and steal it, then somebody else is still losing a car. If you're too poor to buy a game, and pirate it, nobody else is missing a game.

What if you steal it from the plant, where no dealer or owner has purchased it?

It is a terrible analogy but if you cannot disprove something as simple as it then your other point is complete rubbish.

 

[TerranReaper]

This thread should be renamed "To anyone who thinks piracy is ok and gives a crap of what other people's opinions about it". I don't think a lot of people that pirates stuff will care whether it's right or wrong. Just throwing that out there.

I got a question though, what if someone pirates a game that has been released a long time ago, maybe a game that came out about 6 years ago? Is it still considered wrong? Because I'd imagine companies don't really make money out of it any more.

 

[captain underpants]

There's lots of things that are not ok in this world. Software piracy rates somehwere near the bottom in terms of importance.