Piracy vs Used Game Stores

[retKHAAAN]

See above "I see no harm in illegally accessing it."
Stealing is when you take my cyberdwarf pillow and I don't have it anymore. That's what happens with gas or a car. If a person could make it magically materialize in front of them, why shouldn't they?
Since there is no physical resource involved in manufacturing an executable file, there is no monetary loss when someone gets it without paying. The only issue is whether the authors would get paid when people can get their stuff for free. And as I've mentioned, if that weren't the case, no games would sell as of now.

Right. Copying and using something without the explicit permission of the owner of said item isn't stealing. It's just being a dick.

The reasons for piracy you listed above do not justify a crime.
Being too poor to buy a video game does not justify acquiring it illegally.
A game being difficult to find locally does not justify acquiring it illegally.
You are not entitled to play every video game that is released. You are not entitled to listen to every song that is written. You are not entitled to see every movie that is filmed. You are not entitled to read every book that is published. If you think otherwise, you should feel ashamed

 

[emigre]

A game being difficult to find locally does not justify acquiring it illegally.

This week I received three gaems I imported from NA because I can't buy them here. I truly am a hero of the industry.

 

[chrisrlink]

well it depends if you pirate say Pokemon black 2(which is a recent release) then yes it douse hurt them but say you pirate er Duck Hunt they lose nothing cause that game isn't even carried new (I hope not thats some old tech) and used game stores don't either

 

[pasc]

Well since that "so-called" piracy acutally made me buy alot of games because I found them so awesome I'll have to say:

Used Game Stores are more problematic. (But awesome from a gamer perspective).

This week I received three gaems I imported from NA because I can't buy them here. I truly am a hero of the industry.

*reads mind* they were not for the 3DS.

 

[pasc]

DELETE ME

 

[chrisrlink]

I can think of worse things with harsher punishment but still a $1mil fine it says warning piracy is illegal and may result i think a $15,000 fine so companies like nintendo should play by the rules as well

 

[FAST6191]

well it depends if you pirate say Pokemon black 2(which is a recent release) then yes it douse hurt them but say you pirate er Duck Hunt they lose nothing cause that game isn't even carried new (I hope not thats some old tech)

Copyright lasts for decades, they often do release said old games on new consoles and there is nothing theoretically stopping them from rereleasing the old game.

Indeed rerelease it then would probably be one of the things I would say to those moaning about second hand sales.

 

[Deleted member 158512]

Copyright lasts for decades, they often do release said old games on new consoles and there is nothing theoretically stopping them from rereleasing the old game.

Indeed rerelease it then would probably be one of the things I would say to those moaning about second hand sales.

True, and when you rerelease old stuff, don't make it some super Nintendo-clubhouse funzone platinum secret special! I will pirate the everloving crap out of your garbage if you restrict me from actually paying for it!!!

 

[Slamicite]

Right. Copying and using something without the explicit permission of the owner of said item isn't stealing. It's just being a dick.

The reasons for piracy you listed above do not justify a crime.
Being too poor to buy a video game does not justify acquiring it illegally.
A game being difficult to find locally does not justify acquiring it illegally.
You are not entitled to play every video that is released. You are not entitled to listen to every song that is written. You are not entitled to see every movie that is filmed. You are not entitled to read every book that is published. If you think otherwise, you should feel ashamed

Yes, that really is right.

How not?
How not?
How not?
How not?

The law once enforced racial segregation. The law today enforces that many religions be deprived of rights in some nations. An example that is much closer to your lifestyle is the legality of certain drugs.
Laws are a practical application of ethics that change with time. If something does not harm anybody and is perfectly moral, laws should change, not ethics. If you just sit there and accept law as the ultimate morals, companies will lobby to death to get whatever laws they want implemented and you won't protest because it's against the law. I expect you to understand that we are discussing morality, and law is obvious enough for both of us to know. So, if you want to tell me to feel ashamed, elaborate on why piracy is not ethical instead of telling what we all already know. How about answering my previous post? You know, about 'piracy' harming no one and everything else I said. Did you read that? Do you want me to put it in bullet points?

Since you seem to be into dubious rewording and using assertions as facts against things I never said, let me show how it would be in a world where cracking your fingers is not permissible:
The reasons for cracking your fingers you listed above do not justify a crime. It's ILLEGAL!
You can go wild, just replace 'piracy' with anything.

 

[EzekielRage]

The main difference is that I can pirate a game before it is released but i have to wait until a game is even available used. So those first two to three crucial weeks fo a new game release are compromised by pirating more than by used game sales because for a used game to be around somebody had to buy it new...

 

[retKHAAAN]

Yes, that really is right.

How not?You are not entitled to play every video game that is released. You are not entitled to listen to every song that is written. You are not entitled to see every movie that is filmed. You are not entitled to read every book that is published.
How not? You are not entitled to play every video game that is released. You are not entitled to listen to every song that is written. You are not entitled to see every movie that is filmed. You are not entitled to read every book that is published.
How not?You are not entitled to play every video game that is released. You are not entitled to listen to every song that is written. You are not entitled to see every movie that is filmed. You are not entitled to read every book that is published.
How not?You are not entitled to play every video game that is released. You are not entitled to listen to every song that is written. You are not entitled to see every movie that is filmed. You are not entitled to read every book that is published.

The law once enforced racial segregation. The law today enforces that many religions be deprived of rights in some nations. An example that is much closer to your lifestyle is the legality of certain drugs.
Laws are a practical application of ethics that change with time. If something does not harm anybody and is perfectly moral, laws should change, not ethics. If you just sit there and accept law as the ultimate morals, companies will lobby to death to get whatever laws they want implemented and you won't protest because it's against the law. I expect you to understand that we are discussing morality, and law is obvious enough for both of us to know. So, if you want to tell me to feel ashamed, elaborate on why piracy is not ethical instead of telling what we all already know. How about answering my previous post? You know, about 'piracy' harming no one and everything else I said. Did you read that? Do you want me to put it in bullet points?

Since you seem to be into dubious rewording and using assertions as facts against things I never said, let me show how it would be in a world where cracking your fingers is not permissible:
The reasons for cracking your fingers you listed above do not justify a crime. It's ILLEGAL!
You can go wild, just replace 'piracy' with anything.

You are a very confused person.

Who stated that we are discussing morality? If you'd like to discuss morality then how about..."When you illegally download a game without the permission of the creator and without compensating the creator, you are essentially telling the creator that their hardwork and effort is not worth the time it would take to acquire the necessary funds for a legitimate purchase."
To which a likely response might be, "Well, the developer's employees receive their paychecks regardless"
To which my answer might look something like, "And how many more jobs might be created (with the dev or elsewhere in the economy if purchased pre-owned) if everyone who played the game actually paid for it? How much more secure would a designer's job be if there wasn't a percentage of their userbase who stole illegally copied their blood, sweat, and tears?"
There's no such thing as a victimless crime.

You talk about morality? Since when is "acquiring" something illegally without compensating the owner morally right?

An example that is much closer to your lifestyle is the legality of certain drugs.

My lifestyle? Joo don't even know me. My body's a temple motherfucker... Ain't no questionably legal drugs going into it...

 

[the_randomizer]

The thing is, yes, we can agree that many of the original owners of these old games do not get compensated at all, but the fact remains that they're still copyrighted. Whether or not anyone benefits from it is moot. That being said, some people will always pirate, others will not. It doesn't help that there are so many vague laws about copyright.

 

[Slamicite]

If you'd like to discuss morality then how about..."When you illegally download a game without the permission of the creator and without compensating the creator, you are essentially telling the creator that their hardwork and effort is not worth the time it would take to acquire the necessary funds for a legitimate purchase."

Or you are essentially telling the creator that you don't have the money. Funds are not linearly obtained out of time.

To which a likely response might be, "Well, the developer's employees receive their paychecks regardless"
To which my answer might look something like, "And how many more jobs might be created (with the dev or elsewhere in the economy if purchased pre-owned) if everyone who played the game actually paid for it? How much more secure would a designer's job be if there wasn't a percentage of their userbase who stole illegally copied their blood, sweat, and tears?"

Everybody is able to 'pirate', people still buy games they like when they can. In a simplistic way, it's like you'd buy what you like the most, so that you give money to those who really put their blood, sweat and tears into their work rather than randomly to what you thought of at the time, which could as well be Imagine: Party Babyz.

Economy growth works like this:
capital is gathered -> people buy things -> economy gets stronger -> capital is gathered...
Said economy has been weak for a while now, and is likely to get worse as more and more jobs become obsolete. As you mentioned yourself, it's just a hobby, so it relies on the welfare of the more vital sectors, where most consumers work at, for enough money to be gathered. You are presuming it would be possible that everyone who illegally plays a game would otherwise pay for it, when it is not.

There's no such thing as a victimless crime.

A victim implies that said entity is suffering some sort of damage, which is not the case.

My lifestyle? Joo don't even know me. My body's a temple motherfucker... Ain't no questionably legal drugs going into it...

Oops, that came out horrendously. Sorry, I meant more like familiar to you due to the time and place where you live.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Or you are essentially telling the creator that you don't have the money. Funds are not linearly obtained out of time.

Everybody is able to 'pirate', people still buy games they like when they can. In a simplistic way, it's like you'd buy what you like the most, so that you give money to those who really put their blood, sweat and tears into their work rather than randomly to what you thought of at the time, which could as well be Imagine: Party Babyz.

Economy growth works like this:
capital is gathered -> people buy things -> economy gets stronger -> capital is gathered...
Said economy has been weak for a while now, and is likely to get worse as more and more jobs become obsolete. As you mentioned yourself, it's just a hobby, so it relies on the welfare of the more vital sectors, where most consumers work at, for enough money to be gathered. You are presuming it would be possible that everyone who illegally plays a game would otherwise pay for it, when it is not.

I think where we're getting lost here is that you seem to think that people should be able to play whatever videogames they want without having to pay for them. Where I very much disagree. You are not entitled to have something simply because you want it. That goes for anything, not just videogames. Your entire argument hinges on this "moral gray area" around copyright infringment that doesn't actually exist. And you treat the laws that protect IP as if they're oppressive in some way... Believe it or not, it is "morally right" to pay someone for their work.

As far as "trying out the product before committing to a purchase"...it's your responsibility as a consumer to know what you're buying with your money.

A victim implies that said entity is suffering some sort of damage, which is not the case.

Your response implies that devs/publishers incur absolutely no damage form piracy, which is not only impossible to finitely determine, but also extremely unlikely... You can't seriously believe that every person who pirates a game would have totally neglected it otherwise...

Oops, that came out horrendously. Sorry, I meant more like familiar to you due to the time and place where you live.

lol... I figured as much; was just messing around


As far as used game companies, they are within their full, legal rights to resell games as the IP owner has already been compensated for that copy of that game.

 

[Lestworth]

This is rather easy, Piracy has a much higher detriment to the companies then people who buy used games.

Typically a pirate will download a copy of a game thats not that good, or just stupid, just to play it for an hr or 2, thats fine. They NEVER had the intention of actually purchasing the game. HOWEVER when said pirate downloads a semi new AAA title, or highly anticipated title, then they are hurting the publishers and creators.

Buying a used game, is purchasing a game, that was already bought during its release / near release. To say that you should buy games brand new at full price a year later on a game, when you could save money in this horrid economy is crazy. Its why people purchase used cars more often then buying a brand new car. You get a used car, have it around for about 8yrs, and you spend 1-5k on it, rather then spending 20k+ (us).

If your theory is people who purchase used games are monsters, then your theory also applies to everything bought used; Clothes, cars, appliances, houses, sporting goods, ect ect ect ect.

 

[Shanester]

This again?

Could you please link me to the other thread that pits piracy and used game markets? Thanks.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Could you please link me to the other thread that pits piracy and used game markets? Thanks.

Lol... There's been at least 100 or so since I joined the site...

 

[Shanester]

Lol... There's been at least 100 or so since I joined the site...

I can't seem to find any. I've seen a few posts in general piracy discussions, but not a thread devoted to it. It doesn't really matter; if people don't want to post they don't have to.

 

[Slamicite]

I think where we're getting lost here is that you seem to think that people should be able to play whatever videogames they want without having to pay for them. Where I very much disagree. You are not entitled to have something simply because you want it. That goes for anything, not just videogames.

And my opinion on this point is, as long as there is no one losing anything, what is the problem?

As far as "trying out the product before committing to a purchase"...it's your responsibility as a consumer to know what you're buying with your money.

Not much trying it out before buying it, but buying what you like best.

And you treat the laws that protect IP as if they're oppressive in some way... Believe it or not, it is "morally right" to pay someone for their work.

They are. As far as piracy is concerned, though, there are only a few problems, namely how works can last forever, even centuries after their creators are dead, and how licenses work.
It is. The question is whether the opposite is not when there is no damage.

Your response implies that devs/publishers incur absolutely no damage form piracy, which is not only impossible to finitely determine, but also extremely unlikely... You can't seriously believe that every person who pirates a game would have totally neglected it otherwise...

There are people who just get it just because they can, that's indefensible. I don't know any way to measure those but as I've said, if there were that many, current games wouldn't be selling at all.

 

[retKHAAAN]

There are people who just get it just because they can, that's indefensible. I don't know any way to measure those but as I've said, if there were that many, current games wouldn't be selling at all.

That's a pretty extreme opinion to have... You're saying that if anyone was pirating new games, new games wouldn't be selling at all? Is it not possible that we're talking about maybe 2%-3% of gamers who pirate everything? While 2%-3% might seem minuscule...that is a lot of money in a multi-billion dollar a year industry. A lot of potential jobs. A lot of potential sales gone down the tubes.

So many people on this site seem to think that the majority of pirates only pirate games they wouldn't buy or that they go back and pay for the ones they like. That's a pipe dream. Just because someone says something on this site or in a survey, that doesn't make it true. How can anyone post claiming that piracy is victimless and morally "OK", and then expect readers to believe they don't always do it or that they're so virtuous in their abuse of the law?