vlad321 said:
Akvod said:
vlad321 said:
ironman said:
vlad321 said:
1. Why would he spend more money on the new title when he can just buy it used for less money? In which case the publisher will continue to not see money.
Because, as I have told you before, he can't get the game day one and enjoy it untill somebody else has already done so.
2. Please show me HOW pirate music and pirate gaming demographics are different. Prove means show me data, not just talk out of your ass, believe it or not the 2 people ae pretty similar. People who play video games listen to music, go figure, and people who know how to download music also probably play video games or they wouldn't be so good at pirating the music. Also the fact that pirating would skyrocket if used market goes away jsut goes to show you that the two are indeed very close to each other.
Easy, most people (if not all) who pirate games, pirate music. Many who pirate musc do not pirate games. Also the age demographics are differant. Just from what I have seen at Demonoid, the majority of game uploaders are in the 16 - 27 age bracket. This is not the case with music uploaders.
And actually, the fact that pirating would skyrocket if the used market goes away, shows you that you should not do away with the used game market. But thanks for trying!
|
|
1. Same with pirates. It took a week and a half to crack BioShock. Some Steam games take jsut as long. As such, maybe the pirate wants to buy it day one and not wait a week to get the game cracked. It also takes about a week for the fast people to finish their games and sell them used, so I don't see how this is even a valid argument at all.
2. Ok now you are just being stupid.
If A is a subset of B, and B has the property c, then property c also applies to A. You stated it yourself, game piates are also music pirates, but music pirates don't have to be game pirates. I agree on that. However studies have shown that Music Piates buy more albums than people who don't pirate. As such the game pirates are ALSO included in said study, meaning that on average they buy more digital software than people who DON'T pirate. Suggesting that piracy actually EXPANDS the market and helps it grow.
I suggestt you finish school befoe making any more arguments because they are jsut starting to sound desperate now. If you knew Set Theory 101 you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself there.
|
I have no idea why you guys are arguing about whether pirates expand or hurt the market. Pirating is immoral because it violates another person's right to property (intellectual). Re-selling/giving games isn't immoral because you aren't breaching the developer's right to intellectual property, and practicing your own right to property.
Even if pirating helps the gaming industry, they're still violating the rights of other human beings.
|
Yes you are. The person you sold the game to did not not pay the developer for his intellectual property. YOU got paid for the developer's intellectual property. You violate the intellectual property rights of the person who's intellectual property it actually is. The dis is your property, but the game still isn't, it's the intellectual property of the developer, who sees no money. You are basically stealing his income.
Also that's the worst argument I have ever seen. It helps the industry by makingn it more money but it's still bad!
|
If we say that it's immoral because the producer didn't get any money, then what about giving away/gifting products? The developer gets no money.
Or if it's because the re-seller made money and benefited from selling the product, what if the re-seller just gave it away instead? If making money is the defining issue, then it'll be ok for people to copy and give away things (the biggest example would be medicine).
Violating intellectual property isn't defined as "benefiting from the works/products of others". If we're going to do that, holy shit, are we going to be validating a lot of other arguments and craziness.
That's absolutely too general.
Going back to the giving away example here's 4 scenarios:
Consumer owns a copy of a product, and sells it.
Consumer owns a copy of a product, and gives it away.
Consumer replicates a product, and sells it.
Consumer replicates a product, and gives it away.
10 seconds, intuitevely, tell me what you think is right and wrong.
Now, tell me if you see any contradictions.
Leaving that aside...
When we resell a copy of a software or game that we own, we're selling a physical property that we own. The developer doesn't own our discs anymore, and doesn't own the actual data or coding inside it. They own the RIGHT TO PRODUCE the [data/code/art/brand name/etc].
