Which is moraly (not legaly) worse? Secondhand _ Pirating _ Renting_Lending

[vlad321]

Akvod said:

vlad321 said:

I don't think you understand. The CD IS your property, but just the CD. The game however is NOT your property for you to transfer. It's the intellectual property of the developer. You are not allowed to sell their property. You can sell the CD after you have wiped off the developer's properties off of it, it is yours after all.

Also I don't care whether you share or not. I want you to realize that saying that piracy is bad but you go and buy used games is extreme hipocrisy.

I just realized, if we go with your logic, that the CD is our property, but not the contents, we should have to wipe our CDs NOW, before we even consider selling or trading the CD. We're in possesion of something we don't own.

Look, you don't understand. I define having rights to IP as having the right to produce said product. That's why copying is a violation of that, you're producing something you don't have the right to produce.

 

I'm done O.o

 

So you believe:

We cannot give any of our private property away, if it has IP protection on it. So that means you cannot offer somebody a bag of chips, sell an old book, give away an old furniture, etc.

If it is protected by IP, the property itself isn't our private property, but still owned by the company, as opposed to the company simply having the exclusive right to produce the product (like medicine).

 

You don't think, intuitevely (COMMON SENSE, stop thinking like a robot and applying "Do devs get money? Y/N?"), that if the government adopts that, we will be living in a pretty fucking weird society.

Birthday parties and present would not be possible. Flea markets are illegal... >.<

 

Ok I'm done.

The intrinsic value of chips, as in your example, is in the physical material, same food, car, and most physical products. However a CD has no intrinsic value. The value comes from the IP on it. Go ahead ad offer your chips to whoever you want, don't steal money from the devs though.

@whatever

What I said above. If you are making an argument for second hand sales I can easily raise a valid argument for piracy too. All I'm saying is that you can't have one or the other. You can only have both as being immoral or moral. I'm perfectly fine with giving in to the second market not being immoral, as long as you admit piracy isn't as well.