Another Look At Piracy

[Akvod]

GlingGling said:

Akvod said:

Really... I don't get the flipping of logic. You're not obligated to buy the product. You don't have the right to say "Where is my share?".

You lose nothing when a firm sets a price too high. The day before and after the release of a game, you lost nothing. You're only unrightfully taking something from somebody else, their labor, their sweat, their dignity as a man, by making them a slave.

Just wait for a price cut, or a shift of Supply. Then you'll get your money's worth.

The firms are not obligated to give you a game, nor give you a game you want. You have the right to rationally decide (is this worth it for me, or do I pass), so some fucking crying that you're only taking back something rightfully yours is bullshit.

You can't "take" a digital copy of a game. You can experience a game without paying for it. Don't forget these professionals get payed salary and maybe have stock options or bonuses based on how well a game sells. The main thing piracy directly affects in the video game industry is job security, and even that is a loose relationship. I would argue in capitalist societies that companies do have an obligation to produce attractive products at reasonable prices. Equally, any economy relies the movement of goods, the use of services, and the transfer of money: people are obligated to buy products. Overpricing and lack of value hinder a healthy relationship between producer and consumer. If you give a person a reason to want something they cannot obtain conveniently, they'll think of another way of getting that something. 

I'll give you a good example: before Netflix and popular streaming services I used to watch all of my television and movies from torrented downloads. Torrents were simply the most convenient way possible to get what I wanted when I wanted it. Netflix and other streaming services have actually made it immensely more convenient and they are either free (with reasonable ads) or reasonably priced. The formula: attractive product, reasonable prices, added value. 

You can't "take" a digital copy of a game.

Yes you can. IP is the right to exclusively produce or reproduce a software, music, etc. You have no right, the people who put it up online have no right. Lenders have a right, because they got permission from the creators. Second hand sales have a right, because while they have no right to reproduce the product, they can do as they please with their copy.

Don't forget these professionals get payed salary and maybe have stock options or bonuses based on how well a game sells.

So?

I would argue in capitalist societies that companies do have an obligation to produce attractive products at reasonable prices.

No in a capitalist society, you have choices. If there is a crappy product, that means that you choose the better product, and the crappy company fails. It's fucking ironic that people are saying "Man, this game fucking blows. Therefore, I shall take it". If the game blows, then don't fucking pirate it. It blows right?

 

Equally, any economy relies the movement of goods, the use of services, and the transfer of money: people are obligated to buy products.

There are other things an economy relies on, but the main thing is the establishment of property rights. Civil government is needed to enforce this.

Overpricing and lack of value hinder a healthy relationship between producer and consumer. If you give a person a reason to want something they cannot obtain conveniently, they'll think of another way of getting that something.

There is no such thing as "overpricing". There is only unprofitble, and price fixing/oligopolies/monopolies. If the price is above the equilibrium level, it will naturally fall. If it is below, it will rise. If the price is too high, then don't buy it. This is my point in my last point. This sense of entitlement. I think that diamonds are overpriced. For me personally at least. I have no interest in those fucking glittery rocks. But my mom doesn't. She loves that shit, and she's willing to pay for it. I'm at the very bottom of the Marginal Benefit (I get very little utitlity from the diamond), and my mother is at the center or above of that curve. The level of a price and the true value of the product varies from each person. There can be no overpricing.

I'll give you a good example: before Netflix and popular streaming services I used to watch all of my television and movies from torrented downloads. Torrents were simply the most convenient way possible to get what I wanted when I wanted it.

You were on the bottom half of the marginal benefit curve. Yet, you got to enjoy the fruits of the movie makers without having to pay for it, because you got it for free.

Netflix and other streaming services have actually made it immensely more convenient and they are either free (with reasonable ads) or reasonably priced.

There was a theoretical "price" of torrenting. That price can be measured by the opportunity cost of torrenting (risk of getting caught, hard drive space, the time it takes to download a movie, the bad quality, etc).

The price of the Netflix was cheaper, you went for that one.

 

 

... so your point is that you simply ignore property rights for your own benefit.