Akvod said:
GlingGling said:
Akvod said:
| GlingGling said:
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.
|
You make a lot of sound arguments. And you made an accurate assumption at the end. When it comes to digital material I've always gone for the most convenient option. These days I almost never have to obtain digital property illegally.
Bringing capitalism into the picture complicates things: the definitions of capitalism aren't widely agreed upon, nor is there any guarantee our understandings match. Though, your statements make as much sense to me as my statements.
One thing I will always feel entitled to is not getting ripped off. It's only natural to want value for money.
As for having choices and knowing if things blow or not, like I've said it's not always obvious if something blows or not. Piracy is an option in deducing the blow factor. Like someone else said though, even if I find out something doesn't blow if I already have it there is a pretty low chance I'll get around to buying it (though I've done it several times).
For the record I've never obtained physical property illegally. Stealing a DVD from a store resonates strongly as illegal. But, what is the difference between borrowing that DVD from a friend and making a copy of that DVD? They accomplish the same thing, we both experienced the information on the DVD and only one person paid for it. It's hard to make myself believe that something physical and some digital are the same: conceptually they aren't the same. I can't try to say digital copyright law is wrong or find some way of working around it or invalidating it. I can say it doesn't resonate as appropriate.
You've really got me thinking about the actual definition of digital material and why I don't feel the same kind of guilt or barriers involved with physical theft. It's honestly something I'll have to give a lot of thought to. I know I'm not the only one to feel this way. Digital piracy simply doesn't bother a lot of people. I can't label it as right or wrong. Blindly following copyright law isn't the answer either.
|
And you made an accurate assumption at the end.
So you say I'm correct in that you willingly violate the natural rights of men for your own personal gain?
Bringing capitalism into the picture complicates things
Then don't bring it in
One thing I will always feel entitled to is not getting ripped off.
Did you not read my last point? You can never get ripped off in a perfectly competitive market. You have the possibility of there being a monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly/price floor, etc. But ultimately a free market is one where you have CHOICE. No, not the choice to set the price. You personally don't have it. Although the collective, the market, can. This is supply and demand. I think diamonds are worthless for example. But you'll probably think it's a bad idea to make them go on sale for say, 1 dollar, right? They'll sell out, and the people who wanted them the most won't get it. It is also always in the interest of an individual supplier, if it is a perfectly competitive market without any coalition/planning, to increase the supply, lowering price and quantity
IF you think that there is a product that is price TOO HIGH, DON'T BUY IT. That's your choice, and one that is taken for granted. You're also being overly demanding to set your own personal price. Like I said, it is a collective process, the demand of EVERYONE, the supply of EVERYONE. Not yours.
It's only natural to want value for money.
Yes, that's why you buy the product, if that value (marginal benefit) is equal to, or greater than, that quantity of money.
As for having choices and knowing if things blow or not, like I've said it's not always obvious if something blows or not. Piracy is an option in deducing the blow factor. Like someone else said though, even if I find out something doesn't blow if I already have it there is a pretty low chance I'll get around to buying it (though I've done it several times).
Oh sure, we just pirate to check stuff out right? This is getting beyond principles, but more theoretical economics, but then you'll simply have a perceived marginal benefit curve. What you as a consumer needs to do is add negative marginal benefits whenever there are risks, lack of information. This punishes the supplier because there is a reduction in demand. Therefore, a supplier will benefit by giving out perfect information. There is also the fact that in the long run, the ability of a supplier to inflate perceived marginal benefit reduces. If the same guy scams you, you'll eventually not fall for it. Finally, there are many ways you can indeed try out a product, without pirating. Demos, trailers, listening to songs on youtube, talking to your friends, etc. Stop acting like you're completely helpless, nor that it's necessary to have the full product to make a solid judgement. Really, due to deminishing marginal utility, say you pirate a movie. You'll have a reduction in marginal benefit (demand), for the DVD, since you already watched the movie.
But, what is the difference between borrowing that DVD from a friend and making a copy of that DVD? They accomplish the same thing, we both experienced the information on the DVD and only one person paid for it
Intelectual property gives exclusive rights to the holder of that property, to exclusively PRODUCE OR REPRODUCE a product >.< *bangs head* I told you that two times now. Your friend does not violate that right when he hands you his copy, temporarily or permanently. But if you or your friend burns a copy, you do.
If you will like to discuss the principles of property law, read John Locke's Two Treaties
CHAP. V.
Of PROPERTY.
|
