By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Runa216 said:
TheMythmaker said:
Really? It's not letting my text show up? Screw it :

@Runa216

This hurts my head...it cannot be fully justified, and yet, having said that, you proceed to try and justify it anyway?

Anyway, firstly, "copying." Allow me to take your argument to its full extension. Say someone buys an ebook off Amazon, cracks it, and starts giving it away for free. Is this different from someone ordering a book off of Amazon, copying it exactly, and giving it away for free? Would you find this just as irreprehensible?

Secondly, your assertions are naive. Intentions apply to cause, not effect. You can't simply say "it's okay if we copy it, because we did it just to have fun, and they did it for personal gain." Leaving completely aside how messed up that philosphy would be applied broadly, it's still morally reprehensible to take what isn't yours when the person who made it wants you to pay for it.

Finally, "wouldn't have paid for it anyway?" People aren't entitled to specific forms of entertainment. They don't have the right to play the games they want if they can't afford them. Heaven forbid that they have to save up to pay for the game they want to play. No, they have a god-given right to play that game right now, rather than a few months down the road when it's dropped in price.

Okay, maybe that's not fair, but people pick and choose their entertainment based on what they can afford. If you had enough money to watch a movie in theaters, how are you justified sneaking into an IMAX, for instance?

Thirdly, a production team for a game consists of hundreds of contributors, few of them "millionaires." And while their salary might not ride on the success of the product, their job security does, to an extent. A studio whose game doesn't sell well is probably going to feel the effects, don't you think?

The book analogy is the exact same as a cam rip, DVD rip, or game copy, no need to go to outside sources for it.  As it stands, I fail to see how copying a game, movie, book, or anything else is, in the eyes of the publisher, any worse than lending it.  They don't own it, they just have a copy of it.  The publisher didn't get money from it, but do you see any issue with lending games to a friend?  This piracy issue is little more than a global trading camp, the only difference  is that anyone can borrow it from anyone else rather than having to have a friend nearby who has it.  Again, the effect on the publisher is the same, but they've turned this into a 'theft' thing, pretending it's a crime becuase they see the opportunity to make more money.  


Actually, I'd argue it's different because it's a full new active copy.

Example.  I lend you my copy of Skyrim and you can play Skryim.... buuuut I can't until I get it back to you.  So either you have to borrow it from me everytime you want to play it... and it has to be at a time I don't want to play it as well.   Meaning you might buy it.

Versus online where I could upload it... I can play it, and so can anyone with a stable internet connection.

So really it's more economically the same as simaltaniously lending your copy to eveyrone who wants it at the same time while also playing it.