I did dismiss it as unlikely

Oh please, stop trying to make up excuses, WALKING is bad period. If everyone walked, there would be no cars.

another reason why Canada is awesome!

this argument doesnt make any sense.  by walking you are getting  a vastly inferior experiance.

walking /= pirating

walking = doing wthout the game or music

pirating= making lots of copies of a car and giving them away for free.

The point was different things suit different people. When people want the packaging, online support, support developer, they'll go legitimate, when people want a sample, free game, instant digital copy, before release, no DRM, etc. they'll get the pirated version.

Both will co-exist, and always have done, and what's that? The video game market is actually growing?

I would still loose money even if i bought less games, demos are a good way but not that widely supported (over here at least).

No it doesnt create a culture that says it´s ok to only download ( I am not adressin the illegal part as that depends on where you are and here it isnt illegal to download and there isn´t yet a downloader ONLY that has been convicted not even in US). What it does create is a generation that will learn to do the responsible thing by buying the games they like.

Well it isnt stealing so it´s hard to teach them that. You would teach them to use it the way I do and they will learn to grow up as responsible people unless you teach them that it is stealing and they end up downloading anyway.

Dont really understad your 3rd answer so I cant respond.

The last answer I leave unresponded as that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

Tonight gamesession is a perfect example: NMH2 was a game I was going to get and I did my research and was more convinced that it was a game I would enjoy, keep and give me value after trying it for about 30 min I now know I wont be buyin it at all it was so dissapointing, the only way I am playing that now is if someone I know gets the game and I have time to play it then maybe i will try and finish it just to get the full story since i loved the first one.

FF chrystal bearers: I was never going to get this game and again I did the researched and it just reinforced my beliefs but after trying it tonight I am going to buy it lovet the first 20 min and I am excited to get the game and  continue.

This happened tonight i tried those 2 games before I went on the play Fatal Frame 4, because i can download I now saved money from not buying NMH2 and selling it back due to my dissapointment and instead I found a new game I liked for the money I saved wich was FFCB a game I would never thought I would buy.

I never said everyone would start buying the games they borrowed or rented, just as not everybody downloadin is buying the games they download, what I am saying is there are a big portion of gamers that do buy the games they download,rent or borrow and that is what the gaming Industry should try a nurish that are the positives from downloading/renting/borrowing.

Nothing stops them from doing the same thing again, this is up to personal responsobility and even if you couldnt download a person that wouldnt buy the game he could download would instead rent it or borrow it if he couldnt download it so the industry is not missing out on any sale on this kind of people and thats the ones they are trying to chase down.

Dont have PS3 so I know nothing of PSN, havent used xbla at all so i cant comment I love Wiiware but I hate that i have to buy the same games again on VC as I allready have on NES,SNES,N64 those games I install without paying but the Wiiware ones I happily pay for the ones I like like World of goo, Helix, Wild west guns and soon bit trip beat I also bought pacman even though i have it on a bunch of different systems and even on my phone that game is a must on any electronic device and I will pay for it every single time.

It doesn't matter if piracy is good or bad for the industry. All that matters is that its their property and not yours. If they don't care about people pirating then fine. Its like how some bands allow people to stream their music on youtube and others constantly get their music removed.

The decision isn't your choice. Since you don't own the property. People that pirate occasionally and also purchase stuff just as much aren't the problem. But thinking that seeding a file to hundreds of thousands of people is moral is the height of arrogance.

Of course pirate if you want, no-ones going to stop you. But I'm sick and tired of people taking the moral high ground, why can't people just admit they're in the wrong? As I said its arrogance and self-importance. Good for you, you sent a file to a few thousand people, you haven't enriched the culture of the world by doing so. Your self importance is based on living vicariously through greater people.

@Article in the OP

Here is the basic flaw in that logic.

The large companies create the content. The entire purpose in creating content is in order to pay salaries and bonuses of those who worked to created or advance the company in some say. Thus, keeping people employed.

If, as the article suggest, no one paid for the content, then no one would be employed to create the content. Thus, paying for the content, ensures future content.

What the article is suggesting, is that most people should continue to pay for the content, but those who feel they don't want to pay for said content, shouldn't be required to. However, it certainly isn't fair that some people have to pay for the content when others do not, if we assume that no one really wants to pay for something they could get for free. The ones who don't pay are no more deserving of free content than those who do pay, and as we've mentioned, someone must pay for the content to be created at some point, unless people start working for free. The ones who don't pay have won no contest, and no one has chosen them to be the people who don't have the pay, they chose to do that themselves, and in doing so, they broke the law, cheated the company who created the content, and unfairly benefited from those unfortunates who must pay for content(because once again, someone MUST pay for the content or else it will not be created).

In my opinion, that is immoral, but that isn't a fact.

Morals are always relative to the person judging them.

That said, if the article is trying to paint the publishers and developers who create content, as rich money-grubbing corporations who are too greedy to give their games away for free, and if the article is trying to paint pirating as a noble revolution towards a great anarchist state, then the article is ignorant, plain and simple, and its arguments in that instance would amount to nothing more than an unconvincing justification for amoral and illegal actions committed against the industry that it proclaims to defend.

I like to give the money to the people who made the game, music, movie, etc that I enjoyed. Nothing wrong with making money off your work, it is how it should be. It is just ............... to expect it all to be free and in the end perhaps lose one of your favorite companies.