Elocution means exactly what you think it means. There is no verb equivalent, however, hence no "elocuting."

Elocution means oral presentation or deliverance. Does nobody know what www.dictionary.com is?

Anyway, I think the interesting thing is....you cannot fully justify piracy, but do you really have to? I mean, do millionaires really need more money? Realistically speaking, people on this board need money more than they do, I think, so naturally it's kind of silly to assume that copying something (not stealing it, as stealing would imply taking it out of possession of the owner) is hurting these people in any way.

While I'm sure there are some pirates who are doing it horribly (pirating, selling it on the blackmarket) and others who use stupid reasons to justify it (fuck that company, I'm not giving them my money but still want to play it, or it's not worth it blah blah), the fact of the matter is that most pirates are people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Let's put it simply: most people are basically honest, if they can afford something they will buy it or pay for it and not feel any remorse. It's the people who can afford it but simply chose not to that make all 'pirates' look bad.

As my example from earlier shows, I am certainly the former. if I have money, I buy it. I should show you guys a picture of my DVD shelf, I've got a LOT of stuff there and I get more whenever I can. Hell, I got my tax return last year and myPS3 list went from I think 31 games to now 72 games. More than doubling it. some of those were review copies I got from the site for review purposes, but I caught a lot of really good deals. Some on sale, some discounted, some used, and only a few I paid full price for...but I paid for them all legit.

I think I'm rambling. carry on!

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?

I pirate to see if something is worth my money in my head, and if it is, I pay for it even if I experienced it 100% on something pirated, but unfortunately most people don't function that way.

I see two elements - the income model for sure, but also the fact that these large companies in many ways exist to cover bulk costs for the artist/creator of the media.  So for example a publisher pays to print your book and takes a cut.  Clearly digital changes that but it doesn't remove all costs - servers and bandwidth are still required.

What I'd like is clear visibility to the costs and what is a fair return for involved parties.

For example let's say it costs £2 pounds to get the book in my hands, and it's deemed £1 pound should go to the publisher as profit and £1 pound to the author (just making up easy numbers here BTW).  In that case I'd happily pay £4 pounds for the book.

Now, if we switch to a digital model and the cost of getting th e book in my hands (or iPad) is only £1 pounds then I believe I should only be paying £3 pounds for the book - £1 to cover the cost of getting it to me (break even point basically) and then the same £1 pound each to the author and the company providing the servers, etc.

Obviosuly different media may have different approachs - but I agree, the goal should be to provide a good service and only ask a fair profit.  DRM, etc. doesn't help at all in my view - I suspect it actually hinders more than anything.

Equally though, if you want to play a game, watch a film or read a book someone has created which is there source of income you must be willing to enter into some form of trade for this.  Pirating is essentially chosing to consume the output (digital or otherwise) of someone else without any attempt at recompense.  I'm pretty sure that anyone pirating would be just as unhappy if they found themselves not being paid for their job and expected to simply accept they should provide their work for others to use for free.

I just feel that there is way too little transparency in the business model as well as the income model right now.

 Does this apply to games that  have available demos, do you feel you need access to the whole product to judge it before you buy it?

The whole point of the argument was to show that it has a strong dichotomy of morality.  On one hand there's nothing you can do to justify stealing something, assuming you see it that way. However, on the flipside, if you don't see it as stealing (which I don't), then there's no need to justify it.  Does that make more sense? 

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.  

How is it naieve? that would imply I'm only looking at the flowery half or something equally inane.  No, I simply see both sides of the argument here and am prepared to argue either side, depending on what others say. (bascially, if people were all pro piracy, I'd be going aggresive anti-piracy, as it stands it's a nice balance so I'm just kinda dicking around.)  

But either way, the point still stands.  I know a lot of people who pirate, none of which have the means to buy the stuff, bills are expensive, hours got cut, sacrifices had to be made.  Such is the economy.  While some pirates do it for stupid or selfish reasons, most just can't afford it.  While you say we 'have no right to a luxury' (not your words, paraphrasing here), how is this any different from borrowing it from a friend?  if I don't have Family Guy season 1 to watch at my leisure, how hard is it to go next door to my friend's place and say "hey, can I borrow your family guy?" The effect is the same to the publishers, they still don't get money from me watching their show, and nobody has a problem with that.  They haven't for years, decades even.  

I think this rumor of the next Xbox not playing used games is far more harmful to the economy than piracy ever was.  I'd gladly take the lesser of 2 evils, though like I said, I still prefer owning stuff to borrowing it or pirating it. 

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.

The biggest problem by far is China, as said by the companies supporting this bill. It's not Americans, or Euros who are downloading stuff illegally, it is China, who's avg salaries can no where near afford the cost of these games, movies, cds, etc. But, they are advanced enough to know what they want and what all of this stuff is, and they have PCs. Also, there are 1.3 BILLION of them. far more than Americans and Euros combined. And they don't play by the same rules if you haven't noticed. And what is the point any way? How will any of these laws stop the Chinese? It won't. How are you going to sue a Chinese guy who makes $3 a day for $598,789,798 for stuff he downloaded?

The other problem is the penalties. I'm sure many of you have seen that Michael Jackson picture making the internet rounds where if you download an album of his illegally, you can get more years in prison THAN THE GUY WHO KILLED HIM. Not to mention, Some guy downloads 12 albums illegally... and is caught. OK, then he should have to pay the cost of those 12 albums. But instead these companies sue him for 2 million dollars. Where the HELL do they get that number from!?

What is missing from this is how a CD costs LESS than a cassette tape to make. Yet for years they charged $20 a pop for a CD. Prices have gone down, but they are still far more than digital. Most artists make their money on tours nowadays, not music sales. That is why most do not mind the illegal downloads. They barely make money on it anyway. But as that spreads their music to ears it otherwise would not reach, now those people are more likely to pay $30 or whatever to go see that person when they are in their city next.