It seems that vlad321 doesn't respond to those in this thread that make arguments why it's ok to buy used that are different from arguments that pirates can use.

I said before how the producer of a game can see how much it sells for used and then can do something about it to compete with it. Offer more on the disc, bundle the game, lower their price plus many other things. When they see what people are willing to pay for the game they can work to get those dollars. Money the see people spending, not hypothetical money that a pirate might someday decide to pay.
Without the used games the publisher would be taking all the profits without as much motivation to be offering more for it. Used games are ways for being to get more value out of what the publisher makes. That could be used for pirates as well however used games respect the right of the publisher to produce the disc and content on it. One disc one person or small group playing the game. Pirates don't respect that at all.
When I buy a copy of a used game there is one less game in circulation for other buys. A limited supply for a limited number of buyers. When someone pirates a game the number of games in circulation stays the same and if we counted the number of copies the potential is infinite. So an infinite supply for a limited demand for the game thus making it that people feel they should pay nothing.
Now try to say arguments of if almost everyone bought used vs if almost everyone pirated. If almost everyone bought used who would have the game but a select few since there has to be a used game someone is selling. So there is still incentive for people to buy new. With pirating everyone could have the game who wanted it. So where is the intensive for anyone else to buy the game.
For me moral is a standard where I expect others to do as I do. If everyone did as I do and buy a game when it's a price I find reasonable be it used or new. If we all act that way the publisher get's money and we get the games. If I found it ok to pirate the game and everyone else felt the same as me. There wouldn't be much money for publishers unless they make things that can't be pirated and even then who knows if anyone would be bothered to buy it for any price.

I do, your arguments are the same as ironman's and a bunch of others, the replys are in my replies to them.

1. Pirates don't produce physical discs, there exists only ONE disk with piracy, no one produced a second disc. As far as the publisher sees, they got paid for 1 disc yet more than 1 person played it, whether it's piracy or used.

2. The fact that there is a limited supply of used games would be a very good argument if I didn't walk into gamestop and seen a fairly nice supply of Uncharted 2, so I doubt the used game market is supply constrained at the moment. Hate to break it to you, but the discs cost a few cents to make, there is no for publishers EVER being supply constrained in any way shape or form. Theoretically this is a great argument, in reality however it is not so.

3. Well your moral must be skewed because if you think that it's fine to buy used games but are not fine with pirating you are one horrible hypocrite.

I don't think you realize that games aren't property, they are intellectull property, an idea. Anyone who experiences the idea has made use of the property and needs to pay for it to the person who owns said property. The retaielrs bought a physical disc, not the idea on it, he idea still belongs to the developer and people who use it need to pay them, not the retailer.

There is a difference between IP laws and copyright protection. 

Intellectual property, in some form, always exists since property exists. "It is my plan, my story, my painting, don't use it."  A world without IP laws would need to be a utopian communist society where everyone gets everything, and artist only work for the sake of art, scientists invent things only for science, and Starfleet officers voluntarily explore the Galaxy just for fun, and virtue. 

On the other hand, copyright protection laws rose around the industrial revolution, when mass production was expensive, and copying it was a big deal. Getting profits from it was just a side effect, since the product was sold for profit, the IP owner could keep it, and thus, directly selling the IP material for money became the standard business model. In any other situation, they would have been forced to find another source of revenue.

Now the Internet is changing things again. It is the Information Age. Copying things is no longer a big deal. Every downloading is a copy. When you use a copyrighted character as your avatar, you copy it. When you get rickrolled, you copy that song into your PC's memory from Youtube. When you take a screenshot from the game you are playing, and you copy the on-screen characters that are the publisher's IP. 

As music, gaming, books, and films are getting changed to Digital Distribution, people start wondering: what stops them from copying them as casually as they copy every other data in their life? Some old obscure law from an age when copying was big deal? 

Publishers might keep their IPs, but they MUST soon find new ways for revenue instead of selling the product for a price, as there is no longer a product, just some sort of service.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't moral.  Most illegal things are moral, at least to me.

To answer your question, pirating is sometimes not moral.  All of the other things you mentioned are moral.

Retyping a book and giving it to your friend is a violation of IP because you're producing something. Giving an CD you own isn't because you don't produce anything, just transfering your own property to someone else. IP is the right to use/produce something. You can't actually "own" an idea, brand name, code, etc.

I thought that there was IP and there were different things for it:

Copyright

Patent

Trade Mark...(?)

Fuck I don't feel like looking in my econ textbook (oh wait, I actually have to start sucking it up and study again =/ Man, after midterm I just became lazy).

Haha, I guess I'm violating IP by doing this, but for the sake of teaching IP:

I'll love to type the entire text book, but I'm tired and shouldn't O.o

Look, if we go the route of vlad, we will be denying people to trade or give ANYTHING. How many things are NOT copyrighted, involve patented technology, or not have a fucking brand name? Especially when we live in a modern society with mass production instead of some local farmers building a desk. No, when you buy a desk from IKEA, there's a brand name on it, an person who designed the desk (crappily probably, if it's from IKEA) and submited his design to be protected.

I can't even give my can of Coke away since Coca Cola has the IP rights to it.

*** HOWEVER, IP IS ONLY INVOLVED IN FUCKING PRODUCING >.<  ***

Coca cola, doesn't actually have any rights over my can of coke. It's MY private property, not theirs. I simply don't have the right to use their brand name to sell my own cheap coke formula.

I can own a game and give it away and sell it. I just don't have the right to PRODUCE (or REPRODUCE) the game myself, and sell it. Or make my own game and slap Bioshock with the same cover art on it, and sell it.

I don't think you understand. The CD IS your property, but just the CD. The game however is NOT your property for you to transfer. It's the intellectual property of the developer. You are not allowed to sell their property. You can sell the CD after you have wiped off the developer's properties off of it, it is yours after all.

Also I don't care whether you share or not. I want you to realize that saying that piracy is bad but you go and buy used games is extreme hipocrisy.

Neither. Universal morality does not exist.