Uh, pirating, obviously.

If you don't hate Ebay and Amazon.com then you don't hate used games, and since you equate the two, you don't hate piracy.

If you don't hate piracy, then your motivations appear as if you are actually justifying piracy rather then condemning used gaming.

Do you hate piracy?

Do you perform piracy?

I've told you the difference many, many times.

One stimulates the economy, when money changes hands, and it sanctioned by a vastly large part of the industry, and in most cases is actually depended upon by said industry through middlemen.

One stimulates nothing, no money changes hands, it's illegal, and is looked upon with disgust from everyone within an industry which requires money to function.

When I told you this, you said that the part of the industry that depends upon used gaming is stupid, middlemen are stupid, and we should all rise up and burn them.

Do you understand why your statements make me question your reasoning?

Piracy= Producing/Reproducing a product with IP we do not own.

Used game= Trading, giving, selling, etc a private property we own.

But IF i am genius, do i have a rigty to copy a ferrari with my own hands and some materials? If not, then why i don`t have such a right after i bought a product?

Infinitve profit, it`s when you once invested in product, created it, and then started to get infinitive profit for selling it without any new investments. I mean, for creating ferari you need technology and material, for a chair you need wood and technology. But from idea you are getting money like forever? Who gave you such a right? Maybe after 5 year someone would create such technology and give it for free for society wealth. Like penicillin for example. And the whole medicine, how can anyone make money on people illness?? It`s just sick.

Anyway, who gave a right to forbid a copying?

People here seem pretty vigilant on downing and belittling these labled "pirates" and their belief that any and all information should be free.

I think the idea of Intellectual Property is rather a bit silly, sure it is a common practice now days to claim an idea as your's and your's alone. An idea no one else can think and act upon?

People nowdays are often forced to sign non compete clauses (these are almost entirely in place to protect intellectual property of a company to maximize its profit) in order to get a job, then limiting their freedom to find their next job.

An intellectual property is a property that can never be taken away, can be reused indefinately, and can be modified into an indefinite multitudes of other ideas to be resold again and again and again... Sounds like selling an unlimited resource at a limited resource's price. (Many useless rehashed products come to mind o.o )

If Intellectual properties were done away with (All information was free). This would free up resources often spent in redundant technology research, tens of thousands of lawsuit cases, Anti-competitive patenting, patent sitters, unemployable people, etc.

This is an interesting lecture over the legal side of Intellectual Properties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1jdYIMKPiA

Also, here is a fair article over the global economic ramifications of patents. (and intellectual properties in general) http://fare.tunes.org/articles/patents.html  The cost to society far exceeds the benefit of the owner of the intellectual monopoly.

I didn't say anything about piracy, did I?  Feeling a might bit guilty are we?

Cars are comparable in that:

1.  Both industries have billions in revenue, yet most companies are bleeding money.

2.  Both industries have a very large secondhand market that takes away sales from the original manufacturer.

What's strange is that the auto industry embraces used car sales, making resale value and trade-ins an intrinsic part of car ownership, while the game industry wants to blame the secondhand market for lost revenue when they really should be looking at their bloated, inefficient, graphics=penile length, delusional development cycle.

Here's a fun anecdote that you'll blithely ignore: I bought Bioshock used because I didn't know what to expect and didn't want to be out $60.  I will buy Bioshock 2 new because I fully believe that the sequel will be worth it.  Used games help convert people.  Why do you think that sequels sell so much better than original IP?  Because large numbers of people have played the original, more than the number sold new (due to used sales and loaners).  That's why good IPs will sell more and more new copies with new releases, because so many people have been exposed to the game that they are willing to fork over the $ right away.

I'm really curious at this point, to know if you think that developers are losing money mostly due to these "immoral" practices, or if you might admit that the development process is a huge factor in industry losses.  (How long did it take "Too Human" to come out again?  And how good was that game?)

Wow, I see that now.  I weighed in after a few pages of posts.

I don't think I'll be reading all 13 pages in any case, or much more of the latest debate as it appears rather . . . circular.  (Look, this isn't an argument.  Yes it is.  No it isn't.  Yes it is.  It's just contradiction.  No it isn't.)

Legallity has nothing to do with it, that was ruled out in the OP.

Also it's not a huge stimulus to the industry. Middlemen aren't the ones producing the games, and  considering I have 2 gamestops within a 5 mile radius I'm thinking they are well over stimulated with their business, which you know I equate with piracy. Would it be any different if they were putting up torents on their web pages and making people pay for downlpading the .torrent file?

If IP rights were done away with companies would just stop innovation and research.