Pirating. Then renting. then gamestopping, and lending being at the bottom

You know that the Companies earn money with rents. I dont know how its working in the US but here the Companies are selling licences for a couple of thousend dollars. Or they earn individually on every rent. So its a good way to earn money for them. Its like renting movies that wouldnt be concidered as immoral. Atleast I cant see the reason why it should be immoral.

I take it you know nothing about cars. Cars require not only materials to construct but require extensive amount of Ideas. Far more than a video game. you could go out and buy all the materials needed to make a car for far less than the actual car would cost you but whats the point of that. Materials do not make the car it is the ideas and creative genius behind it that you really pay for. The cost of materials is far below the actual cost of the car much like the cost of the media the game is printed on is far less than $50.

In the end my argument still stands. By your logic if i sell my used car i am immoral because i am "MAKING" money off of the car manufacturers idea. Which everyone here (with possibly the exception of you) know that this is a ridiculous statement.

I would like to throw a wrench in your logic:

Many people say piracy is not theft because you are not taking a physical object. However, this logic does not apply to videogames because it is not part of the product industry (the making of a physical product and selling it), it is part of the service industry. The service of entertainment.

In that sense, it is a lot like going to the doctor or a lawyer. What are you stealing from them if you don't pay them? Time. Time they could have spent on someone else who would have paid them instead of you. It is the same for video games. If the people they are making a game for pirates the game, then they stole the time they spent on a project they could have spent on making a casual game that wouldn't be pirated (for example).

Next point: People who try to justify their piracy say that they will buy the same number of games as if they don't pirate. First off, what entitles them to more games without paying. Secondly, how do they make that determination, magic? How are they sure they are spending the same amount of money they would otherwise? I don't think anyone could be that insightful about themselves.

People also say if they like the game they pirate they will buy the game. Once again, I don't know very many people that know themselves that well. That they would be able to play a game and say "I wouldn't have bought this if I knew it better". They are just making excuses.

@scottie
1) Don't know what to say about this, must have missed some part of the conversation.
2) You are right. Not a justification for piracy.
3) Not a justification for piracy. You, as a consumer, are not entitled to anyones work for free. Don't have enough money for two games, cut back on expenses or get a better job
4) morals, ha! People who pirate just want something for free. Plus, if you pirate x game so you have enough money for y, why should y company get compensated for their work but not x? Plus, a person who already pirates is more likely to just pirate game x and y and not pay for either and then buy a game down the road to justify his/her piracy.

I legally own 250+ games most of which I bought before joining the USAF at which time I had a lot of debt for other reasons. I don't see how people can complain they "Don't have enough money". I bet they just pick of games and don't complete them because a new shiny one pops up in a week.

wow....by the time I post there were another 10 posts.  Oh well.

No it doesn't. You know about mass production? That makes it cheap. If you or I wanted to build a car from scratch with buying all the iron and the metal molding tools etc. it would actually costs us close to what a normal car would. It's cheaper for companis because of mass production and past the initial investment they can just churn out cars VERY cheaply. That is AFTER the initial cost of factories and equipment. Do you or I have that equipment? No, so it will cost us a shitton to make our own cars, hence the cost. When you buy the caar you buy the materials that you don't have to pay for.

You are comparing physical to abstract items, faulty analogy. Can I pirate a car? Can I just take 5 mins and make a perfect copy? No? Even faultier analogy.

When it comes down to it, morally used game market is far more effed up than the pirate scene.

Even if you never intended to buy the game and then pirate it (I think this is usually just an excuse), you are still supporting the sites which sell the pirated games and the longer the site survives the more popular it gets and the more people will use it to pirate games just because they don't want to pay, so you are supporting the "pirate industry". I think there are some situations where pirating isn't so bad but in most situations i think it is wrong.

Another topic I didn't cover: Is buying used games immoral.

Seeing as the used market is inevitable for any product (like furniture and movies) I don't see why the gaming would be exempt.

However, lets look at the following scenario: There is 1 new copy of game x and 1 used copy of game x. I don't want to buy it new so I want to decide between buying it used or pirating. Now, after I make my decision, another gamer comes in wanting to pay for the game legally.

Now lets look at the two possibilities:
I pirate game: I get the game for free. 2nd gamer probably buys a used copy. Game store gets nothing from me, but money from 2nd gamer. Developer gets nothing.
I buy used copy: I get the game at a discount. 2nd gamer buys a new copy. Game store gets money from both of us. Developer sells one game.

This, I believe, is a simplified version of a common scenario. Developers would sell more new games if people who pirated bought used games instead. Therefore piracy is worse than buying used games.

And video games arnt mass produced? If you were to make a game it wouldnt take you thousands of hours? It wouldnt take thousands of dollars to create your own game? Much like cars and the Ideas behind them (aerodynamics, suspension, engines etc.)

I like how you try to attack my argument (unsuccessfully i might add) with a technicality yet are unable to defend your own.

Edit: Our argument is about the moral repugnancy of the used game industy not pirating games. I think that pirating games is far more morally wrong than selling my used games is and by your statement which highlighted it seems that you do too and i have won this argument.

Hold up.

In your Pirating example, 1 guy pays $50. Everyone else gets it free, and everyone still has access to play the game.

In your second hand example, 1 guy pays $50. Once he sells it, he cannot play it again, and must either buy or rent the game if he desires to play it. This includes each person who owns the game - once they sell it, they cannot play the game again (this is important). Also, each person who owns the game is not making money - overall, they break even. How can they be making money amongst themselves?

I imagine you're thinking of a place like Gamestop. In that case, each customer that buys the game loses money, while Gamestop makes money off each sale. I suppose you can consider that immoral, but I think it's fair game - they're simply making money doing people a service, which is making it easy to find cheaper (used) games. It's an alternative to places like Ebay or half.com.

Edit: Forgot to mention why being unable to play the game is important. Basically, there's a limited amount of second hand copies. If all of these are bought up, one must look to new copies in order to play (which means $$ for devs). Pirating increases supply (by creating copies), which can potentially decrease demand (and therefore, the price).

I predicted this would disolve into a war of terminolgy it always does. The Pirate hides behind the theft argument every time. The original discussion was about morals and as I said society decrees it immoral. Argue all you want but getting something for nothing because you cannot or do not want to pay for it, it does not make it moral. Argue all you want about the symantics of what you consider theft to be, it does not make taking something that is not yours to take right.