Gamestop makes money for doing their job and its immoral?  They probably use the money to pay for expenses, not for killing puppies.

Well said.  You can call it theft, or piracy it is still a crime.

there is no morel problem with Second hand, renting or lending. Pirating as in downloading, getting a copy from a mate and so forth is a whole different kettle of fish. There are two types of Pirate though. The Pirate who buys a game, plays it, copies it then sells it second hand without any plan to post on the net, burn off for a friend or share in any other way can in no way be put in the same bucket as a pirate who doesn't buy games downloads them, uploads them and burns for friends or cash.

Legality has nothing to do with this discussion, as outlined in the thread title.

The thread title is flawed.  Pirating is illegal whereas lending, renting, and used game sales hurt the industry but are perfectly legal.  Morality is the judgement of the difference between right and wrong.  Clearly committing a crime would be worse than not.  If we were to pretend that pirating is not a crime, then they are all essentially equal in terms of harm to the games industry.  Pirating would still be slightly worse, because only one copy of the game would need to be legally purchased for the copying to occur.

It's not wrong - it just operates under the assumption that "legality" and "morality" are not necessarily equivalent.

If you can't operate under that assumption then participating in this conversation is impossible.

Yes, and materials cost you 10 cents to make a video game. Video games arent about the maaterial thing but about what's ON the material thing, cars are not. You don't need thousands to create your own game either.

Also for it to be a valid analogy cars should be allowed to be copied perfectly within minutes, which they are not. You are arguing with a fallacy of analogy.

Also selling games IS worse than pirating them. YOU are making money off of someone else's brow. That guy you jsut sold to could have paid them, but he didn't. Just as with piracy, the developers don't see anything, however YOU make money off of it.

^ This is getting old. The way you are saying it is the EXACT same as selling used cars. I make money selling my used games just as i make money if i sell my used car. I did not create it or design it and i would be "making money" by selling it. The fact that i cant copy my car within 5 minutes is irrelevant as were not discussing piracy other than saying whether its worse or not in relation to selling your used game so its completely irrelevant. you my good sir are the one trying to argue with a fallacy of the analogy.

In the end Pirating (yes it is stealing) is far worse than selling a used game.  Besides its not like im going to sell it for more than i payed for it so how exactly am i making money? When i sell it i NO longer have access to the game whereas pirating i still have access to it and i grant access to others to use it as well. Pirating is what cheats the industry more than used games do

I assume you apply the same logic to all used goods?  Also, retailers are buying games and then selling them TO MAKE A PROFIT, aren't they then just as bad as pirates, and even worse than someone who sells a game second hand(as they generally, at best, break even)?

dont bother. Ive been arguing that for quite a while now. He refuses to accept that he holds used game sales to a double standard

But whatever let him pay $60 for a game that we'll get for $20 later it makes little difference to me