Nova Helix said:
I find Notch's argument to be complete crap. If I steal a new 3D TV but watching it convinces 4 friends to by it it is still stealing. If you pirate a game it is the same thing.
Oh great, more childish arguments like this. He's written a length post discussing the economics and intrigue in the scenario and you basically 'lulz' it away with the same old tired "But if you stole a material good blah blah blah" argument. As always incorrectly trying to apply physical goods economics to a virtual good.
His argument is very simple:
Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.
This is his point. And yes, He'd much rather person A bought the game, but he can't deny that the availability of the game via other means did end up turning better than zero profit. He's making an argument from an economic standpoint, not an ethical one.
This kind of analysis is about as reasonable as saying "Buying games when they are on sale is unethical, because you didn't pay full price!" The merchant knows they can get more total sales by having the sale. They might even give away free ones to build up hype.
Yes there is a difference of volition here, in one case the merchant is purposefully taking the per unit price hit for the overall gain, and in the other they aren't, but they do end up with similar results.
Please, if you want to discuss this, at least address the full issues at hand, and don't reply to thought out prose with the equivalent of a 'party line'.