My beef with piracy.

[crazypsyko666]

This is the problem that I have with piracy.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4003-the-pirate-bay/

Also, I'm broke. I would love to pay for every game that I play. I would love to buy every console. I'd also like for there to be world peace, give every homeless person ten thousand dollars, and be out of high school. Like it or not, I can't do any of those. In fact, I can hardly buy one game a year with the money I end up with. I don't pretend I'm not stealing, but I'm playing the industries games, standing up for them in public, and hopefully supporting them later on in life. I hope they can support me for just a little bit longer.

Your argument is utter BS.

You've basically said 'I'd love to do things but I cannot afford them.' Which is true. However that does not logically equate to: 'So therefore piracy is okay.'

You've basically said 'I'm poor but I want it so it's okay to take it.' That's not true, not even in a perfectly rational sense. You don't -need- what you're pirating. You do not -require- it. You'd just -like to have it- and cannot afford it. In other words, it's a luxury item. You are not entitled to have it.

Going back to the piracy=library argument.

If a file at a hosted torrent site is put there by its original distributor, with the full intent it be distributed and shared, and it has the ability to self-destruct when you are done with it, then yes, it is like a library.

NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

It is not like a library. Libraries are full of books that the owners of those copyrights have sold to them. The library did not 'make a copy of the book' and then 'allow others to make free copies.' And, if you take a library book and use the library photocopier to make copies of the entire book, you've broken the law. They tend to frown on that at libraries.

Fact: Every rationalization for piracy is self-serving and is meant to rationalize stealing. Look, if you pirate it, you are stealing it. Just accept it.

'But it won't go away!'
Neither will murder. Doesn't make it right to kill people.

'But they make millions of dollars!'
How much money a product makes is not a rationalization for stealing it. I don't care if Walmart makes millions of dollars, that doesn't give me the right to stuff DVDs down my pants and run out.

'It's the poor screwing it to the rich!'
These rich people are not land owners taxing you to death. They are providers of a luxury product, which you have decided you want. You are the villain here.

'I just wanted to try it before I buy it!'
And how many pirated games have you -actually- bought? Really? REALLLLLLY? Besides, its not up to you to decide you get free demos of the entire game. It's up to the provider of that product.

'The internet is a new way to distribute content!'
Not arguing that point. That doesn't logically equate to 'so I should get everything for free.'

'The entertainment industry is overproduced and provides crappy shlock that is overpriced, so I'm protesting that as a consumer.'
Bullshit. If you weren't interested in that product you'd not have pirated it.

'It was a bad game, so it never would have been a sale!
Bullshit. If you had no interest in it (ironic or not), you'd not have pirated it. Hell, the entertainment industry has an entire section of it based on people playing to see bad entertainment. It's called 'camp' and it's been going on for decades. Your excuse doesn't even hold water while I'm willing to pay to go see the Room on friday night.

Piracy affects me as a consumer as now I no longer buy products I pay for services that are products whenever convenient to the provider. Now, I'm forced to sign contracts after paying for something and if I don't like the contract, I've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PRODUCT. (Protip: The EULA is not a contract under Canadian law, because money has already exchanged hands and therefore any pertinent contract about that product or service is already satisfied)

Pirating random shiz you WOULD NEVER BUY isn't stealing. You were never part of the consumer market or a potential sale.

Bullshit. Taking something you do not plan to buy is stealing. It's the fucking definition of stealing.

Stealing is the act of taking something that you are not willing to pay for, against the wishes of whoever owns it.

Your motivation 'I never wanted to pay for it' only makes it STEALING MOAR.

Your argument is self-serving. The fact you're willing to steal because you expect you would not like the product only shows how callous you are towards the act. 'Meh this sucks, guess I'll take it.'

I'll bet you still played through it, going 'Wow, this sucks, sure glad I didn't pay for it.'

How's this for an argument: If it sucks so bad you don't want to ever pay for it, SPEND YOUR TIME DOING SOMETHING ENJOYABLE.

That is the ONLY rational conclusion to that line of thinking. Everything is involves being irrational... i.e. 'I want to spend my time doing something I don't enjoy' which is an irrational motivation.

Either that, or you lied about not wanting it.

I never said it was the 'morally right thing' or 'not illegal'. I'm saying that this is my reason. As long as that is my boundary, I don't care what the law says.

 

[slopeslider]

Apparently, that's what eludes you in this argument, is the fact that they actually do OWN it. Again, if you subscribe to another system of thought, then I can freely use your stuff as I see fit because -your- property rights don't matter either.

Oh, suddenly that's a different scenario? Hypocrite.

It's more like he brought his cloning machine to your driveway, scanned your house and teleported a copy of your house to his private lot. Since you still have your house and all.
Or (less fantastic) if he took a High-Res 100MP picture of your $10000 painting and put a copy up in his.

 

[Chunko]

Another thing that I'd just like to say:

You know that 30+ minutes of DRM we have to put up with before we start playing any game. We have pirates to thank for that. Their selfish nature is not only killing the gaming economy but also giving us ridiculous amounts of DRM to wade through. Developers now don't have a choice. Pirates are creating an environment in which maximum profits come from Ubisoft DRM-ing us to death while the Humble Indie Bundle still gets pirated even though it's being offered for free.

PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.
The drm is there to stop pirates.
but PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.

I know, and we all have you to blame for this. You steal the games for your own personal enjoyment without worrying about the consequences for the honest people whom it affects.

Circular thinking much?
"we have pirates to blame for drm that affects everyone BUT them."
Please tell me how I stole something from retro studios by buying all 3 of their games at full retail and only getting it off the interweb because my disc scratched and they provide no backups or extra installs.
People always say 'you're not buying the disc, you're buying a license to play the game.'
Then why do I get no backup copies or help if the disc scratches? The disc should be irrelevant, I bought the game, not the disc, which is a way of getting the game to me. If the disc scratched, let me get a new one, It doesn't cost 49.99 for a piece of plastic.
Stuff like this is what makes people torrent. Never mind the fact I OWN THE SOFTWARE I paid to get license to use it. A software company wouldn't survive if it's motto was 'If your easily breakable disc is ruined in any way, BUY ANOTHER GAME LICENSE SUCKERS'
There was drm before there was an easy way to share games, piracy didn't drive drm into existance. It was pre-emptive, so you couldn't share your games with your neighbors, not because profits were down due to piracy.

A lot of what you're saying is very valid, it's not in contradiction to what I'm saying, we're just approaching it from different angles. Piracy (+) = DRM (+) = Piracy (+) It's a horibble cycle but it would cost game companies too much to stop the DRM so the only way to stop this cycle is to stop pirating. Game companies can't stop making DRM because they'd lose sales if they did. So if we want the game industry to stay alive we need to stop pirating now.

But why will they lose money? The drm isn't doing anything to stop people from pirating. If anything they'd GAIN sales from people like us who hate drm. Many more people would've got AC2 on pc if it didn't have a ton of drm in it, while anyone who wanted it free has it free. They pissed off customers and gave pirates something to brag about, circumventing their latest drm.

Just ask yourself: If I said I would personally buy you any pc game you ever wanted for the rest of your life, and all you had to do was wait AT MOST 2 weeks after launch before I buy it for you, would you turn it down? You'd accept right?
Is there some magical game that would make you spend $50 when you know I'll get it for you in at most a week(and usually I get you the games before release date)?
No sane pirate would turn down a free game for day 1 access. Once you get used to not ever paying for anything, it's hard to throw down $50 bucks on a game you can get for free in a week without the bull drm and install limits.

It may not be stopping them but it's deterring them somewhat. Businesses do things because they are profitable, it's the way the economy works. Clearly it's doing something to deter them. There must have been a few pirates who bought the game because they couldn't wait. Otherwise the company would not have spent all that money on DLC. Pirates are creating an economy in which it is profitable to do this.

 

[DracoSuave]

Apparently, that's what eludes you in this argument, is the fact that they actually do OWN it. Again, if you subscribe to another system of thought, then I can freely use your stuff as I see fit because -your- property rights don't matter either.

Oh, suddenly that's a different scenario? Hypocrite.

It's more like he brought his cloning machine to your driveway, scanned your house and teleported a copy of your house to his private lot. Since you still have your house and all.
Or (less fantastic) if he took a High-Res 100MP picture of your $10000 painting and put a copy up in his.

No it's more like he copied your house that you built with your own hands and labor, and are trying to sell, and started handing out the clones of your house for free using your money and cash to do so, and saying he's right for doing so because you don't have the right to determine what is done with your house, or the work you put into making your house.

Of course, even in your example, him using a cloning machine on your house without your permission is still using your property without your permission. Regardless of whether he -can- do it, it's still disrespecting your ownership of your own stuff.

More over the point isn't whether I lose something. When you send out the copies of my house, you also distribute advertisements that people pay you money for. So you're making money off of my work.

In -that- sense, that money IS mine. I did the work. You did not. My property is creating that money. You did not make a deal with me where you get that money. That money you're getting from advertisement is -mine-. Not yours. My property is making that money, so it is my money.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about that. That many pirates use the lure of free merch to make money, and therefore, are using other people's property against their will -for profit- above and beyond the use of that property itself.

 

[SideburnsPuppy]

And that when you sign out a book from a library, you give it back, whereas if you pirate the game, then you own it forever. A library's not the equivalent of piracy, it's the equivalent of playing a game at a friend's house. It would be more like piracy if you signed out the book from the library and kept it. Who here's going to fess up to doing that?

If you get a book from a library, you read it and give it back. If you pirate a book, then you read it then probably delete it. Even if you didn't delete it, though, simply 'having' the book has no negative or positive result, other than taking up disk space. Thus the library and book piracy would be the same.

Signing a book out from the library and keeping it would be like stealing, because the library would be depraved of a book and unable to give it to others to read. Piracy, however, does not deprave anyone of anything, and therefore is not comparable to signing a book out and keeping it.

You're right, it's not. Now don't I feel like a fool. To the Argument Revision Cave! (Cue Batman theme.)

How aboot this: when a library purchases a book, just like when somebody purchases a game, they are purchasing that one product. In the library, they then give out that one product to other people for them to enjoy. If piracy was like this, then that would be alright by me. Hell, if they had libraries for games, I would go so far as to call that excellent. However, in the case of piracy, you are getting a copy of that one product, which is emphasized in italics. This is like a library which deals text which was copied out from a book onto another piece of paper in a scriptorium or something, which is, public domain notwithstanding, an illegal process, and here is my citation: a quotation from the copyright page of The Island of the Sequined Love Nun by Christopher Moore (plug plug): "No part of this book may be used o reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews."

If I'm missing the point entirely, which I'm almost sure I am, feel free to counterpoint, but know this: while writing, I realized that all arguing about the ethics of piracy is pointless. Instead, we should all be campaigning for Videogame Libraries! Seriously, though, wouldn't that be kick-ass?

 

[infinity_turtles]

Going back to the piracy=library argument.

Skipping the bit before that because you were talking to someone else, but this is my argument.

If a file at a hosted torrent site is put there by its original distributor, with the full intent it be distributed and shared, and it has the ability to self-destruct when you are done with it, then yes, it is like a library.

NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

BOOKS SELF-DESTRUCT WHEN YOU'RE DONE READING THEM!? How long after?!! Oh god, my house is a fucking time bomb just waiting to go off! Fuck! WhatdoIdowhatdoIdo!? You can return a book and immediately check it out again. And most books in a library are donated. You know why? Because actual thieves, who deprive the library of the book through theft, run off with them. Provided they don't come back, the library isn't getting paid for that book.

The point is, when you are done with the book, you don't keep the book, you return it. No one else uses that book until you do. There's only one user at a time, and the library has specific permission to do this.

A torrent site does none of the above.

Except, no, a library doesn't have the authors permission. When someone donates a book the the library, they don't call up the distributor and ask permission. It gets added to the directory and thrown on the shelf. And one user at a time hardly matters. In the end, lots of people are going to read that book without buying it. Books have a much longer lifespan than games. How many people play Adventure anymore, but read Shakespeare? Keeping it doesn't matter for a torrent, because keeping it doesn't deprive anyone of it. Or are you saying if they delete it once they're done with it, it's better?

It is not like a library. Libraries are full of books that the owners of those copyrights have sold to them. The library did not 'make a copy of the book' and then 'allow others to make free copies.' And, if you take a library book and use the library photocopier to make copies of the entire book, you've broken the law. They tend to frown on that at libraries.

Again, most books are donated to the library. Books are very rarely bought by the library, which is why if you ask them to get one they'll probably say "It'll be months if not years before we do that".

Libraries are done differently up here, but I can see your point.

However, the point still stands, that a library is not stealing the material, is not copying the material, and is not mass distributing the material. It is lending one single copy out at a time.

It is mass distributing the material. You know how many thousands of people are going to read that one copy of that book? Sure, it's easier to access a torrent, you can do it in your own home and take it with you and not worry about it. But you're still accessing the intellectual property for free, using it in its full form, and don't owe a damn cent to the owner of the IP. Without losing the product because someone accesses it, there isn't any difference. Making a copy for other people to access and just giving the original to other people to access both result in someone accessing the intellectual property for free. Say damn thing done in two different ways.

Fact: Every rationalization for piracy is self-serving and is meant to rationalize stealing. Look, if you pirate it, you are stealing it. Just accept it.

No, I actually believe what I'm doing is fine. Not rationalizing it any more than my other actions. Because after all, you should have rational reasons for believing the things you do. Just makes sense.

Doesn't not make it stealing.

Except stealing has to deprive someone of something. Without depriving someone of something, it's copying. Copying does not equal stealing.

'But it won't go away!'
Neither will murder. Doesn't make it right to kill people.

'But they make millions of dollars!'
How much money a product makes is not a rationalization for stealing it. I don't care if Walmart makes millions of dollars, that doesn't give me the right to stuff DVDs down my pants and run out.

'It's the poor screwing it to the rich!'
These rich people are not land owners taxing you to death. They are providers of a luxury product, which you have decided you want. You are the villain here.

I don't promote any of those reasons, but if someone tries to talk about poor developers needing money I'll start talking about that sort of stuff. Not because that's part of my reasoning, but to refute part of theirs.

It's not a matter of the 'poor developers' at all. Fact is, people work on it, they make money to work on it, and feed their children based on their pay. Lowering the sales of a product IS stealing, because at the end of the day, it's less money going to the companies that pay them to do their work.

At some point, SOMEONE who is not rich and is not making millions of dollars IS being deprived of money. At -some point- a family does get hurt by it.

Only if it deprives them of sales, which is my counter-point when someone goes on about the poor ol' developers. Because there is not proof that it deprives them of sales. You may be surprised to hear this, but there are lots of people who enjoy games, but don't feel they're worth 50$. And buying used means no money goes to the developers anyway. Now, I won't defend those people's actions, but to say that they represent lost sales is ludicrous. Something being worth one's time and being woth their time and their money are different.

And I've said this before, but making a product does not entitle you to make money. Only if people feel it's a quality product worth money are you entitled to profit from it.

'I just wanted to try it before I buy it!'
And how many pirated games have you -actually- bought? Really? REALLLLLLY? Besides, its not up to you to decide you get free demos of the entire game. It's up to the provider of that product.

Probably all but a couple, and most of the ones I bought and the ones I didn't, I wouldn't have bought anyway. I don't spend money if I'm unsure of the product. That's just good business sense. And why does the provider get to decide what happens to the product? That's a principle I disagree with on a fundamental level.

Because they own it. Using similiar logic, I like your house. I will live in your basement for a while, you might want to rent it, but I want to see if it suits me before YOU DECIDE to show it off.

No, because my house is a physical fucking object and you using my basement deoprives me of it.

Why do YOU, as the provider, get to decide what happens to YOUR stuff? You only own it. You don't have any special rights to YOUR OWN STUFF.

Because if you're using it, it's unavailable to others to use. Intellectual property doesn't work like that though. The issue isn't that you have something of mine, it's that by having something of mine, I no longer have it.

Fact is, just because it is to your advantage to -pre-steal- a product before you decide to give them money, does not make it right OR legal. In fact, what you are doing is taking it, making use of it, and then deciding after you are done, well, glad I didn't pay for it. And walking away.

Not taking or stealing. Accessing and copying. I don't care about legality. I care about morality. It isn't immoral to make sure my money is only supporting the creators of products I enjoy.

If you're feeling generous, you MIGHT send some money their way. But why? You already got what you wanted. So the incentive to pay for it is considerably less.

No, not if I'm "feeling generous". If I feel the creators have made a product that I enjoyed and would like them to continue making such products. Because if people don't pay, they can't keep making them. I know this. That's why I buy the goddamn products I like! It's simple, and it's logical. I show support for good products.

But the thing is, you don't own it. It is not your right to make that decision. You don't get to put gas in your car, drive the car, and then decide afterwards if you liked the gas before you pay for it.

You don't eat your box of cereal before you pay for it.

You simply do not get to consume things before you pay for it WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER.

That is stealing.

Unlike all of those things, I'm not depriving anyone of anything when I download something or check out a book. If I eat cereal, it's gone. If I burn gas, it's gone. If I consume things, they're gone! You do not consume, take, remove, or otherwise change the physical nature of intellectual property by using it. I believe that is the only reason why permission is important for a physical product. Therefore, permission does not matter for a non-physical one. Again, copying is not stealing. Ever. If you want to argue copying is bad, start doing that. Don't try and use the connotations behind the word stealing to back up your argument.

'The internet is a new way to distribute content!'
Not arguing that point. That doesn't logically equate to 'so I should get everything for free.'

No, but it does logically equate to: "They're not losing a potential sale and a product, only a potential sale." and it could be argued that most of the time, they aren't even losing a potential sale. So in short, they lose nothing.

This is a circular argument.

'Well, the internet exists, and it is available for free. So I'm going to steal it. Because I'm going to steal it, they won't make any money. Therefore they don't lose anything because no sale will be made. Therefore it should be free. Therefore I'm going to steal it.'

Your logic predisposes that you're going to steal it in the first place.

In other words, you're using 'I'm going to take it' as the premise for why you should take it.

Bad.

No, I am never a potential sale of anything I pirate until I pirate. If I could not pirate, I would not buy many products that could be pirated, and would only be buying the ones I don't currently pirate because I trust the company producing the product. For instance, I automatically buy all of Atlus' RPGs. If pirating were no longer feasible, I would stop buying pretty much every game not made by Atlus and simply invest in other hobbies where I can be relatively sure of the products' quality because they're made up of physical components rather than ideas.

In short, I buy more because I pirate. Stop telling me I don't. I know my own purchasing habits.

'The entertainment industry is overproduced and provides crappy shlock that is overpriced, so I'm protesting that as a consumer.'
Bullshit. If you weren't interested in that product you'd not have pirated it.

Yeah, I don't think it's a decent way to protest crappy products. It is a good way to ensure that what you think might be a good product but turns out to be a crappy one doesn't get your money.

How's this? Don't waste your time on crappy products. It WAS good enough to warrant your interest enough to disregard consumer reviews, word on the internet, etc.

You're misunderstanding. A game can get good reviews, people can say it's good, but you find it to be crap. If you try it first, you might find out "Hey, I don't agree with all these people saying the game is great. I think it's crap." For instance, I really hate Oblivion. Hate it. Never pirated it though, because a friend had bought it and I tried it at her place. Intellectual property has a funny habit of coming down to personal preference. While I can ask an expert about the quality of an air conditioner, gun, car, or tv, I can't do the same for a game, book, or song.

'It was a bad game, so it never would have been a sale!
Bullshit. If you had no interest in it (ironic or not), you'd not have pirated it. Hell, the entertainment industry has an entire section of it based on people playing to see bad entertainment. It's called 'camp' and it's been going on for decades. Your excuse doesn't even hold water while I'm willing to pay to go see the Room on friday night.

But would they have the sale of that pirate? Because if not, they have lost nothing.

Again, your logic is going 'Well, I would have stolen it, so therefore if I steal it, they lose nothing.'

Again, its circular and self-serving.

Read: BULLSHIT.

Please, don't assume how my thought process works.

Piracy affects me as a consumer as now I no longer buy products I pay for services that are products whenever convenient to the provider. Now, I'm forced to sign contracts after paying for something and if I don't like the contract, I've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PRODUCT. (Protip: The EULA is not a contract under Canadian law, because money has already exchanged hands and therefore any pertinent contract about that product or service is already satisfied)

Don't blame me for the disproportionate actions of others.

No, I'm blaming pirates for breaking the law and allowing companies to have the ready excuse to do things to consumers that, had theft and robbery not been so virulent, they'd not be able to do or enact into law.

No theft or robbery taking place, so their response is disproportionate. Also, law this law that doesn't matter to me.

Pirating random shiz you WOULD NEVER BUY isn't stealing. You were never part of the consumer market or a potential sale.

Bullshit. Taking something you do not plan to buy is stealing. It's the fucking definition of stealing.

Stealing is the act of taking something that you are not willing to pay for, against the wishes of whoever owns it.

Yes, but you don't take intellectual property, you access it. With no taking, there is no stealing.

Bullshit. You do not 'access' it. You are -using it- for its intended purpose. If you break into my house, take my vacuum, use it in your house, and then put it back, guess what? You didn't 'access my vacuum.' You stole it. The fact I didn't lose a vacuum doesn't hold water. You took and used what is mine without my permission.

It matters because the use of a physical product deteriorates it. You also didn't have access to it while I had it if you wanted to use it. Physical products actually exist, while intellectual property is simply ideas. The whole breaking and entering thing is also a violation of privacy.

And when I am in the business of selling the use of what is mine, and fairly to customers, then what you are doing DOES do real harm.

No it doesn't. I buy more because of what I do. Buying more of your product helps you.

By making it readily available, you are making it so that potential sales become non-sales. See, that's the part that you completely forget.

No, I'm not forgetting that. I'm saying it's bullshit. I BUY MORE STUFF BECAUSE I PIRATE! All in caps for you.

'It's available therefore there'd be no sale' also logically equates to 'There'd be a sale if it weren't available.' (a implies b is logically equivalent to not b implies not a)

Not it isn't. You just failed logic hard. If I only eat pie, I will get fat does not imply If I don't only eat pie, I won't get fat. What if I eat only cake? I'll still get fat, but I won't only be eating pie.

Your motivation 'I never wanted to pay for it' only makes it STEALING MOAR.

Your argument is self-serving. The fact you're willing to steal because you expect you would not like the product only shows how callous you are towards the act. 'Meh this sucks, guess I'll take it.'

Access, not take

Access without permission and with no intent to compensate the owner of that property.

Again, accessing something without permission is also theft. [/quote]
Nope, stealing means I deprive you of something.

I'll bet you still played through it, going 'Wow, this sucks, sure glad I didn't pay for it.'

How's this for an argument: If it sucks so bad you don't want to ever pay for it, SPEND YOUR TIME DOING SOMETHING ENJOYABLE.

That is the ONLY rational conclusion to that line of thinking. Everything is involves being irrational... i.e. 'I want to spend my time doing something I don't enjoy' which is an irrational motivation.

Either that, or you lied about not wanting it.

Yeah, that post confused me too.

No, I like to say "Why is it wrong? Just because isn't a reason. I can do that too you know. "You there, you're wrong for not killing kittens. Why is it wrong not to kill kittens? It just is" See? That doesn't work. Give reasons or gtfo!" Just because you're saying I'm wrong about being okay, doesn't mean I'm saying wrong is okay.

It is wrong because:

One: It is using property without permission of the owner of that property. The nature of the property is not relevant

Why does their permission matter? If all gun manufacturers said only nazis could use their guns, would it be wrong for non-nazis to use guns?

Two: The best argument you can come up with literally is: "I was gonna steal it, so they lose nothing, so therefore it's okay if I steal it." That's such utter bullshit I'm surprised you even entertain that as rational thought.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have the decency to at least be replying to your actual arguments, while you're taking mine, making assumptions about them, and then dumbing down YOUR assumptions.

Three: For all your talk of 'business sense' the fact is, you're not acting in a capitalist fashion. You've taken the concept of property ownership that is required for a free market to run, and decided that it does not apply because it is convenient, taking property rights on yourself. That is not capitalism OR business. You're not operating in a free economy, you're operating on the basis of seizing property for your personal benefit as pleases you, because you feel the owners do not have the right to their own work. In other words, fascism.

Yes. Fascism.

You don't know what fascism is. It's a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government. What I'm putting forth is much closer to anarchy, the exact opposite, because it is not "Everyone pays for everything" but is "People pay only for what they like". Note, I'm not advocating anarchy, only stating that my belief falls closer to it on a scale than it does fascism. You see, what you're talking about is closer to fascism, because it's not a free market. It's a heavily regulated market. Because that's what copyright laws are, regulations designed to treat intellectual property as physical property.

Hell, every time I see a 'pro-piracy' argument I can't help but be reminded of the concept of orwellian doublethink. I see such circular logic and an utter inability to connect events that ARE connected, with such a hypocritical stance as 'My rights as a consumer should never be violated. Their rights as a property owner are non-existant' that I cannot actually condone nor fathom it.

See, Orwellian concepts are ones that are "Access to information is controlled", and Intellectual Property is, by definition, information.

Point is... it's like if you went in, broken into a cable box, spliced the cable wire, and wired it to your house to enjoy free cable. All you are doing is 'accessing content.'

That's a fairly good analogy, but the way payment works for shows and their creators versus games and music and what not isn't very similar. The game industry is more similar to that of the music and writing industry though.

All you are doing is stealing. Just have half a pair of testes and admit it. This doublethink 'I'm not a villain cause they still have a sandwich, I'm just tasting it against their will they lose nothing' bullshit is cowardly self-indulgent self-entitled rationalization. But it is not a valid argument.

Attack my arguments man, not me.

The fact is: It's -their- stuff. They have NO obligation to share it except on their terms, just like you are under no obligation to share your house, your car, your thoughts, your writing, your love poems to your woman, your laundry basket, your basement, or anything else belonging to you. Theft is not removing a thing so they no longer have a thing. Theft is the taking of their property rights for your personal gain without their permission. And you -are- doing so. You are using -their- stuff in a way -they- do not want. So what if what they want is 'those who pay for it get to use it.' They have the right to determine that. It's THEIR PROPERTY.

No. They don't. Intellectual property equals ideas. People don't own ideas. If I "write a love poem", anyone who can access it, provided I still have it, has the right to read it.

Apparently, that's what eludes you in this argument, is the fact that they actually do OWN it. Again, if you subscribe to another system of thought, then I can freely use your stuff as I see fit because -your- property rights don't matter either.

Oh, suddenly that's a different scenario? Hypocrite.

My intellectual property? Sure. Yours to use how you see fit. You can use this conversation however you want for instance. If I ever write a novel and you get a hold of it, you can read it without owing me a dime. If you like it though, you could pay me and I'd write more.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Apparently, that's what eludes you in this argument, is the fact that they actually do OWN it. Again, if you subscribe to another system of thought, then I can freely use your stuff as I see fit because -your- property rights don't matter either.

Oh, suddenly that's a different scenario? Hypocrite.

It's more like he brought his cloning machine to your driveway, scanned your house and teleported a copy of your house to his private lot. Since you still have your house and all.
Or (less fantastic) if he took a High-Res 100MP picture of your $10000 painting and put a copy up in his.

No it's more like he copied your house that you built with your own hands and labor, and are trying to sell, and started handing out the clones of your house for free using your money and cash to do so, and saying he's right for doing so because you don't have the right to determine what is done with your house, or the work you put into making your house.

Of course, even in your example, him using a cloning machine on your house without your permission is still using your property without your permission. Regardless of whether he -can- do it, it's still disrespecting your ownership of your own stuff.

More over the point isn't whether I lose something. When you send out the copies of my house, you also distribute advertisements that people pay you money for. So you're making money off of my work.

In -that- sense, that money IS mine. I did the work. You did not. My property is creating that money. You did not make a deal with me where you get that money. That money you're getting from advertisement is -mine-. Not yours. My property is making that money, so it is my money.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about that. That many pirates use the lure of free merch to make money, and therefore, are using other people's property against their will -for profit- above and beyond the use of that property itself.

Except, most uploaders aren't the owners of torrent sites, and don't make any money off it. And some torrent sites profiting off of piracy doesn't have anything to do with the argument about piracy itself. And this is a physical product we're talking about here. In this scenario, I FUCKING CLONED A HOUSE! How the hell can you not think that's worth money? People should be paying me to clone houses and give them to the homeless or something!

 

[DracoSuave]

And some torrent sites profiting off of piracy doesn't have anything to do with the argument about piracy itself.

This statement is bullshit.

 

[infinity_turtles]

And some torrent sites profiting off of piracy doesn't have anything to do with the argument about piracy itself.

This statement is bullshit.

Then are you saying that, provided torrent sites don't make money, piracy is fine? If not, it doesn't have anything to do with whether piracy itself is morale or not, and is a separate issue. That's not the issue that's being talked about here.

 

[Uberpwn-w00t]

Well that's nice except now it's no longer profitable for the toy designers to create that toy. Since you didn't buy it from the toy sandwich company soon they'll go out of business. Then in the near future no one will be able to have toy sandwiches, all thanks to you. Have you seen how horrible our industry has been doing lately?

Well that's nice except now you've jumped to conclusions. You are correct, I did not buy the toy sandwich from the toy sandwich company. After that, you're just assuming things. Would I have bought the toy sandwich had gingersnapping not been an option? You cannot conclusively say that I would have. Therefore it is only a potential lost sale, and that doesn't mean anything. Without proof, there is no crime.

 

[Chunko]

Well that's nice except now it's no longer profitable for the toy designers to create that toy. Since you didn't buy it from the toy sandwich company soon they'll go out of business. Then in the near future no one will be able to have toy sandwiches, all thanks to you. Have you seen how horrible our industry has been doing lately?

Well that's nice except now you've jumped to conclusions. You are correct, I did not buy the toy sandwich from the toy sandwich company. After that, you're just assuming things. Would I have bought the toy sandwich had gingersnapping not been an option? You cannot conclusively say that I would have. Therefore it is only a potential lost sale, and that doesn't mean anything. Without proof, there is no crime.

It's true, I can't say you would have bought it if digital theft were not an option. But stealing the game is a substitute for buying it. If someone can steal a game there is almost no incentive to pay for it. Only a few people would be willing to buy a game solely to support companies.

 

[blarghblarghhhhh]

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

I think the difference is how many books can you name that have bungets over a 5 million dollars (ammount it costs to make some games) what about 200 million or more dollars( the price it costs to make some movies). also worth noting is that the number of people who check out a book at a library in the books lifetime is nothing compared to the number of people who share the same torrent. Atleast with a library the copy of the book was legitimately bought by someone at some point. the same cant be said for torrents.

So you're saying that because an author is paid less, it's okay to not pay for their work? And yes, for someone to upload a game, it had to be bought first. And most books in libraries are donations. And a books lifetime is a lot longer than a games. How many people have read Fahrenheight 911? How many have played Adventure? How many people have read Shakespeare's Romeo&Juliet? How many people do you expect to ever play Halo?

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

And that when you sign out a book from a library, you give it back, whereas if you pirate the game, then you own it forever. A library's not the equivalent of piracy, it's the equivalent of playing a game at a friend's house. It would be more like piracy if you signed out the book from the library and kept it. Who here's going to fess up to doing that?

How about fessing up to repeatedly checking out a book as long as you might play a game? Because stealing a physical object and copying a document aren't equivalent. In one situation, someone loses something after all.

Im not saying that its ok to pirate something because it cost less to produce. Im saying that the effect of piracy isnt as heavy on book publishers because they have alot less money to make back before they start netting profit.

I currently have 200 songs on my computer that I didnt pay for I could easily upload them for someone else to download if I wished to. I have albums before they are released in stores which tells you what? they wernt payed for. the same thing happens with games.

It doesnt matter if the book was donated or not, someone more than likely purchased it at some point in time. Its a physical trade. You cant burn a book to a cd(well you can but you know what i mean). I think that just because you own a cd it doesnt mean you own the files contained within it. not in a legal sense. you can do whatever you want with the cd itself but if you take the files off the cd and give them away in some other form then that is crossing the line. Give your friend a cd you bought, sure why not. burn them a copy of the cd you bought, yeah that should be illegal.

I understand that buying songs off of say itunes doesnt give you a tangable medium and you could say "give" your friend the files and delete them off of your ipod and computer but nobody is going to do that. when your sold songs on itunes your basically sold the right to use them for your personal entertainment not for the entertainment of millions.

you misunderstood what I meant by the lifetime of a book. go to your library and pick up a book lets say its romeo and juliet; how many people do you think have read that specific book your holding in your hand? if your in a bigger city and its a really old copy then maybe 1000 people. Its really hard to estimate a number for that but im sure its less than the 4,058,560 times an elvis discography torrent has been downloaded on demonoid. Just to clarify im talking about a specific torrent not just a specific album. Its also worth noting the physicality of a book itself. Due to its nature it can only be lent to one person at a time and it can only be loaned out to a set geological demographic. A torrent can be given out to anyone at anytime as long as they have an internet connection.

 

[Uberpwn-w00t]

Well that's nice except now it's no longer profitable for the toy designers to create that toy. Since you didn't buy it from the toy sandwich company soon they'll go out of business. Then in the near future no one will be able to have toy sandwiches, all thanks to you. Have you seen how horrible our industry has been doing lately?

Well that's nice except now you've jumped to conclusions. You are correct, I did not buy the toy sandwich from the toy sandwich company. After that, you're just assuming things. Would I have bought the toy sandwich had gingersnapping not been an option? You cannot conclusively say that I would have. Therefore it is only a potential lost sale, and that doesn't mean anything. Without proof, there is no crime.

It's true, I can't say you would have bought it if digital theft were not an option. But stealing the game is a substitute for buying it. If someone can steal a game there is almost no incentive to pay for it. Only a few people would be willing to buy a game solely to support companies.

It's not theft. You can disagree with it all you want, but it is not theft.

 

[Chunko]

Well that's nice except now it's no longer profitable for the toy designers to create that toy. Since you didn't buy it from the toy sandwich company soon they'll go out of business. Then in the near future no one will be able to have toy sandwiches, all thanks to you. Have you seen how horrible our industry has been doing lately?

Well that's nice except now you've jumped to conclusions. You are correct, I did not buy the toy sandwich from the toy sandwich company. After that, you're just assuming things. Would I have bought the toy sandwich had gingersnapping not been an option? You cannot conclusively say that I would have. Therefore it is only a potential lost sale, and that doesn't mean anything. Without proof, there is no crime.

It's true, I can't say you would have bought it if digital theft were not an option. But stealing the game is a substitute for buying it. If someone can steal a game there is almost no incentive to pay for it. Only a few people would be willing to buy a game solely to support companies.

It's not theft. You can disagree with it all you want, but it is not theft.

Well one way you can think about it is as having something you don't deserve. You didn't earn that copy of that game by paying for it, so why should you have it?

 

[kiralon]

OK, if you went to a restaurant and paid $100 for a steak meal, and a steak meal came out but tasted like dog crap wrapped in old socks would you pay for it. You certainly got a service, Operation Flashpoint 2 was like that, the menu said you were getting something aged well and is melt in the mouth, but all you got was a slimy 2 month old steak that smelt real bad. To me i was robbed, but to do anything about it i have to spend money and time in the courts, which i dont have muck of either to spare. If i had pirated it first i wouldnt have wasted $100. (if it had been a restaurant meal i wouldnt have paid for it)

 

[infinity_turtles]

Well one way you can think about it is as having something you don't deserve. You didn't earn that copy of that game by paying for it, so why should you have it?

Lets both assume it hurts noone. Now, why shouldn't they? If it doesn't harm anyone else, why is someone having something they didn't earn bad? They gain, no one else loses. So I don't think that is a proper way of looking at it.

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

I think the difference is how many books can you name that have bungets over a 5 million dollars (ammount it costs to make some games) what about 200 million or more dollars( the price it costs to make some movies). also worth noting is that the number of people who check out a book at a library in the books lifetime is nothing compared to the number of people who share the same torrent. Atleast with a library the copy of the book was legitimately bought by someone at some point. the same cant be said for torrents.

So you're saying that because an author is paid less, it's okay to not pay for their work? And yes, for someone to upload a game, it had to be bought first. And most books in libraries are donations. And a books lifetime is a lot longer than a games. How many people have read Fahrenheight 911? How many have played Adventure? How many people have read Shakespeare's Romeo&Juliet? How many people do you expect to ever play Halo?

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

And that when you sign out a book from a library, you give it back, whereas if you pirate the game, then you own it forever. A library's not the equivalent of piracy, it's the equivalent of playing a game at a friend's house. It would be more like piracy if you signed out the book from the library and kept it. Who here's going to fess up to doing that?

How about fessing up to repeatedly checking out a book as long as you might play a game? Because stealing a physical object and copying a document aren't equivalent. In one situation, someone loses something after all.

Im not saying that its ok to pirate something because it cost less to produce. Im saying that the effect of piracy isnt as heavy on book publishers because they have alot less money to make back before they start netting profit.

I currently have 200 songs on my computer that I didnt pay for I could easily upload them for someone else to download if I wished to. I have albums before they are released in stores which tells you what? they wernt payed for. the same thing happens with games.

It doesnt matter if the book was donated or not, someone more than likely purchased it at some point in time. Its a physical trade. You cant burn a book to a cd(well you can but you know what i mean). I think that just because you own a cd it doesnt mean you own the files contained within it. not in a legal sense. you can do whatever you want with the cd itself but if you take the files off the cd and give them away in some other form then that is crossing the line. Give your friend a cd you bought, sure why not. burn them a copy of the cd you bought, yeah that should be illegal.

I understand that buying songs off of say itunes doesnt give you a tangable medium and you could say "give" your friend the files and delete them off of your ipod and computer but nobody is going to do that. when your sold songs on itunes your basically sold the right to use them for your personal entertainment not for the entertainment of millions.

you misunderstood what I meant by the lifetime of a book. go to your library and pick up a book lets say its romeo and juliet; how many people do you think have read that specific book your holding in your hand? if your in a bigger city and its a really old copy then maybe 1000 people. Its really hard to estimate a number for that but im sure its less than the 4,058,560 times an elvis discography torrent has been downloaded on demonoid. Just to clarify im talking about a specific torrent not just a specific album. Its also worth noting the physicality of a book itself. Due to its nature it can only be lent to one person at a time and it can only be loaned out to a set geological demographic. A torrent can be given out to anyone at anytime as long as they have an internet connection.

I'm kind of exhausted right now, so I'm not really going to reply to any of those specific points. Would take too long. If there's any point you specifically want me to try and counter, let me know and I'll try to do so later. Why am I responding to this then? Well, while reading that, I think I realized one of the biggest differences in our arguments. You focus on the fact that the creator does not gain from the action, while I focus on the fact that they don't lose anything. There are other differences of course, like the fact that I don't take into account what it takes to create something, because I believe the product and it's worth should be judged solely by how well it fulfills it's purpose, and that you believe that the market should work to treat intellectual property as equal to physical property, while I believe that the market should accept the differences in the way they're shared. But I do think the biggest difference is the focus on gain versus loss. Or maybe I'm just really tired.

 

[Chunko]

Well one way you can think about it is as having something you don't deserve. You didn't earn that copy of that game by paying for it, so why should you have it?

Lets both assume it hurts noone. Now, why shouldn't they? If it doesn't harm anyone else, why is someone having something they didn't earn bad? They gain, no one else loses. So I don't think that is a proper way of looking at it.

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

I think the difference is how many books can you name that have bungets over a 5 million dollars (ammount it costs to make some games) what about 200 million or more dollars( the price it costs to make some movies). also worth noting is that the number of people who check out a book at a library in the books lifetime is nothing compared to the number of people who share the same torrent. Atleast with a library the copy of the book was legitimately bought by someone at some point. the same cant be said for torrents.

So you're saying that because an author is paid less, it's okay to not pay for their work? And yes, for someone to upload a game, it had to be bought first. And most books in libraries are donations. And a books lifetime is a lot longer than a games. How many people have read Fahrenheight 911? How many have played Adventure? How many people have read Shakespeare's Romeo&Juliet? How many people do you expect to ever play Halo?

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

And that when you sign out a book from a library, you give it back, whereas if you pirate the game, then you own it forever. A library's not the equivalent of piracy, it's the equivalent of playing a game at a friend's house. It would be more like piracy if you signed out the book from the library and kept it. Who here's going to fess up to doing that?

How about fessing up to repeatedly checking out a book as long as you might play a game? Because stealing a physical object and copying a document aren't equivalent. In one situation, someone loses something after all.

Im not saying that its ok to pirate something because it cost less to produce. Im saying that the effect of piracy isnt as heavy on book publishers because they have alot less money to make back before they start netting profit.

I currently have 200 songs on my computer that I didnt pay for I could easily upload them for someone else to download if I wished to. I have albums before they are released in stores which tells you what? they wernt payed for. the same thing happens with games.

It doesnt matter if the book was donated or not, someone more than likely purchased it at some point in time. Its a physical trade. You cant burn a book to a cd(well you can but you know what i mean). I think that just because you own a cd it doesnt mean you own the files contained within it. not in a legal sense. you can do whatever you want with the cd itself but if you take the files off the cd and give them away in some other form then that is crossing the line. Give your friend a cd you bought, sure why not. burn them a copy of the cd you bought, yeah that should be illegal.

I understand that buying songs off of say itunes doesnt give you a tangable medium and you could say "give" your friend the files and delete them off of your ipod and computer but nobody is going to do that. when your sold songs on itunes your basically sold the right to use them for your personal entertainment not for the entertainment of millions.

you misunderstood what I meant by the lifetime of a book. go to your library and pick up a book lets say its romeo and juliet; how many people do you think have read that specific book your holding in your hand? if your in a bigger city and its a really old copy then maybe 1000 people. Its really hard to estimate a number for that but im sure its less than the 4,058,560 times an elvis discography torrent has been downloaded on demonoid. Just to clarify im talking about a specific torrent not just a specific album. Its also worth noting the physicality of a book itself. Due to its nature it can only be lent to one person at a time and it can only be loaned out to a set geological demographic. A torrent can be given out to anyone at anytime as long as they have an internet connection.

I'm kind of exhausted right now, so I'm not really going to reply to any of those specific points. Would take too long. If there's any point you specifically want me to try and counter, let me know and I'll try to do so later. Why am I responding to this then? Well, while reading that, I think I realized one of the biggest differences in our arguments. You focus on the fact that the creator does not gain from the action, while I focus on the fact that they don't lose anything. There are other differences of course, like the fact that I don't take into account what it takes to create something, because I believe the product and it's worth should be judged solely by how well it fulfills it's purpose, and that you believe that the market should work to treat intellectual property as equal to physical property, while I believe that the market should accept the differences in the way they're shared. But I do think the biggest difference is the focus on gain versus loss. Or maybe I'm just really tired.

Maybe this is just me, but it just doesn't seem right. Morally speaking I feel like you should have what you've earned. I don't think I could enjoy a game if pirated it because I would feel like I didn't deserve it. I would keep having a nagging feeling in the back of my mind saying "you didn't pay for it" conversely I love that warm fuzzy feeling I get when I walk home from gamestop holding a copy of new game I like. Part of the joy for me is unwrapping it and feeling like I deserved it. The game is more fun when you pay for it.

 

[DracoSuave]

And some torrent sites profiting off of piracy doesn't have anything to do with the argument about piracy itself.

This statement is bullshit.

Then are you saying that, provided torrent sites don't make money, piracy is fine? If not, it doesn't have anything to do with whether piracy itself is morale or not, and is a separate issue. That's not the issue that's being talked about here.

No, but the 'there is no money in piracy it's free' line of crock is bullshit. -Someone- is making money off of someone else's work. It's not like it's taking 'information' (last I heard information didn't include algorithms and executables) and then freely distributing what 'the man' doesn't want you to have.

Moreover when discussing the moral implications of piracy, yes, when those who are doing the copying are making money off of it, honestly, I don't see how that wouldn't be pertinent in a discussion of ethics or morality.

 

[DracoSuave]

OK, if you went to a restaurant and paid $100 for a steak meal, and a steak meal came out but tasted like dog crap wrapped in old socks would you pay for it. You certainly got a service, Operation Flashpoint 2 was like that, the menu said you were getting something aged well and is melt in the mouth, but all you got was a slimy 2 month old steak that smelt real bad. To me i was robbed, but to do anything about it i have to spend money and time in the courts, which i dont have muck of either to spare. If i had pirated it first i wouldnt have wasted $100. (if it had been a restaurant meal i wouldnt have paid for it)

Yes, but in both cases, consumer protection law can come in and if the product is not as advertised, you can make claim that what you were promised was not provided, and thereby get your money back.

In converse, you don't get to go to a gas station, break the lock on their pumps, pump the gas into your car, and then drive until your tank is empty before deciding if the gas they've got gives you mileage you figure is fair or equitable.

Not to mention, the restaurant analogy isn't quite the same.

A better analogy would be if you walked into the back of the restaurant, keyed in an extra order for yourself on their system, took the plate of food they made, ate it, and then decided afterwards if you wanted to bother walking in the front door and paying for a second meal you weren't gonna eat.

The key difference here is that in the your restaurant analogy, they're willing participants of this system, and operate on a 'pay after everything you've ordered is tallied up' mentality, aka a tab. In the latter case, you're unilaterally taking product from them, and essentially taking a steaming shit on -their- property rights under the guise of protecting yourself as a consumer. Sorry, that's a bullshit argument. You can only do something like that when -they- agree to it. Then it is a willing exchange.

See, I already knew Operation Flashpoint 2 was a piece of shit game. AND I didn't waste 100 dollars on it. Because I read reviews and don't waste my time playing games I think are going to be pieces of shit. I'd rather spend my time playing games I think will be good. This 'It could be bad' argument is completely defeated by the words 'Internet access.'

You want access to information? Muthafuckin' access that information. You can find anything about anything if you're willing to use the google. Don't wanna spend 100$ on a piece of shit? Be a smart consumer and actually do some research. Don't use it as an excuse to steal it, when -research takes less real time-.

Again, it's a bullshit argument, and there's better, more ethical, and more time-efficient (for you) ways to accomplish the same goal of 'avoid paying for shit'. What YOU want to do is avoid paying for shit but get your entertainment out of it anyways. That's a disingenuous stance, it means that you're lying to yourself about what you want to do.

As well, those who have played through a game for free are less likely to pay for it cause 'they like it' simply because it is human nature to pay for value perceived at the time of payment. By the time it comes to pony up, you've already gotten your value, so there's no reason to buy it any more. This 'fable' that piracy creates sales is so counter to basic human nature that the only people actually buying it are those that steal. But they aren't buying the games even CLOSE to the numbers necessary to make their 'fable' a reality that actually results in a financial gain for the company involved. So yeah, it's bullshit.

 

[kiralon]

Yes, but in both cases, consumer protection law can come in and if the product is not as advertised, you can make claim that what you were promised was not provided, and thereby get your money back.

It would cost me more then $100 in time and effort to do so, whats the point of spending several hundred dollars to get $100 back, in fact a guy here is suing the company because of a few misleading things they said and is taking htem to court, he will certainly get his $100 dollars back, but that much wouldnt even pay the bill to talk top a lawyer about it)

In converse, you don't get to go to a gas station, break the lock on their pumps, pump the gas into your car, and then drive until your tank is empty before deciding if the gas they've got gives you mileage you figure is fair or equitable.

Thats because i know before hand that the petrol will get me there, so theres no guess work involved

See, I already knew Operation Flashpoint 2 was a piece of shit game. AND I didn't waste 100 dollars on it. Because I read reviews and don't waste my time playing games I think are going to be pieces of shit. I'd rather spend my time playing games I think will be good. This 'It could be bad' argument is completely defeated by the words 'Internet access.'

Lol i wish i was god and know everything too, but i pre-ordered my copy because i was a big fan of the opflash 1, i put many many hours into the first one.

So my restaurant analogy might need a change.
I bought an awesome peice of steak from a restaurant, go back later and they sell me a stinking pile of turd, with the menu saying its a prime cut, but its chuck steak that the dog outside predigested,

You want access to information? Muthafuckin' access that information. You can find anything about anything if you're willing to use the google. Don't wanna spend 100$ on a piece of shit? Be a smart consumer and actually do some research. Don't use it as an excuse to steal it, when -research takes less real time-.

Yep, but i owned the game by the time the really bad reviews come through, and there arent any reviewers that have my taste in games, so going by what some guy i have never met on the other side of the world seems odd, and by the time there was a public outcry over the game i owned it.

Again, it's a bullshit argument, and there's better, more ethical, and more time-efficient (for you) ways to accomplish the same goal of 'avoid paying for shit'. What YOU want to do is avoid paying for shit but get your entertainment out of it anyways. That's a disingenuous stance, it means that you're lying to yourself about what you want to do.

Ah its good to see that you know me so well from a statement on a forum, your omniscience astounds me and i must worship your knowledge of me.

As well, those who have played through a game for free are less likely to pay for it cause 'they like it' simply because it is human nature to pay for value perceived at the time of payment. By the time it comes to pony up, you've already gotten your value, so there's no reason to buy it any more. This 'fable' that piracy creates sales is so counter to basic human nature that the only people actually buying it are those that steal. But they aren't buying the games even CLOSE to the numbers necessary to make their 'fable' a reality that actually results in a financial gain for the company involved. So yeah, it's bullshit.

Well your knowledge of everyone who plays games is staggering, how do you keep the knowledge about all of us seperate, whew your brain must be close to exploding, but i have seen that fable in action, and a lot more then once as well.