Monoochrom said:
Except that he is. Not having payed for Skyrim doesn't make you not a consumer. Or does this person steal EVERYTHING?
1. The Money isn't leaving the System. So, he saves the Money on Skyrim, right? He then uses said money to pay for something else, another person get's paid for that and ends up buying Skyrim. He on the other Hand doesn't pay for whatever the OP's Friend bought because he doesn't have to. So, where's the problem here?
This logic strikes me as very troublesome. You seem to indicate that piracy actually maintains some form of equilibrium: that, by not buying Skyrim yourself, you are actually assisting someone else in purchasing the game. I think we can both agree that sounds ridiculous: if the (random number here) two-million people who bought the last GTA actually went out and pirated it instead, you seem to be suggesting that another two-million people would take their place, now allowing four-million people to play the game.
You could also argue (however right or wrong it may be) that if one-million of the said GTA customers pirated the game and never purchased the full game, the one-million who didn't would likely have to pay a higher price to meet the company's profit-margin. This means that those who didn't pirate actually pay more, so it could inconvenience others. Not sure if I'd support the use of this argument without some actual figures, but I don't think it's a stretch.
2. Their is litterally no reason for the OP to give a shit. He does not benefit from his friend paying, he gains nothing from it. He can only lose in this situation, namely lose a friend. Over what? Bethesda getting a few pennies more? Totally worth it.
I think we have to separate the company from this argument. The OP probably does not value Bethesda's wealth over his friendship, but likely his morality over friendship. Again, it's not uncommon for people to stop hanging out with certain people because they use drugs, sleep around, or hold racist views, so it's not unheard of. What the OP would benefit - if this presumption is right - is satisfaction and peace of mind, as well as removing an unwanted element from his life.
3. Even so, I'm thinking of the general idea of this kind of moral. Believe it or not, ''squishy human loyalty'' is pretty fucking important. Something that OP will hopefully learn the hard way when said friend just watches someone beat his ass because according to his morals the OP deserved it. That makes it right of him to stand idle by, right? Well ofcourse it does, it would even make it right of him to instigate said ass beating according to the OPs logic.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of squishy-huggy-human-stuff. However, I think you start to kind of lose your structure here. You seem to logically suggest that the OP acting in a way that pleases his own morals (and the laws of his country encourage) is equal to him assaulting someone because he doesn't like them. If the law is something important to the OP (and it seems it is) then how is acting in an unlawful way anything resembling his logic?
That kind of idiocy is VERY deserving of attacks. That's not even mentioning that he is so warped that he is putting Bethesda earning 60$ above ''friendship''. I'm afraid the person doesn't know what friendship is, as another poster stated, OP needs to stop for a second and reevaluate his loyalty. Because going by his post he might aswell have his paycheck go straight to Bethesda.
How the OP values their friendships is their own business. If their sense of morality - toward whatever issue - conflicts so highly with their friend's that they can't get on, whose business is that but their own?
His and only his. It is not his business to try and force his own morals upon his friend. That is why he is so very wrong. He is going on the assumption that his morals are ''correct''. I could argue that Publishers tend to treat their workers like shit and that every cent you give them not only enables that but tells them they are on the right track. Good job OP. The same goes for Consumers. Bethesda is well known for releasing buggy games and then not worrying about it. Paying them for it set's a precedent of that being ok. Why should they even bother to TRY and make a functioning product if people are going to pay them regardless and other consumers jump up to their defense when people call that kind of bullshit out? That by the way is why ANYONE defending a Corporation is a Idiot. One of the reasons atleast.
In other words, thinking in black and white is idiotic by default.
His morals happen to be what the law encourages. Whether we think right or wrong, in our society we are (to a degree) encouraged to do our bit to help the process along. If we see a crime, we are encouraged to report it, stand witness for it, sometimes even intervene. Your views on Bethesda what is lawful but - in your opinion - unjust, has absolutely no bearing on the argument at all.
I agree that if your game is inoperable you should be entitled to a full refund or be able to pirate the game if that removes the problem. However, the OP makes no mention of the friend having purchased a faulty game prior. Bethesda aren't bullshitting anyone, they're asking people to pay their wages for doing their work. If people keep buying their products when they have a reputation for being faulty can we blame the company 100%? You can't have your cake and eat it, and you certainly can't knowingly buy a broken game and then complain about it being broken. If people are willing to accept that risk, let them. If you personally think they release bad games, don't purchase them. They are appealing to an audience that is willing to pay, and since they are still afloat it suggests that people are willing to take that risk.
Thinking in black and white is to be discouraged, of course, but so is assuming you are the one consumer with any kind of free-will.
Some people stop talking to their friends because they snort cocaine, some because they regularly get into fights, and some because they shoplift. The point isn't that the OP values money over friendship, but the view of his friend has sank because he views him now as a thief, robbing a company of money it rightfully deserves for creating a product.
But do they rightfully deserve it? That is a important question. I bought Oblivion and the Bugs kept me from proceeding. It wasn't fixed, so I effectively could not use the Product as advertised and it was outside of my power to solve the problem. I did not get my money back. So, am I not entitled to bang for my buck? Bethesda is entitled to my Money, but it is perfectly fine if I don't actually get a functioning product for it? Would I not be entirely justified in helping myself to a copy of Skyrim in hopes of regaining the value of the cash they had effectively stolen from me?
Judging by the opinions of plenty of people here, apparently it is my place to take it up the ass. Sorry, I not only disagree, but I consider anyone with that attitude a moron.
As mentioned above, I support a full-refund or piracy in this case. However, arguing you are justified in helping yourself to a copy of
Skyrim because
Oblivion didn't work is absurd.
Skyrim is the next instalment of a series that is supposed to be a better game. It costs more, to make and to purchase. The logical step isn't to pirate the more expensive game, but not to have
Skyrim at all. You can't complain about a company's products and then help yourself to them by justifying them as being 'so bad I should have them for free'. That's hypocrisy of the highest level. If a restaurant serves you a terrible lasagne you don't go back and demand a free steak. You don't ever go again.
Especially since it is neither his business nor his place to try and force his (idiotic) morality onto his ''friend''.
I agree more with this statement, to a degree. On the one hand, the guy is not physically harming anyone so I personally wouldn't get involved.
Good to know that you are reasonable.
I certainly hope that is the case, otherwise we'll be running in circles snapping at our tails.
However, I'd report an anonymous person in for shoplifting, and if the OP sees the two crimes as identical offences then how is friendship a defence for not reporting a crime?
And here I disagree with you again. Why exactly would you report them? What does it do for you? Do you ever question WHY the person might do that? Keep in mind that with your action, what you did was a inherently positive thing for a store that likely won't do as much as thank you for it. The person might have been starving though. Inaction is the only correct way to go with this kind of thing. We are not talking about a situation where something inherently terrible will happen if you don't act. If the person manages to steal it the worst case scenario is the the seller right's it off. They already have that kind of thing calculated into their costs, just like things breaking. So, what would be on your conscience, someone having gained something they didn't pay for a didn't need? How could that possibly impact you if not out of a sense of jealousy or schadenfreude?
Now, if we were talking about seeing someone being beaten to a pulp and getting the cops, you can't do much wrong. Maybe the person actually deserved it, but either way you are doing the right thing because even in that case you are stopping things from going too far.
Why should I have to question why the person is stealing? In England we have systems set up so that the poor and needy are provided for. Someone starving to death in England is headline news, no-one is stealing to put food on the table. If a big burly man wearing Nike trainers steals a bottle of wine I don't assume he's trying to feed anyone, and honestly how often have you seen someone try to steal food that wasn't confectionery?
What about the shopkeeper? The shop I used to work in was slowly going under because a lot of new shops opened up on the other side of town that a local seller simply couldn't keep up with. Someone stealing from this shop is depriving an owner of money they rightfully deserve for selling a product legally, but you are suggesting that they'll just magic some more stock out of the ether, rather than have further weight added to financial crisis.
You are basically saying that we should allow people to steal because it happens. I would argue that people aren't entitled to take what they want simply because they can. No matter how small or large a company is, you shouldn't ignore someone stealing. That is not your moral mindset and that's fine for you, but please don't try to suggest that I am jealous because I have to pay for something I want. I accept that as part of living in a civilised society. If I see someone stealing a product I will report it so action can be taken, because I believe stealing is wrong and the people who steal while the rest of us work should be punished.
I understand this is all very black/white logic, but it seems to be the wavelength the OP is operating on so it seems apt to try and view it from that angle.
No, we absolutely should not, we should not pretend we are dumber then we are as to understand the OP. Do you want to know the main reason I take great issue with anyone trying to get people in trouble for piracy or hoping that they get in trouble?
Because their is 0 correalation between the crime and the punishment. The System is designed around Corporations ''stealing'' from corporations and turning a profit. That is why you see those horrid Fines, they were never designed as punishment for private people. Until that changes you should not defend any of this by default. A Game costs at best 60 Bucks in most places (corresponding to the actual currency, I live in the EU, so it's more like 70?), any fine that is MUCH higher then that is not just. If they were talking about forcing the person to pay for the game, them receiving a REAL copy in exchange and fining them another 20, I'd be fine with that. But hundreds? Thousands? MILLIONS!?
WHAT
THE
FUCK
How can ANYONE support that!?
And when it comes to copyright infringement, I guarentee that every last one of the people in here is guilty of that ''crime''. Infact I've even seen Pictures that I DREW being used by someone as a Avatar somewhere else. I would be completly in my ''rights'' to give them hell for it. I did nothing, infact, I felt flattered and I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest except in 2 cases:
The person were saying they made it.
The person were selling it.
If neither is the case and I still make a big deal out of it, I deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
I don't understand what you're saying at this point - you are saying that because the fines are significantly larger than the cost of the product then...it's unfair?
That's what a fine is. If you were just forced to purchase the game when you were caught, why not just steal? The worst that can happen is you pay what you were originally going to pay, so you lose nothing by pirating. A fine is a deterrent as much as a punishment - smoking in a train doesn't cost anyone £100 (random number) in damages, but seeing a sign up saying "We will rape your wallet if you commit a crime here" would certainly sway a few people. I agree the fines are ridiculously high, but I think it is a bit extreme to suggest Bethesda is going to fine the OP's friend for millions of pounds.
Also, just because you are fine having your pictures used, doesn't mean others are. I'd personally get annoyed if I saw someone using anything I wrote without contacting me or referencing me. Also, I imagine you are not selling your pictures. If you were selling your pictures and it became so popular that everyone had it as an avatar but you saw far less people purchasing it, I'm sure it's safe to assume you'd feel somewhat cheated.
It is
your product and
your work, no one has any right to help themselves to it. You have every right to make as big a deal out of it as you want. That's the beauty of owning something.