Piracy

[deanb]

People are creatures of impulse. We make snap decisions and deviate from our plans all the time. Additionally we can't stay on diets or quit smoking. It's called cognitive dissonance.

 

Well I won't be impulsively taking up smoking...

Also it mentions buyers remorse as an example too. Wanna know how I don't have buyers remorse?....

[Yantelope]

Well, actually, people mostly take up smoking impulsively. Whether it be from peer pressure or stress or whatever. People don't usually schedule at time to start smoking.

[MasterDex]

Why would we/I not know what we/I would do?

 

I know that I won't be buying a game for £20 and up unless I have some assurances that it is a good game and worth that amount. So I do know that I wouldn't buy the game. It's pretty simple. I am me, I know what I would do.

 

This.

 

As for justification, you can boil everything we do down to justifications. I'm in no way trying to legitimise my acts of piracy, It's an illegal activity. So is smoking weed over here but I still do it and I do so for my own reasons. I think there's a big difference between trying to legitimise something and explaining your personal reasons for something.

 

Well, actually, people mostly take up smoking impulsively. Whether it be from peer pressure or stress or whatever. People don't usually schedule at time to start smoking.

 

If you start smoking from peer pressure or stress then you haven't started smoking impulsively, there's forethought. To start smoking impulsively would be something along the lines of going in to a shop to buy milk and leaving with a box of fags.

Edited October 5, 2011 by MasterDex

[Yantelope]

If you start smoking from peer pressure or stress then you haven't started smoking impulsively, there's forethought. To start smoking impulsively would be something along the lines of going in to a shop to buy milk and leaving with a box of fags.

You're still acting in a responsive way or due to a momentary feeling.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Yantelope

[MasterDex]

If you start smoking from peer pressure or stress then you haven't started smoking impulsively, there's forethought. To start smoking impulsively would be something along the lines of going in to a shop to buy milk and leaving with a box of fags.

You're still acting in a responsive way or due to a momentary feeling.

 

As someone who started smoking as a teenager from peer pressure, I can say that it wasn't just a momentary feeling. There was about 4 months where all my friends were smoking and I wasn't and for around the last month of that four months I had been actively contemplating starting smoking to be "cooler" and to fit in with them more, etc. Suffice it to say, I thought about starting to smoke, due to peer pressure, before I began smoking and I imagine it's the same for others who start smoking due to peer pressure. There's forethought behind it that leads to the decision to begin smoking. I didn't just wake up in the morning thinking "I'm going to start smoking because all my friends do" and just start.

[fuchikoma]

Yantelope, I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you here, but I just came back to the thread, and I feel the need to address what I perceive as logical errors.

 

I can say with absolute certainty that I would not have bought it because I had no idea whether it would be a game I would play or not.

Whether or not your would play it is irrelevant. You clearly have interest in the game enough to download it. If you remove the option of piracy then it simply becomes a question of price. How much would you be willing to pay to try the game in order to see if you like it? $20? $10? $1? Someone who is bothering to pirate a game that wouldn't be worth even $1 to them is a fool wasting his own time.

It is absolutely relevant. You said it's a fallacy to assume the person in question wouldn't have bought the game. Dex is right - you absolutely would know if the case is your own. As someone with a large library of games I've pirated to try, then bought, I have more than ample experience to make that claim. You're just ignoring the argument when it doesn't suit your position.

 

In the real world, you do not remove the option of piracy, so that scenario is irrelevant. It's true though that the more a game costs, the less likely you are to try it. I also don't think anyone has mentioned pirating phone games here - most games cost $60, not $1.

 

Talking about someone who would pirate a game that's not even worth $1 to them is sort of nonsensical. That's like asking why someone would pay to play a game they don't even like. You don't know if you like it until you play it, and that's why it's pirated. If it turns out to be bad, it is not a total waste of time - you find out what it is worth to you, which is the whole point of the exercise.

 

See, this is what's telling. The rest of your argument is simply to justify this statement. You have to contrive a justification for the fact that you're unwilling to part with any money lest you find that you wasted it on a game you didn't like.

Where is the contrivance? You're just expressing contempt at this point. People don't just act for absolutely no reason - you simply ignore the reason if it disagrees with your personal opinion. If anything, you are the one contriving justifications with all your leaps of logic and ungrounded assumptions about the pirate. You posit theories, but never explain why they should be considered as true.

 

Because if you're spending hours of your life on something that's not even worth $1 to you then you clearly have no concept of the value of time or money or both.

That is asinine. If you're going to make such powerful statements, you need to be able to logically justify them if you want to be taken seriously, because your conclusion absolutely does not follow from your premise. It's also fatally flawed in that the alternative you offer is to pay for a game, and then play it to find out it is bad. I think you are the one who has no concept of the value of time or money since you recommend spending more of the same on something worthless when you could spend less.

 

@Ethan: I understand what you're saying about paying and not enjoying yourself but now you're just trying to guarantee enjoyment or pleasure.

Who in the world does not try to guarantee enjoyment or pleasure when they can? Really? It is the obvious logical choice for anyone who enjoys enjoyment.

 

And to the point of pirates having a vested interest in not enjoying the games they try so they don't have to pay for them... Some may try to rationalize it like that, but to me, there is no point in playing a game I've decided I don't enjoy. I have a greater vested interest in enjoying them and paying, because I like liking things. It's not fun to decide there's no fun to be had with something.

 

On time and money: It's value is different for everyone. I find that for me, the value of a videogame is usually around $20 so that's usually what I spend on them. That value isn't contingent upon my enjoyment though. I'm purchasing the opportunity for enjoyment. You're trying to guarantee enjoyment though an illegal download.

Oh my god... I hope that means you only buy indie games and downloadables then, because if you're buying $60 retail games used, this whole debate has been pointless. They give the developers as much money as a pirated copy, so quite ironically, you would be trying to rationalize that you are superior to a pirate for paying money, when you are only paying money to those who are leeching off the real makers and distributors of these games. I hope that is not the case, because personally, I find that position morally below simply taking the game and giving no one money for it. At least that does not fund the ones who distributed the pirated copies.

 

 

Unless you can see every twist and turn of your future you cannot say with certainty that you would never have bought it, so I can never really believe you when you do. You can only say that at the time you had/have no intention of buying it. So you cannot reasonably discount yourself as a potential lost sale.

By that logic, any hypothetical argument is pointless because you can't know everything. Certainly it means that any talk of "lost sales" is useless since that too is impossible to scry - however you can show case studies that suggest a trend one way or the other, such as the two AgamemnonV2 posted earlier. Maybe it's impossible to know with certainty whether or not I'll sell all my worldly possessions and become a hobo for kicks, but I have a lot of experience to show me how likely it is that I'll buy a game I don't want.

[fuchikoma]

As someone who started smoking as a teenager from peer pressure, I can say that it wasn't just a momentary feeling. There was about 4 months where all my friends were smoking and I wasn't and for around the last month of that four months I had been actively contemplating starting smoking to be "cooler" and to fit in with them more, etc. Suffice it to say, I thought about starting to smoke, due to peer pressure, before I began smoking and I imagine it's the same for others who start smoking due to peer pressure. There's forethought behind it that leads to the decision to begin smoking. I didn't just wake up in the morning thinking "I'm going to start smoking because all my friends do" and just start.

 

Likewise. In my college days when my friends smoked pot, I refused for months, until I researched it in depth, pulled together legitimate studies and anecdotes alike, weighed the risks - health, legal, financial, and so on, and after much deliberation, decided to try it. I didn't just go "hey, a chance to do a thing!" and try it on a whim.

[Yantelope]

As someone with a large library of games I've pirated to try, then bought.

That doesn't mean that you wouldn't have bought if you hadn't pirated. You don't know the answer to that question.

 

In the real world, you do not remove the option of piracy, so that scenario is irrelevant.

There are many experiences in life which you cannot pirate, like a trip to six flags, and those things do not allow you pay only if you find that they were enjoyable.

 

You don't know if you like it until you play it, and that's why it's pirated

This is the definition of nonsensical. They reason why you pirated it is because you already have an interest in it and a desire to play it so you have already placed value on it.

 

People don't just act for absolutely no reason

Exactly, you're making my point above.

 

That is asinine. If you're going to make such powerful statements, you need to be able to logically justify them if you want to be taken seriously, because your conclusion absolutely does not follow from your premise. It's also fatally flawed in that the alternative you offer is to pay for a game, and then play it to find out it is bad. I think you are the one who has no concept of the value of time or money since you recommend spending more of the same on something worthless when you could spend less.

 

Now this is simply attacking ad hominem. You're not actually making an argument here. If we're going to talk name calling you're the one starting it here and now.

 

Who in the world does not try to guarantee enjoyment or pleasure when they can? Really? It is the obvious logical choice for anyone who enjoys enjoyment.

You can't guarantee enjoyment but your argument is simply a prop justification of morality for an illegal act.

 

On time and money: It's value is different for everyone. I find that for me, the value of a videogame is usually around $20 so that's usually what I spend on them. That value isn't contingent upon my enjoyment though. I'm purchasing the opportunity for enjoyment. You're trying to guarantee enjoyment though an illegal download.

 

Oh my god... I hope that means you only buy indie games and downloadables then, because if you're buying $60 retail games used, this whole debate has been pointless.

I mostly buy new but there's actually no argument here because everything I do, buying used games is perfectly legal. Is you argument simply that the morality of your actions is purely based on the profit of a game developer?

 

By that logic, any hypothetical argument is pointless because you can't know everything.

Now you're attacking a straw man. We're talking cognitive dissonance here not the unknowable future. What people think they will do and what they actually do are two different things.

[deanb]

Dammit Fuchikoma, it was almost back on topic then you brought up the fags again.

Also I'll point out that using quotes it automatically adds in a space after, so if you add one too then it's double-spacing (I went n tweaked it for both yours since you both had em quite long)

 

 

 

As someone with a large library of games I've pirated to try, then bought.

That doesn't mean that you wouldn't have bought if you hadn't pirated. You don't know the answer to that question.

Why are you still working on this basis that we don't know our own thoughts? You told the tale of how you didn't buy the R4 because you felt it was of no value to you. Oddly we also have thoughts streaming through our heads of similar nature when going to purchase things. But apparently only you are able to plan your purchases out before hand the rest of us are all beasts of impulse.

 

You don't know if you like it until you play it, and that's why it's pirated

This is the definition of nonsensical. They reason why you pirated it is because you already have an interest in it and a desire to play it so you have already placed value on it.

Yes we have an interest to at least give it a spin. It doesn't mean we have enough interest to shell out for it there n then. You don't go to a car salesmen and say "That toyota looks interesting, therefore I shall buy it right here right now because even the slightest interest means it's something I will absolutely purchase"

 

By that logic, any hypothetical argument is pointless because you can't know everything.

Now you're attacking a straw man. We're talking cognitive dissonance here not the unknowable future. What people think they will do and what they actually do are two different things.

No the whole "You may or may not" stuff is completely and utterly pointless to discuss and/or bring up. Until we develop a window into a parallel universe there's no point say "Well you may have" in any type of discussion. It goes nowhere and is always totally unfounded speculation. However what we can do is state what we have done and the resulting actions. Which in this case is that we have pirated games, and we have purchased games we've felt were pretty nifty.

[Yantelope]

No the whole "You may or may not" stuff is completely and utterly pointless to discuss and/or bring up.

Completely agree, so stop pretending like you can know the future by saying that you know you wouldn't have bought the game.

 

The more I think about this the more silly it sounds.

 

"I know for a fact that I wouldn't have bought the game if I could never try it first but then by playing it I usually do buy the game."

Edited October 5, 2011 by Deanb

[fuchikoma]

As someone with a large library of games I've pirated to try, then bought.

That doesn't mean that you wouldn't have bought if you hadn't pirated. You don't know the answer to that question.

But I do know that in the real scenario, where I could buy, not buy, or pirate each game that I either would not have bought the game without trying it, given those choices, or was already going to buy it anyway, and did. Spinning it off into the extreme hypothetical case is simply grasping for an argument that's not relevant to the reality of the problem.

In the real world, you do not remove the option of piracy, so that scenario is irrelevant.

There are many experiences in life which you cannot pirate, like a trip to six flags, and those things do not allow you pay only if you find that they were enjoyable.

A trip to Six Flags has nothing to do with a discussion about IP piracy. We are talking about piracy, specifically that of video games - not sneaking into an amusement park. No one is advocating that, so this is ignoratio elenchi.

You don't know if you like it until you play it, and that's why it's pirated

This is the definition of nonsensical. They reason why you pirated it is because you already have an interest in it and a desire to play it so you have already placed value on it.

It's interesting how you dismiss the most crucial points as nonsensical. Being interested in something and knowing whether or not you like it are quite different. Interest simply means that I am open to the possibility of liking it. It is not appropriate to launch ad hominem attacks simply because you do not understand that. Putting some small value on something is a far cry from deciding that it is worth $60 and the time it takes to explore it.

That is asinine. If you're going to make such powerful statements, you need to be able to logically justify them if you want to be taken seriously, because your conclusion absolutely does not follow from your premise. It's also fatally flawed in that the alternative you offer is to pay for a game, and then play it to find out it is bad. I think you are the one who has no concept of the value of time or money since you recommend spending more of the same on something worthless when you could spend less.

Now this is simply attacking ad hominem. You're not actually making an argument here. If we're going to talk name calling you're the one starting it here and now.

Actually, I thought that started when you were calling Dex and company fools with no concept of the value of time or money (when you yourself could not quantify the value.) Though I'd consider that more sophism, since it implied foolishness of anyone who did not agree with your position.

 

Then as usual, you ignore the argument and pretend it is not there. Let me spell it out: If you are going to state that someone has no concept of the value of time or money, but not back it with anything at all, you are making an ad hominem attack, and furthermore, you give no reason that anyone should take your assertion seriously. Like much of what you have said in this thread, you are simply making assertions and hoping someone will agree with them.

 

I am however, not making an ad hominem attack, as I explained the reasoning for what I stated, pointing out the flaw in your argument - not attacking your person. (It is curious though that you are the only one who seems to disagree with me, yet I've been downvoted right at the same time you've made your reply... hmm.)

Who in the world does not try to guarantee enjoyment or pleasure when they can? Really? It is the obvious logical choice for anyone who enjoys enjoyment.

You can't guarantee enjoyment but your argument is simply a prop justification of morality for an illegal act.

You ignore the argument yet again. In my first post I clearly made the distinction between personal attempts to justify piracy and how even if someone justifies it to themselves, it can still be immoral. At best, this is a straw man. At worst, you are using demagogy to try to assault my character to undermine my position. I suspect the truth is that you are not following the argument that you are participating in, but simply trying to speak over it and insist that you are right.

Also, you are confusing trying and succeeding. I did not ask "who guarantees their enjoyment?" Again, ignoring the point.

On time and money: It's value is different for everyone. I find that for me, the value of a videogame is usually around $20 so that's usually what I spend on them. That value isn't contingent upon my enjoyment though. I'm purchasing the opportunity for enjoyment. You're trying to guarantee enjoyment though an illegal download.

I saw that, and I don't deny it. It skirts the issue of the quantifiable value of time and money, but you are correct that it is trying to guarantee enjoyment through an illegal download. I don't think that is in question. What is less clearly defined is the ethical issue of the illegal download.

Oh my god... I hope that means you only buy indie games and downloadables then, because if you're buying $60 retail games used, this whole debate has been pointless.

 

I mostly buy new but there's actually no argument here because everything I do, buying used games is perfectly legal. Is you argument simply that the morality of your actions is purely based on the profit of a game developer?

It would be shortsighted to assume there is only one issue affecting morality, but yes, my main argument here is that legal or not, neither used games nor piracy helps those who make the games, and it is hypocritical to claim a moral high ground in used games simply because it is legal. Legality and morality are separate issues, and being legal is not the same as being moral, otherwise all forms of corporate exploitation would be morally acceptable. It is quite ignorant to continually state there is no argument when you disagree, and shows a great deal of cognitive dissonance when you state there is no argument, and then immediately attempt to restate the argument.

By that logic, any hypothetical argument is pointless because you can't know everything.

Now you're attacking a straw man. We're talking cognitive dissonance here not the unknowable future. What people think they will do and what they actually do are two different things.

Am I? Where am I making a caricature of Thursday's argument to misrepresent what they are saying? I am simply pointing out that if you're going to stretch the logic so far as to say you can't know any hypothetical with certainty, so anything is possible, that discussing hypotheticals would be pointless because anything could be true. I find the suggestion quite absurd that a person may engage in a given pattern for decades, quite predictably, yet simply because they cannot state with absolute certainty every detail the future may hold, that they cannot reasonably assume they will continue to follow the pattern they always have. This is grasping to an absurd level.

 

[edit: compacting quotes]

Edited October 5, 2011 by fuchikoma

[MasterDex]

No the whole "You may or may not" stuff is completely and utterly pointless to discuss and/or bring up.

Completely agree, so stop pretending like you can know the future by saying that you know you wouldn't have bought the game.

I'm going to do some soothsaying right now and show that I know the future.

 

I will never buy MW2 or MW3 or Black Ops. Ever. Until the day I die, no money will pass from my hands for those games. I know this for a fact.

 

I will never buy NFS Shift. I pirated that game, played it for 30 minutes and decided that I didn't like it. I'll never buy it and never would have bought it if I hadn't pirated it anyway due to past experiences with the NFS series.

 

These things I know for certain. I'm not pretending, I'm not kidding myself. I know these things to be true just as I know I have blood coursing through my veins.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Deanb

[deanb]

No the whole "You may or may not" stuff is completely and utterly pointless to discuss and/or bring up.

Completely agree, so stop pretending like you can know the future by saying that you know you wouldn't have bought the game.

I'm not. I have continually stuck to what I know I have done. It's you and Thursday trying to argue what-ifs and what-could've-beens. And you don't get to agree to something then go completely against the point you just agreed with.

[Yantelope]

The issue here is really quite simple, rather than just go around in circles again I'll simply restate this another way.

 

Demoers feel entitled. I don't know why but for some reason you claim that if you don't get enjoyment from your money you've been cheated. This is an entirely bogus concept. The basis of your argument is wholly and entirely based on your one omniscient claim of knowing that you would never buy the game if you couldn't demo it. Did you buy games back in the days of the SNES? Did you never play a single game until the days of the internet? Do you demo every single game before you buy it? No. You don't. Clearly you have the option of making a ration decision without having to pirate a game. If piracy wasn't available you'd weigh your options and you'd pick games that you think you'd enjoy and that's what most rational people do. You think that because you paid $10 for a game and you didn't enjoy it your time was wasted? Your time was worth nothing? Maybe the publishers owe you money because they made you spend your time on a product that didn't bring you joy? No, the fact is that by pirating a game you're getting entertainment that you didn't pay for. A normal person would buy the games at whatever price they're willing to pay and requesting a refund if they were unsatisfied. Game companies generally don't offer this though because they're not selling you enjoyment. They're selling you the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment. That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands. I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral. Your sense of entitlement is what's making you think it's not immoral.

[Yantelope]

I'm not. I have continually stuck to what I know I have done. It's you and Thursday trying to argue what-ifs and what-could've-beens. And you don't get to agree to something then go completely against the point you just agreed with.

 

never would have bought it if I hadn't pirated it

You can't possibly know that right there because you did pirate the game.

 

@Dean and MasterDex: Give me an example of a game that you did not buy because you couldn't pirate it.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Yantelope

[deanb]

Minus a handful: http://en.wikipedia....Station_3_games

 

And on the PC front I can't think of any games that are uncracked so can't really offer up anything on that front.

[Yantelope]

and why can't you pirate a PS3 game? Don't care enough to? It's not worth your time or money?

[deanb]

okay took a bit too long in adding the edit so new post:

 

edit: hmm almost missed your first post. Forum is not liking this thread today:

 

Demoers feel entitled. I don't know why but for some reason you claim that if you don't get enjoyment from your money you've been cheated.

Because we're buying games to get enjoyment? It's a pretty simple concept. We don't go out to buy games in order to fund publishers just 'cos and certainly don't buy them in order to feel jipped.

 

Did you buy games back in the days of the SNES?

No

 

Did you never play a single game until the days of the internet?

No, but your question should be did I ever buy a game until the days of the net in which case: no.

 

Do you demo every single game before you buy it? No.

Wait a fucking minute. That's cheating and being highly presumptuous. Though if you hold on I'm booting up my PS3.

 

 

If piracy wasn't available you'd weigh your options and you'd pick games that you think you'd enjoy and that's what most rational people do.

Most rational people don't ask others questions and answer it for them, but hey! And if were were to live in this mythical parralel universe of what-ifs n no piracy, would we buy those same games? There's a decent likliehood that it'd be a no.

 

Let's explore the line of thinking in these two universes:

Hmm, new game come out. Looks somewhat need, wonder if it's worth splashing out on?

Real world: Well let's pirate it and give it a spin to decide!

Thursday & Yantes universe: Hmm, a box isn't much to go off. Oh hey FFXIII!

 

No, the fact is that by pirating a game you're getting entertainment that you didn't pay for.

A couple hours tops. If we didn't enjoy it we move on, much the same as with any other demo(which we also didn't pay for). If we enjoy it we pick it up.

 

 

A normal person would buy the games at whatever price they're willing to pay and requesting a refund if they were unsatisfied.

hehehe. Guess you've not being doing PC gaming for a while huh? Refunds. Lol.

 

 

 

and why can't you pirate a PS3 game? Don't care enough to? It's not worth your time or money?

You kinda said it yourself. I highlight it for you.

 

 

edit: (Was aiming to grab this a while ago, finally got it taken n uploaded)

 

Shame I can't put them in some cumulative grid. But yeah there's about...50+ demos or so on my console.

 

 

edit2: So just a thought mid-way through washing up. Why is it not rational that people would want to try-before-you-buy in order to maximise limited funds by assuring that purchases we make are satisfactory? What part of that is not rational?

 

edit3: I guess that means you're not quite sure how to respond?

[Yantelope]

No, you're just clearly not answering my question because you know the answer.

 

The number of games that you didn't buy because you couldn't pirate them is 0. That's the answer and that's why you're argument is invalid because you're arguing something you can't know.

 

and @fuchikoma: I've never heard of someone researching pot smoking and then going through with it but it makes me respect you less and not more. You can find opinions to support whatever position you'd like to take but I suppose you didn't bother listening to the AMA. (I was gonna link to a study here showing that long term effects on the brain are pretty negative but searching for pot studies at work might be a good way to get yourself red flagged).

Edited October 5, 2011 by Yantelope

[deanb]

What part of responding to each of your points is not answering your questions?

 

And my argument is invalid because what? What is it about my own purchasing habits can't I know?

 

Look yante it's frankly pretty annoying and disgusting that you are using your presumptions and opinion on our thought patterns to attempt to over rule what we know is fact.

 

Also I googled AMA (time on Reddit means it's something else to me) and then had a look on their views of marujina, and the top posts are all on them calling for it to be reduced in classification so it can be used in medicinal trials. It's kinda sad when you think less of someone for researching into an item. But I guess that has been the overall theme of the last few pages.

[fuchikoma]

The issue here is really quite simple, rather than just go around in circles again I'll simply restate this another way.

 

Demoers feel entitled. I don't know why but for some reason you claim that if you don't get enjoyment from your money you've been cheated. This is an entirely bogus concept. The basis of your argument is wholly and entirely based on your one omniscient claim of knowing that you would never buy the game if you couldn't demo it. Did you buy games back in the days of the SNES? Did you never play a single game until the days of the internet? Do you demo every single game before you buy it? No. You don't. Clearly you have the option of making a ration decision without having to pirate a game. If piracy wasn't available you'd weigh your options and you'd pick games that you think you'd enjoy and that's what most rational people do. You think that because you paid $10 for a game and you didn't enjoy it your time was wasted? Your time was worth nothing? Maybe the publishers owe you money because they made you spend your time on a product that didn't bring you joy? No, the fact is that by pirating a game you're getting entertainment that you didn't pay for. A normal person would buy the games at whatever price they're willing to pay and requesting a refund if they were unsatisfied. Game companies generally don't offer this though because they're not selling you enjoyment. They're selling you the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment. That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands. I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral. Your sense of entitlement is what's making you think it's not immoral.

This is good. This really starts to dig into the differences in our viewpoints so we can elucidate them.

 

"Demoers feel entitled." This is not necessarily true. I for one do not think I am entitled to demo games with piracy. It is not owed to me, nor am I claiming that it is morally good. (Though I do claim that it has no material or financial detriment demonstrable or otherwise in the manner I do, or did it, so at best it is morally neutral.) I do not do it because I am entitled, but because I am able to, and rationally from my standpoint it makes more sense to only buy games that are worth my money. If I maintain intellectual honesty and do not use it to keep games I do not buy, then I'd argue it is not immoral, but it is not "right" either. This is not a justification; I need no such thing. If it was depriving the developers of money however, I would stop.

 

"I don't know why but for some reason you claim that if you don't get enjoyment from your money you've been cheated. This is an entirely bogus concept." It is bogus, but it is not my concept. I have not been cheated in such a case, but I have wasted my money, which is a valuable resource, so I conserve it when it is logical, and not immoral to do so.

 

"The basis of your argument is wholly and entirely based on your one omniscient claim of knowing that you would never buy the game if you couldn't demo it." Demoing is the case we've delved into at this point, and it has not been completely explored yet. Your claim that knowing whether or not we could know if we would have bought is impossible has been logically debunked and soundly rejected by everyone still participating apart from Thursday, yet you still cling to it to attempt to justify your own argument and reinforce your beliefs that we are arguing from a faulty viewpoint. Do you work for a living? Will you go to work next week? How do you know? Maybe you'll go on a shooting spree... or spontaneously buy a plane ticket and go on a tropical vacation without telling anyone! To posit that we are THAT unknowable to ourselves is absurd. It's entirely reasonable to assume that we will continue to follow well established existing patterns, especially when willfully doing so.

Did you buy games back in the days of the SNES? Did you never play a single game until the days of the internet? Do you demo every single game before you buy it? No. You don't. Clearly you have the option of making a ration decision without having to pirate a game. If piracy wasn't available you'd weigh your options and you'd pick games that you think you'd enjoy and that's what most rational people do. You think that because you paid $10 for a game and you didn't enjoy it your time was wasted? Your time was worth nothing?

Irrelevant, but yes. I had 3 games, one of which came with the system. Yes, I played hundreds, but also irrelevant. You're right - I don't demo everything. Yes, without piracy, you'd weigh your options and pick games you think you'd enjoy; this is also the case WITH piracy. I don't think anyone is saying that if they spend money on a game they didn't enjoy, their time was wasted, OR that their time was worth nothing - money was wasted. Time was spent evaluating the game to see if it was good or not - pirated or purchased. You seem to be the one most concerned with the waste of time in piracy, which is odd considering you'd spend almost as much time finding out if a game is good if you'd bought it - but you'd also have wasted time working to earn the money to buy it if it was bad.

 

"Maybe the publishers owe you money because they made you spend your time on a product that didn't bring you joy? No, the fact is that by pirating a game you're getting entertainment that you didn't pay for." I covered this in my first post. On an individual level, you may justify to yourself that you are owed for a crappy game, but taking another game of your own volition is not morally justified because there are other factors at play, such as ripping off people who were not involved with the game that disappointed you. Taking the game that disappointed you for free is pointless, because it's not worth playing. It is however, more pointless to pay for a game that's not even good enough to play for free. Also, you are absolutely right that by pirating a game you are getting entertainment you didn't pay for. I don't believe that's in contention.

 

"They're selling you the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment. That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands." That's about right. They often are not even selling you a product, but the service of accessing a product. That isn't good enough, and pirates take matters into their own hands. This happens regardless of law, morality, ethics, justification and so forth. Personally, my intent in this thread is not to justify piracy, but to explore the finer points of these issues that are not clearly apparent. I have already made a strong case for purchasing games (new) when you are able to in my original post.

 

"I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral. Your sense of entitlement is what's making you think it's not immoral."

 

Excellent. I think this is the heart of most of our disagreement with you, though I can't speak for the others. I've said repeatedly, I have no sense of entitlement - that would imply that they owe me this, and they do not. I would like to know how it is immoral however, when it has not been shown to harm the developer, the publisher, or the industry, and developers/publishers have even stated publicly that it has helped them. This jibes with music industry analyses that showed how MP3 piracy boosted CD sales as well, if an analogy can be drawn between industries. (I think if any of these physical product analogies can stand, then an IP piracy of media product analogy can!)

 

So then, how IS it immoral to pirate a game, try it, and then buy it, instead of simply not buying it? Or do you still reject the concept that one would not have bought it? It is clearly illegal, but that says nothing of morality.

 

 

@Dean and MasterDex: Give me an example of a game that you did not buy because you couldn't pirate it.

I think it's appropriate that I would respond to this too. Demon's Souls. It looks very interesting. It's generated a lot of buzz. If I did get hooked on it, it looks like it has the potential to be a favourite. On the other hand, it appears vastly more likely that I would feel some novelty for a half hour or so and then absolutely hate it. It wasn't worth my trouble to pirate since my PS3 and 360 are unmodded, so I will never buy this game unless I get a chance to try it some other way. Generally, I don't keep tabs on games like these because I just forget about them.

[RockyRan]

No the whole "You may or may not" stuff is completely and utterly pointless to discuss and/or bring up.

Completely agree, so stop pretending like you can know the future by saying that you know you wouldn't have bought the game.

 

The more I think about this the more silly it sounds.

 

"I know for a fact that I wouldn't have bought the game if I could never try it first but then by playing it I usually do buy the game."

 

At this point, aren't you arguing against the very concept of "try before you buy" as it is applied to every good and service? Your quote can apply to practically any product of which you unsure and it doesn't sound nearly as absurd as you tried to put it. It's precisely the reason why grocery stores have grandmas on a makeshift stand giving you cups of sausage. People generally don't buy things they're completely unsure about, and the store is going out of its way to give you a taste of a product. Walk into a store and see the next product you see being sold by the granny manning the stand. Would you have bought the product right then and there, without tasting it? No? Then the "you can't know the future" argument is completely null and void. It occurs all the time, every time you walk into a store. It's likely you're just not even realizing how often your brain does this line of logic for you. All of our brains do it.

 

It is precisely what some pirates like Dex are doing. They're tasting a product. Making their own stands, and eating their own cups of sausage to see if they want to buy. How is this in any way fallacious or absurd?

Edited October 5, 2011 by RockyRan

[Yantelope]

It is precisely what some pirates like Dex are doing. They're tasting a product. Making their own stands, and eating their own cups of sausage to see if they want to buy. How is this in any way fallacious or absurd?

 

No what they're doing is illegally acquiring software and applying a "taste test" analogy to justify it morally. The problem which you guys are all again glossing over is this "Game companies generally don't offer this though because they're not selling you enjoyment. They're selling you the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment. That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands. I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral"

 

Oh yeah, and BTW: I thought we weren't allowed to use analogies with physical goods or oh, does that not apply to your arguments, only mine?

Edited October 5, 2011 by Yantelope

[Yantelope]

Look yante it's frankly pretty annoying and disgusting that you are using your presumptions and opinion on our thought patterns to attempt to over rule what we know is fact.

 

It's amazing to me how quickly your "logic" becomes "fact". I'm not selling any of my judgments on you guys as anything other than my opinions in regards to you pirates all being a bunch of frankly, entitled whiners, but at least I'm not pretending that it's a fact because two or three other people agree with me.

 

oh, and here: educate yourself.

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/275/7/560.extract

[deanb]

So it's purely an opinion that I pirated Fallout 3 decided I liked it and bought it? It's opinion that I pirated Rock of Ages and now own it? It's opinion that I was lent Oblivion n Mirrors Edge n hey, guess what I own? Let's see, Dragon Age, (DRagon AGe 2 had a demo, I don't own Dragon Age 2), Civilization V, Borderlands, Witcher (I was lent, that was DRM free at the time). Srsly, my harddrive is just full of opinions. Shame they take up so many GBs.

 

In this issue of THE JOURNAL, Pope and Yurgelun-Todd1 report that frequent marijuana users, relative to less frequent users, show impairments in mental flexibility and abstraction, as well as some aspects of learning.

You did read what you linked yeah? (And it's behind a registration wall so the excerpt is all we have. It's also 15 years old and their wanting to change the classification is only 2 years old). Is your issue with Marujina that it's got potential health problems or that it was deemed illegal nearly 50 years ago? Because many reports will cite that alcohol and tobacco are much much more harmful, yet neither are illegal and I have a feeling you'd be just fine with them (if not having a tipple yourself time to time). Also Fuchikoma implied that he'd looked about on the various reports available, yet, even after stating you could find specific supports to support yourself one way or another, you only cited one.

 

(Oh and before this goes much further I have no opinions on marujina use either way, if you use it whatever, just the same with tobacco smoking: don't do it near me. If people want to discuss marujina, do it in another thread)

 

Oh and I'm off to bed, I'll respond to whatever when I'm back from this interview.